The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2008-12033 (3)FLD2a08 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD - - -TSr SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ATLAS # 285A ZONING: T LAND USE: RFH RECENED: 12/01/2008 INCOMPLETE: � � � �� 0 b COMPLETE: MAPS: PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: cns: FI Loe CLW CoverSheet l OIL LL Cle,,arwatcr U Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727 -562 -4567 Fax: 727 -562 -4865 P SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION A SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets SUBMIT FIRE PREUMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00 SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ CASE #: _ RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: * NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) ORIGINAL RECEIVED NOV 10 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehemive Infill Redevelopment Project (Revised 07/11/2008) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT— A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER William M. She hard, Trustee 619 S. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33767 727 -442 -5107 FAX NUMBER: 727- 447 -2009 EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER(S): William M. Shephard, Trustee List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: _ JOE BURDETTE MAILING ADDRESS: 618 Pineland Avenlne__ BeJ-1 Pir,, FL 33756, — PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: (797) 458 -4528 EMAIL: flrrnrnf2aQj r•nm ENT INFORMATION: (Code Section PROJECT NAME: Shephards Beach Resort PROJECT VALUATION: STREETADDRESS 619 S. GulfviewBlvd., Clearwater, FL 33767 PARCEL NUMBER(S): 17- 29- 15- 05004 - 003 -0010 and 17- 29- 15- 00000- 220 -0100 PARCEL SIZE (acres): 2.68 PARCEL SIZE (square feet): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit B PROPOSED USE(S): 186 unit hotel and accessory uses DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See Exhibit B Specifically identify the request (include number of units or square footage of non - residential use and all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) $35 Million 116,937.81 I•\Shephards\Permits\City of Clearwater\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc A • ins .4; Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 ❑ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ❑ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THEORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets Ci SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00 ❑ SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials); DATE RECEIVED:. * NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (Revised 07/11/2008) —PLEASE TYPE-OR PRINT— A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME; William M. Sheppard,, Trustee ....... ---- -- MAILING ADDRESS: 619 S. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33767 PHONE NUMBER: 727-442-5107 FAx NUMBER- 727-447-2009 CELL NUMBER EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER(S): W11Iiam - M. She-phard,_Trustee List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RLA MAILING ADDRESS: 701 Enterprise Road East, Ste 404, Safety Harbor,.FL 34695 PHONE NUMBER: 727-793-9888' FAX NUMBER- 727-793-9855 CELL NUMBER: EMAIL: keithAkeithzayac.com B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) PROJECT NAME- Shephards Beach Resort PROJECT VALUATION• $35 Million STREET ADDRESS -619 _S_._ G_ - u1 f -v—i e- - w-, _B'_ -1 v- d—.,, -C I ea 'r' wa te, r'JF L 33767 PARCEL, NUMBER(S): 17 - - 15 - 05004-003-0010; 17-29-15-00000-220-0100 PA-RCEL.SIZE,(acres): 2.68 total, 2.337 within T zonin PARCEL SIZE,(sq"are,fee 103.237.20 within T LEGAL DESCRIPTION- See Exhibit B PROPOSED USE(S). ORIGIN4 186 unit hotel and accessory uses . I I-.---,.-- ..'...- I— . -- - I - , I - .- 11 1 RECEIVED DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Specifically identify the request (include number of units or square footage of non-residential use and all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc) See Exhibit B PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER I:kShephardskPermitskCity of Clearwater\Comprehensive.infill Project (FI_D) 2008 07-1 1.doc Page 1 of 8 I DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE' THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS q R), 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. ❑ 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. See Exhibit B 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. See Exhibit B 3._ The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. See Exhibit B 4. The proposed development'is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See Exhibit B 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character ofthe immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development See Exhibit B 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. ORIGINAL See Exhibit B RECEIVED -- _ OCT 1 G 2009 - PI AN INICr _-P -- RTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER I.1Shephards%PerrnitslCity of ClearwaterlComprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive InfilLRedevelopment Project Criteria) Provide complete responses to the six (6) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA — Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1; The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district: See Exhibit D 2. The development or redevelopment -will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district See Exhibit D 3. The development oi• redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surround_ ing properties. See Exhibit D 4. Adjoining properties will not,suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. See Exhibit D 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not' substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall 'demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: - a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed,use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor, d. The proposed use provides-for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront' use. See Exhibit D 6 Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required'setbacks, height and off - street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the,proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive'appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontai building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, aw_ nings,,etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive•fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. See Exhibit D ORIGINAL R I:1Shephards%PermitstC1ty, of CiearwaterlComprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07 -11.do NING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS :' (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4- 202.A.21) C A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater 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; 13 A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary Ito demonstrate compliance with the City manual. ❑ Proposed stormwater detention /retention area including.top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ❑ Signature and peal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ❑ COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT .SUBMITTA (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): Stormwater plan as noted above is included Stormwater 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 City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562 -4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4- 202.A) EL" SIGNED AND-SEALED SURVEY (including legal description,of property) — One originai,and 14 copies; 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 "certrfied arborist°, of alt trees 4" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of n such trees; LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. 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;; 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 OCT 16 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 1:1ShephardslPermitslCity of ClearwaterlComprehensive Infill Project "(FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 202.A) ❑ SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36 "): 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 ,regwred'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 -of -way 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 (per Section 3- 201(D)(i) and Index #701); Location of all landscape material; Location of -all onsite and offsite storm -water management facilities; Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks; and Floor plan typicals of buildings for all Level Two approvals. A floor plan of each'floor is required for,any parking garage requiring a Level Two approval. ❑ SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written /tabular form: EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED Land area in square feet and acres; 103,237.20 10,000 103,237.20 Number of EXISTING dwelling units; 96 overnight w Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; 186 overnight Gross floor area devoted to each use; -� See exhibit B Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the 220 -' 186 384' - number of required spaces; _ Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, M43,895 sf M 98,075 sf ~34,876 sf expressed in square feet & percenlage,of the paved vehicular area; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; Building and structure heights; 35 —10D ft 134 ft Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and 088 0.95 0.83 Floor area ratio (F:A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. ❑ REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (81/2 X 17); ❑ FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information•on site plan: One -foot contours or spot elevations on site; Offsite elevations if -required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; ORIGINAL All open space areas, RECEIVED Location of•all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms, Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); OCT 16 2009 Streets and drives (dimensioned); PLANNING DEPARTMENT Budding and structural setbacks (dimensioned); CITY OF CLEARWATER Structural overhangs; 1.1ShephardslPermitslCity of ClearwaterlComprehensive Infill Project,(FLD) 2008 07 -11 doc Page 5,of 8 H. LANDSCAPING, PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 1102.A) qJ 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 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; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conddions imposed by the Community Development Board); Irrigation notes. REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/1 X 11); ❑ 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 I. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 202.A.23) 4 BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS –with the following information: All sides of all buildings Dimensioned Colors (provide,one full sized set of colored elevations) Materials REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS – same as above to scale on 8 % X 11 J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3- 1806)50Wrne=P- UO-er_ ❑ All EXISTING freestanding and,attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area; height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ❑ All PROPOSED 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). ORIGINAL RECEIVED ❑ Reduced signage proposal (8 % X;11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program applcation PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 1-1Shephards\PermitskCity of Clearwater\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11,doc K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4- 202.A.13 and 4- 801.C) Include if 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'n'earby roadway segment and /or intersection with fi ve (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- 562-4750) Refer to Se ion 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. O Acknowl gement 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 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, standpi and/or fire pump, If afire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150 06 of its rated capacity. Cgmoite with the 2004 Florida ire Prevention Code to include NFPA .13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is�required. RECEIVED Acknowl dgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Fire Flow Calculabons/Water Study is included. !OCT 16 20H Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. PLANNING DEPARTMEhi CITY OF CLEARWATER' 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) 5624334. M. SIGNATURE: !, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are t and accurate to the best of my knowledge and au a City representatives to visit and photograph thWoerty described in this annlication. ig iature of0F9P64Y-9wff9A representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELL AS Sw�okn to and subscribed before me this to day of f y J -Q-W, -0-h A.D. 20Cp ,- to me and/or by Z A t/ /�' �- who is personally known has produced as identif ion. Notaft pulily, uoe.e►ae.a.osaon My ommi ion expires: KAY oaeaeoc.py�oapa��ene.aann Y. FiAR>t�r F-es 2/ti/2012 I_:1Shephards\Perr As\City of ClearwaterlComprehensive Infill Project (FLD) A8 ; c Fiortrla R'otery,q�Y Inc Pape -7 of 8 �......._, :....- - ... -- - N- AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PRINT Full names: William M. Shepherd, as Trustee under the provisions of the Shepherd Family Trust Agreement dated February 29, 1984 :- Lagoon Resort Motel 2. That it am/we are) the owners) and record title holders) of the following described property (address or general location): 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) room ovemight accommodations Included within a Flexible Development Application 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (doesido) appoint - Keith E- Zayac, P.E., RLA; Harry S. Cline, ESQ. as (hisRheir) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater. Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 619 S., Gulfview Blvd. 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this appticatton- 619 S. Guifview Bhid. Z That we), the, undersi ned city, he y ce that sa L /�1�/,'' foregoing Is true and correct. perty O er UK —.— — - -- Property Owner - - -- Property Owner _- property Owner - -- STATE OF FLORODA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Before me the undersigned. an officer duly commissioned by the laws or the State of Florida, on this _ day of personally appeared `\ �an_ -- who having been first duly swom Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. MELISSA TREMBLAY Corhmission DD 626343 ' = 60res January 3, 2011 �1/;,,tl.' eadedThuTmjF.v�hameaBfA,ffi7rn9 -- - - -- .- — -- - -- -• -- Notary Public Signature Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 16 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT i:IShephardslPermitslCttyof ClearwaterlComprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc CITY OF CLEARWATER EXHIBIT "B" TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT, INC. 619 S. GULFVIEW BLVD. Section B. Description of Request The applicant Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc., has owned the property located at 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard ( "Subject Property ") for over 28 years. On the Subject Property, the applicant successfully operates a 96 room, three diamond resort, which is known as the Shephard's Beach Resort. Shephard's has been a staple in the beach community for close to three decades, providing relaxing overnight accommodations, breathtaking views of the Gulf of Mexico and sunsets, good food, and great entertainment. The existing portion of Shephard's to remain includes 96 hotel rooms, a 220 space non -peak parking garage, and other accessory uses. The number of overnight accommodation units on Clearwater Beach has been significantly reduced as a result of the hotel to condominium conversion over the recent years. In response, the applicant proposes to continue the existing overnight accommodation use and redevelop the Subject Property by renovating the existing hotel rooms and add additional mid -priced hotel rooms. A development agreement application is also submitted to transfer 68 hotel units from the available density reserve to this project based upon meeting the City requirements. Specifically, the applicant seeks flexible development approval of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, in accordance with the plans submitted with this application, including the following: 1. Flexible Development approval for the redevelopment of the overall 2.689 acre property zoned tourist (T) District and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) to permit a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use within the Tourist (T) District containing 2.37 acres. 2. Lot width of 243 -feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north) 3. Front setback of 15.56 -feet to existing building (north) ORIGINAL RECEIVED 4. Front setback of 11.20 -feet to proposed building (north) 5. Front setback of 6.50 -feet to proposed pavement (north) OCT 16 2009 6. Side setback of 15.44 -feet to proposed building (east) PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7. Side setback of 0 -feet to existing pavement (west) CITY OF CLEARWATER 8. Side setback of 0 -feet to existing building (west) 9. Rear setback of 22.00 -feet to existing building and patio/boardwalk (south) 10. Rear setback of 5.20 -feet to proposed building from seawall (south) 11. Rear setback of 39.51 -feet to proposed building from property line (south) 12. Rear setback of 0.00 -feet to proposed pavement from seawall (south) 13. Rear setback of 22.00 -feet to existing building from property line (south) 14. A building height of 133' -10" from BFE to top of roof deck 15. 316 valet -only parking spaces plus 68 overflow spaces included for 384 total 16. Increase the permitted density by allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the reserve pool created pursuant to Beach by Design Section D. Written Submittal Requirements General Applicability Criteria: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. West: The adjacent property to the west is the renovated Holiday Inn, which is being converted to a mixed -use hotel /condominium development. North: The adjacent property to the north is a Hess gas station and convenience store, which will benefit from the proposed use and will serve the guests of the resort. East: The adjacent property to the east is the existing Econo Lodge Motel. South: The subject property is bounded on the south by the Gulf of Mexico and Clearwater Pass. The scale and size of the 2.689 -acre project is less than the adjacent 4.87 -acre Holiday Inn project. The proposed total 186 rooms are similar to the HI phase one total rooms of 189, and include the same character of overnight accommodations with accessory uses. The proposed building height of 133' -10" is within 22 -feet of the adjacent HI building with similar height. Based on the similar characteristics of the adjacent development, the proposed development will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the adjacent property that has been renovated. 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 Subject Property is currently occupied by the Shephard's Beach Resort, a 96- room mid -priced resort hotel, which is less than 60' in height and constructed in 1957. Forty rooms of the existing 96 rooms, a 192 parking space parking garage, and a night club were added to the Subject Property in 2001. The proposed project will improve current conditions on the Subject Property in a number of ways, including: (1) Superior architectural design, including tiered effect, and upgraded landscaping which will visually enhance the neighborhood and the beach community; (2) Construction of a new building which meets current building Codes, as opposed to maintaining the existing outdated building constructed over 45 years ago; (3) Surrounding property value will be positively impacted due to the construction of a new hotel, pool deck and site improvements. The project carries forward the redevelopment of the area started by the adjacent project to the north. These improvements will in no manner be a hindrance, but will serve to increase surrounding property values, improve safety and enhance the views of the site from adjacent parcels. The hotel guests of the proposed project will be potential clientele of nearby restaurants and other businesses. The hotel is consistent with the surrounding redevelopment, and will provide the tourist industry with update accommodations and group meeting space. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Demolition of the existing hotel built in 1957 and the construction of the proposed structures built to current building Codes, improves the safety of the building occupants and neighbors. The pedestrian access along Gulfview Boulevard will be modified to tie into the relocated driveways, but maintain handicapped access and enhanced sidewalk width. The project includes overnight accommodations and accessory uses that are consistent with the tourist district and does not contain any uses that would affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The applicant has provided a parking and trip generation study for the proposed project showing an excess amount of parking spaces compared with minimum requirements by code. The existing dead end parking lot will be removed and replaced with a front covered entrance for vehicle drop off, and a valet parking system with 236 stalls allocated that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self park stalls in the parking garage. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The Subject property is located within Clearwater Pass District. The project is also consistent with the community character of the Clearwater Pass District, which Beach by Design describes as an area of mixed uses, including mid -priced motels and condominiums. As previously stated, the Subject Property currently functions as a hotel. The proposed use does not change the character, rather update and enhance the tourist area by providing moderately priced updated hotel rooms and accessory uses. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed redevelopment project will improve the visual appeal at this south end of Clearwater Beach, which is also visible from Clearwater Pass, the Sand Key Bridge, and Sand Key Park. The architectural style integrates a seaside beach motel design, which is appropriate and aesthetically pleasing for this waterfront property. The acoustic, olfactory and hours of operation for the proposed redevelopment project are consistent with the Subject Property's current use and the surrounding uses on the beach. The existing dead end surface parking is being relocated into an enclosed parking garage which will reduce noise and acoustic impacts of the cars. The applicant currently has an occupational license to operate a restaurant and will redevelop the Subject Property to include an upscale restaurant. The applicant is taking special care to create an enhanced "resort environment" with mid -priced rooms, which will benefit adjacent properties and businesses. The active areas such as the existing stage and pool bars are located in the rear of the project surrounded on three sides by buildings to minimize the impacts to adjacent property owners. The additional height will also serve to block sound escaping from the property, especially to the east, although the sound is well within the decibel level limit permitted by the City, having the sound better contained within the property will be a benefit. These uses are however, a positive impact and are highly utilized by both local patrons and tourists thereby increasing the tax revenues generated by the tourist district. EXHIBIT D Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and /or development standards set forth in this zoning district. Height The request for 133' -10" when 35-100' is allowed by Code is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design which provide that height may be increased to 150' if additional density is allocated to the development with bonus hotel units. There is a reasonable relationship between the height increase and the 68 additional resort hotel units based upon other cases recommended for approval by staff and actually approved by CDB consistent with Beach by Design. The additional height will allow for the increase in developable rooms, the necessary parking to be placed within an enclosed parking garage, rather than a surface parking lot and the ability to include amenities common to moderately priced hotels along the beach. Parking The Applicant has requested relief from Code parking requirements due to the fact that the parking serving the hotel will be full valet service. As such, the proposed plans incorporate a total of 316 non -peak full valet parking spaces and 384 peak full valet parking spaces in both garages. Setbacks The proposed front pavement setback reduction from 15.0 feet to 6.79 feet is required due to need for an exit driveway out of the proposed parking garage without an additional curb cut. The proposed planting areas along South Gulfview will be in excess of minimum requirements and heavily landscaped to screen the driveway and offset the requested relief. No surface parking is proposed as part of the new construction. The existing side pavement setback reduction from 10.0 feet to 0.0 feet was approved under DCAB Case Number V -98 -05 for a loading area which is currently active and services the existing hotel. The existing side building overhang reduction from 10.0 to 0.0 feet was approved under DCAB Case Number V -98 -05 for the covered storage and work area associated with deliveries and food storage. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. Overnight accommodations are allowed uses in . the "Resort Facilities High" residential /overnight accommodation." in the "Tourist" zoning district. Primary land use category are "high density 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood, as is more particularly discussed in General Applicability Criteria 1 and_ Comprehensive Infill Criteria 4 below, and will not impede other development. The improvement of the site will pave the way for future redevelopment and set an example for the style of quality architecture envisioned by Beach by Design. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. There is no anticipated damage or loss to the adjoining properties. The requested side setback reductions along the west property line are existing conditions that currently exist. No further construction will take place along the west property line. The proposed construction along the east property line will comply with the required code setbacks, along with a larger than required green area. The proposed height is consistent with adjacent re- development activity west of the site. In addition the updated hotel will provide an increase in tourist visits that will utilize the services of the surrounding restaurants, bars, and retail businesses. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new, and /or preservation of a working waterfront use. The proposed use meets several of these criteria. Overnight accommodations are permitted by the "Resort Facilities High" land use category and in the "Tourist" zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard, and flexible use. Redevelopment of Clearwater Beach is a significant economic contributor to the City. The proposed use is an economic contributor by increasing the number of tourists to Clearwater Beach and encouraging patronization of local businesses. The proposed project will generate new jobs in the City of Clearwater. The proposed use as overnight accommodations is characteristic of the neighborhood, specifically as the entrance to South Clearwater Beach. The use of the property is the same as the property immediately to the east and west and compatible with the redeveloped site to the west based on size, height and other development criteria. The proposed development also expands an existing economic contributor by expanding the rooms available, updated the quality of the hotel with new rooms and a parking garage, while providing additional employment opportunities to hotel support staff based on an expansion of facilities. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off- street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district. The requested side setback variances along the west property line are for existing conditions pertaining to the existing pavement, freezers and building canopy. The property affected by the reductions is currently under redevelopment based on approved plans that took into account the existing conditions on the subject property, and has impeded the development of the site. The height variance is similar to the variance approved on the property west of the site. The height is also consistent with other approvals within the tourist district of the "beachfront property." It is anticipated that the remainder of the future development property along South Gulfview will develop in a similar highest and best use. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. The proposed project is designed to meet the requirements of Beach by Design in scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character. The stepped massing of the project is derived from the massing requirements of Beach by Design. The project places active spaces internal to the project site to reduce noise transmission and visual distraction to adjacent properties. The location of the units on the site provides all units in the project with water views and provides easy access for all guests to the nearby businesses by providing a handicapped accessible sidewalk from the front entrance of the building to the adjacent sidewalk within the right of way. This project furthers the City's beachside revitalization objective of creating by punctuating the newly improved beachfront with a moderately priced accommodations priced from $165 to $260 per night. The project's "modern tropical" architecture compliments the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. We provide the following information concerning the height, tower separation, design, scale, and mass criteria: Height and Tower Separation The project consists of an existing two story hotel connected to an existing dining facility, public spaces, six story guest towers, and parking garage. The Owner proposes to demolish the vast majority of existing two story portion of the hotel, while retaining the balance of the buildings on the property and constructing a new tower, 133' -10" in height as measured from the FEMA minimum flood plain elevation to the top of the main roof. Per Beach by Design VII B: "...the height may be increased, however to one hundred fifty feet (150') if ". 8.1. "Additional density is allocated to the development by ... bonus hotel units... " a) The project is requesting 68 units from the hotel density reserve. B.2 (a) "Portions of any structures which exceed one hundred feet (100') (in height) are spaced at least 100' apart." and "For structures which exceed 100' within 800'....do not occupy 40% of a north south vertical plane..." a) There are no projects which exceed 100' within 800' of the proposed development. (See Attached Development Relationship Plan) • B.3. "The floor plate of any portion of a building that exceeds forty-five feet in height is limited as follows: a) The largest floor plate between 45' and 100' does not exceed 25,000 square feet and is 21,038 square feet. b) The largest floor plate between 100' and 150' exceeds 10,000 square feet and is approximately 15,292 square feet at the 11,' and 12th levels. Per Beach by Design deviations to the above floorplate requirements may be approved provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above 45'. The proposed building does not exceed 25,000 square feet and the mass /scale of the building creates a tiered effect thus allowing a deviation from Beach by Design. The floor plate of the building above the 45 -feet level offset occurs at elevation 43' -8" and is offset by 8' -9 ". Once we reach elevation 100 -feet (actual 82'4'), the building is offset again by 5' -0" as prescribed by Beach by Design. c) Design, Scale and Mass of Building: 1. Buildings with a footprint of greater than 5000 square feet or a single dimension of greater than one hundred (100) feet will be constructed so that no more than two (2) of the three (3) building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. For this purpose, equal in length means that the two lengths vary by less than forty (40 %) of the shorter of the two (2) lengths. The horizontal plan measurements relate to the footprint of the building. a. The plans have been organized so that no more than two (2) of the three (3) building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. 2. No plane of a building may continue uninterrupted for greater than one hundred linear feet (100'). For the purpose of this standard, interrupted means an offset of greater than five feet (5'). a. The plans have been organized so that no plane of the building will continue uninterrupted for greater that one hundred linear feet (100'). 3. At least sixty percent (60 %) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. For the purpose of this standard, an elevation is that portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for development. a. A tabulation of glazing has been placed on Sheets A -20B and A- 21 B. 4. No more than sixty percent (75 %) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above forty -five feet (45') will be occupied by a building. For the purpose of this standard, theoretical maximum building envelope is the maximum permitted building volume that could be theoretically occupied by a building including any portion of the maximum possible building envelope that is not visible from a public street. a. Pease see illustration below indicating how the mass of the building is no more that twelve percent (12 %) of the theoretical I+twliruMn I }iEl� I maximum building envelope for existing and proposed located above forty -five feet (45'). THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 100% 1 _ i i 12 Y. OF XI s, _ • • ® ' • ';ec�8i3i OTE HE ., HE ❑THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 100% ❑12% OF MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) IN CUBIC FEET Worrom 'I � � � x OF •' BUILDING ENVELOPE LOCATED ABOVE 45' 5. The height and mass of buildings will be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. a. The building has been designed to comply with this requirement of Beach by Design. 6. Buildings may be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permitting uses. a. The building is designed to provide a moderately priced waterfront family style hotel with a pool, restaurant, nightclub, and other accessory services. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; a. The proposed site creates a visually responsive design for the emerging character of Clearwater Beach and seeks to facilitate a dialogue with the surrounding areas by incorporating a number of architectural elements which speaks to the human scale such as the entrance portico, the awnings located along north and east elevations as well as the landscape which plays the most important role in communicating to the human scale. . d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: • Changes in horizontal building planes; The building design provides multiple horizontal plane changes which allows the building to create a tiered effect at the higher elevations by offsetting the floor plate of the building above the 45' level, (actual offset occurs at 4X-8), by 8' -9" and again offsetting the floor plate at the 100' level, (actual offset occurs at 82' 4'), by 5'O" as prescribed by Beach by Design. • Use of architectural details such as cornices, medallions, awnings, columns, etc; The building utilizes a variety of architectural elements beginning with the angled columns at the portico entrance as well as the free standing columns which penetrates the balconies and frames the south elevation. The use of a cornice has been placed at the very top of the building to create a termination point for the fagade. Pilasters can be found throughout all four elevations of the new and existing buildings further creating cohesiveness among the project. The balconies give the building more character by projecting off the building and by also creating transitional nodes along the elevations. The railings on the balconies shall be picket type matching the old tower on the property. The use of awnings can be found along the "Beach Walk" in order to bring the building down to human scale. • Variety in materials, colors and textures; A variety of materials have been introduced to make this project architecturally pleasing such as the smooth white stucco that will blanket a majority of the walls. Green screen walls are located on the east and west elevations of the pool deck which further provides color, texture and material variation and is used to mask the garage and introduce a tropical environment for the pool deck. The decorative metal mesh screening provides another layer of material which is primarily used to hide the parking structures. The glazing on the building and the picket railings on the balconies also adds another layer of detail to the project. • Distinctive fenestration patterns; The fenestration pattern on the lower levels of the west elevation relate to the function behind them. They are large glazed openings to reveal the retail space behind them. Located above the glazed openings is the green screen trellis system used to mask the garage and create a natural environment for the pool deck. On the north and south elevations the lower level fenestrations are metal mesh screening panels with reveal patterns. The metal mesh screening panel system helps ensure the garage can be classified as an open garage per The Florida Building Code section 406 opening requirements. The East elevation utilizes the same metal mesh screening located on the north and south elevations; however this elevation is more distinct because of the projections created approximately every 29' -0" to comply with the Beach by Design horizontal dimensional criteria. Glazed fenestrations are used primarily throughout the tower elevations to provide daylight to the hotel units and common areas. • Building setbacks; In the vertical plane the building design provides multiple step backs which allows the building to create a tiered effect at the higher elevations by offsetting the floor plate of the building above the 45' level, (actual offset occurs at 4X-8'), by 8°-9" and again offsetting the floor plate at the 100' level, (actual offset occurs at 82L4), by 5°-0" as prescribed by Beach by Design. In the horizontal plane the building continues to step back and forth with 5' 0" or more offsets at not more than 100' 0 "intervals. • Distinctive roofs forms. The building's roof design creates unique and distinctive forms in the new tower with angled projections -at 3 of the four corners. These architectural elements are also repeated at the existing stair towers of the old building to create a greater level of cohesiveness among the project. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposed project consists of overnight accommodations and assesory uses which will be visually enhanced on three sides of the property. These enhancements will correspond with the development to the west of Shephards creating a visual appearance along S. Gulfview. The east buffer will have a with a 5 -foot landscape buffer consisting of Variegated Pittosporums and groups of Sabal palms between the proposed stormwater vaults and property line. On the west side of the property there is an existing fence that will be left intact for screening purposes with additional linear footage vinyl fencing. This area also consists of existing vegetation which creates a screening effect from the hotel to the west. The area on the north side of the property contains existing vegetation and a broad range of landscaping enhancements. The front of the property will match the newly redeveloped hotel landscaped frontage along S. Gulfview and will be a great enhancement to Shephards Beach Resort. Seagrapes will also be installed along the accessory uses creating a screened effect from pedestrian and other establishments. The south property line is limited on landscape enhancements due to the buffer along the south property line includes a low maintenance viburnum hedge and palm trees. It is anticipated that once the property south of this development is redeveloped, the same condition as the north property line will be encountered without public view or access. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 27 of 28 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 28 of 28 Building Separation Relationship V Cr Z Z t =s M M Beach by Design Compliance West Elevation I lilt, 11 lilt a mq `' 1 rao 413. as 1 4a, r by F@ 14� -'°- Clara WAT9r nary MPAREED FOR: n'� In order to comply with step track r requirements. the west elevation is 5 \i broken into three r+onzontal segments rti r q ar �rA.r'rry4 h�) Err 1 which are reces5ad at the reeuired he. ghts lr�w ,.1.,•.ylr••.q 1j 8' -9 stephank @ a3' -8 above ve zone-, 5' -0' steback @ 82 -4" above ve zone -'°- Clara WAT9r nary MPAREED FOR: n'� _ hh SETTIrIa: DRC VAKVau NM FOR CONMRUCT oN uln'i it lhrilbhl h nq, hg h 1 rti r q ar �rA.r'rry4 h�) Err 1 w . is. �1 K, lr�w ,.1.,•.ylr••.q 1j w r. i a � PnicPNrE' �i i 7 ff t In order In maximum horizontal wall, — is divided Into three sections The two end secM1Ons are recessed 5tt to accentuate the separation rn ecta�r' f n'of t3; j0. to ° 0 SHEPFiARD'S BENCH RESORT Clara WAT9r nary MPAREED FOR: CONSaTAM: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CML�ENG�INEER �ir am�iur� .uws STRUCIURALENGINEER: � roawu REV NI rw unmE ac mw.ws sNEn nnE WEST VIGNETTE SETTIrIa: DRC VAKVau NM FOR CONMRUCT oN .IOeN¢ rmm DRAWNlY: ursr DALE: 12.01.2M CHEC�P CI A -32 {iJ�b �� ' � `� Beach by Design Compliance South Elevation 133' -1- 8 I " i dao?A'9� I -fi= the tape lc navel .� AI p oil SHEPINRDS BEACH RESORT CLERMWER N PREPARED FOR: �� e'"'0A1outvrm lot I lit INN 1 lit 40444 loi I tit - —1 w"", - x� In order to comply with step back requirements, the south elevation is broken into four horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights 5' -4" - 6-2" projection @ 43' -8" above ve zone 1' -6" stepback @ 874" above ve zone 3' -10" - 4' -8" stepback @ 101' -8" above ve zone FAM ti In order to comply with step back requirements the southeast corner is broken into four horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights. 10' -0" - 12' -0" stepback @ 43' -8" above ve zone 2' -0' stepback @ 821-4" above ve zone 0' -10" - 2' -10" stepback @ 101"-8" above ve zone SHEPINRDS BEACH RESORT CLERMWER N PREPARED FOR: �� e'"'0A1outvrm a � pare CONSIRTANfe: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: svmwwon �axa.i.e�w, � �_« vRn A�aeee CML ENGINEER: SIRUCNRAL ENGINEER: n4A. Py1�A�ne SHEET MLE'. SOUTH VIGNETTE SET IDLE: DRC SUMMMAE HOT FOR CONEIRUCRDN ,De No- oexD DRAWN Br: CJ I BH DAR'. Ix.01.x0oe [NEGRO 0I A -33 ONINNWI,d a,o 3m Beach by Design Compliance East Elevation e!r,nFl In order to comply with step back O."T requirements, the east elevation is broker into three horizontal segmerts which are recessed at the required heights. 12' -9" stepback @ 43' -8" above ve zone 5 -0" stepback @ 82' -4" above ve zone 149" 3 ro to (roo/ a �pg1q� 41' imi In ordertc maxlrnun-I broken into 29ft wide sections These sections are alternatively r°rPSABd lift to hreak un the tarada 29'0' 29'-O" "'0'. 29' -0„ - I Z9,-0" n. �I I � M SHEPFiARD'S BEACH RESORT CIE R WATER. FLORDA PREPARED FOR: �,vuufR`uw.r m�mter COM/LI'. vnu W.1 �l 46'�➢0 ues�a.mAV„a..d CON 7ANTS: IANDSCRE ARCHITECT: � 71, ENG -NEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: FKEFIMTE: 591E H 1�mP uc �n rn.T uvJRw me m.¢m SHEET TDIE: EAST VIGNETTE 0 RILE: Dec SDeNBDAr NOT FOR COMPLICTION JOB NO: OWBW DRA:vN Bv: CJ 1 BH acre: 1RDI.20o8 CHECKED: O A -34 ONINNVId tLOM IVNIJI?!0 06 3 w 5 e m APPROX/MAIE EL000 ZLWE LINE PER MAP (IYP /CALJ r e.r..a a• Y / ♦ ., tiot'o f"o0 gP SvP�E 0 armwm n ARArIwc SCALE �ccpo�o-i f ISSUED FOR PERMITTING ONLY KEITH ZAYAC d ASSOCIATES, INC. (1¢1) 793 -9tlt .nAnamw SITE PLAN C4 T m V V V xq1� curia II � 55 � 5 "E el- APPROVMAIE FLOOD ZONE LIRE PER MAP (IYPICALJ ...... �"-41 ems'' rr'�, r Y � of1�1P � j i I lemma x�°°® PN Oti Ip9P"`y PROPOSED PLANT LIST L ' •.Q6 °' x \ \ ��vxi'i1�t�iR7 v A•(Y�r�. A U / l \_0, \ TT 6�-�o�F,\, \\ \ \\ de ocpiv \Vy 1p ,Y A' 01 4- � .a s 00W� - — -- • EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL Q ti( eP5 I \ !I G a� XEITE ZwIAI ASSOCIATES, INC. (737) 793.9191 " ° ISSUED FOR PERMITTING ONLY �� 3 .T nnE PROPOSED PLANT LIST L LANDSCAPE PLAN •.Q6 °' x x7 nne: vxaccr crux C10 1 1 Q iNJ• 1S6dV— Zyldtd lyAVli{= -- I,. x5b . p ,•., hl[IPOf ROOF h POPARED FOR: -- Ple Swami �•e'w�uLwn n�rvaRNOLnom..uTm (ONIH.T. wIwHM. rRrwo IMO LEVRI. -TOOL M(15 ur -r 1114r�• yyy AIyW IF'EL A RAM CIVIL e; NEER: l9ra. A �,Immrt mmr rvnwl 11 �y11W LfiVEL a ___ 9r-0• O t v A�IWO LEI'EL — _ _ I n A9W LEl'FL -_ - I[yyy�NN < AIW LLV6 ySrJ• __ — winmE4 DRC SUBMIGN �6W LEVEL 51% 7974 I 90UTN I9% el% 60% 4 - EXISTING HOTEL BEYOND - M1• �I -ALUMINUMLOL'VF.REDAWNING app NnmT' 1 1 Q NOTE: % OPENINGS OR ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ON - - - ELEVATION DRAWINGS POPARED FOR: -- Ple Swami �•e'w�uLwn n�rvaRNOLnom..uTm (ONIH.T. wIwHM. rRrwo 10 �` av¢E NflHIIRlw�O wv�iMw�iL�ARa�RFRPwn RareEaR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 5Hlry MYm1 -L SFePS � RAM CIVIL e; NEER: ❑NLWM.VNO A Rfaar RV nrl o��r a�Aa Q 11 ELEVATION OPENINGS ARCHITECTURAL ELEMF2JTS TOTAL 1Z orr�uwca<vocwu mun ss� WEST 11% NORTH IS% el% AJ% 79% 61% winmE4 DRC SUBMIGN EAST 11% 51% 7974 I 90UTN I9% el% 60% 4 - EXISTING HOTEL BEYOND -ALUMINUMLOL'VF.REDAWNING EMOVEEXISTINGCUPOLA SYSTEM OVER EXISTING ABOVESTAIRWFLL, PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTLI E FACADE FLOORS 11 12 ABOVE WELL PROPOSED DESIGN SHALL CORRELATE WITH NEW TOWER al NRGdxwNN {IIICCONCx. R'RIOAU 0 � ORORYN:R.S,LNE,,,oN,.FR HIH pAF O IMm��IwRRr°M RrNOaAUDOaNM POPARED FOR: -- Ple Swami �•e'w�uLwn n�rvaRNOLnom..uTm (ONIH.T. wIwHM. rRrwo 10 �` av¢E NflHIIRlw�O wv�iMw�iL�ARa�RFRPwn RareEaR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 5Hlry MYm1 -L SFePS � RAM CIVIL e; NEER: ❑NLWM.VNO A Rfaar RV nrl o��r a�Aa Q n Na: RMaemNap. >vov �.wu Smulasww+ 11 sNt« 5 ❑`/vv`/ 1 IreooPamwsFN �cuLP.Bm 1Z orr�uwca<vocwu mun ss� IRIAm mACflaaOealO wDO NORTH & SOUTH Hmw 13 .0 FNWwec lFeneR winmE4 DRC SUBMIGN NOT fOR CONSTRIIC1pN 1° ed�Naaolrwui�slRCl� ® ®� ❑7 IWr1oA5ao xwlvwlRTHRRU DA 12.01.2006 CIECR@ OIG ❑g wrrrLausmnvna+c smBF A -20 15 o\sRaorw6o6R - EXISTING HOTEL BEYOND -ALUMINUMLOL'VF.REDAWNING EMOVEEXISTINGCUPOLA SYSTEM OVER EXISTING ABOVESTAIRWFLL, PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTLI E FACADE DESIGN SHALL CORRELATE -_ WITH NEW TOWER 14'.2• m pp �hRMR MECTMNIIAL I. 1fIPOf RODE .,F` 5 • � A IMO LkYEL POOL DOCK 'v I lr.r F r►POOI.MHII LEVEL _ - W �� A IDW LEVO. - � � ANW�fPLWR _._ ,v 101'.1• _ IN'-0•NAVW Se LCONIES OFFSET FROM FLOORS 1I uaa THRI1 12 400 E'L a hWO LL�'Fl _ to s _ 100 LEVF1 �sra• 2 hxDS2rt uear zw Nn 1�Y�D. - ra�itiP•4ruwT • �arr 9 `� h1W LEVE1 5 A q LE \'EL hNN IP.VEI. V SOUTH FLEVATION rra -r,.•. 0 SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT CIEIRWMiBt HCYaA POPARED FOR: -- Ple Swami �•e'w�uLwn n�rvaRNOLnom..uTm (ONIH.T. wIwHM. rRrwo ��6W.m AIANNerI +P®levean CON IRTANIS: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 5Hlry MYm1 -L SFePS � RAM CIVIL e; NEER: wW.IRO�rvuP�.Nese MIMRAL ENGINEER: n Na: RMaemNap. >vov r ell H MIN - - -- IreooPamwsFN �cuLP.Bm r0AOe9000 1601FmP of Ww.B�m SMG iiilE: _ _ NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATION - COLOR winmE4 DRC SUBMIGN NOT fOR CONSTRIIC1pN JOR NO: N0 DRAWN W: CJ /SH DA 12.01.2006 CIECR@ OIG A -20 LEGEND El T "M FM CONSTaXnoa �120:112= �C=HECX� 1MM F-2] A -21 94EPKkQDS BEACH RESORT aw*vmmRCWA MPARED FOR: cuww M ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: 'TURAL ENGINEER: SHM nu: EAST & WEST ELEVATION- COLOR "M FM CONSTaXnoa �120:112= �C=HECX� 1MM I OIG A -21 EXISTING R.\NDSHEI I. ABOVE STAIRWELL, PROPOSED DESIGN SHALL CORRELATE WITH NEW TOWER HOTEL EXISTING HOTEL - - F 0 EXISTING CUPOLA UMINUM LUUVERED TAIRWELL. PROPOSED I AWNIG 6YSTEM OVPR HALL CORRELATE I EXISfINU rARKMG N TOWER STRUCTURE FACADE l.oplo"I LEGEND El o C115 ALUMINUM LOUVERED AWNING SYSTEM OVER "ISTING PARKING STRUCTURE FACADE REMOVE EXISTING CUPOLA ABOVE STAIRWELL. PROPOSED DESIGN SHALL CORRELATE z 4 EXISTING PARKIN: GARAGE J EAST ELEVATION / SECTION 14 PROencrn lu�rn. arronn IJ REMOV STAIR -TUG L'UPOIA E ABOVE STAIRWELL. PROPOSED DESIGN SHALL CORRELATE WITFI NEW TOWIlt r- EXISTN HOTEL - t C. I1. ENfl.�R1LRIL��LII ■111►'Im IN 11 LALI M Rte:-- - - - - -- -- ► - -�.- SHFPFWlD3 BEkCH RESORT it c�Ew MMIDC ITOI✓D\ NOTE: % OF OPENINGS OR ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ON ' ELEVATION DRAWINGS CONSRTAKM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: '� ELEVATION OPENINGS C URAL AR'CA% 47S ELE TOTAL WORT 17% 41 4N% TP% NORTH IS% OAST 79% 43% SI% M% TWA ' SMITH 19% 41% 66% - - F 0 EXISTING CUPOLA UMINUM LUUVERED TAIRWELL. PROPOSED I AWNIG 6YSTEM OVPR HALL CORRELATE I EXISfINU rARKMG N TOWER STRUCTURE FACADE l.oplo"I LEGEND El o C115 ALUMINUM LOUVERED AWNING SYSTEM OVER "ISTING PARKING STRUCTURE FACADE REMOVE EXISTING CUPOLA ABOVE STAIRWELL. PROPOSED DESIGN SHALL CORRELATE z 4 EXISTING PARKIN: GARAGE J EAST ELEVATION / SECTION 14 PROencrn lu�rn. arronn IJ REMOV STAIR -TUG L'UPOIA E ABOVE STAIRWELL. PROPOSED DESIGN SHALL CORRELATE WITFI NEW TOWIlt r- EXISTN HOTEL - t C. I1. ENfl.�R1LRIL��LII ■111►'Im IN 11 LALI M Rte:-- - - - - -- -- ► - -�.- SHFPFWlD3 BEkCH RESORT it c�Ew MMIDC ITOI✓D\ PREPAIIED TOIL. ure, CONSRTAKM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: '� Innnsw�ee C1L ENGINEER: �' irzn nsw�ee STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: s !I J IRNJ lnDATE: we mlwam ,AWRA ONC CW.ENR SEED TIRE EAST & WEST EXISTING ELEWSECT - COLOR RT TIRE. E— SURMID Nor ToR cal4sruucGgN JOB No'. 0820 DAAWN BT: CJ /M M1E. 12.01.2008 CHECKED 016 A -22 AERIAL FROM NORTHWEST AERLAL FROM SOUTHWEST VIEW FROM NORTHWEST VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 0 Sl* CLEARVAMER PREPAM FOR. CONMIUM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: S!ML ENGINEER: M IC TURAL ENGINEER: RENDERINGS-1 sn ORE: -----FR �mmwrw NMFMCOMMVC1 W20 ?�� BY: CJ / 9H 01 Me OMAM 112 01 MO I �:—:: . D �— C �7:� F-I VIEW OF POOL DECK VIEW OF BOARDWALK / TDO BARS VIEW OF TMIU BARS CLURMM RCMA . 'gym �N,..b..d CONUtqM: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CIVIL ENGINEER: M)C'TURAL ENGINEER: --n-M I HI AkF TIRE: RENDERINGS-2 WTTW: DRC SSartK MMFMCIONSMUCnM cmc�: as R PARKING STUDY FOR SHEPARDS BEACH RESORT 619 SOUTH GULFVIEW BLVD. CLEARWATER , FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: SHEPARDS BEACH RESORT PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. REVISED OCTOBER 2009 PROJECT # 08 -067 t1l 14�'11 Robert Pergolizzi, WP, PTP AICP #9023, PTP #133 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing to redevelop their property on Clearwater Beach into a 186 room resort hotel. (See Figure 1) The redevelopment of the property is the subject of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment in Tourist "T" zoning district. This application requires an assessment of the parking characteristics of the redevelopment. Shepard's currently has 96 existing hotel rooms and is located at 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard. The existing parking garage is manned by valet service and has the ability to park up to 220 cars for peak conditions. Some surface spaces are open for self - parking. Based on City of Clearwater requirements, on -site parking should include 1.2 parking spaces per hotel room. This would result in a code requirement of 224 parking spaces. The City of Clearwater has requested a detailed analysis estimating the number of parking spaces actually needed to service the various functions of the proposed resort hotel once it is redeveloped. Prior to completing this analysis a methodology was established with the City of Clearwater staff. This parking study has been revised numerous times based on comments received by the City of Clearwater staff and subsequent modifications to the plan. II. PARKING SUPPLY After redevelopment a new parking garage will be constructed on the eastern portion of the site and the surface spaces will be removed. The total parking supply under normal operations will be 316 code compliant spaces, however with the ability to park up to 68 vehicles in garage aisles (28 in the existing garage and 40 in the proposed garage) during peak demand periods the ultimate total will be 384 spaces in the garages. The existing garage will be serviced by valets on an as- needed basis, and the proposed garage serviced by valets at all times. In addition, vehicle stacking will be provided in the porte- cochere area. III. PARKING DEMAND Shepard's Beach Resort will have several components that will generate the need for parking vehicles. The facility will include 186 hotel rooms, internal restaurant, a small retail gift shop, a night club, and meeting rooms with seating for up to 300 meeting attendees. The facility is designed to encourage the interaction between the hotel guests and these other accessory on -site uses. The general manager of Shepard's provided data regarding expected staffing, occupancy, hours of operation of accessory uses, and mode of travel of staff and hotel guests. The parking demand assumptions for hotel staff, hotel guests, retail /night club staff, night club patrons and meeting attendees are summarized in Table 1. Hotel staff will operate on three shifts per day. Shift A (7 AM -3:30 PM would employ 45 staff members under normal operations and up to 65 staff under full occupancy. Shift B (3 PM - 11:30 PM) would employ 45 staff members under R a as w 5+ PROJECT LOCATION ° Shepard's Beach Resort IOgJECTN Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE FIGURE- Land Development Consulting 10/2008 DRAWN BY G.J.S. TABLE 1 - SHEPARD'S BEACH RESORT • PARKING DEMAND CALCULATIONS NORMAL OCCUPANCY (70 %) FULL OCCUPANCY+ MEETINGS SPACES REQUIRED SPACES REQUIRED t: Kle%'rinid VARIARI F All IMRFR PPRSnNIRnnM SPACES Nl1MRER PERSON /ROOM SPACES HOTEL STAFF SHIFT A 7AM- 3-30PM EMPLOYEES 45 40% USE CAR 18 65 40% USE CAR 26 HOTEL STAFF SHIFT B 313M - 11:30PM EMPLOYEES 45 40% USE CAR 18 65 40% USE CAR 26 HOTEL STAFF SHIFT C 11 PM -7AM EMPLOYEES 10 40% USE CAR 4 20 40% USE CAR 8 HOTEL GUESTS 186 ROOMS 70% ROOMS 130 50% USE CAR 65 186 50% USE CAR 93 RETAIL SHOPS & NIGHT CLUB EMPLOYEES 10 40% USE CAR 4 15 40% USE CAR 6 NIGHT CLUB PATRONS PERSONS 210 20% USE CAR 42 300 20% USE CAR 60 MEETING ATTENDEES HOTEL GUEST PERSONS NA I NA 1 0 240 1 NA 0 MEETING ATTENDEES NON -GUEST PERSONS NA I NA 1 0 60 2 PERSONS /CAR 30 TIKI DECK DAYTIME PATRONS IPERSONS 1 200 20% USE CAR 1 40 300 1 20% USE CAR 1 60 ASSUMPTIONS: NORMAL OCCUPANCY IS 70% WITH 50% HOTEL GUESTS USING CAR, OTHER 50% ARRIVE BY SHUTTLE, TAXI, LIMO) EMPLOYEE PARKING IS LIMITED TO 40% OF EMPLOYEES USING A CAR BASED ON EXISTING DATA MEETING ROOM CAPACITY IS 300 SEATS, 80% ASSUMED STAYING AT THE HOTEL, 20% ARRIVE BY CAR 2 PERSONS PER CAR EMPLOYEE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON SHEPARDS PROJECTIONS NIGHTCLUB PATRONS AND TIKI DECK PATRONS BASED ON SHEPARDS DATA normal operations and up to 65 staff under full occupancy. Shift C (11 PM -7 AM) would employ 10 staff members under normal operations up to 20 staff under full occupancy. The gift shop (7 AM - 11 PM) and the night club (9 PM — 2 AM) would require 10 employees under normal operations and up to 15 employees under peak season operations. Based on existing employee travel patterns approximately 40% of the employees will require a parking space since many employees travel by bus, trolley, and bicycle. During normal occupancy periods 70% of the hotel rooms are expected to be occupied which translates to 130 rooms. During rare full occupancy all 186 rooms would be used. Based on existing travel patterns approximately 50% of the hotel guests would require a parking space for a rental car, whereas the remaining 50% would arrive by others modes of travel such as taxicab, limousine service or hotel shuttle. The on -site night club is expected to serve 210 patrons on normal nights and up to 300 patrons during peak season. The night club primarily draws from hotel guests or guests of other hotels within walking distance, however, it was assumed 20% of the patrons would use a car requiring a parking space. The outdoor Tiki Deck is expected to serve 200 patrons on normal days and up to 300 patrons during peak season. The Tiki Deck primarily draws from hotel guests or guests of other hotels within walking distance, however, it was assumed 20% of the patrons would arrive by car requiring a parking space. The outdoor Tiki Deck is normally utilized in the afternoon and early evenings during daylight hours. Meeting room capacity is 300 attendees. Shepards intends to market the meeting rooms to hotel guests therefore it was assumed 80% of the attendees would be hotel guests, and the remaining 20% would be arriving by car with an average of 2 persons per car. This would generate the need for 30 parking spaces. meeting were assumed to occur between 9 AM and 6 PM. A. NORMAL OCCUPANCY An analysis was conducted by time -of -day to determine the total number of parking spaces needed for normal occupancy conditions with no meetings. Table 2 summarizes the parking demand for this condition as ranging between 69 and 142 parking spaces. B. FULL OCCUPANCY WITH MEETINGS An analysis was conducted by time -of -day to determine the total number of parking spaces needed for full occupancy conditions with 300 meeting attendees. FA TABLE 2 - NORMAL OCCUPANCY - TIME OF DAY PARKING DEMAND HOTEL STAFF EMPLOYEES HOTEL RETAILINIGHI NIGHT CLUB TIKI DECK TOTAL ee nATonmc DATRANS DEMAND TIME PERIOD Shut- I A snrr i a onsr i v v�cv ., .�-..� • �• • 4 42 - 115 12 MID -1 AM 4 65 73 4 42 123 1 AM - 2 AM 4 69 2 AM - 3 AM 4 65 69 3 AM - 4 AM 4 65 69 4AM -5AM 4 65 69 5AM - 6 AM 4 65 69 6 AM - 7 AM 4 65 88 7AM -8AM 18 4 65 1 84 8 AM - 9 AM 18 65 1 84 9 AM -10 AM 18 65 1 84 10 AM -11 AM 18 1 65 1 1 40 124 11 AM -12 N00N 18 65 1 40 124 12 NOON -1 PM 18 65 40 124 1 PM - 2 PM 18 65 1 1 40 142 2 PM - 3 PM 18 18 65 1 40 142 3 PM - 4 PM 18 18 65 40 124 4 PM - 5 PM 18 65 1 1 40 124 5 PM - 6 PM 18 65 1 40 124 6 PM - 7 PM 18 65 1 40 124 7 PM -8 PM 18 65 87 8 PM - 9 PM 18 65 4 4 42 129 9 PM - 10 PM 18 65 4 42 133 10 PM -11 PM 18 4 65 42 133 11 PM -12 MID —T8---F-4 65 4 Table 3 summarizes the parking demand for this condition as ranging between 101 and 236 parking spaces. IV. COMPARION OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND A comparison was made to determine whether the calculated parking demand can be reasonably met with the proposed number of spaces to be provided on -site. During periods of normal occupancy the 142 space demand represents 45% of the proposed parking supply. During periods of full occupancy the 236 space demand represents 75% of the standard parking supply of 316 code- compliant spaces and 61% of the total proposed parking supply of 384 spaces including aisle valet parking in the garages. As such adequate parking will be provided for the hotel operations. V. CONCLUSION This analysis was conducted in accordance with a specific methodology established with City of Clearwater staff and unique characteristics of Shepard's Beach Resort. This analysis demonstrates hotel operations can easily be accommodated with the proposed 316 on -site parking spaces and 68 overflow parking spaces. K TABLE 3 - FULL OCCUPANCY AND MEETINGS - TIME OF DAY PARKING DEMAND HOTEL STAFF EMPLOYEES HOTEL RETAIL1NIGH1 NIGHT CLUB TIKI DECK MEETING TOTAL Tuem neotnn ewer A ewer o QwvT a r- IC*Tf= RI I IR QTACC PATRf1NA PATRONS ATTENDEES DEMAND 12 MID -1 AM 8 93 6 60 167 1 AM - 2 AM 8 93 6 60 167 2AM -3AM 8 93 101 3AM -4AM 8 93 101 4AM -5AM 8 93 101 SAM-6AM 8 93 101 6AM -7AM 8 93 101 7AM - 6AM 28 8 93 1 1 128 8 AM - 9 AM 26 93 1 120 9 AM - 10 AM 26 93 1 30 150 10 AM - 11 AM 26 93 1 30 150 11 AM - 12 NOON 26 93 1 60 39 210 12 NOON - 1 PM 28 93 1 60 30 210 1 PM - 2 PM 26 93 1 60 30 210 2 PM - 3 PM 26 26 93 1 60 30 236 3 PM - 4 PM 26 26 93 1 60 30 236 4 PM - 5 PM 26 93 1 60 30 210 5 PM - 6 PM 26 93 1 60 30 210 6 PM - 7 PM 26 93 1 60 180 7 PM -8 PM 26 93 1 60 180 8 PM - 9 PM 26 93 6 125 9 PM - 10 PM 26 93 6 60 185 10 PM - 11 PM 26 8 93 6 60 193 11 PM - 12 MID 28 8 93 8 60 1 193 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR SHEPARDS BEACH RESORT 619 SOUTH GULFVIEW BLVD. CLEARWATER , FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: SHEPARDS BEACH RESORT PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. OCTOBER 2008 PROJECT # 08 -067 ' z� Robert Pergolizzf /AICP, PTP AICP #9023, PTP #133 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing to redevelop their property on Clearwater Beach into a 226 room resort hotel. (See Figure 1) The redevelopment of the property is the subject of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment in Tourist "T" zoning district. This application requires an assessment of the traffic impacts of development. Shepards currently has 97 existing hotel rooms and is located at 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard. Prior to completing this analysis a methodology was established with the City of Clearwater staff. II. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The property has frontage on South Gulfview Boulevard east of Hamden Drive. South Gulfview Boulevard was recently reconstructed as a two -lane collector roadway with on- street parking running along Clearwater Beach. Coronado Drive was recently reconstructed as a three -lane collector roadway with on- street. Hamden Drive intersects with S. Gulfview Boulevard at a signalized intersection. Traffic counts were conducted in October 2008 at the following intersections: S. Gulfview Blvd. / Hamden Drive S. Gulfview Blvd. / Coronado Drive Hamden Drive / Coronado Drive All traffic counts were converted to annual average equivalents using FDOT seasonal adjustment factors. According to the traffic counts S. Gulfview Boulevard carries 833 vehicles east of Hamden Drive and 348 vehicles west of Hamden Drive along the beachfront. Coronado Drive carries 658 vehicles between Hamden Drive and Gulfview Boulevard, and the short segment of Hamden Drive between Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive carries 531 vehicles. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. Existing intersections were analyzed using the HCS+ software. The HCS+ printouts are included in Appendix A. Presently the signalized intersection at S. Gulfview Boulevard / Hamden Drive operates at LOS B with average delay being 10.2 seconds per vehicle. Presently the signalized intersection at S. Gulfview Boulevard / Coronado Drive operates at LOS A with average delay being 7.1 seconds per vehicle. At the intersection of Hamden Drive / Coronado Drive the primary movements are eastbound -to- southbound and northbound -to- westbound, whereas the southbound approach (Hamden Drive) is stop controlled. The HCS+ analysis shows the primary movements operate at LOS A and the southbound stop - controlled movements operate at LOS C. a M M M O O O N N O Q a GG W w a M I PROJECT LOCATION — Shepard's Beach Resort I o8�067 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE FIGURE Land Development Consulting 10/2008 DRAWN BY G.J.S. F1 N 0i N m I-� 3 w a r� V 0- N 1N I 185 - t 7� oLO ro M MI �i 1i U-) M Q C) Q z 0 0 U 182 Q z w Q M C 1 274 + 1 N Ln N M LO N �i 14 168 L L267 X157 N P� 424 "111 PROJECT NO EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME (2008) 08 -067 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE FIGURE Land Development Consulting 10/2008 1 DRAWN BY 2 G.J.S. III. South Gulfview Boulevard functions as collector roadway and according to FDOT 2002 QLOS Handbook capacity tables has a LOS D capacity of 1,390 vehicles per hour on the undivided segment. The segment of Gulfview Boulevard east of Hamden Drive and Coronado Drive are both three -lane collector roads with a LOS D capacity of 1,460 vehicles per hour. South Gulfview Boulevard between Hamden Drive and the Clearwater Pass Bridge presently operates at LOS C during the PM peak hour carrying 833 vehicles, and south Gulfview Boulevard west of Hamden Drive operates at LOS C carrying 348 vehicles, and Coronado Drive operates at LOS C carrying 658 vehicles. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As per the approved methodology existing traffic was adjusted by a 2% annual growth rate to the expected build -out year of 2010 to account for background traffic from other nearby redevelopment projects. The site will be developed as a 226 room resort hotel, expanding the existing 97 room hotel. Using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7h Edition rates, the amount of new trips was calculated and estimates are shown below: TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Land Use Amount Daily Trams PM Peak Trip Resort Hotel 226 Rooms 1,846 95(41/54) The vehicular access will be taken from S. Gulfview Blvd. and the expected distribution is as follows: 60% to / from the north (57) 40% to / from the south (38) PROJECT IMPACT CALCULATIONS PLANNING, Project Road Segment Lanes Project Trips Capacity Percent S. Gulview (Hamden — Site) 2LD 57 1460 3.90% S. Gulfview (Site — Clwtr. Pass Bridge) 2LD 38 1460 2.60% Coronado Drive (Hamden — S. Gulfview) 2LD 57 1460 3.90% Future operations at the S. Gulfview Boulevard / Hamden Drive signalized intersection would continue at LOS B with average delay increasing to 10.6 seconds per vehicle. The S. Gulfview Blvd. / Coronado Drive intersection would continue to operate at LOS A with average delay of 7.1 seconds per vehicle. 2 At the intersection of Hamden Drive / Coronado Drive the primary movements would continue to operate at LOS A and the southbound stop - controlled movements would operate at LOS D. At the project driveway all movements would operate at LOS B or better. With background traffic and project traffic added S. Gulfview Blvd. would carry 925 vehicles between Hamden Drive and the site, and 904 vehicles between the site and the Clearwater Pass Bridge. South Gulfview Boulevard west of Hamden Drive would continue to operate at LOS C carrying 361 vehicles, and Coronado Drive would operate at LOS C carrying 742 vehicles just south of the Gulfview Boulevard intersection. This represents acceptable operations. Future traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3, and the HCS+ printouts are included in Appendix B. IV. CONCLUSION This analysis was conducted in accordance with a specific methodology established with City of Clearwater staff. This analysis demonstrates traffic operations at nearby intersections and on adjacent roadways would continue at acceptable levels of service with the project impacts. 3 N O O O N_ M O M �1 N N I F2�I W I--1 w a Cn FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME (2010) PROJECT NO 08 -067 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE FIGURE Land Development Consulting 10/2008 Ll DRAWN BY 3 G.J.S. APPENDIX A Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS +' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co GCC Date Performed 1013012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection GULFVIEW/HAMDEN Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Lane Group L T T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 14 168 157 267 241 0 9 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 10.9 3 0.93 10.93 1 10.93 0.93 10.93 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 30 3.0 30 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 1 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 1 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 32 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 32.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, ntrol Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 15 181 169 233 269 Lane Group Capacity, c 646 994 994 844 589 v/c Ratio, X 0.02 10.18 0.17 1028 0.46 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.53 053 0.53 0.53 0.33 Uniform Delay, di 6.6 72 72 77 15.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 6.6 73 7.3 78 16.3 file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k9B.tmp 10/30/2008 ®' C3 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Control Delay Or Lane Group LOS A I A I A A B Approach Delay 7.3 7.6 16.3 Approach LOS A A B Intersection Delay 10,2 X� = 0.35 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5 3 Generated. 10/30/2008 11000 AM file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k9B.tmp 10/30/2008 Or file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k9B.tmp 10/30/2008 PEAK HOUR / P.H.F. DATA PROJECT: SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT PROJECT NO. 08 -067 LOCATION. Hamden Dr (SB) S So Gulfview Blvd (E -W) DATE: October 29, 2008 LANE TYPE. SPEED LIMIT: SIGNAL TIMING: A G Y R (SECONDS) NB N/A NB N/A NB SB 2 Lane SB 20 SB EB 2 Lane EB 20 EB WB 4 Lane WB 20 WB PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS NIA N/A N/A N/A 21 21 4 33 0 16 4 28 N/A 16 4 28 1 T.F it " ".0 F'crr..Tl \ {C t{ `. `�y1�t`N.'•Yt S`��5ah PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 0 PHF NB #DIV /01 ",4 f_ PHF SB I • DIAGRAM 545-600 v(V �fr=JS1LAS1€Ft 073 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 408 1 trcZ} _f. 1Kiir�e�T.✓H¢F �ryt 92 776 1 1 1 1 484 1 16 19 301 1 1 284 496 1,600 PEAK HOUR TIME NB NI3 NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 1 VOLUME man 222 160 408 400-415 ...*xd'•pt {w� ! •,y �?11 v 1 162 4— 151 1 430-445 0 .fi�n,i, �'tie'J'F • jh G '7Lt - 192 175 1 1 445-500 � �ik` ,}� .�+'t? 11 1 1 1 232 1 9 13 162 1 1 151 257 824 1 1 1 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR 4 00 -5 00 INTERSECTION PHF 093 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 824 PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 0 PHF NB #DIV /01 PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 241 PHF SB 087 PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 175 PHF EB 073 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 408 PHF WB 094 ORIGINAL Cs� / PLANNING 0 0 q "4► l 4-- 151 Detailed Report HCS +� DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Intersection GULFVIEW/CORONADO Agency or Co. GCC Area Type All other areas Date Performed 1013012008 Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Proiect ID Page 1 of 2 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 0 2 2 1 Lane Group L LR T T R Volume, V (vph) 185 7 357 294 217 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 1 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 3reen, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3p 3.2 3.2 3.2 32 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 18.0 G= G= G= G= 44.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0 25 Cycle Length, C = 70.0 Lane Group CapacitVy, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 114 102 401 330 244 Lane Group Capacity, c 455 453 2230 2230 1583 v/c Ratio, X 0.25 023 0.18 0.15 0.15 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.26 026 0.63 0.63 1.00 Uniform Delay, di 20.6 205 54 15.3 0.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, dz 03 0.3 0.0 0.0 00 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 20.9 20.8 5.5 5.4 0.0 file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k89.tmp 10/30/2008 m ara �9 �.4 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Control Delay Lane Group LOS C I C I A A A Approach Delay 20.9 5.5 3.1 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Delay 71 X� = 0.20 Intersection LOS A Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5 3 Generated. 10/30/2008 9 52 AM C" S cv 43 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\rpergohzzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k89.tmp 10/30/2008 08 -067 G Y R NIA 45 4 PEAK HOUR / P.H.F. DATA N/A 45 PROJECT: SHEPARD'S BEACH RESORT 18 PROJECT NO: 4 LOCATION: Coronado Dr (N -S) & N/A Gulfview Blvd (EB) N/A . i ..c .::� ..�r ,1 'T . � DATE: October 28, 2008 M .a_? lrt` 1 .1�'' � .'^�ittF,.�+: LANE TYPE: SPEED LIMIT: 1-1141 SIGNAL TIMING: A_ (SECONDS) NB 3 Lane NB 20 NB SB 4 Lane Div SB 20 SB EB 2 Lane EB 20 EB 1 WB N/A WB N/A WB 08 -067 G Y R NIA 45 4 24 N/A 45 4 24 18 18 4 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR 4 00 -5 00 INTERSECTION PHF 089 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1,021 PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 344 PHF NB 077 PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 1 • • • • I 1 Y" . i ..c .::� ..�r ,1 'T . � 3`� ..... .''..7- .E'ff`. M .a_? lrt` 1 .1�'' � .'^�ittF,.�+: 1-1141 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1' 1 Ms, 1 1 �'r t1�`'`a� l "''' � �, L�` f "I � f 'ti 1i� E 37`-.� s``''k.�? ..�' ^�,��( )m�'°�� .�. . 3� N�P�` "r3 '�y� ,-+-�` ^"f•'�i�+�f itF• `� . e -�- Ti4. - k -��..� ,� 1 t � ,� �� .. t j } � �s I ; s 1 �- �lS��- �;� N l 1 1 1 1• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR 4 00 -5 00 INTERSECTION PHF 089 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1,021 PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 344 PHF NB 077 PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 492 PHF SB 089 PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 185 PHF EB 076 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 0 PHF WB #DIV /01 1 1 290 344 Z-I Z�4 n4- 3s� Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst RP Intersection HAMDEN/CORONADO Agency/Co. GCC Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Date Performed 10131108 Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING nal sis Time Period PM PEAK 5 6 Project Description East/West Street: CORONADO DRIVE North /South Street- HAMDEN DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy 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) 0 274 271 56 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 288 0 285 58 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T LT Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 21 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 100 100 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 0 0 22 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR Delay, Queue Len th and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT TR (veh /h) 0 285 25 C (m) (veh /h) 1544 1271 230 lc 0.00 022 0.11 95% queue length 0.00 0.86 0.36 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.3 8.6 22.6 LOS A A C pproach Delay -- -- 22.6 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2k111.tmp 10/31/2008 b� a Two -Way Stop Control s /veh pproach LOS -- -- Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5 3 )7 Page 2 of 2 c Generated 10/31/2008 8 01 AM file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2k1.1 l,.tmp' _ � - 10/31/2008 PEAK HOUR / P.H.F. DATA PROJECT: SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT 'PROJECT NO: 08 -067 LOCATION: Hamden Dr (N-S) & Coronado Dr (EB) DATE: October 30, 2008 LANE TYPE: SPEED LIMIT: SIGNAL TIMING: A G Y R (SECONDS) (NOT APPLICABLE) NB 3 Lane NB 20 NB SB 2 Lane SB 20 SB EB 3 Lane EB 20 EB WB N/A WB N/A WB PEAK HOUR TIME PM 4 00-4 15 4.15-430 4 30-4 45 4.45 -5.00 500-5.15 515-5-30 530-5.45 5.45-600 TIME PM 4 00-4 15 4 15-4 30 4 30-4 45 4 45 -5 00 � I.,?.- dll s +1% .� : 21iti t 51I �� ti -, c tY 3' "7.r�1 -.� fli �.� 11 ;r, PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB � • • • PHF NB 086 PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 23 PHF SB 072 ' r PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 263 PHF EB 078 d Y l UQ PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 0 PHF WB #DIV /01 7� O 0 GIB C CEP 1 "� L�J9 • I 1 L „- :?:',t �►,Y,r`a C'4�J '�- -'_�`� �. '4' 71� X Ali ,, i Z thy. 7+.`£. N li tk ( '1f Flllk'L �'fi'� yl CIIt '. {I Ali 1 1 .x T�3_2 1 1 . illI INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR 4 00 -5 00 INTERSECTION PHF 095 I 1 283 315 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 601 PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 315 PHF NB 086 PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 23 PHF SB 072 ' r PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 263 PHF EB 078 d Y l UQ PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 0 PHF WB #DIV /01 7� O 0 GIB C CEP 1 "� L�J9 L 2007 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: DISTRICT Category: 1500 PINELLAS COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0.94 Week --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dates SF PSCF --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 01/01/2007 - 01/06/2007 1.09 1.17 2 01/07/2007 - 01/13/2007 1.05 1.12 3 01/14/2007 - 01/20/2007 1.02 1.09 4 01/21/2007 - 01/27/2007 1.01 1.08 5 01/28/2007 - 02/03/2007 0.99 1.06 6 02/04/2007 - 02/10/2007 0.98 1.05 * 7 02/11/2007 - 02/17/2007 0.96 1.03 * 8 02/18/2007 - 02/24/2007 0.95 1.02 * 9 02/25/2007 - 03/03/2007 0.94 1.00 *10 03/04/2007 - 03/10/2007 0.93 0.99 *11 03/11/2007 - 03/17/2007 0.91 0.97 *12 03/18/2007 - 03/24/2007 0.92 0.98 *13 03/25/2007 - 03/31/2007 0.92 0.98 *14 04/01/2007 - 04/07/2007 0.92 0.98 *15 04/08/2007 - 04/14/2007 0.92 0.98 *16 04/15/2007 - 04/21/2007 0.93 0.99 *17 04/22/2007 - 04/28/2007 0.94 1.00 *18 04/29/2007 - 05/05/2007 0.95 1.02 *19 05/06/2007 - 05/12/2007 0.97 1.04 20 05/13/2007 - 05/19/2007 0.98 1.05 21 05/20/2007 - 05/26/2007 0.99 1.06 22 05/27/2007 - 06/02/2007 0.99 1.06 23 06/03/2007 - 06/09/2007 1.00 1.07 24 06/10/2007 - 06/16/2007 1.00 1.07 25 06/17/2007 - 06/23/2007 1.00 1.07 26 06/24/2007 - 06/30/2007 1.00 1.07 27 07/01/2007 - 07/07/2007 1.00 1.07 28 07/08/2007 - 07/14/2007 0.99 1.06 29 07/15/2007 - 07/21/2007 0.99 1.06 30 07/22/2007 - 07/28/2007 1.00 1.07 31 07/29/2007 - 08/04/2007 1.01 1.08 32 08/05/2007 - 08/11/2007 1.02 1.09 33 08/12/2007 - 08/18/2007 1.03 1.10 34 08/19/2007 - 08/25/2007 1.03 1.10 35 08/26/2007 - 09/01/2007 1.04 1.11 36 09/02/2007 - 09/08/2007 1.04 1.11 37 09/09/2007 - 09/15/2007 1.05 1.12 38 09/16/2007 - 09/22/2007 1.05 1.12 39 09/23/2007 - 09/29/2007 1.04 1.11 40 09/30/2007 - 10/06/2007 1.04 1.11 41 10/07/2007 - 10/13/2007 1.04 1.11 42 10/14/2007 - 10/20/2007 1.03 1.10 43 10/21/2007 - 10/27/2007 1.11 44 10/28/2007 - 11/03/2007 U-Jolil 1.11 45 11/04/2007 - 11/10/2007 1.05 1.12 46 11/11/2007 - 11/17/2007 1.05 1.12 47 11/18/2007 - 11/24/2007 1.06 1.13 48 49 11/25/2007 - 12/02/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/08/2007 1.07 1.08 1.14 1.15 g��,,gg��pp�� ORIGINAL 50 12/09/2007 - 12/15/2007 1.09 1.17 51 12/16/2007 - 12/22/2007 1.06 1.13 5EP -u 52 12/23/2007 - 12/29/2007 1.04 1.11 53 12/30/2007 - 12/31/2007 1.02 1.09 * Peak Season Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4 - 4 GENERALIZED PEAK HOUR TWO -WAY VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBANIZED AREAS* UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS STATE TWO -WAY ARTERIALS Class I ( >0 00 to 199 signalized intersections per mile) Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided ** 400 1,310 1,560 4 Divided 460 2,780 3,300 3,390 6 Divided 700 4,240 4,950 5,080 8 Divided 890 5,510 6,280 6,440 Class II (2 00 to 4 50 signalized intersections per mile) FREEWAYS Interchange spacing > 2 m1 apart E 1,610 Interchange spacing < 2 mi apart * ** * ** * ** E Level of Service 2,620 Lan Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided 210 730 1,450 2,060 4 Divided 1,940 3,140 4,540 5,870 6 Divided 2,900 4,700 6,800 8,810 STATE TWO -WAY ARTERIALS Class I ( >0 00 to 199 signalized intersections per mile) Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided ** 400 1,310 1,560 4 Divided 460 2,780 3,300 3,390 6 Divided 700 4,240 4,950 5,080 8 Divided 890 5,510 6,280 6,440 Class II (2 00 to 4 50 signalized intersections per mile) FREEWAYS Interchange spacing > 2 m1 apart E 1,610 Interchange spacing < 2 mi apart * ** * ** * ** E Level of Service 2,620 Lan Class III (more than 4 5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of an urbamzed area over 750,000) Level of Service Lanes Divided A B es A B C D E 6,670 4 2,310 3,840 5,350 6,510 7,240 10,010 6 3,580 5,930 8,270 10,050 11,180 5,060 8 4,840 8,020 11,180 13,600 15,130 16,980 10 6,110 10,110 14,110 17,160 19,050 23,360 12 7,360 12,200 17,020 20,710 23,000 Class III (more than 4 5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of an urbamzed area over 750,000) Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Undivided ** 180 1,070 1,460 1,550 4 Divided ** 390 2,470 3,110 3,270 6 Divided ** 620 3,830 4,680 4,920 8 Divided ** 800 5,060 6,060 6,360 Class III (more than 4 5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of an urbamzed area over 750,000) BICYCLE MODE (Note Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility ) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two -way maximum service volumes ) Level of Service Paved Shoulder Lanes A B C D E 4 2,050 3,350 4,840 6,250 7,110 6 3,240 5,250 7,600 9,840 11,180 8 4,420 7,160 10,360 13,420 15,240 10 5,600 9,070 13,130 16,980 19,310 12 6,780 10,980 15,890 20,560 23,360 BICYCLE MODE (Note Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility ) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two -way maximum service volumes ) Source Florida Department of Transportation 05/17/07 tr n ivi e o 0 Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 ONE -WAY FACILITIES Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0450 Multiply the corresponding two - directional volumes in this table by 0 6 http / /www dot state fl us /planuing/systems /sm/los/default htm *Values shown are presented u hourly two -way volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. Although presented as peak hour two -way volumes, they actually represent peak hour peak direction conditions with an applicable D factor applied. This table does not constitute a standard and sbouldbe used only for general planning applications The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist Level of service letter grade thresholds are probably not comparable across modes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be made with caution Furthermore, combining levels of service of different modes into one overall roadway level of service is not recommended Calculations are based on planning applications of the FHghway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, respectively for the automobile/truck, bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes * *Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults ** *Not applicable for that level of service letter grade For automobila/truck modes, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For bicycle and nedestrim modes - the level of service letter made (including F) is not achievable, because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults Fn F Z Paved Shoulder Level of Service Bicycle Lane Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D E Coverage A B C D E 2 Undivided ** ** 500 1,200 1,470 0 -49% ** ** 310 1,310 >1,310 4 Divided ** ** 1,180 2,750 3,120 50 -84% ** 240 390 >390 * ** 6 Divided ** ** 1,850 4,240 4,690 85 -100% 300 680 >680 * ** * ** 8 Divided ** ** 2,450 5,580 6,060 PEDESTRIAN MODE Class rV (more than 4 5 signalized intersections per mile and within (Note: Level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on roadway primary city central business district of an urbanized area geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of pedestrian over 750,000) using the facility ) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number Level of Service of directional roadway lanes to determine two -way maxunum service volumes ) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided ** ** 490 1,310 1,420 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 4 Divided ** ** 1,170 2,880 3,010 0 -49% ** ** ** 600 1,480 6 Divided ** ** 1,810 4,350 4,520 50 -84% ** ** ** 940 1,800 8 Divided ** ** 2,460 5,690 5,910 85 -100% ** 210 1,080 >1,080 * ** BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route) NON -STATE ROADWAYS Major City /County Roadways (Buses per hour) Level of Service (Note. Buses per hour shown are only for the peak hour in the single direction of higher traffic flow) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided ** ** 870 90 1,480 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 4 Divided ** ** 2,030 2,950j' 3,120 0 -84% ** >5 >4 >3 >2 6 Divided ** ** 3,170 4,450 4,690 85- 100% >6 >4 >3 >2 >1 q i lr [4&o ARTERIAL/NON -STATE ROADWAY ADJUSTMENTS Other Signalized Roadways (alter corresponding volume by the indicated percent) (signalized intersection analysis) Level of Service Lanes Median Left Turns Lanes Adjustment Factors Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Divided Yes +5% 2 Undivided ** ** 450 950 1,200 2 Undivided No -20% 4 Divided ** ** 1,050 2,070 2,400 Multi Undivided Yes -5% Mul U d d d N 25 °/ Source Florida Department of Transportation 05/17/07 tr n ivi e o 0 Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 ONE -WAY FACILITIES Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0450 Multiply the corresponding two - directional volumes in this table by 0 6 http / /www dot state fl us /planuing/systems /sm/los/default htm *Values shown are presented u hourly two -way volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. Although presented as peak hour two -way volumes, they actually represent peak hour peak direction conditions with an applicable D factor applied. This table does not constitute a standard and sbouldbe used only for general planning applications The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist Level of service letter grade thresholds are probably not comparable across modes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be made with caution Furthermore, combining levels of service of different modes into one overall roadway level of service is not recommended Calculations are based on planning applications of the FHghway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, respectively for the automobile/truck, bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes * *Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults ** *Not applicable for that level of service letter grade For automobila/truck modes, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For bicycle and nedestrim modes - the level of service letter made (including F) is not achievable, because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults Fn F Z APPENDIX B W � t E" 2 r, Hotel (310) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday Number of Studies Average Number of Rooms Directional Distribution Trip Generation per Room 10 476 50% entering, 50% exiting Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 8.17 3.47 - 9.58 3.38 Data Plot and Equation ?mot Trip Generation, 7th Edition 551 Institute of Transportation Engineers 18,000 X 17,000 - -- '--- -'• - -- -- --- •------ ' - - - -- - , --- - - - - -• 16,000 - -- ,- - - -, -- - -- -;- - ,--- - - - - -; - - -, - -- - 15,000 - - . - - -- - - - ; 14,000 -- -, - - -, -- - • -- , -- -, - - -, - -- ;- - - -- -- - ---- - ---- , - -- -- - - -.- - 13,000 - - -- - ----- -- - -- ;--- ;- y X 12,000 uJ Q 11,000 ---- ,- - - -, -- 10,000 - -- - - - - - - -• - - - 9,000 -- ........ --- - - - -- - -- -- -- -- -- -; -- -- -- -- -- --• -, - -- -- - - ,--- m 8,000 ---------- --- -•- ---•-- - - j7,000 - - -,- - -, --- - -- - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - -- - -- -- , --- --- ;-------- - - -- -, - - - - -- 6,000 - - - -, ; 5,000 -- -- -- - -- 4,000 ; - - - -, 3,000 ;-- - •---- ----- - - - - -- - ---- .......... --- ;-- - -- - -- X 2,000 - -- - - - - --, - - -, - X. 1,000 , . - -- - --- - - - - -- --- ----- - - - - -- - -- ---- -- - - -- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - -- Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 8.95(X) - 373.16 R2 = 0.98 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 551 Institute of Transportation Engineers Resort Hotel (330) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Rooms: 504 Directional Distribution: 72% entering, 28% exiting Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.31 0.24 - 0.41 0.57 Data Plot and Equation 400 300 U) a c W 2- N U L 200 d c0 N Q H 100 -- -- ---- -- -- '-- - ---- ------------ X - -- --'--- -- - - ---- ,X X . X - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W X XX 0 300 400 500 600 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.40(X) - 40.79 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 700 800 900 - - - - -- Average Rate R2 = 0.75 625 Institute of Transportation Engineers C z 1—N,/ Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.42 0.19 - 0.51 0.65 Data Plot and Equation 500 X 400 --------- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- - -- - -- -------- - - - - -- Cn Lu Q H300 ------- - -- ---- --- ---- --- -- ; - - - - -- -- X L N200 - -- --- -- - -- - - -- -- ----- X, - - - -- -X-------,---------------------------- X ;X X 100 - - -- ------------ - - - - -- -------- ............. - -- - - - -- - X 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - -- Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) =1.44 Ln(X) - 3.62 R2 = 0.93 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 626 Institute of Transportation Engineers Resort Hotel (330) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday,' Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,,, rv;x Z One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 10 Average Number of Rooms: 495 Directional Distribution: 43% entering, 57% exiting > Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.42 0.19 - 0.51 0.65 Data Plot and Equation 500 X 400 --------- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- - -- - -- -------- - - - - -- Cn Lu Q H300 ------- - -- ---- --- ---- --- -- ; - - - - -- -- X L N200 - -- --- -- - -- - - -- -- ----- X, - - - -- -X-------,---------------------------- X ;X X 100 - - -- ------------ - - - - -- -------- ............. - -- - - - -- - X 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - -- Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) =1.44 Ln(X) - 3.62 R2 = 0.93 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 626 Institute of Transportation Engineers Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS +� DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 1013012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection GULFVIEW/HAMDEN Area Type All other areas - Jurisdiction CLEARWATER a� Analysis Year 2010 WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB ItO LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT `• Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Lane Group L T T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 14 175 163 311 276 0 9 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1 000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 112.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min Time for Pedestrians, GP J 32 3.2 3.2 I 32 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SIB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 32.0 IY= 1Y= G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= 1Y= 4 Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 60.0 Lane Group CapacitWy, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB I NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 15 188 175 281 307 Lane Group Capacity, c 643 994 994 844 590 v/c Ratio, X 0.02 10.19 0.18 0 33 0.52 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.33 Uniform Delay, di 6.6 7.3 7.2 7.9 16.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k Oil Oil 0.11 Oil 0.13 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 7.4 7.3 82 17.0 file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kCB.tmp 10/30/2008 s°v �sJ Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Control Delay Lane Group LOS A I A I A A d�e B .rte° Approach Delay 7.3 7.8 17.0 Approach LOS A A B Intersection Delay 10.6 X = 0.41 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5 3 Generated- 10/30/2008 1 17 PM file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kCB.tmp 10/30/2008 d�e .rte° file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kCB.tmp 10/30/2008 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS +- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 1013012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection GULFVIEW/CORONADO Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2010 WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 0 2 2 1 Lane Group L LR T T R Volume, V (vph) 192 7 404 331 226 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 1 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 00 1 0.0 1 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 32 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 18.0 IY= G= G= G= G= 44.0 G= G= G= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0 25 Cycle Length, C = 70.0 Lane Group Capacity, C ntrol Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 119 105 454 372 254 Lane Group Capacity, c 455 453 2230 2230 1583 v/c Ratio, X 0.26 0.23 020 1 10.17 0.16 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.26 026 0.63 0.63 100 Uniform Delay, di 20.7 20.5 5.5 5.4 00 Progression Factor, PF 1 000 1.000 1.000 1 000 0.950 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 21.0 20.8 5.6 5.4 0.0 file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kDD.tmp 10/30/2008 v L Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Control Delay Lane Group LOS C C A A A Approach Delay 20.9 5.6 3.2 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Delay 7.1 X = 0.22 Intersection LOS A Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5 3 Generated 10/30/2008 1 21 PM file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kDD.tmp 10/30/2008 Twp -Way Stop Control eneral Information TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information P Intersection CC Jurisdiction /31/08 nalvsis Year Analyst R Agency/Co. G Date Performed 10 Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project Description East/West Street: CORONADO DRIVE Intersection Orientation, East -West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 0 L T Volume veh /h 0 310 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 326 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 2 Configuration LT T Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh /h Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 100 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration Delay, Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT LT v (veh /h) 0 331 C (m) (veh /h) 1540 1230 v/c 0.00 0.27 95% queue length 0.00 1.09 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.3 9.0 LOS A A Approach Delay Page 1 of 2 iMDEN / CORONADO EAR WATER 10 WITH PROJECT orth /South Street- HAMDEN DRIVE tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2k118.tmp 10/31/2008 i <za C`. e r— f © 0 0 0 Undivided 0 � 0 Southbound 0 0 � 0 .. Southbound file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2k118.tmp 10/31/2008 i <za C`. e r— f TWo -Way Stop Control Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5 3 �1 2 of 2 Generated, 10/31/2008 9 28 AM Page rl- file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k118.tmp 10/31/2008 Lu ��g z 1 m mw P file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k118.tmp 10/31/2008 Two -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information [Site Information Analyst RP Agency/Co. GCC Date Performed 1013012008 Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Page 1 of 2 Intersection S. GULFVIEW /PROJECT DRIVEWAY Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2010 WITH PROJECT Major Street Eastbound Project Description East/West Street: S. GULFVIEW BLVD North /South Street: PROJECT DRIVEWAY Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy 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) 426 25 16 441 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.90 090 0.90 0.90 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 473 27 17 490 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 2 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR 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) 33 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 1.00 090 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 36 0 23 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th and Level of Service3 Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh /h) 17 59 C (m) (veh /h) 1064 451 lc 0.02 0.13 95% queue length 0.05 0.45 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.4 142 LOS A B file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl03.tmp 10/30/2008 Two -Way Stop Control .0 yry Page 2 of 2 Copyright © 2007 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5 3 Generated: 10/30/2008 1 36 PM c" cn IC`r: ^E J-) file://CADocuments and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2kl03.tmp 10/30/2008 Tree Inventory Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. Clearwater, Florida Prepared by Alan Mayberry November 23, 2008 For: Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. The following report is submitted by Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist, and includes findings that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboriculture. I have no interest personally or financially in this property and my report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property of Keith Zayac & Associates and will not be given to other entities unless so directed. Site Overview and Tree Canopy Analysis The subject site is commercial property located on Clearwater Beach. The site consists of a variety of palm species growing in landscape islands within parking lots or in landscape buffers adjacent to parking lots. The species include the native sabal palm ( Sabal palmetto) and several exotic palms including the Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta), California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), Senegal date palm (Phoenix reclinata), Bottle palm (Hyophorbe lagenicaulis), Coconut palm (Cocos nucifera), Alexandra palm (Archontophoenix alexandrae), Pygmy date palm (Phoenix roebelenii), Royal palm (Roystonea regia — native to South Florida), Queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana), and Foxtail palm (Wodyetia bifurcata). The palms in general have been pruned too hard. Only dead and dying fronds should, be removed as the palm recycles nutrients back to the bud from the declining frond. The palms should be fertilized four times a -year with a palm special fertilizer from Lesco with a formula of 8- 2 -12 -4 (N,P,K, + Mg) and should be irrigated with an automatic system that targets the needs o f the, individual species. With a few exceptions the palms are sufficiently healthy to warrant preservation or transplanting on site. All trees and palms with an overall condition rating of 3.0 and above on the following inventory are considered worthy of preservation or transplanting. Tree Inventory Data A tree inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at the time of inspection. It is a valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanation of the data used in the inventory: Tree# - location - Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that corresponds with a number on the site plan that identifies the location of the tree in the field. Size — Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 4.5' above grade. If there is a fork in the trunk at that point the diameter is measured at the narrowest area below the fork. Palm species are measured in feet of clear trunk (C.T.). Species — Each tree is listed by its common and botanical name the first time it is listed in the inventory. For simplicity the tree is listed by its common name thereafter. Condition Rating — The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structural strength and systemic health. Elements of structure include: 1) the presence of cavities, decayed wood, split, cracked, rubbing branches etc., 2) branch arrangements and attachments, i.e., well spaced vs. several branches emanating from the same area on the trunk, codominant stems vs. single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs. included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs. respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic health will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the tree as needed. Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in the overall condition rating include: 1) live crown ratio (the amount of live crown a tree has relative to its mass), 2) crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth (shoot elongation is a sign that the tree is making and storing energy. The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any unique features. The rating scale is 0 -6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen. Increments of 0.5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 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 codominant 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 or 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 95 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 work on a specimen tree. Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the tree but not covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data. It may include maintenance recommendations to improve the tree's overall condition rating. It may also have recommendations on whether to remove or preserve a tree. NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for 3 -5 years. However, events such as drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance and severe storms can downgrade the rating value of a tree. Conversely, remedial maintenance can upgrade the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely affected, have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. Note: Whenever possible it is advised to adhere to inventory recommendations when selecting trees to be preserved. For example, trees or palms rated 4.0 and higher should be preserved if at all possible, while trees or palms rated 2.0 and lower should be removed unless otherwise noted in the inventory. Trees or palms rated 2.5 are generally recommended for removal unless remedial work is performed to upgrade them. Trees or palms rated 3.0 and 3.5 are average trees that have good potential and warrant serious consideration for preservation but not to the extent that site plan modifications are necessary. This tree inventory was conducted on November 23, 2008. NOTE 41: The tree survey prepared by the site surveyor identifies several palms that have less than 10' of clear trunk. Palms with less than 10' of clear trunk are not protected by the City of Clearwater code and consequently are not included in the following tree inventory. The palms are identified on the attached site plan with the initials NP (not protected). NOTE 42: The tree survey prepared by the site surveyor identifies several palms that are in landscape buffers of adjacent properties. These palms were not included in the following inventory as their root systems are contained within planters and they will not be affected by future construction activities relative to the subject property. ( NOTE #3: Trees and palms with a condition rating of 3.0 or greater are considered worthy of preservation or transplanting on site. Trees and palms with a condition rating of less then 3.0 are not recommended for preservation and are followed by a comment section that describes the arboricultural reasons justifying the rating. Tree # Size Tree Inventory Species Rating 1 12' C.T. sabal palm ( Sabal palmetto) 3.5 2 20' C.T. Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta) 3.5 3 18' C.T. Washington palm 4.0 4 14' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 5 16' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 6 14' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 7 12' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 NOTE: Palms 48, 9, 10, 11, 34, 35 & 36 are located on the publicly owned right of way of Gulfview Boulevard but were planted by the property owner as a street tree design and as such are included in this tree inventory. 8 10' C.T. foxtail palm (Wodyetia bifurcata) 3.0 9 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 10 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 11 12' C.T. foxtail palm 3.5 12 11' C.T. Senegal date palm (Phoenix reclinata) 3.5 13 9" Seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) 1.5 Comments: The condition of this tree is downgraded due to the presence two large basal wounds with decay located on the trunk within 2' of the grade. 7' above grade there is a gaping wound where a large branch has been torn from the tree. In addition, the crown is thinning and has dieback present. Recommend removal. 14 30' C.T. Washington palm 4.5 15 13' C.T. coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) 4.0 16 13' C.T. coconut palm 4.0 17 12' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 18 13' C.T. coconut palm 4.0 19 28' C.T. Washington palm 4.0 20 12' C.T. coconut palm 4.0 21 12' C.T. foxtail palm 1.5 Comments: Severe deficiency 22 10' C.T. coconut palm 3.0 23 30' C.T. Washington palm 4.5 24 40' C.T. Washington palm 4.5 25 14', 17', 18' C.T. Senegal date palm (cluster) 3.5 26 40' C.T. Washington palm 4.5 27 35' C.T. Washington palm 4.5 28 16' C.T. California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera) 4.0 29 16' C.T. royal palm (Roystonea regia) 4.0 30 10' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 31 15' C.T. royal palm 4.0 32 16' C.T. royal palm 4.0 33 10' C.T. Senegal date palm 3.5 34 11' C.T. foxtail palm 3.0 35 11' C.T. foxtail palm 3.5 36 11' C.T. foxtail palm 2.0 Comments: Severe nutritional deficiency and over pruned 37 8" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.5 Comments: This tree is located 3' south of the sidewalk of Gulfview Boulevard and is growing in a 6' wide landscape buffer between the sidewalk and parking lot. The tree is downgraded due to the presence of a codominant stem with included bark in the main crotch located 4.5' above grade. The codominant stem situation is compounded by the removal of a 4" diameter branch that once formed a tri- dominant formation at this point. The decay resulting from the branch removal will further weaken the affected area. The crown has average live crown ratio and below average form due to excessive pruning and competition from adjacent plants. Recommend removal. 38 17' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 39 15' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 __ 40 12' C.T. coconut palm 3.5 41 12' C.T. coconut palm 3.5 42 10' C.T. coconut palm 3.0 43. 11' C.T. coconut palm 3.5 44. 10' C.T. coconut palm 4.0 45: 10' C.T. coconut palm 3.0 46 28' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 47 11 C.T. foxtail palm 3.0 48 11' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 49 11' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 50 11' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 51 11' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 52 16' C.T. queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana) 3.0 53 18' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 54 16' C.T. queen palm 3.0 55 15' C.T. cabal palm 3.5 56 14' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 57 16' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 58 27' C.T. coconut palm 5.0 59 24' C.T. Washington palm 4.0 SHEPHARDS BEACH RESORT STORMWATER NARRATIVE Existing Conditions The site currently contains no stormwater treatment or attenuation systems. The stormwater runoff currently runs directly into the City right of way and Clearwater Pass. Proposed Conditions SWFWMD and City of Clearwater stormwater criteria require treatment of the first 3/" of runoff over the new construction area prior to discharge to the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed storm water treatment and attenuation system consists of -a 22.66 ft x 41.92 ft x 3 ft[deep] concrete vault in series with a StormTrap Concrete Vault System. The aforementioned storm water system provides 4,092 cubic feet of treatment volume prior to discharging thru a control structure [weir /control elev. = 5.50] into Clearwater Pass. Details of the'treatment system are provided within the civil construction plans. STORIVIWATER CALCULATIONS New Project Area: Treatment Require Volume Required: - Volume Provided: 1. Vault System; 2. StormTrap Vault;- 63,775 sq -ft ment: 3/" over new project area site 3/" x 63,775 -SF = 3,986 cu -ft Elev: 5.5 — 2.5 = 3.0 ft x 949 sf = 2,847 cu -ft Elev: 5.5- 2.5 =3.0 ft x 415 sf = 1,245 cu -ft Total = 4,092 cu -ft , MODRET Infiltration Simulation Information: "Pond Bottom Area" = bottom area of StormTrap system = 415 sf "Pond Length to Width Ratio" = length to width ratio of StormTrap- system Please refer to MODRET chart INFILTRATION ;SHEPHARD'S wherein the treatment volume of 3,986 cf recovers in approximately 4.25 hours. REGISTRATION # 55525 ,OCT 16 2009 AL,EX,01, L�AZAN, P.E. ephards\Pennits \City of ClearwaterCStormwaterNarrative• rev Oct14_2009.doc �S c a SUMMARY OF UNSATURATED & SATURATED HNPUT PARAMETERS' PROJECT NAME: Shephard's POLLUTION VOLUME RUNOFF DATA USED UNSATURATED ANALYSIS EXCLUDED Pond Bottom Area Pond Volume between Bottom & DHWL Pond Length to Width Ratio (L/W)' Elevation of Effective Aquifer Base Elevation of Seasonal High Groundwater Table Elevation of Starting Water Level Elevation of Pond Bottom Design High Water Level Elevation Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Unsaturated Analysis Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Factor of Safety Saturated Horizontal. Hydraulic Conductivity Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Saturated Analysis Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Pond /Exfiltrati6n Trench Hydraulic Control Features: Groundwater Control Features - Y/N Distance to Edge of'Pond Elevation of Water Level Impervious Barrier - Y/N Elevation of Barrier Bottom" 415.00 ft2 3,986.00 ft3 12.45 -5.00 ft 2.00 ft 5.50 ft 2.50 ft 5.60 ft 0.21 3.30 ft/d 2.00 5.00 ft/d 0.21 1.00 Top, Bottom Left Right. N N N N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 N N N N 0.00 0.00- 0.00 0.00 Analysis Date: ,10/14/2009 215. TIME - RUNOFF INPUT DATA PROJECT NAME: SHEPHAR ®'S STRESS PERIOD NUMBER, INCREMENT OF TIME Mrs) VOLUME OF RUNOFF (ft3) Unsat 0.00 0.00 1 1:00 3,689.00 2 0.50 0.00 3 0.50 0.00 4 0.50 0.00 5 0.50 0.00 6 0.50 0.00 7 0.50 0.100 8 0.50 0.00 9 0.50 0.00 Analysis Date: 10/14/2009, 3/ // SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROJECT NAME: Shephard's Ll CUMULATIVE TIME (hrs) WATER ELEVATION (feet) INSTANTANEOUS INFILTRATION RATE (cfs) AVERAGE INFILTRATION RATE (cfs) CUMULATIVE OVERFLOW (ft3) 00.00-0.00 2.000 0.000 0.00000 0.00 2.000 0.28359 0.27942 1.00 5.567 0.27525 0.00 0.27317 1.50 5.555 0.27010 0.00 0.26702 2.00 5.543 0.26387 0.00 0.26072 2.50 5.531 0.25764 0.00 0.25456 300 5.520 0.25146 0.00 0.24837 3.50 5.508 0.24521 - 0.00 0.24205 4.00 5.498 0.23906 0:00. 0.23607 4.50 5.487 0.23304 0.00 0.23000 5.00 5.476 0.00 Maximum water Elevation: 5.567 feet @ 1:00 hours Recovery @ '5.000'hours *Time increment when therels no runoff Maximum Infiltration Rate: 0.606,ft/day Analysis Date: 4(s INFILTRATION :- SHEPHARD'S 3 4 ti Time (hrs) J Total Volume Infiltrated = 4,627 it' V 1 P4Zi S ' HE-PHARID'S PUEARWATE9 PEACH August 10, 2009 Ms'. Phpong Vb Clearwater'Ehiginee'drig, MS. vo'r Please accept ' this riOte, to- -verify that qualified maintenance firm will-be hired to provide.: egulat -the proposed storm water vault- as -.recommended' by the manufacturer for our new proposed -project on Clearwater Beach. scheduled maintenance on Sincerelv., Paul Andrews General Manger Shophard'8 Beath,Resor) paul@8he , phards.-com 9 Sotdh -GL I If View rR I ' fd' 10 . Cjlq a rvv ate r, Beach, �L_ 3'3'7'1�37 , O,,2aI,8477 StormTrap's SingleTrap° system is the ultimate solution for projects requiring storm water management applications fh SingleTrap's° modular design allows the system to be completely customizable giving it the abili, fit a) A YP es of job site parameters. The system's innovative design maximizes the total volume ter stor d while minimizing the project's footprint and cost. Precast concrete strength exceeds -,HS -20 oading with ly 6 inches of cover. Design flexibility allows the SingleTrap° system to accommodate ,both `filt alive wa r recharge demands as well as PP watertight applications. g w y a Y wA • Exceeds HS -20 loading with 6" of cover making it ideal for projects with limited rim to invert • Durable reinforced high strength concrete available in sizes that are customized from 1' -2" to 5' -0" At } _ b Provides a large infiltrative surface area that allows water to recharge back into the soil Watertight systems available Lifetime Warranty L ".... W'� Water Quality Management StormTrap° is on the cutting edge of sustainable storm water quality management. Integration of water quality control functions are inherently easy due to the modular format of the SingleTrap° and DoubleTrap° systems. Whether your project requires attention to a specific water quality issue or a combination of issues, the design engineers at StormTrap° can provide a solution. FILTRATION • Designed to remove pollutants utilizing various media OIL / WATER SEPARATOR • Eliminates oil, grease, fats & other hydrocarbons -z INFIL TRA TIOt'l • Recharge /infiltration needs SEOI MENTA TION • Designed to your specific particle size removal efficiencies A � I 7w Cw PVT Qm n 3 s A MINTED Qm n -- �' f StormTrap's itoubldrap °system is the premiere total void storm water management system. The precast concrete sy a maximizes total storage volume while minimizing project footprint. The DoubleTrap° is quick an is ' q ientlo install thus reducing labor costs and liabilities. The systems modular design means it•.is-a gle to almost any application from 2' - 4" to 10' - 0" depths. Reduced costs combined with maxim Ind use fk e s the DoubleTrap° system the obvious choice. Lowest overall installed costs Innovative design allows for quick and efficient installations and the smallest overall footprint Durable reinforced high strength concrete available in sizes that are customized from 2' -4" to 10 ' -0" Flexible design allows for the infiltration of storm water or a completely contained system Water tight systems available Lifetime Warranty F-A f-TION PAr,,00-.5PFrIALi,,,/ Watch the EXPLOSIVE Intro 'Video!!! View .1 i Installations of.- View Case Studies on the Link to our Website at View additional projects Request "Lunch & Learn" with a StormTrap, Representative Request design budget y- jjl- + 1�� W -7. U.S. Patent No's: 6,991,402 : 7,160,058 : 7,344,335 1-87-STORMTRAP • 1-877-867-6872 WWW.STORMTRAP.COM To , 11.i2i ' 2c.08 19: bi 72-5624962, FUBLIC UTILITIES PAGE 07 Clearwater Fire & Rescue 610 Franklin Street— Clearwater, Florida 33756 Public Works Administration — Engineering Department U. ;°' • ' ' " ^ci?`'� 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Suite 200 — Clearwater, Florida 33756 �:'�f �,+ _� u;, � *� ;�:^' �G' >;, :ia�;:u'<,�S,L E � ` -FR E•FL- OW'' &� YDRAN � WO� r�r +Y.�,n;t,;l;'. r��, �,•, tile,,, =��4-�'rH'4, 't•',,r,3sYio',.�r«,�a t; �vr' �r, �tit��` �te��, t! r�u�. �. �q` �' r�L�x�C, ?r; v;, „;('yl,,,at��;3,�..�?.,•�'.f, ' ?. ,kl-i >I' 7�� •F2KS}-1EET� ;f�� I, �., b,. �,�,�•,,'_ � -, ��' ,�,�, ,i n,r_x•,- x, at+t�i,:f5•e�,�'r�} �ti r�;: l�, �Etn�-' ��SYt; Fib tr.: �IdC ;:1rr,��S,�`�`;}n•,�:a...il” (Revised 03/29/2006) This worksheet is required to be submitted to and approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) prior to DRC meeting for any project that is more than 3 stories or more than 30 feet in height above the lov�est Fire Dept vehicle access point or for any other project that will require an Automatic Wet Standpipe System and /or Fire Pump before any permitsfor new building construction, building expansion orfire hydrantswill be issued by the City of Clearwater. Infoirnation and design must comply with Florida Building Code, Chapter 9 - Fire Protection Systems, Florida Fire Prevention Code to include applicable NFPA Code (NFPA 1, 13, 13D, 13E, 13R, 14, 15, 20, 291 and 1142 Annex H) and AWWA M -17 - Installation, Field Testing and Maintenance of Fire Hydrants. j4 } ',1 - z �:�';.�11.,i��,:i 1;i�4�: t'ii`t`y; rJr.�*,�s'n; "-. a;: t,.; l: �,$ iry°, ��t��: tilr, e•; �' iS��i ,i,�;:�R.Xn,�'1rPrrr•,, :.YGroiO Fti >;,j, r�nFr l; Vu.-rr -. r' �Y.� +:r a,. iY• ;�i?pp-OJ EG +: 'NFORM•A�TION4�: �,:7� -ns�r. ,,,�.r ov't' r ern:? t rV.rz''r•� �r . �s' :� e4 1,,lar{ f�� t;�;�t.t�,rt�; ; F, ��, �+ r; nt. �,., t4 ''s ";�_�.•a,,:+te'sr,��l,.�'i, ba,e,'1`, ..n -_ _�oE -•�ln ,••�. . i_. �' S�a.,. in,° k,; 1} Fld., r:" �1, 1, If.*) it1�. �i••<• '. `�ilyd�ilr�3�a�Yl�,l�lr�n,1„1+ 3rd,. �. ttrt.) t.; c. 1': v` Sfr' ��i�, rtia- t,'/: 4ixryi [7;rj,YV!y,,....5itv:':tiel r��4., ri4c .k'h,arn:•ltY..Pi.q,S.f,°1�r,c, r. ..i X.i S;.1! Project Name: _Shepard's Beach Resort Project Address: 619 S. Gul fv+ew Blvd. }F' ! }:4 p t ' f; n.1 1 ' �:'A °a,, + r� r.'.4i't'°P',,:rk S "•'i .� Y�,t:,fi:[l ^e'.nk"•,'..'� Jx'•,' 71.1S1f'iG ^e Y >t•a. -, � i.iY, GENEpp��l. ltiA4T+. ERSYS+--r�a: EM�� '1'NF,O;RMA�71ON.•i�; °� -,,., 1 ,iu�,' �, ?.�,;: � x.4ltk� "'i.�b,w.xr..,:�;- ��- r;,:ul' {g: {_u��`; "� . °it,� "4• �. °r tF �,•,k.. ..Ls`iS` .� +, t,.,�.., _. -A,_ �,rl,. ,>�r _.,1 .�€�,iafad,.t;�liaYt.NE r. w.!�:..". � �1;�` i / ^v��9,3�"� u` = 4�,rr.., �.:1�1 %�} '1, 4 «��.t;w �'i'.1�C��,�t, _ 4 x. l .•i,Y. <•�1. ..4,t t--yn � \•�i i •xi .l�i v14.11 13 -5 Location of %arest Fire Hydrant NnrthwP.at Corn Pr of Property Hydrant #: 285A Size ofWaterMain Supplying Fire Flow: 1 2 it Looped System or Dead End Water Main? T,nn11 Pd Static: 7,, psi Residual: 59 psi Pitot: 51 psi Flow: 1200 gPm Distance of Test Gauges Relative to the Base of the Riser. Horizontal Ft. Vertical Elevation 2 . 5 , Ft. Hydrant Test Conducted by: (_'.; ty of ('1 enrwatPr WntPr De E =ment (include /Attach Copy of Actual Test Sheet) a}�a- ihrizU�Ln'. •i':' 'i,Y i•N �r f'1 ILYL ^�MRDe "l',L[�•S•JI IU�TIC+N�ii�Yl'Ld� <, .,i.i� i�p�}� ;:43t 8' rr , 1L� '�'OiNg•4v:.,.;•',.��m•;,'.'•t y'Y'iA�C fit „i ,”, ,1��4 .,._5" "(l y,��)!?�I:u Y.r. tw Ri il.iS.�vt. .,l .. -.t, .0•.7.� _ >.. c., 1. .�.. .r. P,j, 4;:w, ".ta.i u'•iG.l .;.i1,:'I, ia.• c-, n.r,- b. �ti� e1. 1suC .rv..:•r,�S.- 1.Y+k�z37,.clS. Wa r.J�.`SS,- ,'4,'%7i- ,1;;��u�'1 Area # Classificafion Descrip8on of Hazard Piotected (Commodity Description, Storage Height an d Arra nge ment, if a pplica ble): 1 Ordinary Hazard Parking Garage Attach Additional She ets if Necess ary Page 1 of 3 lNµ`�;�` rf�x�ir;:s71` '`b -.!t ¢]i��% x :, ^;i-e",° a�7:' a,.F;:i o rfl;'•;��x.� " -lt ` F`„ A'�,t^'d^!"-`'..:ii5ll• ✓M3�,'1' "s�• {Id "tYxy ,Y � Mxyin .lr�•. .'{ 1 � - _ BMW w=DE51.GNfP.ARAMyi�T`ERSr,,g +x. e' +,.! 7 ,1;,tti.. ■}Y` >t z '` �,.��f= ;' -'{, r ; ;,,� „�tx• yr. , Y.,eY t.c t;,,t {¢,:r;.t.�y; 4�, �,vi{ i,' l,: :Y� iSSyz ,A... •il.v ..fin kt.. ,n•L,....1. ,-.5, �.i.�i,lti..tlk i'.t•.�...1`�i;;jy.j•c,J4� .•f tn' .4.1,r.tT .�. dT1. �f1:t: 71-..: lAirn�. est' inl•. ir1,- -Y`�= .'.3E�:��if�n:1? -n+i 11 ll Area # System Type Area (sq. ft.) Density (gpm'ft) Inside Hose (gpm) Outside Hose (gpm) ( 1 Wet Sprinkler 1500 .15 50 0 Attach Additional Sheets if Necessary Total Needed Fire Flow(N.F.F.) 275 GPM Is Existing System Supply Suffident to Meet N.F.F. Above? No X Yes System Corrponent Applicable NFPA Standard /Year Edition and OtherApplicable Codes or Statutes Sprinklers NFPA 13 2002 Stand Pipe NFPA 14 2003 Fire Pumn NFPA 20 2003 AttachAdditlonet She ets if Necess ary If Project Includes Fire Pump, Supply the Following: Fire Pump Information: Pump Capadty: 1000 Rated Pressure: 1 9 0 On -Site Storage Tank Capacity( ?): None gpm Chum Pressure: psi Pressure @ 150% Row: 137 psi 90 psi `f �'. p•, r • ` y �.��.•},1 f *: i,t t� { ,S �T4�',�,,,'�•t + �SII r �'rF.'r Fdi_ N9i {')`� "Ir:.� Vt,.ia�q.e,rea.� 1',`� v„f;. ty4. f'iysu:e'- vi - t1 Ct:fERINFO kTIONt.`It.'.4x;: �1 _-_f'� t1''s, rd; - ,�sl, <! st<;,v,..�t.• {t�� +, �c +'a,,,,t,�• •?�.:,I,:�:n+i Gt: i, l,�„�.,,e.�f'lns.0 R,� .,��5 . �,d .-„ »l071� i ;i,• s - -i• „x,;at- d.,t�ic:;+��. 1;1��t. 'nT ::a'�;V'rin` �-'� � c -;3 r H,•r sr4 �d�w; �'t +� -, , a•�. -,. �u.t `t.�J' •:�'�>i��l� �- x. °.�,'n {i�,4:' PreparerName: David C. Covalt, P.E. Company Name: DeRose Deggn Consultants, Inc. Mailing Address: 470 S. Andrews Ave.. Suite 206 City: Pompano Beach State: Florida Zip: 33069 Phone: (954) 942 -7703 Fax: (954) 942 -7933 Page 2 of 3 P.E. Seal �Yi i . s. �;• pn�y�-„•,;i}. '•f A� ,DMt,D....l,f7,.��1. , 0N.n.�.u1.,, L .� ,h.,.Nw.wFq,0, a.R.. M�.4�,. ; T_r,I. . 0PJt .R.r,,. E QUILLppl.�` Ek DN ,Gt.! Ft;h rnr�. } i 111 1i�,E^ iy , i t:��t. �C' %tt,.. ?J:t;'.t� !t . ��.•�'i4 }.� #sS�,�E .;�.�.w•.,SG �IMIi:.r,�,as�m,,.�,i,...�i� y.'�ir'Fw.•�� Fire Prevention Items to be Addressed Prior to DRC Approval: ' ( 1. Provide Fire Flow Calculations / Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine I arty 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 /orf ire 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, NFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and NFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required 2. When an FDC is required, it shall be a minimum of 15 feetfrom building and shall hav e a fire by drant within 40 feet This hydrant shall not be located on the same main as the Fire Sprinkler and must be on the supply side of a double detector check valve. This hydrant is in addition to the hydrant that is required f orf irefighting purposes that is to be within 300 feet of building, as the hose lays, and on the same side of the street as the project 3. Provide and show on the plan a minimum 30 -fort turning radius for emergency vehicle ingress and egress at all entrances and exits. 4. Provide and show on the site plan 24 feet of width at driveways / drive aisles for emergency vehicle ingress and egress for front and rear parking lots. Where driveways are split by an island with one -way traffic, each side d the bland shall prov ide and show on the site plan 20f eet of width at the drV eways on each side of the island. 5. Prov ide a Fire Department access roadway (with turn - around, Y, T or cul -de -sac) in accordance with NFPA 1. A Fire Department access roadway must hav e 24 -foot clear width and 14-f oot vertical clearance, and be capable of supporting the weight of Fire Department vehicles (80,000Ibs� 1. Building - 3 Floors New Wing 2,3, &4 Levels Total S.F. 47,164 Fire Area Building is Type II 100% Sprinkler Coverage (222) - NFPA 1 Table H5.1 Fire Flow is 2250 GPM_ By H5.2.1 Fire Flow for Fully Sprinklered Building can b-e reduced by 75% & Min. Flow t Not Less Than 1000 GPM 2250 - .75(2250) = 562.5 Required Fire Flow - 1000 GPM Water Supply - 12in. Municiple Water Main - 8in. Fire Main'to Building Residual Pressure -53 PSI 0.001123Q2 Velocity Pressure Required for Flow (1000 GPM) P = D4 12in. DI - 12.4 "ID Pressure Required to Flow 1000 GPM P = .0475 PSI 8in. DI - 8.33' ID Pressure Required to Flow 1000 GPM P = .2555 PSI Water Supply is Sufficient for Fire Flow to Building Pag e 3 of 3 11/'-1. KIM 13"01 72'562ti FIJBLIC UTILITIES PAGE 67 1 FLOW Tas F & dLzARwATE;�' Vg .TER DEPARTMENT FE FYfA&T a., 0 F f psi; C), to t��a - LR�EAI 6U LL. Fot Gr ��, , . - _ _ P ;--i - car � -a �_ � r. YD vv FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ATLAS # 285A ZONING: T LAND USE: RFH RECEIVED: 12/01/2008 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: - MAPS: PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: DRC: CDB: N CLWCoverSheet .-f` . 'l. . Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 8.16 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations Wayne Per our meeting yesterday here is where I think we should be. We can discuss all of this with Michael on the 27`" As you will see below, Shephard's will be conforming in every way so that is not the issue. What we need to talk to Michael about is how future buildings are required to add parking that results in losing units from the reserve (double- dipping). Proposed.Building GSF = ,227,148 (I did not include the outside bar or the outdoor covered area, as shown on the square foot tabulation you and I reviewed) L. ,Fitness Center - 1,923 square feet 2. Multifunction rooms - 5,933 square feet °- 3. .Meeting Space - 3,376 square feet �- 4: Stairs - 11,055 square feet ,. 5. Elevators - 4,953 square feet 6. Balconies - 17,991 0,030 ,r 7.. Garage - 56698 227,148 less.all of the above gives us a GFA ='J2-5-,2f9* square feet Accessory use in,this building = 11,232 square feet or 8 %. Density Calculations for the entire site are: "137 acres x 50 =I 18 units' 2.37 x 150 = 355 but a max "ask" for density is 100 118 + 100 = 218 = 91.98 units per acre Total GFA is 172,912 Proposed accessory use is 22,258 square feet Balance over 10% = 5237 square feet Land GSF = 103,237 - 4237 = 98000 divided by 43,560 = 2.24 x 91.98 units per acre = 206 units. 2.27 acres x 50 = 113. 206 allowable units less 113 units = 93 units that Shephard's could ask for and we are asking for 68. Calculations for the old building that we are not touching: 94,243 square feet (not including balconies, elevators or stairwells). The garage is 46,553 square feet leaving 47,690 square feet as GFA. As to the "old building the accessory use numbers are as follows: 1. The restaurant and inside bar area total 6,840 sq feet 2. The Wave Hotel Lounge and Bar totals 3600 square feet. 3. There is an 800 foot gift shop in the existing garage 1 Total Accessory use = 11,240 square feet. Total square GFA for both buildings = 125,219 + 47,690 = 172,909 sq. feet. Total accessory use = 22,528 square feet. (12.8 %) Amount over 10% = 5,237 sq. ft. Parking increase required for over 10% = 5,237 square feet. Using the highest requirement of 10 per 1000 square feet = 52 additional spots required. , Therefore the calculation is 186 units x 1.2 = 223 spots + 52 additional spots making the requirement 275 spots (1.4 spots per unit required) where we now have 400 spots (which include 16 cars that can be stacked in the driveway awaiting valet service as shown on the submitted plans, see sheet A -11) = 2.15 spots per unit. (As a note, the actual striped spots not including overflow or out front stacking = 314 spots or 1.6 spots per unit). §lh'� w� PIANNIN'G & DEVELOPNIENI . y �l CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWAIER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH M}RTIEAVLNLE, CLEARWAIER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAX (727) 562 -4865 November 3, 2010 Mr. Joe Burdette 618 Pmeland Avenue Belleair, FL 33756 RE: FLD2008 -12033 — 619 South Gulfview Boulevard Time Extension Development Order Dear Mr. Burdette: On November 17, 2009, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved the above application with 14 conditions for (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2 37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building), 6 5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory budding) and 15 44 feet (to proposed building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (tc: existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing /proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet -only in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C, and (2) Increase of the permitted' density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. Section 4 -407 of the Community Development Code requires the application for a building permit within one year of the date the CDB approved the request (November 17, 2010). This same Section allows an extension of time to initiate a building permit, provided good cause is shown and documented in writing within the original period of validity. The Planning Director may also consider whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved Code amendments that would significantly affect the project. On October 28, 2010, you submitted a request for a one -year time extension to apply for a building permit to construct the improvements on this parcel. Your letter cited the problems of the slow market conditions that are also affected by tighter construction lending and tourism issues related to the BP oil spill. This proposal was submitted prior to the adoption of Code amendments for overnight accommodations The Code has been amended in the following that affect this project: November 3, 2010 Burdette — Page Two 1 Based on Code amendments for hotels and related to the Hotel Density Reserve, when the percentage of accessory uses exceed 15 percent of the hotel gross floor area, the accessory uses must be treated as primary uses for calculation of density/intensity. This application was approved with accessory uses representing 19.94 percent of the overall hotel gross floor area. Under a mixed use calculation, when subtracting the accessory use square footage from the original lot area square footage zoned Tourist District to recalculate the net lot acreage for calculating allowable density, the maximum base density is 75 rooms The maximum number of rooms available when the lot acreage is less than 2 5 acres is 100 rooms Therefore, the maximum number of rooms complying with the Hotel Density Reserve provisions is 175 rooms (75 + 100). This application was approved for 186 rooms. Since this application was submitted prior to the Code amendments moderating hotel densities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to number of rooms. This determination does not prevent the allocation of the 68 rooms requested. 2. The required parking ratio for overnight accommodations was amended to 1.2 parking spaces per unit. At this new parking ratio, 223 parking spaces would be required From an amenities standpoint accessory to the hotel, based on current Code provisions, when the percentage of accessory uses exceed 15 percent of the overall hotel gross floor area, parking for all uses must be calculated separately Based on the accessory uses being 19.94 percent, the recalculated required parking to be 522 spaces This application was approved providing a total of 384 parking spaces Since this application was submitted prior to some of the Code amendments moderating hotel densities and intensities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to the number of parking spaces provided. In considering the above changes to the Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 -407 of the Community Development Code, i APPROVE a six -month time extension to May 17 2011, to submit an application for a building permit to construct the site improvements on the property at 619 South Gulfview Boulevard. In the event you are unable to proceed with the project by submitting for the building permit, the CDB may approve one additional extension of time to initiate a building permit application Such extension shall not exceed one year, shall be for the project originally approved (or as approved through the Minor Revision process) and shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing The CDB must receive the request for this extension within the time frame granted by the Planning Director (period of validity after the original extension approved by the Planning Director, which means that any time extension request must be submitted with sufficient lead time to be placed on the CDB agenda that precedes the above expiration date). Good causes may include, but are not limited to, an unexpected national crisis (acts of war, significant downturn in the national economy, etc ), excessive weather - related delays, and the like The CDB may also consider these same Code amendments enumerated above, whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are additional pending or approved Code amendments that would further significantly affect the project Please be aware that 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 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. November 3, 2010 Burdette — Page Three If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M Wells, AICP, Planner III at 727 -562 -4504 Sincerely, Michae Del CP Planning and Development Director S IPlanncrzg DeportrrrervlC D BIFLEX (FLD)Ibmcnve or Fuieshed AppltcattortslGulfview S 0619 Slrephards (T) 2009 11 -Approved - WWIGtdfvtew S 0619 Time Extension Development Order 113 10 doe Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 5.01 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette Re, Shephard's Beach Resort Michael — I have looked at the Regular and Consent Agendas for the November 17, 2009, CDB meeting and there is no reference in the Request for a two -year Development Order for this project. I have also looked in the file under all application material, even specifically "their" request, and all letters and emails between Joe and their consultants with the City and I do not find any request for a two -year Development Order. The Staff Report and the Development Order do not reference as part of the Request any two -year Development Order. So, I do not find any error for this application. They did not include such in their request and therefore were granted what the Code sets forth, which is a one -year time frame to apply for a building permit or request a time extension. Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:18 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Joe Burdette Re: Shephard's Beach Resort Wayne — Is this an error? From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:23 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette Re: Shephard's Beach Resort Michael Re: FLD 2008 -1203 ( Shephard's Beach Resort) I was in today and discovered a problem with the above referenced DO for Shephard's. At the CDB last year our request was for a 2 -year development order and the development order reads we only have 1 -year to apply for permit (which would be November 17). As this was approved on the Consent Agenda it should have been a 2 -year DO and I think it is just a typo and should read November 17, 2011. My first request is that this be changed to reflect a 2 -year DO and not a 1 -year DO. Just in case, I will send in a separate email a request for an administrative 1 -year extension, but would prefer that the DO be changed to reflect the 2 -year extension that was requested. Let me know if there are any problems and thanks in advance for your help Joe Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4.17 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE, Joe Burdette Re Shephard's Beach Resort Extension Request Wayne — Pursuant to verification of meeting the requirements of the CDC and no impacting code changes, I will grant a one year extension as requested. i(i�l From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:25 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette Re: Shephard's Beach Resort Extension Request Mr. Michael Delk Planning Director City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida, 33756 Re: Shepherd's Beach Resort FLD2008 -12033 (Related to DVA2008- 00002) I _ Dear Mike Please accept this letter as our request for a 1 -year extension for the above referenced Development Order for Shephard's Beach Resort, Clearwater Beach This request is based on the land development code section 4.04 and the specific criteria for our request is as follows: 1. Market conditions have slowed completely. Construction lenders are not making any funding available for hotels in this area and there does not appear to be any forthcoming in the near future. 2. The troubles of the past year (extremely cold winter and the perceived problems with the BP oil spill) have severely cut tourism in the area and consequently revenues. Should you require any additional information, please contact me and I will see that you receive whatever information you may require. Thank you for your help in this matter. Joe Burdette Agent for Shephard's Beach Resort CITY OF C L E A R W A T E R 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 PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 30, 2009 Alex Azan Keith Zayac & Associates P O. Box 1156 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 RE: Development Order — Case No. FLD2008 -12033 (Related to DVA2008- 00002) 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Dear Mr. Azan. This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4- 206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On November 17, 2009, the Community Development Board reviewed your request for (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory ),midinol and 15.44 feet (to nronnsed building and derkinu) a side (wect) cethark nf?ern feet (to exictino building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing /proposed patio 'decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet -only in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C, and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. The Community Development Board (CDB) APPROVED the application with the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval: Findings of Fact: 1. The 2 689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District, 0 319 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive; 2. The site is comprised of two parcels, 3 The proposal is to construct a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 78 48' rooms /acre, which includes the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design; 4 A companion Development Agreement (DVA2008- 00002) that must be approved by City Council is also on this CDB agenda is, providing for the allocation of the 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve; "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" November 30, 2009 Azan — Page 2 5. The proposal includes retaining the existing parking garage, restaurant, nightclub and 46 hotel rooms in the existing buildings on the western portion of the site, 6. The proposal includes the construction of a new building on the east side of the property with 140 hotel rooms at a height of 134 feet (to the top of the flat roof deck) 7 This proposal complies with the maximum building height allowable under Beach by Design and with approved and existing buildings between S Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico; 8. On -site parking will be increased through the construction of a garage in the new building with 164 total parking spaces, in addition to the 220 parking spaces in the existing parking garage, for a total of 384 parking spaces; 9. The proposal includes setback reductions from all property lines; 10 Since this proposal was submitted prior to the Code amendments moderating hotel densities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to number of rooms; 11. Since this proposal was submitted prior to some of the Code amendments moderating hotel densities and intensities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming due to the number of parking spaces provided; and 12. There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property Conclusions of Law: 1 That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2 -801.1 and 2 -803 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2 -803.0 of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as Per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development Agreement with the City (Case DVA2008- 00002); 2. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits; the owner shall request the two existing parcels be combined into one parcel by the Pinellas County Property Appraisers office; 3. That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 4. That the freestanding sign be a monument -style sign, be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program. All attached signage shall meet Code requirements, including the signage indicated as part of the water feature, 5. That landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing or proposed parking garages be not trimmed to create any signage, unless such 1s approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program; 6. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant demonstrate the proposed stormwater vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on a double ring infiltration test result; 7. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the overhead door presently proposed on the northeast side of the new building be eliminated, or relocated closer to the beach area and be reduced November 30, 2009 Azan — Page 3 in size to not exceed 12 feet in width and height and the storage location of the beach equipment be indicated on all appropriate plans, 8. That the cabanas on the ground floor be used for storage only, in compliance with all Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) rules and guidelines for velocity zones. Evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in deed restrictions or like forms, shall be submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; 9 That, should the existing waverunner but be relocated to install the drainage pipes in accordance with the submitted plans, this structure be brought into compliance with FEMA regulations; 10. That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building, the existing carport- type structure on the west side of the existing building be trimmed back to the west property line, with documentation provided to the Planning and Development Department; 11. That the books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with the Hotel Density Reserve criteria of Beach by Design as allowed by general law; 12. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 13. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 14. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and the Fire Departments be addressed. Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval (November 17, 2010). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the initial building permit. The building_ permit must be obtained within six months of the initial permit application. This timeframe to obtain the initial building permit may be extended for an additional six months for cause by the Community Development (-nnrrlmatnr Times f"mpc tan not rhnnaP with cnrrPCCiyP nwzmPrc The Cnmmiinity T)ayalnnmant Coordinator may grant an extension of time for the Flexible Development approval for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. 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 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. Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Section 4 -502.13 by the applicant or by any person granted party status within 14 days of the date of the CDB meeting. The filing of an application /notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on December 1, 2009 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, Planner 1I1, at 727 -562 -4504 You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website. www mrclearwater cone: iio%,,debts-plannm November 30, 2009 Azan — Page 4 Sincerely, Michael De , AICP Planning Director S IPlanntng Depat tntentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)Ilnactive of Finished AppltcanonslGttlfvtew S 0619 Shephntds (T) 2009 11 - Approved - WWGWfvtew S 0619 FLD Development Otder 1/ 30 09 doc Wells, Wayne From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne; Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Shephard's - TDR There was a TDR application filed in 11/08 which I am assuming is not going forward. I believe that there should be mention of the TDR'd units, if not in the advertised request in the Staff Report discussion. FYI, Pam and I had a brief discussion of whether the proposed amendment to Section 4.2.7.3.3 of the Countywide Rules may affect the application in that it prohibits density averaging or clustering from existing developed property. From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:21 PM To: Clayton, Gina; Dougall- Sides, Leslie Subject: Shephard's - TDR With the CDB ad due to the Clerk's office this Friday, I need to know if the request needs to include the density units already transferred to this site, even though they are not using them. Could you please advise? 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 Oct 26 09 01:53p r r [Street Address] [City. ST Zip Code] [phone] [fax] [Web address] Joe T dette Fiqx TM Wayne Wells Fa= 562 -4576 458452P p.1 From" Joe Burdette Phone: Date.- Re: a: ❑ Urgent D For Review O Pft"e Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle ♦ Comments: Select this text and delete d or replace It with your own. To save changes to this template for future use, choose Save As from the File menu. In the Save As Type box, choose Document Template. Next time you want to use it choose New from the File menu, and then double - click your template. Wayne, Here is all the information I have on the building at Shephard' s as it sits now. r d31yMbtl3�0 �p S3�IAb381N Oct 2G 09 01:54p Joe dette 458452r p.2 LAND USE DATA requirec EXISTIN� PROPOSED. MIN or MAX ^-R- 28 A ALL011ED iO3 0G1 -;a AT SANE ONE Nirt area lv'm wS 5% me, for fmiN, An— C' 'SEE a"- +�q ^,3.190 r- F :23%, 2 143%t IAXI Merlsjors QI site ; 'ar Z 5 rN A0 8r, !mzx, ur Aro 'opi C, A 54ue F '21%) 'ib 2F, 9 3 '1 S I -ro' lie "ort 6ard !s I tid or 981 cc 8,120 SF Wa Y 'r'C' Lir j �.mmOer 6frpr; "c 3 fMIN! and areas a:x• deDict on ste piam =wnq by 3 3b 11 =i' rl TA Cdi (SEE 5ELOLU, ')ENSI'rv/�N'75 EXIS-ING UN17S -0 BE CO'iBINED ;,N70 X :123; -X1557INC, UNI-5 TO -CONVERTED TO NON "I NON REDUCTION T f .13 NET OF EXi571NG U41T5. 4 NUMBER OF NEW UNITS, 10 T07AL NUMBER OF GUEST ROOMS AA No eel P,<< N C-. T A -3,.L A T! 0 N 1 .' J�17 = ';4 VARIANCE 5 Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 1.31 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael; hsc @clw.macfar.com; paul @shephards.com, og @garciaarchitect.com, dk @garciaarchitect.com; bill @shephards.com Subject: Joe Burdette - Acceptance of All Conditions for FLD 2008 -1203 incl. #14 Wayne After Bill Shephard's conversation with the architects, they have decided to accept all of the conditions of approval of FLD 2008 -12033 including #14 which they previously objected to. Joe Watkins, Sherry From: Kathy O'Hearn [KOH @macfar.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:18 PM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE• CDB Agenda November 17, 2009 Sherry: Regarding 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard [Shephard's] — Harry said client consented to all conditions; he said possibly check w /Wayne. Thanks for all your help. Kathy Kathleen A. O Hearn Legal Assistant to Harry S. Cline Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court Street, Suite 200 Clearwater, FL 33756 Office: (727) 441 -8966 FAX: (727) 442 -8470 E -mail: koh(a-macfar.com Please visit www.mfmlegal.com for more information about our Firm MACFARLAiNE FLzRGUSON & MCMULLEN Aitorrtr;ts & Counselors At Law This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or distribution of this communication to other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by collect telephone at (813) 273 -4200 or electronic mail (info ()mfmlegal com) Thank you IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Any tax advice in this communication is not intended or written by Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen to be used, and cannot be used, by a client or any other person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or other matter addressed herein. Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol com Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:54 PM To: Wells, Wayne; hsc @clw.macfar.com Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's FLD 2008 -12033 Conditions Wayne and Harry Re: FLD 2008 -12033 Shephard's is in agreement with all the conditons for approval for the CDB meeting on Tuesday, EXCEPT for Condition #14 narrowing the side exit door to 12 feet. Shephard's reason is, that, when he needs to get vehicles (up to the size of a regular- dump,.truck)outtto the, back of.. his property in order to clean up the beach and his back area (particularly after storms) he has no way to do so without asking his neighbor (the Econo Lodge) for permission to go across their property and the owner of the Econo Lodge can be a very difficult person to deal with. Shephard simply wants the ability to get to the back of his property with the equipment needed to clean up the beach and do regular maintenance without having to go on his neighbor's property. Some of the larger vehicles he may need (a dump truck for instance) can not go through a 12 foot wide door and make the turn to go to the back of Shephards due to the short turn radius a.12 foot door allows and 20 feet is what is needed according to our architects. We will be prepared to have our architects present this to the CDB on Tuesday. They have also informed me that there is room to do all of this and still maintain the landscaping. As this door is -on the side of the building and not even facing South Gulfview (so it cannot not be seen anyway), I really wish we could work this out and allow the 20 feet prior to -the CDB meeting, but if this is - • something the Planning Department is "dug in on," then we will have to present our case to the CDB Board on Tuesday. Joe Burdette Wells, Wayne From: Harry Cline [HSC @macfar com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 11.31 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd (Shepherd's) Wayne — can you give me a call today? All conditions ok, w possible exception re #14. Not objecting as such but would at least like to discuss. Thanks. - hsc From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 11:02 AM To: alex @keithzayac.com Cc: Harry Cline; jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. ( Shephard's) Alex — In sending you the Staff Report for the above referenced application, I forgot to mention that I need to know by noon on Monday, November 16th, whether the conditions-of approval are acceptable or not. Thanks. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City, of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue ti Clearwater, FL '33756 -5520 Phone- 727 -562 -4504' - Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 1 Education Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering From the University of South Florida Bachelor of Science in Engineering (Materials Science and Engineering) From the University of Florida Professional Affiliations American Society of Civil Engineers Florida Engineering Society Florida Professional Engineer Registration No. 55525 Alex Azan, PE Senior Project Manager Alex has over 12 years experience in several broad areas of civil engineering. His varied background includes project design/engineering, site and roadway design, extensive knowledge of engineering software implementation, consent order resolution, peer review, sewage collection and water distribution system design, permitting, client representation regarding zoning/land use, DRts, working together with legal counsel to resolve project challenges, assembling and managing professional teams regarding large and complex projects, storm water analysis problem solving for landfills, large mixed used residential subdivisions — all within both the private and public sectors. Alex also speaks Spanish fluently. Alex has served as project manager on numerous commercial /retail /office /residential developments, entertainment facilities, residential communities, educational facilities, and municipal projects throughout the state of Florida. Additionally, Alex has served as the development manager for several large -scale residential /mixed -use communities (CDDs) which involved extensive local government interactiontnegotiations, professional proposal presentations, multi- million dollar budgets, and integration of existing environmentally sensitive areas. He has also served as vice president of Community Development Districts, Managing Member of Home Owner/Master Associations, and essentially is experienced in all other aspects related to development, including but not limited to contract negotiations, construction management, contractor selection, and value engineering. Representative Project Experience Commercial/Mixed -Use Developments/Residential • Clark and Daughtry Medical Clinic; Lakeland, Florida • Mariner Estates; Hernando County • Broedell Plumbing Supply; Pasco County, Florida • Florida Construction Office Building; Dunedin, Florida • Komara Dental Office; Dunedin, Florida • Bridgewater•, Lakeland, Florida • Riviera Dunes; Palmetto, Florida • The Banyans Townhomes; Tarpon Springs, Florida • Callista Cay Townhomes; Tarpon Springs, Florida • Briarwood Estates; Safety Harbor, Florida • Hemingway Townhomes; Tampa, Florida • Grand Hampton; New Tampa, Florida • Southland Corporation; Florida (state wide) • State Farm Insurance: Largo, Florida • Aqualea resort; Clearwater, Florida • Hard Rock Hotel & casino; Tampa, Florida • Hard Rock Hotel & Casino; Hollywood, Florida Municipal & Educational • Lena Road Landfill; Manatee County, Florida • Everglades City Reclaimed Water System; Everglades City, Florida • Tampa International Airport Fire Station; Tampa, Florida • Bellaire Beach Community Center; Bellaire, Florida • Eisenhower Elementary School Addition; Clearwater, Florida • Curlew Creek Elementary School • Azalea Elementary School • Oldsmar Elementary School Addition; Oldsmar, Florida • St. Petersburg College; St. Petersburg, Florida • Homosassa Elementary School; Homosassa, Florida • Espiritu Santo Catholic School: Safety Harbor, Florida Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 11:02 AM To: 'alex @keithzayac.com' Cc: hsc @macfar.com; jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shephard's) Alex — In sending you the Staff Report for the above referenced application, I forgot to mention that I need to know by noon on Monday, November 16`h, whether the conditions of approval are acceptable or not. 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 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:36 AM To: 'alex @keithzayac.com' Subject: FLD2008- 12033/DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shephard's) Just making sure you got this, as I may have had the email address wrong. From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:07 AM To: 'alex @keithzayac.com'; hsc @macfar.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033/DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shephard's) Alex /Harry — Attached are the Staff Reports for the above referenced FLD and DVA applications. The CDB meeting is at 1:00 pm on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater. 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 I Gulfview S Gulfview S 9 FLD,Staff ReF9 DVA Staff Rel Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:07 AM To: 'alex @keithzayac com ; hsc @macfar com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033/DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shepherd's) Alex /Harry – Attached are the Staff Reports for the above referenced FLD and DVA applications. The CDB meeting is at 1:00 pm on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater. 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 ffl—M IN Gulfview S Gulfview S 9 FLD Staff ReI9 DVA Staff Rel Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2.39 PM To: 'alex @keithzayac com' Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com; hsc @macfar.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Alex - Attached is the CDB letter for the above referenced project, to be reviewed by the CDB on November 17, 2009. The original letter is being mailed. 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 Gulfview S 9 FLD CDB Lett PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 MUNIcLPAL SERvicES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLEAvENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAx (727) 562 -4865 October 27, 2009 Alex Azan Keith Zayac & Associates P.O. Box 1156 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Re: Community Development Board Meeting (Case Nos. FLD2008- 12033) Dear Mr. Azan: You have filed Case No. FLD2008 -12033 for property located generally at 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard for (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing /proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet -only in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. This case has been scheduled for review by the Community Development Board on November 17, 2009. The meeting will take place at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 3 floor of City Hall at 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 727 -562- 4504. Sincerely, t� � M w� Wayn M Wells, AICP Planner III S Wlanntng DepartntentIC D BIFLEX (FLD) Wending cases Up for the nest CDBI Gtdfvtetiv S 0619 Shephards (T) 2009 Or - 11 17 09 CDB - WWIGulfvteiv S 0619 FLD CDB Letter 10 27 09 doc 1i. 'W "EQuAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Wells, Wayne From: Alex azan [Alex @keithzayac com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:15 AM To: Wells, Wayne, nchard @keithzayac com Cc: Watkins, Sherry; sheryl @keithzayac.com Subject: RE: FLD2008 -12033 - 619 South Gulfview Boulevard Wayne. you are correct on all counts, except, please continue to use our original office phone no of 727 793 9888 Thank you, Alex L. Azan, P.E. 813.205.3615 Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 1156 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 PS - you work on Sundays..... too? From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:55 PM To: alex @keithzayac.com; richard @keithzayac.com Cc: Sherry.Watkins @myClearwater.com Subject: FLD2008 -12033 - 619 South Gulfview Boulevard Alex /Richard — The first page of this application for Shephard's indicates Keith Zayac as the agent. Should this,change to Alex Azan, Keith Zayac & Associates? Also, should your address for this application indicate P.O. Box 1156, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 or your office location at 1400163 rd Way N, Clearwater., FL 33760? Should I use Alex's phone number of 813 - 205 -3615 and Alex's email of alex@keithzayac com? This first page of the application should be changed in all packages to reflect all appropriate changes. 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 1 Wells, Wayne To: Hunraf @aol.com Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations Joe — I appreciate your comments regarding timing. As you are aware, Shephards is not my only large project on the beach and I have deadlines to meet. My fax number is 562 -4865. 1 will place in the newspaper advertisement what I think is correct. I would appreciate help from you, but if that is not possible, then I need to move forward with the information for the newspaper advertisement that I think is correct. As to the particular information requested: a. The Wave lounge square footage would need to include the restrooms which are located within the lounge and include the mezzanine; b. As to the meeting rooms in the existing building, plans indicate them as "existing meeting" rooms and staff is unaware of any proposed changes to that indicated on the plans Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:42 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Re: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations My comments in Red. ti,Vith all due respect. vN e have been trying to work through this approN al since last April and these questions you are sending and the response time you have given is not only not fair, most of the questions are pertaining to a new ordinance that does not apply to Shephards so why would they need to be advertised . If Shephard's ends up 11011- conforming (which it will not) then so be it. In a message dated 10/25/2009 3:27:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com writes: Joe — i need Monday morning the following numbers confirmed by the architect or revised numbers provided, as I need such for advertising of the request: We have no architect for the old building. l Will IaX you the last Land Use Data Shect I have that was used in our last variance request in 1999. Plcase send me your fax number. 1. 1 Existing Wave Nightclub — does the 3,600 square feet include the restrooms attached to it and the mezzanine ?; 1 I am told by Shephards it does not ]._rude the bathrooms or the ha]Iwa_y whit— consists of about 400 square feet. 2. 1 Existing restaurant and bar – does the 6,840 square feet include the restrooms attached to it and the kitchen ?; It does 3. 1 Provide the square footages of the existing meeting rooms on the Level 200 of the existing building; This is no longer being used as a meeting,! room and is bein- used as storage. "There is only a conference room on that floor that for the sole use of the management along with the offices on that floor. All meeting space will be in the new building 4. IProvide the proposed /existing tiki bar (south of the proposed pool) interior floor area of the kitchen, storage snack bar and restrooms (no square footage provided); I have no idea. There is a small kitchen (150 sq feet or so) and a men's and women's bathroom of approximately 400 square feet. As outside uses are not subject to the new ordinance. I dbn't,see the need for this. It has never hcen asked for until now. 5. IProvide the square footage of the jet ski building; 75 square feet or so. Again I don't understand the need for the question? 6. (Provide the proposed floor area of Level 500 in the new building (table on Sheet A -11 indicates this floor to have 20,576 square feet), not including the stairs and elevators (all other area counts as accessory use area); Will have architects Respond 7. 1Proposed spa on Level 1400 - you indicate 1,923 square feet, but the plan indicates 1,300 sf spa + 540 sf exercise + kitchen /storage room (need the square footage of this room). Unclear if your square footage number includes that indicted. Will have architects Respond. ,Again, I see no reason for most of this to be advertised as we are ]lot subject to the new ordinance. I was told this w-asjust to see internally if Shephard's would be non- conformin�(f after approval due to the new ordinance. 7 We will need to discuss all of your cai, itions later as to accessory uses and park. „ requirements, which will need to be added to the application package. Why? We have been told we are not subject to the new- ordinance and same: response as above. I have no problem figuring it out for informational purposes, but if Shephard's ends up non - conforming (which it will not) then so be it. I1 -the building ever blew down we would not build back the same building anyNN ay. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 8:16 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations Wayne Per our meeting yesterday here is where I think we should be. We can discuss all of this with Michael on the 27`h. As you will see below, Shephard's will be conforming in every, way so that is•not the issue. What we need to talk to Michael about is how future buildings are required to add parking that results in losing units from the reserve (double- dipping). Proposed Building GSF = 227,148 (I did not include the outside bar or the outdoor covered area as shown on the square foot tabulation you and I reviewed) 1 Fitness Center— 1,923 square feet 2. Multifunction rooms — 5,933 square feet 3. Meeting Space — 3,376 square feet 4. Stairs - 11,055 square feet 5. Elevators — 4,953 square feet 6. Balconies — 17,991 7. Garage — 56,698 227,148 less all of the above gives us a GFA = 125,219 square feet Accessory use in this building = 11,232 square feet or 8 %. 3 . t Density Calculations for the enti► _ mite are: 2.37 acres x 50= 118 units 2.37 x 150 = 355 but a max "ask" for density is 100 118 + 100 = 218 = 91.98 units per acre Total GFA is 172,912 Proposed accessory use is 22,258 square feet Balance over 10% = 5237 square feet Land GSF = 103,237 — 4237 = 98000 divided by 43,560 = 2.24 x 91.98 units per acre = 206 units.. 2.27 acres x 50 = 113. 206 allowable units less 113 units = 93 units that Shephard's could ask for and we are asking for 68. Calculations for the old building that we are not touching: 94,243 square-feet (not including balconies, elevators or stairwells). The garage is- 46,553 square feet leaving 47,690 square feet as GFA. As to the "old building the accessory use numbers are as follows: 1. The restaurant and inside bar area total 6,840 sq feet 2. The Wave Hotel Lounge and Bar totals 3600 square feet. 3. There is an 800 foot gift shop in the existing garage Total Accessory use = 11,240 square feet. Total square GFA for both buildings = 125,219 + 47,690 = 172,909 sq. feet. Total accessory use = 22,528 square feet. (12.8 %) Amount over 10% = 5,237 sq. ft. 4 J, Parking increase required for ove. J% = 5,237 square feet. Using the higi, requirement of 10 per 1000 square feet = 52 additional spots required. Therefore the calculation is 186 units x 1.2 = 223 spots + 52 additional spots making the requirement 275 spots (1.4 spots per unit required) where we now have 400 spots (which include 16 cars that can be stacked in the driveway awaiting valet service as shown on the submitted plans, see sheet A -11) = 2.15 spots per unit. (As a note, the actual striped spots not including overflow or out front stacking = 314 spots or 1.6 spots per unit). 5 Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol com Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1 3,1 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Fwd Joe B Re. Shephard's Calculations From q @garciaarchitect com To Hunraf @aol com CC og @garciaarchitect com, paul @shephards com, dk @garciaarchitect com Sent 10/26/2009 10 54.24 A M Eastern Daylight Time Subs RE Joe B Re Shephard &apos,s Calculations Provide the proposed floor area of Level 500 in the new building (table on Sheet A -11 indicates this floor to have 20,576 square feet), not including the stairs and elevators (all other area counts as accessory use area); Response: 18,498 sf without stairs and elevators Proposed spa on Level 1400 - you indicate 1,923 square feet, but the plan indicates 1,300 sf spa + 540 sf exercise + kitchen /storage room (need the square footage of this room). Unclear if your square footage number includes that indicted. 1,923 SF is correct and is measured to exterior walls, the breakdown is also correct because it is measured to interior; however the kitchen /storage is an additional 200 SF measured to interior walls. r Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1 30 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Shephards New Building Fwd- Square Footage Tabulation 100509 -1.xls Attachments: SquareFootageTabulationl00509 -1.xls From. dk @garciaarchitect.com To: Hunraf @aol com CC- og @garciaarchitect.com, q @garciaarchitect.com Sent: 10/26/2009 1045:44 A M. Eastern Daylight Time Subs. Square Footage Tabulation 100509 -1.xls Joe, have highlighted the square footage tabulation for the fifth floor and roof. The fifth floor did include stairs. Please see attached. Daniel 1 Shephard's Beach Resort Square Footage Tabulation 10/26/2009 New Hotel Tower Level 100 Level 200 Level 300 Level 400 ;Level 500 Level 600 Level 700 Level 800 Level 900 Level 1000 Level 1100 Level 1200L'ev�el 1400 1E:3�„s_ ate: Totals Keys per Floor 0 0 0 0 0; 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 lom-,O 140 Parking ICU , ` Regular 9 36 36 42 "I"IftOWIX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , iir0w , 123 Overflow 6 11 13 10 �0 -rr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14MOMW 40 Handicapped 1 0 0 0 0-°" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v, ^, o =` 1 Total 16 47 49 52 0 o"' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " AWO 164 , � &&-, D=W Guest Rooms A/C 0 0 0 0 C-, 0-=.,�" 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 9MO 74,648 Corridors 0 0 0 0 -r6 °716 = 2,016 2,078 2,078 2,078 2,078 2,078 2,078 .r, %8139Na 21,013 Mechanical 0 0 0 0 "' "OAS 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 mtli, "01 ' 1,120 BOH 192 0 192 192 192,ITZ 192 449 449 449 449 449 449 NO 677 i 4,331 Vending 316 0 0 - 0 �;.,0- .':'s` „;�. 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 Wm, 0- 1,044 Stairs 1,313 2,024 1,380 1,510 m _1 473,1-t4 690 374 374 374 374 374 374 371,E � 11,005 Elevators 381 381 381 381 Fi, 381UNa 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 x`381 't' "' - 4,953 Balconies 0 0 0 0 R, 224XVU' j 6,831 2,361 2,361 2,361 2,361 1,250 1,250 0 18,999 Food Staging 0 0 0 0 R, 1 955 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mW 0 -= 1,955 Rest Rooms 0 0 0 0= °- 956„x. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722-.:.x,, 1,678 Fitness 0 0 0 0 OTM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 1 °923 " 1,923 Bar 0 0 0 0 ;Offim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . -11940, 194 Pool Deck 0 0 0 0 OEM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ',mA;817W 1 9,817 Multi-Function 0 0 0 0 "'- 36'93. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offo 5,933 Meeting 0 0 0 0 -- 3,746W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9ii Pr; v-0 - 3,746 Housekeeping 0 0 0 2,242 ' 41SO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '00' 2,242 Water Pumps 0 0 0 518 111,90005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All 11 518 Storage 588 0 420 420 �offm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4„;;, Ok, r 1,428 Parkin(Excluding Ramp at 4th Floor 11,299 15,773 16,042 13,584 _ --.�-- WMW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :90--WA 56,698 Electric 0 0 775 0 -=OZMa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,„,a,;, C, -Z 775 Generator 0 0 772 0 'a,x Ofvl- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AW 01PI, % 772 Fire Pump 0 0 518 0 ,_ O mt� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �,,,Xw, f4 518 Fire Command 0 518 0 0 =0gvw�,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�d 518 Cover Exterior 3,432 0 0 0 =. 0 1 � 'd'm0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W, ?1p�,0 3,432 Guest Entrance 2,423 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40a;,, 2,423 Pool Equipment 267 0 0 0 ,,.c -0 _,gill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fir,,; ^O V P 267 Total Floor Area A/C & Balcony) 20,211 18,696 20,480 18,847 20 576% 21,038 16,571 16,571 16,571 16,571 15,460 15,460 14;898: 231,950 Total Building Square Footage 231,950 V r Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol com Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 4 42 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Re Joe B Re Shephard's Calculations My comments in Red. With all due respect, we have been trying to work through this approval since last April and these questions you are sending and the response time you have given is not only not fair, most of the questions are pertaining to a new ordinance that does not apply to Shephards so why would they need to be advertised. If Shephard's ends up non - conforming (which it will not) then so be it. In a message dated 10/25/2009 3:27:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com writes: Joe — I need Monday morning the following numbers confirmed by the architect or revised numbers provided, as I need such for advertising of the request: We have no architect for the old building. I will fax you the last Land Use Data Sheet I have that was used in our last variance request in 1999. Please send me your fax number. I. I Existing Wave Nightclub — does the 3,600 square feet include the restrooms attached to it and the mezzanine ?; I am told by Shephards it does not include the bathrooms or the hallway which consists of about 400 square feet. 2. 1 Existing restaurant and bar — does the 6,840 square feet include the restrooms attached to it and the kitchen ?; It does. 3. 1 Provide the square footages of the existing meeting rooms on the Level 200 of the existing building; This is no longer being used as a meeting room and is being used as storage. There is only a conference room on that floor that for the sole use of the management along with the offices on that floor. All meeting space will be in the new building. r, 1 4. IProvide the proposed /existing tiki b, ,south of the proposed pool) interior floor area of the kitchen, storage snack bar and restrooms (no square footage provided); I have no idea. There is a small kitchen (150 sq feet or so) and a men's and women's bathroom of approximately 400 square feet. As outside uses are not subject to the new ordinance. I don't see the need for this. It has never been asked for until now. 5. Provide the square footage of the jet ski building; 75 square feet or so. Again I don't understand the need for the question? 6. Provide the proposed floor area of Level 500 in the new building (table on Sheet A -11 indicates this floor to have 20,576 square feet), not including the stairs and elevators (all other area counts as accessory use area); Will have architects Respond 7. 1Proposed spa on Level 1400 - you indicate 1,923 square feet, but the plan indicates 1,300 sf spa + 540 sf exercise + kitchen /storage room (need the square footage of this room). Unclear if your square footage number includes that indicted. Will have architects Respond. Again, I see no reason for most of this to be advertised as we are not subject to the new ordinance. I was told this was just to see internally if Shephard's would be non - conforming after approval due to the new ordinance. We will need to discuss all of your calculations later as to accessory uses and parking requirements, which will need to be added to the application package. Why? We have been told we are not subject to the new ordinance and same response as above. I have no problem figuring it out for informational purposes, but if Shephard's ends up non - conforming (which it will not) then so be it. If the building ever blew down we would not build back the same building anyway. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 8:16 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations Wayne Per our meeting yesterday here is where I think we should be. �h. We can discuss all of this with Michael on the 27 As you will see below, Shephard's will be conforming in every way so that is not the issue. What we need to talk to Michael about is how future buildings are required to add parking that results in losing units from the reserve (double- dipping). Proposed Building GSF = 227,148 (I did not include the outside bar or the outdoor covered area as shown on the square foot tabulation you and I reviewed) 1 Fitness Center— 1,923 square feet 2 Multifunction rooms — 5,933 square feet 3. Meeting Space — 3,376 square feet 4 Stairs - 11,055 square feet 5 Elevators — 4,953 square feet 6 Balconies — 17,991 7 Garage — 56,698 227,148 less all of the above gives us a GFA = 125,219 square feet Accessory use in this building = 11,232 square feet or 8 %. Density Calculations for the entire site are: 2.37 acres x 50 = 118 units 2.37 x 150 = 355 but a max "ask" for density is 100 118 + 100 = 218 = 91.98 units per acre total GFA is 172,912 'roposed accessory use is 22,258 square feet lalance over 10% = 5237 square feet and GSF = 103,237 — 4237 = 98000 divided by 43,560 = 2.24 x 91.98 units per acre = 206 units 2.27 acres x 50 = 113. 3 . . ^ , 206 allowable units less 113 units = 93 units that Shephard's could ask for and we are asking for 68. Calculations for the old building that we are not touching: 94,243 square feet (not including balconies, elevators or stairwells). The garage is 46,553 square feet leaving 47,690 square feet as GFA. As to the "old building the accessory use numbers are as follows: 1. The restaurant and inside bar area total 6,840 sq feet 2 The Wave Hotel Lounge and Bar totals 3600 square feet. 3 There is an 800 foot gift shop in the existing garage. Total Accessory use = 11,240 square feet. Total square GFA for both buildings = 125,219 + 47,690 = 172,909 sq. feet. Total accessory use = 22,528 square feet. (12.8 %) Amount over 10% = 5,237 sq. ft. Parking increase required for over 10% = 5,237 square feet. Using the highest requirement of 10 per 1000 square feet = 52 additional spots required. Therefore the calculation is 186 units x 1.2 = 223 spots + 52 additional spots making the requirement 275 spots (1.4 spots per unit required) where we now have 400 spots (which include 16 cars that can be stacked in the driveway awaiting valet service as shown on the submitted plans, see sheet A -11) = 2.15 spots per unit. (As a note, the actual striped spots not including overflow or out front stacking = 314 spots or 1.6 spots per unit). Wells, Wayne - From: Doherty, Steve Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3 45 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Rice, Scott; Shoberg, Elliot E , Tefft, Robert Subject: FW. RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING Attachments: image002 gif Wayne, after further consideration of the stormwater Pre CDB conditions for FLD2009 -12033 619 S Gulfview Blvd (Shepherds) we have changed the conditions to be met instead as "prior to the issuance of a building permit ". In accordance with our conversation this afternoon, this message is to request that a Stormwater condition be included in the Staff Report to include a condition of approval as follows: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on a double ring infiltration test result. Thanks for your assistance Wayne. -Steve From: Doherty, Steve Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:28 PM To: Watkins, Sherry; DRC Members Subject:.RE: RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING Please see review status of items below in red. FLD2009 -09035 OX and PLT2009 -00002 Gen Engineering condition NOT MET 109 S McMullen Booth Road DR12009 -00001 O K 430 Park Place Blvd FLD2009 -09036 DOCK O K 300 Hamden Drive FLD2009 -08026 OX and DVA2009 -00002 O K 300 Hamden Drive "A" FLD2009 -08027 OX and DVA2009 -00003 O K 316 Hamden Drive "B" FLD2009 -09033 1225 S Highland Avenue O K FLD2009 -08030 900 N Osceola Ave O K. FLD2009 -12033 619 S Gulfview Blvd Stormwater Pre CDB conditions NOT MET From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:13 AM To: DRC Members Subject: RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the November 17, 2009 CDB meeting: FLD2009 -09035 and PLT2009 -00002 109 S McMullen Booth Road DR12009 -00001 430 Park Place Blvd FLD2009 -09036 DOCK 300 Hamden Drive FLD2009 -08026 and DVA2009 -00002 300 Hamden Drive "A" FLD2009 -08027 and DVA2009 -00003 316 Hamden Drive "B" FLD2009 -09033 1225 S Highland Avenue �:... V FLD2009 -08030 900 N O_ . ola Ave FLD2009 -12033 619 S Gulfview Blvd I have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (please do not take it, as we need it for CDB mail out). 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 cases reviewed, if possible by 12PM, October 22, 2009 Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727- 562 -4582 Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning and Development Department 72/- 562 -4582 October 16,2009 Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner III Planning Department - City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Re: Shephard's Beach Resort Development Review Committee Submittal — Responses Case No.: FLD2008 -12033 Dear Mr. Wells: Enclosed please find our response letter and attached items addressing comments received for Shephards Beach Resort. GENERAL ENINGEERING: 1. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit: 1. A city Right -of -Way permit shall be procured prior to making utility connections in adjacent street right -of -way. Response: A note has been placed on the utility plan as number 20. 2. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove /relocate and/all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) Response: A note has been placed on the demo and utility plans. 3. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and backflow device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow device. Response: A note number 20 has been placed on the utility plan 4. Correct supplied detail to show that dog house manhole will be installed on top of pre -cast or pour -in -place concrete slab. Response: On sheet C7, the doghouse detail has been revised to reflect the above information. 5. Thrust blocks shall not be utilized on unrestricted water lines (mains and fire hydrant leads. Response: Note number 19 has been placed on the utility plan. Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 14001 63rd Way North Clearwater, Fl 33760 Tel 727.488.1002 Email richard@keithzayac.com www.keithzayac.com Oscar I. Garcia, A.I.A. Architect 318 S E. 8th St. Fort Lauderdale Florida 33316 Tel: 954 462 1090 Fax: 954 462.9040 www.garciaarchitect co m FL Lic: AR0012551 USVI Lic 652A Sc Lic 5708 City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 2 of 22 ENVIRONMENTAL: 1. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit: FIRE: 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 — Response does not adequately address condition.) (9/21/2009 — Met) Response: As this condition was met with our 912112009 responses to the DRC comments, no additional action is to be taken at this time. 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the Owner. (4/18/09 — Response does not adequately address condition.) (9/21/2009 — letter not found, please address issue.) Response: An additional copy of the letter that was submitted with the 912112009 DRC comments has been attached to this package for review. Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. 1. This building is deemed to meet the requirements for a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building. Will be 6" DR14 pipe pot 4" DR18 as shown. The fire line for the Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4 -13 -09 The required 2nd FDC is not shown on page C6. The FDC lines standpipe at the rear of property must be tied into the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO CDB. 9/21/2009 Letter dated September 11, 2009 did not meet condition stated on plan, the information would be on the Fire Protection Plan. No Fire Protection Plan provided to show how the fire line for the standpipe at the rear of the property is being tied into the fire pump. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response: A fire protection plan will be submitted for review to Clearwater Fire Department and City of Clearwater Engineering Department at time of building review. 2. Sheet C8 shows a 5" Stortz Connection with a 45 degree downward deflection, Clearwater Fire and Rescue only uses 2 -1/2" Siamese connection as shown in the lower part of the plan. Response: Sheet C8 has been corrected to show a 2 -1/2" Siamese connection. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 3 of 22 HARBOR MASTER: 1. No Issues. LEGAL: 1. No Issues. LAND RESOURCES: 1. No Issues. LANDSCAPING: -KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 1. There is a sewer lift station at the northeast corner of the site within a four -foot high concrete block wall vault. Without impairing maintenance capabilities, install shrubs on the north and west sides to help hide this structure. Response: Additional plant material has been added around the lift station to screen its appearance. PARKS AND RECREATION. 1. The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to the 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. Response: Acknowledged. 2. Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727 -562 -4818 to calculate the assessment. Response: A Textbox callout has been added to sheet C2, stating the above information. STORM WATER: 1. The following shall be addressed prior to Community Development Board: 1. Since the proposed stormwater management system does not have a positive outfall, please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on the double ring infiltration test result. Response: Enclosed please see the revised stormwater narrative which depicts the system recovering in 4.25 hours. 2. Provide a detail of the perforated pipes design and provide assurance in the signed and sealed drainage report stating that the design of these perforated pipes will not create erosion problem to the adjoining property in the future and will provide load support capacity for maintenance activities. Response: The perforated pipes have been eliminated and the grading plan revised. 3. Proposed vault bottom shall be at a minimum of 6" above the seasonal high water level. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 4 of 22 Response: 4. Response: SOLID WASTE: 1. No Issues. Please see revised stormwater narrative. KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 Please tie the proposed 12" deck drain to the vault for treatment before discharge. The roof decks have been revised so that the run -off will enter an inlet and then be conveyed into the control structure. General Note: DRC Review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: 1. General Note(s): Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) Response: A textbox callout has been added to sheet C2. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for a Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Acknowledged PLANNING: 1. 9/28/09 & 6/26/09 — WW Response to General Applicability criteria #4 — Second Sentence — Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot is being removed with this proposal. Response: Please disregard this erroneous response as it is no longer relevant to the submittal. J 2. 9/28/09 - WW Line of tapered fins above have been indicated on Sheet A -11 for the rear fins close to the seawall, but the fin on the front (north) side of the new building is not shown (with a setback dimension) and the fins on the existing stairwell on the NW corner of the existing parking garage are not shown on the north and south sides (with setback dimensions). For the west side of this NW corner of the existing parking garage, Sheet A -20B appears to show the fin starting a certain (non - dimensioned) distance above ground (maybe due to the exit drive on the west side used by delivery and trash truck ?). Sheet A -11 and the elevation sheets need to detail the setback dimensions and the fin starting point on this west side of the existing NW corner of the existing parking. City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 5 of 22 5/5/09 - WW Elevations indicate that the existing stairwells at the northwest corner of the existing parking garage and adjacent to the existing nightclub in the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fins" on the new building with an angled wall projection. With both the stairwells angled "fin" walls in the existing building and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured from the property lines or seawall to the furtherest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site plan needs to indicate the points of these fins and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still need to show the setback from the property lines and seawall to the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building 5/5/09 - WW Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee, and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. Response: The Owner will provide proof of unity of title under separate cover. Official, for seawall setbacks, where a variance to the seawall setbacks under the Building Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report). Response: The information being requested has been added to the plans. The Owner's Attorney will handle the variance request under separate cover. 9/28/09, 5/5/09, & 12/23/08 - WW Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. Response: The Owner accepts the proposed Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 9/29/09 - WW As of 9/27/09, the Property Appraiser still shows two parcels for this overall property (not one as asserted); however, both parcels now reflect the same owner. Still need to combine the two parcels into one parcel. 5/5/09 - WW Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee, and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. Response: The Owner will provide proof of unity of title under separate cover. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 6 of 22 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 SO 9/29/09 & 5/4/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 - WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Response: The Owner accepts as a Condition of Approval the requirements that he will be required to submit a separate signage package for approval and bring all signage into compliance prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6� 9/27/09 & 5/5/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. Response: The Owner accepts as a Condition of Approval the limitation of finishes within the Cabanas to concrete or concrete pavers for the floors, and stucco and paint for the walls. 9/29/09 - WW The criteria and responses need to be part of the application package, just like the General Applicability and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria and responses, not in the response to DRC comments letter from the architect. Additionally, the following comments to specific criteria below is provided: (c.) Provide a calculation as to how you derived the total of 186 rooms, requesting 68 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve. Since under the maximum of 150 rooms /acre, a maximum of 237 rooms would be possible, but such is restricted to a maximum of 100 rooms by Beach by Design. So, how did we land on 68 rooms from the Reserve? (d.) Need to provide a tabulation of the square footages of all interior accessory uses of the hotel (existing and proposed). Need to provide the gross floor area of the hotel (total square footage). Need to indicate the percentage of accessory use square footage (see above) to the gross floor area. If the percentage of accessory uses is less than 10% of the total gross floor area of the existing and proposed buildings (not including parking garages), then no additional parking spaces are required and no reduction to the number of rooms from the Reserve is necessary. With the pending Code amendment for accessory uses for hotels under Ordinance No. 8044 -09, need to address the following: City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 7 of 22 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 Accessory uses located within the building intenor may occupy between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the development, but only when additional parking is provided for that portion of the accessory uses which exceeds 10 %. The required amount of parking shall be calculated by using the minimum off - street parking development standard for the most intensive accessory use(s). Where there is a range of parking standards, the lowest number of spaces allowed shall be used to calculate the additional amount of off - street parking required for the project. In projects where the interior accessory uses exceed 15% of the building gross floor area, all interior accessory uses shall be considered additional primary uses for purposes of calculating development potential and parking requirements. 2. In addition to the requirements above, for those projects that request additional rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design and whose interior accessory uses are between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the proposed building, density shall be calculated as follows: i. Calculate the maximum number of units allowed by the base density; ii. Calculate the maximum number of units that may be allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design; iii. Add the figures determined in i. and ii. to determine the total number of units allowed for the site; iv. Divide the total number of units allowed, as calculated in iii. by the total land area to determine the resulting units per acre for the project site; v. Determine the total floor area of all interior accessory uses exceeding 10% of the gross floor area of the proposed building; vi. Subtract the figure determined in v. from the total land area, and divide this difference by 43,560 to determine the net acreage; vii. Multiply the net acreage derived in vi. by the applicable resulting units per acre figure determined in iv. The resulting product is the maximum number of rooms allowable for the project. viii. The final allocation of rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve shall be determined by multiplying the net acreage determined in vi. by the base density and subtracting this product from the maximum number of rooms allowable for the project as determined in vii. (g.) This criteria regarding building height limitation to TDR (on Page 55 of Beach by Design) is superseded by Section B.1 on Page 64 of Beach by Design that allows building height above 100 feet through use of Hotel Density Reserve units. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 8 of 22 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 5/5/09 - WW Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for a mid -priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a. Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed by general law. Response: The site is 2.37 acres which would allow 237 units on the site. The building that will remain has 46 units and the new proposed building will have 140 units. We are simply only asking for 68 units from the reserve as Shephard's feels that he can maintain his present 72% year around occupancy with that number of rooms. It was a business decision. 48. 9/29/09 - WW Only the fins on the south side adjacent to the seawall were detailed (see also other Planning comments relating to the same issue). Need to show the fin projection on the front of the new building and those fin projections to be added to the stair tower for the existing parking garage, including the proposed setback to property lines (Sheets A -11, A -21 and A -21B). 4/30/09 - WW After further review of the plans and discussion with Planning Management and the Building Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and/or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fins on the building must be projected to the ground and the setback to that point indicated. These setbacks to property lines and/or seawall are what will be advertised (a variance to the seawall setback will be required by the Building Official). Response: Attached please find the revised Sheets A -11, A -21 and A -21B showing the fin projection on the front of the new building and those fin projections to be added to the stair tower for the existing parking garage, including the proposed setback to property lines. �9 9/29/09 & 5/5/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/6/09 - WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 9 of 22 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. Response: The Owner agrees as a condition of approval that the landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage will not be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the fagade. 9/29/09 - WW Will need to have further discussions with the Assistant City Attorney regarding TDRs. 7/5/09 - WW- I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments: 1. 665 Bay Esplanade - a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du/acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. - a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 10 of 22 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du/acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312 -317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 5/6/09 - WW I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read "Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to the Sending Property in perpetuity." Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and how to resolve issues. f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b - e above be cleared up before this document is recorded. Response: Owner is no longer proposing to use any TDR's to achieve a density or height increase for the project. The application has been changed to reflect Hotel Density Reserve instead of Resort Density Pool. The property contains 2.689 acres of which is 2.37 are upland and zoned Tourist: The calculations are 2.37x 50 hotel units per acre =118 units + 68 units from the Density Reserve Pool for a total of 186 units. 11. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 11 of 22 Revise for the following: (a) Seventh line - You reference a project granted a similar height to the north. The only projects granted height increases to the north are residential projects, both under 100 feet. Do you mean the Holiday Inn property to the west? The application exhibits have been revised to reflect the property to the west. (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The size of the floor plates (gross square feet) is indicated on Sheet A -11. However, Level 6 is 21,038 s£ Revise the response to indicate this 21,038 sf (not the 18,987 sf stated); According to Beach by Design page 66 #3c deviations to the floor plate requirements may be approved provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with maximum building envelop allowance above 45' as described in section C.1.4. Our building does not exceed the maximum theoretical building envelope, and the building meets all other criteria regarding the horizontal and vertical dimensional requirements. (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The floorplate between 100'- 150' indicated (15,292 so exceeds that permitted (10,000so and there is no justification provided per Beach by Design B.3.c as to how this proposal complies with a tiered effect. Provide a response; This proposal complies with the tiered effect by offsetting the floor plate of the building above the 45' level, (actual offset occurs at 43' -8 '), by 8' -9" and again offsetting the floor plate at the 100' level, (actual offset occurs at 82'4'9, by 5' -0" as prescribed by Beach by Design. (b) There is no Criteria #7 (remove). Also remove a) and b) on the next page. Revise c) and the balance of this section to a new section C.1, C.2, etc.; (b)c)1- Provide a diagram that shows compliance with this dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes. The illustrations on Sheets A -32 - A -34 do not provide such information; The diagrams located on sheets A -32 thru A -34 were presented to Wayne Wells prior to being added to this submittal because it was deemed the best way to illustrate our compliance with the dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes would be a 3- Dimensional diagram. Each diagram displays our compliance with these requirements. See diagrams on page 12 thru 14: City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 12 of 22 g m �o O Q O O Horizontal and Vertical Dimensional Diagrams �I I 1,24c, O 0 a C c �4 io C O N _ OI LU V C N 2V) p N p v C 0) G O QJ N N «D V : N O C CL N N Q m 3 E D 7 N U � U 3 o m <D � 01E U N C .N Q) ..Q V QJ M 'QI /C 10 C O m !6 a U) N G1 L_ d M 7 C u m 0 c N _ N ,E U E > v O N a y E m L C_1 N C N N v L N O E N OV. -> j M N U > N > O >p y C L O N y N (0 O a) y N �aj (.N d �l NFL O UY � A U aM N W C R N N N N Q O L -0 3 in in City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 13 of 22 C 0 Y Q� LU 0 Ln QJ V C ru 0 V QJ r` V m KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 Horizontal and Vertical Dimensional Diagrams C N O N > N > > L > > > O) � � c�77 > C N N L O O m C d N > a0 O 010 m U Qt QM � O r o q u N 1p [0 fV tO N O O O O 4 N m 4) p Y C �O O pI C y n N N N C LO G1 O 7 Y V O O ; O O O L G C ` Z .2 N O w \R\ O1 m a C N r N y U N > a?acv H�r20 N� d. A O. N C U 3N > w L u U N FO O d U. C O N > M W G V O 0 c 0 O N _T �L Auo �ih City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 14 of 22 Horizontal and Vertical Dimensional Diagrams C O W w N W a V C M 0 V C v V Qi m V C OI E � C N N N J p d O N R h w _ G1 O 3 O d c n y a N J C m O o� G ;q 7 n E � r m m i c St r � U It 0 v m1 0 o� N Ht 1 �c I N ru C m m N O N N d w y O N w t .t.. l0 yOj J 3 y Y � � w c 3 � :E N O U o N C o O E L O O � U C E M N t � _0 O C L N C W U D a N N E 2 > w morngm> m 0 w O > N N m C O �.0;��,q 3 y L� Q N (@, ,o dL� W 0 v m N y O V 0 O C d C 0 n W d 4/ C P J Y U N O Q O L O C°'n`3 in City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 15 of 22 HEIY BO' -0' ( +161'-0" NAV nl HEIGHT LIMrI' KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 (b)c)4 - Theoretical building envelop - Revise the written material to indicate 75% (not 60 %). The attached drawing to the response letter indicates the existing and proposed building above 45 feet is 12% total (existing and proposed buildings) or a total of 24% (12% for each the existing and proposed buildings)? Is this percentage of the cubic footage in the envelope between 44 - 150 feet? The attached diagram has been revised to indicate 75% theoretical maximum building envelope above 45. The 12% building envelope is the total for the existing and proposed buildings in cubic feet of maximum theoretical building envelope. Building Envelope Diagram THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 100% 1 LJTHEORETICAL MAXIMUM 75% OF THEORETICAL, MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 100% ® BUILDING ENVELOPE LOCATED ABOVE 45' E 12% OF MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE - (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) IN CUBIC FEET City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 16 of 22 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 (b)d) - Remove this section Td, as this is not in Beach by Design; (b) Remove sections 8 and 9, as these are not in Beach by Design; and (c) Need to provide responses to the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off and not provided; acknowledging the criteria is insufficient): c. The design, scale, and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; Our solution to the proposed site creates a visually reponsive design for the emerging character of Clearwater Beach and seeks to facilitate a dialogue with the surrounding areas by incorporating a number of architectural elements which speaks to the human scale such as the entrance portico, the awnings located along north and east elevations as well as the landscape which plays the most important role in communicating to the human scale. d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting, and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: - Changes in horizontal building planes; This building design provides multiple horizontal plane changes which allows the building to create a tiered effect at the higher elevations by offsetting the floor plate of the building above the 45' level, (actual offset occurs at 43' -8'), by 8' -9" and again offsetting the floor plate at the 100' level, (actual offset occurs at 82'-4'9, by 5'4" as prescribed by Beach by Design. -Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; The building utilizes a variety of architectural elements beginning with the angled columns at the portico entrance as well as the free standing columns which penetrates the balconies and frames the south elevation. The use of a cornice has been placed at the very top of the building to create a termination point for the fafade. Pilasters can be found throughout all four elevations of the new and existing buildings further creating cohesiveness among the project. The balconies give the building more character by projecting off the building and by also creating transitional nodes along the elevations. The railings on the balconies shall be picket type matching the old tower on the property. The use of awnings can be found along the "Beach Walk" in order to bring the building down to human scale. City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 17 of 22 - Variety in materials, colors and textures; A variety of materials have been introduced to make this project architecturally pleasing such as the smooth white stucco that will blanket a majority of the walls Green screen walls are located on the east and west elevations of the pool deck which further provides color, texture and material variation and is used to mask the garage and introduce a tropical environment for the pool deck. The decorative metal mesh screening provides another layer of material which is primarily used to hide the parking structures. The glazing on the building and the picket railings on the balconies also adds another layer of detail to the project. - Distinctive fenestration patterns; The fenestration pattern on the lower levels of the west elevation relate to the function behind them. They are large glazed openings to reveal the retail space behind them. Located above the glazed openings is the green screen trellis system used to mask the garage and create a natural environment for the pool deck. On the north and south elevations the lower level fenestrations are metal mesh screening panels with reveal patterns. The metal mesh screening panel system helps ensure the garage can be classified as an open garage per The Florida Building Code section 406 opening requirements. The East elevation utilizes the same metal mesh screening located on the north and south elevations; however this elevation is more distinct because of the projections created approximately every 29'4" to comply with the Beach by Design horizontal dimensional criteria. Glazed fenestrations are used primarily throughout the tower elevations to provide daylight to the hotel units and common areas. - Building setbacks; and In the vertical plane the building design provides multiple step backs which allows the building to create a tiered effect at the higher elevations by offsetting the floor plate of the building above the 45' level, (actual offset occurs at 43' -8'9, by 8' -9" and again offsetting the floor plate at the 100' level, (actual offset occurs at 82'-4'9, by 5' -0` as prescribed by Beach by Design. In the horizontal plane the building continues to step back and forth with 5' -0" or more offsets at not more than 100' -0 "intervals. - Distinctive roof forms. The building's roof design creates unique and distinctive forms in the new tower with angled projections at 3 of the four corners. These architectural elements are also City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 18 of 22 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 repeated at the existing stair towers of the old building to create a greater level of cohesiveness among the project. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design, and appropriate distances between buildings. Response: The applications have been revised to reflect the above required information. Please read exhibit "D "for further information. 12. Sheet A -11 - Revise the table for existing and proposed hotel rooms and number of parking spaces for the Existing hotel & garage: a. Level 200 - Parking - There is a total of 32 spaces (6 + 26) (not 26); b. Level 300 - Hotel - There are 10 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 9); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); c. Level 400 - Hotel - There are 9 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 10); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); d. Level 500 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); e. Level 600 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (4 + 34) (not 34) (however, there are 2 overflow spaces that could be shown, much like Level 500, that could increase the overflow to 6 spaces and a total for this level of 40 spaces); f. Level 700 - Parking - There is a total of 21 spaces (0 + 21) (indicated 4 overflow that are not shown) (however, there probably can be more than 4 overflow spaces, based on those indicated on other levels); and g. Total Parking - Revise to reflect the new total number of spaces (overflow + regular + HC). Response: The Architect has revised the table for the existing and proposed hotel rooms and number of parking spaces as indicated in the preceding paragraph. 13. Accessory waverunner business: a. Sheet C4 indicates a 6' high vinyl fence to be installed on the north and west sides of the existing structure. Site inspection reveals "windows" that open on the west side that would be obstructed by the proposed fence. Confirm this is the desired circumstance. b. Sheet C5 indicates the installation of drainage pipes directly adjacent to the east and south sides of this existing structure. As-the response to comments indicates, this existing structure is not to be touched. Should this structure need to be relocated to install the proposed drainage structures, this structure will need to comply with all Code requirements, including FEMA (per the Building Official). Please acknowledge. A condition of approval regarding such will most likely be included in the Staff Report. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 19 of 22 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 Response: Sheet C4 incorrectly showed a fence on the west side of the waverunner business obstructing pedestrian access to the structure. Accordingly, the fence has been removed for ease of access. The Owner accepts as a Condition of Approval that should the waverunner business be relocated to install the drainage pipes for the new development that the structure will be brought into compliance with FEMA regulations. The Civil Engineer has been directed to alter the location of the drainage pipe to avoid a conflict 14. Regarding accessory Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, surrey, and bikes): Intent of permitting Fun Ride Rentals as an accessory use is that the storage of such vehicles are not to be visible. Previous comment requested the landscape plan be revised to include taller shrubs that will obscure views of this storage area. The response submitted indicates sea grapes have been added (around fence), but this was at the waverunner accessory building, not the Fun Ride Rentals on the ground level of the existing parking garage. Comment is still valid. Revise. Response: The landscape plan has been revised to reflect screening of the Fun Ride Rentals and wave runner business. 15. Parking Demand Study - Parking Supply (Page 1) - Remove the next to last sentence dealing with affordable housing. Response: Please see the attached revised parking study. 16. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following: a. Height - The request is not for 150 feet, but for 133' -10" (or 134 feet); b. Height - The request is not for "100 additional units resort hotel units," but for "68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve "; and c. Parking - Second line refers to this project as a "resort hotel," which appears contrary to other responses to criteria. This is supposed to be a mid -priced hotel, not a resort. Revise. Response: Please see attached revisions to the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 17. Sheet C2 - General Site Note #10 - Revise "total spaces required" from "(1 space /unit) (226 units) = 226 spaces" to "(1.2 spaces /unit) (186 units) = 223 spaces ". Response: On sheet C2 note number 10 has been revised to reflect, "1.2 spaces /unit': 18. Sheet C4 - Provide dimensions or information for the following: a. Distance from the front property line to the closest edge of pavement for the area between the two driveways; b. The width and length of the interior landscape island north of the Porte Cochere; c. The setback from the east property line to the existing tiki hit for the waverunner business; City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 20 of 22 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 d. The width of the one -way drive between the driveways; and e. Indicate 6" vertical concrete curbing along the edges of all landscaped areas (typ.). Response: On sheet C4 dimension and text callouts have been revised to reflect the above information. G Sheets A -11, A -21 and A -21B - A large overhead door has been introduced on the east side of the new building at the base of the ramp to the upper levels of the new parking garage. This overhead door is shown at 16' high by 26' wide. Unclear as to the purpose of this overhead door, since this door does not provide access to anything. If this overhead door is for ventilation only, ventilation can be handled differently than a large overhead door. Revise. Response: The door in question was placed at the request of the Owner to facilitate access to the beach for maintenance purposes. The selection of this was made to allow for adequate turning radius for the equipment to be used. As indicated in the DRC meeting, the Owner will provide cut sheets under separate cover of the proposed equipment for review by the planning staff. 20. Sheet A -18 and elevation sheets - In order to comply with the Beach by Design requirement to not have a linear facade greater than 100 feet, there must be a minimum offset of five feet. The balconies on Levels 1100 and 1200 are shown four feet in depth (or one -foot shy of meeting the Beach by Design requirement). Revise the balconies to a minimum of five feet in depth. Response: Sheet A -18 has been revised to reflect a five foot balcony on Levels 1100 and 1200. 21. While windows are not indicated on the floor plans on the north side of the new building, the north elevation on Sheets A -20 and A -20B indicates a wide window that includes the elevators at the northwest corner of the building. Will windows really cover this entire distance, or will there really be a stucco finished wall for the elevator shaft as the exterior finish? Advise /revise all appropriate elevations and other renderings and vignettes. Response: The elevator will be shafts flanking the exterior of the building which' will be clad in glass. 22. While windows are not indicated on the floor plans on the western portion of the west side of the new building, the west elevation on Sheets A -21 and A -21 B indicates a wide window that includes the elevators at the northwest comer 'of the building. Will windows really cover this entire distance, or will there really be a stucco finished wall for the elevator shaft as the exterior finish? Advise /revise all appropriate elevations and other renderings and vignettes. Response: The elevator will be shafts flanking the exterior of the building which will be clad in glass. 23. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #7 - Revise for the following: (a). Don't understand the 40 units per acre. City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 21 of 22 Project has been designed utilizing the base density of 50 units per acre, plus 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve for an overall density of 78.48 units per acre; and (c.1) Provide a diagram that illustrates this assertion. Response: Refer to diagram below: TOTAL DENSITY CALC 118 UNITS + 68 UNITS = 186 UNITS 50 UNITS PER ACRE AiI l 68 HOTEL DENSITY RESERVE UNITS 2 37 ACRES x 50 UNITS = 118 UNITS Other: No Comments Notes: Sufficient - To be placed on the 11/17/09 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above departments' comments by noon, 10/16/09. Packets shall be collated, folded, and stapled as appropriate. If you have any questions please give us a call. Sincerely, chard Marcel, LEED ao 0 �o O N 4t = u +r u u a� •y0,,, �O a .M 4D a� U w O Al U a� a> O U 3 a� a� a b a 0 A rn 0 O N N N 0 � N O to U O a a y L7 0 a d 0 L a d C� b "C a r �i - 4 Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol com Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 6.44 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Planning Subject: Re Joe Burdette - Re. 10% Calculations I understand and I am sure Shepard's will meet that(and I don't think he has to as he was already in the process), but for future projects I sincerely believe there are the people I am working that with will prefer other municipalities in Pinellas County that have adopted the County density plan (or will adopt) or similar plans that are hugely less restrictive and with half the impact fees... but that is just my opinion. Joe In a message dated 10/8/2009 5:18:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wayne .Wells(gi?myClearv,- ater.corn writes: Joe — The purpose of this calculation is to determine whether Shephard's will be conforming to this new Code or nonconforming upon construction. If nonconforming, then all applicable Code nonconforming provisions will apply into the future for Shephard's. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:38 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Planning Subject: Re: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Okay, that is fine for the future, but it is still our position that this does not apply to Shephards... even though we will be conforming to it.... Joe In a message dated 10/8/2009 3:33:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wayne .WellsO.,mvCIeanva ter. com writes: �R Joe — Based on input from Michael Delk and Gina Clayton, for calculation purposes to determine compliance with this new Code provision, the "gross floor area" (GFA), as defined by Code, will be used to determine the square footage of the hotel. As such, interior square footage devoted to stairwells and elevator shafts cannot be counted toward GFA. Additionally, exterior spaces, including balconies, covered areas and bars, cannot be counted as GFA, nor can parking garage areas. The square footage of accessory uses must be compared as a percentage of the GFA to determine compliance with the parking and density requirements of the new Code provisions. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Wayne .1 Per our discussion today, I need some clarification on how to calculate the gross square footage of the building for purposes of applying the new 10% rule (assuming it applies to Shephards at all since we were already in the approval stage prior to this new ordinance). It is more important that I know how to calculate it for future projects. First let me say that it has been my understanding since this new ordinance first came up that the areas that were to be counted against us were areas that "would not normally be found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel." While I still disagree that that would include meeting spaces, parking, small restaurants, etc., the ordinance is passed and we will abide by it. However, I firmly disagree that the ordinance ever intended to include backing out the stairwells, balconies and elevators because they are not counted as FAR under the city code. I would argue that stairwells, balconies and elevators are things that ARE found in any hotel two stories or higher whether they be mid - sized, mid -priced or not and are certainly a part of the gross square footage of the building. 2 For calculating the 10% (to 15 %) __.finance, we have always spoken in ter,___ of gross square footage of the building minus the parking and not just what the city considers FAR and stairwells, elevators and balconies are unquestionably a part of the gross square footage. The new ordinance is burdensome enough and is already requiring people to rethink doing projects on the beach and I don't see how penalizing them any further helps the cause of redevelopmentof what the council said they wanted on the beach, namely mid - sized, mid -priced hotel. Please let me know if you agree with this so I can get you the calculations that I need to for the CDB submittal. Again, I would stress that during every discussion I have been a part of regarding this 1 ordinance, it has always been that the only areas that needed to be counted are the areas,that are. "not normally found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel" and I do not think that stairwells, elevators and balconies are things that are not normally found in those hotels. Thanks Joe 3 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5.18 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Planning Subject: RE- Joe Burdette - Re. 10% Calculations Joe — s- ti` ' 1 The purpose of this calculation is to determine whether Shephard's will be conforming to this new Code or nonconforming upon construction. If nonconforming, then all applicable Code nonconforming provisions will apply into the future for Shephard's. Wayne From:'Hunraf@aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:38 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Planning-- - Subject: Re: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Okay, that is fine for the future, but it is still our position that this does not apply to Shephards... even though we will be conforming to it.... -Joe_ In a message dated 10/8/2009 3:33:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wayne. WellsLi)myClearwater.coin writes: Joe-- . • Based on input from Michael Delk and Gina Clayton, for calculation purposes to determine compliance with this new Code provision, the "gross floor area" (GFA), as defined by Code, will be used to determine the square footage of the hotel. As such, interior square footage devoted to stairwells and elevator shafts cannot be counted toward GFA. Additionally, exterior spaces, including balconies, covered areas and bars, cannot be counted as GFA, nor can parking garage areas. The square footage of accessory uses must be compared as a percentage of the GFA to determine compliance with the parking and density requirements of the new Code provisions. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations 1 Wayne Per our discussion today, I need some clarification on how to calculate the gross square footage of the building for purposes of applying the new 10% rule (assuming it applies to Shephards at all since we were already in the approval stage prior to this new ordinance). It is more important that I know how to calculate it for future projects. First let me say that it has been my understanding since this new ordinance first came up that the areas that were to be counted against us were areas that "would not normally be found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel." While I still disagree that that would include meeting spaces;_parking, small restaurants, etc., the ordinance is passed and we will abide by it. However, I firmly disagree that the ordinance ever intended to include backing out the stairwells, balconies and elevators because they are not counted as FAR under the city code. I would argue that stairwells, balconies and elevators are things that ARE found in any hotel two stories or higher whether they be mid - sized, mid -priced or not and are certainly a part of the gross square footage of the building. For calculating the 10% (to 15 %) ordinance, we have always spoken in terms of gross square footage of the building minus the parking and not just what the city considers FAR and stairwells, elevators and 'balconies are unquestionably a part of the gross square footage. The new ordinance is burdensome enough and is already requiring people to rethink doing projects on the beach and I don't see how penalizing them any further helps the cause of redevelopmentof what the council said they wanted on the beach, namely mid - sized, mid -priced hotel. Please let me know if you agree with this so I can get you the calculations that I need to for the CDB submittal. Again, I would stress that during every discussion I have been a part of regarding this ordinance, it has always been that the only areas that needed to be counted are the areas that are "not normally found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel" and I do not think that stairwells, elevators and balconies are things that are not normally found in those hotels. Thanks Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3.33 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol com' Cc: Planning Subject: Joe Burdette - Re. 10% Calculations Joe — Based on input from Michael Delk and Gina Clayton, for calculation purposes to determine compliance with this new Code provision, the "gross floor area" (GFA), as defined by Code, will be used to determine the square footage of the hotel. As such, interior square footage devoted to stairwells and elevator shafts cannot be counted toward GFA. Additionally, exterior spaces, including balconies, covered areas and bars, cannot be counted as GFA, nor can parking garage areas The square footage of accessory uses must be compared as a percentage of the GFA to determine compliance with the parking and density requirements of the new Code provisions. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:27 AM = To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject,: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Wayne Per our discussion, today, I�n,�ed some clarification on how 1a calculate -the,grass square footage of thebuilding for purposes of applying the new 10% rule (assuming, it, applies to Shephards at all since we,,were already in the approval stage prior to this,new ordinance). It is more important that I know _bow to;calculate it for future proj ects. First let me say that it has been my understanding since this new ordinance first came up that the areas that were to be counted against us were areas that "would not normally be found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel." While I still disagree that that would include meeting spaces, parking, small restaurants, etc., the ordinance is passed and we will abide by it. However, I firmly disagree that the ordinance ever intended to include backing out the stairwells, balconies and elevators because they are not counted as FAR under the city code. I would argue that stairwells, balconies and elevators are things that ARE found in any hotel two stories or higher whether they be mid - sized, mid -priced or not and are certainly a part of the gross square footage of the building. For calculating the 10% (to 15 %) ordinance, we have always spoken in terms of gross square footage of the building minus the parking and not just what the city considers FAR and stairwells, elevators and balconies are unquestionably a part of the gross square footage. The new ordinance is burdensome enough and is already requiring people to rethink doing projects on the beach and I don't see how penalizing them any further helps the cause of redevelopmentof what the council said they wanted on the beach, namely mid - sized, mid -priced hotel. Please let me know if you agree with this so I can get you the calculations that I need to for the CDB submittal. Again, I would stress that during e,, y discussion I have been a part of rega. _gig this ordinance, it has always been that the only areas that needed to be counted are the areas that are "not normally found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel" and I do not think that stairwells, elevators and balconies are things that are not normally found in those hotels. Thanks Joe 2 Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 1 14 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Fwd. Square Footage Tabulation 100509 -1 xls Attachments: SquareFootageTabulation 100509 -1.xls Wayne I would like to meet with you tomorrow morning to go over this. Are you available? I am out most of the afternoon today, so please call me at 727 - 458 -4528 and let's set a time to review this... I tried to simplify this as follows: Attached is the spread sheet showing the complete breakdown of the new building. I have calculated this in two ways. The first and simplest way is to look at the spread sheet on the new proposed building and I have taken into consideration the following: 1. Fitness Center — 1,923 square feet 2. Bar — 194 square feet 3. Multifunction rooms — 5,933 square feet 4. Meeting Space — 3,376 square feet• This is a total of 11,426 square feet. The total square footage of the building is 230,774. The•parking is:56,695 so, the building itself is 174,079 square feet. So our FAR calculation for this building alone would,put us, at, 0.93% on this building. ±, As to the "old building "which we will not be touching," is the following, but to answer your - question of will we be non - conforming when the new ordinance is put in place: , 1. The restaurant and inside bar area total 6,840 sq feet' 2. The Wave Nightclub totals 2,600 square feet (There is other space in there, hallways and disc jockey room, bathrooms, storage etc... which would take this to a total of 4,814 square feet. 3. There is an 800 foot gift shop in the existing garage site. So the total for the existing building is 12,454 square feet The total square footage of the building that will remain is 94,243 sq feet of which the garage is 46,553 sq feet and the building is 47,690. All in all this give us a total of 278,464 with a total meeting space, restaurant, bar, gift shop, etc. (things you want us to account for) of 23,880. So when viewed as on building, we will be at 0.85 % or so and will leave us conforming to the new ordinance as an overall building. From: dk @garciaarchitect com To- Hunraf @aol.com CC q @garciaarchitect com, og @garciaarchitect.com Sent: 10/5/2009 9:44.43 AM Easten aylight Time Subj Square Footage Tabulation 100509 -1.xls Joe, Attached please find the revised square footages for the building reflecting 140 Units in the new wing. Sincerely, Daniel J Knopman, AIA Senior Associate - Director of Operations 2 Square Footage Tabulation 10/7/2009 Ivel400 L Leve1500 L Leve1600 L Leve1700 L Leve1800 L Level 900 L Level 1000 L Level 1100 L Level 1200 L Level 1400 T Totals 0 0 0 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 0 0 1 140 i 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 123 f 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 40 f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 f 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 164 ( f 0 0 0 1 10,664 1 10,664 1 10,664 1 10,664 1 10,664 1 10,664 1 10,664 0 0 7 74,648 0 5 5,716 2 2,016 2 2,078 2 2,078 2 2,078 2 2,078 2 2,078 2 2,078 8 813 2 21,013 f 0 0 0 1 160 1 160 1 160 1 160 1 160 1 160 1 160 0 0 1 1,120 j 192 1 192 1 192 4 449 4 449 4 449 4 449 4 449 4 449 6 677 4 4,331 f 0 0 0 1 104 1 104 1 104 1 104 1 104 1 104 1 104 0 0 1 1,044 1,510 1 1,473 6 690 3 374 3 374 3 374 3 374 3 374 3 374 3 371 1 11,005 381 3 381 3 381 3 381 3 381 3 381 3 381 3 381 3 381 3 381 4 4,953 0 2 224 6 6,831 2 2,193 2 2,193 2 2,193 2 2,193 1 1,082 1 1,082 0 0 1 17,991 f 0 1 1,955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,955 0 9 956 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 722 1 1,678 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,923 1 1,923 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 194 1 194 { 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9,649 9 9,649 f 0 5 5,933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5,933 { 0 3 3,746 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3,746 { 2,242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2,242 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 518 420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,428 113,584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 56,698 f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 775 f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 772 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 518 f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3,432 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2,423 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 267 118,847 2 20,576 2 21,038 1 16,403 1 16,403- 1 16,403 1 16,403 1 15,292 1 15,292 1 14,730 2 230,774 f C-- T) 'M Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:30 PM To: 'richard @keithzayac com'; 'alex @keithzayac com' Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr com Subject: FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005 -11028 and DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Richard and Alex - Attached are the Draft DRC comments for the above referenced FLD/TDR project, to be reviewed by the DRC in our offices at 2 pm on Thursday, October 1, 2009. The DVA comments will be under a separate email. 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 Draft 10.1.09 2C Action Agenc 1 CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATm, FLoxmA 33758 -4748 Cmr HALL, 112 Soum OSCEOLAAvENOE, CLEAxwATm, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4010 FAx (727) 5624021 CPtY ATTORNEYS OFFICE September 25, 2009 Harry S. Cline, Esquire MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court Street P.O. Box 1669 Clearwater, Florida 33756 Re: Shephard's Beach Resort, FLD2008- 12033/DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Dear Mr. Cline, I have reviewed the resubmitted application materials for the above project and your previous and current correspondence and attachments. The -current issues, as I understand them, and my responses are set forth below: 1. Are the 68 units being requested from the Hotel Density Pool. treated , the same as Transfer of Density Rights for the purpose of gaining additional, ti building height; i.e., can the applicant use such units in order to exceed the 100' ` height limitation? Response: The position of the City's Planning Department on this issue follows: Beach by Design is very clear on this point. Rooms allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve are not the same as rooms obtained through the transfer of development rights (TDRs). Only those "hotel rooms brought in to the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met ". The City Attorney's Office concurs with Planning. It should be noted that in correspondence dated September 11, 2009 from Daniel J. Knopman to Wayne Wells, at page 21, the following statement is made: "also, it has been determined through discussion with Wayne Wells, that units from the Hotel Density Reserve are considered to allow an increase in building height up to 150 feet." The above Planning position is contra to this assertion by the applicant. 2. Will the City accept that the two parcels have now been combined into one by the Pinellas County Property Appraiser and treat them as one parcel for purposes of the current application? 1 "EQ- E —oymEw AND AmRMATm ACTION ET' noyn" �7 Response: Yes, this issue has been adequately addressed by the applicant. 3. Is there an outstanding mortgage interest to be dealt with from the sending property? Response: No, the applicant has provided sufficient assurances in that regard through your letter of June 17, 2009 and attachments. 4. Is there a need to put a restriction on the sending parcel(s)? Response: No. Given the fact that the City has not until recently had a standard -form for Transfer of Density Rights, the difficulty of obtaining executed amendments at this point, and that the existing recorded documents evidence an intent that the density transfer be recognized as to the sending and receiving parcels [recorded deed of conveyance reveals the TDR], the City will not require amended documents to be executed. I propose that this determination be recognized by a case note which I will place in the City's Tidemark software. However, as stated in staff response /comments to the FLD application, the City has never authorized the TDRs themselves from the original sending properties. It is my understanding that the applicant is pursuing TDR approval. My records r reflect that an Application for Transfer of Development Rights was executed'._. November 20, 2008 but I find no'as "sociated Case Number.' Should you have further questions please feel free'to contact me: ✓ \Very- ,tr`uly yours }" , ., , .. ' , ,; • -'- - `}P • -„ ,5 Leslie K. Dougall -Sid Assistant City Attorney cc: Michael L. Delk, Planning Director Wayne M. Wells, Planner III Wells, Wayne From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1 10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael, Tefft, Robert, Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: A04- 01420 FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005- 11028, 619 S Gulfview Blvd ( Shephard's) Attachments: image001 Ipg Yes, thanks From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 12:14 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: Delk, Michael; Tefft, Robert; Clayton, Gina Subject: A04- 01420: FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Leslie — Gulfview Blvd. ( Shephard's) On July 6, 2009, 1 emailed you (copy to Harry Cline) the findings of my review of the Transfer of Density Rights (TDR) request for the Shephard's project I am attaching that email as well as the follow -up email train regarding the TDR issue. I have not had any discussion with Harry Cline or anyone else regarding my TDR findings since the dates of the attached email Keep in mind that the units transferred from the various other properties to the Shephard's site were never approved by the CDB as part of any project, as that prior project was withdrawn. The approval of the transfer of units from those other properties must still occur as part of this project Does this help you? Wayne From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:58 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: A04- 01420: FW: Please review and provide any Planning- related comments From: Kathy O'Hearn [mailto:KOH @macfar.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:08 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: bill @shephards.com Subject: Kathleen A. O'Hearn Legal Assistant to Harry S. Cline Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 1 Ilk 625 Court Street, Suite 200 Clearwater, FL 33756 Office: (727) 449 -8966 FAX. (727) 442 -8470 E -mail koh((Dmacfar.com Please visit www.mfmlegal.com for more information about our Firm * F MACFARLANE FF:RCt,iSON &. MCMU[ LF-Ni This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Macfarlane Ferguson $ McMullen and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable taw If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or distribution of this communication to other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited If you have received this communication in error please notify us immediately by collect telephone at (813) 273 -4200 or electronic mad (info(cr�rofmlegal corn' Thank you IRS Circular 230 Disclosure Any tax advice in this communication is not intended or written by Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen to be used, and cannot be used, by a client or any other person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or other matter addressed herein MACFARLANE FERGUSON & MCMUELEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE TAMPA CITY CENTER, SUITE 2000 625 COURT STREET 1611 HARDEN BOULEVARD 201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET P O BOX 1669 'ZIP 337571 LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33803 P 0 BOX 1531 (ZIP 396011 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 '663) 6B0 -9908 FAX (863) 683 -2849 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 (727) 441 -8966 FAX (727) 442 8470 (8131.273 4200 FAX (813) 273 -4396 IN REPLY REFER TO www mfmlegal com EMAIL Info ®mfmlegal com Clearwater September 22, 2009 Leslie Dougall -Sides VIA E -mail: leslie. dougall- sides(c�myclearwater.com Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33757 -4748 Re: Shephard's Beach Resort, S. Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, FL _ Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights [ "TDRs "] Dear Leslie: On June, 17th I sent you certain data showing the units transferred to'entities owned or controlled by Shephard's Beach Resort. We -have established that the mortgagees on the various properties have, signed off, consented in or released these units, so that aspect has been satisfied:,° We also have on the public records an unconditional transfer to the Shephard entities, so I do not think it would be necessary or even, appropriate to "restrict" the sending parcel,' since they have transferred these out, as a matter of public record. It is my understanding that these events happened without the City's participation, or at least I can find no evidence of that. We would like to finalize this, since our client did pay significant funds for these units. Please consider and give me a call to discuss what we need to do to confirm or finalize this transfer into the Shephard entities. As always, thank you for your assistance and I shall look forward to your reply. Sincerely yours, rr S. Cline HSC:koh cc: Mr. William Shephard, Trustee G \HSC\SHrPHARD \Dougall -Sides 9 -21'09 doe Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:07 AM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE- Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's Joe — Sorry for the delay. I've had almost no "desk" time in days. Sir Wayne will be reviewing it obviously but it seems we are moving in the right direction. Michael. From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:45 PM ,,To:'Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's Michael I am just confirming a few things before we resubmit Shephard's application.this Friday for DRC in October First we have reduced the size from 226 units to 186 units. The F.A.R. of 15,5.12,square feet:will be reduce somewhat as well, but this should no longer be an issue. We were going to give,up,asking,for.17 less units (83) to accommodate that, but we are now only asking for 68 units so this should no'longer,be.an;issue. Second,.we are using (as discussed months ago) the Density Reserve units,as.TDRs,strictly for, the,purpose o'f. 3 ' obtaining height over 100 feet. The new height is under 140 feet as we took off a.compl_ete floor when we:";_: reduced,the project by 40 units. We will also more than meet any and all parking requirements. For the 186%units:we will,have 316 code compliant spots and 68 overflow spots for a 2.06 ratio. , . . , . 1. ,. Does all of this sound okay to you? I know we will still get more comments, but these are the key issues. Joe 1 S� 1'll " 005- 110'28, 619 5 (iultviev "lvd From: Joe Burdette bburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com) Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:23 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd okay From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ma iIto: Wayne. Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:12 AM To: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com; keith @keithzayac.com Cc: Leslie.DougaII- Sides @myClearwater.com; hsc @macfar.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Joe — Page 1 ot'3 Keep in mind that the Transfer of Development Rights has never been approved by the CDB to transfer the units from the original properties While Warranty Deeds for the TDRs have been recorded, they have never been authorized by the City. The application will start at ground zero to authorize the units from the original sending properties Leslie will need to rule on the covenants on the original properties and consent by mortgager Wayne From: Joe Burdette [ mailto :jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:34 AM To: Wells, Wayne; keith @keithzayac.com Subject: RE: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd 665 and 645 Bay Esplande have the same seller and same lender. The one release mortgagor's consent covered both lots From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myC]earwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:07 AM - To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Keith /Joe — FYI. Comments under Planning have been revised accordingly to reflect the comments below Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:27 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: hsc @macfar.com; Tefft, Robert; 'KOH @macfar.com' Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Leslie — file•//CADocuments and Settings \Wayne.Wells \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Co .. 9/23/2009 0 I 2UU5- I I U28, 619 S. Oultviev, ' I lvcI Page 2 of 3 This TDR application started in November 2005 with Ed Armstrong as agent at that time. Along with FLD2005- 11108, these applications were incomplete and eventually withdrawn. Since these applications were never a complete application, no review of the application material was ever performed as to whether the application material was correct. However, regarding the TDR portion, the applicant continued and recorded TDR Warranty Deeds regardless of the incompleteness of the application. Three to four years have transpired and we are now at a new application for development approval (FLD2008- 12033), which includes TDR2005- 11028. I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments (and have revised the appropriate Zoning DRC comment under FLD2008- 12033 to reflect the updated comments below): 1. 665 Bay Esplanade — a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. 'c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. — Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0 1568 acre). The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building C. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. file: //C \Documents and Settings \Wayne. Well s \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\Co .. 9/23/2009 r'TD005- 11028, 619 S GlllfvleV T'Ivd Page 3 of 3 f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646 g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property C. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312 -317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314 g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. I would suggest a meeting with Harry Cline so that we can review the file and update TDR applications to today's circumstances. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Eb Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone 727 - 562 -4504 Fax 727 - 562 -4865 Checked by AVG - www avg corn Version 8 5 386 / Virus Database 270.13 5/2219 - Release Date 07/05/09 17 54 00 Checked by AVG - www avg corn Version 8 5 386 / Virus Database 270 13 5/2219 - Release Date 07/05/09 17 54 00 file://CADocuments and Settings \Wayne.Wells \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\Co... 9/23/2009 Wells, Wayne From: Daniel Knopman [dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: og @garclaarchitect.com Subject: 0820_SBR DRC Meeting 092409 -1 Attachments: image002 Mpg Wayne, I received an email from Keith Zayac this morning Informing us that we have been placed on the October 1, 2009, DRC agenda First let me say thank you for this consideration, and secondly inquire as to the status of the DRC comments When will the DRC comments be published so that we can be effective at the DRC meeting? Finally, prudence dictates that I ask how we move past DRC and on to CDB in order to obtain approval for this project Thank you again for your help. .,, Sincerely, Daniel J Knopman, A I A Senior Associate Director of Operations 318 S E 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www garciaarchitect com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following 1 The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender 2 Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and/or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession 3 The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole nsk and without any liability risk of legal exposure to the Sender Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Rec�prent defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, darnages, losses and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting frorn the use of such electronic media 4 Under no circumstances shalt transfer of electronic media be deerned a sate by the Sender and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied for any purpose 5 The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other protects Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions 6 The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm Trojan horse, andror malicious code when sent This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission By reading the message and opening any attachments the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments Wells, Wayne From: keith @keithzayac.com Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 4.38 PM To: Daniel Knopman; Mr. Joe Burdette Cc: Watkins, Sherry, Wells, Wayne, Tefft, Robert; Paul Andrews; Bill Shephard, Oscar Garcia; Mr. Carpelo Jeoboam R.A. Subject: Re- Shepards Beach Submittal Dan I didn't receive color reductions but called jiffy and had them printed and delivered at the end of day Friday. I have your response lette and made copies as well. I also emailed you attachments b and d per our conversation Friday. Please edit the attachments so they reflect the current design. The city won't accept a response letter sa a response they will require the actual attachments to be edited as discussed in the letter since the letter will not be given to CDB members thanks - - - - -- Original Message----- - From: Daniel Knopman To: Mr. Joe Burdette Cc: Sherry L. Watkins Cc: Mr. Wayne M. Wells AICP Cc: Robert Tefft Cc: Paul Andrews Cc: Bill Shephard Cc: LEED AP Keith Zayac P.E. R.L.A. Cc: Oscar Garcia Cc: Mr. Carpelo Jeoboam R.A. Subject: Shepards Beach Submittal Sent: Sep 12, 2009 12:32 PM Joe' When I spoke with keith yesterday morning I explained that all, -t he_printing.had, been sent to your printer and that the additonal prints could be ordered from your printer. It is my underdstanding that that was done by Keith. I speaking with my staff all other exhibits and responses were sent to Keith for a Friday AM delivery. The issues disscussed in exhibits B and D were addressesd in our written response. I will touch base with Keith again in the morning on Monday to confirm that he has everything that he needs to submit to the city. Sincerely Daniel J. Knopman, AIA Sent from my iPhone Sent from my Verizon Wireless B1ackBerry 'ti ., Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 11:15 AM To: 'Hunraf @aol com' Cc: Tefft, Robert; Clayton, Gina, Delk, Michael, Watkins, Sherry Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Response to comments Joe — I will reiterate, Planning management will need to decide upon your submission as to what date it is scheduled for review. There are many other applications that have been submitted within the time frames published. Wayne From:,Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 9:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: bill @shephards.com; dk @garciaarchitect.com; hsc @clw.macfar.com; keith @keithzayac.com; og @garciaarchitect.com; paul @shephards.com; Delk, Michael Subject: Re: FW: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Response to comments Wayne I spoke with Sherry yesterday and we will have the package to you by noon on Mon d We could have submitted it Friday, but it was incomplete as the architects forgot to respond- to,some planning questions in Exhibits B & D and to include a color rendering of the new design. Unfortunately their firm is closed on Fridays so we could not get their responses. We have, as you know; been working hard on this project for a long time and re_ spectfully request to be put on the October DRC agenda. Joe In a message dated 9/12/2009 9:20:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jburdettc505 a,tampabay.rr.com writes: From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 5:08 PM To: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Cc: Sherry .Watkins @myClearwater.com; Robert.Tefft @MyClearwater.com Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Response to comments Joe — 1 As you know we have deadlines to SL iit applications and resubmittals in order . ie placed on certain agendas, so that the departments and /or persons have sufficient time to perform reviews. Today was the day to set the agenda for the DRC for 10/1/09. No resubmittal was presented for this application today There are many other applications that have been submitted within the time frames published. Management will need to decide upon your submission as to what date it is scheduled for review. Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 4:02 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Reponse to comments Wayne Here is a copy of the email I received. Thank you, Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst ` Planning Department 727 - 582 -4582 From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] _ Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:44 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Reponse to comments Sherry Keith Zayac is resubmitting our response to comments for the Shephard's project today as we told you yesterday. I know you will be out later this afternoon so they will be there for you on MOnday. 2 We have one small problem we h.., . will be okay with you. The architects , , on the East coast and they don't work on Fridays, and they forgot to answer plannings questions on exhibits B &D. I can have those for you Monday if that is alright and put them with the rest of the package. Is that okay with you. We really need to be on the October DRC (it is our third one). Joe Wells, Wayne From: Daniel Knopman [dk @garciaarchitect.coml Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 12.32 PM To: Mr. Joe Burdette Cc: Watkins, Sherry, Wells, Wayne, Tefft, Robert, Paul Andrews; Bill Shephard; LEED AP Keith Zayac P.E. R.L.A.; Mr. Oscar I Garcia AIA; Mr. Carpelo Jeoboam R.A. Subject: Shepards Beach Submittal Joe When I spoke with keith yesterday morning I explained that all the printing had been sent to your printer and.that the additonal prints could be ordered from your printer. It is my underdstanding that that was done by Keith. I speaking with my staff all other exhibits and responses were sent to Keith for a Friday AM delivery. The issues disscussed in exhibits B and D were addressesd in our written response. I will touch base with Keith again in the morning on Monday to confirm that he has everything that he needs to submit to the city. Sincerely Daniel J. Knopman, AIA Sent from my iPhone 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 5 08 PM To: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Tefft, Robert Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Response to comments Joe — As you know we have deadlines to submit applications and resubmittals in order to be placed on certain agendas, so that the departments and /or persons have sufficient time to perform reviews. Today was the day to set the agenda for the DRC for 10/1/09. No resubmittal was presented for this application today. There are many other applications that have been submitted within the time frames published. Management will need to decide upon your submission as to what date it is scheduled for review. Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 4:02 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Reponse to comments Wayne Here is a copy of the email I received. Thank you, Sherry Watkins Planning Department 727-562-4582 From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto: Hun raf @aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:44 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Reponse to comments Sherry Keith Zayac is resubmitting our response to comments for the Shephard's project today as we told you yesterday. I know you will be out later this afternoon so they will be there for you on MOnday. We have one -small problem we hope will be okay with you. The architects are on the East coast and they don't work on Fridays, and they forgot to answer plannmgs questions on exhibits B &D. I can have those for you Monday if that is alright and put them with the rest of the package. Is that okay with you. We really need to be on the October DRC (it is our third one). Joe 1 September 11, 2009 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner III Planning Department - City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Re: Shephard's Beach Resort OIG Project #0820 Development Review Committee Submittal — Responses Case No.: FLD2008 -12033 Dear Mr. Wells: We are pleased to resubmit the Shephard's Beach Resort to the City of Clearwater for final DRC review. The project team has taken into consideration the comments made by you and the City Staff. We have made certain modifications to the design in order to conform to the requirements of Beach by Design, or City Comments as indicated below. GENERAL ENGINEERING 1. The following to be addressed prior to CDB: 1. Clarify how the proposed queuing would operate as shown on Sheet A -11. The plan shows a drop off area completely blocked providing no space for arriving vehicles or baggage handling. The curbing shown on the east and west ends of the drop -off area limits access and may not provide maneuvering room for the vehicles as shown on the plan. Response: Please note further clarification of the queuing area on Sheet A -H have been incorporated to better clarify the movement of the vehicles at the entry of the project. While the number of cars queued, have been reduced some, the traffic flow through this space has been improved. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. t 0 Response: Acknowledged.lw° 1 ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Prior to the Community Development Board: Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 — Response does not adequately address condition.) Oscar I. Garcia, AIA Archttect 318 S.E. 8th St Fort Lauderdale Florida 33316 Tel, 954.462.1090 Fax: 954.462.9040 www.garciaarchitect.com FL Uc• AR0012551 USM Ltc• 652A SC Lic. 5708 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 2 of 27 FIRE Response: Additional design detail information has been added to plans. These details are the same as shown on two other projects constructed within the City with this system. 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the Owner. (4/18/09 — Response does not adequately address condition.) Response: Enclosed is a letter from the owner stating the proposed maintenance and schedule. Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. Response: The Owner or his representative will, if they have to already done so, have an asbestos survey performed and submitted prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections, plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on Utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building. Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB. 4 -13 -09 the required 2 °a FDC is not shown on Page C6. The FDC lines will be 6" DR14 pipe not 4" DR18 as shown. The fire line for the standpipe at the rear of the property must be tied into the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Fire service connection is shown on the utility plan, as well as the two FDC locations. 2. Under comment #5 the existing parking garage has a code deficient sprinkler system and will be required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. The response was: Based on subsequent meetings with the " fire department, it was agreed that since the existing building will not be added on to, or renovated at this time, the existing sprinkler system will be repaired and brought up to code over time. Letter dated April 9, 2009, �• in line #1 states the layout of the existing west building containing Bar, p, Nightclub, Restaurant, Meeting Space, and Guest Rooms will remain unchanged in terms of programming, layout, or planning and the next EP statement #2 The exterior stair on the east side of the existing building will be removed. This is shown on the plans sheet A -11 as the is the �r EXISTING buildings, if this part of the new development then the ENTIRE existing structure SHALL be brought up to code. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 3 of 27 Response: While we disagree with this observation, we have restored the stair in its current configuration, so as not to affect the existing building. HARBOR MASTER: LEGAL: LAND RESOURCES: LANDSCAPING: No Issues No Issues No Issues Sheet C9 — Revise the following: a. Plan indicates I1PT in the northwest corner of the sire, but the arrow indicates such is offsite ( ?); Response: Plant callout has been revised to point to,the correct area. b. Unclear, why no landscaping is proposed in the northeast corner of the site ( ?); Response: Landscaping has been added to northeast corner. C. For 5,423 sf of interior landscape area, Code requires one shade tree for each 150 sf, or a total of 36 trees. Based on the landscape plan, only five trees are proposed to be planted within the interior landscape area indicated on sheet C4. Must plant additional 31 .r, trees. rri X. Response: Based on a vehicular use of 11,814.20 sf, the required interior open IV = space is 1,181.42 which requires 8 trees. We have shown 10 equivalent ..r; . trees adjacent to the VUA. ARKS AND RECREATION.• • 1. The Public Art Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to the 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. Response: Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. I sr � 4 � c°e City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 4 of 27 2. Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at (727) 562 -4818 to calculate assessment. Response: Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. STORMWATER: 1. The following shall be addressed prior to CDB: 1. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. Response: System has been modified to move control structure to the seawall and overflow through a constructed notch above the sand elevation. 2. Please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in a period of 24 hours or less. Response: Calculations are enclosed The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFMD ERP permit. Response: Acknowledged. 2. Please provide soil analysis with Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) at the proposed vault to demonstrate the buoyancy calculation is not required. Response: Acknowledged. 3. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. Response: Acknowledged. 4. Please route all runoff, including the rear deck to the vault for treatment before discharge. Response: Acknowledged. 5. Please a detailed plan showing how roof runoff will be routed to the proposed vault. Response: Acknowledged. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 5 of 27 31 Response: 7. Response: 8. Response: General Note: 1. Response: 2. Response: SOLID WASTE. No Comments The construction of the proposed Atlantis vault along the east property line will impact the existing lift station. Please address this issue. Acknowledged. Please use solid pipe for the proposed outfall as perforate may create erosion problem over a long period of time. Acknowledged. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. Acknowledged. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a building permit. Acknowledged At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any other drainage related document for review and record. Acknowledged. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. 1. The parking table on the civil plans is not consistent with the architectural plans in regard to the number of striped and overflow •� ,,, _ parking spaces in the proposed garage. fr E Response: The Architectural Plans and the Civil Plans have been coordinated to 0 reflect the actual number of striped and overflow parking spaces. 2. Even though overflow parking in drive aisles has been shown on previous projects, the Traffic Operations Division continues to have concerns about this as it creates maneuverability problems due to reduced drive aisle widths and blocked vehicles. Response: The garage will be serviced by valet attendants familiar with the design of the garage and the placement of the vehicles within it, and not by the general public. It will be up to the valet attendants to move cars as necessary to facilitate the needs of the customer. While there may be a City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 6 of 27 sense that there could be maneuverability issues we remain confident that the proposed plan does not aversely affect service. 3. Provide a van accessible handicapped parking space whereby the vertical clear height shall be 8' -2" per Florida Building Code, Chapter 11, Section 4.6.5. Provide a note indicating such both on civil and architectural plans. Response: A van accessible space was provided in our previous submittal on the ground floor of the new building, and remains in this location. Please refer to Sheet A -11. 4. Provide a note that the vertical clear height of each garage floor level in vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm) other than the van accessible parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.2.2 clear height. Response: The Architect has added the note requested above on Sheets A -11 through A -14. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Notes: Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Response Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response Acknowledged. - PARKING SYSTEM COMMENTS. °® t No Comments Z ,.lrx, ZONING CONDITION: 1. 5/5/09 — WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 — WW Sheet A -11 — Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 7 of 27 cabanas (any television or refrigerators), and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. Response: In our response to this comment on April 9, 2009, we indicated that the cabanas were intended for daily use by the guest of the hotel. The finishes for these features will be pavers for the floors, and stucco and paint for the walls. They are not intended to have any other amenities. It appears that your comment of 515109 confirms your acceptance of our previous answer and seeks to make this a condition of approval. If this is not the case then please call me so that we can discuss this further. J2. 5/5/09 — WW Plans do not dimension the projection of the awnings. 1/4/09 — WW Sheets C4, A -11 and A -12 — Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimensions these awnings project from the building. On the architectural plans, indicate what material and color these awnings are to be. Response: The extent of the awnings has been reduced to the south side of the building with a small return on the east and west sides of the building. The requested dimensions have been placed on the drawings. 3. Ensure when resubmitting that all original sheets are submitted, as Sheet C2 was omitted from this submission. Response: Acknowledged. C� 5/5/09 — WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 — WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular code is four feet; maximum of six feet under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Response: A separate comprehensive sign program application will be submitted to bring signage into compliance. 1/7/09 — WW Parking Demand Study — Revise for the following: G CD cc �t City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 8 of 27 a. Introduction — There are only 96 existing rooms at this hotel; (5/4/09 — No response — Revised study still indicates 97 existing rooms.) Response: The parking study was changed to reflect 96 rooms. b. Introduction — My counts of parking spaces in the existing parking garage do not confirm 179 spaces; (5/4/09 — WW — No response — Architectural plans only indicate 152 striped spaces in the existing garage and it is not indicated how or where any overflow spaces exist. Site inspection on 4/25/09 revealed the property posted "lot full" and only 12 striped spaces empty at 11:40PM and only 15 striped spaces empty at 12:40am, while many cars parked in overflow areas [even parked in front of elevator]. Site inspection on 5/3/09 at 3:OOPM also revealed the property posted "lot full." Response: The owner has submitted an affidavit confirming the existing number of parking spaces. The existing parking characteristics are irrelevant. A methodology was established with Mr. Wells to base the future parking characteristics on reasonable assumptions similar to those afforded other hotels on Clearwater Beach. There was never any requirement to do on -site actual demand studies, especially since massive changes to the site parking supply are proposed. JC. Parking Supply — Same comment as "b" above. The proposal includes modification to the existing parking garage to increase the number of spaces, not identified in this Study; (5/4/09 — WW — No response — Architectural plans indicate change to the ground floor parking which are not disclosed in any written material.) Response: The existing parking garage has been modified to include 192 spaces, plus an addition 28 overflow spaces. f. Parking Demand — It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of Ln retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted. Ensure the nightclub square footage includes both levels of the nightclub, as posted the capacity is 523 persons in the nightclub; (5/4/09 — WW — No response — study now no Z longer indicates the square footage of retail, only stating "a small retail gift shop." Square footage of nightclub unchanged at �i 2,300sf; architectural plans indicate much larger than 2,300sf.) Response: See amended parking study. Jg. Parking Demand — The banquet facility states a seating of 300 attendees, but there is a huge outdoor deck being provided on the south side of this facility. Will there be any seating or other functions at any time on this outdoor deck? (5/4/09 — WW — No response — Study still indicates 300 attendees, however, the banquet facilities have been moved to the new building and expanded in size to an entire floor, including new kitchen. Need to revise number of attendees and calculations.) City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 9 of 27 Response: The approved methodology stated banquets for up to 300 attendees. The banquet facilities are indoors and outdoor deck areas are not intended for banquet use. Jh. Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory uses, or as a mid - priced hotel with accessory uses sized to primarily meet the needs of the hotel guests. Response: The new hotel will be a 3 -star hotel which is typical of a mid - priced hotel. There will be meeting space in the new structure to help the hotel market to the business community. In order to survive in the hotel business, it has to be able to fill rooms Monday through Thursday and the primary source for renting during the week is business meeting. There is also a small workout room that the traveling business man wants to be sure the hotel can provide. The meeting rooms and workout room are entirely for the use of the hotel guests. Jj. Tables 2 and 3 — On what day of the week and dates were these studies completed? It is difficult to agree with the numbers related to the nightclub 16 and 23 spaces (normal and full occupancy respectfully); (5/4/09 — WW — No response — It appears that Tables 2 and 3 are not based on actual data but on assumptions.) and Response: The methodology for the parking study was based on reasonable assumptions similar to those of other hotels on Clearwater Beach. There was never any requirement to conduct parking space occupancy counts on -site. The applicant is seeking fair and equitable treatment. 4 Appendix — The drawing showing vehicle stacking includes vehicles 0 blocking the public sidewalk, vehicles blocking the entrance and exit rv� M driveways for the existing parking garage, show surface parking in front of the proposed building that the proposed plans do not show and the drive Z isle is wider than that shown on the submitted plans. (5/4/09 — WW — No response — Based on site inspection, stacking will not work as the lot will Z C-D be full and no vehicles will be entering or exiting until the end of the CO C= night.) - — — Response: A new stacking diagram showing 16 vehicles can be stacked has been prepared by the architect and is included in the submittal package. J Response to General Applicability criteria #1 — Last paragraph — The manner in which the information is put forth appears to indicate that the existing Holiday Inn building is 128 feet in height, whereas the 128 -foot height is for a proposed building that has not been constructed on the west side of the Holiday Inn property. Clarify how the Holiday Inn building heights are actually. Response: The previously approved proposed building on the west side of the Holiday Inn site has been approved at 128 feet. Please note that this City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 10 of 27 approval is beyond 500 feet from the west edge of our proposed building as depicted in the attached information. 7. 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 — WW Condition of Approval to be included in CDB: That, prior to issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. Response: Acknowledged - even though the entire property is currently in one name as indicated in the land records. The property appraiser had it wrong and that has been corrected 8. 5/5/09 — WW Response indicates there will be no changes to the existing railings; however, Sheet A -20 continues to show such aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with blue glass (not the existing aluminum picket railings) and Sheets A -22 and A -22B now shows the same aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass. Improvements to tie the existing building are necessary to be compliant with Comprehensive infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d. Advise /revise. Response: Sheet A -20 and sheets A -22 and A -22B have been revised to show the Response: The drawings have been changed to eliminate the wave pattern of landscaping on the metal mesh. No further action is required by the design team at this time. 10. 5/4/09 — WW retention of the existing railings. 1/6/09 — WW Sheet A -20 — Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -2213. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildings together as a cohesive unit. Response: Sheet A -20 and sheets A -22 and A -22B have been revised to show the retention of the existing railings. G) M 5/5/09 — WW M .. Include as a condition of approval in Staff Report. 1/6/09 - WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the fagade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on sheet A -30. Response: The drawings have been changed to eliminate the wave pattern of landscaping on the metal mesh. No further action is required by the design team at this time. 10. 5/4/09 — WW City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 11 of 27 Architectural plans now indicate 48 rooms to remain in the existing hotel and 180 rooms in the new building, for a total of 228 rooms, which is still greater than the maximum of 226 indicated in the application and on C2. Additionally, based on the architectural plans, there are 152 striped parking spaces in the existing parking garage, with an unknown number of overflow spaces (not shown), and 124 striped spaces in the proposed parking garage, with 40 overflow spaces indicated. The numbers of parking spaces are not consistent with the numbers indicated on Sheet C2. Response: The existing garage is self - parked and converted to valet on an as- needed basis. The existing garage contains 192 striped spaces as indicated in the attached affidavit prepared by the Owners agent. In addition to the 192 spaces provided, the existing garage also contains 28 overflow parking spaces for a total of 220 parking spaces. The new garage is full -time valet only and contains 123 parking spaces, 1 handicapped accessible van parking space, and 40 overflow parking spaces for a total of 164 parking spaces. The total site when built out will contain a total of 384 parking spaces. 1/4/09 — WW Application and Sheet C4 indicates a total of 226 rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown. Number the rooms in the existing building much the same as in the new building. Revise. Response: Our proposal is for the final construction of the project to include 186 rooms. These will include 46 original rooms and 140 new rooms. Of the existing, rooms 263 and 264 shall be combined and, rooms 404 and 406 have been previously combined. Room 102 was previously converted into a keg room and will be retained as such in the final iteration of design. Response• Property appraiser was in error and has corrected this. 12. 5/6/09 — WW 11. 5/5/09 — WW Property Appraisers information still shows two entities of ownership �—' and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 — WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee, and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers Lo and owner's name. The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As ® stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this one under one ownership and one parcel number. Response• Property appraiser was in error and has corrected this. 12. 5/6/09 — WW City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 12 of 27 Response unclear, which states all other bars have been removed from the plans. Does this mean that they are no longer proposed or that you are just not showing them? 1/4/09 — WW Sheet C -4 — Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see Sheet A -11) Response: Subsequent to the initial submittal for approval, the Owner and Design team determined that the likelihood of the State and County accepting the exterior bars shown at grade in the proposed building as marginal due to FEMA regulations. Therefore the Owner directed the Architect to eliminate the proposed bars shown under the building and retain a portion of the existing building currently containing the Tiki Bar. The area previously depicted as exterior bars are now being utilized as covered exterior space. 13. 7/5/09 — WW I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephard's and have the following comments: 2. 645 Bayway Blvd a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. 1. 665 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maimum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Tranfer of Density Unit Development Rights _ ✓ ` . recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. Z f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. r� g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights �.x filled out with Harry Cline as agent. ca Response: Owner is no longer requesting any TDR. The application has been changed to reflect Hotel Density Reserve instead of Resort Density PooG The property contains 2.689 acres of which is 2.37 are upland and zoned Tourist. The calculations are 2.37 x SO hotel units per acre = 118 units + 68 units from the Density Reserve Pool for a total of 186 units. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 13 of 27 e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. £ A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. Response: Owner is no longer requesting any TDR. The application has been changed to reflect Hotel Density Reserve instead of Resort Density Pool. The property contains 2.689 acres of which is 2.37 are upland and zoned Tourist. The calculations are 2.37x SO hotel units per acre = 118 units + 68 units from the Density Reserve Pool for a total of 186 units. J7/6/09 — WW Structures were shown on prior construction plans and are accepted as existing. Request needs to indicate such structures at a zero -foot setback. 6/29/09 — WW Planning will review previously approved plans approved to ascertain whether such plans indicated these structures on the west side. If construction plans verify these structures were on the plans, then these structures will be accepted as existing (Comprehensive Infill request 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units todal). d.'The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recoreded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312,317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights r Q. filled out with Harry Cline as agent. £ Exhibit C — Strongly recommend that the mess of b — e above be cleared up before this document is recorded. Response: Owner is no longer requesting any TDR. The application has been changed to reflect Hotel Density Reserve instead of Resort Density Pool. The property contains 2.689 acres of which is 2.37 are upland and zoned Tourist. The calculations are 2.37 x SO hotel units per acre = 118 units + 68 units from the Density Reserve Pool for a total of 186 units. J7/6/09 — WW Structures were shown on prior construction plans and are accepted as existing. Request needs to indicate such structures at a zero -foot setback. 6/29/09 — WW Planning will review previously approved plans approved to ascertain whether such plans indicated these structures on the west side. If construction plans verify these structures were on the plans, then these structures will be accepted as existing (Comprehensive Infill request City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 14 of 27 would still indicate a zero setback [to existing structures]). If construction plans do not verify these structures were approved, this application will need to obtain after - the -fact building permits) or how they will be brought into compliance otherwise. Once a review of prior approved permits is completed (anticipated to be completed the week of June 29 — July 2), Planning will inform the applicant of our findings. Response: Approved per City of Clearwater DCAB case number V-98-05. Response: The Architect re- introduced the column grid lines (station markers) on all plans. 16. 6/29/09 — WW Density will need to reflect the number of rooms based on banquet hall floor area being removed from density calculation (may not be 226 rooms). 4/29/09 — WW Sheet C2 — General Site Notes #22 — Provide the overall proposed density of 95.35 rooms /acre after 226 rooms. Response: A note has been added to the plan. 14. 5/6/09 — WW Civil plans and survey updated. Unclear how /why canopy extends over the property line onto the adjacent property. Response does not address the comments below. Still unclear how the wall and canopy were constructed at a zero (or less than zero) setback and of variances /permits granted for such improvements. 1/4/09 — WW Civil plans need to indicate the existing wall along the west property line ( ?) and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any "variance" granted). Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. Response: The Survey has been corrected and included in this package. The tn t Canopy is shown overhanging the property-line and will be corrected. 15. 5/3/09 — WW Response was to remove the column grid lines (station markers) from the i, plans. This was not requested (see below) 1/4/09 — WW c Architectural plans — Provide station markers on the two planes of the building for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of building elements, especially in relation to property liners. Response: The Architect re- introduced the column grid lines (station markers) on all plans. 16. 6/29/09 — WW Density will need to reflect the number of rooms based on banquet hall floor area being removed from density calculation (may not be 226 rooms). 4/29/09 — WW Sheet C2 — General Site Notes #22 — Provide the overall proposed density of 95.35 rooms /acre after 226 rooms. Response: A note has been added to the plan. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 15 of 27 17. After further review of the plans and discussions with Planning Management and the Building Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and/or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fins on the building must be projected to the ground and the setback to that point indicated. These setbacks to the property lines and/or seawall are what will be advertised (a variance to the seawall setback will be required by the Building Official). Response: The Architect has revised sheets A -11, A -21, and A -21B to depict the property lines, and setbacks. A request for variance has been incorporated into this submittal. 18. Sheet C2 — General Site Note #I I — Ja. Suggest a new line B for Site Area for "T" District or revising line A to the Site Area for "T" District (site data is to be evaluated ONLY on that area zoned "T" District; Response: Site area has been revised to be within the "T" district only. Jb. B. Provide the Existing, Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; and Response: J Note has been revised to include area within tourist district only. Response: 19 C. E. Provide the Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; Note has been revised to include area within tourist district only. JArchitectural plans for the ground level indicates vehicle stacking at entrance. Unclear how this will actually work, since visual inspection of the property has shown that, at least on the weekends, onsite parking is full and driveways are coned off /closed. Proposal is to increase the number of hotel rooms from 96 to 226 rooms (an increase of 130 rooms), in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, outdoor tiki bar and ballroom. Proposed parking is supposedly 318 striped spaces and 66 overflow for a total of 384 parking spaces (can't confirm these numbers of parking spaces based on the plans submitted), provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site where all parking will be valet only. Vehicular stacking needs to be reworked to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. and to ensure on -site traffic circulation will not be impaired. Response: Vehicular stacking has been revised to provide adequate circulation for valet attendants to maneuver about the drive isles. Plans have been revised to illustrate numbering of parking spaces in the existing and new garage to confirm the total count of 384 parking spaces in both garages. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 16 of 27 20. Response to General Applicability criteria #6 — Unclear what is meant by "The applicant currently has an occupational license to operate a 167 seat restaurant and will redevelop the Subject Property to include an upscale restaurant." There is no indication of any additional restaurant on the property and no indication that the existing restaurant will be remodeled for such "upscale restaurant." The purpose of he Hotel Density Reserve is to "facilitate the restoration of those lost mid -size, mid - priced hotels," not for the development of additional resorts. Response: There will be no changes to the restaurant, nor are there any plans to add additional dining facilities to the property. As for the Site inspection on April 25, 2009, we are not prepared to address opinion of db level in the absence of appropriate noise testing to validate this observation. The police and Owner continually monitor the noise at the Tiki Bar and it continues to be below the maximum decibels permitted. 21. f Response to General Applicability criteria #2 - J a. Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; and Response: Shephard's General Manager, Paul Andrews, has physically counted RIGGI _NA L RE��V these spaces twice, and has provided an affidavit delineating where the 192 spaces are located. �; -,l 1 /0 b. In (3) you refer to the project to the north. If you are referring to the Holiday Inn project, that project is to the west. Response: Acknowledged, the project we referred to is the Holiday Inn project on the West and not the North. 22. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Plan Project criteria #6 — Revise for the following: (a) 1. The side setback reduction for the existing pavement, freezers and building canopy are on the west side (not north); Response: This site plan was approved in 1998 — See City of Clearwater DCAB case number V- 98 -05. J(a) 2. The height variance referred to for a similar project is to the west (not north); Response: Acknowledged d (b) Height and Tower Separation B.2 — The Entrada project to the west 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128 feet in height. Additionally, the project at 691 S. Gulfview Blvd. (enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower 150 in height. Provide documentation that neither option 1 or 2 apply, including a diagram that shows compliance; � 1} City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 17 of 27 Response: This information was previously provided and re- introduced here for clarification. The enchantment is no longer valid because it has lost its development rights. 4b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 — Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan; Response: A note has been added to the plans. (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 — The floor plate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided per Beach by Design B.3.c, as to how this proposal complies with the tiered effect (expound); Response: The floor plates have been revised to comply with Beach by Design; this is further illustrated by the elevations and vignette shots on sheets A -20, A -20B, A -21, A -21B, A -32, A33, and A34. (b) There is no Criteria #7 (remove and remove a) and b). Revise c) and the balance of this section to C.1, C.2 etc. Response: No action required (b) c)1 - Provide a diagram that shows compliance with this dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes; Response: Sheets A -32, A -33, and A -34 have been created to illustrate compliance. (b) c)3 — Architectural elevations indicate a percentage of openings, which is inconsistent with what the criteria/provisions call for r(windows or architectural decoration). Revise Sheets A -20, A- {� _- 20B, A -21, A -21B, and place information on A -22 and A -22B; Response: Sheets A -20, A -20B, A -21, and A -21B have been revised and we have placed the requested information on A -22 and A -22B. (b) c)4 — Theoretical envelop is from all property lines, not just the half of the property being redeveloped. Update the criteria to that in Beach by Design where a maximum of 75% is permissible (not 60 %). Envelope below 45 feet not necessary to be shown. Drawing submitted is wrong and not understandable. Response: See attached revised theoretical building envelope study. (b) d) Remove this section; Response: Action required. (b) Remove sections 8 and 9; and Response: No action required. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 18 of 27 Q (c) Need to provide response to the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off); c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of and area; d. In order to form a cohesive , visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements; - Changes in horizontal building planes; - Uses of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; - Variety in materials, colors, and textures; - Distinctive fenestration patterns; - Building stepbacks; and - Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design, and appropriate distance between buildings. Re. 7e: Acknowledged 25. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Plan Project criteria #I — Revise for the following: J a. Parking — The project is proposing more than the minimum number of spaces. The `requested relief' is being requested due to parking spaces have been designed as double - stacked requiring valet parking only. Cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing garage. Even though more than the minimum number of parking spaces is being provided, the provided parking will still not be enough, based on existing characteristics. Response: Shephard's General Manager, Paul Andrews, has physically counted i01R#G# ��-® ._ these spaces twice, and has provided an affidavit delineating where the 4 �� EC #D 192 spaces are located We disagree that there will not be enough r; 1� parking when the renovation is complete. r J b. Setbacks — No documentation has been presented as to how the west side setback was approved at a zero setback. Need to present justification for the west side and the rear setback reductions to zero feet. Response: This site plan was approved in 1998 — See City of Clearwater DCAB case number V- 98 -05. 26. Response to General Applicability criteria #4 — a. While there has been a parking study submitted and parking provided in excess of Code requirements based on site inspections, there is insufficient parking provided today and in the proposed City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 19 of 27 plan to provide for the existing and proposed uses of the property. Parking for these uses bleed onto surrounding properties and within right -of -way. Existing practice to cone and block off driveways anticipated, which creates traffic congestion, expected to be the future practice also. This is unacceptable; Response: The proposed parking equates to 1.4 spaces per room, if the overflow spaces are considered this equates to1.7 spaces per room. The owner has acknowledged parking issues and is seeking to expand the parking supply by adding another garage. b. Existing off - street loading and unloading blocks traffic circulation. This proposal does not address the existing problems; and Response: The only loading or unloading permissible is at the loading dock and not at the entrance to the property. The Owner direction to all vendors is to load and unload at the loading dock only. C. Second sentence — Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot." This is a surface parking lot that is being removed with this proposal. Response: Please disregard this erroneous response as it is no longer relevant to the submittal. 27. Proposed parking numbers of 318 striped and 66 overflow spaces cannot be confirmed. Revise the following: a. Overflow in the existing parking garage not shown; Response: OGA to place and number spaces within existing garage. ORIGINAL RECT ( b. Sheet A -11 — Parking in the existing garage on Level A in the J northwestern portion of the garage does not presently exist, SEP i 6 nog requiring removal of a wall and eliminating a storage area to create these five spaces. These northwestern two parking spaces don't �� _ function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements, except on the southern portion of the garage; and Response: The spaces will be reopened when the new building is complete. We are not doing any work on the existing garage and it was approved with these spaces. See City of Clearwater DCAB case number V-98-05 JC. Provide a table (previously provided and removed with this submission) on Sheet A -11 that includes a tabulation by floor of the number of hotel units (existing and proposed buildings) and the number of parking spaces (existing and proposed buildings, including the number of striped and overflow spaces). Response: The Architect has provided the previously removed table on Sheet A -11 as requested City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 20 of 27 28. Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units — A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Designation Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for amid - priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density ember of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: ( a.) Those properties and /or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; Response: The application has been changed to reflect Hotel Density Reserve instead of Resort Density Pool. The property contains 2.689 acres of which is 2.37 are upland and zoned Tourist. The calculations are 2.37 x 50 hotel units per acre =118 units + 68 units from the Density Reserve Pool for a total of 186 units. The breakdown will include 46 units remaining in the existing building and 140 units constructed in the new building. Cb- ) Those properties and/or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and /or development(s) through and approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; Response: No units have been transferred off of this site. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the �8�� '® Reserve to any development with a lot size of 2.5 acres or less. Those developments with a lot size great than or equal to 2.5 acres �i�9 may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it have received t' PLANNING benefit of transfers of development rights in addition to the Reserve, or not; Response: Acknowledged, we do not exceed 150 units per acre. Od. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a mid - priced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; Response: Hilton Garden Inns was voted the 2008 mid priced hotel of the year (500 of them) and they all contain meeting rooms and workout facilities and further identify these amenities as a necessity to attract the business traveler during the week days. e. No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached dwelling); City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 21 of 27 Response: Acknowledged. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; Response: Acknowledged we do not exceed 150 feet which is the max height at Ili is site. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of the development, only hotel rooms brought into the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the maximum building height, but only provided that all TRD criteria are met; Response: Acknowledged. - Owner is no longer using TDR's. Also, it has been determined through discussion with Wayne Wells, that units from the Hotel Density Reserve are considered to allow an increase in building height up to 150 feet. Response: A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that the overnight accommodation use will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the Nation Hurricane Center; Acknowledged, and provided OAccess to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; Prior to demolition, the lobby will be moved to the existing building and remain there to service the entire project indefinitely. The Owner will submit the required demolition and design drawings for this renovation if different from the existing layout currently employed within the existing building prior to permitting of the new building. Q All hotel rooms obtained from the Reserve that are not constructed shall be returned to the Reserve; Response: Acknowledged k.� The development shall comply with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) countywide approach to the application of concurrency management for transportation facilities, and transportation analysis conducted for the development shall include the following: - Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO; - Identification of level of services (LOS) standards for state and county roads as established by the MPO; City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 22 of 27 Utilization of proportional fair -share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO model ordinance; Utilization of the MPO traffic Impact Study Methodology; and Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the most current MPO Annual Level of Service Report. Response: The traffic study is included in the application using the methodology established by the Clearwater Traffic Department in a meeting with Robert Pergolizzi. G A reservation system shall be required as an integral part of the hotel use and there shall be a lobby /front desk area that must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area for a hotel would be operated; and Response: Prior to demolition, the lobby will be moved to the existing building and remain there to service the entire project indefinitely. The Owner will submit the required demolition and design drawings for this renovation if different from the existing layout currently employed within the existing building prior to permitting of the new building. m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with regulations as allowed by general law. Response: Acknowledged. 29. Elevations indicate that the existing stairwell at the northwest corner of the existing parking garage and adjacent to the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fins" on the new building with an angled wall projection. With both stairwells angled "fin" walls in the existing building and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured 7GKG31_NA�11R,1E_V1D1 fr om the property lines or seawall to the furthest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site Ic plan needs to indicate the points of these fins and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still P,NN9'N need to show the setbacks from the property lines and seawall to the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building Official, for seawall setbacks under Building Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report). Response: The Architect has revised sheets A -H, A -20, A -20B, A -21, and A -21B to depict the property lines, and setbacks. A request for variance has been incorporated into this submittal. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 23 of 27 30. Architectural plans indicate an exterior stair to be removed from the east side of the existing building. These stairs provide egress to the second floor and to two hotel units accessed from the outside. If these stairs are being removed, how will these two hotel units be accessed in the proposed situation? Additionally, is these required egress being provided per Building and Fire Codes from this hallway and for these two hotel units. Any new internal stairwell to be provided any such required egress will affect first floor functions. Advise /revise. Response: Based on discussion at the previous DRC meeting and direction from the Owner and his representatives that the existing stair will remain. Therefore the Architect has revised his plans to restore existing stair to the plans. J3 An existing portion of the existing building will be retained that includes a bar, with second floor to be removed for an "activity deck." Unclear of the proposed use of the "existing structure" to remain indicated on Sheet A -11 adjacent to the bar. Plans indicate one set of stairs to the "activity deck." Provide documentation that this one set of stairs is sufficient to meet Building and Fire Codes for egress. Additionally, the activity deck appears to have new support columns that are not indicated on the ground level plan and on sheet C4, not indicating the setbacks from the seawall. Response: The Architect has clarified the proposed uses within the existing building to remain, and added additional stairs from the second floor to grade which are separated more than '/ the diagonal distance apart and compliant with NFPA 101. The support columns shown on the second floor are carrying a fabric cover and were not deemed as necessarily requiring support from grade. 32. Exhibit B — Section B — Description of Request — Revise the following; a. First paragraph, seventh line — Plans indicate 48 rooms to remain, not 46 as indicated in this paragraph; Response: Our proposal is for the final construction of the project to include 186 rooms. These will include 46 original rooms and 140 new rooms. Of the existing, rooms 263 and 264 shall be combined and, rooms 404 and 7:S�— ` �� 406 have been previously combined. Room 102 was previously converted into a keg room and will be retained as such in the final � ik1 iteration of design. s PUNY &" b. First paragraph, seventh line — Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces in the existing garage to remain; Response: The Owner has submitted an affidavit confirming the existing number of parking spaces, while the Architect has included this information on his plans to reflect the information provided. JC. Fourth paragraph, Relief #I — See "a" above for number of existing hotel rooms to remain; and City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 24 of 27 Response: Our proposal is for the final construction of the project to include 186 rooms. These will include 46 original rooms and 140 new rooms. Of the existing, rooms 263 and 264 shall be combined and, rooms 404 and 406 have been previously combined. Room 102 was previously converted into a keg room and will be retained as such in the final iteration of design. d. Fourth paragraph — Relief #13 — Cannot confirm 318 valet -only parking spaces. Response: The existing garage is self - parked and converted to valet on an as- needed basis. The existing garage contains 192 striped spaces as indicated in the attached affidavit prepared by the Owners agent. In addition to the 192 spaces provided, the existing garage also contains 28 overflow parking spaces for a total of 220 parking spaces. The new garage is full -time valet only and contains 123 parking spaces, I handicapped accessible van parking space, and 40 overflow parking spaces for a total of 164 parking spaces. The total site when built out will contain a total of 384 parking spaces. 33. Sheet C2 — General Site Note #5 — Revise to indicate Future Land Use includes Preservation (for that zoned OS /R). Response: A note has been has been added to the plan. 34. Sheet C2 — General Site Note #8 — existing Conditions — provide the side (west) setbacks to pavement and other structures (See Exhibit B — Description of Request). Response: The setback for building and pavement has been shown as 0.00 for each. 35. Regarding accessory use of waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals fun coupes, scooters, surrey and bikes): ORIGINAL RECT Understood that the waverunner business and building are intended to remain. How will the building be modified to comply with SEP 1 iA % Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria 46.d 4, requiring a cohesive, visually interesting, and attractive appearance? Response: The Owner has not directed the Architect to make any changes to this existing building. 1D.. There is fencing associated with the waverunner business not shown on the plans. Is this fencing intended to be removed, to remain, or be upgraded? Response: The fence has been shown on Sheet A -11. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 25 of 27 Intent of permitting Fun Ride Rentals as an accessory use is that the storage of such vehicles are not to be visible. Revise landscape plan to include taller shrubs that will obscure views of this storage area. Response: Sea Grapes have been added around fence 36. Introduction of the ballroom and meeting rooms with kitchen on Level 5 and the spa on Level 14 has been determined to be inconsistent with amenities typical of a mid - priced hotel (language from Beach by Design; Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a mid - priced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category.) As such, the square footage of Level 5 in the new building and the square footage of the spa on Level 14 must be backed out of the density /intensity (calculate similar to mixed -use), which will reduce the allowable number of hotel rooms. Additionally, Level 5 will be considered an Indoor Recreational /Entertainment use requiring 10 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet of gross floor area for Level 5 and the spa on Level 14 will be considered Retail Sales and Services use, requiring five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Response: Ballroom has been removed and replaced with meeting space. Kitchen is simply a "warming kitchen "for catered in food 37. J Elevations — a. Need to provide a height dimension from BFE to indicate the maximum height of 150 feet; and b. Need to provide a height of the mechanical room from the top of the roof of the spa/exercise to the top of the mechanical room (maximum of 16 feet). Response: The elevation datum's have been changed to clarify how the Architect meets this requirement. 38. Based on the submitted survey, prior case photos of this site, site inspections of the property and permits indicated in our computer reveals many structures have been constructed without the benefit of building permits; a. two wood pergolas southwest of the_ pool that provide couch seating areas; b. the roof of the bandshell structures on the dock/deck have been reconstructed to have metal roofs; and C. cloth covered canopies have been added throughout the site that are not indicated on the survey. Unless issued permits can be produced for such structures, new permits for such structures must be submitted within 30 days of this DRC meeting, and will include any penalty fees for such. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 26 of 27 Response: This issue is being worked through with Michael Delk separately. 39. J Per the Development Agreement in Section 4.4, architectural plans need to indicate which hotel rooms have full kitchens (limited to 25% of the rooms). Response: Less than25% of the rooms in the new building are intended to have kitchens, these units have been identified on the plans. 40. Unclear why this newest submission indicates 192 parking spaces now exist when the initial submission indicated 176 or 179 spaces. Not sure where these additional parking spaces were found. Ensure architectural plans accurately show the existing parking and that the numbers indicated in written material matches that shown on the architectural plans. Response: The owner has submitted an affidavit confirming the existing number of parking spaces, while the Architect has included this information on his plans to reflect the information provided Should you have any questions, please call me at (954)462 -1090. Sincerely, OSCAR I. GARCIA ARCHITECT, AIA, PA Dani . Kn man Senior Assoc' Director of Operations SEP I � 20,09 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 27 of 27 0 _o W �O UW O� pq x � W e ORIGINAL WEFT P PL LANNING t Wells, Wayne From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject Oscar /Daniel - Wells, Wayne Thursday, August 20, 2009 4.00 PM 'Oscar Garcia' 'Daniel Knopman' Shephard's Beach Resort All project plans need to be consistent as to depicted improvements, otherwise there will be questions of inconsistent plans /drawings. Therefore, yes, with the revisions suggested in this email and the email from Daniel, the renderings need to be revised to be consistent with the other plans being presented for review. Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Oscar Garcia [mailto:og @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:46 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: 'Daniel Knopman' Subject: FW: Shephard's Beach Resort < Wayne: To be clear, we may be removing 1 -2 floors to the Shephards hotel project, so it has.been, suggested to us that we may not need to revise the renderings... we would like your direction. Thank you Oscar I. Garcia 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, F1 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www.garciaarchitect.com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following: 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender. 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and /or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender. Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all 1 claims, damages, losses, and _ ,senses including attorney fees a.__,ing out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 7. NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION ,OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED C2007. Information stored(on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100 %- compatible.with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software,, systems. - - - -- Original Message - - -- From: Daniel Knopman [mailto:dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:39 PM To: Mr. Wayne M. Wells AICP Cc: Mr. Oscar I-Garcia AIA - Subject:-,Shephard's Beach Resort Good Afternoon Wayne, .{. . I am writing to review an issue with the Shephard's Beach Resort Submittal. If we reduce the number of rooms and change the railings on the new building, will we be required to revise the renderings as well? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman, AIA Senior Associate Director of Operations Sent from my iPhone z Wells, Wayne From: Daniel Knopman [dk @garciaarchitect com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Mr. Oscar I Garcia AIA Subject: Shephard's Beach Resort Good Afternoon Wayne, I am writing to review an issue with the Shephard's Beach Resort Submittal. If we reduce the number of rooms and change the railings on the new building, will we be required to revise the renderings as well? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman, AIA Senior Associate Director of Operations Sent from my iPhone r 1 { Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:14 PM To: 'Joe Burdette' Cc: Keith Zayac Subject: Shephard's survey Correct From: Joe Burdette,[mailto:jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:36 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Keith Zayac Subject: RE: Shephard's survey Kelly McClung from Suncoast Survey talked to the engineering department and I am told this is resolved... no problems... out surveys are correct Joe From: =Wayne .Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 1:50 PM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com; Jim.Hersh @myClearwater.com N Subject: Shephard's survey Keith — As part of our internal process, we have maps created in our Engineering Department for Flexible Development (FLD) and Flexible Standard Development (FLS) cases (as well as other types of cases), which then are reflected in our GIS system to track applications. I am in the process of obtaining maps for the Shephard's FLD /TDR /DVA cases. Jim Hersh is working on creating our maps. We send a copy of the property survey to Engineering to ensure the legal description is correct. In reviewing the legal description and survey information for the Shephard's property, the legal description and survey appear to have errors. The Lots 1 -5 do not appear to the problem, but it is the unplatted portion of the property that the legal description appears to have the errors. The legal description indicates a distance of 286 feet on the west side, but the survey indicates a distance of 341.94 feet along the same property line. Lots 1 -5 are ghosted in, and there appears to be an un- platted portion of property between the platted lots and the seawall that is not legally described. Those portions of the property to the south of the seawall that Shephard's apparently owns, indicated through the L1 through L13, are not indicated in the survey or legal description. I wanted to bring this to your attention so you can look at it along with your surveyor and determine what, if any corrections, are necessary. Tom Mahony, PSM, Geographic Technology Manager, in our Engineering Department has also looked at the survey and has indicated there is a problem. Any corrections to the surveys need to be reflected on the civil and architectural site plans. I would also need one new original survey and 14 copies with the packages when you resubmit. Let me know. 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 z Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 1 50 PM To: keith@keithzayac com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay rr com, Hersh, Jim Subject: Shephard's survey Keith — As part of our internal process, we have maps created in our Engineering Department for Flexible Development (FLD) and, Flexible Standard Development (FLS) cases (as well as other types of cases), which then are reflected in our GIS system to track applications. I am in the process of obtaining maps for the Shephard's FLD /TDR /DVA cases. Jim Hersh is working on creating our maps. We send a copy of the property survey to Engineering to ensure the legal description is correct. In reviewing the legal description and survey information for the Shephard's property, the legal description and survey appear to have errors. The Lots 1 -5 do not appear to the problem, but it is the unplatted portion of the property that the legal description appears to have the errors. The legal description indicates a distance of 286 feet on the west side, but the survey indicates a distance of 341.94 feet along the same property line. Lots 1 -5 are ghosted in, and there appears to be an un -, platted portion of property between the platted lots and the seawall that is not legally described. Those portions of the property to the south of the seawall that Shephard's apparently owns, indicated through the L1 through L13, are not indicated in the survey or legal description. ; I wanted to bring this to your attention so you can look at it along with your surveyor and determine what, if any corrections, are necessary. Tom Mahony, PSM, Geographic Technology Manager-, in our Engineering Department has-,, also looked at the survey and has indicated there is a problem. Any corrections to the surveys need to be reflected on =;:. the civil and architectural site plans. I would also need one new original survey and 14 copies with the packages,when you resubmit. Let me know. 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 F' 1 Wells, Wayne From: Joe Burdette Oburdette505 @tampabay rr com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11.23 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE- TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd okay From: Wayne. Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:12 AM To: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com; keith @keithzayac.com Cc: Leslie.Dougall- Sides @myClearwater.com; hsc @macfar.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd 1 Joe — Keep in mind that the Transfer of Development Rights has never been approved by the CDB to transfer the units from the original properties. While Warranty Deeds for the TDRs have been recorded, they have never been authorized by the City. The application will start at ground zero to authorize the units from the original sending properties. Leslie will need to rule on the covenants on the original properties and consent by mortgager. -4 Wayne .From: Joe Burdette [ mailto :jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:34 AM To: Wells, Wayne; keith @keithzayac.com Subject: RE: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd to 665 and 645 Bay Esplande have the same seller and same lender. The one release mortgagor's consent covered both lots. From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:07 AM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Keith /Joe — FYI. Comments under Planning have been revised accordingly to reflect the comments below. Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:27 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: hsc @macfar.com; Tefft, Robert; 'KOH @macfar.com' Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd . 1 , Leslie — This TDR application started in November 2005 with Ed Armstrong as agent at that time. Along with FLD2005- 11108, these applications were incomplete and eventually withdrawn. Since these applications were never a complete application, no review of the application material was ever performed as to whether the application material was correct. However, regarding the TDR portion, the applicant continued and recorded TDR Warranty Deeds regardless of the incompleteness of the application. Three to four years have transpired and we are now at a new application for development approval (FLD2008- 12033), which includes TDR2005- 11028. I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments (and have revised the appropriate Zoning DRC comment under FLD2008 -12033 to reflect the updated comments below): 1. 665 Bay Esplanade = a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include.a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject'property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. — Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. C. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. 2 g. Need a completed Applicatio,..or Transfer of Development Rights fillew out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. C. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312- 317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f f. A Release-of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. I would suggest a meeting with Harry Cline so that we can review the file and update TDR applications to today's circumstances. 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 Checked by AVG - .www.avg.com Version 8.5 386 / Virus Database: 270.13 5/2219 - Release Date: 07/05/09 17.54.00 Checked by AVG - www avg.corri - Version. 8 5 386 / Virus Database: 270 13.5/2219 - Release Date: 07/05/09 17 54.00 3 'I. '% + Wells, Wayne ' From: Joe Burdette Dburdette505 @tampabay.rr com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10.35 AM To: Wells, Wayne; keith @keithzayac com Subject: RE: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S Gulfview Blvd Actually it covered all the lots on Bay Esplanade. Same seller, same lender Joe From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:07 AM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Keith /Joe — FYI. Comments under Planning have been revised accordingly to reflect the comments below. Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:27 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie , Cc: hsc @macfar.com; Tefft, Robert; 'KOH @macfar.com' Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Leslie — This TDR application started in November 2005 with Ed Armstrong as agent at that time. Along with FLD2005- 11108, these applications were incomplete and eventually withdrawn. Since these applications were never a complete application, no review of the application material was ever performed as to whether the application material was correct. However, regarding the TDR portion, the applicant continued and recorded TDR Warranty Deeds regardless of the incompleteness of the application. Three to four years have transpired and we are now at a new application for development approval (FLD2008- 12033), which includes TDR2005- 11028. I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments (and have revised the appropriate Zoning DRC comment under FLD2008 -12033 to reflect the updated comments below): 1. 665 Bay Esplanade — a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. 1!_ c. The subject proN�rty is currently developed with 4 dweh,..g units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. — a. Per the-Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. C. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. , e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989,,Pages. - f; 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject,property_ due_ to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. C. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312- 317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. 6 y w f. A Release of Mortgage as to l , ,.osfer of Density was recorded in OR Bo—. 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. I would suggest a meeting with Harry Cline so that we can review the file and update TDR applications to today's circumstances. 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 Checked by AVG -' www avg.com Version: 8.5.386 / Virus Database: 270 13 5/2219 - Release Date: 07/05/09 17:54:00 3 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9 07 AM To: keith @keithzayac com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject:, TDR2005- 11028, 619 S Gulfview Blvd Keith /Joe — FYI. Comments under Planning have been revised accordingly to reflect the comments below. Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:27 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: hsc @macfar.com; Tefft, Robert; 'KOH @macfar.com' Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Leslie — This TDR application started in November 2005 with Ed Armstrong as agent at that time.'Along with fLD2005- 11108, these applications were incomplete and eventually withdrawn. Since these applications were never a complete application, no review of the application material was ever performed as to whether the application material was correct. However; -regarding the TDR portion, the applicant continued and recorded TDR Warranty Deeds regardless of the incompleteness of the application. Three to four years have transpired and we are now at a n_ ew application for development approval (FLD2008- 12033), which includes TDR2005- 11028. , I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments (and have revised the appropriate Zoning DRC comment under FLD2008 -12033 to reflect the updated comments below): 665 Bay Esplanade — a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. , g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 645 Bayway Blvd. — a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed TranN . of Density Unit Development Rights reco. A in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238- 1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312- 317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. I would suggest a meeting with Harry Cline so that we can review the file and update TDR applications to today's circumstances. 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 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9.04 AM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr com Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S Gulfview Blvd Keith — After researching the records for structures on the west side, where records indicate the structures on prior construction plans, the Planning DRC comments have been revised to reflect such finding (see attached). 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 Re- revised fining Case Con 1 Conditions Associated With FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 562 -4773 07e 04/16/2009 The following to be addressed prior to CDB. Not Met 1 Clarify how the proposed queueing would operate as shown on Sheet A -11 The plan shows the drop -off area completely blocked providing no space for arriving vehicles or baggage handling The curbing shown on the east and west ends of the drop -off area limits access and may not provide maneuvering room for vehicles as shown on the plan. General Note DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Budding Permit Application. t Environmental Condition Sarah Josuns 562 -4897 12/22/2008 Fire Condition 12/29/2008 Prior to the Community Development Board: 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the owner (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition ) Please Note' An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information James Keller 562 -4327 x3062 Not Met This budding is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and1his requires two (?),Fire , , Not Met D rt t C t I I h PROVIDE d t I h ' h th F epa men onnec ions p ans on y s ow one a ai s s owing ow a existing ,ire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line Show on utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12 " water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building.Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4 -13 -09 The required 2nd FDC is not shown on page C6. The FDC lines will be 6" DR14 pipe not 4" DR18 as shown. The fire line for the standpipe at the rear of property must be tied int the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO CDB 05/04/2009 Under comments #5 the existing parking garage has a code deficient sprinkler system and wil be Not Met required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. The response was. Based on subdsequent meetings with the fire department, it was agreed that since the existing building will not be added on to,or renovated at this tome, the existing sprinkler system will be repaired and brought up to code over time Letter dated April 9,2009 in line #1 states that the layout of the existing west building containing Bar, Nightclub, Restaurant, Meeting Space, and Guest Rooms will remain unchanged in terms of program ming,layout, or planning and the next statement #2 The exterior stair on the east side of the existing building will be removed. This is shown on the plans sheet A -11 as this is the EXISTING buildings, if this is part of the new development then the ENTIRE existing structure SHALL be brought up to code. Harbor Master Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 S 12/23/2008 No issues. I Not Met Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 04/29/2009 Sheet C9 - Revise for the following: Not Met Print Date. 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 1 of 12 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 a. Plan indicates 11 PT in the northwest corner of the site, but the arrow indicates such is off -site b. Unclear why no landscaping is proposed in the northeast corner of the site ( ?); c For 5,423 sf of interior landscape area, Code requires one shade tree for each 150 sf, or a total of 36 trees Based on the submitted landscape plan, only five trees are proposed to be planted within the interior landscape area indicated on Sheet C4 Must plant an additional 31 trees. Legal Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 12/23/2008 No issues. Not Met Land Resource Condition Rick Albee : 727 - 562 -4741 12/16/2008 No Issues. Not Met Parks & Recs Condition Chris Hubbard 12/18/2008 The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of Not Met building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at 727 - 562 -4837 to calculate the assessment 12/18/2008: ` Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of budding permits or final plat (if Not Met applicable) whichever occurs first These fees could be substantial-and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727 - 562 -4818 to calculate the assessment. Storm Water, Condition, Phuong Vo 562 -4752 04/20/2009, The following shall be addressed prior to Community Development Board:, = -, Not Met 1. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue 2. Please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of the Budding Permit: 1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD ERP permit. 2. Please provide soil analysis with Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) at the proposed vault to demonstrate the buoyancy calculation is not required 3. Provide a control structure with all dimensions 4. Please route all runoff, including the rear deck to the vault for treatment before discharge. 5. Please provide a detailed plan showing how roof runoff will be routed to the proposed vault 6 The construction of the proposed Atlantis vault along the east property line will impact the existing lift station Please address this issue. 7 Please use a solid pipe for the proposed outfall as perforated may create erosion problem over a long period of time. 8 Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue General note 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Budding Permit Application. 2. At budding permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any other drainage related document for review and record. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 Print Date. 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 2 of 12 Traffic Eng Condition FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 04/16/2009 1 The parking table on the civil plans is not consistent with the architectural plans in regard to the number of striped and overflow parking spaces in the proposed garage 2. Even though overflow parking in drive aisles has been shown on previous projects, the Traffic Operations Division continues to have concerns about this as it creates maneuverability problems due to reduced drive aisle widths and blocked vehicles 3 Provide a van accessible handicapped parking space whereby the vertical clear height shall be 8'2" per Florida Building Code, Chapter 11, Section 4.6 5. Provide a note indicating such on both the civil and architectural plans. 4 Provide a note that the vertical clear height of each garage floor level in vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm) other than the van accessible parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.2.2 Clear height. I The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. 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. Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 Not Met 3.01/04/2009 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report 1/4/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed budding Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. 01/04/2008 5/3/09 - WW Not Met Plans do not dimension the projection of the awnings 1/4/09 - WW Sheets C4, A -11 and A -12 - Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimensions these awnings project from the building On the architectural plans, indicate what material and color these awnings are to be. 04/29/2009 Ensure when resubmitting that all original sheets are submitted, as Sheet C2 was omitted from Not Met this submission. 12/23/2008 5/4/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 - WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated Note- Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 3 of 12 CaseConditons FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 05/04/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #1 - Last paragraph - The manner in which the Not Met information is put forth appears to indicate that the existing Holiday Inn budding is 128 feet in height, whereas the 128 -foot height is for a proposed building that has not been constructed on the west side of the Holiday Inn property. Clarify how the Holiday Inn building heights are actually 12/23/2008 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 - WW Not Met Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public - records. 01/06/2009 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Response indicates there will be no changes to the existing railings, however, Sheet A -20 continues to show such aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass (not the existing aluminum picket railings) and Sheets A -22 and A -22B now shows the same aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass. Improvements to tie the existing building together with the new building are necessary to be compliant with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 d Advise /revise. 1/6/09 - WW Sheet A -20 - Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed budding (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -22B. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildings,together as a cohesive unit. 01/06/2009 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report 1/6/09 - WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. 01/04/2009 5/4/09 - WW Not Met Architectural plans now indicate 48 rooms to remain in the existing hotel and 180 rooms in the new building, for a total of 228 rooms, which is still greater than the maximum of 226 indicated in the application and on Sheet C2. Additionally, based on the architectural plans, there are 152 striped parking spaces in the existing parking garage, with an unknown number of overflow spaces (not shown), and 124 striped parking spaces in the proposed parking garage, with 40 overflow spaces indicated. The number of parking spaces are not consistent with the numbers indicated on Sheet C2. 1/4/09 - WW Application and Sheet C4 indicates a total of 226 hotel rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown. Number the rooms in the existing budding much the same as in the new budding Revise. 01/05/2009 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing budding and parking garage to remain As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner Print Date: 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 4 of 12 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. 01/04/2009 5/4/09 - WW Not Met Response unclear, which states all other bars have been removed from the plans. Does this mean that they are no longer proposed or that you are dust not showing them? 1/4/09 - WW Sheet C4 - Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see Sheet A -11). 01/07/2009 7/5/09 - WW Not Met I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments, 1 665 Bay Esplanade - a. The subject property is 0 273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted._ g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. , 2. 645 Bayway Blvd - a Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial budding. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646 g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0 229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second budding; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total) d The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312 -317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314 g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 5 of 12 CaseConditons FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 agent 5/6/09 - WW I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read 'Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to the Sending Property in perpetuity." Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and how to resolve issues. 1/7/09 - WW Transfer of Development Rights - a. Unclear as to the need for the Affidavit submitted by Harry S. Cline; b. Exhibit A - 665 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for a total of two dwelling units from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was two actual dwelling units that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; c. Exhibit A - 655 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn- in:October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for one dwelling unit from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there - was,one•actual dwelling unit that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined, d Exhibit B - -From what property were these two dwelling units transferred from (645 Bayway Blvd ?). Same comment as "b" and "c" above, e. Under TDR2005 -11028 there was also 10 dwelling units to be transferred from 669 Mandalay' Avenue Same comment as "b ", "c" and "d" above What has ever happened to these units? f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b - e above be cleared up before this document is recorded. 01/04/2009 7/6/09 - WW Structures were shown on prior construction plans and are accepted as existing. Request needs to indicate such structures at a zero -foot setback. 6/29/09 - WW Planning will review previously approved plans approved to ascertain whether such plans indicated these structures on the west side If construction plans verify these structures were on the plans, then these structures will be accepted as existing (Comprehensive Infill request would still indicate a zero setback [to existing structures]). If construction plans do not verify these structures were approved, this application will need to reflect a request to retain these structures at the existing setbacks (including the need to obtain after - the -fact building permits) or how they will be brought into compliance otherwise. Once a review of prior approved permits is completed (anticipated to be completed the week of June 29 - July 2), Planning will inform the applicant of our findings 5/6/09 - WW Civil plans and survey updated. Unclear how /why canopy extends over the property line onto the adjacent property. Response does not address the comments below Still unclear how the wall and canopy were constructed at a zero (or less than zero) setback and of variances /permits granted for such improvements 1/4/09 - WW Civil plans need to indicate the existing wall along the west property line ( ?) and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 6 of 12 Not Met CaseConditons FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any "variance" granted) Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. 01/04/2009 5/3/09 - WW -� Not Met Response was to remove the column grid lines (station markers) from the plans This is not was requested (see below). 1/4/09 - WW Architectural plans - Provide station markers on the two planes of the budding for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of budding elements, especially in relation to property lines. 04/29/2009 6/29/09 - WW Not Met Density will need to reflect the number of rooms based on banquet hall floor area being removed from density calculation (may not be 226 rooms). 4/29/09 - WW Sheet C2 - General Site Notes #22 - Provide the overall proposed density of 95 35 rooms /acre after 226 rooms. 04/30/2009 After further review of the plans and discussion with Planning Management and the Building Not Met Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and /or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fins on the building must be projected to the ground and the setback.to that point, indicated These setbacks to property lines and /or seawall are what will be - advertised (a variance to the seawall setback will be required by the Budding Official). 05/03/2009 Sheet C2 - General Site Not e' #11 _ ; r Not Mete, a Suggest a new line--B for Site Area for "T" District or revising line A to the Site Area for "T" District (site data is,to'be evaluated, ONLY on•that area,zoned "T" District); ;. :• ' , ,;,,,;;, ; .r, °=:, b. B. Provide the Existing, Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the; area zoned TobriM- District ONLY; and c. E. Provide the Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; 05/05/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #2 - i Not Met a. Cannot confirm (based on architectural plans) that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; and b In (3) you refer to the project to the north. If you are referring to the Holiday Inn project, that project is to the west 05/05/2009 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Revise for the following: Not Met (a) 1. The side setback reductions for the existing pavement, freezers and building canopy are on the west side (not north); (a) 2 The height variance referred to for a similar project is to the west (not north); (b) Height and Tower Separation B.2 - The Entrada project to the west at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128 feet in height Additionally, the project at 691 S Gulfview Blvd (Enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower 150 feet in height Provide documentation that neither Option 1 or 2 apply, including a diagram that shows compliance; (b) Height and Tower Separation B 3 - Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan, (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The floorplate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided per Beach by Design B 3 c, as to how this proposal complies with a tiered effect (expound); (b) There is no Criteria #7 (remove) and remove a) and b). Revise c) and the balance of this section to C.1, C.2, etc ; (b) c)1 - Provide a diagram that shows compliance with this dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes; (b) c)3 - Architectural elevations indicate the percentage of openings, which is inconsistent with .Print Date. 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 7 of 12 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 what the criteria /provisions call for (windows or architectural decoration). Revise Sheets A -20, A -20B, A -21, A21 B, and place information on A -22 and A -226, (b) c)4 - Theoretical envelop is from all property lines, not just the half of the property being redeveloped. Update the criteria to that in Beach by Design, where a maximum of 75% is permissible (not 60 %). Envelop below 45 feet not necessary to be shown. Drawing submitted is wrong and not understandable (b) d) - Remove this section, (b) Remove sections 8 and 9; and (c) Need to provide responses to the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off): c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements. - Changes in horizontal budding planes; - Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; - Variety in materials, colors and textures; - Distinctive fenestration patterns; - Budding stepbacks, and - Distinctive roofs forms. ». e The,Proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design, and appropriate distances between buildings 05/05/2009 Proposed, parking numbers of 318 striped and 66 overflow spaces cannot be confirmed. Revise,,,; ; Not Met ` for the following' a. Overflow in"the ex"is"ting parking garage not shown; b Sheet A -1.1`- Parking in the existing garage on Level A in the northwestern portion,of the,garage .r does"not'presently exist, requiring`the removal of a wall and eliminating a storage area;to ,create' -, these five spaces. These northwestern two parking spaces don't function, as they cannot back } out without multiple turning movements, except to the southern portion of the garage, and c. Provide a table (previously provided but removed with this submission) on Sheet A -11 that includes a tabulation by floor of the number of hotel units (existing and proposed buildings) and the number of parking spaces (existing and proposed buildings, including the number of striped and overflow spaces). 05/05/2009 Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Not Met Design needs to be provided Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08 Provisions are for a mid- priced hotel, not a resort Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a Those properties and /or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve, b Those properties and /or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and /or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; c. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size less than 2 5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than or equal to 2 5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it has received benefit of transfers of development rights in addition to the Reserve, or not; d Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; e No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached i Pant Date 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 8 of 12 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 dwelling); f The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; g. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought into the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum budding height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met; h. A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation /closure covenant that the overnight accommodation use will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the National Hurricane Center, i. Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; j All hotel rooms obtained from the Reserve that are not constructed shall be returned to the Reserve; k. The development shall comply with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) countywide approach to the application of concurrency management for transportation facilities, and the transportation analysis conducted for the development shall include the following: - Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO; - Identification of level of service (LOS) standards for state and county roads as established by the MPO, ' = Utilization ofiproportional fair -share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO,',71" model ordinance; -,Utilization ofytlie_MPO Traffic Impact, Study Methodology; and ; t _;l Recognition -of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the m'ost,currerit,;' - MPO Annual Level of Service Report. ; I." A'rese'rvatioh system'sh- all,be required -as an integral part of the hotel use and thereshall;be a ;lobby /front,'desk area' that "must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area-for4h'6tel would;be operated, and .1 , 4 m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed by general law 05/05/2009 Elevations indicate that the existing stairwells at the northwest corner of the existing parking Not Met garage and adjacent to the existing nightclub in the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fins" on the new budding with an angled wall projection. With both the stairwells angled "fin" walls in the existing budding and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured from the property lines or seawall to the furtherest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site plan needs to indicate the points of these fins and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still need to show the setback from the property lines and seawall to the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building Official, for seawall setbacks, where a variance to the seawall setbacks under the Budding Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report) 05/05/2009 Architectural plans indicate an exterior stair to be removed from the east side of the existing Not Met budding. These stairs provide egress to the second floor and to two hotel units accessed from the outside. If these stairs are being removed, how will these two hotel units be accessed in the proposed situation. Additionally, is there required egress being provided per Budding and Fire Codes from this hallway and for these two hotel units. Any new internal stairwell to provide any such required egress will affect first floor functions. Advise /revise. 05/05/2009 An existing portion of the existing budding will be retained that includes a bar, with the second Not Met floor to be removed for an "activity deck ". Unclear of the proposed use of the "existing structure" to remain indicated on Sheet A -11 adjacent to the bar. Plans indicate one set of stairs to the "activity deck ". Provide documentation that this one set of stairs is sufficient to meet Building and Print Date. 07/06/2009 Page 9 of 12 CaseConditons Zoning Condition Fire Codes for egress. FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 Additionally, the activity deck appears to have new support columns that are not indicated on the ground level plan and on Sheet C4, not indicating the setback from the seawall. 05/05/2009 Exhibit B - Section B - Description of Request - Revise for the following: Not Met a. First paragraph, seventh line - Plans indicate 48 rooms to remain, not 46 as indicated in this paragraph, b. First paragraph, seventh line - Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces (based on architectural plans) in the existing parking garage to remain; c. Fourth paragraph - Relief #1 - See "a" above for number of existing hotel rooms to remain; and d. Fourth paragraph - Relief #13 - Cannot confirm 318 valet -only parking spaces (based on architectural plans). 05/05/2009 Sheet C2 - General Site Note #5 - Revise to indicate Future Land Use includes Preservation (for Not Met that zoned OS /R). 05/06/2009 Sheet C2 - General Site Note #8 - Existing Conditions - provide the side-(west) setback to Not Met pavement and other structures (see Exhibit B - Description of Request) 05/06/2009 Regarding accessory uses of waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, Not Met surrey and bikes): a. There is fencing associated with the waverunner business not shown on 'the plans.;- ,ls.this fencing intended to be removed, to remain or to be upgraded? •b. Infent of permitting Fun Ride,Rentals as an accessory use is that the, storage of. such- vehicles "„ x,_`•r °'' 'a re" not =to be visible. Revise the landscape plan to include taller shrubs :that,w {II obscure views of =' this "storage area. - 4;, 05/06/2009, Introduction of.the ballroom'and meeting rooms with kitchen on Level '5.`an`d 'the spa= o'n,'Level ' A. - Not Met has.been determined to be'inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpnced, hotel (language from Beach by Design. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall } require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category.) As such, the square footage of Level 5 in the new building and the square footage of the spa on Level 14 must be backed out of the density /intensity (calculate similar to a mixed -use), which will reduce the allowable number of hotel rooms. 05/06/2009 Elevations - Not Met a. Need to provide a height dimension from BFE to indicate the maximum height of 150 feet, and b. Need to provide a height of the mechanical room from the top of the roof of the spa /exercise to the the top of the mechanical room (maximum of 16 feet). 05/06/2009 Per the Development Agreement in Section 4.4, architectural plans need to indicate which hotel Not Met rooms will have full kitchens (limited to 25% of the rooms) ` 05/06/2009 Unclear why this newest submission indicates 192 parking spaces now exist when the initial Not Met submission indicated 176 or 179 spaces. Not sure where these additional parking spaces were found. Ensure architectural plans accurately show the existing parking and that the numbers indicated in written material matches that shown on the architectural plans. 06/26/2009 1/7/09 - WW Not Met Parking Demand Study - Revise for the following. a. Introduction - There are only 96 existing rooms at this hotel, (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Revised study still indicates 97 existing hotel rooms.) / b. Introduction - My counts of parking spaces in the existing parking garage do not confirm 179 spaces; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Architectural plans only indicate 152 striped spaces in the existing garage and it is not indicated how or where any overflow spaces exist ) c. Parking Supply - Same comment as "b" above. The proposal includes modification to the existing parking garage to increase the number of spaces, not identified in this Study; (5/4/09 - Print Date: 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 10 of 12 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition - Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 WW - No response - Architectural plans indicate changes to the ground floor parking in the existing parking garage, which are not disclosed in any written mpterial ) d Parking Supply - This indicates that both of the parking garages will be serviced by valets. However, other information in this application indicates the garages will be self -park on non -peak times. Which is it, valet only or self -park? (5/4/09 - WW - No response.) e Parking Supply - It has been indicated there will be provided 28 stacking spaces in the porte cochere area Plans do not verify such statement; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Stacking revised to, and shown at, 19 vehicles Unclear how these will be parked by patrons entering the premises in the stacking layout indicated.) f. Parking Demand - It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted Ensure the nightclub square footage includes both levels of the nightclub, as the posted rated capacity is 523 persons in the nightclub, (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Study now no longer indicates the square footage of retail, only stating "a small retail gift shop ". Square footage of nightclub unchanged at 2,300 sf; architectural plans indicate much larger than 2,300 sf ) g. Parking Demand - The banquet facility states a seating of 300 attendees, but there is a huge outdoor deck being provided on the south side of this facility. *Will there be any seating or other functions at any time on this outdoor deck? (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Study still indicates 300 attendees, however, the banquet facilities have been moved to the new building and expanded in size to an entire floor, including a new kitchen. Need to revise number of attendees and calculations. 6/26/09 - WW - Look at how the Building and Fire Codes determine maximum capacity for the new banquet facility in the new building for calculation purposes of parking demand h • Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory' uses, orasa ' „- ...mid- priced hotel with accessory uses sized to primarily meet the needs of the.hotel,guests; :(5/,4/09-= WW - No response.) l °'Tables'2 and 3 -`On what day of the week and dates were'these studies completed?' ;It is ' difficult to agree with the numbers related to the nightclub 6f "1 "6 and 23 spaces (normal and full occupancy respectively); (5/4/09 - WW - No response - It appears that Tables 2 and 3 are not based on actual data but on assumptions ) and k Appendix - The drawing showing vehicle stacking includes vehicles blocking the public sidewalk, vehicles blocking the entrance and exit driveways for the existing parking garage, shows surface parking in front of the proposed budding that the proposed plans do not show and the drive aisles are wider than that shown on the submitted plans (5/4/09 - WW - No response) 06/26/2009 Architectural plans for the ground level indicates vehicle stacking at entrance. Proposal is to Not Met increase the number of hotel rooms from 96 to 226 rooms (an increase of 130 rooms), in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, outdoor tike bar and ballroom. Proposed parking is supposedly 318 striped spaces and 66 overflow for a total of 384 parking spaces (can't confirm these numbers of parking spaces based on the architectural plans submitted), provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site where all parking will be valet only. Vehiclular stacking needs to be reworked to avoid backups into S Gulfview Blvd. and to ensure on -site traffic circulation will not be impaired. 06/26/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #6 - Unclear what is meant by "The applicant currently Not Met has an occupational license to operate a 167 seat restaurant and will redevelop the Subject Property to include an upscale restaurant." There is no indication of any additional restaurant on the property and no indication that the existing restaurant will be remodeled for such "upscale restaurant ". The purpose of the Hotel Density Reserve is to "facilitate the restoration of those lost mid -size, mid - priced hotels," not for the development of additional resorts. 06/26/2009 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following: Not Met a. Parking - The project is proposing more than the miniumum number of spaces. The "requested relief' is being requested due to parking spaces have been designed as double- stacked requiring valet parking only. Based on the architectural plans, cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing parking garage that are indicated in writing. Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 11 of 12 CaseConditons FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 b. Setbacks - No documentation has been presented as to how the west side setback was approved at a zero setback Need to present justification for the west side and the rear setback reductions to zero feet. (6/30/09 - WW - Planning staff is researching the records regarding the west side setbacks. Will inform later this week of findings 7/6/09 - WW - Structures on the west, side have been shown on prior construction plans and are accepted as existing. Modify response to reflect such existing structures.). 06/26/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - Second sentence - Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot " This surface parking lot is being removed with this proposal. 1. fA �,P l�Fte .�^ 1 -'�Jj •I V' � � � u I v a � . � r. i i ,' 'I`_ ' •, 't r 1 'n . �, � , , Z Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 12 of 12 Not Met CaseConditons Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 1:26 PM To: Wells, Wayne _ Cc: Tefft, Robert Subject: FW: Joe Burdette - Re Shephard's fyi From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 12:08 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Re: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's Thank you In a message dated 7/2/2009 11:31:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mich ' l.delk(c;MvClear vater.com writes: Go with it. mild From:-�Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] , Sent: Thursday, July 02,- 2009 9:50 AM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's I Michael My number is 15,512 sq. ft. We will back out 17 units and only ask for 83 units from the reserve. We ' will also put railings on the balconies of the old building to match the railings on the new building along with putting a mesh on the old garage that will have plants in it to match the same on the new building. Please confirm my numbers and I can get the architect to redesign and I can have the attorney's change the DVA to reflect 83 units. Joe � 1 Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9.58 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Joe Burdette - Re. Shephard's FYI. We can use this information and move forward it would seem. Robert and I added up a lesser number. They need to get started making the changes. From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:50 AM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's Michael My number is 15,512 sq. ft. We will back out 17 units and only ask for 83 units from the reserve. We will also put railings on the balconies of the old building to match the railings on the new building along with putting a mesh on the old garage that will have plants in it to match the same on the new building. } Please confirm my numbers and I can get the architect to redesign and I can have the, attorney's change the DVA to reflect' 83' units. s fir`.Joe, _ It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! 1 9 Wayne In order to save you time,,, the comments about zero setback on the west side and other things concerning that were approved in 1998 V- 98 -05. Back then structure was structure that elevated more than 1 foot vertical from the ground. Asphalt nor pavement was considered structure. All other variances on the new building can be found there as well. Joe It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rulef 1 0 M Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol com Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 142 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe B- Thanks and an FYI to save you time Wayne In order to save you time,,, the comments about zero setback on the west side and other things concerning that were approved in 1998 V- 98 -05. Back then structure was structure that elevated more than 1 foot vertical from the ground. Asphalt nor pavement was considered structure. All other variances on the new building can be found there as well. Joe It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rulef 1 0 M Wells, Wayne l� From: Wells, Wayne Sent: _ Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9 17 AM To: keith@keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Keith — After discussion with Michael Delk, the Zoning DRC comments for the above referenced application have been revised (see attached). 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 Revised ling Case Cond i Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 5:31 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Michael - Sorry to be a pest From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:36 AM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Michael - Sorry to be a pest Michael I suppose we are going to have to meet again on this issue unless you can tell me otherwise. This comment: "Additionally. Level 5 will be considered an Indoor Recreational; L:ntertainment use requiring 10 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet oigross floor area for Letiel 5 and the spa on Level 14 will be considered Retail Sales and Services use, requiring five spaces per 1.000 square feet of gross floor area." What this seems to be saying is that not only are you considering taking units away from the hotel (allowing. less to be obtained from the Density Reserve), but the FAR is now going to have to have additional parking.. There is no way we can do this and it was not a requirement of the other two hotels we just got approved (Kendall and the Holiday Inn Express) Can we schedule something Friday morning to go over this and the other issues I sent you the other day.. -I just• don't know how to respond. Dell Days of Deals' June 15 -24 - A New Deal Everyday Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 5 20 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW. Joe Burdette - Comments I am Struggling With From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:51 AM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Comments I am Struggling With Michael Here are the comments I am struggling with. Most of them revolve parking and we will have 1.4 spaces per room off -peak (code compliant parking spaces). there may be two spaces lost if back in is not allowed, but we are still way above 1.0 spaces per room and the above the 1.2 you are seeking to go to. When 100 % valet with stacking (same as we did with Patel) we are at 1.7. I just need to know that this parking issue can go away. I want to respond to all of this next week so we can be sufficient for the August CDB. There are a number of legal issues with the TDRs, and Harry Cline is working directly with Leslie Doggel -Side on those. Wayne's Comments: My responses in RED Recent radio advertisements indicate Shephard's "has expanded the private beach" when advertising the Sunday beach party. Based, on past experience and visual inspection, unclear where this expanded private beach area is located. Explain. — Natural Accretion. Based on radio and print material, it is difficult to agree with the number s of patrons of the nightclub on normal and peak nights, especially based on the posted rated capacity of the nightclub. Additionally, the Study does not include the Tiki Bar usage that is outdoors, which apparently draws large crowds, especially on weekends (although other days are also full). They have a bandshell on the dock for this outdoor area that is not discussed. We are not changing anything in the existing building which the nightclub is in. We gave him the counts for the nightclub. Wayne went down there in the middle of Spring Break on a Saturday night and I hardly think that is representative of how it is normally. In fact, in off periods it is only open 4 days a week. The band shell is not a part of the new building. It is a part of the Tiki deck and is staying just as is to stay in compliance with FEMA. I have heard complaints from the surrounding neighborhood regarding off -site parking on the streets, most likely to the parking garage being full; Based on site inspection on 4/25/09, the outdoor tiki deck well exceeded the 200 indicated during peak season. Note: discussions with hotel personnel, the lounge and tiki deck are full most days, especially on weekends. Based on site inspection inadequate parking exists and will e exacerbated with this proposal. Again I disagree that there is inadequate parking. This is the exact reason we are building so many parking spaces. Bill Shepherd would love to have even more if we had some additional height to work with. Parking — The project is proposing more than the minimum number of spaces. The `requested relief' is being requested due to parking spaces have been designed as double- stacked requiring valet parking only. Cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing garage. Even though more than the minimum number of parking spaces are being provided, the provided parking will still not be enough, based on existing characteristics. We have 226 rooms and 318 striped spaces (1.4 spaces per room). When 100% valet we have 3 86 spaces (1.7 spaces per room). Wayne said he could not verify the parking in the existing garage, but all he had to do was count them while he was there. The general manger of Shephard's went out personally counted them and provided an affidavit of the count. I don't know what else to do. Understood that the waverunner business and building are intended to remain. How will the building be modified to comply with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d requiring a cohesive, visually interesting, and attractive appearance? Again, this is an existing condition on the tiki deck and we are not touching the tiki deck due to FEMA rules. Setbacks — No documentation has been presented as to how the west side setback was approved at a zero setback. Need to present justification for the west side and the rear setback reductions to zero feet. Again, this is an existing condition of the building that was approved by the planning board in 1998, which is also why the current garage is so close to the road. The plans were passed by the planning board, the plans were approved by the city and it was built in accordance with that plan. This again, has nothing to do with the new proposed building which is on the other side of the property and has the required side setback. See DCAB Action #V -98 -05 where all of this was approved. Existing off - street loading and unloading blocks traffic circulation. This proposal does not address the existing problems I have no idea how to answer this. If off - street loading and unloading is illegal then they should be ticketed by the police, but the fact of the matter is that it is done routinely all over the beach. Our new building has nothing, in it that requires deliveries and will not increase the number of deliveries made to the site. All deliveries will be handled exactly the way they have been handled for the past 30 years. As an aside, 99% of deliveries to Shephard's are made prior to 11:00 in the morning and most are prior to 9:00. Additionally, Level 5 will be considered an Indoor Recreational /Entertainment use requiring 10 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet of gross floor area for Level 5 and the spa on Level 14 will be considered Retail Sales and Services use, requiring five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Disagree — This space is accessory space as are things normally found in a midpriced, mid sized hotel. Response: To be addressed by the Owner or his Attorney. 23. Response to General Applicability criteria #2 - a. Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; and. Shephard's general manager, Paul Andrews, as physically counted these spaces twice and has provided an affidavit as to the 192 spaces. i. Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; Response: When we tear down the old section we are moving the lobby into the old building where it will remain after the new building is constructed. There is no internal corridor to the new building. We cannot but the lobby on the first floor of the new building as it would violate FEMA. We want the lobby to stay in the old building. Is this okay? 38. Based on the submitted survey, prior case photos of this site, site inspections of the property and permits indicated in our computer reveals many structures have been constructed without the benefit of building permits; a. two wood pergolas southwest of the pool that provide couch seating areas; b. the roof of the bandshell structures on the dock/deck have been reconstructed to have metal roofs; and C. cloth covered canopies have been added throughout the site that are not indicated on the survey. Unless issued permits can be produced for such structures, new permits for such structures must be within 30 days of this DRC meeting, and will include any penalty fees for such. Response: The roof on the bandshell was constructed without a permit as it was an emergency repair. Shephard will have someone go to the building department and deal with this and the other two issues as a part of the existing Tiki Bar. He will do that next week sometime. That will be less than 30 days before the CDB in July, don't want to miss that one. We already waited past the July one to wait for Wayne to return. Shephard has not been cited by code enforcement for any of these. , Additionally, Level 5 will be considered an Indoor Recreational /Entertainment use requiring 10 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet of gross floor area for Level 5 and the spa on Level 14 will be considered Retail Sales and Services use, requiring five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Disagree — This space is accessory space as are things normally found in a midpriced, mid sized hotel. FAR was not counted against the Kendall Hotel or the Holiday Inn. Parking for FAR was never even mentioned. f. Parking Demand — It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted. Ensure the nightclub square footage includes both levels of the nightclub, as posted the capacity is 523 persons in the nightclub; (5/4/09 — WW — No response — study now no longer indicates the square footage of retail, only stating "a small retail gift shop." Square footage of nightclub unchanged at 2,300sf; architectural plans indicate much larger than 2,300sf.)- Architectural plans for the ground level indicates vehicle stacking at entrance. Unclear how this will actually work, since visual inspection of the property has shown that, at least on the weekends, onsite parking is full and driveways are coned off /closed. Proposal is to increase the number of hotel rooms from 96 to 226 rooms (an increase of 130 rooms), in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, outdoor tiki bar and ballroom. Proposed parking is supposedly 318 striped spaces and 66 overflow for a total of 384 parking spaces (can't confirm these numbers of parking spaces based on the plans submitted), provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site where all parking will be valet only. Provided vehicular stacking for valet parking still appears woefully insufficient to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. Response: Again, this is a parking issue and we far exceed code. Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory uses, or as a mid - priced hotel with accessory uses sized to primarily meet the needs of the hotel guests. — The new hotel will be a 3 -star hotel which is typical of a mid - priced hotel. There will be meeting space in the new structure to help the hotel market to the business community. In order to survive in the hotel business, it has to be able to fill rooms Monday through Thursday and the primary source for renting during the week is business meeting. There is also a small workout room that the traveling business man wants to be sure the hotel can provide. The meeting rooms and workout room are entirely for the use of the hotel guests. Wells, Wayne From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12 03 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Tefft, Robert Subject: A04- 01420: DVA2008 -0002, Shepard's I received a letter faxed from Harry Cline with a number of attachments. I am forwarding you the letter. In the letter, Harry states: City Planning has raised 2 questions: 1. Is there an outstanding mortgage interest to be dealt with from the sending property? 2. Is there a need to put a restriction on the sending parcel? [Not specified which one]. "this is something we cannot do, and I do not think required by Code since the recorded deed of conveyance reveals the TDR." Tidemark does not show these comments per se. Can you enlighten me as to what comments Planning may have made that he is addressing and to which I will now need to respond? Thanks. Leslie K Dougall -Sides Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P O Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 (727) 562 -4010 phone (727) 562 -4021 fax Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law Admitted in Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia Senior Professional in Human Resources � 1 91 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:53 AM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Cc: Joe Burdette (E -mail) Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Keith - Attached are the Draft DRC comments for the above referenced project, to be reviewed by the DRC in our offices tomorrow, May 7, 2009, at 1025 am. 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 r draft 5.7.09 c action agenda Wells, Wayne From: Keith Zayac [keith @keithzayac.com] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:56 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: 0820_SBR Theoretical Building Envelope Study 040109 -1 Pagel of 3 Just passing information on to the architects. I didn't really look at it that close, but it is good info to know that it doesn't make sense. Keith E. Zayac, PE, RLA, LEER AP President Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (727)793-9888 phone (727)793 -9855 fax st . From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:02 AM To: keith @keithzayac.com Subject: 0820_SBR Theoretical Building Envelope Study 040109 -1 No, I only need it for my original package (no other DRC member deals with such). I will include this as part of your submission. I will tell you that it doesn't make sense. You sent this to Bill Mills as an example for 101 Coronado, he sent it to me and he was confused. I sent him the one that was done for 100 Coronado and told him how I would do it for 101 Coronado. 4/14/2009 Y � Page 2 of 3 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Zayac [mailto:keith @keithzayac.com] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:46 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: 0820_SBR Theorethical Building Envelope Study 040109 -1 Wayne, I think I left this out of the Shephards submittal. Do you need 15 copies? Keith E. Zayac, PE, RLA, LEER AP President Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (727)793 -9888 phone (727)793-9855 fax From: Daniel Knopman [mailto:dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 4:04 PM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: 'Oscar Garcia'; 'Carpelo Jeoboam'; Hunraf @aol.com Subject: 0820_SBR Theorethical Building Envelope Study 040109 -1 Keith, The attached sketch is referenced in Exhibit "D" and should be included. Oscar has suggested that we forward PDF's or have one set printed with the printer for review prior sending everything to the printer and then possibly having to make changes again. If this is acceptable to you, we will proceed in the direction. 4/14/2009 Page 3 of 3 Daniel J. Knopman Senior Associate Director of Operations 318 S E 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, FI 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www.aarciaarchitect corn The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following 1 The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender 2 Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and/or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession 3 The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media 4 Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose 5 The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other protects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions 6. The sender believes that this E -Mad and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments 7 NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR I GARCIA, A I A. ARCHITECT ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED 02007 Information stored on electronic media including. but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems From: Brett Hertzler [mailto:bh @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:42 PM To: Daniel Knopman Subject: 4/14/2009 • Keith Zajac & Associates, lime. Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning April 9, 2009 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner III Planning Department - City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 0 701 S. Enterprise Road E., Ste 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727)793 -9888 Phone (727) -793 -9855 ,Fax keith@keithMac.com EB 9351 LC26000212 Re: Shephard's Beach Resort OIG Project #0820 Development Review Committee Submittal — Responses Case No.: FLD2008 -12033 Dear Mr. Wells: We are pleased to resubmit the Shephard's Beach Resort to the City of Clearwater for final DRC review. The project team has made certain modifications-to the design in order to conform to the requirements of Beach by Design, City Comments, or programmatic requirements. Some of the changes that are important to address are as follows: % 1. The layout of the existing west building containing Bar, Nightclub, Restaurant, Meeting Space, and Guest Rooms will remain unchanged in terms of programming, layout, or planning. 2. The exterior stair on the east side of the existing building will be removed. 3. The exterior of the existing building will have all vinyl siding removed. All substrate will be inspected and patch if need be in order to prepare the stucco for painting. The building will then be repainted white to match the new tower being submitted. 4. The existing parking garage will be fitted with wire mesh panels in order to tie its appearance into the new tower. 5. The existing railing on the existing building will remain unchanged. 6. The cupola's on the existing building will be removed and new architectural elements will be introduced in there place in order to tie the context of the new building and existing building together. 7. A portion of the existing two story hotel containing the Tiki bar, support for the Tiki Bar, and restrooms will be retained, while the remainder of the building will be demolished. Given the timing and permitting for this work the renovation will meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code for renovations costing less than 50% of value of the existing structure, and will not require modification to modify this portion of the work for FEMA or ADA guidelines. 8. While one floor of guestroom has been deleted in the new tower, the height and will remain the same. 9. The new building will contain 180 keys (guest rooms). The existing building will contain 46 keys (guest rooms). 10. The number of cars has been reduced in the new garage. The parking count for the new garage is as follows: 126 standard/tandem parking spaces, and 38 overflow parking spaces for a total of 164 spaces. . �.: �,, ,�- #� �, _ . �,� } � 4 _. �a A `� �' �� ,:► .,�� City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 2 of 19 11. The fifth floor which was previously devoted to parking has been changed to ballroom, 16— meeting rooms, and support services. The parking garage turning radii and drop off are shown on Sheet All GENERAL ENGINEERING 's Cn 1. Prior to review by Community Development Board: ® o �a V 1.1 Explain how differing slopes of the east and west ramps in the parking th Uj �ma M garage in the new building function. 4 Response. The east ramp is a speed ramp and has a maximum slope of 12% with z a 6% blend slope at the top and bottom. The speed ramp is located in CF the same position on each of the floors from the ground floor through � fourth floors. The west ramp has a maximum slope of S% and engages The solid waste staging and pickup areas are shown on the civil site parking on both sides of the ramp. plans and Sheet All of the attached DRC submittal drawings. The 1.2 Explain how existing bandstand and deck conform to the existing location is not proposed to change from the existing location. "Permanent Nonexclusive Easement for Public Beach and Construction Grease trap locations shall be shown on the plans for any proposed of a Protective beach Berm," as recorded in Official Records Book 5776, restaurant/food service occupancies. Pages 115 -124. Please refer to sheet C -6 of the Civil Engineering drawings for the Response. The existing bandstand is not part of this submittal, as no changes the locations of the existing grease trap locations as well as the new grease existing structure or use is being requested trap location. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit: Turning radii at all driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet per City of Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #108. Response: The parking garage turning radii and drop off are shown on Sheet All of the attached DRC submittal drawings and reflect a turning radii of 30 feet or greater. The site radii within the drop off area are also shown on the civil site plan. Urban flares have been used at the entrance driveway based on coordination with the City Beach Walk construction staff. 2. Show on the plans the location of solid waste staging and pick -up area(s). Response: The solid waste staging and pickup areas are shown on the civil site plans and Sheet All of the attached DRC submittal drawings. The location is not proposed to change from the existing location. 3. Grease trap locations shall be shown on the plans for any proposed restaurant/food service occupancies. Response: Please refer to sheet C -6 of the Civil Engineering drawings for the locations of the existing grease trap locations as well as the new grease trap location. 4. A separate tap on the water main shall be made for potable water service for the building; domestic and fire water cannot share same tap on main. Response. The fire and potable taps have been separated 5. Installation of a new sanitary manhole over existing 8 -inch sewer main will require the use of a doghouse manhole. Provide a detail for doghouse manhole that shows installation of a precast or poured in place concrete slab under the manhole. Response. A doghouse manhole detail has been added to the detail sheet. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 3 of 19 1. Applicant shall submit 5 sets of as -built drawings that are signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Professional Engineer. The Construction Services inspector will field inspect as -built drawings for F ,, accuracy. Response: The Owner or his agent will make the appropriate submittals and request the proper inspections prior to his request for a Certificate of o 41 't L ® Fi, Occupancy. tU ua ` ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Prior to review by Community Development Board. Z r 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. Response: The stormwater vault has been revised to a vault within the parking garage and exterior vault. A cross section of the vault systems have been added to the civil plans. 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the Owner. Response: Prior to construction plan approval a proposed maintenance schedule will be submitted along with the SWFWMD approval. FIRE 1. Architectural plan in existing building shows new assembly area capable of holding more than 100 people and as such this building needs to be sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. Per the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2007 edition. Acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. Response: The plans no longer show the new assembly area in the existing building capable of holding more than 100 people. As such no provisions are being made to upgrade the fire sprinkler system for the existing structures as they will remain unaffected by this submittal. 2. Must meet the requirements of Ordinance NO.7617 -06 Radio System Regulations for Buildings. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. Response: The Owner will meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 7617 -06, complying with the Radio System Regulations for Buildings with the completion of the construction of the building. 3. This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections, plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on Utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building. Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB. Response. Civil plan sheet C -6 shows the fire connection to the public water system, hydrant locations, and FDC locations. The FDC connections 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 4 of 19 and internal fire system design will be prepared by the fire protection consultant as part of the building plan submittal. 4. Provide details showing fire lanes being marked with freestanding signs with the wording of "NO PARKING FIRE LANE BY ORDER OF THE FIRE MARSHALL." Acknowledge this PRIOR TO CDB. Response. Details added 5. The existing parking garage has a code deficient sprinkler system and will be required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. Acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Based on subsequent meetings with the fire department, it was agreed that since the existing building will not be added on to, or renovated at this time, the existing sprinkler system will be repaired and brought up Q to code over time. 6. The center landscape island needs to be to be moved to allow the fire apparatus to use the drive as a Tee Turn. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Center Landscape Island has been relocated to allow Fire Department access. 7. Add a new fire hydrant at the drive entrance. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. Response: A new fire hydrant has been added to Utility Plan. 8. Fire Department Connections shall be identified by a sign that states "NO PARKING, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION" and it SHALL be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage. Acknowledge PRIOR TO DRC. Response: Fire department signage will be coordinated with fire department and added to plans prior to building permit submittal. LANDSCAPING: f 1. Plans call for an underground stormwater vault on the east side of the new building that is a minimum of 18 -inch below ground (typically 24- inches below ground). Location of such vault disallows any significant landscape plantings. Additionally, building plans indicate an awning possibly 10 feet above the ground elevation on the east side of the building. Proposal is to place palm trees, which must have a 10 -foot clear trunk, next to the building, which will be under the awning. This will not work. Revise. Response: The vault and landscaping have been revised and coordinated J 2. Sheet C4 — Foundation landscaping cannot be counted toward interior landscape area. Revise. Response. Foundation landscape areas have been deleted from interior landscape J3. counts. Sheet C10 — Irrigation notes need to reflect this project is within the City of Clearwater and not under County jurisdiction. Response: Note has been revised 44. Sheet C9 — Given the existing nature of the business of the property and the proposed revisions, is it realistic to expect cutouts in the deck within the paver areas will remain long -term as landscaping with India Hawthorn. If not realistic, revise. Raised planters with built -in seating probably make better sense, whether located adjacent to the LU Y T M_ • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 5 of 19 existing/proposed building or to the seawall. Pedestrian flow needs to be considered. Response: Landscaping has been deleted and replaced with pavers. 5. Sheet C9- Revise for the following: a. Proposed Plant List indicates 215 RI, but the plan indicates 230 RI. b. Existing Plant Materials indicate 16 NO, but the plans indicate 83 NO. C. Existing Plant Material indicates 48 VS, but the plan indicates 49 VS. d. Existing Plant Material indicated 1 CV, but plans indicate 16 CV. e. Existing Plant Material indicates 83 PT, but the plans indicate 11 PT. f. Plan indicates 11 PT existing, but does not indicate where these are located; and g. Plan indicates 25 PS existing, but does not indicate where these are located. Response: Plant counts have been revised to reflect updated landscape plans. PARKS AND RECREATION: 1. The Public Art Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to the 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. Response. Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. 2. Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at (727) 562 -4818 to calculate assessment. Response. Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. STORMWATER: The following shall be addressed prior to CDB: 1. According to the vault cross - section provided, the vault does not provide sufficient volume and does not fit into the area provided between the east property line and the building footprint. Response: The vault has been revised to a structural vault within the parking garage and a smaller underground system outside the building. 2. It appears that the thickness of the vault and the modules inside the vault take up substantial amount of the vault's volume. Will a larger vault be provided to address these issues? Response: The vault calculations have been revised to include the 10% loss factor as indicated by the enclosed manufacturers information. 3. The proposed project is located on the section of Gulfview Blvd. that the City plans to improve. The project is at 90% design phase. Please contact the City project manager, Melvin Macioleck at (727) 562 -4750 to 0 ®) o O � Cn G l.. Q ' b N City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 6 of 19 obtain the latest plan and coordinate the design of the proposed driveways with the City's plans. Response: We spoke with the project manager and obtained latest plans. It is noted that the driveway has been revised to an urbanJlare to match. The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 1. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. Response: Control structure detail has been augmented with additional dimensions. 2. Please account the thickness of the vault in the design of the control structure, invert, top of vault, and other structures connected to the vault. Response: Calculations for the new system are incorporated in this submittal: 3. Provide an east to west and a north to south cross - section of the proposed vault with detailed information showing how this vault is to be constructed. Response: Cross section and details have been added to civil plans. 4. Proposed trench drains shall have an adequate slope to drain runoff to the vault. Response: Trench drains have internal slopes that are built into drains. 5. Please provide a detail of the Zurn trench drain. Cross - sections shall show invert elevations and clearance between the 10" PVC pipe and the ®• n, R trench drain. `' C� q Response: A detail of the trench drain has been added along with inverts and clearances. 6. Invert elevation of structures shall indicate whether it is North, South, East, or West. Response: Direction of inverts added r� 7. Provide the buoyancy calculations supportive by the soil analysis performed at the proposed vault. Response: The vault is not located below the water table and therefore will not be subject to buoyancy. 8. Provide north -south cross section at the two proposed driveways. Show that the proposed trench drains effectively intercept the runoff before overflowing to the right -of -way. Response: A north -south cross section of the driveway has been added A 12" wide drain has been used to facilitate collection of stormwater runoff, rather than a smaller trench drain. 9. The proposed curb at the western driveway blocks runoff from draining into the existing inlet. It appears that this inlet is to keep the existing garage directly west of it from flooding. Please redesign the curb and provide an east -west cross - section at this location showing that no additional runoff generated from the redeveloped area be contributed to this low area. Response: Area has been revised and a cross section provided General Note. 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a building permit. Response: Acknowledged 1 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 7 of 19 2. At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any other drainage related document for review and record. Response: Acknowledged TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. 1. Driveways shall be limited to one vehicle at a time both for ingress driveway and egress driveway. Response: Driveways have been reduced to 24 feet in width to allow adequate room for one car along with fire truck access and limousine access. 2. Reduce the width of both driveways to be a maximum of 12' wide or the minimum width for fire lanes that may be required by the City of Clearwater Fire Department. Response: Access width has been reduced to 24 feet wide to provide for fire truck and limousine access. 3. Provide curb radius of 30' for all driveways. Response: Based on coordination with engineering department, entrance driveways have been revised to urban flares to match City improvements. 4. To provide a t -turn for Fire Department vehicles and tour busses and to reduce vehicle conflict points in this area, the applicant shall move the interior landscape island north to eliminate the east/west drive aisle and align the south curb of the landscaped island with the north curb line of the access aisle into the new parking garage. Response: Interior Landscape Island has been relocated =� 5. Access aisle width(s) into the new parking garage shall be 24' wide from edge of pavement to edge of pavement for bi- directional 2 -way traffic. 0 Q! Response: 24' wide access provided 6. Parking spaces along drive aisles shall not be allowed because they block parking spaces and reduces the drive aisle widths for two -way traffic. Response: The garage is 100% valet. The parking shown along the drive isles is strictly overflow parking and will be managed by the valet staff. 7. Parking spaces 20 &25, 70 &75, 120 &125, and 180 &185 impede each other. (PLEASE NOTE: TWO SHEET A -12's HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED WITH THIS APPLICATION AND THE PARKING SPACE NUMBERING IS NOT CONSISTENT. REFERENCED SPACES ARE ON SOUTH SIDE OF PARKING GARAGE AND PARTIALLY BLOCK AISLES BEHIND SOUTHERLYMOST PARKING SPACES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING) Response: While the plans for the garage have changed somewhat, modifying the number of spot obstructed by overflow parking, or conflicting backup, the garage is 100% valet. The numbering has been amended for this submittal 7. Provide a van accessible handicapped parking space whereby the vertical clear height shall be 8' -2 ". Provide a note indicating such on both civil and architectural plans. Response: Note added to civil and architectural plans, the van accessible parking has been placed in the ground floor parking area of the new garage. 8. The vertical clear height of each garage floor level in vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm) other than t=;�/ cm c E • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 8 of 19 PARKING SYSTEM COMMENTS. The following items shall be addressed prior to review by the Community Development Board. 1. Removal of wheel stops — use continuous curbing instead as wheel stops cannot be permanently affixed to the structure and become a liability. Response: Wheel stops have been removed from the plans. 2. Permanent concrete bollards should be planned in the design to protect the service area (i.e., stairwells, elevators, etc.). Bollards most likely will not be able to be installed properly due to the tendons in the decking. Response: Bollards are now shown on the plans and will be coordinated in the Contract Documents so that they will not conflict with the reinforcing systems. 3. How will vehicles queue for the valet stacking of up to 28 vehicles in the porte - cochere area? Response: Vehicular queuing has been added to the plans and is shown on Site Plan. 4. Will there be a fee for parking and how /where will that be collected? Response: The Owner does not currently charge a fee for valet parking, and has not indicated that they have any immediate plans to change their business plan in relation to this application. If the Owner decides in the van accessible parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.22 Clear Height. Response: The code required minimum clear heights will be maintained in the garage. 9. Depict on a plan how vehicles will queue in front of the building while awaiting valet service. This design shall take into consideration the Fire Department's requirements for establishment of fire lanes in front of the building. Response. Vehicular queue is shown on Site Plan. 10. As there is no loading space shown on the plans, describe how deliveries will be made to the building. Response: The property currently receives deliveries via a curb cut and driveway on the west side of the existing building. No changes to the current operational plan for receiving of goods and services are anticipated with this application. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development (CDB) hearing. C= C General Note(s): 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee r 20 Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy: (C.O.). Response: The Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for building permit review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a building permit application. Response: Acknowledged PARKING SYSTEM COMMENTS. The following items shall be addressed prior to review by the Community Development Board. 1. Removal of wheel stops — use continuous curbing instead as wheel stops cannot be permanently affixed to the structure and become a liability. Response: Wheel stops have been removed from the plans. 2. Permanent concrete bollards should be planned in the design to protect the service area (i.e., stairwells, elevators, etc.). Bollards most likely will not be able to be installed properly due to the tendons in the decking. Response: Bollards are now shown on the plans and will be coordinated in the Contract Documents so that they will not conflict with the reinforcing systems. 3. How will vehicles queue for the valet stacking of up to 28 vehicles in the porte - cochere area? Response: Vehicular queuing has been added to the plans and is shown on Site Plan. 4. Will there be a fee for parking and how /where will that be collected? Response: The Owner does not currently charge a fee for valet parking, and has not indicated that they have any immediate plans to change their business plan in relation to this application. If the Owner decides in City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 9 of 19 5. Response: PLANNING. Jl. Response: r%2. Response: 630) Response. 4. Response: 5. Response: J6. the future to re- address his business model, he will address this matter accordingly at that time. The parking study states 40% of staff will require parking. Where will the other staff member park? Shephard's Beach Resort staff will be ineligible to participate in the Beach Employee Parking Permit Program even if the program is not maxed out/closed. The parking study indicates that 40% of the staff will require parking on the property. This anticipates that the remaining employees will continue to car pool or utilizes public transportation. The Owner will not be requesting eligibility for participation in ht a Beach Employee Parking Permit Program. Drive aisle into the new parking garage is proposed at a zero front setback. This is where turning movements are the greatest with no protection to pedestrians walking on the public sidewalk. Staff will not support this proposed from setback from pavement. Drive aisle has been revised to a5.2' front setback. Sheet C4 — General Site Note #15 — Note appears to conflict with proposed trash staging area next to S. Gulfview Blvd. My understanding is that the existing trash facilities on the west side will be used. Need to show such dumpster and any enclosure. Unclear why a new trash staging area is needed. If not needed, remove trash staging area. Trash staging area has been removed Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. Acknowledged Sheets C3 -C6 and C9 — Increase size of the written material on the plan° itself (too small to read; scanning will not help future readability). Font size increased, and scale of plans revised to 1 " =20'. Sheet C4 — General Site Note #5 — Revise for the following: a. Zoning of the property includes 2.3x (fill in the "x" — see comment below regarding acreage discrepancies) acres zoned Tourist (T) District and 0.30x (fill in the "x" — see comment below regarding acreage discrepancies) acres zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District; �b Future Land Use needs to include Preservation (for that zoned OS/R); and c. There are only 96 existing units (not 97 units). Notes have been revised and moved to C2 Sheet C4 — General Site Note #7 — Revise for the following: a. The total land area of 116,937 square feet (or 2.6845 acres) does not match the 2.689 acres indicated by the surveyor; b. The site for "T" zoning of 102,663 square feet (or 2.3568 acres) does not match the 2.37 acres indicated by the surveyor; c. The site area for "OS/R" zoning of 14,275 square feet (or 0.3227 acres) does not match the 0.319 acres indicated by the surveyor; a�w ® r4 i City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 10 of 19 Response: 0 Response. J Response: 9. Response: 9. Response: 10. 4 onse: 11. onse: 12. I d.. All of the above must be correctly calculated, as the proposed number of hotel rooms does not work if the site area for "T" zoning is actually 2.35 acres (only produces 117 rooms at 50 units per acre); e. The entire site will be evaluated for compliance with Code provisions. Remove the line for "Project Area for "T" Zoning" Notes have been revised and moved to C2 Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular code is four feet; maximum of six feet under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. A separate comprehensive sign program application will be submitted to bring signage into compliance. All electric and communication lines must be underground. Include a note regarding such. Note added to Utility Plan. Proposal is to increase the hotel to 226 rooms in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, and ballroom. All 366 parking spaces provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site will be valet only. Provided vehicular stacking for valet parking for valet parking is woefully insufficient to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. Indicate all stacking spaces on the Plan. Revise. Vehicular queue shown on Site Plan. Sheet C4 — General Site Note #11 a. Number this as #11; b. The entire site will be evaluated for compliance with Code provisions. Remove the line for `B. Project Area "; c. Provide site data (existing and proposed) for the 2.35 acre area of the site zoned Tourist District for Items C -I. Data provided is inaccurate; and d. Item J — Required is 50 units /acre, which produces 117 units. Notes have been revised and moved to C2 Sheet C5 — Provide proposed grades for the area around the pool deck and paver decking along the south between the building and the seawall. Additional grades have been added to CS Sheet C4 — Second General Site Note #6- a. Change to Note #8; and b. Existing Conditions — provide the side (west) setback to pavement Note changed and west setback to pavement added There are portions of the existing building to remain to be demolished and additions proposed, as well as changes to the existing parking garage (ground floor). Need to reflect such changes to these existing structures on the site plan, as the entire site is being evaluated. On Sheet C3, remove the words "project limits" and the dashed line delineating such. C, N. UJ CS --J City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 11 of 19 Response. The `project limits" note and line have been removed from plans. The work within the building envelopes are shown on the enclosed architectural plans. Any modifications to the first floor are graphically shown on the first floor; however the details will be shown on the architectural plans. 13. While truck loading space(s) is required, deliveries to this site block driveways. On my site visit on 12/31/08, an 18- wheeler was parked in the northern drive aisle on the north side of the parking garage making a delivery (backed in) and a beer truck had the entrance driveway (middle driveway) completely blocked by the truck and beer kegs. This proposal is to retain the existing popular (accessory) nightclub and restaurant, provide a new ballroom, and expand the rooms from 96 to 226. Unclear where or how deliveries of food, beer, and hotel materials will be handled. Today's circumstance is inadequate and a bad situation appears to be getting worse. Revise /advise. Response: The Owner has indicated that there are no additional new facilities (Le., bars or restaurant space) imposing a demand for deliveries on the property, and their current methodology for deliveries and operations will remain unchanged with the inclusion of the proposed tower and meeting facilities. 14. Proposed parking space number of 366 spaces cannot be confirmed. Revise for the following: a. Some parking is not shown, such as on the ramp to Level B in the existing garage. Provide a parking plan for each floor, including the existing garage, numbering each space; b. Architectural plans propose parking spaces in the drive aisles "as of right" not in an overflow situation when operating at peak demand. Other recently approved hotel projects on the beach have provided a plan showing "normal" parking (including tandem parking spaces) and an additional plan showing overflow parking in drive aisles when at peak demand. Number spaces on each plan; c. Sheet A -11 — Parking in the existing garage on Level A in th? northern portion of the garage does not presently exist, requiring the removal of a wall and eliminating a storage area to create these five spaces. The northern two parking spaces don't function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements, except to the southern portion of the garage. Staff will not accept designing nonfunctional parking in any garage, regardless if it is valet -only; d. Parking spaces #8 -9 (Sheet A -11) in the new garage do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements; e. Tandem parking spaces inappropriately block adjacent parking in perpendicular parking rows, such as on Sheet A -12, spaces #20 -22 blocking space #29; f. Parking spaces #185 -187 (Sheet A -15) in the new garage do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements; g. Sheet A -16 — Three parking spaces are shown on the north end of the upper level of the existing parking garage, which do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements. Additionally, a column is located within the southernmost space. rr City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 12 of 19 Additionally, columns are shown within spaces on the southern � ® portion of this level of the existing parking garage; and Response: For items a, b, c, d, e, f & g, please refer to amended plans for clarification of overflow and normal parking. 0 t� h. Provide a better table than provided on sheet A -11 that includes the number of hotel units and parking spaces in the existing building/garage. Ensure the numbers in the table are correct. Response. Please refer to attached traffic impact study guide and civil site plan sheet C -4. 0 Application and Sheet C4 indicates a total of 226 rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown. Number the rooms in the existing building much the same as in the new building. Revise. Response. The number of rooms has been revised on sheet C -2. Provide on sheet C4 a calculation of hotel density — how you derived the number of hotel tl units proposed, including the acreage being used to calculate density, the number of units derived by the base density, the number of units being requested from the reserve pool, and the number of units derived by TDR's. Include an overall density calculation based on the land area zoned Tourist District fteiponse. The number of rooms has been revised on sheet C -2. 16. Civil plans need to indicate the existing wall along the west property line ( ?) and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any "variance" granted). Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. pone: A density calculation has been added to sheet C-4. 17. Architectural plans — Provide station markers on the two planes of the building for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of building elements, especially in relation to property liners. Response: The column grid lines (Station Markers) depicted in the previous DRC I submittal has been deleted for clarity. d 18. Sheet A -11 — Unclear of the function of the "loading zone" shown. Explain/advise as to what this is for. Response: The area depicted as "loading zone" on the previous DRC submittal drawings, has been removed It is currently anticipated to be a stripped no parking area. There presently exists a wave runner business on the property, as well as Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, surrey, and bikes). Please confirm that these businesses are being removed with this proposal or, if proposed to be retained, show the location of the waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals, including all storage of their business material and "vehicles." Fun Ride Rentals currently takes up parking spaces in the existing parking garage. F- m,. � ® C= C %J 0 t� LZ f City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 13 of 19 Response. The plans have been revised to reflect the extent of the occupancy of the Wave Runner business and Fun Ride rentals, along with their associated storage facilities. 20. Sheets C4, A -11 and A -12 — Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimensions these awning project from the building. Response. The extent of the awnings has been reduced to the south side of the building with a small return on the east and west sides of the building. 21 The requested dimensions have been placed on the drawings. Sheet C4 — Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see Sheet A -11). Response. The current submittal includes the existing TIM Bar to remain and a small bar on the second floor of the remaining building. All other bars have been removed from the plans. The paved area under the new building may be used for outdoor seating. 122. Sheet C4 — Unclear the information the setback from the seawall of 37.52 feet is indicating, since there are structural columns closer to the seawall than the stairwell. Suggest removing this dimension. Response. The Architectural and civil plans have been amended and coordinated to reflect the current proposed placement of the building and its associated distance from the retaining walb h3. Sheet A -15 — Unclear what the dashed lines on the south side of the proposed building depict, as well as the dashed lines south of parking space #185, as there are no structures at or below this floor with these configurations. Suggest removing these dashed lines. Response: The dashed lines on Sheet A -15 depict the balconies overhanging the 424. floor above. Sheet A -16 — Indicate what will divide the balconies between units in the proposed building (elevations appear to indicate floor to ceiling walls). Response: Sheet A -16 has been revised to clarify the materials separating the balconies. Some of the balconies are floor to ceiling walls, while some 125. of the balconies are separated by opaque glazed balcony dividers. Section C.2 of Beach by Design guidelines prohibits any plane of a building to continue uninterrupted without a minimum five -foot offset for one hundred feet of the building. The east and west sides of the new building have planes of 120 feet, not meeting this requirement. It is noted that notes on the floor /level plans and elevations indicate that thed, balconies are offset from floors 12 -14. These are only offset by two feet? and do not meet the offset required by this provision. Revise. It is also LU noted that the western plan of the existing hotel building and existing garage both do not meet this provision, having planes of 132 feet and 152 ` feet respectively. Revisions are necessary to this western plan of these structures also. Response. The plans and elevations have been revised to more accurately address Section C2 of the Beach by Design Guidelines. g6.) Sheet A -1 I — Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any television or refrigerators), and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. s Cn c11.a c� � City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 14 of 19 Response: The Cabanas are intended for daily use by the guest of the hotel. The finishes for these features will be pavers for the floors, and stucco and / paint for the walls. They are not intended to have any other amenities. 27. tl Wheel stops are not required for any parking spaces in either parking garage. Response: Wheel stops have been removed from the plans in both parking garages. 28. Sheets A -20 and A -20B — Unclear of the intention of the verbiage at the bottom of the elevation regarding "new bandshell," since no new bandshell is shown. Advise /remove verbiage. Response: The existing bandstand is not part of this submittal, as no changes the existing structure or use is being requested 29. Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities cm (William M. Shephard, Trustee, and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers U-1 �— 22 and owner's name. The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As r stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this one under one ownership and one parcel number. Response: Based on subsequent meetings the ownership entity has been resolved and shown on sheet C2 30. f Based on a site inspection the northern, egress drive from the existing parking garage does not appear to be such today. The "connection" between the parking garage and the entrance driveway to this site is constructed of turf block and there appears to be a significant slope to this dive. Today it does not function as such, being blocked by Fun Ride Rentals. Unclear if this really is an existing egress drive, whether it needs to be an egress drive and whether it can function as such due to the slope. Ground level parking within the existing parking garage appears to be able to function without this egress drive. Advise/Revise. Response: Sheet A -11 of the attached DRC drawings continue to show the northern most access to the existing garage as being in- accessible. This was done to allow for access of cars and emergency vehicles while developing afire lane and queuing for valet 31. Sheet A -00 — I realize that there is some architectural license being taken here with the perspective drawings provided, but the trees depicted do not match that indicated on the landscape plan. There needs to be a reasonable resemblance to the proposed plans, otherwise it gives a false impression. As an example, the right hand perspective looking northeast shows trees on the west side of the existing building. These trees must be located on the adjacent site (Holiday Inn), as there are no trees existing or proposed on this side. Response. The renderings were prepared to illustrate the character and architectural expression of the project. While we have amended the renderings to more closely depict the landscaping being shown on the Landscape Plans, the Landscape should be used to illustrate the code planting for the project. 32. Jrequired Sheet A -I1 — Is the existing Tiki bar on the south side of the existing nightclub, which shows up on the survey, being removed? cm U-1 �— 22 E r �y City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 15 of 19 Response: There is not a Tiki Bar currently shown on the South side of the existing nightclub. There is however, a Tiki bar attached to the existing two story wing of the hotel, as well as a free standing portable structure south east of Tiki bar and north of the bandshelb The free standing portable structure will be demolished and is not part of this the property. 35. Sheet A -12 — Roof deck outside new ballroom needs to be indicated as "new." Response: Sheet A -12 no longer reflects a rook deck associated with a new ballroom. No changes from the existing function and spaces on this 36. flevel are anticipated Elevations appear to indicate that the existing stairwell at the northeast corner of the existing parking garage will have a vertical angle to the exterior walls on the north and west sides, that does not exist today. Floor plans do not show how this is being accomplished. Is this correct? Response. The plans and elevations have been coordinated for the inclusion of this feature to the existing stair well on the existing parking garage. 37. Sheet A -20 — Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -2213. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildings together as a cohesive unit. application. 33. Sheet A -11 — Unclear if in the proposed building what is shown in the north side of the BOH (trash dumpster and trash chute). Looking at W c1%J Sheets A -16 — A -19, unclear what is meant by "T.C." and "L.C." (trash rx chute and laundry chute ?). Response: A small rolling dumpster will be placed on the ground floor of the new building, while the T.C. and L.C. reflect the placement of a Trash Chute and Linen Chute. 34. Sheet A -11 — Plan needs to clearly delineate and note what changes are occurring with the existing building, as there are existing exterior stairs being removed from the east side of the building and apparently being replaced with a new interior stairwell. The grill and bar #1 is new. Additionally, based on existing conditions, there is new parking being proposed in the west side of the existing parking garage, as it presently is a storage room. Further, the existing loading on the west side is not loading, but rather the compactor dumpster and outdoor storage. Ant loading occurs in the drive on the west side of the existing parking garage. Response: The only change being requested in the existing building containing the dining room, meeting space, and guest rooms will be the removal of the exterior stairs on the east side of the building. The previously proposed bar #1 and grille are no longer being considered for this application. A revision to the amount of demolition of the existing two story wing of the hotel is being considered to include retention of the existing Tiki bar and a portion of the adjacent structure for support services. Loading will continue to occur in the drive on the west side of the property. 35. Sheet A -12 — Roof deck outside new ballroom needs to be indicated as "new." Response: Sheet A -12 no longer reflects a rook deck associated with a new ballroom. No changes from the existing function and spaces on this 36. flevel are anticipated Elevations appear to indicate that the existing stairwell at the northeast corner of the existing parking garage will have a vertical angle to the exterior walls on the north and west sides, that does not exist today. Floor plans do not show how this is being accomplished. Is this correct? Response. The plans and elevations have been coordinated for the inclusion of this feature to the existing stair well on the existing parking garage. 37. Sheet A -20 — Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -2213. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildings together as a cohesive unit. e-- t W c1%J r rx City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 16 of 19 Response: There will not be any changes to the existing railings. The elevations submitted in this package continue to reflect the use of the existing 38. Jrailings. Need to indicate the vertical clearance for vehicles under the porte- cochere on the elevations (Sheets A -2013, A -21 B, and A -2213). Response: Please refer to Sheets A -20B, A -21A, and A -22B for the vertical clearance requirements under the Porte Cochere. 39. To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the fagade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on sheet A -30. Response: The renderings were intended to be illustrative and not literal They have been amended so that they will not create confusion about a future intent. 40 Exhibit B- Section B- Description of Request- Revise for the following: a. First paragraph, third line — There are only 96 rooms existing: b. First paragraph, seventh line — There are not 97 (or 96) rooms to remain, but 40 rooms; c. First paragraph, seventh line — Cannot confirm that there are 179 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; d. Second paragraph — It is noted that under Case TDR2005 -11028 that a total of 15 dwelling units proposed to be transferred to the Shephard's site. The accompanying FLD case was withdrawn as it was not going forward. No review of whether the sending sites from where these dwelling units were being transferred from was completed. Such will be completed with this review; however, there appears to be 10 dwelling units unaccounted for. Please advise; e. Fourth paragraph — Relief #13 is unnecessary, as the Code permits such mechanical enclosure to exceed the height by a maximum of 16 feet; f. Fourth paragraph — Relief #4 is unnecessary, as this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project; and g. Revise request to match what has been prepared by Staff. The application will still need to provide justification for any reduction in setbacks (whether to existing or proposed structures) or increase to height. Response. The renderings were intended to be illustrative and not literal. They have been amended so that they will not create confusion about a future intent. 41 Response to General Applicability criteria #I — Revise for the following: a. West — The Holiday Inn is to the west (not Ramada Inn) and proper terminology is a mixed -use (not multi -use); Jb. Fifth paragraph — The project to the west is Entrada (not Estrada); and �c Expound on HOW this proposal is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, and density of the adjacent properties. Projects within this area can be referenced also, but the criteria require discussion regarding the adjacent properties. Response: Attached response revised Cn u co C) ® C1.4 I City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 17 of 19 42. Response to General Applicability criteria #2 — Revise for the following: a. Shephard's is an existing 96 -room hotel (not 97 rooms); b. Cannot confirm that there are 179 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain (it was 179 spaces in the Description of Request); c. I would not characterize the proposed landscaping as "lush." Landscaping proposed is fairly minimal to meet Code; d. (2) All new construction and remodeling must meet current Building Codes. Unclear what this has to do with showing compliance with the criteria; e. (3) Stacking and traffic congestion will not be improved or eliminated (respectively, but rather current issues will be compounded in the negative; f. (4) Since proposed driveways are essentially in their present location, unclear how there will be improved pedestrian flow. It is the City making sidewalk and lighting improvements to Gulfview Blvd.; and g. (5) Unclear how property values will "significantly" increase. What data can you provide from someone in the real estate appraisal business? Otherwise, a revision to the language to state that the construction of the proposed project will have a positive effect on the surrounding property values would be appropriate. Response. / Attached response revised 43. d Response to General Applicability criteria #3 - the City is building the Beach Walk improvements along the frontage of this site, not the applicant, which the City is doing to improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and safety for this portion of S. Gulfview Blvd. as a public improvement. Unclear how the City improvements are being included in this proposal. Response: Attached response revised 44. Response to General Applicability criteria #4 — Revise for the following: a. (1) Disagree, based on Planning, Traffic and Fire comments, that the proposal "affords ease of movement for pedestrians and vehicles." Based on the proposed increased intensity of the site, with the existing and proposed accessory uses, and the vehicular circulation pattern proposed, the proposal will not reduce traffic backups on S. Gulfview Blvd.; b. (2) There are existing issues with off -street loading and unloading. The proposed driveways will not improve, and may further denigrate, the existing conditions. Response: r Attached response revised 45. !! Response to General Applicability criteria #5 — Revise for the following" a. First paragraph — The City is making improvements in the right -of- way, not this project. Presently, the scope of work does not include any trees within the widened sidewalk; and b. Second paragraph — The project to the west is approved for mixed - use (not multi -use), but is currently only a hotel (no condominiums). Response: Attached response revised 46. Response to General Applicability criteria #6 — Unclear how the increased intensity of the site will improve or minimize adverse acoustic effects of the outdoor activities, including the bandstand on the dock, for the surrounding area. ca — Q�= J �01 V PJ City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 18 of 19 Response: Attached response revised 47. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 — Revise for the following: a. Height — Unclear where the 129 units is coming from, since the request is to obtain 100 units from the reserve pool. b. Height — Describe in detail the "reasonable relationship" between the height increase and the number of units requested; c. Parking — The project is not providing 366 spaces normally (see other Planning comments). Cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing garage. d. Parking — It was my understanding that the parking for this property is valet -only 100% of the time. Unclear where statement of "self parking" on off -peak times is coming from, since the garage does not meet Code parking standards. e. Setbacks — An additional curb will not help the proposed on -site vehicular circulation and it is unclear whether Staff would support another driveway. Staff will not support the requested setback reduction to zero feet to pavement for this drive to the new building parking garage. The curve of this drive is adjacent to the public sidewalk within the right -of -way and is not safe. There is no ability to provide any landscaping at this point. Need to provide detailed justification for all other setbacks to pavement and to building for existing conditions, as the review of this project is for the entire site. JResponse: Attached response revised 48. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 — Revise for the following: a. West — The Holiday Inn is to the west (not Ramada Inn) and proper terminology is a mixed -use )not multi -use); b. The responses do not address the criteria. HOW will this not produce substantial detriment on adjoining properties? Response: / Attached response revised 49. d Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 — Response must detail HOW this proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses. Neither of the other criteria mentioned addressed compatibility. Response: Attached response revised Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 — Revise for the following: a. Response needs to address HOW the flexibility requested for setbacks and height are justified; b.1. Explain HOW the location of the units provides easy access for all guests to the nearby businesses; b.2. The project has been described as a "world class resort." The Hotel Density Reserve was created for mid - priced hotels. HOW is this, a mid - priced hotel? b.3. Beach by Design B.1 - Revise language from "density pool" to "hotel density reserve "' b.4. Beach by Design B.2 — The Entrada project to the west at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128 feet in height. Additionally, the project at 691 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower 150 feet in 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 19 of 19 height. Provide documentation that neither Option 1 nor 2 apply; b.5. Beach by Design B.3 — This is still part of Beach by Design B.2 and should be renumbered or adjusted appropriately' b.6. Beach by Design B.4 — Renumber to B.3 to correspond to Beach by Design; b.7. Beach by Design B.4 — a) Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan. Unclear what this 19,237 square -foot floor plate is located on; b.8. Beach by Design B.4 — b) The floor plate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided by Beach by Design B.3.c. Unclear how this proposal complies with a tiered effect. Expound; b.9. Beach by Design C.1 — No response has been provided for this provision; b.10. Beach by Design C.2 — The proposal does not comply with this provision (see other Planning comments); b.11. Beach by Design C.3 — Provide the percentage each elevation has, meeting this provision. Include such percentage on each elevation drawing of the architectural plans; b.12. Beach by Design C4. Beach by Design was changes to 45 feet to coordinate the written material with the drawings. Revise calculations based on 45 feet. Provide calculation and a drawing of how the provision has been achieved. b.13. Beach by Design C.5 — The response says it "will be" correlated. Please provide how the proposal HAS been correlated; c. Explain HOW does this design support the established or emerging character of the area; d. Provide a response to this criteria (none provided); e. Landscaping is not working along the east side (see Landscaping comments) and landscaping along S. Gulfview Blvd. is not enhanced when a zero setback to pavement is requested. Response: Attached response revised 51. Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - Application has stated and responded to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Density Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Revise. Provisions are for a mid - priced - hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Response: Response revised and calculations provided Sincerely , --- ,� CS s /Kei 1i E. l ac, PE, RLA, LEED AP � l�.. P�Kesident 0 SP WC Z5 Q 4 Al- Page 1 of 2 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 6:37 PM To: 'Daniel Knopman' Cc: Hunraf @aol.com; 'Oscar Garcia; 'Carpelo Jeoboam; Tefft, Robert Subject: 0820_SBR Beach by Design Changes 032609 -1 Daniel - I have looked the east and west elevation material over and brought this up to my administration. It appears that you have resolved the 100 -foot linear plane issue for both the garage levels and the upper levels. I will, however, reserve a final determination on this issue until the larger drawings are submitted to be better able to review the plans. Any additional information, such as you have provided two elevation information sheets to illustrate compliance with Beach by Design requirements, when you resubmit the application package would be helpful in performing such reviews. Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Daniel Knopman [mailto:dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:16 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Hunraf @aol.com; 'Oscar Garcia'; 'Carpelo Jeoboam' Subject: 0820_SBR Beach by Design Changes 032609 -1 Wayne, I am writing to follow -up on our two prior e- mails, regarding the changes we proposed to the previous DRC submittal to reflect the conformance with Beach by Design. Is there anything else you need from us to render a determination on conformance with the Beach by Design criteria? If there is nothing else you need please let me know if you find the information we provided to you previously acceptable. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman Senior Associate Director of Operations 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www garciaarchitect corn The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following 1 The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days Any defects 3/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender 2 Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and/or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession 3 The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media 4 Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions 6 The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments 7. NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR I GARCIA, A.l A ARCHITECT ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR I GARCIA, A LA ARCHITECT ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED ©2007 Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems 3/27/2009 Wells, Wayne From: Daniel Knopman [dk @garciaarchltect.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:25 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: 'Oscar Garcia; 'Carpelo Jeoboam; Hunraf @aol.com Subject: 0820_SBR Beach by Design Compliance Easat Elevation 032509 -1 Wayne, Page 1 of 2 In support of our DRC application for the Shepherd's Beach Resort project, I am enclosing a copy of the vignette showing the changes to the East Elevations of the proposed project for your review. This vignette illustrates the manner in which we are conforming to,Beach by Design. Your comments would be welcomed as we are anticipating submittal of these revisions with the April DRC deadline. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman Senior Associate Director of Operations 318 S E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www garciaarchitect com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following- 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender 2 Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and /or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession. 3 The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media 4 Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5 The use of this electronic media is restricted to the ongmal site for which it was prepared Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other protects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments 3/27/2009 0 Page 2 of 2 7 NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR 1 GARCIA, A I A ARCHITECT ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR I GARCIA, A I A ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED ©2007. Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems From: Brett Hertzler [mailto:bh @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:13 AM To: Daniel Knopman Cc: Oscar Garcia Subject: Shephards Beach by Design Dan Please see attached east vignette. 3/27/2009 See PDF version