The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2008-08024430 S GULFVIEW BLVD SALT BLOCK 57, LLC PLANNER OF RECORD:- WW ATLAS # ZONING: T LAND USE: RFH RECEIVED: 08/01/2008 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: &P AS S MAPS: PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: DRC: _11 CDB: I'O AV cov a J hl/ I44 c.vl�* �A* " Planning Department t� wa South Myrtle Avenue Clele arwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727- 562 -4567 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 ❑ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ❑ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets • SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00 • SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ 1,205.00 CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: * NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) ORIGINAL CEWED SEP 15 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CUAWAOIER FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (Revised 07/11/2008) — PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT— APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) APPLICANT NAME: Salt Block 57, L.L.C. MAILING ADDRESS: 1001 E. Atlantic Avenue, Suite 202, Delray Beach_ PHONE NUMBER: (561) 279 -9900 FAX NUMBER: (561) 276 -1563 ZW=R3tContact: Ken Gross EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER(S): List ALL owners on the deed Same as ADDlican AGENT NAME: E. D. Armstrong III, Esq.:= Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP MAILING ADDRESS: ox 1366, Clearwater, FL 33/5/-1368 PHONE NUMBER: (727)461-;1918 FAX NUMBER: (797)462—niAg CELL NUMBER: EMAIL: ed@ipfirm.com B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) PROJECT NAME: 430 S. Gulfview PROJECT VALUATION: $50,000,000 STREET ADDRESS 430 S. Gulfview PARCEL NUMBER(S): 07/29/15/52380/000/0330 PARCEL SIZE (acres): 2.45 acres PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 106,504 sq . ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit A attached. PROPOSED USE(S): 2 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.) t accommoda See Exhibit "B" attached. C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson \Desktop \planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc Page 1 of 8 7 �M�' I K16' NICHOLS BROSCH WURST WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Architecture & Planning ADOLFO REYNA, R.A. Associate 161 Almeria Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Tel 305.443.5206 Fax 305.443.3168 areyna @nbww.com AAC00680 i • DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TOR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _X_ NO _ (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" attached for responses to Criteria 1 through 6. 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. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. r�YA6PeF wl PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY O C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson \Desktop \planning dept forms 0708 \Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc Page 2 of 8 r • • WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment 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 "B." attached -for responses to Criteria 1 through 6- 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor, d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e, The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and /or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off -street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b.. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; O Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and (ORIGINAL ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appro between buildings. :,a La G ® IME CITY OF QMIMAra C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson \Desktop \planning dept forms 0708 \Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc Page 3 of 8 E. - STORMWATER 'PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4- 202.A.21) ❑ A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a 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; z ❑ Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; ❑ All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; ❑ Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ❑ A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. ❑ Proposed stormwater detention /retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ❑ Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ❑ COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building. Permit), if applicable ❑ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must Initial one of the following): R 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) ❑ SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) — One original 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 "certified arborist ", of all trees 4" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees;. ❑ LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; O 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; ORIG MAL RECENED SEA 5 C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson \Desktop \planning dept forms 0708 \Comprehensive Infill Project FLD 07- 11.doc Page 4 of 8 RMNING DFP/'Q.TMFNT C!TY 0 F CL ii 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 required setbacks; All existing and proposed points of access; All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; Location of all street rights -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; _ Number of EXISTING dwelling units; _ Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; Gross floor area devoted to each use; Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; Building and structure heights; _ Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. ❑ REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'/3 X 11); ❑ 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; All open space areas;tt Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); �� Streets and drives (dimensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); GIB I0� " Structural overhangs; C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson \Desktop \planning dept forms 0708 \Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc Page 5 of 8 H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 1102.A) ❑ LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36 "): All existing and proposed structures; Names of abutting streets; Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; Sight visibility triangles; Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Existing trees on -site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant _ schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all 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. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); Irrigation notes. ❑ REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/2 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) ❑ 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'/2 X 11 J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS /Section 3 -1806) ❑ 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). ❑ Reduced signage proposal (8'h X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. ORIGINAL PINNING DEPARTMENT C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson \Desktop \planning dept forms 0708 \Comprehensive Infill c WNKR Page 6 of.8 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 nearby roadway segment and /or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (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 Section 4 -801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. ❑ Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following):. Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post - development levels of service for all roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. X Traffic Impact Study is not required. CAUTION — IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562- 4750. L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY: Provide Fire Flow Calculations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and /or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with the 2004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required. Acknowledgement of fire flow calculationstwater study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the followingPRIGiNAL X Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. QJ'LP 16 2000 CAUTION — IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMg-JFQ.(GAAj -L9�JU CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, 6ePPL& 4:nktvMM09E RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562 -4334. M. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application. Signature of property owner or representative E. D. Armstrong III STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Sworn to and subscribed before me this .30 th day of A.D. 20_A to me and /or by E. rms t � rong ill, who is personally known tm R tary public, My commission expires: .. u��. Jayne E. Sears 7 .4�`�. Expires September 2, 2009 C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson\Desktop \planning dept forms 0708 \Comprehensive in e�°('I�b9�'i@ABI P�kO.l�edlo0•J1S7C1 Page 7 of 8 N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: 1, Provide names of all property owners on deed -PRINT full names: SALT BIIOCIC 57, L.L.C. , a Utah limited liability company 2. That (1 anNwe are) the owner(s) and record tide holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 430 South Gulfview Parcel ID# 07/29 15/52380 000/0330.. 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) Flexible development approval for a couprehensive infill.redevelopment project Of t9evtat t: is t51y _ - -- as a rebeiver site. - PAY — 4. Tha te un rs nd i Pointd oes/dolappa , te � as (hisltheir) 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 descn'bed property: 5. That site visits to the property are necessary by. City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That (Uwe), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. SALT BI Property Owner By` — — -- -- Property Owner — — - — STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEL61110 Ipal,� f�ac� Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the taws of the State of Florida, on this personalty appeared 64tS�_- Mnne a arvt e7 chat ha /ehn hi1H tuiderstands the contents of the affidavit that he/she stoned. *as MQAAStr O f Salt Block 57. L.L.C. DEBORAH HOWARD Notary Public - State of Florida My Commission Expires Jul 31, 2009 Bonded By National Notary Assn. F day of who having been first duly swam — — Notary P %blic Signature My Commission Expires: 0q'1 G et RECEWED C:10ocuments and Settingsldersk. ferguson%Desktoplplanningforrns 07071Comprehensive Infill Project (FLDr),W14- 67.dbc20Q8 Page B of a- PLANNING DWARTR ENT C11Y OF CLENZ Wk "t�E2 0 0. EXHIBIT "A" 430 SOUTH GULMEW A TRACT OF LAND CONSISTING OF LOTS 33,34 AND 35 AND PARTOF LOT 36 OF LLOYD- WHITE - SKINNER SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO MAP OR PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGES 12 AND 13 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA AND LANDS AND SUBMERGED LANDS LYING BETWEEN AND SOUTHERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY OR WESTERLY OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER MARK AND THE BULKHEAD LINE DESCRIBED IN AND SET FORTH IN TRUSTEES OF THE-INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DISCLAIMER NO. 22316, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 765, PAGE 542, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID TRACT BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE NORTHERN MOST CORNER OF SAID LOT 33, RUN SOUTH 77° 41'16" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 33 AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF,-A DISTANCE OF 400.0 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BULKHEAD LINE DESCRIBED ABOVE; RUN THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID BULKHEAD LINE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT (RADIUS - '1247.0 FEET) AN ARC DISTANCE OF 296.79 FEET, (CHORD BEARING _ SOUTH190 OT 51" EAST); RUN THENCE NORTH 680 55'27' EAST A DISTANCE OF 402.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 36; RUN THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID LOTS 36, 35, 34 AND 33, WHICH LINE IS A CURVE TO THE RIGHT (RADIUS - 847.0 FEET) AN ARC DISTANCE OF 235.76 FEET (CHORD - 235.0 FEET, CHORD BEARING - NORTH 20' IT 10'.WEST) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING THE SAME PROPERTY AS: A TRACT OF LAND CONSISTING OF LOTS 33, 34 AND 35 AND PART OF LOT 36 OF LLOYD- WHITE - SKINNER SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGES 12 AND 13 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LANDS AND SUBMERGED LANDS LYING BETWEEN AND SOUTHERLY, SOUTHWESTERLY OR WESTERLY OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER MARK AND THE BULKHEAD LINE DESCRIBED IN AND SET FORTH IN TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DISCLAIMER NO. 22310, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 765, PAGE 542, OF-THE PUBLJC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID TRACT BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT AN IRON PIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 33 AND THE WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY MARGIN OF GULF VIEW BOULEVARD, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID POINT BEING THE PC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 847.00 FEET AND AN ARC DISTANCE OF 235.76 FEET, THENCE RUN ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT AND ALONG THE WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY MARGIN OF GULF VIEW BOULEVARD A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 20" IT '10" EAST AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 235.00 FEET TO AN IRON PIN; THENCE RUN SOUTH 68" 55' 27' WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 402.14 FEET TO AN IRON PIN, SAID POINT BEING THE PC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1247.00 FEET AND AN ARC DISTANCE OF 296.79 FEET; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 19" 07' 51" WEST AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 296.09 FEET TO AN IRON PIN; THENCE RUN NORTH 77° 41''16' EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF .. 400.00 FEET TO A POINT AND BACK TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. sp 15 2000 aMN614 G DEPARTMENT CITY Of CLL-pamaR 201 N. Franklin Street Suite.2200 Tampa, Fiorido'3300�2'; Phone: (813), id'do00 N,�-k% PropertyAc0p4lsers Parcel Identi8cati6110oflol Number: SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED %. , �' z, 'THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED, ,executed as of the 21st day of December, 2007, tfy` 1IG0 BEACH, L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company formerly known as /OEACH Residences Clearwater, L.L.C.,- a Florida limited liability.. company :(the - s. intor"), whose mailing address is 877 Executive Center Drive West, Suite 205, St. ' Pte crsburg, Florida 33702 -2472 to SALT BLOCK 57, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company, .Vhose mailing".address is 1000 Market Street, Building One, Suite 300, Portsmouth, New -Hampshire 03801 (the "fiKp_ntee"). ... WIT-NESSETH: That Grantor, for and inconsideration of the aum of $10.00 and other good and valuable consideration to Grantor in hand paid by Grantee; the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, has granted, bargained,. and sold to Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns forever, the following described real property situate, lying, and being in Pinellas County, Florida, (the "Pro e I and described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Together with all easements, tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances belonging or in anyways appertaining to the Property, and the reversion and. reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues, and profits of the Property, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claims, and demands whatsoever of the Grantor, either in law or equity, of,.in, and to the Property, with the hereditaments and appurtenances to the .'Property. This conveyance is subject to: all easements,. conditions, restrictions, covenants,. limitations, reservations and matters of record, provided, however, that this reference shall not operate to reimpose any of same; all taxes and assessments for the year 2008 and subsequent years; all laws, ordinances, governmental regulations and resolutions, including, but not limited to, all applicable. building, zoning,. land use and environmental ordinances and regulations; . and matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. . And Grantor covenants with Grantee that, except as above noted and as limited by. the next sentence, at the time of the delivery of this special warranty .deed, Grantor hereby specially wan-ants the title to the Property. and will 'defend it against the lawful claims of all claiming by, through, or under Grantor, but not otherwise. � 7� "�`�� 4190039\70 - N 1194376 v3 - - = • - - -. _. "Cti� Off'- '�� =� P INELLAS COUNTY . FL OFF REC 16097 PG 1398 • A J IN WITNESS WTUMgsbf, `Gruntor has executed this Special Warranty Deed as of the day and year first above wrfttbL" WITNESSES: INDIGO BEACH, L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company Byz,_. Robert E. Glantz, Vice President [SEAL] STAtE OF FLORIDA Co bFAM109-r6c £-'The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Decimber, ',260.,by Robert E. Glantz as Vice President of INDIGO BEACH, L.L. a Florida limited '�itbifity company, on behalf of the limited liability company. He is known to y _ime or C has produced as id9ofication.' PUBLZ - N ow,4 ty 6, ame- 1: -CE, C=m#D00MM9 Serial No. My Commission expires: FbrM§NoMryA=1L.IM \490039\70 - # It 94376 v3 Oq C; Z41 -VIED r- PINELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REOOK 16097 PG 1399 • t F •Z t FXMla "All LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land consistitig.df Lots 33, 34 and 35 and part of Lot 36, of LLOYD- WHITE- SKINNER SUBDINISIQN, according to map or plat thereof recorded in Plat 13, pages 12 and 13, of the. Public Reeo%s of Pinellas County, Florida, and lands and submerged lands lying between and SoittheFl ;' Southwesterly or Westerly of the mean high water mark and the Bulkhead Line dig ed in and set forth in Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida Disclaimer No. 22310, as recorded in Official Records Book 765, Page 542, of the Public Red °ods?of Pinellas County, Florida, said tract being described as follows: From the Northern tngstt: corner of said Lot 33, run South 77° 41'16" West, along the Northwesterly boundary -ofs Lot 33 and the Southwesterly extension thereof, a distance of 400:00 feet to a Point C".- '$ulkhead Line described above; run thence Southeasterly along said Bulkhead Line alon0..a curv'W to the left (radius - 1247.00 feet), an arc distance of 296.79 feet, (chord bearing - South;.39"'Q7'51" East); rim thence North 68° 5527" East, a distance of 402.14 feet to a point on flW164ttieasterly boundary of said Lot 36; rum thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly boies.of said Lots 36, 35, 34 and 33, which line is a curve to the right (radius - 847.00 feet), ainiard distance of 235.76 feet (chord - 235.00 feet, chord bearing - North 20° 1710" West) to the 1 coftit�ofBeginning. BEING THE SAME PROPERTY AS: A tract of land consisting of Lots 33, 34 and 35, and part of Lot 36, of LLOYD- WHITE - SKINNER SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Pages 12 and 13, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and lands and submerged lands lying.between and Southerly, Southwesterly or Westerly of the mean high water mark and the Bulkhead Line described in and set forth in Trustees of the Intennal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida Disclaimer No. 22310, as recorded in Official Records Book 765, Page 542, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, said tract being described a follows: Begin at an iron pin. at the Northeast corner of said. Lot 33 and the West right -of -way margin of Gulf View Boulevard, said point being the True Point of Beginning; said point being the PC of a curve to the left, having a radius of 847.00 feet, and an arc. distance of 235.76 feet; thence run along said curve to the. left, and along the West right -0f - -way margin of Gulf View Boulevard, a chord bearing of South.20° 17'10" East, and a chord distance of 235.00 feet town iron *;. thehce fun South 68° 5577" West, fora distance of.402.14 feet to an iron pin, said point being the PC of a'curve to the right, having a radius of 1,247.00 feet, and' an arc distance of 296.79 feet; .thence run along said curve to. the right, a chord bearing of North 190 07'51" West,. and a chord distance of 296:09 feet to an iron pin; thence run North 77° 41'16" East, for a distance of 400.00 feet to a point and back . to the True Point of Beginning. 0�L. a • EXHIBIT "B" TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Salt Block 57, L.L.C. 430 South Gulfview Boulevard Section B. Description of Request Request The subject property is the former Adam's Mark hotel site, located at 430 South Gulfview Boulevard. The Applicant and property owner, Salt Block 57, L.L.C., proposes to redevelop the property with 230 overnight accommodation units. The applicant is an affiliate of Ocean Properties, Ltd., the owner and operator of numerous hotels and resorts in North America and Canada (www.oplhotels.com). Specifically, the Applicant requests: 1. Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density, 217 overnight accommodation units (as established, by FLD2005- 01005, FLD2005 -05047 and FLD2007- 11034), where 93 overnight accommodation units (1.87 acres at 50 units /acre) are allowed by the current zoning (Tourist) and land use designation (RFH), under the provisions of Section 6 -109, Clearwater Community Development Code ( "Code "); . 2. Flexible Development approval to permit 230 overnight accommodation units in the Tourist (T) District, with a. a Lot Area (zoned T) of 81,450 square feet; b. a Lot Width of 236 feet; c. a maximum height of 150 feet above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to top of roof deck; ko d. a front (east) setback of _2.5 feet to building (porte co_ chere -4 C'° � support column) and zero feet to driveway and stairs; e. a side (north) setback from the CCCL of zero feet to building U,) (raised pool) and to permit a sidewalk 10 feet seaward of the CCCL; f. a side (south) setback of 16 feet to building, 1.5 feet to pavement and zero feet to privacy wall; • • g. a rear (west) setback from the CCCL of 2 feet to building (stairs) and to permit concrete pavers 13 feet seaward of the CCCL; h. 296 valet parking spaces, consisting of 175 spaces conforming to Code specifications and 121 tandem spaces; ��AN, ®� 1. three driveways where the two northernmost driveways are spaced 110 feet apart and the two southernmost driveways are ^Y ® spaced 18 feet between drives, where 125 feet is required by Section 3 -102; and j. approval of a two year development order; Ca as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2 -803.0 of the Code; and 3. including the Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4 -1402. History The property is the site of the former Adam's Mark Hotel which. was built in 1975 and was a landmark at the southerly end of Clearwater Beach for almost 30 years. The hotel closed its doors after sustaining damage from Hurricane Jeanne in September, 2004, and on April 19, 2005, the Community Development Board approved a termination of nonconforming status as to density and granted flexible development approval for height (155'), setbacks, reduced parking and other existing nonconformities in order to allow the hotel to be renovated (FLD2005- 01005). The hotel renovation never occurred due to economic reasons and site was subsequently sold and was approved for two new redevelopment scenarios." The first was for 112 residential condominium units and 78 condo hotel units (FLD2005- 05047), followed by several minor revisions and extensions, and the most recent was the January 15, 2008 approval for 230 overnight accommodation units which were to be in the form of a vacation /interval ownership type of use (FLD2007- 11034). Anticipating the approved redevelopment, the previous owner demolished the Adam's Mark on October 8, 2005. Changes in the real estate market and changes in ownership have caused the Applicant, which purchased the property in December, 2007, to.modify the proposed overnight accommodations use of the property to traditional hotel accommodations (rather than a hotel -condo or timeshare). Proposed Use The Applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a 230 -room hotel that will attract tourists to Clearwater Beach. The property will include amenities, such as meeting rooms, spa, pool, restaurant and bar, all accessory uses to the hotel use. 2 Parking for hotel guests and employees is a 5 -story on -site parking garage, containing 296 parking spaces, 100 percent valet parked. 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 property is bounded on the west by the Gulf of Mexico. North: The adjacent property to the north is the public beach and City -owned property, including a public parking lot, which was recently renovated with Beach Walk improvements. The proposed development incorporates and extends the Beach Walk improvements into the project, through extension of a 10' -wide shell finish concrete sidewalk, use of decorative pavers and planting of Medjool Date Palms. K East: The adjacent property to the east is an area of smaller mixed uses, including hotel, condominium, retail and restaurants. It is anticipated that this area will also undergo renovations, as are encouraged by Beach by Design's vision of Beach Walk. The height of the five -story base of the building is compatible with and reflects the scale of the buildings to the east across Gulfview Lu Boulevard as those buildings are generally 4 stories. The "tower" portion of the proposed hotel is in a curved shape, oriented to the Gulf, such that it is stepped C= U ® back from S. Gulfview. South: The adjacent property to south is occupied by 440 West condominiums, O which consists of two towers of 157' in height. The proposed design (21.8 �; percent of the theoretical maximum building envelope) is less than one -half the mass of what is currently approved for the site (44.5% of the theoretical maximum building envelope) and will allow the 440 property a less dense neighbor and broader view than would the currently approved project. The scale, bulk, coverage and density of the proposed project are in keeping with the Design Guidelines set forth in Beach by Design for projects including approvals of transfers of density and increased building height. The building mass is 36.3 percent of what is permitted by Beach by Design on the site. Please see the more detailed discussion of these criteria in response to Comprehensive Infill Criteria No. 6.b. in this exhibit. 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. K The proposed project will enhance this area of the beach in a number of ways, including: . (1) Superior architectural design will visually enhance the neighborhood at this southerly end of Beach Walk; (2) Construction which meets current building Codes; (3) Excess parking and adequate stacking space and loading area, in order to eliminate any traffic congestion at the site and eliminate potential off -site parking in public lots. The parking is designed to accommodate hotel guests and staff, as well as provide adequate holding space for taxis and airport shuttles awaiting fares; (4) Beach Walk improvements incorporated into the site provide for a better pedestrian flow along South Gulfview than what currently exists; (5) Property value will significantly increase, as the current taxable value of the vacant parcel is $16,414,800 and the estimated project valuation is $50,000,000; (6) A hotel operated by Ocean Properties, Ltd., a well -known and reputable company, will attract tourists; (7) The hotel guests are potential clientele of nearby restaurants and other Clearwater Beach businesses; and (8) Design locates guest activity portions of the hotel toward the public beach to increase activity around the site. 3) The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. I � The Applicant will construct a 10' -wide shell finish concrete sidewalk in front of the hotel, creating a southerly extension of the Beach Walk, which will improve the pedestrian flow and safety along the westerly side of South Gulfview. The sidewalk will be interrupted by brick paver driveways as to call pedestrians' attention to the crosswalks for safety purposes. Adequate driveway stacking space at the hotel entrance and a separate driveway for delivery vehicle provide that vehicles do not back up into S. Gulfview, thereby minimizing traffic congestion and not blocking the sidewalk. s� With regard to health, safety and welfare, the proposed development and N structure will comply as required with applicable codes including the Florida Building Code, the Life Safety Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. Fire Department Access shall comply with NFPA 1 Chapter 18 with Gulf View � Boulevard serving as the access road, and more specifically that the access road U will extend to within 50' of a single exterior door per 18.2.2.2, an approved route around the exterior of the structure measures not more than 450 from the access road and the building is equipped with sprinklers per 18.2.2.2.3.1 and 18.2.2.3.2. I � • • 4) The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The Applicant has submitted with this application a letter, dated July 23, 2008; prepared by Roy. E. Chapman, P.E., Florida Design Consultants, Inc. which concludes that a traffic study should not be required. There are a number of ways in which the project has been designed to minimize traffic congestion on South Gulfview Boulevard: (1) The driveway under the porte cochere will have a one -way north to south traffic flow. Vehicles will enter the two -lane driveway on the north side and drive in front of the hotel, where the driveway expands to 3- lanes, thereby providing an extra lane for through traffic. All vehicles are serviced by valet. From this location under the porte cochere, the valet will drive directly into the parking garage without exiting to S. Gulfview. When guests depart, the valet will bring the vehicle out of the garage directly into north side of the porte cochere without accessing .S. Gulfview, after which the guests will proceed in a southerly direction (the drive returns to 2 lanes) and exit the property onto S. Gulfview. The porte cochere driveway provides stacking space for 21 vehicles, as shown on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit "C" — Page 5. Service and delivery vehicles will use a separate service drive on the south side of the property so as not to interfere with the valet operation in front of the hotel. (2) The parking garage will contain 296 parking spaces, including 66 spaces in excess of the minimum Code requirement, as the Applicant desires to insure that all parking demands of the project can be accommodated on site. _ The 296 spaces will serve all guests and employees of the 230 room hotel. The parking garage will be 100 percent valet parked for guests and employees and will be adequately staffed such that all vehicles are efficiently parked without excess back -up. This application package includes a parking study prepared by Florida Design Consultants, Inc., f� dated, September 10, 2008 ( "Parking Study ") which is based on interviews with the Applicant who is the operator of 24 Florida properties and over 84 uJ C� properties worldwide. The Parking Study determines that in a worst case 6 t� scenario (full occupancy and a large banquet), the maximum demand be 263 would spaces. Based on information from the St. Petersburg Convention and Visitors Bureau, which releases annual statistics regarding tourism (www.pinellascvb.com /statistics), the countywide occupancy rate in 2007 for hotels with greater than 101 units was 71.6 percent. In Clearwater properties, the occupancy rate averages 80% in winter, 71% in spring /summer and 59.4% in fall. It is unlikely the above "worst case" scenario will impact the project. The Parking Study demonstrates that stacking of vehicles in drive aisles to create additional valet spaces if necessary will result in a total of 352 5 parking spaces in the garage, and confirms the adequacy of the proposed parking garage to serve guests and employees of the proposed use. (3) Three (3) 125 feet per minute, 7,000 pound hydraulic powered vehicular elevators are planned for the vertical movement of passenger vehicles within the garage facility. The lower level of the garage is accessible via direct street access and includes parking for 103 vehicles accessible without use of the elevators. Floors two, three, four and five are accessible only by the vehicular elevators and include 193 available spaces. The Movement Analysis as based upon Thyssen Krupp Elevators provides for a movement of a single vehicle from the upper level of garage in an average of 153 seconds. For a single level of the garage to be exited with a single elevator the average time of 2.76 hours is required (each upper floor has different number of parking spaces). With the use of three elevators this is reduced to a time frame of 0.9 hours. With two elevators in service the total time would be 1.8 hours. As a comparison based on the information supplied by USA Parking Consultants; Inc., a typical manned gated ramp operation would provide exiting for an average of 90 vehicles per hour. Based on this information the 195 vehicles exiting through a single gate and ramp would take a total of 2.16 hours. In the event of a tropical storm that would require vehicular removal from the garage, a 48 -72 hour notice to the hotel guests will be provided for them to leave the island. This would be in accordance with an emergency evacuation procedure to be published by the Hotel Operations Department. As the garage design is hurricane resistant and above the wave crest heights anticipated for the site, vehicles could remain safely within the garage structure. Those vehicles on the ground level would be required to be removed. In the event of a loss of power prior to evacuation, generators will keep two elevators in operation at all times and the garage could be in less than 7.2 hours. � ® The Eden Roc is a comparable hotel project in Miami Beach that uses freight elevators in lieu of ramps to two elevated parking decks with 90 11 elevated spaces (total of 175 spaces for 282 guestrooms in referenced Q p addition). This project is currently under construction. The Tampa Waterside Marriott in Channelside uses a 7,500 lb. freight elevator to transport cars from street level to the ballroom level and stops at the lobby level. The Diplomat Hotel in Hollywood has a freight elevator that functions in a similar fashion as the Tampa Marriott. The applicant is proposing three 7,500 lb. elevators that will travel at 160 fpm. They can operate in two ways, with power or manual doors. Eden Roc has manual doors which forces the valet to get out of the vehicles to open and close the doors each time. With a power type such as is proposed, there exists a pedestal with a push button in order for the valet to pull up and register the command. n 5) The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The property is located within and at the northern end of the "Clearwater Pass District" of Clearwater Beach giving it a very visible location at the south end "Beach Walk." The proposed hotel has a distinctive design that will make it an attractive landmark at this location. 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 high rise condos and resort hotels. As to the immediate vicinity, to' the west is the Gulf of Mexico and the parcel to the north is the public beach, public parking area and Beach Walk improvements. The Applicant will extend the Beach Walk sidewalk southerly in front of the property. The parcel to the south is occupied by 440 West Condominiums, having a height of 157'. This development was built in 1975 and co- existed for 30 years with the 155' high Adam's Mark hotel. The proposed project is the same use as the previous use of the Adam's Mark Hotel and therefore, is consistent with the historical development pattern in this area of the Beach. The proposed project is of a superior architectural design to the Adam's Mark building and incorporates Beach by Design guidelines therefore enhancing the 440 West property. To the east are mixed retail and overnight accommodation uses. This area is also expected to be affected and improved by Beach Walk and this redevelopment. Guests of the proposed project are prospective clientele of the retail and restaurant uses to the east. 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 the public beach. The architectural style is a contemporary design which is .ppropriate and aesthetically pleasing for this beachfront property. Va ;Zo N BAs described in detail in General Applicability Criteria 4, the entrance driveways 70- LO Q and parking garage design will keep vehicles off of the Beach Walk area. This will N (Y `'�' enhance and encourage the flow `of pedestrians from the beach to the site or Lu 0 other properties to the south. The pool area will be located at the northwesterly area of the site, such that noise or visual distraction will not be a factor to the adjoining residential condominiums to the south. This location places the hotel's activity center adjacent to the public beach. 7 0 . 0 Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: 1. The development or redevelopment is. otherwise impractical without Front (East): As to South Gulfview, the 5 -story. base of the building is set back 31 feet and the 150' tower portion, taking into account a 6' balcony, is set back 25 feet from S. E deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The development order approving the termination of non - conforming status as to the density of 217 overnight accommodation units (FLD2005- 05047) is currently in effect. The proposed deviations from Code, which are discussed in detail below, are necessary and minimal deviations to Code without which the project cannot be constructed at this location. The Applicant has designed the proposed redevelopment project to comply with Beach by Design guidelines to the fullest extent possible. The proposed redevelopment of this site into a hotel use is highly visible from Beach Walk and is an integral part of the City's vision of Clearwater Beach as set forth in Beach by Design. Height The proposed hotel consists of four rooftop levels —one being the top of the .ballroom area at 58' -10 "; the second being the southerly portion of the hotel tower which is adjacent to 440 West, having a maximum height of 100', the third being just north of the second roof having a height of 139' -10" and the fourth being the hotel tower with a maximum height of 150' to flat roof deck. All referenced elevations are relative to the FEMA base flood elevation of 16' -0 ".The request for up to 150' when 35' is allowed in the Tourist District (flexible standard) is consistent with the sec.. 2 -802, CDC which allows for increases from 35 ' to 100' -150' for an improved site plan, design and appearance, and the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design which provide for increased height of up to 150' in the event of a transfer of development rights to the property. This application includes a companion transfer of development rights application for 13 overnight accommodation units (equivalent to 8 residential dwelling units), which were previously transferred to the site from three other eligible sites on Clearwater Beach (TDR2005- 05022). There is a reasonable relationship between the height increase for the hotel and the 13 transferred units based upon other cases recommended for approval by staff and actually approved by CDB consistent U ;C`4 L with Beach by Design. There are 70 units located above 100, many of which are �-+ the luxury suites, which are the larger, more upscale units. There are five stories ® 6 of parking which increase the height where the rooms are located, consistent with the Adam's Mark Hotel previously located on the site. Setbacks Front (East): As to South Gulfview, the 5 -story. base of the building is set back 31 feet and the 150' tower portion, taking into account a 6' balcony, is set back 25 feet from S. E Gulfview at its closest point. Therefore, these buildings exceed the 15' minimum front setback in the Tourist District required by Section 2 -802, CDC. The deviation requested is for support columns of the porte cochere which covers the entrance, valet parking and drop -off area and the sidewalk and stairs to the porte cochere area, which are located 0' from the right -of -way of S. Gulfview. Side (South): The south side of the property adjoins 440 West condominiums. A 10' side setback is required by Section 2 -802, CDC. The proposed building will meet this setback requirement as it will be 16' from the southerly property line at its closest point. The applicant requests a 1.5' setback for pavement (driveway for loading area) and 0' setback for the privacy wall which buffers the loading /trash staging area from the adjoining condominiums. The setbacks along the northerly and westerly boundaries are measured to the CCCL rather than the property lines and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Relief from CCCL Setbacks The property is unique in that the CCCL wraps around the site and affects both the westerly and northerly boundaries. The Applicant has designed the site such as to have the pool, pool deck and sun terrace oriented to the public beach at the northwesterly corner of the site, which area is traversed by the CCCL on two sides. The pool is proposed in this area for two reasons —(i) to provide an attractive step down to the beach and (ii) to keep the pool area buffered from the neighbors at 440 West. No part of any buildings are located seaward of the CCCL. The only proposed uses extending seaward of the CCCL are concrete pavers, which extend 13' seaward on the west property line, and a sidewalk which extends 10'seaward on the north property line, both within the Applicant's property. The Applicant acknowledges that a permit from Florida Department of Environmental Protection is required for these structures, and if this permit is not issued, the structures shall not be built. Side (North): ' Section 2 -802, CDC, requires a 10' side setback from the CCCL. The hotel ? building is set back 6' from the CCCL; however the applicant requests a setback N of zero feet for building to the CCCL in order to allow the proposed raised pool 'm E; deck (which is raised over 12" in height and therefore treated as a structure), and to allow a sidewalk located on the property _10' seaward of the CCCL. If the CIO pool were not raised, it would not be treated as a primary structure and the request for a setback deviation would be to pavement for the pool deck. The hotel property, as viewed by beach goers, will be enhanced by the raised pool deck, which is reminiscent of the raised tiki deck at the former Adam's Mark, and will detract from the existing riprap and jetty located on the property. To incorporate this portion of the building to the public space, the applicant has provided screening and landscaping. (See attached Exhibit "D" highlighting the improvements). In addition, the applicant proposes to add public art on the northerly wall of the raised pool deck to visually enhance the wall and encourage public interaction with the space. Rear (West): Section 2 -802, CDC, requires a 20' rear setback from the CCCL. The applicant requests a 2' setback from a stairwell located on the rear of the building to the CCCL and to allow concrete pavers extending _13' seaward of the CCCL. . Lot Area Section 2 -802, CDC, requires a minimum lot area in the Tourist District of 20,000 square feet. The property meets this requirement as the portion of the property zoned Tourist is 81,450 square feet. Lot Width Section 2 -802, CDC, requires a minimum lot width in the Tourist District of 150' The property meets this requirement with a lot width of 236'. Driveway Spacing Code Section 3- 1402.13 limits parking garages to "one entrance and one exit... per street ". Code Section 3 -102 calls for a minimum spacing of 125 ft between drives. The proposed plan, however, calls for a two -way service drive (located 18' from the exit drive) in addition to the porte cochere entrance and exit drives (separated by 110'). Code Section 3- 1402.13 provides for additional drives if "determined necessary by the traffic engineer to alleviate congestion and improve traffic flow ". The proposed design alleviates congestion and improves traffic flow both on the site and on S. Gulfview. The porte cochere entrance gives valet direct access to the garage without accessing South Gulfview Blvd. The vehicles using the service drive would not need to wait in the queue for valet parking, thus alleviating unnecessary congestion at the drop -off drive. Z Additionally, the service drive offers a more direct route to the loading area /trash LU M pick -up area leading to improved traffic flow allowing these vehicles to quickly cm exit S. Gulfview. The low volume anticipated for'the service drive (10 -20 trips per s day), and the fact that the exit drive is one -way traffic, lessen the chance for 55 conflicts with the service drive located within 18 feet of the garage exit per Code 0 Section 3 -102. 7P Two -Year Development Order The Applicant requests a two -year development order due to market conditions and the extensive amount of time necessary to complete detailed construction drawings,for the hotel. 10 • 2. The development or redevelopment will policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as intent and basic planning objectives of purpose of this zoning district. 3. 4. • be consistent with the goals and well as with the general purpose, this Code, and with the intent and Overnight accommodations are allowed in the "Tourist" zoning district as flexible standard and flexible uses. Primary uses in the "Resort Facilities High' land use category are "high density residential /overnight accommodation." The site is located in the Clearwater Pass District of Beach by Design which is characterized as "mixed use — high rise condominiums, resort hotels, recreation and tourist and neighborhood serving uses." 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 Applicant will be the developer and operator of the proposed hotel. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. West: The property is bounded on the west by the Gulf of Mexico. North: The adjacent property to the north is the public beach and City -owned property renovated with Beach Walk improvements including public parking. The proposed landscaping and extension of shell sidewalk to the front of the proposed development incorporates and extends the Beach Walk improvements into the hotel project. East: The adjacent property to the east is an area of smaller mixed uses, including retail and restaurants. It is anticipated that this area will also undergo renovations, as are encouraged by Beach by Design's vision of Beach Walk. South: The adjacent property to south is occupied by 440 West condominiums, which are 157' in height and of similar scale to the former Adam's Mark. 440 West condominiums co- existed with the Adam's Mark hotel for its entire existence of 30 years. The extension of Beach Walk in front of the property will give 440 West residents easy pedestrian access to the north and the public beach access. Elimination of traffic congestion as previously described will improve traffic flow along South Gulfview for 440 West 'residents. The Applicant has included a screen wall and landscaping buffer along the southerly property line in response to the requests of the 440 West residents. 11 • 5. The proposed use shall otherwise k land use category, be compatible substantially alter the essential use and shall demonstrate compliance objectives: LJ e permitted by the underlying future with adjacent land uses, will not characteristics of the neighborhood; with one or more of the following 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 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 flexible standard and flexible use. Redevelopment of Clearwater Beach is a significant economic contributor to the City. Since 2004, the property has not contributed to the economy as it was closed to guests. This 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, as the Adam's Mark Hotel located at this_ site was a focal point of the southerly end of Clearwater Beach for many years. As previously discussed in General Applicability Criteria 1 and Comprehensive Infill Criteria 4 the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding uses. 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. 12 ow*W & `QED 20081 PINING IDSP T EW Cgy Cr- aZ -WJA%R The proposed use as overnight accommodations is contemplated as a flexible standard and flexible use in the Tourist zoning district. Surrounding properties are already developed. Public property to the north is not impacted. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. The proposed hotel is designed to meet the requirements of Beach by Design in scale, bulk, coverage, density and character. The 150' tall section of the project is oriented to the westerly side of the site and curved, such that it is not entirely visible from one building plane. The tower sits on a five -story base to provide a stepped massing in accordance with the massing requirements of Beach by Design. The project, layout preserves some view corridors of the neighbors to the South and places the pool /recreational area at the northwesterly corner of project site to reduce noise transmission and visual distraction to the adjacent residential condominiums. 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 public beach and nearby businesses. This project furthers the City's beach revitalization objective by providing tourist accommodations. The project's architecture and landscaping complements the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. We provide the following information concerning the height, tower separation, design, scale and mass criteria: Beach by Design VII, B Height and Tower Separation The project consists of a five -story base structure (58' -10" in height) under one tower which is 150' high measured from FEMA to the top of the main roof deck. Per Beach by Design VII B: "...the height may be increased,.- however to one hundred fifty feet (150) if'. • Additional density is allocated to the development by transferred development rights as discussed previously (See Item 1 page 6). UU ,U 2 B.2 (a) Tower separation: No "portions of the building structures which co exceed one hundred feet (100) (in height) are spaced at least 100' apart." The nearest structure to the southeast (440 S. Gulfview Boulevard) is separated from the 100' plus portion of the proposed building by approximately 107' -6 ". See �o LL- Exhibit C, page 1. 500' rule ": The Applicant chooses this Option 1 of B2 as "...no more than two (2) structures which exceed one hundred feet (100) are within five hundred (500)... "for this project. As shown on Exhibit C, page 2 attached, the proposed project and the 440 West building will be the only two structures exceeding 100' within a 500' radius. 13 • • The floor plate of any portion of a building that exceeds forty -five feet in height is limited as follows: a) between 45' and 100, the floor plate will be no greater than 25,000 square feet except for parking structures open to the public, and b) between 100' and 150, the floor plate will be no greater than 10,000 square feet, and c) deviations to the above floor plate requirements may be approved provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelope allowance above 45' as described in Section cL C.1.4. The largest floor plate between 45' and 100' is 13,879 ' square feet; and the largest floor plate between 100' and 150' is 12,837 square feet. The Applicant �--� requests minimal relief from the 10,000 sq. ft. requirement above 100' as is 0 allowed per Beach by Design. The stepback of the crescent - shaped tower and the thin nature of the tower reduces the overall mass and scale of the building iU and complies, with the maximum' building envelope of 60 percent as only 21.8 percent is actually occupied by the tower. See also responses to follow for further justification. Beach by Design VII C Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings The concept of the building design is generated by the site and the opportunity to maximize waterfront views to all the guestrooms. The building's shape is a thin poetic tiered curve that acts as a focal point to the views from the adjacent beach and waterway. The curve acts as a "hinge" element that links the Beach Walk district from the South Beach /Clearwater Pass district. The materials and color of the building will support the streamline language of the architecture and its natural surroundings. Tropical landscaping is included at the entire project perimeter to soften the architecture, and to provide shade at pedestrian walkways and to enhance the beachfront character at all sides of the project. By placing all automobile parking internal to the project, automobiles are not seen and the Beach by Design goal of a pedestrian oriented beach community is realized. The quantifiable aspects of the architectural vocabulary are as follows per Beach by Design: • Buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet ... will be constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. 14 0 - 0 The building footprint is approximately 38,000 square feet. The building dimensions vary considerably so that no more two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The project's overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately: 212' wide along Gulf View Blvd, 300' deep along the north side, and 160' high from.grade to the flat roof deck of the tower; none of these dimensions are "equal" (or vary by less than 40% of the shorter two lengths). In addition to these overall dimensions, the building's modulated massing provides considerable dimensional variation. • No plane (or elevation) of the project "...continue (s) uninterrupted for greater than one hundred (100). The tower portion of the building is crescent shaped creating a continuously curving facade and therefore, no plane is continuous for more than 30 feet. • At least sixty percent (609,66) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. All of the elevations are provided with large windows or architectural decoration including: decorative grilles, stucco reveals, concrete eyebrows. The percentages of decoration on each of the exterior elevations are as follows, all exceeding the minimum requirement of 60 %: • North elevation - 68% • East elevation - 61% • South elevation - 62 % • West elevation - 70% These percentages are noted on the architectural plans. • No more than sixty percent (6096) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above 45' will be occupied by a building. The overall building mass from 45' to 150' (above FEMA) calculates to 21.8% of the theoretical maximum allowed building envelope. This is significantly less than the 60% maximum allowed building envelope. • The height and mass of buildings will be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. The height and mass of the building are correlated to the parcel and adjacent public spaces as described above. ORIGINAL • The guideline for mixed use is not applicable. RECfbED SEP 1 15 2000 15 PLANNWG DJPAeTMCNy Cl1 OF CLA�/A CR • c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; The proposed project is of a scale consistent with that of the Adam's Mark, which was an established landmark at this location for 30 years. The architectural style and compliance with design guidelines will support the emerging character of the area as envisioned by Beach by Design. The project's "contemporary coastal architecture" complements the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed, development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: • Changes in horizontal building planes; • Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc; • Variety in materials, colors and textures; • Distinctive fenestration patterns; • Building stepbacks; and • Distinctive roofs forms. Many of these elements have been incorporated. into the design, as discussed in detail in response to Criteria 6.b. above. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Landscaping Overall Landscaping: The landscape plan is in accordance with design guidelines set forth in Beach by Design and also Division 12 of the Landscape Development Standards. A Comprehensive Landscape Program is not required as the proposed landscape plan meets or exceeds Code requirements. All sight triangles have been indicated and will only contain low shrubs or groundcover Gulfview Boulevard: Compliance with the Beach by Design criteria has been noted on the planting plan to include specialty paving and street furniture as requested. Preferred Medjool Date Palms will be planted approximately 16' on center adjacent to the 10' sidewalk and along the building fagade. 0 *IGlNAL REC&VED EP, ? � 2008 16 PLANNING DWA.RTME9VT CIS`' OF AWAPIER 0 0 North Property Line: The north property line is adjacent to the existing beach and also the public parking lot. The majority of planting is native species. Landscaping potentially incorporated with a public art project will create interest along the exposed wall of the upper sun terrace. A minimum five foot wide clear path is designed along the property line. Seawall: A lower level sun terrace is proposed landward of the seawall with vegetation planted against the building. South Property Line: A privacy wall will extend the distance of the service area and include tall hedges, trees and palms that will further extend to the east and west. Distances between Buildings The distances between buildings have been discussed in response to Beach by Design guidelines as set forth in Criteria 6.b. The following are additional criteria: Termination of Non - conforming Status The Applicant seeks termination of non - conforming status, in accordance with Section 6 -109 of the Code, to allow the density of 217 hotel rooms on the site. Section 6 -109 of the Code requires a level two approval to terminate status as a non- conforming use or structure with the following requirements: 1. Perimeter buffers conforming to the requirements of Section 3- 1202(C) shall be installed. Perimeter buffers are not required in the Tourist District. 2. Off- street parking lots shall be improved to meet the landscaping standards established in Section 3- 1202(D). This requirement is not applicable as all off - street parking will be enclosed in the building. ORiGli' AL UCEVVED 17 SAP l 0 2000. PINING DWARTMEW • • 3. Any nonconforming sign, outdoor lighting or other accessory structure or accessory use located on the lot shall be terminated, removed or brought into conformity with this development code. This requirement is not applicable as there are no existing nonconforming signs, outdoor lighting or other accessory structures or uses on the site. 4. The comprehensive landscaping and comprehensive sign programs may be used to satisfy the requirements of this section. The proposed landscaping either meets or exceeds Code requirements as discussed in Comprehensive lnfill Criteria 6.e above. Transfer of Development Rights In connection with the Applicant's request for transfers of density to the property, the following are responses to the TDR criteria of Section 4- 1403.A. 1. The development of the parcel proposed for development will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. Please see the detailed discussion of how the project will improve abutting properties in response to General Applicability Criteria 2. The redevelopment project will increase the value of the site and neighboring parcels. 2. The uses within the project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. Overnight accommodation use is permitted in the City. 3. The uses .or mix of uses within the project are compatible with adjacent land uses. Please see the detailed discussion of the how the project is compatible with adjacent land uses in the response to General Applicability Criteria 5. The site is located in the Clearwater Pass District which Beach by Design indicates as characterized as "mixed use — high rise condominiums, resort hotels, recreation and tourist and neighborhood serving uses." 4. The development of the parcel proposed for development will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed project will provide an interesting and visually appealing southerly "bookend" to the Beach Walk as viewed from the distance and beautifully landscaped at beach level for the enjoyment of pedestrians on Beach Walk as well as those walking in the sand. Please see the detailed discussion in response to General Applicability Criteria 2 and 5. 18� 5. The design of the proposed project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. This site Js at the south end of Beach Walk and as such, the beautification of this site through the proposed redevelopment project will have an immense favorable impact on Beach Walk,. both visually and by providing an inviting pedestrian connection to the property. As discussed in detail in response to Comprehensive Infill Criteria #5, the proposed redevelopment will be an economic contributor to the City by increasing tourists to Clearwater Beach. 9/15/2008 10:18 AM 49062.114967 #445354 v3 - Ocean Properties /Ex to Comp Infill 0 *0GANAL p.ECEWED SEP 155 2000 19 PLANNING DEPATIVIENT Exhibit "C" — Page 1 Beach by Design Height B.2 Option 1: "500' Rule" B. Height Maximum height is prescribed by the respective zoning districts in the Community Development Code unless otherwise restricted by Beach by Design. The height may be increased, however, to 150' if: 1. additional density is allocated to the development either by transferred development rights or with bonus hotel units pursuant to the CRD designation; t 2. portions of any structure which exceed 100' are spaced at least 100' apart (with no more than two structures which exceed 100' within 500'; or four structures which exceed 100' within 800' so long as the elevations of all structures which exceed 100' when such structures are viewed from the east do not occupy a total of 40% of a north south vertical plane which is parallel to the I alignment of Coronado and North Mandalay of the building envelope above 100'); ; r O D - I o =- POOL DECK POOL 0 -(2' -0j 0 0 0 HOTEL WER 0 +150-0' POOL BAR MECHANICAL ROOM NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE IN REFERENCE TO ELEVATION +16' -0" NAVD.._,,. 0 50' 100' 200' BALLROOM +58' -10' EXIT ARRIVAL COURT " EXISTING PROPERTY, OVER 100' -0' TALL Jr w 0 IU I 69 M 3 0 Exhibit "C" — Page 2 Beach by Design Height B.2 Option 1: "500' Rule" B. Height Maximum height is prescribed by the respective zoning districts in the Community Development Code unless otherwise restricted by Beach by Design. The height may be increased, however, to 150' if: 1. additional density is allocated to the development either by transferred development rights or with bonus hotel units pursuant to the CRD designation; 2. portions of any structure which exceed 100' are spaced at least 100' apart (with no more than two structures which exceed 100' within 500'; or four structures which exceed 100' within 800' so long as the elevations of all structures which exceed 100' when such structures are viewed from the east do not occupy a total of 40% of a north south vertical plane which is parallel to the alignment of Coronado and North Mandalay of the building envelope above 100'); a loo' zoo' aoo' Y e Y� • 13MIC'n-I 'NAL 14ri C;Z+i E I'M D -� : ZZI -L � 2006 � IANNNRNG DFPWMEN71 CTY (> (Xf,�MA-WA-ACR • Exhibit "C" — Page 3 Beach by Design C. Design, Scale and Mass of Building 4. No more than 60% of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above 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 and occupied by a building includes any portion of the maximum building envelope that is not visible from a public street. Note Theoretical max. calculation assumes the followig setbacks: East — 0' North — 6' from CCCL South — 3' West — 8' from CCCL r � I ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE = 60% OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BLDG. ENVELOPE (7,636,965 CU. FT. X .6) = 4,582,179 CU.FT. PROPOSED DESIGN = 1,664,882 CU. FT., 21.8% OF THEORETICAL MAX. (<60%) =L rI k\i NICHOLS BROSCH WURST WOLFE anssocWW, Nc. f".. & Padx 0v.1 Oml� FIeStl. SSIx T.I. (aoe) ua—ame W O 0 J U ry Q w w W w C7 w FT�I J w U N O 0 M d' IRE PI 1 REVIEW AUGUST 1, 2008 BM' REVIEW COMMENTS SEPTEMBER 15.2008 ■ 2855 1 C -3 • Exhibit "C" — Page 4 Beach by Design C. Design, Scale and Mass of Building 4. No more than 60% of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above 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 and occupied by a building includes any portion of the maximum building envelope that is not visible from a public street. Note Theoretical max. calculation assumes the followig setbacks: East - 0' North - 6' from CCCL South - 3' West - 8' from CCCL • PROPOSED DESIGN = 1,664,882 CU.FT., 21.8% OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM C r I \ I � \ \ THEORETICAL MAXIMUM \ BUILDING ENVELOPE _ I 7,636,965 CU. FT I \ rz� 'W- N, 4 fik 3 \ 'Ago w w s �� I CCCL �\ \ \� \ \ I \ \ I \ ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE = 60% OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BLDG. ENVELOPE (7,636,965 CU. FT. X .6) = 4,582,179 CU.FT. PROPOSED DESIGN = 1,664,882 CU. FT., 21.8% OF THEORETICAL MAX. ( <60 %) �- \ NICHOLS BROSCH WURST WPM W- a 16,-i rMW 71 7 I Q 0 0 I U w � m w � a w L� ry w MTI J M.L.j U 0 0 M . SITEP REVIEW . AUGUST1,2 W SEPTEMBER 15,2008 M ■ 2855 ■ C -4 \ �\ \ \� \ \ I \ \ I \ ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE = 60% OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BLDG. ENVELOPE (7,636,965 CU. FT. X .6) = 4,582,179 CU.FT. PROPOSED DESIGN = 1,664,882 CU. FT., 21.8% OF THEORETICAL MAX. ( <60 %) �- \ NICHOLS BROSCH WURST WPM W- a 16,-i rMW 71 7 I Q 0 0 I U w � m w � a w L� ry w MTI J M.L.j U 0 0 M . SITEP REVIEW . AUGUST1,2 W SEPTEMBER 15,2008 M ■ 2855 ■ C -4 0 P, vr,D SEQ 15 2008 PL//��iI iff��,fG DEPARTMEMT Exhibit "C" — Page 5 QUEUING ANALYSIS �S 1 \ \ i POTENTIAL I \ VALET \ PARKING QUEUING GARAGE 'I LOADING I � - 1 0 m. 60' 120' - POTENTIAL QUEUING STACK O W J m W w J D F- 0 0 NICHOLS BROSCH WURST W/� oLEP. ,.� ,iewfa A.vrw cd�s o�elr caw a,x W Q O Oof O LL J U Q W m a w T� V � Q w J U O M SAE PLAN . 2mms AAUGUST 1 1, 2008 OR SREVIBW COMMENTS EPTEMBER 142008 2855 C -5 4 lai—It—T41 61. 00 FIMITJ 1ASSOCIATES 430 South Gulfview Blvd. 1001 NW 62nd Street, Suite 114 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 planting Sketch -NW Corner (954) 772 -0724 Fax (954) ) 777 72 -8417 F,VNBCANGI ec rw[ r\Ntb\PLANTING- PERMIT.dwg -SK-01 1 01/25/2008 -1.51 • Herb O Ib' July 25, 2008 • b w r� � x m x �td H H O lz N r� ck;Yl Ck • • 42' H. GLASS RAIL SEE LNDSCP. PLANS FOR HEDGEI AND GROUNDCOVER MATERIAL POOL DECK ( +14' -0 ") W � Z I � IW d U I � I U I U U I •r POOL DECK C co x N bd H O H t-h N CJ ®i1® RE C, % v 2008 p tIWIIEW CIV Of • ®Copyright 2008 Florida Design Consultants, Inc. drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced without written permission. ®Copyright 2008 Florida Design Consultants, Inc. drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced without written permission. ,i �� Y_ .. .. -..- _. , :; �, _._ � _ _ - '.e . � � '... (. ,.. ., _.. � , . .� ., � , . :x. �` � - _ ._ ... � , ®Copyright 2008 Florida Design Consultants, Inc, drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced without written permission. ORIGINAL D SEP 15 2000' PMANING DW.4% J • m _ � _ ' L... . � - �b'3.: _ ^- 1 � - FA � _ .. ,� .. • x is � r .i _ QCopyright 2008 Florida Design Consultants, Inc. drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced without written permission. ORIGINAL I C.1 VED SEP 15 2000 PL4vNWGoFpARTMFtg CITY OF j! ARWA,, jR ORIGINA.AL RECU'YED 2000 PLANNING DRA.QTMpj' CITY OF C-LiA A-IER 0 0 ®Copyright 2008 Florida Design Consultants, Inc. drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced without written permission. ORIGIN R e EWER 2000 PLANNkVG ® ,4j tTtfl ° CITY OF ORIGINAL Ab S:n 5 2000 PLANNNNG D.rP Efff CITY OF CLEASi AI- R o I .o .. 400'(L9y 312.53'(F) os s� o.e s ICOA 6.0 y. 0.0s.95 EDGE OF POOL ?L,�ONSAt 'a• s9 - DECK ABOVE I / ✓� / -m �L —... T 1 Tit PROPFAY LANE A I �• / // // U / 1 i A( ADA VAN ENTRY 8' -2• MIN CLEAR HT, p A' / ✓ / 0 ADA ' GARAGE . a' + /�i' �✓ �� /i%j //� 94 `9,5 96 97 98 99 100 Ot 1D2 103 V� // EXIT 'r e b -aa I i 93 92 91 90 8 °I 88 87 — 85 \ 84 83 82 '� 81 N80 79 r. — 1 .e LOWER SUN TERRACE - I + — — — \ — �� — — ARRNAL PL. 62 63 4 65 68 61 �` • 69 0 71 \O 72 13 7� 75 16 77 78 1088Y GRADE LEVEL PARKING �.e -0• 4�`\ a �, I F'.. 103 STALLS WATER FEATUREI I -- - - - -;�1 I I� \� \ ,33• /ARRIVAL I 1e 1 -COURT 1 fr• 49 48 47 46 45 O 44 43 42 41 �� 40 9 38 37 36 35 I O 4 50 °'' 51 -- - +, I P1 134 33 32 31 30 9 28 27 i p.-o• I 26 25f E -- EXISiiNG - _0.6' I I — O. P2 I C0 MAND RIP-RAP VALET KEY I I 55 54 53 I 15 16 !I17 18 19 I 20 21 2 23 24 I I I P3 1 ' -a` 227 FREIGHT I 4 SL a I ELEVATOR Aj PL S2 I I I b I + I `\ I PARABOLIC 1N I I N I M2Y IR R2O• I - FREIGHT EXISTING EXISTING STORAGE ELEVATOR SEAWALL 14 10 6 5 4 FREIGHT PL 57 56 ELEVATOR _ B b ..s SERVICE CORRIDOR I RECYC.' I I .zo Z 60 6 3 2 STOR. E - q _ RECYC. _o-e I PL - . _ a S10 R'j SERVICE 6. ( SERVICE DRIVE -_b • ENTRANCE PROPERTY LINE to _0.5 PL - -- -- - ,.0 5 ?2 __JI ,.0s 852'35 "E(C•F) 402,14(L) 316.34'(F) Sy o S. 6' H. CMU WALL W/ e9 4 I a I se PAINTED STUCCO FIN. zm z m r5 r5 g I Id,' -t• .mil vv Z I Z m m Z ?D P I PI- BASEMENT F od STORM WATER VAULT UNDER RAMP. SEE CIVIL DWGS. +j.9a ,.15. 0 O CC7 w J x ZD ZD O N 3 5Y ,19 I� � u � ScALe:�ne• • I'-0• v v l� I o Nr 4r or y.6N; 4,25 'MMMM■f SURINAM �"� -•,' �t mn� wommR �• omma w s. � � mono now ITT r' 430 SOUTH GULFVIEW BOULEVARD CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA NICHOLS BROSCH WURST WOLFE & ASSOCIATES NICHOLS SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 BROSCH WURST DRC REVIEW COMMENTS WOLFE uamn.. � or:p 1 .44 Ak. we � e4w AL O.W. lz 40, % 4k 25' u moon El 4 1 $�oa:r i DTs =1 LEGEND o . wn au /axone aca m., aum rw, �amow ara O arrow sam•a. cma,....x mwnn . «,w ms a auam axs� m o x max. wwx... �� mwi awnc ., vw roe. o a x.N �rt a� vrax axa„m rosr ; asrars xr cvowr o �.K wxxi m r mmm n rwrtc0. wm �o uin rp.aimx niaa sw.Ra ro xonm w. rar. a.E ama axux vrxa m xmnEn is x.u.wr � �•/ wnr rwaH omrxc aw x.urnu.� _ w❑ nn, marno . am�. :r O wuaer xac um ooaa .suer w /mw rr� a.wna O n wor awn usrr .m, sm E) w�ceun mac mon. n� vix/ w.n .w mao r.r.. o.a axs ro win inc ..aa xwnu m xnma m• aver . rm. a ak -ate a.m. m wm ..n uin : mwnc sxna ro aroxs . maam .urrr rww . /m.M nx� oanmc ./ ww nm. r.m�a os�a ream ar anew. caa NwfS io .uw+nn ra awi. Q ro..m mxm raxu, O �uww/,.m n•w.r axcr ❑ nmxa r.co-nriMtlp'io .; �w //9aYYEE a am; m wm .w iao IIEMRyxR NOr[ n1A(9 m M,awrtfl M aCK.. O ar. waa xmar . /mw „rx caano .// ,waa ar aw -awu, as: m I)� .mumuns PxaN[ f,u�' ,w /ra.nl Wv r.01. awu wur/x,r mm..rr cxax, �° ., wnr ra,ex awnmm ./ ur way. nm '�' �Naxxo wsoan wxsrvrrt / rro Toro .¢? rm �a m,wi� rxmwc wws m rV... x.a: woxvrtra a owaxcs a+ nnwnox aax.ws EAST ELEVATION u :uu• • r-r -- N' . ,O G' W O 3� w� x H O 0 M FTAP LEGEND rm.n: am /m.oan zwnun ./ � ,amx awn rrw. lash Dam wxr m r sarnm r w.rtcp. Maur rrv.rn wms..mrw n.m O m��w �w ��,� m rs .m .,... mv., r,.r..�x rsrc m ..nm. ° rx�vnx�mm�. aa�s was m ,w m ra rrs iwnc wm an,,wxim anv ° rrurr.; .mw � wo r. -ua.m® mai we.c c.wvr. '❑o mortc,m wx maul _ _ mm. aw: m ,is ro ,ow �w�wrr.rs: roar s. ran. '� mrinw ora a r.. -rmx a.m: m rx.. °� �s r Dorm .ruwr mW[ r /imu mwrw rm ww xm. �� maw� maw ooa. wn xo sumo nr. nnu wwu m w+rtcr ,m r�r.. vrxou, � .m uo ra.mitrs r.wr was m wsm ra rra. mom mw.w ./ ..w rm. wo.oc asm. wa¢ m wrrta m. rk . Q rarem sem rar .uwr/au own rr+� � •aoa+.�.ww rr a mwmo .r�ww w ay.a, r,7 NORTH ELEVATION scuEans• • r-v it w m o .ssa.m ou /maEn susnart ./ 91WM SM1® rdl In.. [b.M vrrt ro a mmm w rartcp. .ri...r nummrt ma../x,xx row r❑ fbR ..�, ro r�o �dn�m Lx�s. i«vno�sxnls ro maw n.xu. r auc w .mow L❑ .1wM 11.1 CNl�l.i . t.t. nanc anm. w. �m xo.�¢r ra .Mw .M arrwirzo e.4 � n.F15, CpaM10 Wn / St.vOxR .O � r/ xmw coax A. -o.urn msxc rre.c rwwx � Sim['IUI. tiro r0A [axnti 1 woe ru ,fir... /.MM na manc V mm. r�lu= ma aal; ro .lo ono rums swap owx � O w.u.w asua.. /mr me r/ ux.:ws, ov arc -am a.m. ro ��y� ° ��rzm.oar�ou/ wm xo note rxow rinxll surly ro .Iwi¢r roll avc.. �w.w Sao aaxmrwrs, rwiwc sown ro Il1fA11aAUt il�lawww®wwllll m . . ./ — � - y. ■I�Nil l!■ ■maw ■IllplwaliNl /!I■ ■■ �trr°iiiiw�i liulwrwwwwwww lowwrllilrlwlw.rwwwww� -■ . '� r'J' nai`wan rox r mx i�ia.=W a r ZI ro Mwrlrlll ■ililllwiiwliilllwip; G3 mow!•w � ��'a w<nou�urrs, wawc vwrs ro , wso-x. vesM.rz ms.. Ifte wwNwwwwwNoNomoww\wO. %AAwNa:oummil iwalwwww� Gwwl ° rl�rlA0 l on Mu it rllwrrurlgirl lllwailllwlilllreiirl l!_!_i_•__ Ilrlll /i ■I 1IMi111w /1 lifirllwlll -NI D iii�■ ■ l�irlir r� ■■ rowwwwll plwwwwi Owwwwwwr 'wwwlo .�■� �11i /lll Mwon" %.—.Noon /1 ■a■ ■I■ ■l llp immp 1!■ ■all!■ ■1 ll m . rrrirlwl ■wlww!!o ■lwwwwwi ■wwwwww■ ■wwwomwa II ®I IMM =No i wit m uwwwwoi Imiwmoii on om �I 1��-{� wl�u;; ■ !/� /1 ■a■ ■rte ■■ Ilp ■IIM ■■ 1� ■Nl /�al ■1 ■ ■� ■iIM�1 u>® wm6mj iprriirir r>.w■wu■ iwu>•ww■ ruw■wwll iwwwwlwwl IMMENSE ioiiimii iwimiwom i�i0= ■wwwlsii ,• J rl JI illlwll lilirllwi ■1 •lwrlllill ! w A�w�ww■ �J li� 11 pol■ iwwwwr lllrilllrl Ili■■Illm■■ If■■rllli■l ■■ROIlliii ° moon RIMEN �� ■11�� ■�_ ■IE ■�� ■ ■'ice NEI -- ° ---------- w _ . �,�r�O �'• ■'17�f1 /E wplrl. I 11W A1■wAi L91Ya�ih.. ■iiY..h� I� M�Iq�/ww ■wwwwwAllll�lww \.ttl �ll�...II1wilA ■owl. ��f T- '1 LEGEND .ssa.m ou /maEn susnart ./ 91WM SM1® rdl In.. [b.M vrrt ro a mmm w rartcp. .ri...r nummrt ma../x,xx row r❑ fbR ..�, ro r�o �dn�m Lx�s. i«vno�sxnls ro maw n.xu. r auc w .mow L❑ .1wM 11.1 CNl�l.i . t.t. nanc anm. w. �m xo.�¢r ra .Mw .M arrwirzo e.4 � n.F15, CpaM10 Wn / St.vOxR .O � r/ xmw coax A. -o.urn msxc rre.c rwwx � Sim['IUI. tiro r0A [axnti 1 woe ru ,fir... /.MM na manc V mm. r�lu= ma aal; ro .lo ono rums swap owx � O w.u.w asua.. /mr me r/ ux.:ws, ov arc -am a.m. ro .uc.. wua .mar wM am O ru�uro. / m®n x onrwm xrx.lr rw.. O wrorrzo m�xc mm ��rzm.oar�ou/ wm xo note rxow rinxll surly ro .Iwi¢r roll avc.. �w.w Sao aaxmrwrs, rwiwc sown ro � �annry / nva¢ omor ./ — row.. ••w / .wv. isv, a a� a a: m . '� r'J' nai`wan rox r mx i�ia.=W a r ZI ro .� aios noire w°��unro w .xwrtci°� � ��'a w<nou�urrs, wawc vwrs ro , wso-x. vesM.rz ms.. WEST ELEVATION SGLEA /I!' - F it a er LEGEND ❑' aoom m�a/o n�m� /oaoi mm/ rwrt m t mtrno n wnail. � m'� x`u`�wn�a m rnwmo'/ ❑ r��roc�� m�ur wws m ,wlr n�a, rax m❑ y �mis m rr�m � '❑� 14OSrt. �cww. ma a � � • r"murrt�XOCr rav mer. '0 mnnc .�wr�nm. a au-aed a�.c, w� � °� � num� ��rrc ./r�*+ '�' wmean auc ma. '�' ruo�rw�mrmrm w� siumn nsi rrwa wn[s m Mmif t ml rx.. .m .wo RPrg4�R r.au[ wnt+ m mw Q maim SNf11t ILLYbt r�uwri/a.�s mn+ �' ./aua.0 ma ate: m rn wo ium canons no.� swa m �xo,mi many � r Hm. a ur�ara as m �m mr rt�oiwuons: rran[ wnn m °❑ / .mow rr� mwnc r/ wr am. '❑' � rsnx. senwrt msm�m ro iuu � sw[s m noau+ iar SOUTH ELEVATION —E 1 /16' • 1 o' NORTH PERSPECTIVE VIEW HIA -••-- .:. —,�..� .ems -- ��r onto=�*�•�R, ITT[ FIN NORTH PERSPECTIVE VIEW HIA NORTH PERSPECTIVE VIEW_ SCALE, WA SOUTHEAST VIEW PERSPECTIVE SCALE: WA =rr EAST PERSPECTIVE VIEW S-E N/A "Mon qwmmq MWVM �� mwft w rower OWNs mmmo r NORTHWESTPERSPECTIVE VIEW SCALE N/A C a w w O m < 3 ICI � x F O 0 M A19 SALT BLOCK 57, L.L.C. 430 S. GULFVIEW Color Tower and base exterior paint finish Accents: Aluminum Kynar finishes: Mullions, railing caps, decorative grilles Glazing Glass railings - Clear Glass Vision glass - Caribia color manuf. by Viracon Linen Ruffle 526 -1 from PPG Alabaster 513 -3 Arcadia Silver UC85830 from PPG Spandrel Glass - Caribia color with warm gray backing, manuf. by Viracon Arcadia Silver 49062.114967 #446631 v1 Alabaster Linen Ruffle ORIG'.NAL RECE WED SEP 15 2000 PLANNING WRARTMErr CITY OF WA►;41/IA,rR j! cwscvi Architect - Nichols Brosch Worst Wolfe & Associates Landscape Architect - Bradshaw & Associates 430 SOUTH GULFVIEW BOULEVARD SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN .S,-p( tdxT 15. 2M a `�6 b� e'= �1 1 II -7 I i'I it � t - i I -71 E�- EwctOSUHE" 137 IECH. —1 10 ca— "I ( LIZ' ZA TORELF W MD AFF T�WGMM Z ZER E= ccco Roof Level Plan S..w Vw - T-V NORTH vusuc BuaII ZONING ANALYSIS PARKING LEGEND I LA --!lL a PROEM tK WKR SLW Tmva Dsw MP-RAP D%7X SUWALL PM SOMME SOME NOMEN RENEW 1111111111111118 loom mom nom ME mom N, mom 1100 mom r.0 ■ MEN MT a 9 . M;5m o= - mom OP-00 INN on on 0 NMI; 0 0 W �7 loom so : ZZ �7 0 N6852 35"E(C.F) 402.14'(L) 316.34'(F) eq,9 C: '200 8.98 > M, 0 "0 NO Z z > > �LIOO PLAN/F2 PARKING LEVEL WE u T10 � Til TII J i • srz na arc. mn�,m SP4 PARKING LEVEL PLAN suuane• . r.o• o w n w MA i10 TI1 f12 T/3 S_L3 � LEVEL PLAN .P. PARKING 11 N G T9 o-- o- no r" rig 11 r�3 i r W W O W O M mnsne (� L200 PLAN (MEETING ROOMS) /P5 PARKING LEVEL SCALEAll6' • 1' -7 o t s w A4 J . I LAN.(BALLROOM) etxeane•.r•o• o +r a w M NICHOLS BROSCH WURST WOLFE a Aacoar, W O 3 �u c� a� H 0 0 ;j IJ OW1 C%1 L400 -L500 PLAN. scaeane• . ra• 01 L600 -LI000 PLAN ALE 0 Ir lr M 110 T11 T12 T'3 01 L600 -LI000 PLAN ALE 0 Ir lr M r�o rii rig t�,r AMT.dM A IYfy I w 0 oa 3 x H 0 0 M • m�ab me m�a. w.wn 2855 LI100 -L1200 PLAN o m a a' A8 T10 T11T12 T� I T13 raa..v. � IYMy �r W 0 mi �- W a 0 W 0 M W (%1 L1600 PLAN suueane• . r•a o ,r 3r ,. A10 1 �7 W O as � 3 �W 0 0 M 101 Q� ENLARGED UNIT PLAN D r r A11 _ _ __ -----------------–------ __ ______ __ ____ ____ ` ` ` ` ` __ ____ rT- r77 ` ^ ` —7— rr, -- — ---' ?f' ^m' 'Jn 'Hr BUILDING SECTION ~ �:Q 'A w 40 en IT BROSCH WURST WOLFED 1. L'+ BUILDING SECTION SCAL :1116' z 1'-0' 14 Al2 6;2n!siii� ..o ..m. ..ms moms WPM— BUILDING SECTION (EAST-WEST) r n &ASSOOATMM ■ n �1 - H- .- .- .- .- ._._._ ------------ ---------- �-$�- ---------- $�- ---------- ---------- ------------ k---B - ____ --- _1 -1AMQ LEGEND ❑169.Af Cnl/YOIORIE SId61RllE ./ SIf10111 Sngw mB1(116mY Lgdf vxrt m a surcrm n.ndmn} NIUaIY SIdRAMxf A42a1> ./11WA fldl caRnlE ./ xw xw1, M 9L4Aad 4AR m fans susus m NLWLL SwiDY, fMWMNf OIUf. fJA MIRN14 .nX Ko iINWI wWmO • llmfiftt fro asrar mw - 0.YNC as nllrl -.lalm Q49 ,C y my f.LLfx ./� xw nal fl6- fM4110mp R19L f�9R GMPY. a �mmm ru ma1R � rm arxw msnrwc .n,l nuw xm. oxrtem munf frmar •/ nva wu snxco rww. fans suwFS m umnm ran aver. atr .00 aa.armns fmta swvs ro rmsi wamc ./ utw xms vvmf oslal �mflm mn aura mwn snwla m ,vmnm sa avx.. O mreto snow av[y _ '❑° wwrnw/ora rwixv mmr utrr mnuntt .rmo. wi as,ar �+ wlux a.& m vm sxo ,nw ,s fmwf zua¢ ro uaxmcr mn avtr. ruanlo � xm4 a aufAad sum m av m awsams fsaa s+laES ro wonm ron ay... °� ./ axw�nml waarc ./ wu xmt. m aNtNCn .AmM. suanarz �ar./rtxa nas. wermc ap.S�14 vw,uf sxxmts m ■mfrta rm aysr. .oa wsdr<c a artxws a fltmor d1 4 xmml - fes csr - els swill - m Vr EAST ELEVATION 11 ■I1111111I11011111111111111''sm 2855 A16 ■III I ■1 2855 A147 I� II ■ 1 o. - -- -fl LEGEND rWVn owsoYan¢ vmssat y _ awaw mtermn �r � rea, O , auww eam rrrwtsw oaa cm rwaoa5 "mvanma ,e u..m a.wo an arinsuim aaa "m „ ,re -awmm rout .+ec vevr ra mma mwurto nwamt is m i�uw'"aa s°vm�a e»,An�o n m�ronarta ra mgr w'�i, r/� w, ,�, ,anenmm _ _ w�r."tlY•o}°wo� erort¢r mr mn. r mwi.0 0 a a etm, °❑ mwtmo am utr.:em „ eoiamrco mec Door �0 me a miot roro t�mawiA vmac uwtn ro �aartr ra vnrr. es..lsmamr a"aa rm eas iduimumonfe Dana vam m 19atc roe ap. sd me�'�m , new caarva r/ r taa vast amw tAio, nrt0 ro RcttRr mR trrtr, I] roam enom mu ,I + r/lnla r�nw Ana i] r/tmn:' a aue,ur a,m Door attmr r/met, n� ❑ roar nwNua roe[ eovr O trai wm vnon twueo owe erm � imroam eru tme ro rtt no,ors �.�wm�e a.r,n m -nmmi aiaowp[ v�iwn � � wno ro r/ ar nom, mw»a q ,uw mos waaar wtsuv � imn wmrtea v aoec u ' aranvi Dann. ' eom, - eex SOUTH ELEVATION o ,r a er w 0 3 �W as H 0 0 lei A18'1 Exhibit "C" — Page 1 Beach by Design Height 13.2 Option 1: "500' Rule" B. Height Maximum height is prescribed by the respective zoning districts in the Community Development Code unless otherwise restricted by Beach by Design. The height may be increased, however, to 150' if: 1. additional density is allocated to the development either by transferred development rights or with bonus hotel units pursuant to the CRD designation; 2. portions of any structure which exceed 100' are spaced at least 100' apart (with no more than two structures which exceed 100' within 500% or four structures which exceed 100' within 800' so long as the elevations of all structures which exceed 100' when such structures are viewed from the east do not occupy a total of 40% of a north south vertical plane which is parallel to the alignment of Coronado and North Mandalay of the building envelope above 100'); O U N x W W O U. J NDTE: ALL ELEVATit NS At E IN f€EEENCE TO ELHATIOt f W -0' WD. ,Z--/"\, t so' for moo' Y .. SP �� 0 Q W J n O m 3 W N O x O rn t I� Exhibit "C" — Page 2 Beach by Design Height B.2 Option 1: "500' Rule" B. Height Maximum height is prescribed by the respective zoning districts in the Community Development Code unless otherwise restricted by Beach by Design. The height may be increased, however, to 150' if: 1. additional density is allocated to the development either by transferred development rights or with bonus hotel units pursuant to the CRD designation; 2. portions of any structure which exceed 100' are spaced at least 100' apart (with no more than two structures which exceed 100' within 500% or four structures which exceed 100' within 800' so long as the elevations of all structures which exceed 100' when such structures are viewed from the east do not occupy a total of 40% of a north south vertical plane which is parallel to the alignment of Coronado and North Mandalay of the building envelope above 100'); N L L L L7 h - "Alt i - i III i . M . E EONG PROPERTY � a � � � `• _ t 00 100' -0• TM! '4�j �> , � � • �'ao i ' r ... 1 moo, O h� HOTEL TOWER , ,. • •s t - . .I ' �. ; O +150'-0• $ $ W W } } - POOL �••� Q i i, •r� zq i ii BM z t t � X r ry z O Ce v v "Alt i - i III i . M . E EONG PROPERTY � a � � � `• _ t 00 100' -0• TM! '4�j �> , � � • �'ao i ' r ... 1 moo, Exhibit Beach by Design C. Design, Scale and Mass of Building 4. No more than 60% of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above 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 and occupied by a building includes any. portion of the maximum building envelope that is not visible from a public street. Theoretical max. calculation assumes the followig setbacks: East — 0' North 6' from CCCL South — 3' West 8' from CCCL � I ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE = 60% OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BLDG. :ENVELOPE (7,636,965 CU. FT. X .6) = 4,582,119 CU.FT. PROPOSED DESIGN = 1,664,882 CU. FT,,. 2.1.8% OF THEORETICAL MAX. ( <60%) rrcvrvxu u�aiury = i,va+,aac �.u.r i ., $each by Design 21.8% OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM C. Design, Scale and Mass of Building 4. No more than 60% of the the oretical THEORETICAL MAXIMUM maximum building envelope located above 45' �� j �� BUILDING ENVELOPE _ I will* be occupied by a building. For the 7,636,965 CU. FT � � I � \ purpose of .this standard, theoretical maximum _ ... ............. building envelope . is the: maximum. permitted building volume that could be theoretically occupied by a building and occupied by a building includes any portion of :the maximum building. envelope .that is not visible from a public street. J K I/ \ Note GC A,Q � I I Exhibit "C" — Page 5 QUEUING ANALYSIS I 1 11, Iloilo ■ I 0 9 . Ow 12W ausm STAM ul A 2 0 Li 0 O C+1 CU C-5 1 F�.D 200�—o8o2H' Vehicular Elevator Movement Analysis. Three (3) 125 feet per minute, 7,000 pound hydraulic powered vehicular elevators are planned for the vertical movement of passenger vehicles within the garage facility. The lower level of the garage is accessible via direct street access and includes 99 vehicles accessible without use of the elevators. Floors two, three, four and five are accessible only by the vehicular elevators and include 195 cars. The Movement Analysis as based upon ThyssenKrupp Elevators provides for a movement of a single vehicle from the upper level of garage in an average of 153 seconds. For a single level of the garage to be exited with a single elevator a total time of 2.76 hours is required. With the use of three elevators this is reduced to a time frame of 0.9 hours. With two elevators in service the total time would be 1.8 hours. As a comparison based on the information supplied by USA Parking Consultants, Inc. a typical manned gated operation would provide exiting for an average of 90 vehicles per hour. Base on this information the 195 vehicles exiting through a single gate and ramp would take a total of 2.16 hours.. In the event of tropical storm that would require vehicular removal from the garage, a 48 -72 hour notice to the Hotel guest will be provided for them to leave the island. This would be in accordance with an emergency evacuation procedure to be published by the Hotel Operations Department. As the garage design is hurricane resistant and above the wave crest heights anticipated for the site, vehicles could remain safely within the garage structure. Those vehicles on the ground level would require to be removed. KA430 S. Gulfview\Reports\Parking Study.doc 430 S. GULFVIEW BOULEVARD PARKING STUDY Submitted To: City of Clearwater Prepared For: Salt Block 57, LLC 1001 E. Atlantic Avenue, Suite 202 Delray Beach, FL 33483 Prepared By: Florida Design Consultants, Inc. 3030 Starkey Boulevard New Port Richey, Florida 34655 Prepared Under the Supervision of: Roy E. Chapman, P.E. FL Certification No. 34438 Date: September 11, 2008 ORIGINAL. RECEIVED SEP 15 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Di p `ACC? 8117 ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' The 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard project is proposed to have a 230 room hotel constructed on it. The site is located between Gulf Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico north of Hamden Drive. Access to the site will come from three driveways that have connection to S. Gulfview Boulevard, see Figure ' 1. This report has been prepared to review the proposed on -site parking operation and will review the demand for parking and expected operation of the parking plan. ' 2.0 PROPOSED PARKING CHARATERISTICS ' All parking within the hotel garage will be handled by a valet service. This includes hotel guests and employees. Vehicles arriving at the hotel to be parked will unload passengers and drivers at the arrival court located off of S. Gulfview Boulevard. Vehicles will be taken by valet to the parking ' garage without reentering S. Gulfview Boulevard. Parking will be provided. on five floors. Access between floors will be provided by freight elevators. Deliveries to the hotel will take place through a service drive from S. Gulfview Boulevard located near the south side of the property. See Figure Al for the proposed driveway connections to S. Gulfview Drive and the location of the service dock and drive. ' 3.0 PARKING DEMAND The hotel will have 230 rooms for its guests. In addition there will be a restaurant, bar, spa and ' fitness center, eight meeting rooms, a 1,370 square foot ballroom, and a 9,600 square foot ballroom. To review the expected demand for parking at the hotel we have reviewed two occurrences that would have significant demands for parking. The first is with 100% occupancy of the hotel rooms ' and the peak overlap in employee shifts. The second looked at the parking needs for 100% hotel occupancy and a large banquet with 450 people attending. n 1 The hotel will be staffed 24 hours per day using three shifts. The shifts will run from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and 1.1:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Shift 1, the day shift will have 75 staff members on duty, Shift 2 will have 25 staff, and Shift 3 will have ten people. A large banquet will require an additional 25 persons to handle the expected guests. It is projected, based on discussions with hotel operators, that the parking requirements will be one parking space for every four employees (25% of the staff). The other staff are expected to come to the hotel using public transit, be dropped off by others, or share a ride with an employee parking at the hotel. Table 1 identifies the various staff shifts, number of staff, and parking requirements for each shift or to handle a large banquet. For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that all hotel rooms would be filled. The expected parking requirements are that 60% of the occupied rooms would require a parking space. Other means of arrivals to the hotel for guests include: airport shuttle, taxi, and charter bus. Some of the people arriving in a private vehicle may require more than one hotel room (families with children or business people coming to a convention). Based on the 230 rooms, the parking demand would be 138 vehicles. ' A conference with 450 attendees is expected to have half of the e attendees stay in hotel rooms. The other half would come in personal vehicles, with an auto occupancy of two people per car. As ' indicated in Table 1, a banquet with 450 attendees would need another 113 parking spaces. We have reviewed the number of parking spaces needed for the two operating conditions outlined above based on time of day for the various parking demands identified. Table 2 summarizes the demand for parking on a hourly basis throughout the day assuming full occupancy in the hotel and no special event. As is indicated, the highest demand comes in the period from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. with a demand for 163 parking spaces. �1 Li Full occupancy of the hotel and a large banquet at the same time represents the worst case scenario. Staff parking needs, that for hotel guests, and banquet attendees by hour throughout the day are indicated in Table 3. The greatest parking demand would occur as the banquet is in full attendance, with a need for 263 parking spaces from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. PARKING SUPPLY The hotel will provide parking in a five level garage on -site. The hotel will have 100% valet service, eliminating the need for handicapped spaces. There will be 296 marked spaces in the parking garage. Figures 1 through 5 indicate the parking to be provided on the various levels. Some of the marked spaces will be two vehicles deep, but since the site is served by 100% valet operation, should not present an access problem. If there is a greater demand for parking than is normally expected additional cars could be stacked in the aisles of the garage. This potential overflow parking has been marked in red on Figures 1 through 5. The locations indicated assume an 8' wide by 20' long parking spot. This was done to allow maneuvering room for parking or retrieving a car. The number of overflow spaces and marked spaces are summarized in Table 4, below. As is indicated there will be 296 marked spaces and 56 overflow spaces for a total of 352 parking spaces in the hotel garage. Table 4. Parkin g Spaces Provided Level Marked Spaces Overflow Spaces Total 1 (Basement) 103 29 132 2 41 6 47 3 48 7 55 4 52 7 59 5 52 7 59 Total 296 56 352 ' 5.0 PARKING COMPARISON The number of parking spaces required have been compared to the number of spaces to be provided ' in the parking garage. At full occupancy, there is a need for 163 parking spaces and a full occupancy with a large banquet there is a need for 263 parking spaces. 11 ' As indicated in Section 4 above, there will be 352 spaces available for parking within the garage. P P The 296 marked spaces exceed the demand of 263 spaces, while the overflow parking will allow the ' hotel to store up to 352 vehicles on site. It is, therefore, concluded that the site will provide adequate parking for its needs. 6.0 FREIGHT ELEVATORS Freight elevators will be used to transport vehicles between floors in the hotel. A series of three elevators are proposed, each with the capacity for one vehicle at a time. A generator will be provided on site that would be capable of powering two elevators simultaneously in the event of a ' power outage. 7.0 CONCLUSION ' As demonstrated in this report, the hotel will have adequate capacity in its parking garage to handle most expected events and full occupancy of all its hotel rooms. The maximum need identified was ' for 263 parking spaces. The parking lot will have the ability to contain 352 vehicles, which is significantly higher than the identified parking demand. Therefore adequate parking provisions have been made for the hotel. ' :es K: \430 S. Gulfview\Reports\Pazking Study.doc 17, L' F fi 8 PROPERTY LINE P1- BASEMENT P2 P3 P4 P5 1[1]011 LOWER SUN TERRACE EXISTING RIP -RAP EXISTING SEAWALL PARKING SUMMARY MARKED SPACES OVERFLOW SPACES TOTAL SPACES 103 29 132 41 6 47 48 7 55 52 7 59 52 7 59 296 56 352 PREPGRE� FOR. FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. �ooii.o .o ooxx.x ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, SURVEYORS B PLANNERS Rh, F 34655 303I. �727)6 9. 7588 ~ -PF a.(i 27) 64 8 -3648 E.B. No. 7421 164' -1' PI- BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL T11 6' H. CMU WALL W/ PAINTED STUCCO FIN. BREEi OESCRiP 1'iORi 430 SOUTH GULFVIEW BOLLEVARD PARKING AND VALET LOCATIONS CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA I %J PP(1PFRN I IAIG STORM WATER VAULT UNDER RAMP. SEE CIVIL DWGS. 0 Q w J C) m _w J CDC7 S Cn �J t k u r i (DI o- s e Teo ri � r12 Qg T/3 Ae PREPgRED FOR, .� FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. �, ENGINEERS. ENVIRONMENTALISTS. SURVEYORS B PLANNERS S�e� (72 ]I'949V ]59Bµ -PFei� (T275 86833648 E.B. No. 7421 P3 PARKING LEVEL PLAN 430 SOUTH GULFVIEW BOULEVARD CLEARWATER BEACH. FLORIDA SaEET DESCRIPTION. PARKING AND VALET LOCATIONS e (D-- r T11 T12 T10 -1g T73 FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, SURVEYORS B PLANNERS 3030 Sl.—y 81'd. N x Pori R�'hcy FL 34655 41, (1 1) e.9 -15ue - F4.. (7271 848.3646 E.B. No. 7421 P4 PARKING LEVEL PLAN PREP4q ED FOR, SHEET DESCRI1110N. 430 SOUTH GULFVIEW BOULEVARD CLEARWATER B E A C H. FLORIDA PARKING AND VALET LOCATIONS 4 k r � (E�' D r1 > r12 T10 59 T13 MEETING MEETING MEETING ROOM ROOM ROOM 900 SF 1570 SF 910 SF MEETING ROOM 910 SF ,\co P4 P5 I I TERRACE W ELEVATOR LOBBY M ® OPEN TO BELOW ® JUNIOR PRE - FUNCTION BALLROOM 1370 SF UP / PRE - FUNCTION MEETING ROOM 815 SF P1 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 MEETING ELEVATOR ROOM LOBBY 815 SF 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 P3 a p 1 3 4 5 G 7 ELEVATOR FREIGHT MEETING B.O.H. 2 2 52 PARKING SPACES ROOM 7 OVERFLOW SPACES 815 SF FREIGHT 1 ELEVATOR 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 FREIGHT B.O.H. ELEVATOR MEETING ROOM 815 SF 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 L3 2 1 p_ _7- 1-11— _p- L200 PLAN (MEETING ROOMS) /P5 PARKING LEVEL 11111 1311 FOR, SHEET DESCRIPTION. .� FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. 430 SOUTH GULFVIE�V BOULEVARD s99 -27, ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, SURVEYORS 8 PLANNERS PARKING AND VALET LOCATIONS 3030 SI . *y 8L p. N"« Pll. R�<n.y F� 34655 CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 949 -i58B - a.. 9ue -3548 o9L a O 0 E.B. N.. 7421 Y°` M M M M M M M M M M M M i M M M M M M Table 1. 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard - Parking Demand Function Variable Full Occupancy + Lar a Banquet Number Spaces per Person /Room Parking Spaces Req'd Hotel Staff - Shift 1 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 .m. Persons 75 25% 19 Hotel Staff - Shift 2 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 .m. Persons 25 25% 6 Hotel Staff - Shift 3 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Persons 10 25% 3 Hotel Staff - Large Banquet Persons 25 25% 6 Hotel Rooms Occupied Rooms 230 60% 138 Conference/Banquet Attendees - Hotel Guests Persons 225 NA 0 Conference /Banquet Attendees - Non - Guests I Persons 225 2 113 Date: 9/11/08 T: \699 -271A \Parking Study \[Parking Needs.xls]Demand 0. • ITable 2. Full Occupancy - Time of Day Parking Needs n n Time Period Hotel Guests Total Parking Needs Hotel Staff Shift 1 Shift 2 Shift 3 12 a.m. to 1 a.m. 3 138 141 la.m. to 2 a.m. 3 138 141 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. 3 138 141 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. 3 138 141 4 a.m. to 5 a.m. 3 138 141 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. 3 138 141 6 a.m to 7 a.m. 19 3 138 160 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. 19 3 138 160 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. 19 138 157 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. 19 138 157 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. 19 138 157 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. 19 138 157 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. 19 138 157 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 19 138 157 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. 19 6 138 163 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. 19 6 138 163 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. 6 138 144 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. 6 138 144 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 6 138 144 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. 6 138 144 8 P.M. to 9 p.m. 6 138 144 9 P.M. to 10 P.M. 6 138 144 10 P.M. to 11 P.M. 6 3 138 147 it p.m. to 12 a.m. 6 3 138 147 ' Date: 9/9/08 T: \699 -271A \Parking Study \[Parking Needs.xls]Full I I 1 0 0 r r Table 3. Full Occupancy + Large Banquet Time of Day Parking Needs Time Period Hotel Staff Hotel Guests Conference/ Banquet Non -Guest Total Parking Needs Shift 1 Shift 2 Shift 3 Banquet 12 a.m. to 1 a.m. 3 138 141 la.m. to 2 a.m. 3 138 141 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. 3 138 141 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. 3 138 141 4 a.m. to 5 a.m. 3 138 141 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. 3 138 141 6 a.m to 7 a.m. 19 3 138 160 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. 19 3 138 160 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. 19 138 157 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. 19 138 157 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. 19 138 157 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. 19 138 157 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. 19 138 157 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 19 138 157 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. 19 6 138 163 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. 19 6 138 163 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. 6 6 138 150 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. 6 6 138 75 225 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 6 6 138 113 263 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. 6 6 138 113 263 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. 6 6 138 113 263 9 P.M. to 10 P.M. 6 6 138 113 263 10 P.M. to 11 P.M. 6 3 6 138 75 228 11 p.m. to 12 a.m. 6 3 138 147 ' Date: 9/9/08 T: \699 -271A \Parking Study \[Parking Needs.xlsfull with Banquet n U C. Civil Engineering • Surveying • Transportation Planning & Engineering • Land Planning • Environmental July 23, 2008 Mr. Paul Bertels Traffic Operations Manager City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Room 220 Clearwater, Florida 33756 -5520 RE: 430 South Gulfview Boulevard Dear Mr. Bertels: 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD FLD2008 -08024 SALT BLOCK 57. LLC Zoning: T atlas# As you are aware, the site previously occupied by the Adams Mark Hotel on Clearwater Beach is being proposed for redevelopment. The previously existing 217 room resort hotel is to be replaced with a 230 room resort hotel. This letter is being sent to obtain the City's concurrence that: 1. A traffic study will not be required for this proposed redevelopment, and 2. Impact fees will only be due for the 13 additional resort hotel rooms. In support of the position that no traffic study is required for this change in land use, the following information is provided. First, we conducted a comparison in trip generation for the Adams Mark Hotel and for the proposed hotel. As indicated in Table 1, attached, the trip generation for the previous 217 rooms of resort hotel includes 83 a.m. peak hour trips and 244 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed 230 resort hotel rooms will generate 88 a.m. peak hour trips and 258 p.m. peak hour trips. These estimates were made using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Informational Report Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003. The increase in trips in the a.m. peak hour is 5, while the p.m. peak hour would see an additional 14 trips. The sited ITE reference does not include rates for daily trip generation, therefore, daily trips could not be estimated. As can be seen from the above, the increase. in trips is minimal and requiring a traffic study would prove no useful purpose. Secondly, the property at 430 South Gulfview Boulevard was approved by the City of Clearwater to be allowed to develop 230 overnight accommodation units. This approval was conveyed by a letter from Mr. Michael Delk, AICP, Planning Director dated January 16, 2008, see copy attached. While the proposal before the City at that time was for time share units, they carry the same zoning classification, overnight accommodations, as the resort hotel currently proposed. Therefore due to the limited number of new trips generated by the proposed development and since the City has already approved the proposed total of 230 overnight accommodation units for this location, no traffic study should be needed. 3030 Starkey Boulevard • New Port Richey, FL 34655 (727) 849 -7588 • Fax: (727) 848 -3648 • (800).532 -1047 www.fldesign.com 0 Mr. Paul Bertels July 23, 2008 Page 2 0 Concerning the transportation impact fee due for the development, the applicant will pay for the 13 additional rooms (230 proposed less 217 previous) using the resort hotel category. Please review this request and provide me your written concurrence on the above. Sincerely, oy E. hapman, E. Vice P esident of Transportation Services Enclosures c: Ken Gross, Ocean Properties, w /encl. Katie Cole, Johnson, Pope, et al., w /encl. Edward Mazur, Jr., P.E., FDC, w/o encl. Octavio Cabrera, P.E., FDC, w/o encl. File: 0699 -0271 -10.01 :pcm K: \430 S. Gulfview\Letters \bertels.0t.doc Table 1. 430 South Gulfview Boulevard Trip Generation Land Use ITE LUC Size Units AM Peak Hour Inbound Outbound Total PM Peak Hour Inbound Outbound Total Resort Hotel (Occupied Rooms) 330 217 Room 60 23 83 105 139 244 Resort Hotel (Occupied Rooms) 330 230 Room 63 25 88 111 147 258 Increase 3 2 5 6 8 14 Date: July 17, 2008 T: \Trip Generation \[2003 Trip Gen Rates.xls] Cabana Club • F, 1 LJ • • CITY OF CLEARWATER Q.` POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLFARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 -4748 ipr`OY` 4 MUNICIPAL. SERVICFs BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAx (727) 562 -4865 PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 16, 2008 Mr. E. D. Armstrong III, Esquire Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP P.O. Box 1368 Clearwater, Florida 33757 -1368 RE: Development Order - Cases FLD2007- 11034 /TDR2005 -05022 430 South Gulfview Boulevard Dear Mr. Armstrong: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4- 206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On January 15, 2008, the Community Development Board reviewed your request for (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6 -109; (2) Flexible Development approval to pen-nit 230 overnight accommodation units in the Tourist (T) District with reductions to the front (east) setback om 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (north) setback rom the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) from 10 feet to six feet (to bu— Ing an to zero feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from eet to three feet (to sidewalk) and to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the rear (west) setback from the CCCL from 20 feet to eight feet (to building) and to zero feet (to sidewalk), an increase to building height from 35 feet to 100 feet (to roof deck) and to 150 feet (to roof deck) for two portions of the building, a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street and to allow a two -year time frame to submit for a building permit, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; and (3) including the Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight. accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4 -1402. The Community Development Board (CDB) APPROVED the application with the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval: FindinEs of Fact: 1. The 145 total,acres (1.87 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.58 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation District) is located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater Beach; 2. On April 19, 2005, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved with 10 conditions Case Nos. FLD2005- 01005 /SGN2005 -01016 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to allow the continuation of an existing 217 - room/unit hotel (where 74 rooms /units were "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" January 16, 2008 Armstrong — Page 2 permitted at that time) and for height to allow the existing 155 -foot high building (where a maximum height of 150 feet is permitted today); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 217 - room/unit overnight accommodation use with reductions to setbacks, an increase to building height from 35 feet to 155 feet (to existing roof deck) and a reduction to required parking from 217 to 201 spaces (existing) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; (3) Reduction to the required interior landscape area, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program; and (4) Comprehensive Sign Program approval (SGN2005- 01016); 3. On August 16, 2005, the CDB approved with 18 conditions Case Nos. FLD2005-05047/TDR2005- 05022 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units existing to be converted to 104 dwelling units; where 56 dwelling units wee permitted at that time); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use of 112 attached dwelling units and 78 overnight accommodation rooms /units with reductions to setbacks, increases to building height from 35 feet 100 feet for the overnight accommodation building tower and from 35 feet to 150 feet for the residential tower (to roof deck), a reduction to driveway spacing from 125 feet to 90 feet and a deviation to allow direct access to. a arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005- 05022) of four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade; 4. The nonconforming status of the prior hotel density has been determined to still be valid, even though the hotel was demolished, due to the status of the approval of Case Nos. FLD2005- 05047/TDR2005 -05022 and the time extensions granted; 5. The proposal is to construct a new building on the property with a vacation/interval ownership project consisting of 230 overnight accommodation units; 6. The development proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today); 7. Eight dwelling units were previously transferred to this site under TDR2005 -05022 and are being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units for this project; 8. The proposal includes three floors of parking for a total of 409 parking spaces at a ratio of 1.76 spaces per unit (where one space per unit is required); 9. The proposal includes a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street, where the site has no other means of street access except to South Gulfview Boulevard; 10. With Beach Walk construction, Coronado Drive will function as the main arterial street between the roundabout and Hamden Drive, south of the subject property and this change of street designation will be included in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update; 11. The proposal includes reductions to the front (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (north) setback from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) from 10 feet to six feet (to building) and to zero feet (to sidewalk), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to sidewalk) and to zero feet (to trash staging area) and reductions to the rear (west) setback from the CCCL from 20 feet to eight feet (to building) and to zero feet (to sidewalk); 12. The proposal includes an increase to building height from 35 feet to 100 feet (to roof deck) and to 150 feet (to roof deck) for two portions of the building; 13. The higher portion of the building is separated from the 440 West condominium tower to the south by approximately 158 feet, which is in compliance with the Beach by Design requirement to have a minimum spacing of 100 feet between towers exceeding 100 feet in height; 14. The proposal includes a request for deviations to Beach by Design guidelines which require the floorplate of any building exceeding 45 feet in height be limited to a maximum of 25,000 square feet E January 16, 2008 Armstrong — Page 3 • between 45 — 100 feet and a maximum of 10,000 square feet between 100 — 150 feet, as the largest floorplate between 45 — 100 feet is approximately 43,179 square feet and between 100 — 150 feet is approximately 20,832 square feet, but the guideline allows deviations to these floorplate requirements provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above 45 feet; 15. Beach by Design guidelines requires for buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet, where the proposal is approximately 60,804 square feet, to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The project's overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately 207.5 feet along South Gulfview Boulevard and 276 feet along the north side, while the vertical plane is approximately 160 feet from grade to the top of the tallest roof. None of these dimensions are equal; 16. Beach by Design guidelines requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. The planes of all elevations provide in and out modulation of five —10 feet, where the largest uninterrupted plane is approximately 29 feet; 17. Beach by Design guidelines requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The applicant has calculated that the north elevation is at 62.6 percent, the east elevation at 70.7 percent, the south elevation at 66.1 percent and the west elevation at 68.8 percent; and 18. There are 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 application for, a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later than January 15, 20 10,. unless time extensions are granted pursuant to Section 4407; 2. That the final design and .color of the overnight accommodation building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 3. That the use of this property be for overnight accommodations, meeting the definition of the Community Development Code, with owner and guest stays not to exceed 30 days (whether occupancy of units arise from a rental agreement, other agreement or the payment of consideration). This development shall not be deemed attached dwellings with individual dwelling units, nor shall units qualify for homestead exemption or home or business occupational licenses; 4. That a Declaration of Unity of Title (for condominiums) be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 5. That a condominium or other form of plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit or first Certificate of Occupancy, depending on the form of the sale of the units, as necessary or required; 6. That there be no public /guest use of either roof; 7. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, waterfront visibility triangles be correctly indicated on the civil site and landscape plans; January 16, 2008 Armstrong — Page 4 8. That any future freestanding sign be a monument -style sign and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. The maximum height shall be four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program; 9. That sea - turtle friendly light fixtures be employed with the site design, with compliance demonstrated on plans acceptable to the Environmental Engineering Division, prior to the issuance of building permits; 10. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the civil plans be amended to indicate the following: a. curbing of the edges of pavement for the trash staging/loading area; b. detailed perimeter grading to ensure proposed site grading of swales and yard grate inlets works with the proposed landscaping; and c. a stoop outside the double doors from the south side of the building adjacent to the trash holding room; 11. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the civil and architectural plans be coordinated as to the location of mirrors and signage to aid motorists backing out of visually blocked parking spaces on all levels of the parking garage; 12. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, compliance with all requirements of General Engineering and Stormwater Engineering be met; 13. That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any permits; 14. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 15. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. Pursuant to Section 4 -407, an application for a building permit or other approvals shall be made within the time frame of Condition #1 above. All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the building permit. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Coordinator may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. The Community Development Board may approve one additional extension of time after the community development coordinator's extension to initiate a building permit application. 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 January 28, 2008 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, Planner Ill, at 727 -562 -4504. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: www.myclearwater.coin/gov /depts /planning. . • 0 January 16, 2008 Armstrong — Page 5 Sincerely, M c a 1 , Planning Director S.•IPlanning DepartmenilCD BIFLCX (FLD)Ilnactive or Finished Applications)Guljview S 0430 CB Vacation (7)1.2008 - ApprovedIGuo'view S 430 Development Order 1.16.08.doc JUL-22-2003 12:24P FF'0[1: CL WTF' FIR PP.IFITN 727 -5-52 -4461 T0: 912.394545401 P.2 b . Clearwater Fire & Rescue 4saa �� at 610 Franklin Street - Clearwater, Florida 33758 u Public Works Administration- Engineering Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Suite 200 - Clearwater, Florida 33756 Fin Flow and Hydrant Workshoel Thlo wo*xhast ls rpulnd to ba submitted to and aPpmved by the Authority Having JwlMlation (AHJ) prior to DRC meeting for any project that is mom then S stores or man then 3(' M Maght above the lowest fin Dept vehicle access poW or for mW other prajest that will r@Wre on Autanetls wet gbndpips Syelsrrr and/or Fin. Pump before any ps a for new building ocrabut tlon. building expernlon or an hydrants will be blued by the Chy of CM mdw trdbnrattlwf and deslgn must comply with Porlds Bunding Code, Chapter g - F1n pmgetlon eysten* Florida Fin Prevention Cods to include applicable NFPA Code (NFPA 1.13.13D,138.131k 14,18, ell, 211 and 1142 Annex N) and AW WA NI-17 - Inetetietion, Field Tasting and Mehgenanoa of new Hydrants. Ipmlectimlormation 430 South Gulfview Boulevard Project Address: 430 South Gulfview Bouelvard Project Address: Clearwater, Florida General Water system Information Location ofmamet Fin Hydrant NE Corner of Site Grid 276A #25 & #3 sin of water Main 811 n supplying Fire Flow: Looped tlri ea tem or Dd+nd WM7 Looped Stettw 78 psi Raeldust: 6 3 gel Pivot: 51 pal Flow. 1200 o0m D4tanos of bet gauge relative ao the bps of the nlssr: HorboordaI R ve flow (Elevation) R Hydrant Tog Conducted W. City of Clearwater Water Department pr,duddausch copy of schW feat sheet) tiFPA Hazard Ctessirloation _ee__ artacrleC Meet TOTAL NEEDED FIRE FLOW (N.F.F.): 1 , UUU I W^e _ r— IS EXISTING sY8TEM suPPLY SUFPICIENT TO MEET N.F.F. ABOVE? No Y e s YES Codes and Standards I and Other Sprinxlers ivr,rti 1-i - zUUZ StandDiiDes NFPA 14 - 2003 Fire Pump NFPA 20 - 2003 Private Mains NFPA 24 - 2002 aWrh additional shsab If r Kt~. N -"Wr includes • fire Pump supply the foilowing: 1 0 0 0 Pressure: 13 5 pal Rre pump Inibnno0on: Pump Capacity: , qpm Chum Rarad Pressure: 120 ply Pressure a 160% now. 92 Pal On-of Storage Tank CapCIW); JUL- 22- 2008 12:24P FRi it1: i_.LWTR FIRE PRIJPJTN 727 -562 -4461 TO: 912394545401 P.3 Anparal!lpeciRN infonnadion PnparwrNann: Daniel H Wadsworth P.E. CompanyNs"W. Wadsworth O'Neal Bacik Engineers itlfatlingAddreea: 6418 Commerce Park Drive Fort Myers stow Florida >Jp 33966 Z �� t>hme. (239) 454 -5511 Fu; (239) 454 -5401 P F Seal !. .. Additional Information Rogulred Fire Prewntln ltatrre to be addressed prior to DRC approval: 1 Provide Rre Fbw Calculations / Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate wow supply b avallable and to determine N any upgrades are required by the developer due to the Impact of this proJea The water Supply moat be able to support the Asada Of any required fire epnnmr, standpipe endior fire pump. It a fire pump Is required the water Supply must be Stela to supply 150% of lh rated capadly. Compganw with the 2004 Fbdda Fire Prevention Coda to Inctude NFPA 13, NFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and NFPA 1142 (AnMx N) Is required. 2- When an PDC Is required, it Shelf be a minimum of I W ham bultfirwlf and shall haw a fbe hydrant within 40'. This hydrant Mail not be located an acme mein as Fbe SpdrAder and must be on supply aide of doubly defscim cinch vWa. This hydrud IS In addition to the hydrant hurt Is ►pubW for fimfGhft puro, that Is to be within 907 or building as the hoes My* and on to earn elde or street as the ProJed. s' Provide and Show an the plan minknum 90' turning radhw for amergancy vehicle Ingress and egrasa at d w*anM and extW 4- Provide and show on the alts pion 21 R width at driveways I drive data for amerpen y vohk b ingress and agrees for fiord and mar paAft isle. When diva way to spilt by an hand aAth onaway tratlb each dda of island pmNde and show on Use plan a minintum 20 R width ddvwwy an each aide or the Island �► Provide Ike department access roadway (with t rn-eround, y, T or CuI- DaSsc) in anom with NFPA -1. Fire Deparbnent scam roadway must hwe ?,4 -foot doer width and 144uot vw0cal deermoo, and W c2l)" of Supporting the weight of flue department vM+lda (ED,000I1s) • 7/23/2008 Fire Zone Summary • Area Classification Description I System Type Area (sf) Density Inside Hose Outside Hose 16th Floor Ordinary Hazard 1 Equipment Rooms NFPA 13 3,300 0.20 250 0 15th Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms NFPA 13 10,715 0.10 100 0 14th Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms NFPA 13 12,820 0.10 100 0 12th Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms NFPA 13 12,820 ( 0.10 100 0 11th Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms NFPA 13 10,948 0.10 100 0 10th Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms NFPA 13 j 12,790 0.10 100 0 9th Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms NFPA 13 13,932 0.10 100 0 8th Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms NFPA 13 13,932 0.10 100 ( 0 7th Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms NFPA 13 13,932 0.10 100 0 6th Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms NFPA 13 13,932 0.10 100 I 0 5th Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms I NFPA 13 1 13,932 0.10 1 100 1 0 4th Floor Light Hazard I Tenant Rooms I NFPA 13 13,932 0.10 1 100 0 3rd Floor Light Hazard Tenant Rooms NFPA 13 13,932 0.10 1 100 0 2nd Floor I Light Hazard I Ballroom I NFPA 13 36,601 0.10 1 100 f 0 1st Floor I Light Hazard I Lobby I NFPA 13 12,820 j 0.10 1 100 I 0 1st Floor I Ordinary Hazard 1 Parking I NFPA 13 14,600 0.20 250 0 Ground Floor I Light Hazard Lobby I NFPA 13 1,633 0.10 100 0 Ground Floor I Ordinary Hazard 1 Parking I NFPA 13 57,483 0.20 250 0 Wadsworth O'Neal Back Engineers 12/14/2007 09:38 7278494219 12/13/2007 09 :12 7275624961 US WATER SERVICES PAGE 03/04 PART TI' I ITTI TTTF.ri Pj�eE 03 FLOW TEST Crnr OF CLEARWATER WATER DEPARTMENT" on [LOCATION 43 tc -- DATrz UP TEST )A 0 Yl 1 [STATIC: PSI IR-ESIDUAL psi S � Cyr PITGIT�_ PSI ..� _.T. _...._... i a IMES I IFLOW GPM &r i . lHYDRANTf IGRID.# r imisci. Coc /,Cc n�- U,5 W oJe r 5c ru i cr CUSTOMER REQUESTING TEST Received Time Dec.14 10:45AM zo 22 20 17 15 L N 12 L a 10 7 5 2 43 *outh Gulfview BouleAd Wadsworth O'Neal Bacik Engineers V 5 0 1,0 0 gp at 174 psi 5 1,000 gpm at 15 0 5 S ),stem Demand IC urvel, 0 —I-how-atIRU.mpjisehar-ge�j R Stati = 78 psi 5 Test low = 0 gpm a psi Flow = 1, 1 00 gprT at 55 p i 0 Flow = 2,4 1 gpm at 20 psi 5 F91 available ow ity Main 7/23/2008 ✓0 450 750900 12001350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100 2250 2400 2550 2700 2850 Flow (gpm) Flow Curve.grf at Pump Fl Suction 7/23/2008 ✓0 450 750900 12001350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100 2250 2400 2550 2700 2850 Flow (gpm) Flow Curve.grf 430 S. GULFVIEW Stormwater Management Report City of Clearwater Pinellas County, Florida Prepared for: Salt Block 57, LLC 1001 E. Atlantic Avenue Suite 202 Delray Beach, FL 33483 July 2008 Revised: September, 2008 Prepared by: ORIGINAL Florida Design Consultants, Inc. RECEIVED 3030 Starkey Boulevard SEP 15 2000 New Port Richey, FL 34655 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CRY OF CLEARWATER File: 0699 -271A -30.02 EPN: 209 KA430 S. Gulfview\Reports \Stormwater Management Report Revised 9- 08.doe • Table of Contents: Narrative: General Soil Survey Information Flood Zone Information Existing Conditions Developed Conditions Operation and Maintenance Developed Conditions: Runoff Curve Number Basin Onsite AdICPR Model Nodal Diagram Input Report 25 Year / 24 Hour Storm Event Basin Summary Node Min / Max Link Min / Max Water Quality Required Treatment Volume Side -Drain Filter Drawdown Analysis Attachments: Location Map Aerial Photograph USGS Quad Map Soils Map FEMA Map Developed Conditions Drainage Basin Map 0 Jeffrey W. penny SEP, 2008 �L p E, 57425 NARRATIVE General Overview: ' The proposed 430 S. Gulfview project is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Clearwater, towards the south end of Clearwater Beach in Pinellas County, Florida (Section 7, Township 29 South, Range 15 East). The proposed project has a total area of 2.45 acres (with 1.87 acres located landward of the existing seawall), and consists of a proposed 230 -room hotel with one (1) tower located above a five- story parking garage. The project site is bounded by a City of Clearwater Public Parking Lot to the north, the 440 S. Gulfview Boulevard Condominiums to the south, Gulfview Boulevard to the east, and ' the Gulf of Mexico to the west. See enclosed Location Map, Aerial Photograph, and USGS Quad Map. Soil Survey Information: Pursuant to the SCS Soils Survey of Pinellas County, Florida, the onsite soils are classified entirely as Coastal Beaches (Co). Coastal Beaches (Co) are defined as tide - washed sand bordering parts of the ' mainland. Most areas are covered during storms and daily at high tide. The beach sand has been deposited, mixed, and reworked by waves. It is firm or compact when moist, and loose when dry. Depth to the water table varies with the tide. See enclosed Soil Survey Map. Flood Zone Information: ' Pursuant to FEMA Flood Zone Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Numbers 12103C 0102 G and 12103C 0104 G, revised September 3, 2003, the project lies within Flood Zones AE (EL 12), VE (EL. 13), VE (EL 14), and VE (EL 16). Flood Zone AE is defined as special flood_ hazard areas inundated by ' 100 year flood, "base elevations determined ". Flood Zone VE is defined as special flood hazard areas inundated by 100 year flood, "coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations ' determined ". See enclosed FEMA Map. Existing Conditions: ' The project site most recently was the location of the 13 -story Adams Mark Hotel. The hotel was imploded in October 2005. Prior to demolition, the Adams Mark Hotel site did not contain a stormwater management system. Runoff discharged directly offsite in all directions. The project site currently consists of an approximately 2,300 SF mobile sales facility, an 11 -space ' parking area, a small detention pond, miscellaneous sidewalk, and three (3) paved driveway connections to Gulf View Boulevard. Due to the lack of any formal stormwater treatment system, the existing conditions were not analyzed. Developed Conditions: ■ The proposed project consists of a proposed 230 -room hotel with one (1) tower .located above a five - story parking garage. The proposed building will encompass nearly all of the developable area east of ' the existing seawall. Therefore, stormwater treatment is provided via stormwater vault and effluent filtration (filterdrain). The vault is located underneath the "drop -off' area in front of the proposed lobby. For maintenance and access, the filterdrain treatment area is located on the north side of the site, ' underneath the proposed sidewalk, outside of the building footprint an d proposed driveways. 1 0 0 All roof runoff generated by the proposed building and parking garage will be routed though the stormwater vault. The vault design will not only include the areas that will be physically routed to it, ' but the entire site area (1.87 acres) located east of the existing seawall. Minimal flows are anticipated from the floor drains within the parking. garage. However, the parking garage runoff will be routed through an oil -water separator prior to entering the stormwater vault. The proposed stormwater system ultimately discharges westward, to the Gulf of Mexico. As the Gulf is considered an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), the required treatment volume is 150% of the typical ' '/2" of runoff, therefore, 3/4" of runoff. Based on 1.87 acres located east of the existing seawall, the required treatment volume is approximately 5,100 CF. ' The proposed stormwater vault has interior dimensions of 1,992 square feet. Based on the square footage the required treatment depth is 2.63 feet. With a proposed vault bottom at elevation 2.37, the top of the treatment volume (and elevation of the proposed weir) is 5.00 feet. A filterdrain length of 38 feet is required to drawdown the required treatment volume in 23.8 hours (less than the 24 hours required by City of Clearwater code). See enclosed Required Treatment Volume calculations and Side - Drain Filter Drawdown Analysis. ' The ultimate discharge for the proposed stormwater system is to the Gulf of Mexico via outfall through g p p Y g ' the existing seawall.. The discharge will occur landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). The peak discharge rate for the 25 year / 24 hour storm event is 7.7 cfs. See enclosed AdICPR - Link Min / Max report. As previously stated, the proposed stormwater vault is designed to provide treatment (3/4" runoff for OFW) for the entire developable area (1.87 acres) east of the CCCL. However, the total area that will be ' physically routed to the stormwater vault (Basin 100) is 1.42 acres, which consists of the tower, parking garage, and a portion of the "drop -off' area. A portion of the ADA accessible sidewalk and open space, located in the northeastern corner of the site (Basin 150), will enter the stormwater system downstream of the proposed filterdrain, along the northern property boundary. This northern system ultimately discharges to the Gulf. ' A secondary stormwater system is located along the southern boundary of the proposed project. This secondary system includes a proposed filterdrain for treatment purposes; however, there is no formal "vault" or treatment volume designed. The area routed into this secondary system (Basin 200) consists of the service drive, loading area, as well as receiving any runoff generated within the ground floor parking garage area: A small portion of open space and proposed sidewalk will inter this system downstream of the filterdrain, prior to ultimately discharging to the Gulf. ' The remaining "perimeter" areas will discharge via sheetflow to the adjacent properties without any formal treatment. Specifically, the landscaped site frontage and the easternmost portions of the entrance ' driveways (Basin 300) will discharge to the Gulfview Boulevard right -of -way. The "sun terrace" located at the rear of the proposed building (Basin 400) will discharge to the Gulf. And the area along the north of the proposed site, between the pool deck and the property boundary, will discharge to the adjacent beach area. See enclosed Developed Conditions — Drainage Basin Map. 0 Operation and Maintenance: The Owner. / Developer will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the proposed stormwater system. At the time of Construction Plan preparation, a copy of the Operation and Maintenance Checklist requirements will be provided to the Owner / Developer. :es K: \430 S. Gulfview\Reports \Stormwater Management Report Revised 9- 08.doc s DEVELOPED CONDITIONS • Runoff Curve Number M Runoff Curve Numbers Project. 430 GulMew By., OCBF Date: 10/24/2007 Basin: Onsite Revised. JWD Date: 7/18/2008 Checked. Date: Circle one Existing Developed File: K. 12091ProiDataU )mData1430- Dev- CN.xls References: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Technical Release 55, Soil Conservation Service, June 9986 * For the purposes of being conservative with the design, the entire 1.87 acres of developable acreage has been assumed to be impervious. AdICPR Model Developed Conditions 25 Year / 29 Hour Storm Event Nodal Diagram Print: 7/29/2008 1:59:58 PM Nodes A Stage /Area V Stage /Volume T Time /Stage M Manhole Basins 0 Overland Flow U SCS Unit Hydro S Santa Barbara Links P Pipe W Weir C Channel D Drop Structure B Bridge R Rating Curve H Breach 930 S. Gulfview EPN:209 File:699 -271 File: K:\ 209 \PROJDATA \DRNDATA \ICPR \930- DEV- POST.ICP Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. • 0 Developed Conditions ' 25 Year / 24 Hour Storm Event Input Report Print: 9/11/2008 2:52:40 PM • Basins Stage(ft) --------- - - 0.00 1.620 Name:. Onsite 1.620 Node: Vault Status: Onsite Group: BASE Geometry: Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph Circular Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 Peaking Factor: 256.0 Rainfall File: Flmod Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 9.000 Time of Conc(min): 15.00 Area(ac): 1.870 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 98.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA( %): 0.00 Developable acreage of'the proposed project site --------------------------------------------------------------- ___= Nodes ________________________________________________ _______________________________ Name: Gulf Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 1.620 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 3.000 Type: Time /Stage Time(hrs) - - -- --------------- Stage(ft) --------- - - 0.00 1.620 12.00 1.620 30.00 1.620 ------------------------------- Name: Vault Group: BASE Type: Stage /Area Proposed Stormwater Vault (1,992 SF) Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------- - - - - -- --------------- 2.370 0.0457 7.500 0.0457 ---------------------------------------------------------- Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 5.000 Warn Stage(ft): 7.500 --------------------------------------------- ___= Drop.Structures ______________________________________ _______________________________ Name: OCS From Node: Vault Group: BASE To Node: Gulf UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Geometry: Circular Circular Span(in): 18.00 18.00 Rise(in): 18.00 18.00 Invert(ft): 2.370 2.370 Manning's N: 0.013000 0.013000 Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: 430 S. Gulfview EPN:209 File:699 -271 File: K:\ 209 \PROJDATA \DRNDATA \ICPR \430- DEV- POST.ICP .Length(ft): 336.00 Count: 1 Friction Equation: Average Conveyance Solution Algorithm: Automatic Flow: Both Entrance Loss Coef: 0.500 Exit Loss Coef: 0.500 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use do or tw Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use do Solution Incs: 10 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 3 Developed Conditions 25 Year / 24 Hour Storm Event Input Report Print: 9/11/2008 2:52:40 PM Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall ' Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall Located beneath the proposed sidewalk at the northeast corner of the site. Separate from the stormwater vault for operation and maintenance. * ** Weir 1 of 1 for Drop Structure OCS * ** ' TABLE Count: 1 Bottom Clip(in): 0.000 Type: Vertical: Mavis Top Clip(in): 0.000 Flow: Both Weir Disc Coef: 3.200 Geometry: Rectangular Orifice Disc Coef: 0.600 1 Span(in): 72.00 Invert(ft): 5.000 Rise(in): 13.30 Control Elev(ft): 5.000 Hydrology Simulations Name: 430 - Dev -25Yr ' Filename: K:\ 209 \ProjData \DrnData \ICPR \430 - Dev- Post.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00 Rainfall File: Flmod ' Rainfall Amount(in): 9.00 Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- 2------ ======== 5= 00_______________________________________ _______________________________ Routing Simulations ' Name: 430 - Dev -25Yr Hydrology Sim: 430 - Dev -25Yr Filename: K:\ 209 \ProjData \DrnData \ICPR \430 - Dev- Post.I32 Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No ' Alternative: No Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500 Time Step Optimizer: 10.000 Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 30.00 ' Min Calc Time(sec): 0.5000 Max Calc Time(sec): 30.0000 Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows: Time(hrs)------ Print Inc(min) 8.000 60.000 10.000 30.000 ' 12.000 10.000 16.000 15.000 24.000 30.000 30.000 60.000 80.000 60.000 430 S. Gulfview EPN:209 File:699 -271 ' File: K:\ 209 \PROJDATA \DRNDATA \ICPR \430- DEV- POST.ICP Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 2 of 3 s • Developed Conditions 25 Year / 24 Hour Storm Event Input Report Print: 9/11/2008 2:52:40 PM Group Run BASE Yes Boundary Conditions 430 S. Gulfview EPN:209 File:699 -271 File: K:\ 209 \PROJDATA \DRNDATA \ICPR \430- DEV- POST.ICP Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 3 of 3 25 Year / 24 Hour Storm Event 0 Developed Conditions 25 Year / 24 Hour Storm Event Basin Summary Print: 9/11/2008 2:53:32 PM Basin Name: Onsite Group Name: BASE Simulation: 430- Dev -25Yr Node Name: Vault Basin Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 .Peaking Fator: 256.0 Spec Time Inc (min): 2.00 Comp Time Inc (min): 2.00 Rainfall File: Flmod Rainfall Amount (in): 9.000 Storm Duration (hrs): 24.00 Status: Onsite Time of.Conc (min): 15.00 Time Shift (hrs): 0.00 Area (ac): 1.870 Vol of Unit Hyd (in): 1.000 Curve Number: 98.000 DCIA ( %): 0.000 Time Max (hrs): 12.07 Flow Max (cfs): 8.604 Runoff Volume (in): 8.757 Runoff Volume (ft3): 59441.339 430 S. Gulfview EPN:209 File:699 -271 File: K:\ 209 \PROJDATA \DRNDATA \ICPR \430- DEV- POST.ICP Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1 Developed Conditions 25 Year / 24 Hour Storm Event Node Min / Max Print: 9/11/2008 2:54:17 PM Max Time Max Warning Max Delta Max Surf Max Time Max Max Time Max Name Group Simulation Stage Stage Stage Stage Area Inflow Inflow Outflow Outflow hrs ft ft ft ft2 hrs Cfs hrs Cfs Gulf BASE 430 - Dev -25Yr 0.00 1.620 3.000 0.0000 0 12.23 7.478 0.00 0.000 Vault BASE 430 - Dev -25Yr 12.23 6.109 7.500 0.0050 1991 12.08 8.601 12.23 7.478 s • 430 S. Gulfview EPN:209 File:699 -271 File: K: \209 \PROJDATA \DRNDATA \ICPR \430- DEV- POST.ICP Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1 -a Developed Conditions 25 Year / 24 Hour Storm Event Link Min / Max Print: 9/11/2008 2:54:39 PM Max Time Max Max Max Time Max Max Time Max Name Group Simulation Flow Flow Delta Q US Stage US Stage DS Stage DS Stage hrs Cfs Cfs hrs ft hrs ft OCS BASE 430- Dev -25Yr 12.23 7.478 0.086 12.23 6.109 0.00 1.620 430 S. Gulfview EPN:209 File:699 -271 File: K: \209 \PROJDATA \DRNDATA \ICPR \430- DEV- POST.ICP Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1 • Water Quality Project: 430 S. Gulfview EPN: 209 File No.: 699 -271 Water Quality - Required Trea Basin: Onsite Area: 1.87 �9_ • Date: 09/11/08 By: BF Rev.: JWD File: K: \209\ProjData\DrnData \Spreadsheets \430- Dev- TrtVoi.xis tment Volume acres Required Treatment: 0.50 inches Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW): 150% of treatment . THEREFORE Required Treatment: 0.75 inches Treatment: 5,091 cubic -feet 0.12 acre -feet Water Quality - Proposed Stormwater Vault Area: 1,992 square feet (provided) THEREFORE Treatment Depth: 2.56 feet (required) DESIGN Proposed Bottom of Vault: 2.37 feet Use: 2.63 feet PLUS Treatment Depth Proposed Weir Elevation: 4.93 feet Use: 5.00 feet Project: 430 S. Gulfview EPN: 209 File No.: 699 -271 Side -Drain Filter Drawdown Analysis Date: 09/09/08 By: BF Rev.: JWD File: K: 12091ProjData %DrnDatalSpreadsheets1430- Dev- FilterDrwdwn- Lowered.xis E NGVD h TOTAL ^h INCR. V TOTAL ^V INCR. Lmin Lmax Lavg HYD. GRAD. AREA FILTER FLOW Q =KIA AVG. FLOW ^T INCR. ET TOTAL 5.00 3.13 XXXXXXXX 5,092 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.5650 128.4 1089.5 X)UUCX)UUC XXXXXXXX 0.0 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.26 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXxxxXX C 1,004.9 0.5 XXXXXXXX 4.74 2.87 XXXXXXXX 4,583 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.4335 118.4 920.3 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.5 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.26 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 842.8 0.6 XXXXXXXX 4.47 2.60 XXXXXXXX 4,073 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.3020 108.5 765.3 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 1.1 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.26 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 695.0 0.7 XXXXXXXX 4.21 2.34 XXXXXXXX . 3,564 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.1705 98.5 624.6 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 1.8 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.26 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 561.4 0.9 XXXXXXXX 3.95 2.08 XXXXXXXX 3,055 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.0390 88.5 498.2 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 2.8 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.26 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXX . XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX)WWUC XXXXXXXX 442.1 1.2 XXXXXXXX 3.69 1.82 XXXXXXXX 2,546 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.9075 78.5 386.0 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 3.9 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.26 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 337.0 1.5 XXXXXXXX 3.42 1.55 XXXXXXXX 2,037 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.7760 68.5 288.0 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 5.4 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.26 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 246.1 2.1 XXXXXXXX 3.16 1.29 XXXXXXXX 1,528 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.6445 58.5 204.3 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 7.5 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.26 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 169.6 3.0 XXXXXXXX 2.90 1.03 XXXXXXXX 1,018 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.5130 48.5 134.8 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 10.5 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.26 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 107.2 4.7 XXXXXXXX 2.63 0.76 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.3815 38.5 79.6 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 15.2 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 0.26 XXXXXXXX 509 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 59.1 8.6 XXXXXXXX 2.37 0.50 XXXXXXXX 0 XXXXXXXX 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.2500 28.5 38.6 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 23.8 • 5.00 DLW (Top of Treatment Volume) 2.37 NWL (Bottom of Treatment Volume) 1.87 Centerline of Pipe Elevation 1,936 Area @ DLW (square feet) 1,936 Area @ NWL (square feet) 2 L min 2 L max 5.42 "K" (feet/hour) 38 Underdrain Length 23.8 Draw Down Time (24 Hours - Based on City of Clearwater Criteria) Florida Design Consultants, New Port Richey FL 9/10/2008 9:13 AM 430 - Dev- FilterDrwdwn- Lowered r ATTACHMENTS m a. c t m 2 0 s 3 °o P r _U 19 L 0 lJ m r_ Calacksi Island State Park 9 r. Vlrrpnia G°� 19 c Dunedin Y ,a Q. i I= c I �Y I 1 1 w flaglyr , { � dar 6q9 9 a f r t _`. ? D—`naw P(mel10 Court 15 learwater, so �.�...-.._.... C SITE T l -- t 5 . a L I V ;N Nolle,ytr I m ry Belle air �' y v Mehlenbacher Y d 5, t L�Ylleair p rl_ :' C� Belleair Bluffs z a Belleairr Shore Largo 161h GIS Data This drawing Is comprised of data obtained from a variety of sources. It is for information purposes only and is not to be considered comprehensive for site - specific data. 430 S. GULFVIEW LOCATION MAP 1 inch equals 1 mile N �i R0MD8W NWA=MP „ter +! �� ..� 1 __ lij'• e_ Ir inn 19.N ■l td '},.' , ,.i i 10 � �•+. °F' l kk G gyp 1 + ' `tom —� � � � s I , 1 , .,•� ��_ _�� .ILL. �•., r AW I' } � ) ,mss .�`�'��• ,� •,� R � �. Z "F� e: g se ar '4[t �FvF•,��r yA '' y�.i 430 S. GULFVIEW AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH GIS Data This drawing is comprised of data obtained from a variety of sources. It is for information purposes only and is not to be considered comprehensive for site - specific data. :i i y _ � p 1 inch equels 300 feet N A IL MVMPX up.; Aft i f • - `�'� ,Oi 1 ' ,� cv . � °� � ,�” y'1ir'! av + "Y -�f�L ��.�,e ��1.�; � �•+. °F' l kk G gyp 1 + ' `tom —� � � � s I , 1 , .,•� ��_ _�� .ILL. �•., r AW I' } � ) ,mss .�`�'��• ,� •,� R � �. Z "F� e: g se ar '4[t �FvF•,��r yA '' y�.i 430 S. GULFVIEW AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH GIS Data This drawing is comprised of data obtained from a variety of sources. It is for information purposes only and is not to be considered comprehensive for site - specific data. :i i y _ � p 1 inch equels 300 feet N A IL MVMPX up.; 0 a L J U 0 m 2 5 0 c c° GIS Data This drawing is comprised of data obtained from a variety of sources. It is for information purposes only and is not to be considered comprehensive for site - specific data. 430 S. GULFVIEW USGS QUAD MAP 1 inch equals 600 feet N naotoes�mwuw+nl,ru l°1_lIS E � �Tr r � , f r UZI l'L�! r r� r t �� G•• iN Loll td G > Mki•y• �.CTJ r a r Legend 1 015 - ARENTS -URBAN LAND COMPLEX/0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES g 009 - BEACHES a 022 - PALM BEACH SAND 037 -URBAN LAND 8 � 099- WATER 430 S. GULFVIEW 1 inch equals 300 feet N SOILS MAP n ' GIS Data This drawing is comprised of data obtained from a variety !� of sources. It is for information purposes only and is not to be _ eoortn� considered comprehensive for site - specific data. r APPROXIMATE SCALE -low (E L N tON '7- !7-, 77, - ffl-A IE -AE q F.7 � �g % Dy A ¢d. L tE -1 -Q, I"M W VA. Q L) -7 36 V � El G ATER 'URIV ZONE:�'VE I J: Z 'A� 0 R _77-3— <t , , 1: .1-� Ni. BAYSIDF LU 7 0 ZONE, A � o z E 7-0 1 .0104, E. At .,ZONE'J'AE (L i2)71 CLEA zo NE E. C T- 7: 37 0, " zQN;: V E : - d, + 'T (EL 16) (0 1- W n. ky Z E R GIS Data This drawing is comprised of data obtained from a variety of sources. It Is for Information purposes only and is not to be considered comprehensive for site-speciric data. 430 S. GULFVIEW FEMA MAP 't w 1-550, N E00 0 YF L) V, -low (E L N tON '7- !7-, 77, - ffl-A IE -AE q F.7 � �g % Dy A ¢d. L tE -1 -Q, I"M W VA. Q L) -7 36 V � El G ATER 'URIV ZONE:�'VE I J: Z 'A� 0 R _77-3— <t , , 1: .1-� Ni. BAYSIDF LU 7 0 ZONE, A � o z E 7-0 1 .0104, E. At .,ZONE'J'AE (L i2)71 CLEA zo NE E. C T- 7: 37 0, " zQN;: V E : - d, + 'T (EL 16) (0 1- W n. ky Z E R GIS Data This drawing is comprised of data obtained from a variety of sources. It Is for Information purposes only and is not to be considered comprehensive for site-speciric data. 430 S. GULFVIEW FEMA MAP 't w 1-550, N i g BASIN 150`" i aT .fi e5^ BASIN 500 I � a� AG rY 5 CDNC =CMC 3^y A � .• • as i ' '''' � 6 3 � a ° � _ � � � n •� t w a w �rotP E Nw13 g "OIP A • b = r p ` BASI i BASIN � � u °� z3 ' ►1 = s 300 400 ZEE / rz (NAi6} 8e) d.VOion +, 3 ;..0 • �: :y.:y ;z• r • 05.44' 6H0• .�""� T _ � � � • Ad '•�' .,;.:•;.d � ";;."'•` � � p RfA406.70, 1� PVG �E N 3.02' -0 �E X26,'. 15 PVa BASI200 . �" ,r E frg5 , yti E ,1S' RCP yd +p!$ 5 1 • 6 f , N e aS co LEGEND oo NOTE: °g W BASIN LINE 04 N 1. The Stormwater Vault is designed to provide treatment (3/4" runoff a for OFW) for the entire project area (1.87 acres) east of the CCCL. 2.Basin 100: The area physically routed into the stormwater vault, 0 30 60 120 ultimately discharging to the Gulf. 3.Basin 150: A portion of handicap accessible sidewalk and open space, entering the northern stormwater system downstream of the 1 filterdrain. m 4.Basin 200: The service drive and open space area along the BASIN AREA (ACRES) Z southern portion of the site, routed through a separate filterdrain prior to discharging to the Gulf. 0 100 1.42 0 5.Basin 300: A portion of the entrance drive and site frontage, 150 0.03 200 0.15 ml discharging via sheetflow to Gulfview Boulevard. 300 0.14 6.Basin 400: The rear (seaward) deck, discharging via sheetflow to 400 0.10 11 c the Gulf a 7.Basin 500: The northeastern portion of the proposed project 500 0.03 between the pool deck and property line, discharging via sheetflow to TOTAL 1.87 o the adjacent beach area. io DESCRIPTION: 430 GULFVIEW PROJECT No. EPN: DEVELPOPED CONDITIONS - DRAINAGE BASIN MAP 699 -271 A 209 a DATE: FIGURE: N FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. SEPT 2008 o � ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, SURVEYORS a PLANNERS 'j Y DRAWN BY: 3030 Starkey Blvd, New Port Richey FL 34655 Tel: (727) 849 -7588 - Fax: (727) 848 -3648 JMS ©Copyright 2008 Florida Design Consultants, Inc. Drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced without written permission. Septa 8/1/2008 Receipt #: 1200800000000006262 11:36:29AM p �= Date: 08/01/2008 r 0 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid FLD2008 -08024 04 Flexible Commercial FLD2008 -08024 Fire - Prelim Site Plan 001000000341262000 1,205.00 001000000342501000 200.00 Line Item Total: $1,405.00 Payments: Method Payer Bank No Account No Confirm No How Received Amount Paid Check CLEARMAR INDIGO R D 0192545 In Person Payment Total: THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. Page 1 of 1 1,405.00 $1,405.00 cReceipt.rpt CLWCoverSheet FLD2008 -08024 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD SALT BLOCK 57, LLC PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ATLAS # ZONING: T LAND USE: RFH RECEIVED: 08/01/2008 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: MAPS: PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: DRC: CDB: Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:47 PM To: 'jaynes @jpfirm.com' Subject: FW: 440 West Condominium Jane — FYI. On November 8 we contacted Ed at the request of Council and the administration as they are getting inquiries from 440 West residents about status of the Ocean Properties parcel to their immediate north. The attached letter outlines what the Administration is trying to respond to. I'm requesting your assistance or direction as to how to go about determining what response Ocean Properties would have with regard to this inquiry. Please advise. Happy holidays. Michael Michael L. Delk, AICP J Planning and Development Director City of Clearwater, Florida 727- 562 -4561 _ 727- 562 -4865 fax michael.delk @mvclearwater.com From: Silverboard, Jill Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:33 PM To:" Delk, Michael Cc: Horne, William; Irwin, Rod; Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: 440 West Condominium My apologies — here is the attachment L 440 West Letter.pdf G From: Silverboard, Jill Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:48 PM To: Delk, Michael Cc: Horne, William; Irwin, Rod; ClaytoGina; Harriger, Sandy • Subject: 440 West Condominium Michael — As I recall, you and /or your staff were attempting to make contact with Ocean Properties as to many of the ongoing questions and concerns for conditions at their property on S. Gulfview on Clearwater Beach and their future plans for same. As reflected in the attached correspondence from 440 West, the condominium continues to pose questions of us, many of which can only be answered through communication and input from Ocean Properties. Please advise the status of communications with Ocean Properties and assist responding to the 440 West questions by sharing their letter, as appropriate. Thanks, Jill Jill Silverboard, Assistant City Manager City of Clearwater, Florida 727.562.4053 ill.silverboard m clearwater.com ON $EACH December 13, 2010 Receives" DEC 16 2010 Cify Manoger's William Horne, City Manager Clearwater City Hall, 3rd Floor 112. S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33758 -4748 Dear City Manager Horne: • 1. :2 - . f J.ftI.X a,u c� AL 0.. AA.e.aM W t �c t.at t.►. Pco. "V" �° �J Wm- -%- 44-0 tw'" ' , On November 4th, 2010, several homeowners from the 440 West condominium complex, located on Clearwater Beach, appeared before the City Council to express our concerns regarding the shabby conditions that existed in the lot north of our complex. We left the meeting, that evening, with an understanding that the "slum lot" conditions would improve. I'm happy to say that some conditions have improved, and we are grateful for your help in this matter. However, before leaving the meeting that evening, Mayor Frank Hibbard directed a member of the Council to contact Ocean Properties to learn of their plans for building a new hotel on the former Adams Mark property. Mayor Hibbard said that 1 would be contacted once that information became available. As of this date, I have not received a response to this concern. I recently read an article that appeared in the St. Petersburg Times, which reported that the Sandpearl Resort located on Clearwater Beach, has a new managing partner. The article stated that Ocean Properties, Inc. purchased fifty (50) percent controlling interest in the Sandpearl Resort. The article went on to say that Ocean Properties had previously purchased the former Adams Mark hotel site, planning to build a 250 room hotel. However, due to financing for hotel projects drying up, the property remains empty. On behalf of the 440 West Board of Directors, I ask, what are the future plans for the site in question, now owned by Ocean Properties? N 440 S. GUGFV1Ew BLVD. • SUITE 203 • C1.EARNVATER HF;ACH, FLORIDA 33767.727- 461 -2885 • FAX: 727442 -6628 • E -mail: wect440 @verizon.net In addition, construction has begun on the new combination parking garage /restaurant/shops complex on the beach. As we understand it, the current plans are to have the parking garage open for business in May 2011. If this project is completed on schedule, will the City continue using the Ocean Properties lot for parking? If the answer is no, then, what will Ocean Properties do with the lot, once the City obtains the additional parking, and what responsibility will Ocean Properties have toward their neighbors, at 440 West, when the lot is no longer in use? Will the lot become overgrown and resemble the vacant lot that currently exists at the foot of the Sand Key Bridge? The 440 West Board of Directors would appreciate answers to the questions I have posed in this correspondence and look forward to your timely response. Sincerely; �a t'- ' etlef Zie nski,`President 440 West Board of Directors cc: Mayor Hibbard Tracy Bruch, Parking Manager Wells, Wayne From: Ed Armstrong [EdA @jpfirm.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:12 PM To: Delk, Michael; Wells, Wayne Cc: Jayne E. Sears Subject: RE: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. hi michael - we are contacting our client for a response, and will keep you informed. ed - - - -- Original Message---- - From: michael.delk @MyClearwater.com [ mailto :michael.delk @MyClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:07 PM To: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com; Ed Armstrong Cc: Jayne E. Sears Subject: RE: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Ed — I wanted to add that City Council directed this inquiry so if we need to follow up with someone else at this juncture please advise. Thank you. Michael Michael L. Delk, AICP Planning and Development Director City of Clearwater, Florida 727- 562 -4561 727- 562 -4865 fax michael.delk @mvclearwater.com From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 2:28 PM To: ed @jpfirm.com Cc: jaynes @jpfirm.com Subject: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. No The above referenced -project was approved by the CDB on October 21, 2008, which included a two -year time frame to submit for building permits (October 21, 2010 — Condition of Approval #1). A two -year time extension request to October 21, 2012, to submit for building permits was approved on November 18, 2009. Can you give mean update to the proposed timeline for redevelopment of this property? Wayne Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:07 PM To: Wells, Wayne; 'ed @jpfirm.com' Cc: 'jaynes @jpfirm.com' Subject: RE: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Ed —I wanted to add that City Council directed this inquiry so if we need to follow up with someone else at this juncture please advise. Thank you. Michael Michael L. Delk, AICP Planning and Development Director City of Clearwater, Florida 727 - 562 -4561 727 - 562 -4865 fax michael.delk @myclearwater.com From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 2:28 PM To: ed @jpfirm.com Cc: jaynes @jpfirm.com Subject: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Ed — The above referenced project was approved by the CDB on October 21, 2008, which included a two -year time frame to submit for building permits (October 21, 2010 — Condition of Approval #1). A two -year time extension request to October 21, 2012, to submit for building permits was approved on November 18, 2009. Can you give me an update to the proposed timeline for redevelopment of this property? Wayne 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 2:28 PM To: ed @jpfirm.com Cc: jaynes @jpfirm.com Subject: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Ed — • The above referenced project was approved by the CDB on October 21, 2008, which included a two -year time frame to submit for building permits (October 21, 2010 — Condition of Approval #1). A two -year time extension request to October 21, 2012, to submit for building permits was approved on November 18, 2009. Can you give me an update to the proposed timeline for redevelopment of this property? Wayne PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 18, 2009 0 0 CITY OF C LEARWAT 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 E.D. Armstrong III Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP P.O. Box 1368 Clearwater, FL 33757 -1368 RE: FLD2008 -08024 — 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard Time Extension Development Order Dear Mr. Armstrong: We are in receipt of your letter of October 13, 2009, requesting the extension of the development order for the above referenced case pursuant to S13360. In accordance with the provisions of S13360, I hereby APPROVE the request for a two -year extension to the development order to October 21, 2012, subject to those same conditions of approval as contained in the original development order unless amended by this extension. Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4 -407, an application for a building permit or other approvals shall be made by the above referenced date. 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 Coordinator. Time frames do not change with successive owners. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III, at 727 -562- 4504 or via email at wayrle .wells(z;myclearwatei-.com. Sincerely, Michael Delk, AICP Planning Director S: (Planning DepartmentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)llnactive or Finished ApplicationslGulfview S 0430 New Hotel (T) 2008.10-Approved- WmTime Extension Development Order200911- 18.docx 1% "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" E. D. ARMSTRONG 111 ALEKSAS A. BARAUSKAS BRUCE H. BOKOR CHARLES A.BUFORD GUY M. BURNS KATHERINE E. COLE JONATHAN S. COLEMAN MICHAEL T. CRONIN ELIZABETH J. DANIELS COLLEEN M. FLYNN 0 0 JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW JENNIFER A. FICARROTTA JOSEPH W.GAYNOR• RYAN C. GRIFFIN MARION HALE SCOTT C. ILGENFRITZ FRANK R. JAKES TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON, JR.* SHARON E. KRICK ROGER A. LARSON ANGELINA E. LIM MICHAEL G. LITTLE SARAH J.MANTHEY MICHAEL C. MARKHAM ZACHARY D. MESSA F. WALLACE POPE, JR. ROBERT V. POTTER, JR. DARRYL R. RICHARDS PETER A. RIVELLINI DENNIS G. RUPPEL CHARLES A. SAMARKOS 911 CHESTNUT ST. • CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 POST OFFICE BOX 1368 a CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33757 -1368 TELEPHONE: (727) 461 -1818 a TELECOPIER: (727) 462 -0365 October 13, 2009 Mr. Michael Delk Planning & Development Services Administration City of Clearwater Municipal Services Building 100 South Myrtle Avenue, 2nd Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: Two -Year Extension to Development Permit Pursuant to Senate Bill 360 Dear Michael: for: SARA A. SCHIFINO SCOTT E. SCHILTZe KIMBERLY L. SHARPE JOAN M. VECCHIOLI STEVEN H. WEINBERGER JOSEPH J. WEISSMAN STEVEN A. WILLIAMSON 'OF COUNSEL This letter serves as a formal request for the two -year extension authorized by SB360 Case No. FLD 2008 -08024 Owner: Salt Block 57, LLC, 1001 E. Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483 Approved: October 21, 2008 Salt Block 57, LLC anticipates commencement of the project in 2011. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. -ice 19)�,t v6 �T'�,,�`'31 tai✓ L�5 ,,ILL tA ''$ 71 Sincerely, JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL URNS, LLP fZDArmstrong III V WATER r- OCT 2 3 2OZ 1 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES -_CITY OF CI EARW ATER TAMPA ,3 PLANNING DEPARTN4L'-NT 0 C ITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 -4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAX (727) 562 -4865 October 24, 2008 E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP P.O. Box 1368 Clearwater, FL 33757 -1368 RE: Development Order - Cases FLD2008- 0.8024 /TDR2005 -05022 430 South Gulfview Boulevard Dear Mr. Armstrong: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4- 206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On October 21, 2008, the Community Development Board reviewed your request for (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units (as established by Cases FLD2005- 01005, FLD2005 -05047 and FLD2007- 11034); where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6 -109; (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 230 -room overnight accommodation use (hotel) in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 81,450 square feet/1.87 acres zoned Tourist District (2.45 total acres; 0.58 acres of total acreage zoned Open Space/Recreation District), a lot width of 236 feet, a front (east) setback of 2.5 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and to permit a sidewalk 10 feet seaward of the CCCL, a side (south) setback of 16 feet (to building), 1.5 feet (to pavement) and zero feet (to privacy wall), a rear (west) setback of two feet (to building) from the CCCL and to permit concrete patios 13 feet seaward of the CCCL, a building height of 150 feet above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to top of roof deck and 296 valet -only parking spaces at 1.286 parking spaces per hotel room, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C, and three driveways where the two northernmost driveways are spaced 110 feet apart and the two southernmost driveways are spaced 18 feet apart, where 125 feet is required by Section 3 -102 and approval of a two -year development order; and (3) including the Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4 -1402. 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 2.45 total acres (1.87 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.58 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation District) is located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater Beach; �y1 "P„, r-.,.., ... ..... A,._, A,-,., r__,'- .l, October 24, 2008 Armstrong — Page 2 2. On April 19, 2005, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved with 10 conditions Case Nos. FLD2005- 01005 /SGN2005 -01016 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to allow the continuation of an existing 217 - room/unit hotel (where 74 rooms /units were permitted at that time) and for height to allow the existing 155 -foot high building (where a maximum height of 150 feet is permitted today); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 217 - room/unit overnight accommodation use with reductions to setbacks, an increase to building height to 155 feet (to existing roof deck) and a reduction to required parking from 217 to 201 spaces (existing) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; (3) Reduction to the required interior landscape area, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program; and (4) Comprehensive Sign Program approval (SGN2005- 01016); 3. On August 16, 2005, the CDB approved with 18 conditions Case Nos. FLD2005-05047/TDR2005- 05022 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units existing to be converted to 104 dwelling units; where 56 dwelling units wee permitted at that time); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use of 112 attached dwelling units and 78 overnight accommodation rooms /units with reductions to setbacks, increases to building height to 100 feet for the overnight accommodation building tower and to 150 feet for the residential tower (to . roof deck), a reduction to driveway spacing from 125 feet to 90 feet and a deviation to allow direct access to a arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005- 05022) of four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade; 4. On January 15, 2008, the CDB approved with 15 conditions Case Nos. FLD2007- 11034 /TDR2005- 05022 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where. 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today); (2) Flexible. Development approval to permit 230 overnight accommodation units with reductions to setbacks, an increase to hnildinn hPiuht to 104 feet (to roof derkl and to 150 feet (tn rnnf der-jr) fnr turn nnrtinnc of the building, a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street and to allow a two -year time frame to submit for a building permit, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade; 5. The hotel was not reopened and was demolished on October 8, 2005, under BCP2005- 09027; 6. The property is currently being used as a temporary parking lot as approved by the City; 7. The nonconforming status of the prior hotel density has been determined to still be valid, even though the hotel was demolished, due to the status of the approval of Case Nos. FLD2007- 11034/TDR2005- 05022; 8. The proposal is to construct a new hotel building on the property consisting of 230 overnight accommodation units; 9. The development proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today); 10. Eight dwelling units were previously transferred to this site under TDR2005 -05022 and are being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units for this project; 11. The proposal includes five floors of parking for a total of 296 parking spaces at a ratio of 1.286 spaces per hotel room (where one space per room is required). Further stacking of vehicles in drive aisles when necessary due to full occupancy and banquets can result in 352 parking spaces; 12. The proposal includes the following setbacks: a front (east) setback of 2.5 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building) from the Coastal Construction 0 .0 October 24, 2008 Armstrong — Page 3 Control Line (CCCL) and to permit a sidewalk 10 feet seaward of the CCCL, a side (south) setback of 16 feet (to building), 1.5 feet (to pavement) and zero feet (to privacy wall), a rear (west) setback of two feet (to building) from the CCCL and to permit concrete patios 13 feet seaward of the CCCL; 13. The proposal includes a building height of 150 feet (to highest roof deck); 14. That portion of the building taller than 100 feet is separated from the 440 West condominium tower to the south by approximately 107 feet, which is in compliance with the Beach by Design requirement to have a minimum spacing of 100 feet between towers exceeding 100 feet in height; 15. The proposal includes a request for deviation to Beach by Design guidelines which require the floorplate of any building exceeding 45 feet in height be limited to a maximum of 25,000 square feet between 45 — 100 feet and a maximum of 10,000 square feet between 100 — 150 feet, as the largest floorplate between 45 — 100 feet is approximately 13,879 square feet and between 100 — 150 feet is approximately 12,837 square feet, but the guideline allows deviations to these floorplate requirements provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above 45 feet; 16. Beach by Design guidelines requires for buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet, where the proposal is approximately 38,000 square feet, to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The project's overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately 212 feet along South Gulfview Boulevard and 300 feet along the north side, while the vertical plane is approximately 160 feet from grade to the top of the tallest roof. None of these dimensions are equal; 17. Beach by Design guidelines requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. The tower portion of the building is crescent shaped, creating a continuously curving fagade and therefore, no plane is continuous for more than 30 feet. The waterside of the tower fagade is also modulated through the depth and framing methods of tha halrnniac 18. Beach by Design guidelines requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The applicant has calculated that the north elevation is at 68 percent, the east elevation at 61 percent, the south elevation at 62 percent and the west elevation at 70 percent; and 19. There are 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 application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later than October 21, 2010, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to Section 4-407; 2. That the final design and color of the overnight accommodation building be consistent with the conceptual elevations approved by the CDB; 3. That a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; October 24, 2008 Armstrong — Page 4 4. That there be no public /guest use of any roof 100 feet or.higher; 5. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, Level 10 be designed with only 22 rooms, so that the total number of rooms does not exceed 230 rooms; 6. That suites on all floors be designed to have only one door to the exterior hallway; 7. That prior to issuance of permits for any proposed structures north and west of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), the applicant submit a copy of the appropriate State of Florida agency approval for that construction north and west of the CCCL; 8. That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks or variances obtained prior to the issuance of any building permits; 9. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the vertical clear height of all the parking garage levels be not .less than 7 feet including entrance and exit (Florida Building Code 2004, Section 406.2.2); 10. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, site and landscape plans be revised to show the following: a. pursuant to Section 3- 904.13, comply with the dimensional requirements and restrictions for waterfront visibility triangles; b. pursuant to Section 3 -805.13 and the location of the building, revising the chain link fencing east of the solid masonry wall along the south property line to a vinyl or vertical metal grillwork, as acceptable to the Planning Department; c. revise the chain link fencing west of the solid masonry wall to a vinyl or vertical metal grillwork, as acceptable to the Planning Department, and the fencing type and height within the waterfront visibility triangle must meet the requirements of Sections 3 -804.0 and 3- 904.13; d. pursuant to Section 3- 904.A, correctly indicate such sight visibility triangles at the northern driveway and modify landscaping to comply with such requirements; e. pursuant to Section 3- 1204.D, curb the south edge of the southern service drive with vertical concrete nnrhinv and f. palm and other accent trees planted in the landscape area along the western portion along the north property line, in an amount and location acceptable to the Planning Director; 11. That any future freestanding sign be a monument -style sign and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. The maximum height shall be four feet, unless approved at six - feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program; 12. That sea -turtle friendly light fixtures be employed with the site design, with compliance demonstrated on plans acceptable to the Environmental Engineering Division, prior to the issuance of building permits; 13. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 14. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. In addition to the above conditions, please be aware that a special warranty deed, specifying the number of dwelling units being conveyed or sold from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue (four dwelling units), 625 -627 Bay Esplanade (one dwelling unit) and 667 Bay Esplanade (three dwelling units) and being transferred to this site, must be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits for this project. The special warranty deed shall also contain a covenant restricting in perpetuity the use of all platted lots at 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and 667 Bay Esplanade due to the transfer of development rights. Any mortgage holder of the sending site (557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and 667 Bay Esplanade) shall consent to the transfer of development rights prior to the issuance of any permits. 0 0 October 24, 2008 Armstrong — Page 5 Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit or other approvals shall be made within the time frame of Condition #1 above. 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 Coordinator. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development 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 November 4, 2008 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, Planner III, at 727 -562 -4504. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: ,,N-ww.myclearwater.coti-t/gov/depts/`T)Iannin g. Sincerelv. ichael Delk, AICP Planning Director S. IPlanning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)Vnactive or Finished ApplicationslGu jOiew S 0430 New Hotel (7) 10.2008 -Approved - WWIGulfview S 430 Development Order 10.24.08.doc • Wells,. Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:36 AM To: 'Herb Hodgman' Cc: Adolfo Reyna Subject: 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. - Request for Clarification Herb - • The triangle locations show on the attachment are correct and acceptable. These need to be reflected on the civil and landscape plans when submitted for a site development permit. Thanks. Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Herb Hodgman [mailto:herbh@bgala.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:27 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Adolfo Reyna Subject: 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. - Request for Clarification Hello Wayne, I recently received a copy of the staff report for the above project. There was a comment "The site and landscape plans do not correctly indicate the sight visibility triangles on the north and south sides of the northern driveway." This driveway is for ingress only, and sight triangles are typical for egress drives only. I have attached a sketch for your review and comment to see if the triangles are in the locations you prefer. Please note that the placement of the triangle south of the drive will prohibit planting the proposed Date Palm. Thank you, Herb Hodgman, Principal Landscape Architect Bradshaw & Associates 1001 NW 62nd Street, Suite 114 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Ph. 954 - 772 -0724 Fx. 954 - 772 -8417 This message was checked by MailScan for WorkgroupMail. www.workgroupmail.com 1 =RE -FLUSH CURB FORTE COCHERE RAMP ' - -j — _j i PLANTING 51 DEWALK I PLANTING / �J 51 GHT TR I ANGLE IN TH 15 LOCATION WILL NOT ALLOW PLANTING OF DATE PALM A5 PROP05ED. GARAGE ACCESS \ 20' SIGHT TRIANGLE - TYPICAL ei�s INGRESS ONLY ei�s PROPERTY LINE NORTHERN DRIVEWAY A ASSOCIATES 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. 1001 NW 62nd Street, Suite 114 Fort 9 4)L772 -0 24 Fax (9 33309 77 Visibility Sketch 954 772 -0724 Fax 954 772 -8417 F.\H A\GIeorwtr\Wtb\SITE.dw9 -5K -OI 4 10/11/2000 -1333 • Herb r� / I I / / / / I / / / 5' WIDE ' CONCRETE �. WALKWAY I - J `, CITY PEACH PAR14ING LOT 0 10' OCTOBER 17, 2008 4;. f U • t • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:37 AM To: Jayne Sears (E -mail) Cc: Katie Cole (E -mail) Subject: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Gulfview S ) - Memo - Ame 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 Message Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From Katie Cole [Katiec @jpfirm.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 5:31 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Jayne E. Sears Subject: 430 S. Gulfview - FLD2008 -08024 I didn't know if you talked to Jayne again this afternoon - the conditions are acceptable for Salt Block 57; LLC. Katherine E. Cole, Esquire Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP 911 Chestnut St. Clearwater, FL 33756 Tel: 727 - 461 -1818 Fax: 727 - 462 -0365 10/21/2008 Wells, Wayne From: Herb Hodgman [herbh @bgala.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:27 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Adolfo Reyna Subject: 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. - Request for Clarification 2 t SightTriangleS ketch.pdf Hello Wayne, I recently received a copy of the staff report for the above project. There was a comment "The site and landscape plans do not correctly indicate the sight visibility triangles on the north and south sides of the northern driveway." This driveway is for ingress only, and sight triangles are typical for egress drives only. I have attached a.sketch for your review and comment to see if the triangles -re in the locations you prefer. Please note that the placement of the triangle south of the drive will prohibit planting the proposed Date Palm. 'Thank you, Herb Hodgman, Principal Landscape Architect Bradshaw & Associates 1001 NW 62nd Street, Suite 114 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Ph. 954 - 772 -0724 Fx. 954 - 772 -8417 This message was checked by MailScan for WorkgroupMail. www.workgroupmail.com 1 =RE -FLU5H CURB FORTE i COCHERE I PLANTING I ` / / �J GARAGE ACCESS \ I RAMP I �� i i 20' SIGHT TRIANGLE - TYPICAL PLANTING i INGRESS ONLY zi�s 51DEYVALK 516HT TR I ANGLE IN TH 15 LOCATION WILL NOT ALLOW PLANTING OF DATE PALM AS PROPOSED. BRADSHAW & ASSOCIATES 1001 NW 62nd Street, Suite 114 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 (954) 772 -0724 Fax (954) 772 -8417 F, WE�GA\Llearwtr\Wtb \517E.dwg -SK-01 - 10/11/2008 -13,33 • Herb' PROPERTY LINE NORTHERN DRIVEWAY / / / / / / / / / / i 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Visibility Sketch L_j I I IN 1 I 1 CITY PEACH PAR 41N6 LOT 0 101 OCTOBER 17, 2008 r( C 4 L r 0 -5' WIDE CONCRETE 1 WALKWAY \ 1 \,PLANTING 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Visibility Sketch L_j I I IN 1 I 1 CITY PEACH PAR 41N6 LOT 0 101 OCTOBER 17, 2008 r( C 4 L r 0 • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 4:18 PM To: Jayne Sears (E -mail) Subject: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Jayne - • Attached is the Staff Report for the above referenced case to be heard by the CDB at their.meeting on October 21, 2008.. Please review the Conditions of Approval and let me know no later than 10:00 am on Monday, October 20, 2008, if the Conditions of Approval are acceptable or not. My attached expert witness resume needs to be attached to the report. 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 Gulfview S 430 Wells Wayne itaff Report.do.xpert Witness R i r RESPONSES TO DRC COMMENTS SALT BLOCK 57, L.L.C. FLD2008 -08024 — 430 South Gulfview BoulevardC� GENERAL ENGINEERING: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: of Comment No. 1: Install sanitary sewer double sweep cleanout in right -of -way and include City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #305 on detail sheet. Response No. 1: A sanitary sewer double sweep clean -out has been added to the sanitary sewer service line, within the Gulfview Boulevard right -of- way. See Sheet 9. City of Clearwater Detail #305 (1 of 3) has been added to the Plans. See Civil Plan Sheet 14. Comment No. 2: Because the proposed use of the property includes a restaurant please show a grease trap location on the plan. Response No. 2: The proposed grease trap has been added to the Plans. See Civil Plan Sheet 9 Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy: Applicant shall submit 5 sets of a's -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 accuracy. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site - specific water capacity and pressure requirements and /or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. General Note: In addition to the requirement for. a City of Clearwater Building Permit, there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies. ORIGIN RX&VED 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMEW ENVIRONMENTAL: CI1Y OF CXF1 ,WXLR Comment No. 1: Prior to issuance of building permit: No light within 300 feet shall be visible or extend in areas identified as Sea Turtle Nesting Areas during the nesting season of May 1 to October 31. Those areas where security and public safety requires lighting, alternative light management approaches shall be applied. Demonstrate compliance on plans acceptable to the Environmental Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. Response No. 1: A note has been added to the Plans stating, "No light within 300 feet shall be visible or extend in areas identified as Sea Turtle Nesting Areas during the nesting season of May 1 to October 31. Those areas where security and public safety require lighting, alternative light management approaches shall be applied ". See Note 7 on Civil Plan Sheet 3. FIRE: Comment No. 1: Plans do not show the locations of the Fire Pump Room or the Emergency Generator Room. Show locations on plans PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 1: See Sheet A2 for location of the fire pump and generator. Comment No. 2: Utility page does not show location of fire line into building. . Provide on plan PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 2: The location of the proposed fire line into the building has been indicated on the Plans. See Civil Plan Sheet 10. HARBOR MASTER: No issues. LEGAL: No issues. LAND RESOURCES: No issues. LANDSCAPING: 2 4 OR1G1 COVED SEEP 1 5 2000 PLANNVG DEPARTMENT Comment No. 1: Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency ftW%W MfMng Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the Filter Drain 100 along the north property line. Based on the detail on Sheet 12/13, the top of the concrete filter drain is 7.02 and the proposed grades are between 4.2 and 5.5, which means the top of the filter drain is above ground and does not provide sufficient cover to plant the landscape material indicated. Revise. Response No. 1: The Civil Plans and the Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. The proposed top of Filter Drain 100 has been lowered, and the drain itself has been relocated to underneath the proposed sidewalk. The landscaping that was previously proposed in the same area has been revised, accordingly. See Civil Plan Sheet 7 and Landscape Plan Sheet 1. Comment.No. 2: Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the OCS 100, as there does not appear to be sufficient cover to provide the landscaping, especially the Medjool Palm, over this OCS 100. Revise. Response No. 2: The Civil Plans and the Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. The proposed top of OCS 100 has been lowered, and the drain itself has been relocated to underneath the proposed sidewalk. The landscaping that was previously proposed in the same area has been revised accordingly. See Civil Plans Sheet 7 and Landscape Plan Sheet 1. Comment No. 3: Sheet 7/13 -There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the Filter Drain 200 along the south property line. Based on the detail on Sheet 12/13, the top of the concrete filter drain is 4.00 and the proposed grades are between 4.4 and 6.45, which may not provide sufficient cover to plant the landscape material indicated. Revise. Response No. 3: The Civil Plans and the Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. Filter Drain 200 has been relocated to underneath the proposed sidewalk. The landscaping that was previously proposed in the same area has been revised accordingly. See Civil Plan Sheet 7 and Landscape Plan Sheet 1. 3 Comment No. 4: Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the OCS 200, as there does not appear to be sufficient cover to provide the landscaping, especially the palms, over this OCS 200. Revise. Response No. 4:. The Civil Plans and the Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. OCS 200 has been relocated to underneath the proposed sidewalk: The landscaping that was previously proposed in the same area has been revised accordingly. See Civil Plan Sheet 7 and Landscape Plan Sheet 1. Comment No. 5: Sheets 10113 and LP -1 - If the Fire Department access can go across grass but cannot be impeded by landscape materials, it appears these two sheets contradict each other. Sheet 10113 indicates the Fire Department access is a five -foot wide path, which is not correct. Coordinate. Response No. 5: The Civil Plans and the Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. The Fire Department Access Path has been clarified. See Civil Plan Sheet 10 and Landscape Plan Sheet 1. Comment No. 6: Sheet LP -1 - Revise this sheet to provide a symbol with the Plant Key and Quantity rather than spelling everything out on this sheet and remove the height, spread, spacing, etc. A Plant List has been provided ' on Sheet LP -3 that has all the details. If there are specific heights of trees in particular areas of the site to be called out, then that information on Sheet LP -1 should be noted, but normal requirements of height, spread, spacing, etc. should be shown only on Sheet LP -3. The Plant Key on Sheet LP -3 is not even used on Sheet LP -1. Response No. 6: Revisions have been made to landscape plans as requested. Comment No. 7: Sheet LP -1 - Revise for the following: a. Interior landscape area is supposedly shaded on this. sheet, but all landscape areas are shaded. Remove the note from this sheet. Interior landscape area shading should be shown on Sheet 3/13; b. Vehicular Use Area is indicated as 8,500 sf, which conflicts with that indicated on Sheet 1/13; and ORIGINAL RECEWED 4 1 2008 V LANNNG DEPARTMENT CITY OF MA tc/A ER 0 c. Interior landscape area provided is indicated as 1,000 sf, whereas Sheet 1/13 indicates 165 sf. Response No. 7: The Civil Plans and the Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. The interior landscape areas and vehicular use areas have been revised, indicated, and summarized on the Plans. See Civil Plan Sheet 3 and the Land Use Data table on the Cover Sheet. Comment No. 8: Sheet LP -1 - Please separate out the landscaping being provided on the ground from that being provided on upper decks (possibly a Sheet LP-1 and LP -1a [hardscape planting plan]). The City will enforce continuing landscape plan maintenance requirements for only that on the ground. Response No. 8: Revisions have been made to landscape plans as requested. Comment No. 9: Sheet LP -3 - Please separate out the landscaping being provided on the ground from that being provided on upper decks (possibly into two Plant Lists [ground and hardscape]). The City will enforce continuing landscape plan maintenance requirements for only that on the ground. Response No. 9: Revisions have been made to landscape plans as requested. Comment No. 10: Sheet LP -1 - Unclear why two high -rise oaks are proposed on the south side of the tower. The planting area appears too small for a large tree. Future canopy will be rubbing the building. Reconsider use of high -rise oaks at this location. Response No. 10: Oak trees have been replaced with native Sabal Palms. Comment No. 11: Sheet LP -3 - Revise for the following: a. General Notes - Next to last - Unclear as to what is meant by shredded mulch "or ground cover" ( ?); and . b. Plant List needs to indicate the caliper of trees (except palms) to be planted. Response No. 11: Revisions have been made to landscape plans as requested. Comment No. 12: Sheets LP -1 and LP -3 - Ensure the plant counts on LP -1 add up to that indicated in the Plant List totals on LP -3. Response No.12: Quantities have been verified. ORIGINAL CEWED W 1 5 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 5 CITY OF CLEARWAMR PARKS AND RECREATION: Comment No. 1: The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of a 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 No. 1.: Noted. Comment No. 2: Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior. to the issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727- 562 -4818 to calculate the assessment. Response No. 1: Noted. STORMWATER: The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of building permit. Comment No. 1: Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit. Response No. 1: Noted. A copy of the approved SWFWMD ERP will be provided upon receipt. Comment No. 2: Show on the Paving and Grading plan how roof and garage runoff will be routed to the proposed oil /grease separator and /or the vault as stated in the drainage report. Response No. 2: The Civil Plans and the Architectural Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. A Note has been added to the Civil Plans stating, "The building roof runoff will be directed to the stormwater vault pursuant to the Architectural Plumbing Plans ". See Note 7 on Civil Plan Sheet 7 and Architectural Plan Sheet A -1. Comment No. 3: As indicated on the Paving and Grading Plan, please show proposed grades and other required drainage elevations on the construction plan. Response No. 3: Proposed grades have been shown on the Paving, Grading and Drainage Plan and the Paving, Grading and Drainage Detail Sheets. Additional detail to the design will be added at the time of Construction Plan preparation. See Civil Plan Sheet 7. S,0 5 ?98 6 PI r,�PmPTkAF " CITY Qi. • 0 Comment No. 4: Provide a maintenance schedule of the stormwater management system. Response No. 4: A Stormwater Management System — Operation and Maintenance Checklist will be created for this project and provided to the Client/Applicant at the time of Construction Plan preparation. Upon submittal to the Client/Applicant, a copy will also be provided to the City. Comment No. 5: Provide trench drain across the three driveways to intercept runoff and route to the proposed vault. Response No. 5: Pursuant to conversations with Scott Rice (City of Clearwater), trench drains have not been added at the three (3) driveway entrances to the proposed site. The originally requested location would essentially tie the Gulfview Boulevard drainage into the proposed stormwater system, effectively negating and effective functionality. Additionally, the proposed project does not intend to assume the responsibility for providing treatment for the Gulfview Boulevard runoff. Comment No. 6: Existing storm sewer and structures that will not be utilized shall be indicated to be removed on the demolition plan. Response No. 6: All existing structures (including existing stormwater system components) that are not proposed to be re -used have been indicated as "to be removed" on the Civil Plans. See Civil Plan Sheet 2. Comment No. 7: Show the oil -water separator on the Paving Grading plan and show how garage runoff routed through this device. Response No. 7: A series of floor drains have been added to the bottom garage level of the proposed building. The floor drains are routed to a proposed oil / water separator, located south of the loading area and east of the compactor. See Civil Plan Sheet 7. Comment No. 8: It is recommended to have the garage's .finished floor elevation 0.5' higher than the crown of the road. Response No. 8: The finished floor elevation of the bottom garage level has been raised 1.5 ft. to 5.5 ft. The proposed grades and stormwater system component elevations have been revised accordingly. Also, the Architectural Plans have been revised accordingly. See Civil Plan Sheet 3 and Architectural Plan Sheet A -1. ORIGINAL SEP 15 2000 7 pIMtQ4G DMARVIEWT ary Os w • General Note 1: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response 1: Acknowledged. General Note 2: At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any other drainage related document for review and record. Response 2: . Acknowledged. SOLID WASTE: Comment No. 1: Compactor area cannot be serviced as shown (not enough room). Response No. 1: The Civil Plans and the Architectural Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. The location / configuration of the compactor has been revised to allow adequate room for operation and maintenance. See Civil Plan Sheet 3 and Architectural Plan Sheet Al. Comment No. 2: If applying for "green Lodging Certification" you will need to show where recycling will take place. Response No. 2: The Civil Plans and the Architectural Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. The location of the recycling area has been added to the Plans. See Sheet Al. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: Comment No. 1: Traffic Operation Division has concerns about the use of elevators as the only access to upper floors of the proposed parking garage for a resort hotel. Dependence upon the elevators could result in operational problems due to mechanical or electrical malfunctions. Previous designs for structures at this location have used ramps to provide access to upper parking floors, is it possible to design a building that would utilize ramps instead of the elevators? Response No. 1: Please see the revised Exhibit "B" narrative to the application which includes a detailed description of the operation of the vehicular elevators. Comment No. 2: Does the applicant have other facilities where elevators provide the sole access to upper parking floors? If yes, ORICliy SAL 8 SEP 15 2008 Cyr what operational and mechanical problems have been encountered? Response No. 2: The Eden Roc is a comparable hotel project in Miami Beach that uses freights in lieu of ramps. This project is currently under constructions. The Tampa Waterside Marriott in Channelside uses a 7,500 lb. freight to transport cars from street level to the ballroom level, it also stops at the lobby level. The Diplomat Hotel in. Hollywood has a freight that functions in a similar fashion as the Tampa Marriott. The applicant is proposing three 7,500 lb. elevators that will travel at 160 fpm. They can operate in two ways, with power or manual doors. Eden Roc has manual doors. The valet has to get out of the vehicles to open and close the doors each time. With a power type, there exists a pedestal with a push button. The valet can just pull up and register the command. Comment No. 3: What additional maintenance is anticipated to be necessary for the use of elevators for this purpose in a coastal environment? Response No. 3: Periodic cleaning of the fixtures, frames and stainless steel. Use a rust inhibitor for any primed finishes. Comment No. 4: Is a generator included in the design of the hotel that can be used to power the three lifts in an emergency. Response No. 4: A generator will be provided to power two lifts in the event of an emergency. Comment No. 5: Demonstrate, using a turning template, that a passenger vehicle can enter the freight elevator adjacent the transformer without hitting any objects. Response No. 5: The Autoturn software program has been used to demonstrate how a standard size passenger vehicle will access and maneuver in and out of the proposed elevators. See enclosed Exhibits. Comment No. 6: Demonstrate using a turning template how a scaled WB -50 truck enters and exits the loading area. Response No. 6: The Autoturn software program has been used to demonstrate how a delivery truck (30 feet in length, single -axle) will access and maneuver in and out of the proposed loading areas. The owner, who operates over 80 hotels throughout the ,country, has indicated that deliveries are made by vehicles no longer than 30' in length. See enclosed Exhibits. 01R1G11- Al, 9 ��P 15 • C Comment No. 7: The structural columns at the end of the parking stalls create maneuverability problems. Consider re- positioning the columns away from the ends of the stalls. Response No. 7: Where possible, the proposed structural columns have been relocated away from the ends of the parking stalls. See Civil Plan Sheets 3, 4, 5, 5A and Architectural Plan Sheet Al. Comment No, 8: There shall be no columns in any of the drive aisles. Response No. 8: The columns will be transferred to avoid drive aisles. See Sheet Al. Comment No. 9: The proposed parking spaces shown may be insufficient.. Provide a parking study to support and justify the number of proposed parking spaces. Response No. 9: See attached Parking Study, prepared by Florida Design Consultants, dated September 10, 2008. The information in the Parking Study has also been incorporated in the applicant's responses.to criteria (Exhibit "B "). Comment No. 10: Show the path a wheelchair bound patron can use to .get from a public sidewalk to the lobby. Response No. 10: ADA access is provided through the northeast corner of the garage at grade level. Elevators P4 /P5 will have rear opening doors that will service ADA access. Signage will be provided to slow down /stop traffic as it approaches the crossing of the drive aisle. See Sheet Al. The Accessible Path has been indicated in the Civil Plans as well. From the lobby, a wheelchair bound patron will take the elevator to the ground floor garage level, where he will exit out of the garage to the north, follow the proposed sidewalk to the east, which connects to the existing sidewalk along Gulfview Boulevard. See Civil Plan Sheet 3. From South Gulfview Blvd., a wheelchair bound patron can also enter through the front door under the porte cochere. Comment No. 11: Although there are no proposed handicap parking spaces in the parking garage, the parking garage shall be designed to accommodate an accessible van which requires an 8' 2" clear vertical height. This includes entrance, route, parking stall and exit. Indicate this on the site plan. (Florida Accessibility Code Sections 11- 4.1.2.(5)(b) and 11- 4.6.5. ) OR%- wzo 10 ,a � P 15 2000 WAT P&P Ar • • Response No. 11: Because the proposed administration areas, spa and ballroom are located in the northern portion of the proposed building, the northern portion of the ground floor parking garage has less height restriction. Therefore, all "accessible vehicles" will access the garage via the northern drive, where the required clearance of 8' 2" has been provided, which meets the Florida Accessibility Code. An ADA van space has been designated. See Sheet Al. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: Comment No. 1: If vehicle freight elevators are approved, then provide mirrors for the ground floor for vehicles exiting from the freight elevators. Response No. 1: Mirrors have been added to the ground floor of the parking garage, for the use of the vehicles accessing the proposed elevators. See Architectural Plan Sheet Al. Comment No. 2: Provide in the detail sheet FDOT's truncated. dome standards (Index 304 page 6 of 6). Use link provided: http: / /www. dot. state. fl .us /rddesign /rd /RTDS /08 /304.pdf Response No. 2: FDOT Index 304, Page 6 of 6 (truncated dome standards) has been added to the Plans. See Civil Plan Sheet 11 General Note 1: Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). Response: Acknowledged. General Note 2: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Acknowledged. PLANNING: Comment No. 1: It is unclear how such raised /elevated pool area shown with fill material complies with FEMA requirements for structures within a V -Zone allowing wave action to flow under the building. Any walls must breakaway to allow wave action. Fill goes against such requirement (based on discussions with our Building Official). Structure is also close to the existing seawall and will need variances.to the Building Code requirement for seawall setbacks (18 feet required). Response No. 1: Listed below are Jeff Walker's comments regarding the subject. Our drawings have been revised to show that the pool structure will be supported on piles. See Sheet Al2. [Walker, Jeff] It is my understanding that a pool is not considered a building by FEMA and the no fill requirement for a VE zone applies to buildings. I do remember a FEMA tech directive that said pools must be located and designed such that the breakup of the pool by wave action should not lead to building damage. I think it would be prudent to design the "retaining wall" around the pool deckby a S.E. such that it would withstand scouring wave action, i.e. cast in place reinforced concrete. Comment No. 2: Unclear why all the paver area (sun terrace) is necessary along the seawall seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Provide an explanation and a justification for such. Prior request only had a sidewalk, but no paver area, on the west side of the building, and the sidewalk did not encroach or go seaward of the CCCL. So far, not convinced such paver area is necessary or justified. Response No. 2: This area was provided for use as a sunning area, given the orientation of the pool and limited deck area surrounding the pool. The reasons are discussed in responses to criteria (Exhibit "B "). Comment No. 3: Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the connection between the "sun terrace" paver area and the sidewalk along the north property line in the northwest corner, as to why the sidewalk must extend almost all the way to the seawall. Need to. also show the interconnection of the sidewalk along the north property line to the pool deck stairs and pool ADA ramp. Response No. 3: The project proposes a walkway that begins at the bottom of the ADA ramp and extends west to the sun terrace. The purpose of this walkway is to allow ADA access to the sun terrace as this is the only method a disabled person can travel to the sun terrace. ORIC11 -011. �Czagiio 12 C-11Y of Comment No. 4: If I understand the . existing grades of the S. Gulfview Boulevard, the subject property and the properties north • and south of the subject property properly: a. the existing grades in the center of S. Gulfview Blvd abutting the subject property ranges from approximately 4.00 on the north to 4.23 on the south; b. the existing grades of the subject property range from 4.03 to 11.03 feet. It is unknown what the grades for.the top of the seawall is, as no grades have been provided; c. the grades on the property to the north range from 3.86 at S. Gulfview to over 6 feet along the north property line west of the paved City parking lot; and d. the existing grades on the property to the south range from 4 feet at their northern driveway to over 6 feet approximately in the center of the northern portion of their property. As such, it is interesting to note that the FFE for Parking Level 1 is 4.00, which is below the existing grades for the subject property and adjacent properties and would appear to flood in storm events, including flooding into the elevators and freight elevators. Correct? Response No. 4: The finished floor elevation of the bottom garage level has been raised to 5.5 ft. The proposed grades and stormwater system component elevations have been revised accordingly. Also, the Architectural Plans have been revised accordingly. See Civil Plan Sheet 3 and Architectural Plan Sheet A -1. Comment No. '5: Sheets 3113, 7/13, 9/13, 10/13 and Al - From a traffic flow standpoint (since garage is all valet), it would appear that the one -way drive aisle (27' wide) NW of the loading /compactor area would have a flow if it was relocated to be where Spaces 13 -1, 5, 22 -24 and 27 -29 currently are designed. The parking spaces can be relocated westward to the current location of the one -way drive aisle as it appears to be the same dimensionally. Revise. Response No. 5: The layout of the ground floor garage level has been revised as requested. The proposed parking spaces have been relocated to the west, and the proposed "traffic flow" is located in the eastern garage area. See Civil Plan Sheets 3, 7, 9, 10 and Architectural Plan Sheet Al. ORIGINAL 13 SEP 15 2008 WMW ORIGINAL SEP i 2000 PLANN24G DEPARTMENT CITY GE CLEAUAItR Comment No. 6: Sheet 3/13 - While loading spaces 35 feet in depth have been provided, the loading spaces end at an internal drive aisle, not a loading dock or unloading area. Off- loading the trucks would appear to be within the adjacent required 24- foot drive aisle /back up area for Spaces 13 -18. Loading does not appear to function. It is also questionable whether a delivery truck and trash truck can access the loading spaces and compactor. Revise. Response No. 6: The layout of the loading zone area has been revised. The delivery truck will now be positioned at a 45- degree angle for unloading, providing area both at the rear and the side of the vehicle. Additionally, the Autoturn software program has been used to demonstrate how a delivery truck (30 feet in length, single -axle) will access and maneuver in and out of the proposed loading areas. See enclosed Exhibits and Civil Plan Sheet 3. Comment No. 7: Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for the gate on the drive on the south side of the building that restricts access into the garage, loading spaces and compactor. Gate appears to restrict the ability of trucks to get into and out of the southern loading area. Response No. 7: The proposed gates that were previously shown within the driveway for the loading area have been relocated to just inside the entrance to the ground floor parking garage. In this revised location, it still provides security for the garage, and does not impede access to the loading area or compactor. See Civil Plan Sheet 3 and Architectural Plan Sheet A -1. Comment No. 8: Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for a trash staging area outside of the building if a compactor is being provided. Advise /revise. Response No. 8: The plans provide for a loading area that includes compactor, an area to roll out recycling which may be collected in the area near the loading dock, and general staging of the loading area. Comment No. 9: Sheets 3/13 and Al - It my understanding under the Building Codes and FEMA regulations that there can be no occupiable space below BFE, except storage. Unclear of how the "valet" room qualifies to be below BFE. Advise /revise. 14 i • Response No. 9: The room designation has been revised to "key storage." See Civil Plan Sheet 3 and Architectural Plan Sheet Al. Comment No. 10: Sheets 3/13 and Al - Unclear of what is meant by "support" for the area north of the SW stairwells. Only storage is allowed below BFE. Advise /revise. Response No. 10: The area located at the ground floor parking level, labeled "support" has been renamed "storage ". See Civil Plan Sheet 3 and Architectural Plan Sheet Al. Comment No. 11: Sheet 3/13 - Need to dimension the distances from the western CCCL to the western edge of the paver sun terrace and the distances from the northern CCCL to the northern edge of the sidewalk, so these distances can be included in the advertising of this proposal. Response No. 11: The distance from the western CCCL to the western edge of the proposed "sun terrace" paver area has been added to the Plans. The distance from the northern CCCL to the northern edge of the proposed walkway has been added to the Plans. See Civil Plan Sheet 3. Comment No. 12: Sheets 3/13 and Al - There are columns from the hotel rooms tower above that are shown but not black as the other columns. Is this because they will not be seen or will not block drive aisles or the backing out ability from parking spaces. It appears that some spaces will be inaccessible. Advise. Response No. 12: The proposed columns that are shown but not filled in black indicate a column on the upper floors. Therefore, they do no block any proposed parking spaces. See Civil Plan Sheets 3 and Architectural Plan Sheets Al. Comment No. 13: Response No. 13: Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for the following notes: a. "H /C Ramp Type CR20" directly south of the stairs from the sidewalk in S. Gulfview Blvd R.O.W. and the porte cochere drive; and b. "H /C Access Path" within the S. Gulfview Blvd R.O.W. with an arrow just south of "a" above. Revise. The above referenced previous Plans. They Sheet 3. 15 call -outs were incorrectly shown on the have been removed. See Civil Plan ORIGINAL SEP 15 2000 PLANN64G DEP TMFNT Comment No. 14: Sheet 3/13 -,Need to dimension the RAMCw1w. south property line to the proposed 6' high wall at its closest point and south of the trash staging area. Response No. 14: The distance from the south property line to the closest point of the proposed 6' -high wall have been added to the Plans. See Sheet 3 and the Land Use Data table on the Cover Sheet. Comment No. 15: Sheet 3/13 - A fence is indicated along the south edge of the southernmost drive from the 6' high wall to the front property line. Need to indicate the height of the fence and the type of fence (wood, vinyl, etc).. Within the visibility triangle, maximum height is 30 ". Response No. 15: The height and type of proposed fence located along the south edge of the southern property line has been added to the Plans. Its location in reference to the sight triangle has also been delineated. See Civil Plan Sheet 3. Comment No. 16: Sheet 3/13 - A 6' high fence is indicated along the south property line from the trash staging. area to the seawall ( ?), or the CCCL ( ?). Need to be more specific as to where the fence ends. Need to indicate the type of fence (wood, vinyl, etc.). Response No. 16: The proposed wall has been extended further to the west for the purpose of shielding the compactor area. The height and type of proposed fence has been added to the Plans. Its location in reference to the CCCL has also been delineated. See Civil Plan Sheet 3. Comment No. 17: Sheet 3113 - A note in indicated at the southwest corner regarding the waterfront sight triangle and refers to the "Landscape plans for fence requirements ". There is no information on the Landscape plans regarding such fencing. Revise. Response No. 17: The previously provided note referencing the Landscape Plans for proposed fence information has been removed from the Civil Plans. Comment No. 18: Sheet 1/13 Land Use Data indicates 8,783 sf of vehicular use area (VUA) and 165 sf of interior landscape area provided (2% of VUA), where Code requires 10% of VUA: a. Show by shading on Sheet 3/13 the area being counted toward interior landscape area; 16. • • b. Unclear why the required 10% requirement cannot be provided. Need to look at landscaped areas, other than foundation landscaping that could be counted toward interior landscape area. Response No. 18`. The Civil Plans and the Landscape Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. The calculated vehicular use area (VUA) has been revised to 8,500 SF. The calculated interior landscape area has been revised to 1,000 SF. The resulting percentage is just under 12 %, greater than the 10% required. See Civil Plan Sheet 1, the Land Use Date table on the Cover Sheet, and Landscape Plan Sheet 1. Comment No. 19: Sheet 1/13 - Revise the Land Use Data for the following: a. Include the area zoned Open Space /Recreation (OS /R) in the Existing and Proposed columns; b. In accordance with Section 3- 908.A, the porte cochere Response No. 19: The existing and proposed Open Space / Recreation (OS /R) area has been calculated and added to the Land Use Data table. The proposed front setback (building) has been revised to indicate both the distance to the porte cochere support column and the building. The proposed front setback (tower) and front setback (building) has been revised to 23 feet. The callout has been added to the Plans. The side setback (tower) callout has been added to the Plans. See Civil Plan Sheet 3 and the Land Use Data table on the Cover Sheet. Comment No. 20: Sheet 1/13 - Parking table at bottom of Land Use Data needs to be coordinated with that indicated on Sheet A0, as the numbers are different as to the number of valet and tandem spaces provided. 17 canopy, which is cantilevered from the building, is not M. subject to setbacks. No reduction is necessary. Revise Proposed Setbacks (Building) for Front; �>- ® c. The proposed front setback (building), based on the W ®' submitted plans, is 31.1 feet to the NE corner of the O building; d. The proposed front setback (tower) is,31.1 feet; and e. The proposed side (south) (tower) setback is indicated at 23 feet. Show such dimension on Sheet 3/13. Response No. 19: The existing and proposed Open Space / Recreation (OS /R) area has been calculated and added to the Land Use Data table. The proposed front setback (building) has been revised to indicate both the distance to the porte cochere support column and the building. The proposed front setback (tower) and front setback (building) has been revised to 23 feet. The callout has been added to the Plans. The side setback (tower) callout has been added to the Plans. See Civil Plan Sheet 3 and the Land Use Data table on the Cover Sheet. Comment No. 20: Sheet 1/13 - Parking table at bottom of Land Use Data needs to be coordinated with that indicated on Sheet A0, as the numbers are different as to the number of valet and tandem spaces provided. 17 Response No. 20: The Civil Plans and the Architectural Plans have been revised to be consistent with each other. The parking numbers for both the valet and tandem spaces now match. See the Land Use Data table on the Civil Plans Cover Sheet and Architectural Plan Sheet A0. Comment No. 21: Sheet 1/13 indicates in the Unit Count of hotel rooms a total of 230 rooms. Based on unit counts on the architectural plans, there are 231 rooms. The discrepancy occurs on Level 16 where there are 12 rooms, not 11 rooms. Revise the architectural plans to only provide for a total of 230 rooms. Response No. 21: The Architectural Plans have been revised to indicate a total of 230 proposed rooms. . See the Unit Count table on the Civil Plans Cover Sheet and Architectural Plan Sheet 1. Comment No. 22: Sheets A6, A7, A8, A9 and A10 - Dimension the width /depth of the balconies. If I understand the dimensions on Sheet AO correctly, the balconies on the north side of the building are within 2.5 feet of the CCCL. Correct? Response No. 22: Sheets A6, A7, A8, A9 and A10 have been dimensioned. You are correct regarding the 2.5' dimension. Comment No. 23: Sheet AO - Provide the following on this sheet: a. A dimension from the adjacent building to the closest P- ortion of the proposed building over 100 feet in height O CO (either the mechanical oval or the balconies on the south r' d-O B 4. side of the tower); and PA b. Show where the Building Sections (East - West) and M 00 (North - South) on Sheets A13 and A14 are cut through the building. Response No. 23: a. Drawings have been revised to show dimensions. b. Section marks have been located. Comment No. 24: Sheets A14 - A18 - Per the definition of "height, building or structure ", the maximum height of the parapet at the top of the building can be 42 ". Shown is 48 ". Revise. Response No. 24: Drawings have been revised to reflect the 42" dimension. im • • Comment No. 25: Sheet 3/13 - Add a dimension from the front property line to the edge of the balconies (dashed line) in the NE corner of the building. Response No. 25: A dimension from the front property line to the edge of the balconies (in the northeast corner of the building) has been added to the Plans. See Civil Plan Sheet 3. Comment No. 26: Sheet A18 - Dimension the height of the overhead doors. Response No. 26: Drawings have been revised to show dimensions. Comment No. 27: Sheet A19 - SE View Perspective - View appears to be "see through" the building, which is not reality. Revise. Response No. 27: Perspective has been revised. Comment No. 28: Sheet A19 - East and SE Perspective Views indicate the porte cochere with columns. Sheets A16 and A18 show the porte cochere as cantilevered from the building with no columns. Sheet A15 appears to indicate guy wires from the building holding up the porte cochere, however, the porte cochere is dashed in also indicating columns. The colored C= version of Sheet A15 "greyed" in the porte cochere as if it is 9 N cantilevered, but indicates columns dashed in. Sheets Al, r tn. a ` A2 and A3 indicate the porte cochere with columns close to U2 the building, but with no columns out next to the front property line (meaning it is cantilevered). Sheet 3/13 does e not indicate columns out next to the front property line c� (meaning it is cantilevered). Need to coordinate plans as to whether this porte cochere is cantilevered or is designed with columns. If it can be engineered, the cantilevered design is more exciting and fits better with the building design. Response No. 28: All drawings have been revised to show columns supporting the porte cochere. Comment No. 29: Exhibit B - Request 2 - Flexible Development - Revise for the following: a. "d" - Need to revise depending on how the porte cochere is designed (if with columns close to the front property line, then there will be proposed setback; if cantilevered, then no proposed setback for the porte cochere). Otherwise, add in the proposed setback to the building at the northeast corner (to the building and to the corner of the balcony). Revise proposed setback to pavement (driveway) to 19 • • whatever distance I have requested just south of the stairs to the sidewalk in S. Gulfview Blvd.; b. "e" - Need to include "to permit a sidewalk "x" feet seaward of the CCCL "; c. "f' - Need to include the proposed setback to the pavement; d. "g" - Need to include "to permit concrete patios "x" feet seaward of the CCCL "; and e. Need to include the proposed height of the building. Response No. 29: Please see revised Exhibit T," responses to criteria. Comment No. 30: Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - (2) - Need to include discussion of whether the garage will provide parking for all employees and whether employees' cars will be valet parked. Response No. 30: Please see revised Exhibit T," responses to criteria. Comment No. 31: Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following (keep in mind that the advertising for Comp. Infill has been revised to set'out what is proposed and does not set out any reductions or increases; the discussion needs to compare the reduction or increase to that normally required [or that otherwise that would have been advertised]): a. Height - Need to discuss the height increase from 35 feet to 100 feet, as well as to 150 feet; o b. Setbacks - Need to discuss the proposed setbacks to fa N that normally required. Additionally, depending on how the 'S' ® porte cochere is designed, modify the discussion of L setbacks (columns or cantilevered design ? ?); c. Relief from CCCL Setback - Need to discuss the proposed setbacks to that normally required; and d. While no relief is being requested, should include a discussion relating to lot area and lot width, due to the way we are advertising the request now. Obviously, both the lot area and lot width exceed the minimum requirements. Response No. 31: Please see revised. Exhibit T," responses to criteria. 20 • Comment No. 32: Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 - Revise "f', as there are no minimum standard uses in the Tourist District. Response No. 32: Comment No. 33: 0 Z r� 0 N Please see revised Exhibit "B," responses to criteria. Response to. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Revise for the following: a. Under "a" - The proposed hotel is' not permitted as a Minimum Standard use, as there are no Minimum Standard uses in the Tourist District; b. Under "b" - Last sentence on Page 10 - Revise "compliments" to "complements "; c. Under "b" - Page 11 for Tower Separation - Please provide written discussion of how this proposal meets the regulations, not just referring one to a map that one must interpret what they are looking at; d. Under "b" - Page 11 refers to Exhibits C -3 and C-4 - Revise the exhibits to 45 feet and recalculate allowable building envelope volume and proposed design. Revise the proposed percentage in the written material on Page 11; e. Under "b" - Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings on Page 12 - I would not characterize landscaping as "lush ", as the landscape areas on the north, south and west have been minimized due to the higher than prior requests impervious surface ratio. The design of the site landscaping also conflicts with stormwater design features, both on the north and south sides of the property. Except the east side of the property, I don't agree that proposed landscaping will soften the architecture. Need to rethink how this is written and /or see how to reduce the ISR to provide adequate areas, free of obstructing stormwater features and Fire Department access, for landscaping to be provided to accomplish the effect of softening the architecture; f. Under "b" - Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings for Maximum Building Envelop on Page 13 - See discussion under "d" above. Revise proposed percentage after recalculating; g. Under "c" on Page 13 - Last sentence - Revise "compliments" to "complements "; 21 0 0 h. Under "e" on Page 14 - Overall Landscaping - It is stated that a Comprehensive Landscape Program is not required, however, it is unclear if one is required based on other comments regarding the provided percentage of VUA for interior landscape area. Revise as necessary, depending on your responses to the other Landscaping comments; i. Under "e" on Page 14 - North Property Line - Unclear of what the last sentence. is referring to. Need to expound on this sentence, however, there are landscape comments that point out conflicts between proposed landscaping and other requirements (Fire Department access, stormwater features, etc.). See also discussion above in "e ". Landscaping along north property line could be characterized as minimal due to the reductions to setbacks and building mass /ISR; j. Termination of Nonconforming Status - #3 on Page 15 - There are no existing nonconforming signs, outdoor lighting or other accessory structures or uses on the site. Remove statement regarding Comprehensive Sign Program. Revise; and k. Termination of Nonconforming Status - #4 on Page 15 - Since #3 is being modified, revise sentence #2 appropriately. Response No. 33: Please see revised Exhibit "B," responses to criteria. Comment No. 34: There is a concern that the design of the site minimizes any ability to provide landscaping on the north and south sides of the property. On the south side of the property, the closeness of the vehicular use area for the loading area and garage access leaves very little room for meaningful landscaping. Other landscaping and planning comments speak to conflicts with Fire Department access and stormwater features. The closeness of the pool area to the �E north property line, coupled with the provision of the c sidewalk to the rear along the north property line does not �' % provide any meaningful area for "lush" landscaping to LM `"., soften the.architecture. The overall proposed ISR is greater $ U than proposed for prior projects on this site, which is a 0 0 contributing factor to this concern. The building design is Z excellent, but the overall feel is that the building is squeezed onto the site. 22 0 • Response No. 34: Although the proposed ISR is 91.4 percent; the mass of the proposed building (21.8% of the theoretical maximum building envelope) is less than one -half the mass of what is currently approved for the site (44.5% of the theoretical maximum building envelope). Please note that the former Adam's Mark at this location had an ISR of 90 percent and was not landscaped or of a superior architectural design as the proposed project. Providing increased parking than is required by the Code's 1:1 ratio also means the site must support a larger base building. The reduced mass of the project will enhance the site as viewed from the beach and 440 West condominiums. The site has been attractively landscaped to incorporate the adjoining Beach Walk and make the street level pedestrian friendly. OTHER: No Comments 9/15/2008 9:48 AM 49062.114967 #449790 v1 - OceanProperties /Responses to Comments 23 C� A U_ S 99 0 le U 23 ORIGINAL RECOVED PLANNING D@pARTMEW EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF aZAIWqIMER TO FLEXIBLE. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Salt Block 57, L.L.C. 430 South Gulfview Boulevard Section B. Description of Request Request The subject property is the former Adam's Mark hotel site, located at 430 South,, Gulfview Boulevard. The Applicant and property owner, Salt Block 57, L.L.C., proposes to redevelop the property with 230 overnight accommodation units. The applicant is an affiliate of Ocean Properties, Ltd., the owner and operator of numerous hotels and resorts in North America and Canada (www.oplhotels.com). Specifically, the Applicant requests: 1. Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density, 217 overnight accommodation units (as established by FLD2005- 01005, FLD2005 -05047 and FLD2007- 11034), where 93 overnight accommodation units (1.87 acres at 50 units /acre) are allowed by the current zoning (Tourist) and land use designation (RFH), under the provisions of Section 6 -109, Clearwater Community Development Code ( "Code "); 2. Flexible Development approval to permit 230 overnight accommodation units in the Tourist (T) District, with a. a Lot Area (zoned T) of 81,450 square feet; b. a Lot Width of 236 feet; C. a maximum height of 150 feet above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to top of roof deck4t944t+Gsf4esk4; d. a front (east) setback of zefe -2.5 feet to building (porte cochere support column) and zero feet to driveway and stairs; e. a side (north) setback from the CCCL of zero feet to building (raised pool) and to permit a sidewalk 10 feet seaward of the CCCL; f. a side (south) setback of 466-16 feet to building, 1.5 feet to pavement and zero feet to privacy wall; s g. a rear (west) setback from the CCCL of 2 feet to building (stairs) and to permit concrete pavers 13 feet seaward of the CCCL; h. 294 -296 valet parking spaces, consisting of 167 175 spaces conforming to Code specifications and 42-7-121 tandem spaces; three driveways where the two southerly -northernmost driveways are spaced 110 feet apart and the two southernmost driveways are spaced 18 feet apatbetween drives having a where 125 feet is required by Section 3 -102; and approval of a two year development order; as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2 -803.0 of the Code; and 3. including the Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4 -1402. History The property is the site of the former Adam's Mark Hotel which was built in 1975 and was a landmark at the southerly end of Clearwater Beach for almost 30 years. The hotel closed its doors after sustaining damage from Hurricane Jeanne in September, 2004, and on April 19, 2005, the Community Development Board approved, a termination of nonconforming status as to density and granted flexible development approval for height (156), setbacks, reduced parking and other existing nonconformities in order to allow the hotel to be renovated (FLD2005- 01005). The hotel renovation never occurred due to economic reasons and site was subsequently sold and was approved for two new redevelopment scenarios. The first was for 112 residential condominium units and 78 condo hotel units (FLD2005- 05047), followed by several minor revisions and extensions, and the most recent was the January 15, 2008 approval for 230 overnight accommodation units which were to be in the form of a vacation /interval ownership type of use (FLD2007- 11034). Anticipating the approved redevelopment, the previous owner demolished the Adam's Mark on October 8, 2005. Changes in the real estate market and changes in ownership have caused the Applicant, which purchased the property in December, 2007, to modify the proposed overnight accommodations use of the property to evemight aGGOMFnedations on the feFmat -efto traditional hotel accommodations (rather than a hotel -condo or timeshare). Proposed Use 4 0 0 The Applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a 230 -room hotel that will attract tourists to Clearwater Beach. The property will include amenities, such as meeting rooms, spa, pool, restaurant and bar, all accessory uses to the hotel use. Parking for hotel guests and employees will inis a 5 -story on -site parking garage, containing 204 -296 parking spaces, whiGh will 100 percent valet parked. 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 property is bounded on the west by the Gulf of Mexico. North: The adjacent property to the north is the public beach and City -owned property, including a public parking lot, which was recently renovated with Beach Walk improvements. The proposed development incorporates and extends the Beach Walk improvements into the project, through extension of a 10' -wide shell finish concrete sidewalk, use. of decorative pavers and planting of Medjool Date Palms. East: The adjacent property to the east is an area of smaller mixed uses, including hotel, condominium, retail and restaurants. It is anticipated that this area will also be—undergo449 renovations, as are encouraged by Beach by Design's vision of Beach Walk. The height of the five -story base of the building is compatible with and reflects the scale of the buildings to the east across Gulfview Boulevard as those buildings are generally 4 stories. The "tower" portion of the proposed hotel is in a curved shape, oriented to the Gulf, such that it is stepped back from S. Gulfview. South: The adjacent property to south is occupied by 440 West condominiums, which consists of two towers of 157' in height. The proposed design (21.8 percent of the theoretical maximum buildinq envelope) is appreximate4y-less than one -half the mass of what is currently approved for the site (44.5% of the theoretical maximum building envelope) and will allow the 440 property a less dense neighbor and broader view than would the currently approved project. The scale, bulk, coverage and density of the proposed project are in keeping with the Design Guidelines set forth in Beach by Design for projects including approvals of transfers of density and increased. building height. The building mass is 36.1 736.3 percent of what is permitted by Beach by Design on the site. Please see the more detailed discussion of these criteria in response to Comprehensive Infill Criteria No. 6.b. in this exhibit. 3 0 & 2) The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposed project will enhance this area of the beach in a number of ways, including: (1) Superior architectural design will visually enhance the neighborhood at this southerly end of Beach Walk-, (2) Construction which meets current building Codes; (3) Excess parking and adequate stacking space and loading area, in order to eliminate any traffic congestion at the site and eliminate potential off -site parking in public lots. The parking is designed to accommodate hotel guests and staff, as well as provide adequate holding space for taxis and airport shuttles awaiting fares; (4) Beach Walk improvements incorporated into the site provide for a better pedestrian flow along South Gulfview than what currently exists; (5) Property value will significantly increase, as the current taxable value of the vacant parcel is $16,414,800 and the estimated project valuation is $50,000,000; (6) A hotel operated by Ocean Properties, Ltd., a well -known and reputable company, will attract tourists; (7) The hotel guests are potential clientele of nearby restaurants and other Clearwater Beach businesses; and (8) Design locates guest activity portions of the hotel toward the public beach to increase activity around the site. 3) The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The Applicant will construct a 10' -wide shell finish concrete sidewalk in front of the hotel, creating a southerly extension of the Beach Walk, which will improve the pedestrian flow and safety along the westerly side of South Gulfview. The sidewalk will be interrupted by brick paver driveways as to call pedestrians' attention to the crosswalks for safety purposes. Adequate driveway stacking space at the hotel entrance and a separate driveway for delivery vehicle provide that vehicles do not back up into S. Gulfview, thereby minimizing traffic congestion and not blocking the sidewalk. With regard to health, safety and welfare, the proposed development and structure will comply as required with applicable codes including the Florida Building Code, the Life Safety Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. Fire Department Access shall comply with NFPA 1 Chapter 18 with Gulf View Boulevard serving as the access road, and more specifically that the access road will extend to within 50' of a single exterior door per 18.2.2.2, an approved route around the exterior of the structure measures not more than 450' from the access road and the building is equipped with sprinklers per 18.2.2.2.3.1 and 18.2.2.3.2. 4 4) The proposed development is'designed to minimize traffic congestion. The Applicant has submitted with this application a letter, dated July 23, 2008, prepared by Roy E. Chapman, P.E., Florida Design Consultants, Inc. which concludes that a traffic study should not be required. There are a number of ways in which the project has been designed to minimize traffic congestion on South Gulfview Boulevard: (1) The driveway under the porte cochere will have a one -way north to south traffic flow. Vehicles will enter the two -lane driveway on the north side and drive in front of the hotel, where the driveway expands to 3- lanes, thereby providing an extra lane for through traffic. All vehicles are serviced by valet. From this location under the porte cochere, the valet will drive directly into. the parking garage without exiting to S. Gulfview. When guests depart, the valet will bring the vehicle out of the garage directly into north side of the porte cochere without accessing S. Gulfview, after which the guests will proceed in a southerly direction (the drive returns to 2 lanes) and exit the property onto S. Gulfview. The porte cochere driveway provides stacking space for 21 vehicles, as shown on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit "C" – Page 5. Service and delivery vehicles will use a separate service drive on the south side of the property so as not to interfere with the valet operation in front of the hotel. (2) The parking garage will contain 2-94 -296 parking spaces, including 64-66 spaces in excess of the minimum Code requirement, as the Applicant desires to insure that all parking demands of the project can be accommodated on site. The 296 spaces will serve all quests and employees of the 230 room hotel. The parking garage will be 100 percent valet parked for quests and employees and will be adequately staffed such that all vehicles are efficiently. parked without excess back -up. This application package includes a parking study prepared by Florida 'Design Consultants, Inc., dated, September 10, 2008 ( "Parking Study ") which is based on interviews with the Applicant who is the operator of 24 Florida properties and over 84 properties worldwide. The Parking Study determines that in a worst case scenario (- +th -ffull occupancy and a large banquet), the,maximum demand would be 263 spaces. Based on information from the St. Petersbura Convention and Visitors Bureau, which releases annual statistics regarding tourism ,(www.pinellascvb.com /statistics), the countywide occupancy rate in 2007 for hotels with greater than 101 units was 71.6 percent. In Clearwater properties, the occupancy rate averages 80% in winter, 71% in spring /summer and 59.4% in fall. It is unlikely the above "worst case" scenario will impact the proiect at any req iWity The Parking Study demonstrates that stacking of vehicles in drive aisles to create additional valet spaces if necessary will result in a total of 352 5 parkinq spaces in the garage, and confirms the adequacy of the proposed parking garage to serve quests and employees of the proposed use. less than- o- heuFsThree (3) 125 feet per minute, 7,000 pound hydraulic powered vehicular elevators are planned for the vertical movement of passenger vehicles within the garage facility. The lower level of the garage is accessible via direct street access and includes parking for 103 vehicles accessible without use of the elevators. Floors two three four and five are accessible only by the vehicular elevators and include 193 saizsavailable spaces. The Movement Analysis as based upon Thyssen Krupp Elevators provides for a movement of a single vehicle from the upper level of garage in an average of 153 seconds. For a single level of the garage to be exited with a single elevator a- totalthe average time of 2.76 hours is required (each upper floor has different number of parking spaces). With the use of three elevators this is reduced to a time frame of 0.9 hours. With two elevators in service the total time would be 1.8 hours. As a comparison based on the information supplied by USA Parkin Consultants, Inc., a typical manned gated ramp operation would provide exiting for an average of 90 vehicles per hour. Based on this information the 195 vehicles exitina throuah a sinale aate and ramp would take a total of 2.16 hours. In the event of a tropical storm that would require vehicular removal from the garage, a 48 -72 hour notice to the hotel guests will be provided for them to leave the island. This would be in accordance with an emergency evacuation procedure to be published by the Hotel Operations Department. As the garage design is hurricane resistant and above the wave crest heights anticipated for the site, vehicles could remain safely within the garage structure. Those vehicles on the ground level would be required to be removed. In the event of a loss of power prior to evacuation, generators will keep two elevators in operation at all times and the garage could be in less than 7.2 hours. The Eden Roc is a comparable hotel proiect in Miami Beach that uses freight elevators in lieu of ramps to two elevated parking decks with 90 elevated spaces (total of 175 spaces for 282 questrooms in referenced addition). This project is currently under construction. The Tampa Waterside Marriott in Channelside uses a 7,500 lb. freight elevator to transport cars from street level to the ballroom level and 4-alse -stops at the lobby level. The Diplomat Hotel in Hollywood has a freight elevator that functions in a similar fashion as the Tampa Marriott. The applicant is proposing three 7,500 lb. elevators that will travel at 160 fpm. They can operate in two ways, with power or manual doors. Eden Roc has manual doors which forces the valet to get out of the vehicles to open and close the doors each time. With a power type such as is proposed, there exists a pedestal with a push button in order for the valet to pull up and register the command. 5) The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The property is located within and at the northern end of the "Clearwater Pass District" of Clearwater Beach giving it a very visible location at the south end "Beach Walk." The proposed hotel has a distinctive design that will make it an attractive landmark at this location. 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 high rise condos and resort hotels. As to the immediate vicinity, to the west is the Gulf of Mexico and the parcel to the north is the public beach, public parking area and Beach Walk improvements. The Applicant will extend the Beach Walk sidewalk southerly in front of the property. The parcel to the south is occupied by 440 West Condominiums, having a height of 157'. This development was built in 1975 and co- existed for 30 years with the 155' high Adam's Mark hotel. The proposed project is the same use as the previous use of the Adam's Mark Hotel and therefore, is consistent with the historical development pattern in this area of the Beach. The proposed project is of a superior architectural design to the Adam's Mark building and incorporates Beach by Design guidelines therefore enhancing the 440 West property. To the east are mixed retail and overnight accommodation uses. This area is also expected to be affected and improved by Beach Walk and this redevelopment. Guests of the proposed project are prospective clientele of the retail and restaurant uses to the east. 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 the public beach. The architectural style is a contemporary design which is appropriate and aesthetically pleasing for this beachfront property. 7 As described in detail in General Applicability Criteria 4, the entrance driveways and parking garage design will keep vehicles off of the Beach Walk area. This will enhance and encourage the flow of pedestrians from the beach to the site or other properties to the south. The pool area will be located at the northwesterly area of the site, such that noise or visual distraction will not be a factor to the adjoining residential condominiums to the south. This location places the hotel's activity center adiacent to the public beach. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and /or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The development order approving the termination of non - conforming status as to the density of 217 overnight accommodation units (FLD2005- 05047) is currently in effect. The proposed deviations from Code, which are discussed in detail below, are necessary and minimal deviations to Code without which the project cannot be constructed at this location. The Applicant has designed the proposed redevelopment project to comply with Beach by Design guidelines to the fullest extent possible. The proposed redevelopment of this site into a hotel use is highly visible from Beach Walk and is an integral part of the City's vision of Clearwater Beach as set forth in Beach by Design. Height The proposed hotel consists of four rooftop levels —one being the top of the ballroom area at 58' -10 the second being the southerly portion of the hotel tower which is adjacent to 440 West, having a maximum height of 100', the third being iust north of the second roof having a height of 139' -10" and the fourth being the hotel tower with a maximum height of 150' to flat roof deck. All referenced elevations are relative to the FEMA base flood elevation of 16' -0 ".The request for up to 150' when 400' -35' is allowed by the Tourist District (flexible standard) is consistent with the sec. 2 -802, CDC which allows for increases from 35 ' to 100' -150' for an improved site plan, design and appearance, and the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design which provide for increased height of up to 150' in the event of a transfer of development rights to the property. This application includes a companion transfer of development rights application for 13 overnight accommodation units (equivalent to 8 residential dwelling units), which were previously transferred to the site from three other eligible sites on Clearwater Beach (TDR2005- 05022). There is a reasonable relationship between the height increase for the GGndeMiRiUFA hotel and the 13 transferred units based upon other cases recommended for approval by staff and actually approved by CDB consistent with Beach by Design. There 0 are 69-70 units located above 100', many of which are the luxury suites, which are the larger, more upscale units. There are five stories of parking which increase the height where the rooms are located, consistent with the Adam's Mark Hotel previously located on the site. Setbacks Front (East): As to South Gulfview, the 5 -story base of the building is set back 31 feet and the 150' tower portion, taking into account a 6' balcony, is set back 26-25 feet from S. Gulfview at its closest point. Therefore, these buildings exceed the 15' minimum front setback in the Tourist District required by Section 2 -802, CDC. The deviation requested is for the overhang support columns of the porte cochere which extends to the Fight of way in nFdeF to covers the entrance, valet parking and drop -off area and the sidewalk and stairs to the porte cochere area, which are located 0' from the right -of -way of S. Gulfview. Side (South): The south side of the property adioins 440 West condominiums. A 10' side setback is required by Section 2 -802, CDC. The proposed building will meet this setback requirement as it will be 16' from the southerly property line at its closest point. The applicant requests a 1.5' setback for pavement (driveway for loading area) and 0' setback for the privacy wall which buffers the loading /trash staging area from the adjoining condominiums. The setbacks TedUG+�;s along the northerly and westerly boundaries are measured to the- CCCL rather than the grogertv lines and are discussed in the ,_ ..- Relief from CCCL Setbacks The property is unique in that the CCCL wraps around the site and affects both the westerly and northerly boundaries. The Applicant has designed the site such as to have the pool, pool deck and sun terrace oriented to the public beach at the northwesterly corner of the site, which area is traversed by the CCCL on two sides. The pool is proposed in this area for two reasons —(i) to provide an attractive LOGufing the pool at this aFea maker, an a #raGtiy° step down to the beach and (ii) to keeps the pool area buffered from the neighbors at 440 West. No part of any buildings are located seaward of the CCCL. The only proposed uses extending seaward of the CCCL are a sidewal * k and concrete pavers, which extend 13' seaward on the west property line.,. and sidewalk which extends 10' seaward on the north property line, both within the Applicant's property. The Applicant acknowledges that a permit from Florida Department of Environmental E Protection is required for these structures, and if this permit is not issued, the structures shall not be built. Side (North): Section 2 -802, CDC, requires a 10' side setback from the CCCL. The hotel building is set back 6' from the CCCL; however the applicant requests a The noFthern setback is-of zero feet for building to the CCCL in order to allow the proposed raised pool deck (which is raised over 12" in height and therefore treated as a structure), and to allow a sidewalk located on the property 10' seaward of the CCCL. If the pool were not raised, it would not be treated as a Primary structure and the request for a setback deviation would be to pavement for the pool deck. The hotel property, as viewed by beach goers, will be enhanced by the raised pool deck, which is reminiscent of the raised tiki deck at the former Adam's Mark, and will detract from the existing riprap and jetty located on the property. To incorporate this portion of the buildina to the public space. the applicant has provided screening and landscaping. (See attached Exhibit "D" highlighting the improvements). In addition, the applicant proposes to add public art on the northerly wall of the raised pool deck to visually enhance the wall and encourage public interaction with the space. Rear (West): Section 2 -802, CDC, requires a 20' rear setback from the CCCL. T4i, -- The applicant requests a 2' setback from a stairwell located on the rear of the building to the CCCL and to allow concrete pavers extending 13' seaward of the CCCL. of the (`CGI Both t he GGGL and the nrnnorF�e FayeFsurse the nor'+ch°crri� bE) Rdar i at an angle so the minimum and ietbaGk Mani Lot Area Section 2 -802, CDC, requires a minimum lot area in the Tourist District of 20,000 square feet. The property meets this requirement as the portion of the property zoned Tourist is 81,450 square feet. Lot Width 10 C1111-1111101 WNW ■ 11i I 2. - Lot Area Section 2 -802, CDC, requires a minimum lot area in the Tourist District of 20,000 square feet. The property meets this requirement as the portion of the property zoned Tourist is 81,450 square feet. Lot Width 10 0 • Section 2 -802, CDC, requires a minimum lot width in the Tourist District of 150'. The property meets this requirement with a lot width of 236'. Driveway Spacing Code Section 3- 1402.13 limits parking garages to "one entrance and one exit... per street ". Code Section 3 -102 calls for a minimum spacing of 125 ft between nor! nlan me he limitation Of G-no garage entFaRGe aR d one drives. �n�et�t,�,�T„ -rte. �� ft (>— 5 #t minimurn } —The proposed plan, however, calls for a two -way service drive (located 18' from the exit drive) in addition to the porte cochere entrance and exit drives '(separated by 1101. Code Section 3- 1402.1 provides for additional drives if "determined necessary by the traffic engineer to alleviate congestion and improve traffic flow ". The proposed design alleviates congestion and improves traffic flow both on the site and on S. Gulfview. The porte cochere entrance gives valet direct access to the garage without accessing South Gulfview Blvd. The vehicles. using the service drive would not need to wait in the queue for valet parking, thus alleviating unnecessary congestion at the drop -off drive. Additionally, the service drive offers a more direct route to the loading area /trash pick -up area leading to improved traffic flow allowing these vehicles to quickly exit S. Gulfview. The low volume anticipated for the service drive (10 -20 trips per day), and the fact that the exit drive is one -way traffic, lessen the chance for conflicts with the service drive located within 50-18 feet of the garage exit per Code Section 3 -102. Two -Year Development Order The Applicant requests a two -year development order due to market conditions and the extensive amount of time necessary to complete detailed construction drawings for the hotel. 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 in the "Tourist" zoning district as flexible standard and flexible uses. Primary uses in the "Resort Facilities High" land use category are "high density residential /overnight accommodation." The site is located in the Clearwater Pass District of Beach by Design which is characterized as "mixed use — high rise condominiums, resort hotels, recreation and tourist and neighborhood serving uses." 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 11 CI 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 Applicant will be the developer and operator of the proposed hotel. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. West: The property is bounded on the west by the Gulf of Mexico. North: The adjacent property to the north is the public beach and City -owned property renovated with Beach Walk improvements including public parking. The proposed landscaping and extension of shell sidewalk to the front of the proposed development incorporates and extends the Beach Walk improvements into the hotel project. East: The adjacent property to the east is an area of smaller. mixed uses, including retail and restaurants. It is anticipated that this area will also undergo renovations, as are encouraged by Beach by Design's vision of Beach Walk. South: The adjacent property to south is occupied by 440 West condominiums, which are 157' in height and of similar scale to the former Adam's Mark. 440 West condominiums co- existed with the Adam's Mark hotel for its entire existence of 30 years. The extension of Beach Walk in front of the property will give 440 West residents easy pedestrian access to the north and the public beach access. Elimination of traffic congestion as previously described will improve traffic flow along South Gulfview for 440 West residents. The Applicant has included a screen wall and landscaping buffer along the southerly property line in response to the requests of the 440 West residents. , 5. The proposed use shall otherwise k land use category, be compatible substantially alter the essential use and shall demonstrate compliance objectives: e permitted .by with adjacent characteristics with one or n the underlying future land uses, will not of the neighborhood; ore of the following 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; 12 e.d. 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 Ce.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 , flexible standard and flexible use. Redevelopment of Clearwater Beach is a significant economic contributor to the City. Since 2004, the property has not contributed to the economy as it was closed to guests. This 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, as the Adam's Mark Hotel located at this site was a focal point of the southerly end of Clearwater Beach for many years. As previously discussed in General Applicability Criteria 1 and Comprehensive Infill Criteria 4 the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding uses. 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 proposed use as overnight accommodations is contemplated asmis a flexible standard and flexible use permi#ed in the Tourist zoning district without t apprevaf. Surrounding properties are already developed. Public property to the north is not impacted. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. The proposed hotel is designed to meet the requirements of Beach by Design in - scale, bulk, coverage, density and character. The 150' tall section of the project is oriented to the westerly side of the site and curved, such that it is not entirely visible from one building plane. The tower sits on a five -story base to provide a stepped massing in accordance with the massing requirements of Beach by Design. The project layout preserves some view corridors of the neighbors to the South and places the pool /recreational area at the northwesterly corner of project site to reduce noise transmission and visual distraction to the adjacent residential condominiums. The location of the units on the site provides all units in the project with water views and 13 • • provides easy access for all guests to the public beach and nearby businesses. This project furthers the City's beach revitalization objective by providing tourist accommodations. The project's architecture and landscaping s complements the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. We provide the following information concerning the height, tower separation, design, scale and mass criteria: Beach by Design VII, B Height and Tower Separation The project consists of a five -story base structure (1§6'- 4 "58' -10" in height) under one tower which is 150' high measured from FEMA to the top of the main roof deck. Per Beach by Design VII B: "...the height may be increased, however to one hundred fifty feet (150) if'. • Additional density is allocated to the development by transferred development rights as discussed previously (See Item 1 page 6). • B.2 (a) Tower separation: No "portions of the building structures which exceed one hundred feet (100) (in height) are spaced at least 100' apart." The nearest structure to the southeast (440 S. Gulfview Boulevard) is separated from the 100' plus portion of the proposed building by approximately 107' -6 ". See Exhibit C, page 1. • "500' rule ": The Applicant chooses this Option 1 of B2 as "...no more than two (2) structures which exceed one hundred feet (100) are within five hundred (500)... "for this project. As shown on See Exhibit C, page 2 attached -the. proposed project and the 440 West building will be the only two structures exceeding 100' within a 500' radius. The floor plate of any portion of a building that exceeds forty -five feet in height is limited as follows: a) between 45' and 100, the floor plate will be no greater than 25,000 square feet except for parking structures open to the public, and b) between 100' and 150, the floor plate will be no greater than 10,000 square feet, and c) deviations to the above floor plate requirements may be approved provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelope allowance above 45' as described in Section C.1.4. The largest floor plate between 45' and 100' is 13,879 square feet; and the largest floor plate between 100' and 150' is 12,837 square feet. The Applicant 14 0 1 0 requests minimal relief from the 10,000 sq. ft. requirement above 1.00' as is allowed per Beach by Design. The stepback of the crescent- shaped tower and the thin nature of the tower reduces the overall mass and scale of the building and complies with the maximum building envelope of 60 percent as only 24-.7 21.8 percent is actually occupied by the tower. See also responses to follow for further justification. Beach by Design VII C Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings The concept of the building design is generated by the site and the opportunity to maximize waterfront views to all the guestrooms. The building's shape is a thin poetic tiered curve that acts as a focal point to the views from the adjacent beach and waterway. The curve acts as a "hinge" element that links the Beach Walk district from the South Beach /Clearwater Pass district. The materials and color of the building will support the streamline language of the architecture and its natural surroundings. Tropical landscaping is included at the entire project perimeter to soften the architecture, and to provide shade at pedestrian walkways and to enhance the beachfront character at all sides of the project. By placing all automobile parking internal to the project, automobiles are not seen and the Beach by Design goal of a pedestrian oriented beach community is realized. The quantifiable aspects of the architectural vocabulary are as follows per Beach by Design: Buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet ... will be constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The building footprint is approximately 38,000 square feet. The building dimensions vary considerably so that no more two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The project's overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately: 212' wide along Gulf View Blvd, 300' deep along the north side, and 160' high from grade to the flat roof deck of the tower; none of these dimensions are "equal" (or vary by less than 40% of the shorter two lengths). In addition to these overall dimensions, the building's modulated massing provides considerable dimensional variation. • No plane (or elevation) of the project "...continue(s) uninterrupted for greater than one hundred (100). The tower portion of the building is crescent shaped creating a continuously curving facade and therefore, no plane is continuous for more than 30 feet. 15 • 0 • At least sixty percent (60 %) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. All of the elevations are provided with large windows or architectural decoration including: decorative grilles, stucco reveals, concrete eyebrows. The percentages of decoration on each of the exterior elevations are as follows, all exceeding the minimum requirement of 60 %: • North elevation - 68% • East elevation - 61% • South elevation - 62% • West elevation - 70% These percentages are noted on the architectural plans. • No more than sixty percent (6096) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above 45' will be occupied by a building. The overall building mass from 45' to 150' (above FEMA) calculates to 24- 721.8% of the theoretical maximum allowed building envelope. This is significantly less than the 60% maximum allowed building envelope. • The height and mass of buildings will be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. The height and mass of the building are correlated to the parcel and adjacent public spaces as described above. • The guideline for mixed use is not applicable. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; The proposed project is of a scale consistent with that of the Adam's Mark, which was an established landmark at this location for 30 years. The architectural style and compliance with design guidelines will support the emerging character of the area as envisioned by Beach by Design. The project's "contemporary coastal architecture" ^^""^' eRts complements the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. 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; 16 • • • Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc; • Variety in materials, colors and textures; • Distinctive fenestration patterns; • Building stepbacks; .and • Distinctive roofs forms. Many of these elements have been incorporated into the design as discussed in detail in response to Criteria 6.b. above. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Landscaping Overall Landscaping: The landscape plan is in accordance with design guidelines set forth in Beach by Design and also Division 12 of the Landscape Development Standards. A Comprehensive Landscape Program is not required as the proposed landscape plan meets or exceeds Code requirements. All sight triangles have been indicated and will only contain low shrubs or groundcover Gulfview Boulevard: Compliance with the Beach by Design criteria has been noted on the planting plan to. include specialty paving and street furniture as requested. Preferred Medjool Date Palms will be planted approximately 16' on center adjacent to the 10' sidewalk and along the building fagade. North Property Line: The north property line is adjacent to the existing beach and also the public parking lot. The majority of planting is native species. T'" hedges- Potential ly incorporated with a public art proiect will create interest along the s#afl he planted against +ho exposed wall of the upper sun terrace of equal hak Jht A minimum five foot wide clear path is designed along the peFimo +or „f the s+te- propert y line. Seawall: A lower level sun terrace is proposed landward of the seawall with vegetation planted against the building. South Property Line: A privacy wall will extend the distance of the service area and include tall hedges, trees and palms that will further extend to the east and west. 17 Distances between Buildings The distances between buildings have been discussed in response to Beach by Design guidelines as set forth in Criteria 6.b. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The following are additional criteria: Termination of Non - conforming Status The Applicant seeks termination of non - conforming status, in accordance with Section 6 -109 of "the Code, to allow the density of 217 hotel rooms on the site. Section 6 -109 of the Code requires a level two approval to terminate status as a non- conforming use or structure with the following requirements: 1. Perimeter buffers conforming to the requirements of Section 3- 1202(C) shall be installed. Perimeter buffers are not required in the Tourist District. 2. Off - street parking lots shall be improved to meet the landscaping standards established in Section 3- 1202(D). This requirement is not applicable as all off - street parking will be enclosed in the building. 3. Any nonconforming sign, outdoor lighting or other accessory structure or accessory use located on the lot shall be terminated, removed or brought into conformity with this development code. TheAppliGant agFees to ann °pt a nnndition of anpFeyal r°ivirinn ainnc to The Ge Jg anpr eras part of a GernpF°h�Ji�in PFegFarn.This requirement is not applicable as there are no existing nonconforminq signs, outdoor lighting or other accessory structures or uses on the site. 4. The comprehensive landscaping and comprehensive sign programs may be used to satisfy the requirements of this section. The proposed landscaping either meets or exceeds Code requirements as discussed in Comprehensive Infill Criteria 6.e above. As stated above the 18 0 0 Transfer of Development Rights In connection with the Applicant's request for transfers of density to the property, the following are responses to the TDR criteria of Section 4- 1403.A. 1. The development of the parcel proposed for development will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. Please see the detailed discussion of how the project will ;improve abutting properties in response to General Applicability Criteria 2. The redevelopment project will increase the value of the site and neighboring parcels. 2. The uses within the project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. Overnight accommodation use is permitted in the City. 3. The uses or mix of uses within the project are compatible with adjacent land uses. Please see the detailed discussion of the how the project is compatible with adjacent land uses in the response to General Applicability Criteria 5. The site is located in the Clearwater Pass District which Beach by Design indicates as characterized as "mixed use — high rise condominiums, resort hotels, recreation and tourist and neighborhood serving uses." 4. The development of the parcel proposed for development will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed project will provide an interesting and visually appealing southerly "bookend" to the Beach Walk as viewed from the distance and beautifully landscaped at beach level for the enjoyment of pedestrians on Beach Walk as well as those walking in the sand. Please see the detailed discussion in response to General Applicability Criteria 2 and 5. 5. The design of the proposed project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. This site is at the south end of Beach Walk and as such, the beautification of this site through the proposed redevelopment project will have an immense favorable impact on Beach Walk, both visually and by providing an inviting pedestrian connection to the property. As discussed in detail in response to Comprehensive Infill Criteria #5, the proposed redevelopment will be an economic contributor to the City by increasing tourists to Clearwater Beach. 19 • 9/15/2008 10:12 AM 49062.114967 #445354 v1 - OceanProperties /Ex to Comp Infill 20 C: • Wells, Wayne From: Roy Chapman [RChapman @fldesign.com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 8:48 AM To: Bennet Elbo; Patni, Himanshu; Bertels, Paul; Rice, Scott; Wells, Wayne Cc: Cyndi Tarapani; Katherine Cole; Kenneth Gross Subject: 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard - Parking Study M EM 200809120839 200809120839 22237.pdf 39530.pdf Attached is the parking study for the proposed 230 room hotel forward copies to others that may be interested in this report. Roy E. Chapman, P.E. Vice President of Transportation Florida Design Consultants, Inc. 3030 Starkey Blvd. New Port Richey, FL 34655 Phone: 727 - 849 -7588 Fax: 727 - 848 -3648 Cell: 727 - 271 -1859 Roy E. Chapman, P.E. Vice President of Transportation Florida Design Consultants, Inc. 3030 Starkey Blvd. New Port Richey, FL 34655 Phone: 727 - 849 -7588 Fax: 727 - 848 -3648 Cell: 727 - 271 -1859 Please 0 0 430 S. 6, 1 JL,FV,,, I P" W i 3 0 u �KN4330,S., (3tjlN-l6NM6pbft§XPaA.dg Study doe tv T V- constnrcteg on it The. sr'te -rs located between :Crulf Boulevard and the Gulf of °Mexico north _ofZ Jja� md en,D r"ive Access to:: th`e syte wall corrie fiorr :.three ilttvewa js that have wl S du ou evar, , , seo,'Figum `l.._ 'This- report las been prepared :to review the- propo`sedaort -'site pa'rkrhg5 operation. and wi11 review All -*pa"M"t" within t -b -','!�t-�l,gk 4gD-�'.-1�i1,7"""dX'b by r-Oot"ov employees parked 'ji bq, pliike ifil PAS§P _p taken by valet to the -ipgtl�ing, Vehicles _ will - �P7 -41T count -.,YOg94qT. 2 1) 46 .garage �w.ilhout,.,ireent6ring;,,.�S-,4, Gulfiviem-Bodlevard 'PM.JQA ftf 6 rpt &6h ti�--.E floors , -A between floors will l i c d '6y- f freight elevators . -'will .*take f-pla,t r Ylfi?iew BcSulevaid rlocaCed. bf- the Opor ty S 00 F li jr_� Al ., G kand J?A-RKIN -1ki-MAft The hp tel °will have 23O roams foY j '14 -4. - and -g�q -_4 - -, * will _,ill, j* @ fitness center, eight meeting aaozns , a 1,370 isquare i-foot ballroom and a 9,;6OO.square,.&a6tt-ball 6fn,;, Tb f the expected' ema n d' for- I parking A -A-the 6, e 'we' have .reviewed would have ,sjg i 46ftaid A 0I-. Par k1 Tg lie, fast 1s "T, dopmq of the hotel` ioonls: ,a ,w_,pP overlap PAPYO_-c g 4eco 166,t4i h fk' ga` occupancy d, I b with Tpoq ding, AP �A, 1 PIM491! _..b, The (hotel WI ours- pevi, ay using, three shifts 'The Ifts , fn Am. z d'! i.4 _bo to 7; 0b; P. AY 1--1 P:: iii staff,; and:Sh i6ff people A large banquet: x 0 projected, '-"b d'. .0 o P� "e-MM ,w 1 �xpmoj* ;p-mQPS: j age. on orz-V dlsc-us9f6ns,,:--w ifL;�i'otif ioperafois --&66 the zparking requirements t__-WilL-b&, 60 1 db& fl-, 'every -out em p 6y -Thid dl &bs 16, ;the :hotel using,, P- rop- -Wit h dropped trig at;: the hotel Table i' rdentzfies ;the various staff shtftsj number of P, staff, ;, O.g or each: hi shift or to handle aarge<banquet„ ,F poik1h.g iequrteindnts :are drat OP% P the OPPUP! d MMO "I'd ri qq, J i rg� p parking , means of arriy,,als to the hoteljfor guo b bm T the peoplee W,yip& a Myate vehicle pM�Mqpj e Vq tWjMIMA room Mmilibs �yj�loremor Aemafniai `..w-5dU_Id,"uo business people, coming; fifid� : :'Based on 13;8 Veh` t�` la" 0 • A ;conference with, 450 A't-e nd -e s . "s , p"t c 4 t have. half "o -f attendees the . stay in, "G e .1 rooms The; oilier half would, 4, q in p rsop al vehicles; :with , -a 0 cou -..' p _p4ncyieo t" people: per M. As in dicatedin'Table 1 1�b wifh . 450,atterldees would need 'ther'1'13 par ki g s e4: '41� 111- ftloh&� iiffiried th 6, t'l or. e. two �qp III di— WO -'-� blimbet of parking spaces needed th t— dtaft e above based time; of the ow; parking I d"' it 4dentiflo T e, 2.,,s mmarizes, tie erna d-. demand :for par ng o'n a hourly basis 1, the assuming f�' hotel and special 'even I . nd. As Is indicated the "4- .',.Pst d d , R.Om comes in the, pqri9d, 9'-Q p-- o 0 , � 7 witl ,a;, eman d" f tl 61 park'!, " spaces: Full ,occupancy -offhe�,h anti ll argo (*Oqpa at the Barrie 0time t-epro.'s s the w r8t. asescenario. Staff parking Age that B ,hotel guests, sts�, banqu' attendees by ho '�hrop. ifte, day are ifidficatedin Table l The, .greatest ,parking,,..,,,demand would Of qur as the banquet ","is 111 full :attendance; 63 atk` W0.0 . h4t�'W-J&2. 3, S: -on , 1� :00 P�M." 0; '. T'.m. "P. ung,,,spad -fi 6' 'b PARKING $MLY` T pro.vide.pa'r'kifig-in.a,:fve,IoveIg rage�on sifp, The hotel, will have et s ryi e, efirnifidtin e g. the need �6k, 'handicapped #A�tsf.. b, 296 marked spaces in the. parking garag-ei Figures I'throu 5 iciAp the lid park , king 6 . e provi c. on., e various levels: gh t b 'd d th' I 'els..' Some,.ofthe; marked: spacesvitl be two V61h ;deep, b9f, since the �5er a - t* uld sJop 'IS ved. �Y. 1,003 6,,vale opera ion,.S notprcscht anlaccess problem. 0: PARKING MWARI " The number wof'parking apaces required have ,be "d to the umber f spaces. '. , , ul be - provided: 11 er,o ., ' o in the. parking' here n.". garage At, Rill occupanqy is a need for 10 parking sp4ce$ .,and 'q full occupancy with a large lancuet there is a need. .;for 263: CQ parking; 'N VA& - I'll T010 4. P'Atlka r pg�., P royid ed .Level: arked m �Ncps� verflow's ac p s e Total, ,41 6 47 . .... . 49 7 55 4 52, 7 51 -9 S5 52', 7 59 Total 2796 56' 0: PARKING MWARI " The number wof'parking apaces required have ,be "d to the umber f spaces. '. , , ul be - provided: 11 er,o ., ' o in the. parking' here n.". garage At, Rill occupanqy is a need for 10 parking sp4ce$ .,and 'q full occupancy with a large lancuet there is a need. .;for 263: CQ parking; 'N VA& - I'll . .... ..... .... .. .... . . As indicated in Section: 41.above, there will be 352' spaces �a-,v,,dil'abl&.,for ,parking �. within the AgarAge;.. ,2:96.m" marked, §pAce bkdeei e,,,. w .10, e overflow 'o th hotel I ol s re up jw: 3 htdo�;:on �ito, It'i thef, t, bnc I - dc that' prov, "jo ad -e q ate; parking eds. 6it"o MIGHT IRLU RS," Fre .g it, efeVAtbtg Will 'lie used .:tb, "tfifius. .p 161, betwcer lbofs,n, the hotel. A series of elevators P,.-Vroposod w 'o each; with, the; `capacity ,'fqr one vehicle at a-fime, !A, generator will be W 'd d' site that be..caDabl'e,,of p, 4 elevators 1 event of tile!- PA ,,*rs imultaneous,.y., �,4.fftq, ,a Owerouta,ge. 7,.6 'CCO' N"ICCLI"US. "I"'. N' _3O S.,; pq,, !, Table ' 430 S .. ulfineut.B6ul aed - Parking:t2eMaq Fuitctiorti: Variable: Fu110ccUpan - - +'Large'Banquet Number Spaces per Person /Room. Parking; Spaces Red, Hotel :Staff - SWt -1 " :7:00 . 25% 19 Hotel Staff Wft 2 3e0Q': p.ft to 11:00 p:m: Hotel Staff`Y Shit 3 -.11 :00 :m to 7:0& a n. '_ Persons. Persons; 25 40 1$% 254/0; _ 6s 3 Hotel staff Lame Bali. uet _ Persons Hotel Rooris Ocxupiecf Rooms 230 _ 60 %° 138 Ccinference/Ban uet Attendees - Hotel Guests :Persons 225 NA 0 CQOJ eticejBanquek Attendees =. I4on- Guests: Persons 225 >' 2 113 Date: 9/11/08 T. \699 271A\ Barking Study \[ParkzngjNeeds.xls]Demand L.J • • Table 2. P-,U'l!OCtu.pan,'c-y ,,,T..Imeof Day ,Par.kin.,g.NeoOs Time Period Hotel: Guett- Total, Pa*109' Ndecls` Hotel Staff, -Shift I -ShW2 ShIft3 Ma.m. tojarh. :3 138 141 la�m., to Ia.M. 3 138; 141 O.Mi 10 '3.2! M 3 138:: -141 3,ai M . td .4 a.. m 3 138, 141 4 "a "m t6r!5.-,a"rn., 3 138 141 5'a.m. "to .6'a,M., 3 138 t 141: 6-a.M,to 7AM4 3 13.8 10,.0 7a.m. to B.,zi.M., IR 3 1 13.8 8ta.m.ito 9 19 :138 157 9 axn.'W'10:p (.ni 19 .138 10a.m. t641 cl.th. . 19, 438 :157: 11 aab, to 12 O,tn. 191 138 157 12 p.m.w 1 p. 13.8 157 1pjm; to-:2 p;M. 15 '138 157 2, m. W 3 .m: 138 163 p:m,,to 4'p.m. 19 6 138 163, 4p,rn-to 5 pAjjAM 138 144 5 p.rn. to 6 p.m. .6 -138 144 6 p.m. to 7 m. 6 138 144 7 p.m. to 5:P�Mi 6, 138 14 P.M. to 9 P.M. 13$ 144 9 P.M. to 10 :.m, . 144 10 P:M. to 11 P.M, 6 1 138 .,147. 111 p.m. to 12 a.m., 6: ,3' 138: 147 Datia: 9/9/08 T-A699-271ANP'arking Study\[Nirkldg.,Need" .Xls]Full 0 0 Tabte�3. Full Occupancy + Large Banquet Time of Day P ar It i g Nee06 • Time Period, Hotel staff 'Hotel Guesis conference /' cel SanqUet Ron-Guest, Tow Parking Needs: Shift Shlift.2 S.M." Baniquet 12,.A.M-ta. I "tn. 19 .75: 3 19 138 10, 6. rTi sto 11 a , r1i 141- la.m. to 2 a.m. 11 a.mi'to:12' P.M. 19 —3 12-.m tot P;ffi- 138 '113 75 1 141 2 .'a h i tp,la. . 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. 3 6: 138 :19 14 I 3 z.M. tb,4,o.m, 3 138 141 4 am. to 5 a m. 3 138 141 4 to 5 P.M. 5 pan. to 6 sm'. 6 p.m; to 7 p.mi 7 0,.M. to 0 JJiith 18 Ojij.:td 9, L r ) Jr j. Date: 9/9/08' T..\69,9-2'71A\Parking. St,udy'\[Parkigg Needs.xls]Fuli,wifh 'Ba;iquet 138; 163 6 a.m to Ta.m. 19 Ta.m. to .'8 a.m. 19 8p.m. to9a.m., 19 .75: 9 am. to , 10 a.m. 19 .113 10, 6. rTi sto 11 a , r1i M 413 11 a.mi'to:12' P.M. 19 113 12-.m tot P;ffi- 19 '113 75 1 1 p.m. to 2 P.rh. 19 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. 19 6: 3 p.m;. to 4 pA. :19 6 4 to 5 P.M. 5 pan. to 6 sm'. 6 p.m; to 7 p.mi 7 0,.M. to 0 JJiith 18 Ojij.:td 9, L r ) Jr j. Date: 9/9/08' T..\69,9-2'71A\Parking. St,udy'\[Parkigg Needs.xls]Fuli,wifh 'Ba;iquet 138; 163 138 .163, 138 150 138 .75: 225 138 .113 263. : 138 413 263- 138 113 261 138 138 138 '113 75 1 263 228 147 I 1 8 EDGE OF POOL r DECK ABOVE " - _ b TOTAL SPACES 103 29 _ _ _ REACH ACCESS ice''p 6 47 X10 7 55 52 7 59 52 7 59 296 56 1 352 P.,/ (1 0 f� 0 0 hl 0 f N LOWER SC'N TERRACE EKiSfi4G RIP -RIP EXISTING SEM11 PROPEW LNE PARKING SUMMARY PL P1— BASEMENT P2 P3 P4 P5 TOTAL MARKED SPACES OVERFLOW SPACES TOTAL SPACES 103 29 132 _ 41 6 47 48 7 55 52 7 59 52 7 59 296 56 1 352 � PI- BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL .. FLORIDA DESIGNr CONSULTANTS,� INC. 130500771 GE'LFFIE\1 ROPLEN'ARD re lu�i�i '; �M1: CLFAR�YAIEx BEAC x, RU)M f11 1 T13 PROPERTY u`[ `6' X. CUT; SNCco IED M/ PAWCO Fvl ITI 't PARKING AND S'ALET LOCATION'S STORO WATER VAULT UNDER RAVP. SEE C.IL DWGS. n �.a J co m 3 w_ ti J H N ■■ _ —_ ■� IIIIIJ7!j■ - i :: �tG■ /I i'r � : � I I son IN u■ SHIP iii :i�!, [qm]� �, ■ mo no No Of Is Is an � l_ Ta o• mu ��.. � IIIIPII Jw s F 1 i i t 1 110 TI1 T12 Se rd SBImo._.---- -•--------- Q • a// / --- -------- 0. r ----------------------- jam' b 11 16 t5 11 IJ 12 11 4 39 J6 JI J6 15 �\ 11 It 13 I1 15 16 11 Id 19 M 31 JI L !1 A 1 AB PARKING SPACES 7OVERFI OW SPACES — O i o ox q L5 Is Is J .e is N 0 9 e s 1 4 J 1 1 �l P3 PARKING LEVEL PLAN_ FLORIDA DESKW CONSLLTANTSI61NC.2 acw6dn, ronMarnusrs, wnvn n -- AlosoKriIGOl.rVfER'BOULEVARD PARKING AND VALET LOCATIONS _ 1 , �i � ttEM':lAiEN YFACN, 0.ttiM r VON .ear all Ell 8 A i 5 n1 l,o 112 t9 TTJ 10 s d Nlrrtx IRON Poou ISTO Y Awl 9W Y (\ MET Paul 910 Y Sd P1 PS '. K I 1F9MCE FLO ,N BB1 I Y am Po ® CEIW by ® ,NKOR PRE- RP9alRIK B43LX IJh3 SF 7 w 1 imin 815 - —l— — PI P2 51 51 }(� t9 b 11 9 t5 la t) 11 11 q 39 .tl [RAG 4 L£VAToll RON 1OBBV /1 !IS Y ri 16 11 ie 19 7a 31 7i 77 J1 35 36 21 )A P3 p ` ) ` ;VEW ELEVATOR uE[rc� POW 2 1 52 PARKING SPACES 9:5 Y 7OVERFI OW SPACE' ' f EcNi _ C ] 1 FiVAtOR � 14 IS 16 1) 1e tP 10 11 12 23 24 80 K ELEVATOR 1 MEET x j a�0s Y IJ '2 II IC 9 1 / 6 5 N 3 i I — 1 f 1 I L200 PLAN (MEETING ROOMS) /P5 PARKING LEVEL s jF 4 FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. G &MINE, DESIGN IMV[vM> N CONSULTANTS, 43$SOpTlI GIII.FN'1k:N' BOOLE\'ARU N MRKING AND VALET LO(:A'1'IOYB ...:> FNCN fL «a 5 r Wells, Wayne From: Andrew J. James, RA [ajames @nbww.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:38 AM To: Tefft, Robert Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: Re: 100 Coronado trellis height Mr. Tefft, I can't speak for everyone on the team but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. A parapet is not simply a guardrail height extension of the exterior wall above the roof. Most parapet walls include decorative elements that create a cornice at the top of the wall. Your interpretation suggests that we could extend the blank wall up to the height desired provided there is no horizontal component such as the trellis. That would result in the same massing as perceived from the street but would not look very nice. Oh well, we tried our best. We'll revise the drawings as per your interpretation. We appreciate your thorough consideration of the matter and timely responses. Andrew J. James, RA, LEED AP Associate Nichols Brosch Wurst Wolfe & Associates, Inc. 161 Almeria Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 www.nbww.com tel (305) 443 -5206 fax (305)- 443 -3168 NOTICE: This e -mail message contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. By using the embedded electronic file (s) contained herewith, the recipient assumes all risks associated with their use and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to hold harmless and indemnify NBWW and NBWW's professional associates and consultants from and against all claims, liabilities, losses and expenses including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting therefrom. - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: "Robert Tefft" <Robert.Tefft @MyClearwater.com> To: ajames @nbww.com Cc: "Wayne Wells" <Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:02:53 AM GMT -05:00 US /Canada Eastern Subject: RE: 100 Coronado trellis height Mr. James: The rendering that you sent on Tuesday was adequate for our purposes, but thank you for the additional information as well. The delay in my response was so that we could give full consideration to your position. While we understand your position that it is the intent of this feature is to break -up the massing of the building, it does not meet with the allowances set forth in the definition of height contained in the Code that would allow for additional height. The proposed element is not a parapet, and as such must comply with the maximum allowable height of 100 feet. Robert G. Tefft Development Review Manager City of Clearwater Planning Department Phone: (727) 562 -4539 1 Fax: (727) 562 -4865 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Andrew J. James, RA [mailto:ajames@nbww.com] 1 Sent: Wednesday, September 1,., 2008 5:32 PM To: Tefft, Robert Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: Re: 100 Coronado trellis height Mr. Tefft, Was the rendering sent yesterday not sufficient to suggest how the trellis would be attached? Please keep in mind the rendering was produced before the required design changes so the trellis is too high and extends over the roof. We just thought it might be helpful in communicating the intent. Please take a look at the attached elevation. We are still updating it as per the review comments but you can see how important the pier /trellis component is to break up the horizontality of the building. Please let us know what you think. Andrew J. James, RA, LEED AP Associate Nichols Brosch Wurst Wolfe & Associates, Inc. 161 Almeria Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 www.nbww.com tel (305) 443 -5206 fax (305)- 443 -3168 NOTICE: This e -mail message contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. By using the embedded electronic file (s) contained herewith, the recipient assumes all risks associated with their use and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to hold harmless and indemnify NBWW and NBWW's professional associates and consultants from and against all claims, liabilities, losses and expenses including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting therefrom. - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: "Robert Tefft" <Robert.Tefft @MyClearwater.com> To: ajames @nbww.com Cc: "Wayne Wells" <Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 3:55:20 PM GMT -05:00 US /Canada Eastern Subject: RE: 100 Coronado trellis height Mr. James: Based upon the drawing you've provided, it is not readily apparent how the proposed trellis structure is attached to the building; and as such, I cannot determine how it could be considered part of the parapet. If it cannot be considered a part of the parapet wall, then it cannot exceed the maximum height specified for the zoning district. Robert G. Tefft Development Review Manager City of Clearwater Planning Department Phone: (727) 562 -4539 I Fax: (727) 562 -4865 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Andrew J. James, RA [mailto:ajames @nbww.com) Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:32 PM To: Tefft, Robert Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: Re: 100 Coronado trellis height Thanks, Mr. Tefft 2 Please take a look at the re jed design attached. In this c* the structure permanently affixed to the roof does not accommodate rooftop occupancy. It does not extend over the roof at all and exists only to articulate the elevation of the building. Would this be consistent with your interpretation of the code? Andrew J. James, RA, LEED AP Associate Nichols Brosch Wurst Wolfe & Associates, Inc. 161 Almeria Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 www.nbww.com tel (305) 443 -5206 fax (305)- 443 -3168 NOTICE: This e -mail message contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. By using the embedded electronic file (s) contained herewith, the recipient assumes all risks associated with their use and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to hold harmless and indemnify NBWW and NBWW's professional associates and consultants from and against all claims, liabilities, losses and expenses including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting therefrom. - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: "Robert Tefft" <Robert.Tefft @MyClearwater.com> To: ajames @nbww.com Cc: "Wayne Wells" <Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 2:43:17 PM GMT -05:00 US /Canada Eastern Subject: RE: 100 Coronado trellis height Mr. James: I have reviewed your proposed trellis element with Wayne Wells for consistency with the definition of "height, building or structure ", as set forth in Community Development Code Section 8 -102. What is being proposed clearly constitutes a structure that is permanently affixed to the roof that accommodates rooftop occupancy, and as such cannot exceed the maximum allowable height, which is 100 feet, regardless of what a parapet wall might be permitted. As per your plans, the proposed trellis element would have a height of 103'- 6", which is not consistent with the definition and must be revised. Robert G. Tefft Development Review Manager City of Clearwater Planning Department Phone: (727) 562 -4539 1 Fax: (727) 562 -4865 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:47 PM To: Tefft, Robert Subject: 100 Coronado trellis height Do you want to weigh in on this? - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Andrew J. James, RA [mailto:ajames @nbww.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:22 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Eric Fordin; Jim Wurst; Hunraf Subject: 100 Coronado trellis height Hello, Wayne Please take a look at the attached PDF. As you can see, the proposed trellis element is 3 within the maximum allowable _arapet height. We believe this is consistent with the strictest interpretation of the code and fully conforms to the massing guidelines established by the city. Plan and elevation drawings will be revised accordingly. Please let us know what you think. Andrew J. James, RA, LEED AP Associate Nichols Brosch Wurst Wolfe & Associates, Inc. 161 Almeria Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 www.nbww.com tel (305) 443 -5206 fax (305)- 443 -3168 NOTICE: This e -mail message contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. By using the embedded electronic file (s) contained herewith, the recipient assumes all risks associated with their use and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to hold harmless and indemnify NBWW and NBWW's professional associates and consultants from and against all claims, liabilities, losses and expenses including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting therefrom. 4 r � - Vol"' z `� /� • CLEARWATER BEACH RESORT & HOTEL CLEARWATER, FLORIDA W *`•• [ N- JULY 14, 2008 PROPOSED by THE RELATED GROUP R -1 LEGEND - FusTER El CLEARWATER, FLORIDA ' \`\ SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 PROPOSED by THE RELATED GROUP -,s ,,"�s El U \\ yWURST v w CLEARWATER BEACH RESORT & HOTEL - FusTER ''/� o BROSC S BROSCH CLEARWATER, FLORIDA ' \`\ SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 PROPOSED by THE RELATED GROUP -,s ,,"�s _ U \\ yWURST v w E A -13B r •• e Wells, Wayne • 0 From: Andrew J. James, RA [ajames @nbww.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 4:23 PM To: Tefft, Robert Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: Re: 100 Coronado trellis height Im R -1.pdf Mr. Tefft, I apologize if the design intent is unclear. The.trellis.elements are attached to piers that. extend the full. height. of the building on the. east side.. This is. part of. the gesture that. breaks up the horizontal.elevation. The rendering attached is. several months old and does.not. reflect all.of.the design modifications.made.in response to staff comments but the concept of.how the trellis attaches.to.the piers.is apparent. Please take a look. We can bring.the height.of the piers. down to the top.of the parapet if necessary but this would weaken the.strength of the gesture we are trying to.create with the piers in the first.place. Andrew J.. James, RA, LEED AP Associate Nichols.Brosch Wurst Wolfe & Associates, Inc. 161 Almeria Avenue Coral Gables,. FL 33134 www.nbww.com tel (305) 443 -5206 fax (305) - 443 -3168 NOTICE:. This.e -mail message contains information that may be confidential or. privileged. The. information is intended for the.use of.the.individual.or entity named above. If you are. not the intended recipient, be. aware that. any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of.the.contents of this information is prohibited. By using the.embedded electronic. file (s).contained herewith, the recipient assumes.all risks associated with their use and,. to the fullest extent permitted by law,.to.hold harmless and indemnify NBWW and NBWW's professional associates. and consultants.from and against all claims, liabilities, losses and expenses.including attorney fees,.arising out of or resulting therefrom. - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: "Robert Tefft". <Robert.Tefft @MyClearwater.com> To:.ajames@nbww.com Cc:. "Wayne Wells" . <Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com> Sent:.Tuesday, September.9,.2008 3:55:20 PM GMT - 05:OO.US /Canada Eastern Subject:. RE:. 100. Coronado trellis height Mr. James: Based upon the drawing you've provided, it is. not readily apparent how the proposed trellis structure is attached to the building; and as.such,. I cannot.determine how it could be considered part of the parapet. If it cannot be considered a part of the parapet wall, then it cannot exceed the maximum height specified for the zoning. district. Robert.G. Tefft Development Review Manager City. of. Clearwater Planning.Department Phone:. (727) 562 -4539 1 Fax:. (727).562 -4865 1 - - - -- Original. Message - - - -- • • From: Andrew J. James, RA [mailto:ajames @nbww.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 09,.2008.3:32 PM To: Tefft,.Robert Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: Re: 100 Coronado trellis. height Thanks,. Mr. Tefft Please take. a look at the revised design attached..In this. case the structure. permanently affixed to.the roof does not.accommodate rooftop occupancy. It does not extend over the roof at all and exists.only to articulate the elevation of the building. Would this be consistent with your interpretation of. the code? Andrew. J. James, RA,.LEED.AP Associate Nichols. Brosch Wurst. Wolfe & Associates, Inc. 161 Almeria Avenue Coral. Gables, FL 33134 www.nbww.com tel .(305).443-5206 fax (305)- 443 -3168 NOTICE:. This e -mail message contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The. information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. .If you are. not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. By using the embedded electronic file (s) contained herewith,. the recipient assumes all. risks associated with their use and, to the.fullest extent.permitted by law, to hold harmless.and indemnify NBWW and NBWW's professional associates.and consultants from and against all claims, liabilities, losses and expenses.including.attorney fees, arising out of or resulting therefrom. - - - -- Original.Message. ----- From: "Robert Tefft" <Robert.Tefft @MyClearwater.com> To: ajames @nbww.com Cc: "Wayne. Wells" <Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 2:43:17 PM GMT - 05:00.US /Canada Eastern Subject: RE: 100 Coronado trellis height Mr. James: I have reviewed your proposed trellis.element with Wayne. Wells.for.consistency with the definition of "height,. building or structure ", as.set forth in Community Development. Code Section 8 -102. What is being proposed clearly constitutes a structure that is permanently affixed to the roof that accommodates rooftop occupancy, and as such cannot exceed the maximum allowable height, which is.100 feet, regardless. of.what a parapet wall. might be permitted. As per your plans, the proposed trellis element would have a height of. 1031- 611,. which is not consistent with the definition and must.be revised. Robert G. Tefft Development Review Manager City of. Clearwater Planning Department Phone: (727) 562 -4539 .Fax:. (727).562 -4865 - - - -- Original Message ----- From:.Wells,.Wayne Sent: Tuesday, September: 09, 2008 12:47 PM To: Tefft, Robert Subject: 100 Coronado trellis height Do you want to weigh in on this? ----- Original.Message ----- 2 From: Andrew J. James, RA [ *to:ajames @nbww.com] • Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:22.PM To:. Wells,.Wayne Cc: Eric. Fordin; Jim Wurst; Hunraf Subject: 100 Coronado.trellis. height Hello,.Wayne Please take a look at the attached PDF. As you can see, the proposed trellis. element is. within the maximum allowable parapet height. We believe this is consistent. with the.strictest interpretation of the code and fully conforms to the massing guidelines established by the city. Plan and elevation drawings will be. revised accordingly.. Please.let.us. know what you think. Andrew J.. James, RA,. LEED. AP Associate Nichols Brosch Wurst. Wolfe. & Associates, Inc. 161 Almeria Avenue Coral. Gables, FL 33134 www.nbww.com tel.. (305). 443 -5206 fax (305)- 443 -3168 NOTICE: This e -mail message contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual.or entity named above.. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. By using the embedded electronic file (s) contained herewith, the recipient assumes all risks associated with their use. and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to hold harmless and indemnify NBWW and NBWW's . professional associates and consultants from and against all claifns,.liabilities,.losses and expenses including attorney fees, arising out.of or resulting therefrom. C r Y�1'FTrn11�S *L q. 9.Og : � 0,�2' SECTION CLEARWATER BEACH RESORT & HOTEL FUSTER 4= BROSC NICHOLS H CLEARWATER, FLORIDA �7M WURST SEPTEMBER WOLFE 15, 2008 PROPOSED by THE RELATED GROUP El I 0 • Wells, Wayne From: Tefft, Robert Sent: Tuesday, September 09,2008 2:43 PM To: 'ajames @nbww.com' Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE:. 100 Coronado trellis height Mr. James: I have reviewed your proposed trellis element with Wayne Wells for consistency with the definition of "height, building or structure ", as set forth in Community Development Code Section 8 -102. What is being proposed clearly constitutes a structure that is permanently affixed to the roof that accommodates rooftop occupancy, and as such cannot exceed the maximum allowable height, which is 100 feet, regardless of what a parapet wall might be permitted. As per your plans, the proposed trellis element would have a height of 103'- 6", which is not consistent with the definition and must be revised. Robert G. Tefft Development Review Manager City of Clearwater Planning Department Phone: (727) 562 -4539 1 Fax: (727) 562 -4865 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:47 PM To: Tefft, Robert Subject: 100 Coronado trellis height Do you want to weigh in on this? - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Andrew J. James, RA [mailto:ajames@nbww.coml Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:22 PM 4 To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Eric Fordin; Jim Wurst; Hunraf Subject: 100 Coronado trellis height Hello, Wayne Please take a look at the attached PDF. As you can see, the proposed trellis element is within the maximum allowable parapet height. We believe this is consistent with the strictest interpretation of the code and fully conforms to the massing guidelines established by the city. Plan and elevation drawings will be revised accordingly. Please let us know what you think. Andrew J. James, RA, LEED AP Associate Nichols Brosch Wurst Wolfe & Associates, Inc. 161 Almeria Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 www.nbww.com tel (305) 443 -5206 fax (305)- 443 -3168 NOTICE: This e -mail message contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use 1 of the contents of this info4ktion is prohibited. By using *embedded electronic file (s) contained herewith, the recipient assumes all risks associated with their use and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to hold harmless and indemnify NBWW and NBWW's professional associates and consultants from and against all claims, liabilities, losses and expenses including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting therefrom. lit +aI 9.1.8 PAR TIAL SECTION SCALE: I/4' • I' -0' CLEARWATER BEACH RESORT & HOTEL min FUSTER O NICRHOlS H O BSC CLEARWATER, FLORIDA WURST SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 PROPOSED by THE RELATED GROUP . WOIFE K E A-17 01 • Wells, Wayne From: Rice, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:30 AM To: 'katiec @jpfirm.com' Cc: Bertels, Paul; Quillen, Michael; Elbo, Bennett; Wells, Wayne Subject: FLD2008 -08024 - 432 S Gulfview Katie, We have been evaluating a statement made by a member of your design team since the DRC Meeting last Thursday. In response to the City's question about emergency power, it was stated that there would be sufficient emergency power to operate one freight elevators to evacuate vehicles from the four upper floors of the proposed parking garage. Based upon the numbers in the "Vehicular Elevator Movement Analysis" included with the application, using one elevator would require just over 11 hours to complete the evacuation. With the uncertainty associated the path of a hurricane (i.e. Charlie), the use of one elevator may not provide sufficient response time and could create an unsafe condition. The City believes the emergency power system should be designed to power more than one freight elevator.. D. Scott Rice, PE Assistant Engineering Director City of Clearwater (727) 562 -4781 • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Saturday, September 06,. 2008.4:21. PM To: Jayne Sears (E -mail) Subject: 430 S.. Gulfview Blvd. Final 9.4.08 C Action Agend 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: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:22 PM To: Jayne Sears (E -mail) Subject: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Jayne - • Attached are the Draft DRC Comments for the September 4, 2008, DRC meeting, to be held at 1:45 pm in Room 216 of the Planning Department offices. 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 KM Draft 9.4.08 C Action Agend Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 10:39 AM To: Jayne Sears (E -mail) Subject: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Jayne - Attached is the Letter of Completeness for the above referenced project. The original is being mailed. 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 Im letter of ipleteness 8.8.0 rwater U August 08, 2008 Ed Armstrong Po Box 1368 Clearwater, F133757 -1368 OCITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4576 WW W. MYCLEARWATER.COM VIA FAX: 727- 462 -0365 RE: FLD2008 -08024 -- 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD -- Letter of Completeness Dear Ed Armstrong : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2008- 08024. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on September 04, 2008, in the Planning Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal SerVi AC Biiilrling, The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in downtown Clearwater. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments may be generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727 -562 -4504 or Wayne.Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, Wavn Wells, AICP Planner III Letter of Completeness - FLD2008 -08024 - 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Adam's Mark Site, 430 E Thanks. Goes into a letter for Bill Horne. From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 5:03 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Adam's Mark Site, 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. 5:09 PM Gulfview Blvd. FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 was approved by the CDB on October 21, 2008, with Condition of Approval #1 granting a.two year Development Order ('til 10/21/10 to submit for a building permit). On November 18, 2009, a two -year time extension, based on SB 360, was granted to October 21, 2012, to submit for a building permit. From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, January 06, 20114:38 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Adam's Mark Site Wayne — Did they qualify for or get the two year extension a allowed by the legislature or are they expired DO? Michael L. Delk, AICP Planning and Development Director City of Clearwater, Florida 727 -562 -4561 727 - 562 -4865 fax michael.delk @myclearwater.com • Wells, Wayne From: Tefft, Robert Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 1:40 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Timeline for Ocean's Property 6, Wayne: Can you draft that letter we discussed last week (Friday) regarding the former Adams Mark property as per the below comments. Thanks —and ASAP, please. - Robert From: Delk, Michael Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 4:43 PM To: Tefft, Robert Subject: FW: Timeline for Ocean's Property Robert —FYI. Make contact and get as much of an update from them as you can get. Thank you. M'1C.`] From: Silverboard, Jill Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:39 PM To: Delk, Michael Cc: Quillen, Michael Subject: Timeline for Ocean's Property Michael — I left you a message earlier today on the subject. We can discuss timing at SET on Monday, but staff needs to contact Ocean's Property as to their timeline for redevelopment. The Mayor asked that we schedule an update on same for a Worksession once we have information from them. Thanks, Jill Jill Silverboard, Assistant City Manager City of Clearwater, Florida 727.562.4053 fill .silverboard(a�myclearwater.com 1 0 0 Wells, Wayne . From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 1:54 PM To: Hovatter, Laurie Subject: The Old Adam's. Mark property Laurie - Case No. FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 for 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. was approved by the Community Development Board (CDB) on October 21, 2008, to permit a 230 -room hotel. They were approved to submit a building permit no later than. October 21, 2010, unless time extension are approved (which could extend such time frame an additional two years). They did indicate. at the public hearing a desire. to move forward as soon as possible. (pending economic issues). The owner and developer are the same: Michael Walsh, Salt Block 57, LLC, 1001 E. Atlantic Avenue, Suite 202, Delray Beach, FL 33483; phone: 561- 279 -9900; fax: 561- 276 - 1563. If you want to see the site and building plans, I have them in my office at this time. Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hovatter, Laurie Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:25 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: The Old Adam's Mark property Hi Wayne, I am hoping that you can help me or tell me who could provide this information.. My boss Geri Campos - Lopez has asked me to. find out information on this property. We. have heard that there was a contract approved for building on this property. We would like to know when it was approved, the projected start date, who is the developer, how many rooms are there going to be and if you have any contact information for the developer. Any information that you could proved would be greatly appreciated. thank you, Laurie Hovatter 727 - 562 -4024 City of Clearwater Economic Development & Housing Specialist Pagel of 2 lampabair.cOM Know it now. Towers get green - lighted. By Mike Brassfeld, Times Staff Writer Published Tuesday, October 21, 2008 8:16 PM. CLEARWATER — Two hotels that were familiar sights on. Clearwater Beach, the Adams Mark and the Spyglass Resort, got knocked down to make way for major new projects. Both of those projects won approval Tuesday from a city development board, but you can probably expect to see one of them under construction much sooner than the other. On the old Adams Mark property, an international hotel company plans to build a crescent - shaped, 15 -story. beachfront hotel. That may happen relatively soon. But on the Spyglass property, a megaproject called the Clearwater Beach Resort & Hotel is facing delays because of the weak economy. "It's very difficult to say when it will begin. The economic times are challenging," said Dr. Kiran Patel, the Tampa entrepreneur and philanthropist who's building the $250 - million project. "We'd like to start tomorrow, but we just have to wait until the market conditions make it possible." Next month, Patel and his partners will ask the Clearwater City Council to give them an extension on their deadline to start construction. In return, city officials may require them to spruce up the temporary parking lot that's there in the meantime. "Right now it's a dirt lot. It's on a pretty prominent part of BeachWalk, and it's an eyesore," Mayor Frank Hibbard said. He and other officials would prefer to see a paved, landscaped lot similar to the city lot at Pier 60 nearby. Patel said in an interview Tuesday that he's willing to cooperate with the city. He was at a meeting of the city's Community Development Board, which approved his project and another one on Clearwater Beach after debating whether they have enough parking in their plans. Here are the details on both: Ocean Properties site: For nearly 30 years, the 14 -story Adams Mark was a local landmark at 430 S Gulfview Blvd. It was demolished three years ago to make way for a condo tower. That didn't work out due to the troubled housing market.. Ocean Properties, an international hotel developer and manager that operates more than 100 hotels, intends to build a 230 -room hotel on the site with a restaurant, bar, ballroom and five -story. garage. "They are very strong financially, and my sense is they're going ahead in the very near term," said Ed Armstrong, a Clearwater attorney representing the company. "I think they're anxious to proceed. ". Clearwater Beach Resort & Hotel: Where the Spyglass recently stood at the split of S Gulfview and Coronado Drive, Patel is planning a 900,000- square -foot project a pair of 150- foot -tall towers connected by a 95- foot -tall building. It was originally going to be mostly condos, but then the condo market collapsed. On Tuesday, the Community Development Board approved a new design mapping out 250 hotel rooms and suites and 200 weekly time -share rooms. Developers will now ask the city for an extension — a construction start date in 2011 rather than 2010. Patel says he still intends to build the resort:. "The sooner, the better." Mike Brassfield can be reached at brassfieid@sptimes.com or (727) 445 -4160. http: / /www.tampabay.com/ news/ localgovernment/article865244.ece 10/22/2008 u V a u IG * , U1 lul TO: Members of the Community Development Board FROM: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III DATE: October 21, 2008 RE: FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard After discussion with the applicant, Conditions of Approval #7 and #10f are revised as follows (deleted language is stfikedwough and added language is underlined): Conditions of Approval: 1. That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later than October 21, 2010, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to Section 4-407; 2. That the final design and color of the overnight accommodation building be consistent with the conceptual elevations approved by the CDB; 3. That a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 4. That there be no public /guest use of any roof 100 feet or higher; 5. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, Level 1, 0 be designed with only 22 rooms, so that the total number of rooms does not exceed 230 rooms; 6. That suites on all floors be designed to have only one door to the exterior hallway; 7. That prior to issuance of permits for any proposed structures north and west of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), the applicant submit a copy of the appropriate State of Florida aQencX approval for that construction north and west of the CCCL; 8. That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks or variances obtained prior to the issuance of any building permits; 9. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the vertical clear height of all the parking garage levels be not less than 7 feet including entrance and exit (Florida Building Code 2004, Section 406.2.2); 10. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, site and landscape plans be revised to show the following: a. pursuant to Section 3- 904.13, comply with the dimensional requirements and restrictions for waterfront visibility triangles; b. pursuant to Section 3 -805.13 and the location of the building, revising the chain link fencing east of the solid masonry wall along the south property line to a vinyl or vertical metal grillwork, as acceptable to the Planning Department; c. revise the chain link fencing west of the solid masonry wall to a vinyl or vertical metal grillwork, as acceptable to the Planning Department, and the fencing type and height within the waterfront visibility triangle must meet the requirements of Sections 3 -804.0 and 3- 904.13; d. pursuant to Section 3- 904.A, correctly indicate such sight visibility triangles at the northern driveway and modify landscaping to comply with such requirements; e. pursuant to Section 3- 1204.1), curb the south edge of the southern service drive with vertical concrete curbing; and . f. palm and other accent trees planted in the landscape area along the western portion along the north property line, in an amount and location acceptable to the Planning men Director; 11. That any future freestanding sign be a monument -style sign and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. The maximum height shall be four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program; FLD2008 -08024 - Page 1 of 2 • 12. That sea -turtle friendly light fixtures be employed with the site design, with compliance demonstrated on plans acceptable to the Environmental Engineering Division, prior to the issuance of building permits; 13. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 14. That all Parks and. Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. S. IPlanning DepartmentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)IPending casesl Up for the next CDBIGulfview S 0430 New Hotel 2008 (T) - 10.21.08 CDB - WWIGulfview S 0430 - Memo - Amended Conditions of Approval 10.21.08.doc FLD2008 -08024 — Page 2 of 2 CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND Resort Facilities High (RFH) USE CATEGORY: BEACH BY DESIGN South Beach/Clearwater Pass District CHARACTER DISTRICT: Community Development Board — October 21, 2008. FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 =Page 1 of 16 ti CDB Meeting Date: October 21, 2008 Case Numbers: FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 R p N A Agenda Item: E3 ,'° t Owner /Applicant:. Salt Block 57, LLC Representative: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire Address: 430 South Gulfview Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units (as established by Cases FLD2005- 01005, FLD2005 -05047 and FLD2007- 11034); where 93. overnight accommodation units are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6 -109; (2) Flexible. Development approval to permit a 230 -room overnight accommodation use (hotel) in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 81,450 square feet/1.87 acres zoned Tourist District (2.45 total acres; 0.58 acres of total acreage zoned Open Space/Recreation District), a lot width of 236 feet, a front (east) setback of 2.5 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and to permit a sidewalk 10 feet seaward of the CCCL, a side (south) setback of 16 feet (to building), 1.5 feet (to pavement) and zero feet (to privacy wall), a rear (west) setback of two feet (to building) from the CCCL and to permit concrete patios 13 feet seaward of the CCCL, a building height of 150 feet above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to top of roof deck and 296 valet -only parking spaces at 1.286 parking spaces per hotel room, as a Comprehensive. Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C, and three driveways where the two northernmost driveways are spaced 110 feet apart and the two southernmost driveways are spaced 18 feet apart, where 125 feet is, required by Section 3 -102 and approval of a two -year development order; and (3) including the Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay. Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4- 1402. CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND Resort Facilities High (RFH) USE CATEGORY: BEACH BY DESIGN South Beach/Clearwater Pass District CHARACTER DISTRICT: Community Development Board — October 21, 2008. FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 =Page 1 of 16 ti • PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant .Proposed Use: 230 Overnight Accommodation units EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District Beach SURROUNDING ZONING South: Tourist (T) District Attached dwellings AND USES: East: Tourist (T) District Restaurant; Retail sales and services; Overnight accommodations West: Preservation (P) District Water. ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 2.45 total acres (1.87 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.58 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation District) is located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater Beach.. The former Adam's Mark Hotel on this property closed due to damage sustained during Hurricane Jeanne in September 2004. The Community Development Board (CDB) has taken the following actions since the closing of the former Adam's Mark Hotel: On April 19, 2005, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved with 10 conditions Case Nos. FLD2005- 01005 /SGN2005 -01016 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to allow the continuation of an existing 217 - room/unit hotel (where 74 rooms /units were permitted at that time) and for height to allow the existing 155 -foot high building (where a maximum height of 150 feet is permitted today); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 217 - room/unit overnight accommodation use with reductions to setbacks, an increase to building height to 155 feet (to existing roof deck) and a reduction to required parking from 217 to 201. spaces (existing), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; (3) Reduction to the required interior landscape area, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program; and (4) Comprehensive Sign Program approval (SGN2005- 01016). On August 16, 2005, . the CDB approved with 18 conditions Case Nos. FLD2005- 05047/TDR2005 -05022 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units existing to be converted to 104 dwelling units; where 56 dwelling units were permitted at that time); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use of 112 attached dwelling units and 78 overnight accommodation rooms /units with reductions to setbacks, increases to building height to 100 feet for the overnight accommodation building tower and to 150 feet for the residential tower (to roof deck), a reduction to driveway spacing from 125 feet to 90 feet and a deviation to allow direct access to a arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005- 05022) of four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade. On January 15, 2008, the CDB. approved with 15 conditions Case Nos. FLD2007- 11034/TDR2005 -05022 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today);. (2) Flexible. Development approval to permit 230 overnight accommodation units with reductions to setbacks, an increase to building height to 100 feet (to roof deck) and to 150 feet (to roof deck). for two portions of the building, a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street and to allow a two -year time frame to submit for a building permit, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 2 of 16 0 0 under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade. The hotel was not reopened and was demolished on October 8, 2005, under BCP2005- 09027.. The western submerged portion of the property is the Gulf of Mexico. The property is currently being used a temporary parking lot as approved by the City. The 440 and 450 West attached dwelling condominiums towers are located to the south of this subject property and are 157 feet in height (each tower). The properties directly east of this property are developed with retail sales and services and restaurant uses. The City's Beach Walk project has been constructed transforming South Gulfview Boulevard to the north of this site into a winding beachside promenade with lush landscaping, artistic touches and clear views to. Clearwater's award - winning beach and the water beyond. A City public parking lot is located to the north of this property. Development Proposal: The proposal is to construct a new hotel building on the property consisting of 230 overnight accommodation units. The nonconforming status of the prior hotel density has been determined to still be valid, even though the hotel was demolished, due to the status of the approval of Case Nos. FLD2007- 11034/TDR2005- 05022. The proposal includes amenities accessory to the hotel, such as meeting rooms, spa, pool, restaurant and bar. The proposed hotel building has a distinctive contemporary design that will make it an attractive landmark at this location. From a bird's eye view, the 150 -foot tall, tower portion of the building will look like a crescent or arc on top of the five -story parking, amenities and meeting room/ballroom base, providing a stepped massing of the building. The building design provides all hotel units with water views and provides easy access to for all guests to access the public. beach and nearby businesses. The building's shape is a thin, tiered curve that acts as a focal point to the views from the adjacent beach and waterway. The curve acts as a "hinge" element that links the Beach Walk District from the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District. Development of the proposed hotel on this property will not impede the future redevelopment of properties to the east. It is not anticipated that properties to the north (beach) and south (440 West condominiums) will be redeveloped in the near future. Other than the basement parking level, the parking garage is located in the southeastern portion of the building. An arrival lobby is provided on parking level 1. Level 1 is the main lobby level, along with hotel administrative offices, restaurant, bar, fitness center, spa and parking level 2. Level 2 provides a junior ballroom of 1,370 square feet and meeting rooms. Level 3 provides a 9,600 square -foot ballroom. Levels 4 — 9 provide. 23 hotel rooms on each floor. Level 10 is indicated to have 22 hotel rooms, although there is no floor plan that shows such. Levels 11 — 12 provide 15. hotel rooms and a large concierge /amenity area (two stories in height) for meetings or parties. Levels 14 — 15 provide 14 hotel rooms for each floor, while Level 16 provides 12 hotel rooms. Single hotel rooms will provide 437 square feet of floor area, while the suites are generally double the single size of room. The proposed hotel consists of four rooftop levels — one being the top of the ballroom area at approximately 59 feet; the second being the southerly portion of the hotel tower adjacent to the 440 West condominium building, having a maximum height of 100 feet; the third being just north of the second roof having a height of approximately 140. feet; and the fourth being the hotel tower having a height of a maximum of 150 feet to the flat roof deck. That portion of the building exceeding 100 feet in height is separated from the 440 West condominium building by 107.5 feet, exceeding the Beach by Design and the Transfer of Development Rights minimum requirement of a 100 -foot separation. The materials and color of the building will support the streamline language of the architecture and its natural surroundings. The building will be painted linen ruffle white, accented by alabaster. The window mullions, railing caps and decorative grills will be arcadia silver. Balcony railings will be clear glass. The pool area is located at the northwesterly portion of the site, adjacent to Community Development Board October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 3 of 16 0 0 the beach, to minimize noise and visual distractions and impacts to the 440 West condominiums to the south. With the height and location of the adjacent 440 West condominiums, the proposed hotel design is compatible with the surrounding uses. Parking for the hotel guests and employees is provided in a five -story, on -site parking garage containing 296 parking spaces at 1.286 parking spaces per hotel room, which will be 100 percent valet parked.. Parking levels above the basement level (Levels 2 - 5) are solely accessed by three hydraulic powered vehicular. elevators. No guests or other public. will access the .parking garage; only valet employees will park and retrieve vehicles from the parking garage. The parking garage will include stacked or tandem spaces, where another car must be moved to get the. stacked or tandem car out, and .will employ the stacking of vehicles in drive aisles to create additional valet spaces when necessary, resulting in a total of 352 parking spaces in a worst case scenario (full occupancy and a large banquet). The site is designed with three driveways on S. Gulfview Boulevard. The northern driveway will be an entrance only, providing access to the porte cochere for the valet service, a middle, exit -only driveway for guests and a southern driveway for service and delivery vehicles. The garage will be accessed by valet drivers on the south side of the building. The applicant is requesting a two -year development order due to market conditions. Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must be submitted within one year of the date. the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise. specified under this approval. Density: Pursuant to the Countywide. Future Land Use Plan, the maximum density for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities. High is 50 overnight accommodation units per acre. Based on the 1.87 acres zoned Tourist District, a maximum of 93 overnight accommodation units are permissible under current regulations. The former Adam's Mark Hotel had 217 units, which was nonconforming to current regulations. The applicant is requesting Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to maintain the same number of overnight accommodation units in a conforming manner (see discussion below). The applicant previously transferred eight dwelling units under TDR2005 -05022 from three. locations on the beach to this site and intends to convert these eight dwelling units to 13. overnight accommodation units (1.67 conversion ratio) to permit the 230 -room proposed hotel (see Transfer of Development Rights discussion later in this Staff Report). Termination of Status of Nonconformity: The development proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where. 93. overnight accommodation units are permitted today). The nonconforming status of the prior hotel density. has been determined to still be valid, even though the hotel was demolished, due to the status of the approval of Case Nos. FLD2007- 11034/TDR2005- 05022. An important factor in this case is the ability to retain an overnight accommodation use on the beach where many hotels /motels have been lost to condominium (attached dwelling) construction. The criteria for Termination of Status of Nonconformity, as per Section 6 -109 of the Community Development Code and outlined in the table below, including compliance with perimeter buffer requirements, the provision of required landscaping for off - street parking lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses /structures into compliance with the Code will be met with this development proposal. Community Development Board —. October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 4 of 16 • • Consistent I Inconsistent 1. Perimeter buffers conforming to the requirements of Section 3- 1202.D of the N/A Community Development Code shall be installed. 2. Off - street parking lots shall be improved to meet the landscaping standards established X in Section 3- 1202.E of the Community Development Code. X 3. Any nonconforming sign, outdoor lighting or other accessory structure or accessory X use located on the lot shall be terminated, removed or brought into conformity with this development code. X 4. The comprehensive landscaping and comprehensive sign programs may be used to X satisfy the requirements of this section. Pursuant to Section 3- 1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District. The temporary parking lot will be removed upon construction of this proposal. All proposed parking will be within a parking garage, where landscaping is not required. Any prior nonconforming signs, outdoor lighting or other accessory structures /uses have already been removed when the Adam's Mark Hotel was demolished. A Comprehensive Landscape Program is not required for this proposal, as the proposed landscaping meets Code requirements. Should the applicant desire attached or freestanding signage in excess of minimum Code requirements, the Comprehensive Sign Program may be used for proposed signage. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): Pursuant to Section 4 -1402 of the Community Development Code, parcels governed by a special area plan, such as Beach by Design, may only receive density . transfers from parcels within the same special area plan. The Code does not limit the number of overnight accommodation units that may be transferred to this site, as opposed to residential transfers that may not exceed the otherwise applicable maximum density by more than 20 percent. However, for comparative purposes, the maximum number of overnight accommodation units permitted today on this site is 93 units, where a 20 percent transfer would be a maximum of 18 units. In this case, eight dwelling units were previously transferred to this site and are being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units, which is less than 20 percent of the maximum number of overnight accommodation units permitted today. The applicant has previously transferred a total of eight dwelling units under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579. Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade. This proposal is recognizing this prior transfer. Accordingly, the TDR has been found to be consistent with the requirements of Section 4 -1402 and Section 4 -1403 of the Community Development Code as outlined in the following table: Consistent I Inconsistent 1. The development of the parcel proposed for development will not reduce the fair market X value of abutting properties; 2. The uses within the project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; X 3. The uses or mix of uses within the project are compatible with adjacent land uses; X 4. The development of the parcel proposed for development will upgrade the immediate X vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and 5. The design of the proposed project creates a form and function that enhances the X community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Impervious Surface Ratio (I.S.R.): Pursuant to Section 2 -801.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.914, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Community Development Board — October 21, 2008. FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 5 of 16 Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to. Table 2 -803 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot area for overnight accommodations is 20,000 square. feet. The subject property is 81,450 square feet in area landward of the seawall (zoned Tourist District). Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for overnight accommodations can range between 100 — 150 feet. The lot width of this site along South Gulfview Boulevard is 236 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2 -803 of the Community Development Code, the minimum front setback for overnight accommodations can range between zero — 15 feet, the minimum side setback can range between zero — 10 feet and the minimum rear setback can range between zero 20 feet. This site contains a Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) along the west and north sides of the property. Section 3 -905.A requires setbacks to be measured from the CCCL. The proposal includes a front (east) setback of 2.5 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and to permit a sidewalk 10 feet seaward of the CCCL, a side (south) setback of 16 feet (to building), 1.5 feet (to pavement) and zero feet (to privacy wall) and a rear (west) setback of two feet (to building) from the CCCL and to permit concrete patios 13 feet seaward of the CCCL. The tower portion of the proposed building is set back 31.1 feet at its northeast corner from the front property line. along S. Gulfview Boulevard. Balconies beginning on the meeting room Level 2 are set back 25 feet to the front property line. The southeast corner of the building is set back approximately. 42 feet from the front property line. The support columns for the porte cochere at a distance of 2.5 feet to the front property line and are the only building structure located within the front setback. The stairs leading to the porte cochere from the sidewalk within the S. Gulfview Boulevard right -of -way is also located within the front setback. The pavement for the porte cochere is set back approximately 10 feet from the front property line. The proposed building is set back 16 feet from the south property line. The pavement for the drive on the south side of the building is setback 1.5 feet from the south property line. In response to 440 West condominium resident requests in order to mitigate negative views and noise from the loading area, the applicant is proposing a six -foot high wall along a portion of the south property line. The CCCL along the north property line is at an angle to and is not parallel with the. north property line, being narrower at the front property line and wider towards the seawall at the rear of the building. The proposed setback to. the side (north) setback to zero feet to the building is at the. western portion of the building where the CCCL cuts greatest into the property and is for the pool deck, stairs and handicap ramping. The pool deck will be approximately. 8.5 feet above the ground level. The tower will be set back 7.5 feet from the north CCCL, with the balconies at 2.5 feet from the north CCCL, whereas the tower will be approximately 10 feet from the north property line at its closest point. The proposal includes a sidewalk adjacent to the north property line from the east end of the handicap ramp to the sun terrace paver area on the western end of the property seaward of the CCCL. On the west side of the property, stairs from the pool deck to the sun terrace on the ground will be set back two feet from the CCCL, whereas the basement parking level and pool deck will be primarily set back eight feet from the CCCL (except a 24 -foot wide area close to the pool at a five -foot setback to the CCCL). The proposed tower portion of the building is set back approximately 35 feet from the western CCCL. The proposal includes a sun terrace paver area on the western portion of the property adjacent to the seawall seaward of the CCCL. The Building Code requires an 18 -foot setback from the seawall. Any approval of this application should be conditioned on the applicant receiving approval from the State to have the both sun terrace paver area on the west side and the. sidewalk along the north side seaward of the CCCL.. Additionally, any approval should be conditioned on the applicant receiving a variance from the seawall setbacks according to the Building Code. Community Development Board — October 21, 2008. FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 6 of 16 0 0 Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2 -803 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable height for overnight accommodation uses is 100 feet. Beach by Design permits buildings up to a maximum of 150 feet through the use of Transfer of Development Rights, which this proposal employs. The proposed hotel consists of four rooftop levels — one being the top of the ballroom area at approximately 59 feet; the second being the southerly portion of the hotel tower adjacent to the 440 West condominium building, having a maximum height of 100 feet; the third being just north of the second roof having a height of approximately 140 feet; and the fourth being the hotel tower having a height of a maximum of 150 feet to the flat roof deck. That portion of the building exceeding 100 feet in height is separated from the 440 West condominium building by 107.5 feet, exceeding the Beach by Design and the Transfer of Development Rights minimum requirement of a 100 -foot separation. The applicant has previously transferred eight dwelling units to this property from three other properties on the beach. Based on a conversion factor of 1.67 (50 overnight accommodation units to 30 dwelling units), these eight dwelling units convert to 13 overnight accommodation units. The proposed height of the lower and taller portions of the tower is consistent and compatible with the heights of adjacent properties. There is a reasonable relationship between the number of units being transferred to this site and the. increase in height above 100 feet.. This site is located within the Clearwater Pass District of Beach by Design, which is indicated as a distinctive area of mixed use, including high -rise condominiums and resort hotels. The applicant has submitted documentation indicating compliance with the Beach by Design criteria for no more than two buildings more than 100 feet in height within 500 feet of each other. The proposal also complies with the Code requirements under the definition of "Height, Building or Structure" for elevator and stair overruns and mechanical rooms, which are permitted to extend a maximum of 16 feet above the otherwise permitted height. Since both portions of the roof meet the maximum height limitations of the Code and Beach by Design, the definition of "Height, Building or Structure" does not allow rooftop occupancy by the public or guests. Approval of this request should be conditioned prohibiting such rooftop use. The design of this project creates a form and function that will be consistent with and enhance the character of this area Minimum Off - Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2 -803 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required parking is one parking space per unit, or 230 parking spaces. Parking for the hotel guests and employees is provided in a five -story, on -site parking garage containing 296 parking spaces at 1.286 parking spaces per hotel room, which will be 100 percent valet parked. Parking levels above the basement level (Levels 2 — 5) are solely accessed by three, 125 feet per minute, 7,000 -pound hydraulic powered vehicular elevators. Two of these elevators also access the ballroom level. The parking garage will be adequately staffed to ensure all vehicles are efficiently parked without excess backup. The 296 parking spaces will be provided on the various parking levels as follows: Level 1 — 103 spaces; Level 2 — 41 spaces; Level 3 — 48 spaces; and Levels 4 — 5 — 52 spaces on each level. Of the 296 parking spaces provided, 121 spaces are designed as stacked or tandem spaces where another car must be moved to get the stacked or tandem car out. The submitted Parking Study demonstrates that stacking of vehicles in drive aisles to create additional valet spaces when necessary will result in a total of 352 parking spaces in a worst case scenario (full occupancy and a large banquet). The parking garage must comply with the Building Code and have a vertical clear height for all parking garage levels of not less than seven feet including the entrance and exit. This clear height includes any structural beams, fire sprinkler pipes and heads, electrical conduits and lighting, drainage pipes and any other building elements. The parking is designed to accommodate hotel guests and staff, as well as provide holding space for taxis and airport shuttles awaiting fares. The site is designed with three driveways on S. Gulfview Boulevard. The northern driveway will be an entrance only, providing access to the porte cochere. The porte cochere drive will be one -way only travel (north to south), three lanes wide, be serviced by valet only and provide stacking space for 21 vehicles. Guests departing will exit the property to S. Gulfview Boulevard using the middle, exit -only driveway. The southern driveway is for service and delivery vehicles, Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 7 of 16 0 • separated so as to not interfere with the valet operation in front of the hotel. Valet drivers will access the garage by an internal drive between the middle and southern driveways and will access the porte cochere from the garage by a garage exit at the northern driveway. The service drive on the' south side of the hotel provides access to two loading spaces, which are not required by Code, and the compactor. dumpster. This service area will prevent blocking traffic on South Gulfview Boulevard. The applicant will provide a 10 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along the site frontage of South Gulfview Boulevard with a shell finish, in accordance with Beach Walk specifications. Driveways for this proposal allow direct access to S. Gulfview Boulevard. The site has no other means of street access except to S. Gulfview Boulevard, which is currently designated an arterial street in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive. Plan. Access is much as the former. Adam's Mark Hotel previously had. With Beach Walk construction, Coronado Drive will function as the main arterial street between the roundabout and Hamden Drive, south of the subject property. This change of street designation will be included in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to Section 3- 20LD.1 of the Community Development Code, all outside. mechanical equipment shall be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The proposed parking garage will have walls and screens concealing views of vehicles, where fans may be necessary to effect air flow in the garage. Such fans will be indicated on the. building plans when submitted to comply with Building Code requirements. The applicant is proposing mechanical equipment to be located on the roofs of the building or within enclosures meeting Code requirements for maximum height above the flat roof. Based upon this, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoorr mechanical equipment. Sight Visibility. Triangles: Pursuant to Section 3 -904.A of the Community Development Code, to minimize hazards at driveway intersections with South Gulfview Boulevard, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20 -foot sight visibility triangles. The site and landscape plans do not correctly indicate the sight visibility triangles on the'north and south sides of the northern driveway. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the site and landscape plans need to be revised to correctly indicate such sight visibility triangles and modifyy proposed improvements as necessary. Pursuant to Section 3 -904.B of the Community Development Code, to enhance views of the water from waterfront property, no structures or landscaping may be installed (other than non - opaque fences not exceeding 36- inches in height) within waterfront visibility triangles.. The proposal indicates a waterfront visibility triangle at the southwest corner of the seawall adjacent to the 440 West condominiums. but the triangle is not drawn according to Code requirements. Prior to. the issuance of any permits, the applicant will need to correctly show the waterfront visibility triangle on the. site and landscape plans and comply with the. restrictions for such, including fence heights. Utilities: Pursuant to Section 3 -911 of the Community Development Code, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The civil site plan for this proposal indicates that all on- site electric and communication lines will be placed underground in conformance with this Code. requirement. Landscaping_ Pursuant to Section 3- 1202.D of the Community Development Code, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District for this site. The landscape design incorporates plant material that is native and salt tolerant, while providing visual interest. Medjool Date Palms are proposed along the front of the site to provide height and scale to the building. The pedestrian scale along South Gulfview Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 8 of 16 0 0 Boulevard will be further enhanced through the use of accent shrubs and dense groundcover beds. The eastern portion of the north side and the south and west sides of the building will be enhanced with Cabbage Palms and other salt tolerant vegetation to create a landscape that will contribute to the overall sense of place and be coordinated with Beach Walk improvements to provide a seamless feel between properties. Due to the closeness of the building (pool deck, stairs and handicap ramping) to the north property line and the sidewalk along the north property line form the end of the handicap ramp to the western end of the property line, the applicant is only proposing hedges for landscaping. within this western portion of the north side. The pool deck is approximately 8.5 feet above ground elevation. Much like the west side, Staff believes that palms and other accent trees can be planted within this area to help soften this northern edge of the building, without compromising views by guests to the beach. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the landscape plan should be revised to include trees within the landscaping area on this western portion of the northern property line. The proposed on -site landscaping otherwise complies with and exceeds Code requirements. Vertical concrete curbing is required on -site to protect landscape materials and areas from vehicular encroachment. The south edge of the southern service drive is not curbed. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the civil plans should be amended to include such curbing.. The site plan proposes a six -foot high chain link fencing along south property line east and west of the solid masonry wall. Pursuant to Section 3 -8053 and the location of the building, there can be no chain link fencing east of this wall. Staff believes a higher quality fence than chain is appropriate to provide a barrier between the proposed hotel and the adjacent attached dwellings, such as a vinyl fence or vertical metal grillwork (east or west of the solid masonry wall). The fencing type and height within the waterfront visibility triangle must also meet the requirements of Sections 3 -804.0 and 3- 904.B. Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize hotel housekeeping staff to remove trash from units and transport the trash to the trash compactor located on the. south side of the property. A storage room for recyclables is also provided adjacent to the loading area. Trash and recycling trucks will back into the service drive from S. Gulfview Boulevard. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. Si ng age: No freestanding or attached signage is proposed at this time for this overnight accommodation use. Freestanding signage in the Tourist District is restricted to a maximum height of four feet, or six feet through a Comprehensive Sign Program. Any approval of this application should include. a condition allowing for freestanding signage, where such future freestanding signage must be a monument -style sign meeting Code requirements and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. Additional Beach by Design Guidelines: Section B.3 requires the floorplate of any building exceeding 45 feet in height be limited to. a maximum of 25,000 square feet between 45 — 100 feet and a maximum of 10,000. square feet between 100 — 150 feet, but allows deviations to these floorplate requirements provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above 45 feet. The largest floorplate between 45 — 100 feet is approximately 13,879 square feet and between 100 — 150 feet it is approximately 12,837 square feet. The applicant requests such deviation to the floorplate restriction between 100 — 150 feet. The Design Guidelines provide that no more than 60 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelop located above 45 feet be occupied by a building. The applicant has calculated the overall building mass between 45. — 150 feet at 21.8 percent, almost one -third of the maximum permissible. This Staff Report has discussed the stepback of the crescent - shaped tower and the thin nature of the tower reduces the overall mass and scale of the building, which Staff believes is acceptable to justify the increased floorplates proposed. Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 9. of 16 0 0 Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length.. The proposed building footprint is approximately 38,000 square feet. The project's overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately 212 feet along South Gulfview Boulevard and 300 feet along the north side, while the vertical plane is approximately 160 feet from grade to the top of the tallest roof. None of these dimensions are equal. Modulation of the building massing also provides considerable dimensional variation. Section C.2 requires no. plane or elevation to. continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more. than five feet.. The tower portion of the building is crescent shaped, creating a continuously curving fagade and therefore, no. plane is continuous for more than 30. feet. The waterside of the tower fagade is also modulated through the depth and framing methods of the balconies. There is a one -room break in balconies along the north side, creating a pause or gap in the balconies on the fagade. Other balconies along the northwest and west sides between Floors 4 — 11 are framed with end walls to create a different appearance. This break from balconies is widened on Floors 12 - 16, further tempering the fagade. Balconies are of different depths, which help interrupt the plane of the fagade. Balconies on the north side east of the one -room break and on Floors 12 — 16 on the northwest and west sides are five feet in depth, while the balconies that are framed with walls on Floors 4 — 11 on the northwest and west sides are 8.5 feet in depth.. Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The applicant has calculated that the north elevation is at 68 percent, the east elevation at 61 percent, the south elevation at 62 percent and the west elevation at 70 percent. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code. Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board - October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 10 of 16 • • COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use proposal with the standards as per Tables 2 -801.1 and 2 -803 of the Community Development Code: I Per Termination of Status of Nonconformity, conversion calculations and Transfer of Development Rights under TDR2005 -05022 2 See analysis in Staff Report 3 Setbacks are measured from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) 4 Increased height available pursuant to Transfer of Development Rights and Beach by Design guidelines Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 —. Page 11. of 16 Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 50 overnight accommodation units per 230 overnight X1 acre (maximum of 93 units) accommodation units 122.99 OVU /acre I.S.R. 0.95 0.914 X Lot Area 20,000 sq. ft. 81,450 sq. ft. (upland area X zoned T District; site also has 25,954 sq. ft. of submerged land zoned OS/R District Lot Width 100 feet 236 feet X Setbacks Front: 0 — 15 feet 2.5 feet (to building) and X2 zero feet (to pavement) Side: 0 — 10 feet North 3: Zero feet (to X2 building) from the CCCL; and to permit a sidewalk 10 feet seaward of the CCCL South: 16 feet (to building), X2 1.5 feet (to pavement) and zero feet to privacy wall Rear: 0 — 20 feet3 Two feet (to building) from V the CCCL and to permit concrete patios 13 feet seaward of the CCCL Height 35 — 100 feet 150 feet above Base Flood V Elevation (BFE) to top of roof deck4 Off - Street One space per unit (230 spaces) 296 valet -only parking X2 Parking spaces at 1.286 parking spaces per hotel room I Per Termination of Status of Nonconformity, conversion calculations and Transfer of Development Rights under TDR2005 -05022 2 See analysis in Staff Report 3 Setbacks are measured from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) 4 Increased height available pursuant to Transfer of Development Rights and Beach by Design guidelines Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 —. Page 11. of 16 • • COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2 -803.0 of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent I Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off - street X 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 horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005- 05022 —. Page 12 of 16 0 0 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3 -913 of the Community Development Code: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of September 4, 2008, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: 1. The 2.45. total acres (1.87. acres zoned Tourist District; 0.58. acres zoned Open Space/Recreation District) is located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater Beach; 2. On April 1% 2005, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved with 10 conditions Case. Nos. FLD2005- 01005 /SGN2005 -01016 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to allow the continuation of an existing 217 - room/unit hotel (where 74 rooms /units were permitted at that time) and for height to allow the existing 155 -foot high building (where a maximum height of 150 feet is permitted today); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 217 - room/unit overnight accommodation use with reductions to setbacks, an increase to building height to 155 feet (to existing roof deck) and a reduction to required parking from 217 to 201 spaces (existing) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; (3) Reduction to the required interior landscape area, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program; and (4) Comprehensive Sign Program approval (SGN2005- 01016); 3. On August 16, 2005, the CDB approved with 18 conditions Case. Nos. FLD2005-05047/TDR2005- 05022 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units existing to be converted to 104 dwelling units; where 56 dwelling units wee permitted at that time); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use of 112 attached dwelling units and 78 overnight accommodation rooms /units with reductions to setbacks, increases to building height to 100. feet for the overnight accommodation building tower and to 150 feet for the residential tower (to roof deck), a reduction to driveway spacing from 125 feet to 90 feet and a deviation to allow direct access to a arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005- 05022). of four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade; 4. On January 15, 2008, the CDB approved with 15 conditions Case Nos. FLD2007- 11034 /TDR2005- 05022 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 13 of 16 Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of September 4, 2008, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: 1. The 2.45. total acres (1.87. acres zoned Tourist District; 0.58. acres zoned Open Space/Recreation District) is located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater Beach; 2. On April 1% 2005, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved with 10 conditions Case. Nos. FLD2005- 01005 /SGN2005 -01016 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density to allow the continuation of an existing 217 - room/unit hotel (where 74 rooms /units were permitted at that time) and for height to allow the existing 155 -foot high building (where a maximum height of 150 feet is permitted today); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 217 - room/unit overnight accommodation use with reductions to setbacks, an increase to building height to 155 feet (to existing roof deck) and a reduction to required parking from 217 to 201 spaces (existing) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; (3) Reduction to the required interior landscape area, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program; and (4) Comprehensive Sign Program approval (SGN2005- 01016); 3. On August 16, 2005, the CDB approved with 18 conditions Case. Nos. FLD2005-05047/TDR2005- 05022 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units existing to be converted to 104 dwelling units; where 56 dwelling units wee permitted at that time); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use of 112 attached dwelling units and 78 overnight accommodation rooms /units with reductions to setbacks, increases to building height to 100. feet for the overnight accommodation building tower and to 150 feet for the residential tower (to roof deck), a reduction to driveway spacing from 125 feet to 90 feet and a deviation to allow direct access to a arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005- 05022). of four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade; 4. On January 15, 2008, the CDB approved with 15 conditions Case Nos. FLD2007- 11034 /TDR2005- 05022 for the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 13 of 16 0 units; where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today); (2) Flexible Development approval to permit 230 overnight accommodation units with reductions to setbacks, an increase to building height to 100 feet (to roof deck) and to 150 feet (to roof deck) for two portions of the building, a deviation to allow direct access to an arterial street and to allow a two -year time frame to submit for a building permit, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three . dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade; 5. The hotel was not reopened and was demolished on October 8, 2005, under BCP2005- 09027;. 6. The property is currently being used as a temporary parking lot as approved by. the City; 7. The nonconforming status of the prior hotel density has been determined to still be valid, even though the hotel was demolished, due to the status of the approval of Case Nos. FLD2007- 11034/TDR2005- 05022; 8. The proposal is to construct a new hotel building on the property consisting of 230 overnight accommodation units; 9. The development proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today); 10. Eight dwelling units were previously transferred to this site under TDR2005 -05022 and are being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units for this project; 11. The proposal includes five floors of parking for a total of 296 parking spaces at a ratio of 1.286 spaces per hotel room (where one space per room is required). Further stacking of vehicles in drive . aisles when necessary. due to full occupancy and banquets can result in 352 parking spaces; 12. The proposal includes the following setbacks: a front (east) setback of 2.5 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and to permit a sidewalk 10 feet seaward of the CCCL, a side (south) setback of 16 feet (to building), 1.5 feet (to pavement) and zero feet (to privacy wall), a rear (west) setback of two feet (to building) from the CCCL and to permit concrete patios 13 feet seaward of the CCCL; 13. The proposal includes a building height of 150 feet (to highest roof deck); 14. That portion of the building taller than 100 feet is separated from the. 440 West condominium tower to the south by approximately 107 feet, which is in compliance. with the Beach by Design requirement to have a minimum spacing of 100 feet between towers exceeding 100 feet in height; 15. The proposal includes a request for deviation to Beach by Design guidelines which require the. floorplate of any building exceeding 45 feet in height be limited to a maximum of 25,000 square feet between 45 — 100 feet and a maximum of 10,000 square feet between 100 — 150 feet, as the largest floorplate between 45 — 100 feet is approximately 13,879 square feet and between 100 — 150 feet is approximately 12,837 square feet, but the guideline allows deviations to these floorplate requirements provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above 45 feet; 16. Beach by Design. guidelines requires for buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet, where the proposal is approximately 38,000 square feet, to be constructed so that no more,than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The project's overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately 212 feet along South Gulfview Boulevard and 300 feet along the north side, while the vertical plane is approximately 160 feet from grade to the top of the tallest roof. None of these dimensions are equal; 17. Beach by Design guidelines requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. The tower portion of the building is crescent shaped, creating a continuously curving fagade and therefore, no plane is continuous for more than 30 feet. The waterside of the tower fagade is also modulated through the depth and framing methods of the balconies; Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 14 of 16. 18. Beach by Design guidelines requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The applicant has calculated that the north elevation is at 68 percent, the east elevation at 61 percent, the south elevation at 62 percent and the west elevation at 70 percent; and 19. There are 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. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units (as established by Cases FLD2005- 01005, FLD2005- 05047 and FLD2007- 11034); where 93. overnight accommodation units are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6 -109; (2) Flexible Development application to permit a 230 -room overnight accommodation use (hotel) in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 81,450 square feet/1.87. acres zoned Tourist District (2.45 total acres; 0.58 acres of total acreage zoned Open Space/Recreation District), a lot width of 236 feet, a front (east) setback of 2.5 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and to permit a sidewalk 10..feet seaward of the CCCL, a side (south) setback of 16 feet (to building), 1.5 feet (to pavement) and zero feet (to privacy wall), a rear. (west) setback of two feet (to building) from the CCCL and to permit concrete patios 13. feet seaward of the CCCL, a building height of 150 feet above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to topp of roof deck and 296 valet -only parking spaces at 1.286 parking spaces per hotel room, as a Comprehensive. Mll Redevelopment Project, under the provisions. of Section 2- 803.C, and three driveways where the two northernmost driveways are spaced 110 feet apart and the two southernmost driveways are spaced 18 feet apart, where 125 feet is required by Section 3 -102 and approval of a two -year development order; and (3) including the Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4 -1402, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later than October. 21, 2010, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to. Section 4407; 2. That the final design and color of the overnight accommodation building be. consistent with the conceptual elevations approved by the CDB; 3. That a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 4. That there be no public /guest use of any roof 100 feet or higher; 5. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, Level 10 be designed with only 22 rooms, so. that the total number of rooms does not exceed 230 rooms;. 6. That suites on all floors be designed to have only one door to the exterior hallway;. Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 — Page 15 of 16. s • 7. That prior to issuance of permits for any proposed structures north and west of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), the applicant submit a copy of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection approval for that construction north and west of the CCCL; 8. That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks or variances obtained prior to the issuance of any building permits; 9. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the vertical clear height of all the parking garage levels 'be not less than 7 feet including entrance and exit (Florida Building Code 2004, Section 406.2.2); 10. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, site and landscape plans be revised to show the. following:. a. pursuant to Section 3- 904.B, comply with the dimensional requirements and restrictions for waterfront visibility triangles; b. pursuant to. Section 3 -805.B and the location of the building, revising the chain link fencing east of the solid masonry wall along the south property line to a vinyl or vertical metal grillwork, as acceptable to the Planning Department; c. revise the chain link fencing west of the solid masonry wall to a vinyl or vertical metal grillwork, as acceptable to the Planning Department, and the fencing type and height within the waterfront visibility triangle must meet the requirements of Sections 3 -804.0 and 3- 904.B; d. pursuant to Section 3- 904.A, correctly indicate such sight visibility triangles at the northern driveway and modify landscaping to comply with such requirements;. e. pursuant to Section 3- 1204.13, curb the south edge of the southern service drive with vertical concrete curbing;. and f. palm and other accent trees planted in the landscape area along the western portion along the north property line, in an amount and location acceptable to the Planning Department; 11. That any future freestanding sign be a monument -style sign and be designed to. match the exterior materials and color of the building.. The maximum height shall be four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program; 12. That sea -turtle friendly light fixtures be employed with the site design, with compliance demonstrated on plans acceptable to the Environmental Engineering Division, prior to the issuance of building permits; 13. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 14. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any. permits. Prepared by Planning Department Staff_ :. "M'ka.-I Wayne M ells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: ❑ Location Map ❑ Aerial Map ❑ Zoning Map • Existing Surrounding Uses Map • Photographs of Site and Vicinity S. (Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending cases)Up for the next CDBIGulfview S0430 New Hotel 2008 (7) - 10.21.08 CDB - WWIGulfview S 430 Staff Report.doc Community Development Board — October 21, 2008 FLD2008- 08024/TDR2005 -05022 Page 16 of 16 iL Q z C� 0 ir O U 8RIG HT WATER DR 87- u� BAYS I DE • PROJECT SITE LOCATION MAP Owner: Salt Block 57, LLC Case: FLD2008 -08024 Site: 1 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard Property Size(Acres): 2.45 PIN: 07/29/15/52380/000 /0330 Atlas Page: 276A Pr : I C—1 X29/ 15✓52380!000/0330 Atlas Pag =: I 276A • • LINM — — \ 25 13 \ 35571 120 Q 353 9 348 6 8 F /F7'y Sr Q 1a 100 a 261/2 - z - 401 � O 72 121 T- _ 401 s P 17 – –27 – – – 1 �a ,� 122` V 1RR – 1\ 406 6 9 28 411 4052 – 1 -A 88 11 – – 74 – 409 75 124 3 10 410 1` 1 OS/W 410 76 125 – – 15 1762 42 42 9 o � _ �1 _� _ 77 1 126 _ 421 5 8 420 415 31 431 78 127 420 i 2 32 – – _ 430 6 10 128_ 422 –129 42 1 3 1 – ,P 33 _ � ' q30 _ – - 81 '3' � 17640 P 34 - r— — - 430 68280 10 / 35 / ry w133 N 36 MO l 93134y , n / 87 9 7 ^ /10 29246 ah° �� ^ /514 — ��` y^ 36565 SE o Q ZONING MAP Owner: Salt Block 57, LLC Case: FLD2008 -08024 Site: I 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard ( Property 2.45 Size( Acres): : PIN: 07/29/15/52380/000 /0330 Atlas Page: 276A LINM- - — 213each` 1k erni ht actammo&ti 0 34 6o _ 353 e 26 s FIFTH ST Q acco�n 10 s z — 8 Q 350 26112 ' 401 ' — Ov rnlght�\121 17 27 ' ac ommtr n�s 40' — — — — 409Cl36TR , — td4p — 12 406 T- 1 28 411 _A 88 — — _ — 74 — — — 75 124 409 3 o ttache 29 nj ht10 410 = 1 — — — — — — — verni }} W we#lin g'125 O �yfe �Q 41 76 o a `1` ,. cenrPc>;aati 4 4220r °Beach 4, a rn � _ � — — — — — — 421n 5 8 420 415 31 — 127 42 b as1 76 Over 2 _ 32 X31 ' 128 a% CA mo tiO 5421 3 etc e — welli _ 80 129 a1P A30 0:111 640 ' 7 34 r�h� tac e / 68280 430 120arnmo#d ' s d4v4n s / 35 / N w133 / A 36 r /fit ac W Ord ion Ah / 4/ Attached 67/ 79 ` dwellings O e�n 2 46 ah° 1� a m s 246 Attache dwellings r— — ��` h 2565 5 Overnight accommodations SE EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Owner: Salt Block 57, LLC Case: FLD2008 -08024 Site: 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard Property 2.45 � Size(Acres): PIN: 07/29/15/52380/000 /0330 Atlas Page: 276A View looking NW at subject property (currently a View looking N at S Gulfview Blvd & Beach View looking NE at restaurant on E side of S Gulfview Blvd E of subject property 430 South Gulfview Boulevard FLD2008 -08024 View looking SW at subject property (attached View looking NE at overnight accommodation use on E side of S Gulfview Blvd NE of subject properl Sheet 1 of 2 View looking E at retail sales on E side of S Gulfview Blvd & subject property View looking E at overnight accommodation use or E side of S Gulfview Bl -d & subject property View looking S along S Gulfview Blvd from subject prop View looking SW at attayhed dwellings S of subjec property (in foreg-ound) View looking `V at City pErking lot on N side of subject property 430 South Gulfview Boulevard FLD2008 -08024 Sheet 2 of 2 Wells, Wayne 0 0 From: Tefft, Robert Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: FLD2008 -08024 - 430 S Gulfview FYI Robert. G. Tefft Development. Review Manager City of Clearwater Planning Department Phone: (727) 562 -4539 .Fax:. (727) 562 -4865 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Rice, Scott Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008.7:32. PM To:. Tefft, Robert Subject: RE: FLD2008 -08024 - .430.S Gulfview Robert, No - I removed the comment from Tidemark after discussions with management. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Tefft,.Robert Sent: Tue 10/14/2008 12:47 PM To: Rice, Scott Subject: RE: FLD2008 -08024 - 430 S Gulfview Scott: Is this. still the official position of the Engineering Department? Robert G. Tefft Development Review. Manager City of Clearwater Planning Department Phone: (727) 562 -4539 1 Fax:. (727) 562 -4865 - - - -- Original. Message---- - From: Rice,. Scott. Sent: Wednesday,.September 24, 2008 9:30 AM To: Tefft, Robert Subject: FW: FLD2008 -08024 - 430 S Gulfview Forgot to copy you on this. D. Scott Rice, PE Assistant Engineering Director City of Clearwater (727) 562 -47 81 - - - -- Original. Message---- - From: Rice, Scott Sent:. Wednesday, September 24, 2008.9:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Clayton, Gina; Watkins,.Sherry Cc: Quillen, Michael; Bertels, Paul; Doherty, Steve; Bruch, Tracey Subject: FLD2008- 08024. -.430 S Gulfview Wayne, The following has. been added to.Tidemark for the subject application and Engineering wishes that it be included verbatim in the Staff Report: 1 The Engineering Department.has.concerns. regarding. the use of freight elevators as the only access to upper floors of the parking.garage. Dependence upon elevators to move the cars. could result in operational problems or delays due to mechanical or electrical malfunction. There are also concerns from Traffic operations that this could cause a negative impact to the right of way of.South Gulfvew Boulevard if for some reason the elevators cannot get the traffic into the garage and the guests have nowhere else to park. The Engineering Department believes that the use of ramps.would be a better design for the garage. Thanks, D. Scott Rice, PE Assistant Engineering Director City of Clearwater (727) 562 -4781 2 Fire Condition 09/18/2008 No Issues Harbor Master ondition 08 08/28/20 No issues. Landscape 0 • Conditions Associated With FLD2008 -08024 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD Leonard Rickard Wayne Wells, AICP 562 -4327 x3078 727 - 562 -4504 Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 Not Met Not Met 09/03/2008 Sheets LP -1 and LP -3 - Ensure the plant counts on LP -1 add up to that indicated in. the Plant List Not Met totals on LP -3. 09/02/2008 Sheets 10/13 and LP -1 - If the Fire Department access can go across grass but cannot be Not Met impeded by landscape materials, it appears these two sheets contradict each other. Sheet 10/13 indicates the Fire Department access is a five -foot wide path, which is not correct. Coordinate. 09/02/2008 Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping Not Met shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the OCS 200, as there does not appear to be sufficient cover to provide the landscaping,. especially the palms; over this OCS 200. Revise. 09/02/2008 Sheet LP -1 - Please separate out the landscaping being provided on the ground from that being Not Met provided on upper decks (possibly a Sheet LP -1 and LP -1 a [hardscape planting plan]). The City will enforce continuing landscape plan maintenance requirements for only that on the ground. 09/02/2008 Sheet LP -3 - Please separate out the landscaping being provided on the ground from that being Not Met provided on. upper decks (possibly into two Plant Lists [ground and hardscape]). The City will enforce continuing landscape plan maintenance requirements for only that on the ground. 09/02/2008 Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping Not Met shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the OCS 100, as there does not appear to be sufficient cover to provide the landscaping, especially the Medjool Palm, over this OCS 100. Revise. 09/02/2008 Sheet LP -1 - Unclear why two high -rise oaks are proposed on the south side of the tower. The Not Met planting area appears too small for a large tree. Future canopy will be rubbing the building. Reconsider use of high -rise oaks at this location. 09/02/2008 Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping Not Met shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the Filter Drain 100 along the north property line. Based on the detail on Sheet 12/13, the top of the concrete filter drain is 7.02 and the proposed. grades are between 4.2 and 5.5, which means the top of the filter drain is above ground and does not provide sufficent cover to plant the landscape material indicated. Revise. 09/02/2008 Sheet LP -3 - Revise for the following: Not Met a. General Notes - Next to last - Unclear as to what is meant by shredded mulch "or ground cover" ( ?); and b. Plant List needs to indicate the caliper of trees (except palms) to be planted. 09/02/2008 Sheet LP -1 - Revise this sheet to provide a symbol with the Plant Key and Quantity rather than Not Met spelling everything out on this sheet and remove the height, spread, spacing, etc. A Plant List has been provided on Sheet LP -3 that has all the details.. If there are specific heights of trees in particular areas of the site to be called out, then that information on Sheet LP -1 should be noted, but normal requirements of height, spread, spacing, etc. should be shown only on Sheet LP -3. The Plant Key on Sheet LP -3 is not even used on Sheet LP -1. 09/02/2008 Sheet LP -1 - Revise for the following: Not Met a. Interior landscape area is supposedly shaded on this sheet, but all landscape areas are shaded. Remove the note from this sheet. Interior landscape area shading should be shown on Sheet 3/13; b. Vehicular Use Area is indicated as 8,500 sf, which conflicts with that indicated on Sheet 1/13; Print Date: 10/10/2008 Page 1 of 7 CaseConditons FLD2008 -08024 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 and c. Interior landscape area provided is indicated as. 1,000 sf,.whereas Sheet 1/13 indicates 165 sf. 09/02/2008 Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping Not Met shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the Filter Drain 200 along the south property line. Based on the detail on Sheet 12/13, the top. of the concrete filter drain is 4.00 and the proposed grades are between 4.4. and 6.45, which may not provide sufficent cover to plant the landscape material indicated. Revise. Legal Conditio Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 08/28/2008 No issues. Not Met Land Resource ondition 09/02/2008 No Issues Parks & Recs Condition Rick Albee Debbie Reid 727 - 562 -4741 562 -4818 Not Met 08/20/2008 Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to the issuance of building 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. 08/20/2008 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. Solid Waste Condition Tom Glenn 562 -4930 08/25/2008 1 ompactor area can not be serviced as shown (not enough room ) 2. If applying for "green Lodgeing Certification" you will need to show where recycling will take place. Traffic Eng Condition-, Scott Rice 562 -4781 08/29/2008 1. Traffic Operation Division has concerns about the use of elevators as the only access to upper. floors of th.'e proposed parking garage for a resort hotel. Dependence upon the elevators could result i�peratonal problems due to mechanical or electrical malfunctions. Previous designs for structures at this location have used ramps to provide access to upper parking floors, is it possible to design a buildidg that would utilize ramps instead of the elevators? 2. Does the applicant have other facilities where elevators provide the sole access to upper Not Met Not Met parking floors ?Jf yes, what operational and mechapical problems have been encountered? °mow 3. What additional maintenance is anticipated to be necessary for the use of elevators for this purpose in a coastal environment? CAt C- C. -T- 4. Is a generator included in the design of the hotel that can be used to power the three lifts in an emergency? �-�- 5. Demonstrate, using a turning template, that a passen ger vehicle can enter the freight elevator adjacent the transformer without hitting any objects. _ 6. Demme tr. teasing a turning template how a scaled WB -50 tr ck enters and exits the loading area. �7. Th�structura c�lumns at the end,of the parking stalls create - maneuverability problems. Considar.re -pi Toning the columns away from the ends of the stalls. A/- 15- 1- C There shall be no columns in any of the drive aisles. W 6, �- � ,e proposed parking spaces shown may be insufficient. Provide a parking study to support nd justify the number of proposed parking spaces. 10. Show the path a wheelchair bound patron can. use to get from a public sidewalk to the lobby. Print Date: 10/10/2008 Page 2 of 7 CaseConditons 9 FLD2008 -08024 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD • Traffic Eng Condition Scott Rice 562 -4781 11. Although there are no proposed handicap parking spaces in the parking garage, the parking garage shall be designed to accommodate an accessible van, which requires an 8' 2" clear vertical height: This includes entrance, route, parking stall and exit. Indicate this on the site plan. 6{�*`da Accessibility Code Sections 11- 4.1.2.(5)(b) and 11- 4.6.5) 12. The vertical clear height of all the parking garage levels shall not be less than 7 feet including ,entr ce and exit. (Florida Building Code 2004. Section 406.2.2.) e�above to be addressed prior to a Community Developmdnt Board (CDB) hearing. The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: 1. If vehicle freight elevators are approved, then provide mirrors for the ground floor for vehicles exiting from the freight elevators. 2. Provide in the detail sheet FDOT's truncated dome standards (Index 304 page 6 of 6).. Use link provided: http: / /www. dot. state. fl .us /rddesign /rd /RTDS /08 /304.pdf 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 09/01/2008 Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the connection between the "sun terrace" paver area and the sidewalk Not Met along the north property line in the northwest corner, as to why the sidewalk must extend almost all the way to the seawall. Need to also show the interconnection of the sidewalk along the north property line to the pool deck stairs and pool ADA ramp. 09/02/2008 Sheet 3/13 - A fence is indicated along the south. edge of the southernmost drive from the 6' high Not Met wall to the front property line. Need to indicate the height of the fence and the type of fence (wood, vinyl, etc). Within the visibility triangle, maximum height is 30 ". 09/03/2008 Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - (2) - Need to include discussion of whether. the Not Met garage will provide parking for all employees and whether employees' cars will be valet parked. 09/02/2008 Sheet 3/13 - A 6' high fence is indicated along the south property line from the trash staging area Not Met to the seawall ( ?) or the CCCL ( ?).. Need to be more specific as to where the fence ends. Need to indicate the type of fence (wood, vinyl, etc.). 09/02/2008 Sheet 3/13 - A note in indicated at the southwest corner regarding the waterfront sight triangle and Not Met refers to the "Landscape plans for fence requirements ". There is no information on the Landscape plans regarding such fencing. Revise. 09/02/2008 Sheet 3/13 - Need to dimension the distance from the south property line to the proposed 6' high Not Met wall at its closest point and south of the trash staging area. 09/01/2008 Unclear why all the paver. area (sun terrace) is necessary along the seawall seaward of the Not Met Coastal Construction Control Line. Provide an explanation and a justification for such. Prior request only had a sidewalk, but no paver area, on the west side of the building, and the sidewalk did not encroach or go seaward of the CCCL. So far, not convinced such paver area is necessary or justified. 09/02/2008 Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for the following notes: Not Met a. "H /C Ramp Type CR20" directly south of the stairs from the sidewalk in S. Gulfview Blvd R.O.W. and the porte cochere drive; and b. "H /C Access Path" within the S. Gulfview Blvd R.O.W. with an arrow just south of "a" above. Revise. Print Date: 10/10/2008 Page 3 of 7 CaseConditons 0 , 0 FLD2008 -08024 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 09/03/2008 Sheet A18 - Dimension the height of the overhead doors. Not Met 09/01/2008 It is unclear how such raised /elevated pool area shown with fill material complies with FEMA Not Met requirements for structures within a V -Zone allowing wave action to flow under the building. Any walls must breakaway to allow wave action. Fill goes against such requirement (based on discussions with our Building Official). Structure is also close the the existing seawall and will need variances to the Building Code requirement for seawall setbacks (18 feet required). 09/01 /2008 Sheets 3/13 and Al - There are columns from the hotel rooms tower above that are shown but not Not Met black as the other columns. Is this because they will not be seen or will not block drive aisles or the backing out ability from parking spaces. It appears that some spaces will be inaccessible. Advise. 09/02/2008 Sheets A14 - Al - Per the definition of "height, building or structure ", the maximum height of the Not Met parapet at the top of the building can be 42 ". Shown is 48 ". Revise. 09/02/2008 Sheet AO - Provide the following on this sheet: Not Met a. A dimension from the adjacent building to the closest portion of the proposed building over 100 feet in height (either the mechanical oval or the balconies on the south side of the tower); and b. Show where the Building Sections (East - West) and (North - South) on Sheets. Al and A14 are cut through the building. 09/01/2008 Sheet 3/13 - Need to dimension the. distances from the western CCCL to the western edge of the Not Met paver sun terrace and the distances from the northern CCCL to the northern edge of the sidewalk, so these distances can be included in the advertising of this proposal. 09/01/2008 Sheets 3/13 and Al - Unclear of what is meant by "support" for the area north of the SW Not Met stairwells. Only storage is allowed below BFE. Advise /revise. 09/01/2008 Sheets 3/13 and Al - It my understanding under the Building Codes and FEMA regulations that Not Met there can be no occupiable space below BFE, except storage. Unclear of how the "valet" room qualifies to be below BFE. Advise /revise. 09/01/2008 Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for a trash staging area outside of the building if a compactor is Not Met being provided. Advise /revise. 09/01/2008 Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for the gate on the drive on the south side of the building that Not Met restricts access into the garage, loading spaces and compactor. Gate appears to restrict the ability of trucks to get into and out of the southern loading area. 09/01/2008 Sheet 3/13 - While loading spaces 35 feet in depth have been provided, the loading spaces end at Not Met an internal drive aisle, not a loading dock or unloading area. Off - loading the trucks would appear to be within the adjacent required 24 -foot drive aisle /back up area for Spaces 13 -18. Loading does not appear to function. It is also quesionable whether a delivery truck and trash truck can access the loading spaces and compactor. Revise. 09/02/2008 Sheets A6, AT A8, A9 and Al - Dimension the width /depth of the balconies. If I understand the Not Met dimensions on Sheet AO correctly, the balconies on the north side of the building are within 2.5 feet of the CCCL. Correct? 09/02/2008 Sheet 1/13 indicates in the Unit Count of hotel rooms a total of 230 rooms. Based on unit counts Not Met on the architectural plans, there are 231 rooms. The discrepancy occurs on Level 16 where there are 12 rooms, not 11 rooms. Revise the architectural plans to only provide for a total of 230 rooms. 09/02/2008 Sheet 1/13 - Parking table at bottom of Land Use Data needs to be coordinated with that indicated Not Met on Sheet A0, as the numbers are different as to. the number of valet and tandem spaces provided. 09/01/2008 Sheets 3/13, 7/13, 9/13, 10/13 and Al - From a traffic flow standpoint (since garage is all valet), it Not Met would appear that the one -way drive aisle (27' wide) NW of the loading /compactor area would Print Date: 10/10/2008 CaseConditons Page 4 of 7 • FLD2008 -08024 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD C: Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP. 727 - 562 -4504 have a flow if it was relocated to be where Spaces 13 -15, 22 -24 and 27 -29 currently are designed. The parking spaces can be relocated westward to the current location of the one -way drive aisle as it appears to be the same dimensionally. Revise. 09/03/2008 Sheet 3/13. -. Add a dimension from the front property line to the edge of the balconies (dashed Not Met line) in the NE corner of the building. 09102/2008 Sheet 1/13 - Revise. the Land Use Data for the following: Not Met a. Include the area zoned Open Space /Recreation (OS /R) in the Existing and Proposed columns; b. In accordance with Section 3- 908.A, the porte cochere canopy, which is cantilevered from the building, is not subject to setbacks. No reduction is necessary.. Revise. Proposed Setbacks (Building) for Front; c. The proposed front setback (building), based on the submitted plans, is 31.1 feet to the NE corner of the building; d. The proposed front setback (tower) is 31.1 feet; and e. The proposed side (south) (tower) setback is indicated at 23 feet. Show such dimension on Sheet 3/13. 09/03/2008 Sheet A19 -. SE View Perspective - View appears to be "see through" the building, which is not Not Met reality. Revise. 09/03/2008 Sheet A19 - East and SE Perspective Views indicate the porte cochere with columns.. Sheets A16 and A18 show the porte cochere as cantilevered from the building with no columns. Sheet A15. appears to indicate guy wires from the building holding up the porte cochere, however, the porte cochere is dashed in also indicating columns. The colored version of Sheet A15 "greyed" in the porte cochere as if it is cantilevered, but indicates columns dashed in. Sheets Al, A2 and A3 indicate the porte cochere with columns. close to the building, but with no columns out next to the front property line (meaning it is cantilevered). Sheet 3/13 does not indicate columns out next to the front property line (meaning it is cantilevered). Need to coodinate plans as to whether this porte cochere is cantilevered or is designed with columns. If it can be engineered, the cantilevered design is more exciting and fits better with the building design. 09/03/2008 Exhibit B - Request 2 - Flexible Development - Revise for the following: a. "d" - Need. to revise depending on how the porte cochere is designed (if with columns close to the front property line, then there will be proposed setback; if cantilevered, then no proposed setback for the porte cochere). Otherwise, add in the proposed setback to the building at the northeast corner (to the building and to the corner of the balcony). Revise proposed setback to. pavement (driveway) to whatever distance I have requested just south of the stairs to the sidewalk in S. Gulfview Blvd.; b. "e" - Need to include "to permit a sidewalk 'Y' feet seaward of the CCCL'; c. "f'- Need to include the proposed setback to the pavement; d. "g" - Need to include "to permit concrete patios "x" feet seaward of the CCCL'; and e. Need to include the proposed height of the building. Not Met Not Met 09/02/2008 Sheet 1/13 - Land Use Data indicates 8,783 sf of vehicular use area (VUA) and 165 sf of interior Not Met landscape area provided (2% of VUA), where Code requires 10% of VUA: a. Show by shading on Sheet 3/13 the area being counted toward interior landscape area; b. Unclear why the required 10% requirement cannot be provided. Need to look at landscaped areas, other than foundation landscaping that could be counted toward interior landscape area. 09/03/2008 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following Not Met (keep in mind that the advertising for Comp. Infill has been revised to set out what is proposed and does not set out any reductions or increases; the discussion needs to compare the reduction or increase to that normally required [or that otherwise that would have been advertised]): a. Height - Need to discuss the height increase from 35 feet to 100 feet, as well as to. 150 feet; b. Setbacks - Need to discuss the proposed setbacks to that normally required. Additionally, depending on how the porte cochere is designed, modify the discussion of setbacks (columns or Print Date: 10/10/2008 Page 5 of 7 CaseConditons 0 • FLD2008 -08024 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 cantilevered design ? ?); c. Relief from CCCL Setback - Need to discuss the proposed setbacks to that normally required; and d. While no relief is being requested, should include a discussion relating to lot area and lot width, due to the way we are advertising the request now. Obviously, both the lot area and lot width exceed the minimum requirements. 09/03/2008 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 - Revise 7', as there are no Not Met minimum standard uses in the Tourist District. 09/03/2008 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Revise for the following: Not Met a. Under "a" - The proposed hotel is not permitted as a Minimum Standard use, as there are no Minimum Standard uses in the Tourist District; b. Under "b" - Last sentence on Page 10 - Revise "compliments" to "complements'; c. Under "b" - Page 11 for Tower Separation - Please provide written discussion of how this proposal meets the regulations, not just referring one to a map that one must interpret what they are looking at; d. Under "b" - Page 11 refers to Exhibits C -3 and C -4 - Revise the exhibits to 45 feet and recalculate allowable building envelop volume and proposed design. Revise the proposed percentage in the written material on Page 11; e. Under "b" - Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings on Page 12 - I would not characterize landscaping as "lush ", as the landscape areas on the north, south and west have been minimized due to the higher than prior requests impervious surface ratio. The design of the site landscaping also conflicts with stormwater design features, both on the north and south sides of the property. Except the east side of the property, I don't agree that proposed landscaping will soften the architecture. Need to rethink how this is written and /or see how to reduce the ISR to provide adequate areas, free of obstructing stormwater features and Fire Department access, for landscaping to be provided to accomplish the effect of softening the architecture; f. Under "b" - Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings for Maximum Building Envelop on Page 13 -. See discussion under "d" above. Revise proposed percentage after recalculating; g. Under "c" on Page 13 - Last sentence - Revise "compliments" to "complements'; h. Under "e" on Page 14 - Overall Landscaping - It is stated that a Comprehensive Landscape Program is not required, however, it is unclear if one is required based on other comments regarding the provided percentage of VUA for interior landscape area. Revise as necessary, depending on your responses to the other Landscaping comments; i. Under "e" on Page 14 - North Property Line - Unclear of what the last sentence is referring to. Need to expound on this sentence, however, there are landscape comments that point out conflicts between proposed landscaping and other requirements (Fire Department access, stormwater features, etc.). See also discussion above in "e ". Landscaping along north property line could be characterized as minimal due to the reductions to setbacks and building mass /ISR; j. Termination of Nonconforming Status - #3 on Page 15 - There are no existing nonconforming signs, outdoor lighting or other accessory structures or uses on the site. Remove statement regarding Comprehensive Sign Program. Revise; and k. Termination of Nonconforming Status -. #4 on Page 15 - Since #3 is being modified, revise sentence #2 appropriately. 09/03/2008 There is a concern that the design of the site minimizes any ability to provide landscaping on the Not Met north and south sides of the property. On the south side of the property, the closeness of the vehicular use area for the loading area and garage access leaves very little room for meaningful landscaping. Other landscaping and planning comments speak to conflicts with Fire Department access and stormwater features. The closeness of the pool area to the north property line, coupled with the provision of the sidewalk to the rear along the north property line does not provide any meaningful area for "lush" landscaping to soften the architecture. The overall proposed ISR is greater than proposed for prior projects on this site, which is a contributing factor to this concern. The building design is excellent, but the overall feel is that the building is squeezed. onto the site. Print Date: 10/10/2008 CaseConditons Page 6 of 7 FLD2008 -08024 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 09/01/2008 If I understand the existing grades. of the S. Gulfview Boulevard, the subject property and the Not Met properties north and south of the subject property properly: a. the existing grades in the center of S. Gulfview Blvd abutting the subject property ranges from approximately 4.00 on the north to 4.23 on the south; b. the existing grades of the subject property range from. 4.03 to 11.03. feet. It is unknown what the grades for the top of the seawall is, as no grades have been provided; c.. the grades on the property to the north range from 3.86 at S.. Gulfview to over 6 feet along the north property line west of the paved. City parking lot; and d. the existing grades on the property to the south range from 4 feet at their northern driveway to over 6 feet approximately in the center of the northern portion of their property. As such, it is interesting to note that the FFE for Parking Level 1 is 4.00, which is below the existing grades for the subject property and adjacent properties and would appear to flood in storm events, including flooding into the elevators and freight elevators. Correct? Print Date: 10/10/2008 Page 7 of 7 CaseConditons Wells, Wayne From: Doherty, Steve Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 2:23 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: FLD2008 -08024 - 430 S Gulfview Stephen L. Doherty Engineering Specialist I City of Clearwater Engineering steve.doherty@myclearwater.com 727.562.4773 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Rice, Scott Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:03 AM To: Clayton, Gina; Wells, Wayne; Watkins, Sherry Cc: Quillen, Michael; Bertels, Paul; Doherty, Steve; Bruch, Tracey Subject: RE: FLD2008 -08024 - 430 S Gulfview Yes, the comment below is a variation of Traffic Comment #1 from the meeting. All told there were four comments related to the elevators at the DRC Meeting. D. Scott Rice, PE Assistant Engineering Director City of Clearwater (727) 562 -4781 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Clayton, Gina. Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:22 AM To: Rice, Scott; Wells, Wayne; Watkins, Sherry Cc: Quillen, Michael; Bertels, Paul; Doherty, Steve; Bruch, Tracey Subject: RE: FLD2008 -08024 - 430 S Gulfview Scott - were these concerns made known to the applicant at DRC? - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Rice, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Clayton, Gina; Watkins, Sherry Cc: Quillen, Michael; Bertels, Paul; Doherty, Steve;. Bruch, Tracey Subject: FLD2008 -08024 - 430 S Gulfview Wayne, The following has been added to Tidemark for the subject application and Engineering wishes that it be included verbatim in the Staff Report: The Engineering Department has concerns regarding the use of freight elevators as the only access to upper floors of the parking garage. Dependence upon elevators to move the cars could result in operational problems, or delays due to mechanical or electrical malfunction. There are also concerns from Traffic Operations that this could cause a negative impact to the right of way of South Gulfvew Boulevard if for some reason the elevators cannot get the traffic into the garage and the guests have nowhere else to park. The Engineering Department believes that the use of ramps would be a better design for the garage. Thanks, i i` D. Scott Rice, PE Assistant Engineering Director City of Clearwater (727) 562 -4781 • 0 Wells, Wayne • From: Elbo, Bennett Sent: Friday, October. 03, 2008 3:08. PM To: Patni, Himanshu; Wells, Wayne; Rice, Scott; Doherty, Steve Cc: Bertels, Paul Subject: RE: Yes you are right Himanshu, FLD2008- 08024. Sorry folks. i-M - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Patni, Himanshu Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 2:21 PM To: Elbo, Bennett; Wells, Wayne; Rice, Scott; Doherty, Steve Cc: Bertels, Paul Subject: RE: This is for the proposed hotel at 430 S. Gulfview. Himanshu - - - -- Original. Message---- - From: Elbo, Bennett Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 2:19 PM, To: Wells, Wayne; Rice, Scott; Doherty, Steve Cc: Bertels, Paul; Patni, Himanshu Subject: Good afternoon Wayne, After further review of the architectural plans showing the vertical height of the parking garage levels and living levels, I added the following condition into tidemark under traffic conditions: 12. The vertical clear height of all the parking garage levels shall not be less than 7 feet including entrance and exit. (Florida Building Code 2004 Sections 406.2.2.) The architect will need to be aware of this requirement when incorporating overhead structures such as structural beams, fire sprinkler pipes & heads, electrical conduit, drainage pipes and other over hanging structures in their design. If you have questions give me a call. Thanks Bennett Elbo City of Clearwater Traffic Operations Division Tel: (727)562 -4775 fax: (727)562 -4755 0 Wells, Wayne • From: Rice, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2.008 9:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Clayton, Gina; Watkins, Sherry Cc: Quillen, Michael; Bertels, Paul; Doherty, Steve; Bruch, Tracey Subject: FLD2008 -08024 - 430 S Gulfview Wayne, The following has been added to Tidemark for the subject application and Engineering wishes that it be included verbatim in the Staff Report: The Engineering Department has concerns regarding the use of freight elevators as the only access to upper floors of the parking garage. Dependence upon elevators to move the cars could result in operational problems or delays due to mechanical or electrical malfunction. There are also concerns from Traffic Operations that this could cause a negative impact to the right of way of South Gulfvew Boulevard if for some reason the elevators cannot get the traffic into the garage and the guests have nowhere else to park. The Engineering Department believes that the use of ramps would be a better design for the garage. Thanks, D. Scott Rice, PE Assistant Engineering Director City of Clearwater (727) 562 -4781 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:24 AM To: Planning Subject: FW: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keller, James Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 9:37 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting Ms. Watkins, This should take care of the fire department on all of the resubmittals. Should you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully, James Keller Fire Inspector II Division of Fire Prevention Services Clearwater Fire & Rescue - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:12 PM To: Albee, Rick; Buzzell, William; Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael; Doherty, Steve; Elbo, Bennett; Glenn, Tom; Gluski, Roberta; Kader, Art; Keller, James; Kurleman, Scott; Lee, Catherine; O'Neill, Shane; Porter, Catherine; Reid, Debbie; Rice, Scott; Rickard, Leonard; Tefft, Robert; Watkins, Sherry; Wells, Wayne Subject: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the October 21, 2008 CDB meeting: FLD2008 -08024 & DVA2008- 00001430 S Gulfview Blvd Planner: Wayne Wells [Keller, James] Done, JFK FLD2008 -08025 1160 Mandalay Point Road Planner Scott Kurleman FLD2008 -08026 210 Drew Street Planner: Wayne Wells FLD2008 -05013 100 Coronado-Dr Planner Wayne Wells 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 aff irm to me via email. Please have cases reviewed, if possible by 12:pm on, Friday, September 19, 2008. Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:25 AM To: Planning Subject: FW: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Reid, Debbie Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:57 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting See below comments... - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:12 PM To: Albee, Rick; Buzzell, William; Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael; Doherty, Steve; Elbo, Bennett; Glenn, Tom; Gluski, Roberta; Kader, Art; Keller, James; Kurleman, Scott; Lee, Catherine; O'Neill, Shane; Porter, Catherine; Reid, Debbie; Rice, Scott; Rickard, Leonard; Tefft, Robert; Watkins, Sherry; Wells, Wayne Subject: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the October 21, 2008 CDB meeting: FLD2008 -08024 & DVA2008- 00001430 S Gulfview Blvd Planner: Wayne Wells [Reid, Debbie] Impact fees still due prior to building permit or plat. FLD2008 -08025 1160 Mandalay Point Road Planner Scott Kurleman [Reid, Debbie) No issues. FLD2008 -08026 210 Drew Street Planner: Wayne Wells [Reid, Debbie] No issues. FLD2008 -05013 100 Coronado Dr Planner Wayne Wells [Reid, Debbie) Site data table has been corrected. Impact fees due prior to building permit or plat. 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 12:pm on, Friday, September 19, 2008. Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 • • Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:43 PM To: Planning Subject: FW: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting Importance: High - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hubbard, Christopher Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:35 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Cc: Reid, Debbie Subject: FW: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting Importance: High Sherry, Here are the determinations for Public Art: FLD2008 -08024 & DVA2008 -00001 430 S Gulfview Blvd , Planner: Wayne Wells (Not Met) FLD2008 -08025 1160 Mandalay Point Road Planner Scott Kurleman (Exempt) FLD2008 -08026 210 Drew Street Planner: Wayne Wells (Not Met) FLD2008 -05013 100 Coronado Dr Planner Wayne Wells (Not Met) Thank you, Chris - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Reid, Debbie Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:48 AM To: Hubbard, Christopher Subject: FW: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting Importance: High Chris, normally don't forward these along to you, but a couple of these cases have public art due. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:12 PM To: Albee, Rick; Buzzell, William; Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael; Doherty, Steve; Elbo, Bennett; Glenn, Tom; Gluski, Roberta; Kader, Art; Keller, James; Kurleman, Scott; Lee, Catherine; O'Neill, Shane; Porter, Catherine; Reid, Debbie; Rice, Scott; Rickard, Leonard; Tefft, Robert; Watkins, Sherry; Wells, Wayne Subject: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the October 21, 2008 CDB meeting: FLD2008 -08024 & DVA2008 -00001 430 S Gulfview Blvd Planner: Wayne Wells FLD2008 -08025 1160 Mandalay Point Road Planner Scott Kurleman FLD2008 -08026 210 Drew Street Planner: Wayne Wells FLD2008 -05013 100 Coronado Dr Planner Wayne Wells 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 12:pm on, Friday, September 19, 2008. 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Albee, Rick Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:04 PM To: Watkins, Sherry; Planning Subject: RE: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting 430 Gulfview- No Issue 1160Mandalay Point -Even though the renounce letter states that I had no issue there is a Building Permit condition. 210 Drew -No Issue 100 Coronado -No Issue - - -- -Original Message---- - From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:24 AM To: Planning Subject: FW: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keller, James Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 9:37 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting Ms. Watkins, This should take care of the fire department on all of the resubmittals. Should you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully, James Keller Fire Inspector II Division of Fire Prevention Services (:laannratar Fira R Racri �o - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:12 PM . To: Albee, Rick; Buzzell, William; Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael; Doherty, Steve; Elbo, Bennett; Glenn, Tom; Gluski, Roberta; Kader, Art; Keller, James; Kurleman, Scott; Lee, Catherine; O'Neill, Shane; Porter, Catherine; Reid, Debbie; Rice, Scott; Rickard, Leonard; Tefft, Robert; Watkins, Sherry; Wells, Wayne Subject: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the October 21, 2008 CDB meeting: FLD2008 -08024 & DVA2008 -00001 430 S Gulfview Blvd Planner: Wayne Wells [Keller, James] Done, JFK FLD2008 -08025 1160. Mandalay Point Road Planner Scott Kurleman FLD2008 -08026 210 Drew. Street Planner: Wayne Wells FLD2008 -05013 100 Coronado Dr Planner Wayne Wells 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 12:pm on, Friday, September 19, 2008. Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Wells, Wayne From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: FLD2008 -08024 O.K. to proceed. FLD2008 -08025 O.K. to proceed FLD2008 -08026 O.K. to proceed. FLD2008 -05013 O.K. to proceed. DVA2008 -00001 O.K. to proceed Met: • Doherty, Steve Friday, September 19, 2008 3:48 PM Watkins, Sherry Quillen, Michael; Rice, Scott; Wells, Wayne; Tefft, Robert; Kurleman, Scott RE: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008, meeting 430 S Gulfview Blvd 1160 Mandalay Point Road 210 Drew Street 100 Coronado. Dr Planner: Wayne Wells Planner Scott Kurleman Planner: Wayne Wells Planner Wayne Wells Note: A single condition will be completed that will address Traffic Engineering and Parking System concerns with the adequacy of the parking proposed. 100 Coronado Dr Planner Wayne Wells Per Scott Rice, there are some minor issues that have not been resolved. The following Engineering comment was placed in Tidemark and the conditions left as Not "ITEM 5.04.4. REFERS TO EXHIBIT O AS THE PARKING PROTOCOL. THE PARKING PROTOCOL IS EXHIBIT M. COMMENTS 21, 22 AND 23 ARE NOT ADDRESSED." Stnnhon / r)nhorfy Engineering Specialist l City of Clearwater Engineering steve.doherty@myclearwater.com 727.562.4773 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:12 PM To: Albee, Rick; Buzzell, William; Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael; Doherty, Steve; Elbo, Bennett; Glenn, Tom; Gluski, Roberta; Kader, Art; Keller, James; Kurleman, Scott; Lee, Catherine; O'Neill, Shane; Porter, Catherine; Reid, Debbie; Rice, Scott; Rickard, Leonard; Tefft, Robert; Watkins, Sherry; Wells, Wayne Subject: CDB Resubmittals for the October 21, 2008 meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the October 21, 2008 CDB meeting: FLD2008 -08024 & DVA2008- 00001430 S Gulfview Blvd Planner: Wayne Wells FLD2008 -08025 1160 Mandalay Point Road Planner Scott Kurleman FLD2008 -08026 210 Drew Street Planner: Wayne Wells FLD2008 -05013 100 Coronado Dr Planner Wayne Wells 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 12:pm on, Friday, September 19, 2008. 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Fresk, Sheryl Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:08 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FLD2008 -08024 T91 ®A TA i AERIAL.doc EXISTING.doc LOCATION.do ZONING.doc Sheryl A. Fresk City of Clearwater Engineering Department (727)562 -4763 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 11:03 AM To: Fresk, Sheryl Cc: Herman, Jason; Tefft, Robert; Watkins, Sherry Subject: Map Request for FLD2008- 08024, 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard Sheryl - Attached is a map request for Case FLD2008 -08024 for the property at 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard. I will bring over the paperwork. The survey you may keep. Thanks- Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 FLD Map equest form.ft 4➢- b9 i r: Flexible. Development Application - Map Request Planner Name: Wayne Wells Case Number: FLD2008 -08024 Date Requested: September 17, 2008 Date Requested for (date): September 29, 2008 Maps Requested X❑ Location Map X❑ Aerial Map X❑ Zoning Map X❑ Existing Surrounding Uses Map Required Documents to be submitted to Engineering. X❑ Legal Description .I—I XU Survey X❑ Map with Proposed Site Highlighted Map Name Owner: Salt Block 57, LLC Case: FLD2008 -08024 Site: 430 S. Gulfview Boulevard. Property Size(Acres): 2.45 PIN: 07/29/15/52380/000 /0330 Atlas Page: 276A 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:12 PM To: Albee, Rick; Buzzell, William; Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael; Doherty, Steve; Elbo, Bennett;. Glenn, Tom; Gluski, Roberta; Kader, Art; Keller,. James; Kurleman, Scott;. Lee, Catherine;. O'Neill, Shane; Porter, Catherine; Reid, Debbie;. Rice, Scott; Rickard, Leonard; Tefft, Robert;. Watkins, Sherry;. Wells, Wayne Subject: CDB. Resubmittals for the October. 21, 2008 meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted. for the October 21, 2008 CDB meeting: FLD2008- 08024 & DVA2008 -00001 430 S Gulfview Blvd Planner: Wayne Wells FLD2008- 08025.1160 Mandalay Point Road Planner Scott Kurleman FLD2008- 08026.210 Drew Street Planner: Wayne Wells FLD2008- 05013.100 Coronado Dr Planner Wayne Wells 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 12:pm on, Friday, September 19, 2008. Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 • • 1:45 pm Case Number: FLD2008 -08024 -- 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD Owner(s): Salt Block 57 LLC 1000 Market St Ste 300 Portsmouth, NH 03801 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email rep; rn) 1 • i.08 Dcc cx"W4A Applicant TELEPHONE: Representative: Ed Armstrong Po Box 1368 Clearwater, F133757 -1368 TELEPHONE: 727 - 461 -1818, FAX: 727 - 462 -0365, E -MAIL: eda @jpf=.com Location: 2.45 total acres (1.87 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.58 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation District) located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater Beach. Atlas Page: Zoning District: T, Tourist Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6 -109; (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 230 -room overnight accommodation use (hotel) in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 81,450 square feet/1.87 acres zoned Tourist District (2.45 total acres; 0.58 acres of total acreage zoned Open Space/Recreation District), a lot width of 236 feet, a front setback of x feet (to building) and x feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and to permit a sidewalk x feet seaward of the CCCL, a side (south) setback of 16.8 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement/privacy wall), a rear (west) setback of 2.3 feet (to building) from the CCCL and to permit concrete patios x feet seaward of the CCCL, a building height of 150 feet above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to top of roof deck and 294 parking spaces at 1.278 parking spaces per hotel room, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C, and approval of a two -year development order; and (3) including the Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4 -1402. Proposed Use: Overnight accommodations Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Beach Association TELEPHONE: 443 -2168, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: papamurphy @aol.com Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Robert Tefft, Scott Rice, Phuong Vo, Jim Keller, Tom Glenn Applicant: Katie Cole, Jayne Sears, O.C. Cabrera, Cyndi Tarapani, Ken Gross, Jim Wurst, Adolfo Reyna The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: Development Review Agenda— Thursday, September 4, 2008 — Page 1 Of 10 • 1. Install sanitary sewer double sweep cleanout in right -of -way and include City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #305 on detail sheet. 2. Because the proposed use of the property includes a restaurant please show a grease trap location on the plan. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy: 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 accuracy. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site - specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. General Note: In addition to the requirement for a City of Clearwater Building Permit, there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies. Environmental: Fire: Prior to issuance of building permit: No light within 300 feet shall be visible or extend in areas identified as Sea Turtle Nesting Areas during the nesting season of May 1 to October 31. Those areas where security and public safety requires lighting, alternative light management approaches shall be applied. Demonstrate compliance on plans acceptable to the Environmental Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. Plans do not show the locations of the Fire Pump Room or the Emergency Generator Room. Show locations on plans PRIOR TO CDB. Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1 . No issues. Development Review Agenda— Thursday, September 4, 2008 — Page 2 Of 10 Land Resources: No Issues Landscaping: 1 . Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the Filter Drain 100 along the north property line. Based on the detail on Sheet 12/13, the top of the concrete filter drain is 7.02 and the proposed grades are between 4.2 and 5.5, which means the top of the filter drain is above ground and does not provide sufficient cover to plant the landscape material indicated. Revise. 2. Sheet 7/13 -There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the OCS 100, as there does not appear to be sufficient cover to provide the landscaping, especially the Medjool Palm, over this OCS 100. Revise. 3 . Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the Filter Drain 200 along the south property line. Based on the detail on Sheet 12/13, the top of the concrete filter drain is 4.00 and the proposed grades are between 4.4 and 6.45, which may not provide sufficient cover to plant the landscape material indicated. Revise. 4. Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the OCS 200, as there does not appear to be sufficient cover to provide the landscaping, especially the palms, over this OCS 200. Revise. 5. Sheets 10/13 and LP -1 - If the Fire Department access can go across grass but cannot be impeded by landscape materials, it appears these two sheets contradict each other. Sheet 10/13 indicates the Fire Department access is a five -foot wide path, which is not correct. Coordinate. 6. Sheet LP -1 - Revise this sheet to provide a symbol with the Plant Key and Quantity rather than spelling everything out on this sheet and remove the height, spread, spacing, etc. A Plant List has been provided on Sheet LP -3 that has all the details. If there are specific heights of trees in particular areas of the site to be called out, then that information on Sheet LP -1 should be noted, but normal requirements of height, spread, spacing, etc. should be shown only on Sheet LP -3. The Plant Key on Sheet. LP -3 is not even used on Sheet LP -l. 7. Sheet LP -1 - Revise for the following: a. Interior landscape area is supposedly shaded on this sheet, but all landscape areas are shaded. Remove the note from this sheet. Interior landscape area shading should be shown on Sheet 3/13; b. Vehicular Use Area is indicated as 8,500 sf, which conflicts with that indicated on Sheet 1/13; and C. Interior landscape area provided is indicated as 1,000 sf, whereas Sheet 1/13 indicates 165 sf. 8 . Sheet LP -1 - Please separate out the landscaping being provided on the ground from that being provided on upper decks (possibly a Sheet LP -1 and LP -la [hardscape planting plan]). The City will enforce continuing landscape plan maintenance requirements for only that on the ground. 9. Sheet LP -3 - Please separate out the landscaping being provided on the ground from that being provided on upper decks (possibly into two Plant Lists [ground and hardscape]). The City will enforce continuing landscape plan maintenance requirements for only that on the ground. Development Review Agenda — Thursday, September 4, 2008 — Page 3 Of 10 10 . Sheet LP -1 - Unclear why two high -rise oaks are proposed on the south side of the tower. The planting area appears too small for a large tree. Future canopy will be rubbing the building. Reconsider use of high -rise oaks at this location. 11 . Sheet LP -3 - Revise for the following: a. General Notes - Next to last - Unclear as to what is meant by shredded mulch "or ground cover" ( ?); and b. Plant List needs to indicate the caliper of trees (except palms) to be planted. 12. Sheets LP -1 and LP -3 - Ensure the plant counts on LP -1 add up to that indicated in the Plant List totals on LP -3. Parks and Recreation: The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at 727 - 562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to the issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727- 562 -4818 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of building permit. 1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit. 2. Show on the Paving and Grading plan how roof and garage runoff will be routed to the proposed oil/grease separator and/or the vault as stated in the drainage report. 3. As indicated on the Paving and Grading Plan, please show proposed grades and other required drainage elevations on the construction plan. 4. Provide a maintenance schedule of the stormwater management system. 5. Provide trench drain across the three driveways to intercept runoff and route to the proposed vault. 6. Existing storm sewer and structures that will not be utilized shall be indicated to be removed on the demolition plan. 7. Show the oil -water separator on the Paving Grading plan and show how garage runoff routed through this device. 8. It is recommended to have the garage's finished floor elevation 0.5' higher than the crown of the road. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. 2. At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any other drainage related document for review and record. Solid Waste: 1. Compactor area can not be serviced as shown (not enough room) 2. If applying for "green Lodging Certification" you will need to show where recycling will take place. Development Review Agenda —Thursday, September 4, 2008— Page 4 Of 10 t • Traffic Engineering: 1. Traffic Operation Division has concerns about the use of elevators as the only access to upper floors of the proposed parking garage for a resort hotel. Dependence upon the elevators could result in operational problems due to mechanical or electrical malfunctions. Previous designs for structures at this location have used ramps to provide access to upper parking floors, is it possible to design a building that would utilize ramps instead of the elevators? 2. Does the applicant have other facilities where elevators provide the sole access to upper parking floors? If yes, what operational and mechanical problems have been encountered? 3. What additional maintenance is anticipated to be necessary for the use of elevators for this purpose in a coastal environment? 4. Is a generator included in the design of the hotel that can be used to power the three lifts in an emergency? 5. Demonstrate, using a turning template, that a passenger vehicle can enter the freight elevator adjacent the transformer without hitting any objects. 6. Demonstrate using a turning template how a scaled WB -50 truck enters and exits the loading area. 7. The structural columns at the end of the parking stalls create maneuverability problems. Consider re- positioning the columns away from the ends of the stalls. 8. There shall be no columns in any of the drive aisles. 9. The proposed parking spaces shown may be insufficient. Provide a parking study to support and justify the number of proposed parking spaces. 10. Show the path a wheelchair bound patron can use to get from a public sidewalk to the lobby. 11. Although there are no proposed handicap parking spaces in the parking garage, the parking garage shall be designed to accommodate an accessible van, which requires an 8' 2" clear vertical height. This includes entrance, route, parking stall and exit. Indicate this on the site plan. (Florida Accessibility Code Sections 11- 4.1.2.(5)(b) and 11- 4.6.5) The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: 1. If vehicle freight elevators are approved, then provide mirrors for the ground floor for vehicles exiting from the freight elevators. 2. Provide in the detail sheet FDOT's truncated dome standards (Index 304 page 6 of 6). Use link provided: http: / /www. dot. state .fl.us /rddesign/rd/RTDS /08 /304.pdf General Note(s): 1. Applicant. shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Planning: Development Review Agenda — Thursday, September 4, 2008 — Page 5 Of 10 I . It is unclear how such raised/elevated pool area shown with fill material complies with FEMA, requirements for structures within a V -Zone allowing wave action to flow under the building. Any walls must breakaway to allow wave action. Fill goes against such requirement (based on discussions with our Building Official). Structure is also close to the existing seawall and will need variances to the Building Code requirement for seawall setbacks (18 feet required). 2. Unclear why all the paver area (sun terrace) is necessary along the seawall seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Provide an explanation and a justification for such. Prior request only had a sidewalk, but no paver area, on the west side of the building, and the sidewalk did not encroach or go seaward of the CCCL. So far, not convinced such paver area is necessary or justified. 3 . Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the connection between the "sun terrace" paver area and the sidewalk along the north property line in the northwest corner, as to why the sidewalk must extend almost all the way to the seawall. Need to also show the interconnection of the sidewalk along the north property line to the pool deck stairs and pool ADA ramp. 4. If I understand the existing grades of the S. Gulfview Boulevard, the subject property and the properties north and south of the subject property properly: a. the existing grades in the center of S. Gulfview Blvd abutting the subject property ranges from approximately 4.00 on the north to 4.23 on the south; b. the existing grades of the subject property range from 4.03 to 11.03 feet. It is unknown what the grades for the top of the seawall is, as no grades have been provided; C. the grades on the property to the north range from 3.86 at S. Gulfview to over 6 feet along the north property line west of the paved City parking lot; and d. the existing grades on the property to the south range from 4 feet at their northern driveway to over 6 feet approximately in the center of the northern portion of their property. As such, it is interesting to note that the FFE for Parking Level 1 is 4.00, which is below the existing grades for the subject property and adjacent properties and would appear to flood in storm events, including flooding into the elevators and freight elevators. Correct? 5 . Sheets 3/13, 7/13, 9/13, 10/13 and Al - From a traffic flow standpoint (since garage is all valet), it would appear that the one -way drive aisle (27' wide) NW of the loading/compactor area would have a flow if it was relocated to be where Spaces 13 -15, 22 -24 and 27 -29 currently are designed. The parking spaces can be relocated westward to the current location of the one -way drive aisle as it appears to be the same dimensionally. Revise. 6. Sheet 3/13 - While loading spaces 35 feet in depth have been provided, the loading spaces end at an internal drive aisle, not a loading dock or unloading area. Off - loading the trucks would appear to be within the adjacent required 24 -foot drive aisle/back up area for Spaces 13 -18. Loading does not appear to function. It is also questionable whether a delivery truck and trash truck can access the loading spaces and compactor. Revise. 7. Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for the gate on the drive on the south side of the building that restricts access into the garage, loading spaces and compactor. Gate appears to restrict the ability of trucks to get into and out of the southern loading area. 8 . Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for a trash staging area outside of the building if a compactor is being provided. Advise /revise. Development Review Agenda— Thursday, September 4, 2008— Page 6 Of 10 • • 9 . Sheets 3/13 and Al - It my understanding under the Building Codes and FEMA regulations that there can be no occupiable space below BFE, except storage. Unclear of how the "valet" room qualifies to be below BFE. Advise /revise. 10. Sheets 3/13 and Al - Unclear of what is meant by "support" for the area north of the SW stairwells. Only storage is allowed below BFE. Advise /revise. 11 . Sheet 3/13 - Need to dimension the distances from the western CCCL to the western edge of the paver sun terrace and the distances from the northern CCCL to the northern edge of the sidewalk, so these distances can be included in the advertising of this proposal. 12. Sheets 3/13 and Al - There are columns from the hotel rooms tower above that are shown but not black as the other columns. Is this because they. will not be seen or will not block drive aisles or the backing out ability from parking spaces. It appears that some spaces will be inaccessible. Advise. 13. Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for the following notes: a. "H /C Ramp Type CR20" directly south of the stairs from the sidewalk in S. Gulfview Blvd R.O.W. and the porte cochere drive; and b. "H/C Access Path" within the S. Gulfview Blvd R.O.W. with an arrow just south of "a" above. Revise. 14. Sheet 3/13 - Need to dimension the distance from the south property line to the proposed 6' high wall at its closest point and south of the trash staging area. 15. Sheet 3/13 - A fence is indicated along the south edge of the southernmost drive from the 6' high wall to the front property line. Need to indicate the height of the fence and the type of fence (wood, vinyl, etc). Within the visibility triangle, maximum height is 30 ". 16. Sheet 3/13 - A 6' high fence is indicated along the south property line from the trash staging area to the seawall ( ?) or the CCCL ( ?). Need to be more specific as to where the fence ends. Need to indicate the type of fence (wood, vinyl, etc.). 17. Sheet 3/13 - A note in indicated at the southwest corner regarding the waterfront sight triangle and refers to the "Landscape plans for fence requirements ". There is no information on the Landscape plans regarding such fencing. Revise. 18. Sheet 1/13 - Land Use Data indicates 8,783 sf of vehicular use area (VUA) and 165 sf of interior landscape area provided (21/o of VUA), where Code requires 10% of VUA: a. Show by shading on Sheet 3/13 the area being counted toward interior landscape area; b. Unclear why the required 10% requirement cannot be provided. Need to look at landscaped areas, other than foundation landscaping that could be counted toward interior landscape area. 19. Sheet 1/13 -Revise the Land Use Data for the following: a. Include the area zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) in the Existing and Proposed columns; b. In accordance with Section 3- 908.A, the porte cochere canopy, which is cantilevered from the building, is not subject to setbacks. No reduction is necessary. Revise Proposed Setbacks (Building) for Front; C. The proposed front setback (building), based on the submitted plans, is 31.1 feet to the NE corner of the building; d. The proposed front setback (tower) is 3 1. 1 feet; and e. The proposed side (south) (tower) setback is indicated at 23 feet. Show such dimension on Sheet 3/13. 20. Sheet 1/13 -Parking table at bottom of Land Use Data needs to be coordinated with that indicated on Sheet A0, as the numbers are different as to the number of valet and tandem spaces provided. Development Review Agenda — Thursday, September 4, 2008 — Page 7 Of 10 n u • 21 . Sheet 1/13 indicates in the Unit Count of hotel rooms a total of 230 rooms. Based on unit counts on the architectural plans, there are 231 rooms. The discrepancy occurs on Level 16 where there are 12 rooms, not 11 rooms. Revise the architectural plans to only provide for a total of 230 rooms. 22. Sheets A6, A7, A8, A9 and A 10 - Dimension the width/depth of the balconies. If I understand the dimensions on Sheet AO correctly, the balconies on the north side of the building are within 2.5 feet of the CCCL. Correct? 23 . Sheet AO - Provide the following on this sheet: a. A dimension from the adjacent building to the closest portion of the proposed building over 100 feet in height (either the mechanical oval or the balconies on the south side of the tower); and b. Show where the Building Sections (East - West) and (North - South) on Sheets A 13 and A 14 are cut through the building. 24. Sheets A14 - A18 - Per the definition of "height, building or structure ", the maximum height of the parapet at the top of the building can be 42 ". Shown is 48 ". Revise. 25. Sheet 3/13 - Add a dimension from the front property line to the edge of the balconies (dashed line) in the NE corner of the building. 26. Sheet A18 - Dimension the height of the overhead doors. 27. Sheet A19 - SE View Perspective - View appears to be "see through" the building, which is not reality. Revise. 28 . Sheet A19 - East and SE Perspective Views indicate the porte cochere with columns. Sheets A16 and A18 show the porte cochere as cantilevered from the building with no columns. Sheet A15 appears to indicate guy wires from the building holding up the porte cochere, however, the porte cochere is dashed in also indicating columns. The colored version of Sheet A15 "grayed" in the porte cochere as if it is cantilevered, but indicates columns dashed in. Sheets Al, A2 and A3 indicate the porte cochere with columns close to the building, but with no columns out next to the front property line (meaning it is cantilevered). Sheet 3/13 does not indicate columns out next to the front property line (meaning it is cantilevered). Need to coordinate plans as to whether this porte cochere is cantilevered or is designed with columns. If it can be engineered, the cantilevered design is more exciting and fits better with the building design. 29 . Exhibit B - Request 2 - Flexible Development - Revise for the following: a. "d" - Need to revise depending on how the porte cochere is designed (if with columns close to the front property line, then there will be proposed setback; if cantilevered, then no proposed setback for the porte cochere). Otherwise, add in the proposed setback to the building at the northeast corner (to the building and to the corner of the balcony). Revise proposed setback to pavement (driveway) to whatever distance I have requested just south of the stairs to the sidewalk in S. Gulfview Blvd.; b. "e" - Need to include "to permit a sidewalk "x" feet seaward of the CCCL "; C. "f' - Need to include the proposed setback to the pavement; d. "g" - Need to include "to permit concrete patios "x" feet seaward of the CCCL "; and e. Need to include the proposed height of the building. 30. Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - . (2) - Need to include discussion of whether the garage will provide parking for all employees and whether employees' cars will be valet parked. 31 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following (keep in mind that the advertising for Comp. Infill has been revised to set out what is proposed and does not set out any reductions or Development Review Agenda — Thursday, September 4, 2008 — Page 8 Of 10 32 33 increases; the discussion needs to compare the reduction or increase to that normally required [or that otherwise that would have been advertised]): a. Height - Need to discuss the height increase from 35 feet to 100 feet, as well as to 150 feet; b. Setbacks - Need to discuss the proposed setbacks to that normally required. Additionally, depending on how the porte cochere is designed, modify the discussion of setbacks (columns or cantilevered design ? ?); C. Relief from CCCL Setback - Need to discuss the proposed setbacks to that normally required; and d. While no relief is being requested, should include a discussion relating to lot area and lot width, due to the way we are advertising the request now. Obviously, both the lot area and lot width exceed the minimum requirements. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 - Revise "f', as there are no minimum standard uses in the Tourist District. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Revise for the following: a. Under "a" - The proposed hotel is not permitted as a Minimum Standard use, as there are no Minimum Standard uses in the Tourist District; b. Under "b" - Last sentence on Page 10 - Revise "compliments" to "complements "; C. Under "b" - Page 11 for Tower Separation - Please provide written discussion of how this proposal meets the regulations, not just referring one to a map that one must interpret what they are looking at; d. Under "b" - Page 11 refers to Exhibits C -3 and C -4 - Revise the exhibits to 45 feet and recalculate allowable building envelop volume and proposed design. Revise the proposed percentage in the written material on Page 11; e. Under "b" - Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings on Page 12 - I would not characterize landscaping as "lush ", as the landscape areas on the north, south and west have been minimized due to the higher than prior requests impervious surface ratio. The design of the site landscaping also conflicts with stormwater design features, both on the north and south sides of the property. Except the east side of the property, I don't agree that proposed landscaping will soften the architecture. Need to rethink how this is written and/or see how to reduce the ISR to provide adequate areas, free of obstructing stormwater features and Fire Department access, for landscaping to be provided to accomplish the effect of softening the architecture; f. Under "b" - Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings for Maximum Building Envelop on Page 13 - See discussion under "d" above. Revise proposed percentage after recalculating; g. Under "c" on Page 13 - Last sentence - Revise "compliments" to "complements "; h. Under "e" on Page 14 - Overall Landscaping - It is stated that a Comprehensive Landscape Program is not required, however, it is unclear if one is required based on other comments regarding the provided percentage of VUA for interior landscape area. Revise as necessary, depending on your responses to the other Landscaping comments; i. Under "e" on Page 14 - North Property Line - Unclear of what the last sentence is referring to. Need to expound on this sentence, however, there are landscape comments that point out conflicts between proposed landscaping and other requirements (Fire Department access, Development Review Agenda— Thursday, September 4, 2008 — Page 9 Of 10 stormwater. features, etc.). See also discussion above in "e ". Landscaping along north property line could be characterized as minimal due to the reductions to setbacks and building mass /ISR; j. Termination of Nonconforming Status - 93 on Page 15 - There are no existing nonconforming signs, outdoor lighting or other accessory structures or uses on the site. Remove statement regarding Comprehensive Sign Program. Revise; and k. Termination of Nonconforming Status - #4 on Page 15 - Since #3 is being modified, revise sentence #2 appropriately. 34 . There is a concern that the design of the site minimizes any ability to provide landscaping on the north and south sides of the property. On the south side of the property, the closeness of the vehicular use area for the. loading area and garage access leaves very little room for meaningful landscaping. Other landscaping and planning comments speak to conflicts with Fire Department access and stormwater features. The closeness of the pool area to the north property line, coupled with the provision of the sidewalk to the rear along the north property line does not provide any meaningful area for "lush" landscaping to soften the architecture. The overall proposed ISR is greater than proposed for prior projects on this site, which is a contributing factor to this concern. The building design is excellent, but the overall feel is that the building is squeezed onto the site. Other: No Comments Notes: Sufficient - To be placed on the 10/21/08 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above departments' comments by noon, 9/15/08. Packets shall be collated, folded and stapled as appropriate. Development Review Agenda —Thursday, September 4, 2008— Page 10 Of 10 ! — 1.45 pm Case Number: FLD2008 -080 430 S GULFVIEW BLVD 0 1pr0l Owner(s): Salt Block 57 Llc 1000 Market St Ste 300 w$ Portsmouth, Nh 03801 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Representative: Ed Armstrong Po Box 1368 Clearwater, F133757 -1368 TELEPHONE: 727 - 461 -1818, FAX: 727 - 462 -0365, E -MAIL: eda @jpfirm.com Location: 2.45 total acres (1.87 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.58 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation District) located on the west side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 500 feet northwest of Hamden Drive and directly south of Clearwater Beach. Atlas Page: Zoning District: T, Tourist Request: (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units; where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today), under the provisions of Section 6 -109; (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 230 -room overnight accommodation use (hotel) in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 81,450 square feet/1.87 acres zoned Tourist District (2.45 total acres; 0.58 acres of total acreage zoned Open Space /Recreation District), a lot width of 236 feet, a front setback of x feet (to building) and x feet (to pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and to permit a sidewalk x feet seaward of the CCCL, a side (south) setback of 16.8 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement/privacy wall), a rear (west) setback of 2.3 feet (to building) from the CCCL and to permit concrete patios x feet seaward of the CCCL, a building height of 150 feet above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to top of roof deck and 294 parking spaces at 1.278 parking spaces per hotel room, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C, and approval of a two -year development order; and (3) including the Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Avenue, one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 4 -1402. Proposed Use: Overnight accommodations Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Clearwater Beach Association Association(s): TELEPHONE: 443 -2168, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: papamurphy @aol.com Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Robert Tefft, Scott Rice, Steve Doherty, Jim Keller, Rick Albee, Tom Glenn Applicant: Ed Armstrong, Jayne Sears, O.C. Cabrera, Cyndi Tarapani The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - Page 32 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 Prior to the issuansa Building Permit: 0 1. Install sanitary sewer double sweep cleanout in right -of -way and include City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #305 on detail sheet. 2. Because the proposed use of the property includes a restaurant please show a grease trap location on the plan. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy: 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 accuracy. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site - specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. General Note: In addition to the requirement for a City of Clearwater Building Permit, there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies. Environmental: 1 . Prior to issuance of building permit: No light within 300 feet shall be visible or extend in areas identified as Sea Turtle Nesting Areas during the nesting season of May 1 to October 31. Those areas where security and public safety requires lighting, alternative light management approaches shall be applied. Demonstrate compliance on plans acceptable to the Environmental Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. Fire: 1 . Plans do not show the locations of the Fire Pump Room or the Emergency Generator Room. Show locations on plans PRIOR TO CDB. 2. Utility page does not show location of fire line into building.Provide on plan PRIOR TO CDB Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1 . No issues. Land Resources: No Issues Landscaping: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - Page 33 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 1 . Sheet 7/13 - Thertan inconsistency between the Grading Plan an *e proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the Filter Drain 100 along the north property line. Based on the detail on Sheet 12/13, the top of the concrete filter drain is 7.02 and the proposed grades are between 4.2 and 5.5, which means the top of the filter drain is above ground and does not provide sufficent cover to plant the landscape material indicated. Revise. 2. Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the OCS 100, as there does not appear to be sufficient cover to provide the landscaping, especially the Medjool Palm, over this OCS 100. Revise. 3. Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the Filter Drain 200 along the south property line. Based on the detail on Sheet 12/13, the top of the concrete filter drain is 4.00 and the proposed grades are between 4.4 and 6.45, which may not provide sufficent cover to plant the landscape material indicated. Revise. 4. Sheet 7/13 - There is an inconsistency between the Grading Plan and the proposed landscaping shown on Sheet LP -1 regarding the OCS 200, as there does not appear to be sufficient cover to provide the landscaping, especially the palms, over this OCS 200. Revise. 5. Sheets 10/13 and LP -1 - If the Fire Department access can go across grass but cannot be impeded by landscape materials, it appears these two sheets contradict each other. Sheet 10/13 indicates the Fire Department access is a five -foot wide path, which is not correct. Coordinate. 6. Sheet LP -1 - Revise this sheet to provide a symbol with the Plant Key and Quantity rather than spelling everything out on this sheet and remove the height, spread, spacing, etc. A Plant List has been provided on Sheet LP -3 that has all the details. If there are specific heights of trees in particular areas of the site to be called out, then that information on Sheet LP -1 should be noted, but normal requirements of height, spread, spacing, etc. should be shown only on Sheet LP -3. The Plant Key on Sheet LP -3 is not even used on Sheet LP -1. 7. Sheet LP -1 -Revise for the following: a. Interior landscape area is supposedly shaded on this sheet, but all landscape areas are shaded. Remove the note from this sheet. Interior landscape area shading should be shown on Sheet 3/13; b. Vehicular Use Area is indicated as 8,500 sf, which conflicts with that indicated on Sheet 1/13; and c. Interior landscape area provided is indicated as 1,000 sf, whereas Sheet 1/13 indicates 165 sf. 8. Sheet LP -1 - Please separate out the landscaping being provided on the ground from that being provided on upper decks (possibly a Sheet LP -1 and LP -la [hardscape planting plan]). The City will enforce continuing landscape plan maintenance requirements for only that on the ground.. 9. Sheet LP -3 - Please separate out the landscaping being provided on the ground from that being provided on upper decks (possibly into two Plant Lists [ground and hardscape]). The City will enforce continuing landscape plan maintenance requirements for only that on the ground. 10. Sheet LP -1 - Unclear why two high -rise oaks are proposed on the south side of the tower. The planting area appears too small for a large tree. Future canopy will be rubbing the building. Reconsider use of high -rise oaks at this location. 11 . Sheet LP -3 - Revise for the following: a. General Notes - Next to last - Unclear as to what is meant by shredded mulch "or ground cover" ( ?); and b. Plant List needs to indicate the caliper of trees (except palms) to be planted. 12. Sheets LP -1 and LP -3 - Ensure the plant counts on LP -1 add up to that indicated in the Plant List totals on LP -3. Parks and Recreation: i . The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at 727 -562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. 2. Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to the issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727 - 562 -4818 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - Page 34 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 The following she addressed prior to issuance of building pero 1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit. 2. Show on the Paving and Grading plan how roof and garage runoff will be routed to the proposed oil/grease separator and/or the vault as stated in the drainage report. 3. As indicated on the Paving and Grading Plan, please show proposed grades and other required drainage elevations on the construction plan. 4. Provide a maintenance schedule of the stormwater management system. 5. Provide trench drain across the three driveways to intercept runoff and route to the proposed vault. 6. Existing storm sewer and structures that will not be utilized shall be indicated to be removed on the demolition plan. 7. Show the oil -water separator on the Paving Grading plan and show how garage runoff routed through this device. 8. It is recommended to have the garage's finished floor elevation 0.5' higher than the crown of the road. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. 2. At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any other drainage related document for review and record. Solid Waste: 1 . 1. Compactor area can not be serviced as shown (not enough room) 2. If applying for "green Lodgeing Certification" you will need to show where recycling will take place. Traffic Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - Page 35 DRC Action Agcnda 1.1 Planning: 1. Traffic Operateivision has concerns about the use of elevato9s the only access to upper floors of the proposed parking garage for a resort hotel. Dependence upon the elevators could result in operational problems due to mechanical or electrical malfunctions. Previous designs for structures at this location have used ramps to provide access to upper parking floors, is it possible to design a building that would utilize ramps instead of the elevators? 2. Does the applicant have other facilities where elevators provide the sole access to upper parking floors? If yes, what operational and mechanical problems have been encountered? 3. What additional maintenance is anticipated to be necessary for the use of elevators for this purpose in a coastal environment? 4. Is a generator included in the design of the hotel that can be used to power the three lifts in an emergency? 5. Demonstrate, using a turning template, that a passenger vehicle can enter the freight elevator adjacent the transformer without hitting any objects. 6. Demonstrate using a turning template how a scaled WB -50 truck enters and exits the loading area. 7. The structural columns at the end of the parking stalls create maneuverability problems. Consider re- positioning the columns away from the ends of the stalls. 8. There shall be no columns in any of the drive aisles. 9. The proposed parking spaces shown may be insufficient. Provide a parking study to support and justify the number of proposed parking spaces. 10. Show the path a wheelchair bound patron can use to get from a public sidewalk to the lobby. 11. Although there are no proposed handicap parking spaces in the parking garage, the parking garage shall be designed to accommodate an accessible van, which requires an 8' 2" clear vertical height. This includes entrance, route, parking stall and exit. Indicate this on the site plan. (Florida Accessibility Code Sections 11- 4.1.2.(5)(b) and 11- 4.6.5) The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: 1. If vehicle freight elevators are approved, then provide mirrors for the ground floor for vehicles exiting from the freight elevators. 2. Provide in the detail sheet FDOT's truncated dome standards (Index 304 page 6 of 6). Use link provided: http: / /www. dot. state .fl.us /rddesign/rd/RTDS /08 /304.pdf 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. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - Page 36 DRC Action Agrnda 1.1 I . It is unclear how sloaised/elevated pool area shown with fill mate9complies with FEMA requirements for structures within a V -Zone allowing wave action to flow under the building. Any walls must breakaway to allow wave action. Fill goes against such requirement (based on discussions with our Building Official). Structure is also close the the existing seawall and will need variances to the Building Code requirement for seawall setbacks (18 feet required). 2. Unclear why all the paver area (sun terrace) is necessary along the seawall seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Provide an explanation and a justification for such. Prior request only had a sidewalk, but no paver area, on the west side of the building, and the sidewalk did not encroach or go seaward of the CCCL. So far, not convinced such paver area is necessary or justified. 3 . Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the connection between the "sun terrace" paver area and the sidewalk along the north property line in the northwest corner, as to why the sidewalk must extend almost all the way to the seawall. Need to also show the interconnection of the sidewalk along the north property line to the pool deck stairs and pool ADA ramp. 4. If I understand the existing grades of the S. Gulfview Boulevard, the subject property and the properties north and south of the subject property properly: a. the existing grades in the center of S. Gulfview Blvd abutting the subject property ranges from approximately 4.00 on the north to 4.23 on the south; b. the existing grades of the subject property range from 4.03 to 11.03 feet. It is unknown what the grades for the top of the seawall is, as no grades have been provided; c. the grades on the property to the north range from 3.86 at S. Gulfview to over 6 feet along the north property line west of the paved City parking lot; and d. the existing grades on the property to the south range from 4 feet at their northern driveway to over 6 feet approximately in the center of the northern portion of their property. As such, it is interesting to note that the FFE for Parking Level 1 is 4.00, which is below the existing grades for the subject property and adjacent properties and would appear to flood in storm events, including flooding into the elevators and freight elevators. Correct? 5. Sheets 3/13, 7/13, 9/13, 10/13 and Al - From a traffic flow standpoint (since garage is all valet), it would appear that the one -way drive aisle (27' wide) NW of the loading/compactor area would have a flow if it was relocated to be where Spaces 13 -15, 22 -24 and 27 -29 currently are designed. The parking spaces can be relocated westward to the current location of the one -way drive aisle as it appears to be the same dimensionally. Revise. 6. Sheet 3/13 - While loading spaces 35 feet in depth have been provided, the loading spaces end at an internal drive aisle, not a loading dock or unloading area. Off - loading the trucks would appear to be within the adjacent required 24 -foot drive aisle/back up area for Spaces 13 -18. Loading does not appear to function. It is also quesionable whether a delivery truck and trash truck can access the loading spaces and compactor. Revise. 7. Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for the gate on the drive on the south side of the building that restricts access into the garage, loading spaces and compactor. Gate appears to restrict the ability of trucks to get into and out of the southern loading area. 8. Sheet 3/13 - Unclear of the need for a trash staging area outside of the building if a compactor is being provided. Advise /revise. 9. Sheets 3/13 and Al - It my understanding under the Building Codes and FEMA regulations that there can be no occupiable space below BFE, except storage. Unclear of how the "valet" room qualifies to be below BFE. Advise /revise. 10. Sheets 3/13 and Al -Unclear of what is meant by "support" for the area north of the SW stairwells. Only storage is allowed below BFE. Advise /revise. 11 . Sheet 3/13 - Need to dimension the distances from the western CCCL to the western edge of the paver sun terrace and the distances from the northern CCCL to the northern edge of the sidewalk, so these distances can be included in the advertising of this proposal. 12. Sheets 3/13 and Al - There are columns from the hotel rooms tower above that are shown but not black as the other columns. Is this because they will not be seen or will not block drive aisles or the backing out ability from parking spaces. It appears that some spaces will be inaccessible. Advise. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - Page 37 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 13 . Sheet 3/13 - Uncle* the need for the following notes: • a. "H /C Ramp Type CR20" directly south of the stairs from the sidewalk in S. Gulfview Blvd R.O.W. and the porte cochere drive; and b. "H/C Access Path" within the S. Gulfview Blvd R.O.W. with an arrow just south of "a" above. Revise. 14. Sheet 3/13 - Need to dimension the distance from the south property line to the proposed 6' high wall at its closest point and south of the trash staging area. 15. Sheet 3/13 - A fence is indicated along the south edge of the southernmost drive from the 6' high wall to the front property line. Need to indicate the height of the fence and the type of fence (wood, vinyl, etc). Within the visibility triangle, maximum height is 30 ". 16. Sheet 3/13 - A 6' high fence is indicated along the south property line from the trash staging area to the seawall ( ?) or the CCCL ( ?). Need to be more specific.as to where the fence ends. Need to indicate the type of fence (wood, vinyl, etc.). 17. Sheet 3/13 - A note in indicated at the southwest corner regarding the waterfront sight triangle and refers to the "Landscape plans for fence requirements ". There is no information on the Landscape plans regarding such fencing. Revise. 18. Sheet 1/13 - Land Use Data indicates 8,783 sf of vehicular use area (VUA) and 165 sf of interior landscape area provided (2% of VUA), where Code requires 10% of VUA: a. Show by shading on Sheet 3/13 the area being counted toward interior landscape area; b. Unclear why the required 10% requirement cannot be provided. Need to look at landscaped areas, other than foundation landscaping that could be counted toward interior landscape area. 19. Sheet 1/13 - Revise the Land Use Data for the following: a. Include the area zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) in the Existing and Proposed columns; b. In accordance with Section 3- 908.A, the porte cochere canopy, which is cantilevered from the building, is not subject to setbacks. No reduction is necessary. Revise Proposed Setbacks (Building) for Front; c. The proposed front setback (building), based on the submitted plans, is 31.1 feet to the NE corner of the building; d. The proposed front setback (tower) is 3 1. 1 feet; and e. The proposed side (south) (tower) setback is indicated at 23 feet. Show such dimension on Sheet 3/13. 20. Sheet 1/13 - Parking table at bottom of Land Use Data needs to be coordinated with that indicated on Sheet A0, as the numbers are different as to the number of valet and tandem spaces provided. 21. Sheet 1/13 indicates in the Unit Count of hotel rooms a total of 230 rooms. Based on unit counts on the architectural plans, there are 231 rooms. The discrepancy occurs on Level 16 where there are 12 rooms, not 11 rooms. Revise the architectural plans to only provide for a total of 230 rooms. 22. Sheets A6, A7, A8, A9 and A10 - Dimension the width/depth of the balconies. If I understand the dimensions on Sheet AO correctly, the balconies on the north side of the building are within 2.5 feet of the CCCL. Correct? 23. Sheet AO - Provide the following on this sheet: a. A dimension from the adjacent building to the closest portion of the proposed building over 100 feet in height (either the mechanical oval or the balconies on the south side of the tower); and b. Show where the Building Sections (East -West) and (North -South) on Sheets A13 and A14 are cut through the building. 24. Sheets A14 - A18 - Per the definition of "height, building or structure ", the maximum height of the parapet at the top of the building can be 42 ". Shown is 48 ". Revise. 25. Sheet 3/13 - Add a dimension from the front property line to the edge of the balconies (dashed line) in the NE comer of the building. 26. Sheet A18 - Dimension the height of the overhead doors. 27. Sheet A19 - SE View Perspective - View appears to be "see through" the building, which is not reality. Revise. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - Page 38 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 28 . Sheet A19 -East A Perspective Views indicate the porte cocheMith columns. Sheets A16 and A18 show the porte cochere as cantilevered from the building with no columns. Sheet A15 appears to indicate guy wires from the building holding up the porte cochere, however, the porte cochere is dashed in also indicating columns. The colored version of Sheet A15 "greyed" in the porte cochere as if it is cantilevered, but indicates columns dashed in. Sheets Al, A2 and A3 indicate the porte cochere with columns close to the building, but with no columns out next to the front property line (meaning it is cantilevered). Sheet 3/13 does not indicate columns out next to the front property line (meaning it is cantilevered). Need to coodinate plans as to whether this porte cochere is cantilevered or is designed with columns. If it can be engineered, the cantilevered design is more exciting and fits better with the building design. 29. Exhibit B - Request 2 - Flexible Development - Revise for the following: a. "d" - Need to revise depending on how the porte cochere is designed (if with columns close to the front property line, then there will be proposed setback; if cantilevered, then no proposed setback for the porte cochere). Otherwise, add in the proposed setback to the building at the northeast corner (to the building and to the corner of the balcony). Revise proposed setback to pavement (driveway) to whatever distance I have requested just south of the stairs to the sidewalk in S. Gulfview Blvd.; b. "e" - Need to include "to permit a sidewalk "x" feet seaward of the CCCL"; c. "f" - Need to include the proposed setback to the pavement; , d. "g" - Need to include "to permit concrete patios "x" feet seaward of the CCCL"; and e. Need to include the proposed height of the building. 30. Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - (2) - Need to include discussion of whether the garage will provide parking for all employees and whether employees' cars will be valet parked. 31 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following (keep in mind that the advertising for Comp. Infill has been revised to set out what is proposed and does not set out any reductions or increases; the discussion needs to compare the reduction or increase to that normally required [or that otherwise that would have been advertised]): a. Height - Need to discuss the height increase from 35 feet to 100 feet, as well as to 150 feet; b. Setbacks - Need to discuss the proposed setbacks to that normally required. Additionally, depending on how the porte cochere is designed, modify the discussion of setbacks (columns or cantilevered design ? ?); c. Relief from CCCL Setback - Need to discuss the proposed setbacks to that normally required; and d. While no relief is being requested, should include a discussion relating to lot area and lot width, due to the way we are advertising the request now. Obviously, both the lot area and lot width exceed the minimum requirements. 32. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 - Revise "f", as there are no minimum standard uses in the Tourist District. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - Page 39 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 33 . Response to Comp *hive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria Aevise for the following: a. Under "a" - The proposed hotel is not permitted as a Minimum Standard use, as there are no Minimum Standard uses in the Tourist District; b. Under "b" - Last sentence on Page 10 - Revise "compliments" to "complements "; c. Under "b" - Page 11 for Tower Separation - Please provide written discussion of how this proposal meets the regulations, not just referring one to a map that one must interpret what they are looking at; d. Under "b" - Page 11 refers to Exhibits C -3 and C -4 - Revise the exhibits to 45 feet and recalculate allowable building envelop volume and proposed design. Revise the proposed percentage in the written material on Page 11; e. Under "b" - Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings on Page 12 - I would not characterize landscaping as "lush ", as the landscape areas on the north, south and west have been minimized due to the higher than prior requests impervious surface ratio. The design of the site landscaping also conflicts with stormwater design features, both on the north and south sides of the property. Except the east side of the property, I don't agree that proposed landscaping will soften the architecture. Need to rethink how this is written and/or see how to reduce the ISR to provide adequate areas, free of obstructing stormwater features and Fire Department access, for landscaping to be provided to accomplish the effect of softening the architecture; f. Under "b" - Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings for Maximum Building Envelop on Page 13 - See discussion under "d" above. Revise proposed percentage after recalculating; g. Under "c" on Page 13 - Last sentence - Revise "compliments" to "complements "; h. Under "e" on Page 14 - Overall Landscaping - It is stated that a Comprehensive Landscape Program is not required, however, it is unclear if one is required based on other comments regarding the provided percentage of VUA for interior landscape area. Revise as necessary, depending on your responses to the other Landscaping comments; i. Under "e" on Page 14 - North Property Line - Unclear of what the last sentence is referring to. Need to expound on this sentence, however, there are landscape comments that point out conflicts between proposed landscaping and other requirements (Fire Department access, stormwater features, etc.). See also discussion above in "e ". Landscaping along north property line could be characterized as minimal due to the reductions to setbacks and building mass/ISR; j. Termination of Nonconforming Status - #3 on Page 15 - There are no existing nonconforming signs, outdoor lighting or other accessory structures or uses on the site. Remove statement regarding Comprehensive Sign Program. Revise; and k. Termination of Nonconforming Status - #4 on Page 15 - Since #3 is being modified, revise sentence #2 appropriately. 34 . There is a concern that the design of the site minimizes any ability to provide landscaping on the north and south sides of the property. On the south side of the property, the closeness of the vehicular use area for the loading area and garage access leaves very little room for meaningful landscaping. Other landscaping and planning comments speak to conflicts with Fire Department access and stormwater features. The closeness of the pool area to the north property line, coupled with the provision of the sidewalk to the rear along the north property line does not provide any meaningful area for "lush" landscaping to soften the architecture. The overall proposed ISR is greater than proposed for prior projects on this site, which is a contributing factor to this concern. The building design is excellent, but the overall feel is that the building is squeezed onto the site. Other: No Comments Notes: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, September 4, 2008 - Page 40 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 0 Page 1 of 1 • Wells,. Wayne From: Vo, Phuong Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:16 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FLD2008- 08024 -430 Gulfview Wayne,. have checked with my upper management and was advised that Stormwater division does not regulate the garage's finished floor elevation, even with the elevators land at this elevation. It is recommended to have it 0.5' higher than crown of the road. (I have added the recommendation to tidemark). This may fall under building department regulations or some other departments that I am not aware of. Thanks,. Phuong Vo.. Engineering Specialist I City of Clearwater Engineering Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Room 220 Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: (727) 562 -4752 9/3/2008 Property Appraiser General Information: 07/29/15/52380/000 /0330 Card 0 Pagel of 3 0 40 Interactive Map of this Back to Query_ New Tax Collector Question/Comment about this parcel Results Search Information parcel 07/29/15/52380/000 /0330 Data Current as. of August 03, 2008 [7:11 pm Thursday August 7] Vacant Property Owner, Address, and Sales Print Property_ Use: 0 LLOYD- WHITE - SKINNER SUB LOTS 33,34 & 35 & PT OF LOT 36 & SUBM LAND ON W PER O.R. 765/542 ALL DESC BEG NE COR OF LOT 33 TH CUR LT RAD 847FT ARC 235.76FT CB S20DE 235FT TH S69DW 402.14FT TH CUR RT RAD 1247FT ARC 296.79FT CB N19DW 296.09FT TH N78DE 40OFT TO POB ** Click here for short legal * * ** 2008 Exemptions Homestead: No Use: 0% Ownership: 0% Tax Exempt: 0% Government: No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 2007 Value 2007 Tax Information Comparable Sales value based on sales from Tax District: CW 2005 -2006: $0 Millage: 19.9371 Just/Market Value: $16,414,800 Non Ad Valorem Assessments: $.00 Assessed Value/ SOH Cap: $16,414,800 Taxes: $327,264.00 History Taxable Value: $16,414,800 Taxes without Save -Our -Homes cap: $327,264.00 A significant taxable value increase may Taxes without any exemptions: $327,264.00 occur when sold. Click here for details. Owner/Mailin2 Address SALT BLOCK 57 LLC 1000 MARKET ST STE 300 PORTSMOUTH NH 03801 -3358 Property Address Parcel Information Book/Page: Land Use: Vacant 16097/1397 Commercial (10) Census Tract: Evacuation Zone: A 260.02 Sale Date Book/Page Price Wv V/I 12/2007 16097/1397 $17,500,000 Q V 6/2005 14361/2540 $31,500,000 Q I 12/2003 13283/2290 $20,138,200 U I 1977 4591/1704 $5,125,000 Q I Plat Year Plat Book/Page(s) 1925 013/012 -013 Land Information Seawall: Frontage: None View: Land Use Land Size Unit Value Units Method Vacant Commercial(10) 255 x 314 250.00 80,070.00 S Rivers and Lakes, Submerged Lands(95) 1,000.00 .49 A http:// www. pcpao.org/general_vadet.php ?pn= 1529075238000003300 8/7/2008 • 0 �� VJ - CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold public hearings on Tuesday, October 21, 2008, beginning at 1:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following requests: NOTE: All persons wishing to address an item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meeting. Those cases that are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. will be placed on a consent agenda and approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. (Cont'd from 9- 16 -08) BVG Acquisition Inc are requesting Flexible Development approval for the redevelopment of the overall 31.12 acre - property zoned Commercial (C) District, Office (0) District and proposed Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District (companion rezoning Case No. REZ2008- 07007) to permit a total of 229 attached dwellings (Independent Living Units) (73 units existing to remain; 156 units proposed), a total of 40 nursing home beck (proposed) and a total of 170 beds of assisted living facility (94, beds existing to remain; 76 beds proposed); (A) In the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 2.45 acres, a lot width of 200 feet along Gulf to Bay Blvd (north) and a total of 210 ft along Cross Blvd, a front (north) setback along Gulf to Bay Blvd of 4 ft (to existing sign) and 28 ft (to existing pavement), a front (east) setback along Cross Blvd of one -foot (to existing pavement), a front (north) setback along Cross Blvd of 25 ft (to proposed guardhouse), a side (east) setback of 5 feet (to existing pavement), a side (west) setback of 2 feet (to existing pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing pavement) and a building height of 81 ft (to roof deck of existing assisted living facility building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project in the Commercial (C) District, under the provisions of Sec. 2- 704.C; (B) In the proposed Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a lot area of 28.33 acres, a lot width along Sky Harbor Dr. of 282 ft, a reduction to the front (west) setback along Sky Harbor Dr. from 25 to 21 ft (to existing building), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 to 5 ft (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback at the southeast corner of the adjacent nursing home parcel from 10 to 5 ft (to proposed pavement), an increase to building height from 30 to 82 ft (to top of roof of proposed building) and a reduction to the required number of parking spaces from 583 to 426 parking spaces, as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Sec. 2- 304.G; and (C) Reductions to perimeter buffers along Cross Blvd (east) from 10 ft to one -foot (to existing pavement), along the east side from 7 to 5 ft (to existing pavement), along the west side from 5 to 2 ft (to existing pavement), along the north side from 10 ft to zero ft (to existing pavement) and at the southeast corner of the adjacent nursing home parcel from 10 ft to 5 ft (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Sec. 3- 1202.G. Proposed Use: 229 attached dwellings (Independent Living Units) (73 units existing to remain; 156 units proposed), a total of 40 nursing home beds (proposed) and a total of 170 beds of assisted living facility (94 beds existing to remain; 76 beds proposed) at 2855 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Baskin's Replat Resub pt of lot 2 desc from NE cor of lot 1 TH E 60FT & S 190FT for the POB TH E 135.217T. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2008 05012 2. K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC is requesting (1) Flexible Development approval to Terminate the Status of a Nonconformity for density (200 overnight accommodation units; where 137 overnight accommodation units are permitted today) within the Tourist District, under the provisions of Sec. 6- 109.C; (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 450 -unit Overnight Accommodation use (through an increase of the permitted density of 250 overnight accommodation w w units from the density pool created pursuant to Beach by Design), with a lot area of 119,856 sq. ft (2.75 acres), a lot width of approximately 545 ft along Coronado Dr. and 227 ft along proposed 2"' St., a front (east along Coronado Dr.) setback of zero ft (to building and pavement), a front (south along proposed 2" d St.) setback of 18.83 ft (to building), a front (west and north along S. Gulfview Blvd.) setback of zero ft (to building), a building height of 150 ft (to roof deck) and either 463 valet - only parking spaces or 455 valet -only parking spaces with 8 public parking spaces at 1.028 or 1.011 parking spaces per hotel room, respectively, as well as the allowance of a two -year time frame to submit for a building permit, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec. 2- 803.C; (3) To reduce the required foundation landscaping along Coronado Dr. and S. Gulfview Blvd from 5 to zero ft (to building and pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Sec. 3- 1202.G; and (4) Vacation of a portion of S. Gulfview Blvd (former bridge landing). Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 450 rooms (163.6 rooms /acre on total site) and a maximum of 37,000 sq. ft (0.31 FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel at a height of 150 ft (to roof deck) at 100 Coronado Dr, 201, 215 & 219 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lot 1, Blk A of Columbia Sub, Lloyd White Skinner Sub Lots 44 -47 Incl & Lots 90 -93 Incl, 48 -52 Incl, Lot 98, Lots 53, 54, 99 & 100, prt of Gulfview Blvd, prt of lot 101, prt of lot 55, prt of lot 102, lots 94 -97 incl, prt of vac prt of 15Y Ave., part of vac pt of Coronado, and vac pt of Gulfview Blvd. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2008 -05013 3. James P. & Joyce P. Gills are requesting Flexible Development approval for a new single family detached dwelling within the Low Density Residential (LDR) District with a lot area of 53,799 sq ft, (33,977 sq ft Open Space/Recreation (OSR) and 19,822 sq ft LDR), a lot width of 121 ft, a reduction to the side (north) setback from 15 ft to 3 ft (to pavement) and 5 ft (to building), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 15 ft to 10 ft (to building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 15 ft to zero feet (to raised pool & building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and an increase in the maximum building height from 30 ft 34 ft (to midpoint of pitched roof) as a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project as per Community Development Code Section 2- 104.D. Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling at 1160 Mandalay Point Rd., Mandalay Point Sub 1" Add Lots 16, 16A, 17 & 17A. Assigned Planner: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. FLD2008 -08025 4. Salt Block 57 LLC is requesting (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density (217 overnight accommodation units (as established by Cases FLD2005- 01005, FLD2005 -05047 and FLD2007- 11034); where 93 overnight accommodation units are permitted today), under the provisions of Sec.6 -109; (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 230 -room overnight accommodation use (hotel) in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 81,450 sq ft/1.87 acres zoned Tourist District (2.45 total acres; 0.58 acres of total acreage zoned Open Space/Recreation District), a lot width of 236 ft, a front (east) setback of 2.5 ft (to building) and zero ft (to pavement), a side (north) setback of zero ft (to building) from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and to permit a sidewalk 10 ft seaward of the CCCL, a side (south) setback of 16 ft (to building), 1.5 ft (to pavement) and zero ft (to privacy wall), a rear (west) setback of two ft (to building) from the CCCL and to permit concrete patios 13 ft seaward of the CCCL, a building height of 150 ft above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to top of roof deck and 296 valet -only, parking spaces at 1.286 parking spaces per hotel room, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec.2- 803.C, and three driveways where the two northernmost driveways are spaced 110 ft apart and the two southernmost driveways are spaced 18 ft apart, where 125 ft is required by Sec.3 -102 and approval of a two -year development order; and (3) including the Transfer of Development Rights of eight total dwelling units (being converted to 13 overnight accommodation units) previously approved and transferred under TDR2005- 05022, including four dwelling units from 557 and 579 Cyprus Ave. one dwelling unit from 625 -627 Bay Esplanade and three dwelling units from 667 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Sec. 4- 1402. Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 230 rooms at 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. Lloyd White - Skinner Sub Lots 33, 34 & 35 & Pt of Lot 36 and Subm Land on W Per O.R. 765/542. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2008 -08024 5. City of Clearwater is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a marina for 127 slips in the Downtown (D) District with a reduction to the side (north) setback from 135.7 to 19 feet, a reduction to the side (south) setback from 135.7 to 7.67 feet and an increase to the maximum width from 75% of the lot width (1,017.7 feet) to 109.8% of the lot width (1,490 feet), under the provisions of Sections 2- 903.H, 3- 601.C.3 and 3 -603. Proposed Use: City Downtown Marina for 127 boat slips at 210 Drew Street, 16 -29 -15 M & B 21.10, 21.11, Jeffords & Smoyers ls` Add Lots 1, 4 & 5 of all Vac Sunset Ct. R/W & Lot 2 Ext to Seawall Less Drew St, Rompon's & Baskin's Corr Map of Cswy Bus Dist, Part of Blk 2, John R. Davey's Resub Blk A, Part of Lots 2 -5 & Unplatted tract on West. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2008- 08026 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board or Council, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need to request a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105.. Community Development Code Sec 4 -206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board in quasi-judicial cases if the person requesting such status demonstrates that s/he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross - examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests, and needs to be requested and obtained during the case discussion before the CDB. An oath will be administered swearing in all persons giving testimony in quasi-judicial public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons without party status speaking before the CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact the case presenter, at 562 -4567 to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan. Michael Delk Cynthia E. Goudeau, MMC Planning Director City Clerk City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758 -4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING w « REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL (727) 562 -4093 WITH THEIR REQUEST. To learn more about presenting to Clearwater boards and City Council, go to http:// clearwater .granicus.comNiewPublisher.php ?view id =11 and click on "Resident Engagement Video." You can also check the informational video out from any Clearwater public library. Ad: 10/09/08 1216352 ONTARIO INC 7071 BAYVIEW AVE # 504 THORNHILL ON L3T 7Y8 CANADA 1 LV LV VV- VVVLT, V 1 / 440 GULFVIIEW LLC Ll% U -AAGLO PROPERTIES LLC 750 PENNSYLVANIA AVE S 27 DOVE TRACE CIR 00001 - MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 - 1603 THE WOODLANDS TX 77382 - 2584 ALANIK PROPERTIES LLC 421 GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2508 ALCIATORE, GASTON ALCIATORE, NANCY J 440 GULFVIEW BLVD #402 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2510 ANASTASOPOULOS, GEORGE E ANASTASOPOULOS, EKATERINI 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 201 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2509 APPLE, JAMES R PO BOX 310474 TAMPA FL 33680 - 0474 ARQUILLA, MICHAEL P THE 1253 RICHFIELD CT WOODRIDGE IL 60517 - 7709 AYO, DENNIS H 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 607 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2512 BALOW, RONALD D THE FOLINO, JOHN F 27989 US HIGHWAY 19 N CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 4906 BARONE, ANDREW A BARONE, ALAN 5206 STATE ROUTE 256 BALTIMORE OH 43105 - 9446 BELLA RENTALS II LLC 750 ISLAND WAY # 501 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1821 ALBANESE, JANICE M ALBANESE, JOSEPH M 52 RIDGEWAY WHITE PLAINS NY 10605 - 3708 ALEMAN, REENTER R 1351 GLENWICK DR WINDERMERE FL 34786 - ANDERSON, CRAIG S 610EHINTZRD ARLINGTON HGTS IL 60004 - 2601 ARENSKY,ARKANDY THE ARENSKY, ELIZABETH THE 2506 STONEBRIGHE LN NORTHBROOK IL 60062 - 8106 ARTHUR, DAVID W ARTHUR, JEAN E 1000 KELVIN CT WORTHINGTON OH 43085 - 2919 BAILEY, BEVERLY BAILEY, H AUBREY 103 KINGSBURY WOODS MIDDLESBORO KY 40965 - 1730 BANOUB,ATEF BANOUB, AMAL 486 KENT PL W HEMPSTEAD NY 11552 - 3340 BATIANIS, THOMAI LIVING TRUST BATIANIS, THOMAI THE 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1504 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2518 BEYNON, ROBERT L BEYNON, REBECCA 1900 ALLEGHENY BLDG PITTSBURGH PA 15219 - ALBERTI, MICHAEL ALBERTI, MARK 147 SIEBERT RD LANCASTER NY 14086 - 9654 ALLEN, NANCY GADDIS, SUSAN 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 305 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2509 ANDERSON, REGINA W 440 SOUTH GULFVIEW BLVD #1702N CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2519 ARMSTRONG, JAMES L ARMSTRONG, DEBRA J 95 DEERPATH DR OLDSMAR FL 34677 - 2064 ASKALANI LIVING TRUST ASKALANI, SANAA M BNF 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 605 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2512 BAKER, ROBERT E BAKER, ANN E 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1607 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2519 BARONE, ANDREW A BARONE, ALAN 2421 HORATIO ST # 832 TAMPA FL 33609 - 3377 BEDROCK ENTERPRISES LLC 17796 WALL CIR REDINGTON SHORES FL 33708 - 1248 BILLINGSLEY, GARY R BILLINGSLEY, TAMERA 6883 N BUCK CREEK SHADES 1623 FAIRLAND IN 46126 - 9553 C BINNS, CRYSTAL A 2100 WEST RD W JEFFERSON OH 43162 - 9407 BLAYLOCK, MICHAEL D BLAYLOCK, REBECCA D 4703RD STS #912 ST PETERSBURG FL 33701 BOESEN, ROBERT J BOESEN, CHRISTIE J 13950 LAKEVIEW DR CLIVE IA 50325 - 8651 0 BISHARA, MACARL M 2227 KENT PL CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 6624 BLOSSER, ROBERT L BLOSSER, JANE A 583 E ST -4647 CARLISLE PA 17013 - IISHAY, ADEL A BISHAY, SAWSAN G 6156 NEW OSPREY POINT SPRING HILL FL 34607 - 4040 BOESEN, EDWARD J BOESEN, MAUREEN A 206 6TH AVE S # 1200 1335 DES MOINES IA 50309 - 4015 BOLLING, CHRISTOPHER J BOLLING, ALISON J. P O BOX 2696 SOUTH PORTLAND ME 04116 - 2696 BROTEMARKLE, MARTIN L SR BROWN, ALAN C TRUST BROWN, JUNE M POST, JO ANN 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #602 28605 KENDALLWOOD DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2524 FARMINGTON HILLS MI 48334 - 3458 BROWN, STEPHANIE L 1702 HUNTINGTON CT SAFETY HARBOR FL 34695 - 5635 BUKACEK, MARTA M 14086 JENNIFER TER LARGO FL 33774 - 5105 BRUEGGEMAN, STEVE 17959 DANGLER RD WINTER GARDEN FL 34787 - CALOUDIS, MARY THE 4078 CARROLL BLVD UNIVERSITY HT OH 44118 - 4516 CARAYANNOPOULOS, GEORGE L CHRISMAN, ROBERT D CARAYANNOPOULOS, MARGARET P CHRISMAN, CAROLEE 75 VILLAGEWOOD DR 3428 ADAMS SHORE DR BURLINGTON MA 01803 - 4239 WATERFORD MI 48329- 4202 Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Shelly Kuroghlian, President 1821 Springwwood Circle S. Clearwater, FL 33763 CORRY, PATRICK E CORRY, KELLY J 599 HAWTHORNE ELMHURST IL 60126 - 4240 CONNELL, PETER W 1401 MISSOURI AVE # 333 LARGO FL 33770 - 1821 CRAIG, NEVIN J 103 MEADOW LN CLAIRTON PA 15025 - 3376 BREMIS, JAMES J BREMIS, SOPHIE 1177 BROADWAY SOMERVILLE MA 02144 - 1742 BROWN, SCOTT L BROWN, SHELLEY A 3374 E LAKE SHORE LN CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 1716 BUCHELE, NIKOLAUS BUCHELE, MARYANNE 13360 VERONA TUSTIN CA 92782 - 9140 CANTERBURY OAKS INC 401 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2508 Clearwater Beach Association David Ramos, President 851 Eldorardo Avenue Clearwater, FL 33767 CONSTANTINIDES, NICHOLAS S CONSTANTINIDES, MICHAEL 1027 HILLEN BALTIMORE MD 21202 - 4132 CURRENT OWNER 2620 WOOD POINTE DR HOLIDAY FL 34691 - 8722 CURTIN, ROBERT C CURTIS, JAMES G CVETETIC, JOSEPH CURTIN, SARAH S CURTIS, JOHN G CVETETIC, MARY 8112 QUINN TER 343 S MAIN ST 5111 ESTES AVE VIENNA VA 22180 - 7452 ANN ARBOR MI 48104 - 2137 SKOKIE IL 60077 - 3437 C: D'AMICO, LOUIS J DAMJANOVIC, TEREZO DASIKA, VIJAY 410 HAMDEN DR DAMJANOVIC, MARY 15913 LAHINCH CIR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2535 515 PARKHOLLOW LN ODESSA FL 33556 - 2865 PHILADELPHIA PA 19111 - 1365 DE GRELLA, DANIEL S DE GRELLA, LYNDA F 440 GULFVIEW BLVD # 303 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2509 DEL PINO, MARIO 2126 BLACK MANGROVE DR ORLANDO FL 32828 - 4846 DICKERSON, BETTY LEE LIVING TR DICKERSON, BETTY LEE THE 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1002 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2526 D'IPPOLITO, ANTHONY D'IPPOLITO, LOUISE 4 BLANCHARD RD GREENWICH CT 06831 - 3676 DOURDOUREKAS, HELEN 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1708 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - DYBA, YOLANDA 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1201 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2529 ERKEN, YALCIN EKREN, FILIZ 3061 DOX BERRY CT CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 2003 FARRELL, JOSEPH L FARRELL, MARY E 9058 WOOD VIEW DR PITTSBURGH PA 15237 - 4108 DEARNBARGER, WILLIAM L 5029 KILLOWEN CT COLUMBUS OH 43230 - 4008 DENICKE, WILLIS H JR THE DENICKE, ANTONIA M THE PO BOX 628 STEVENS POINT WI 54481 - 0628 DILLMAN, TOM L DILLMAN, SUSAN J 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1605 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2519 DIVACO INC 455 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2508 DUNN, RICHARD A COX, PHYLLIS D 3600 CANTERBURY DR JEFFERSONTOWN KY 40299 - 3508 E.D. Armstrong III Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP PO Box 1368 Clearwater, FL 33757 -1368 ESTRELLA, EDWIN 1438 KINGSTON WAY KISSIMMEE FL 34744 - FELL, DONALD G FELL, DIANE M 1744 STANTON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 DECADE GULFCOAST HOTEL PTN RS J K GULFVIEW N19 W24130 RIVERWOOD DR # 100 WAUKESHA WI 53188 - 1131 DI VELLO LAND TRUST BENEVIDES, PEDRO P THE PO BOX 120941 CLERMONT FL 34712 - DIONNE, RICHARD M DIONNE, VICKI 1 4736 ATKINS RD CLYDE TWP MI 48049 - 4504 DOCKSIDE CONDO ASSN OF CLEARWA 445 HAMDEN DR CLEARWATER BEACH FL 33767 - DURAN, MONICA 9821 PINEOLA DR ORLANDO FL 32836 - ENTRUST OF TAMPA BAY LLC FBO SCOTT LYNDON WILHOIT IRA # 451 CENTRAL PARK DR LARGO FL 33771 - 2143 FAHY, MICHAEL FAHY, MARY 16 LARK ST PEARL RIVER NY 10965 - 2815 FERGUSON, EDMUND FERGUSON, JANICE L 6133 OAK VALLEY -2859 WHITMORE LAKE MI 48189 - 9739 FERNANDEZ, MANUEL C FIFTH SOUTH LLC FIFTH SOUTH LLC FERNANDEZ, LILLY F 16132 ARMIOSTEAD 401 CORONADO DR 4050 HAVENRIDGE CT ODESSA FL 33556 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2506 MOORPARK CA-93021 - 3721 FINTA EMERY J THE 0FIRESTONE GREG �FIRETTO, GRACE FINTA, PEGGY K THE FIRESTONE, NANCY VIOLA, MARY 450 GULFVIEW BLVD #608 1016 PASEO DEL RIO NE 509 GLENN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2524 ST PETERSBURG FL 33702 - 1457 EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP NJ 08234 - 6103 FLOGAITIS, SPYRIDON FLORIDA BEACH VENTURES LLC FLORIDA INVESTMENTS ETC LLC 27 VASILIOU SOFIAS ST 3993 ARLINGTON DR 5525 MERLE HAY RD # 250 ATHENS 10674 00003 - PALM HARBOR FL 34685 - 1069 JOHNSTON IA 50131 - 1454 GREECE FOULOIS, WILLIAM B FOUR FORTY WEST ASSN INC FRANGEDIS, JOAN THE FOULOIS, MARA E 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD STE 203 FRANGEDIS, MICHAEL 10910 BELMONT BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2521 1761 ROYAL OAK PL W MASON NECK VA 22079 - 3823 DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 2432 FREDERICK, LARRY R G T LEISURE CORP GABRIEL, FATHY S 445 HAMDEN DR 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 406 GABRIEL, TERESA M CLEARWATER FL 33767 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2510 2399 HERONWOOD DR BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI 48302 - 0835 GABRIEL, MAGDI GABRIEL, SAID S GABRIEL, SOPHIE GABRIEL, ESMAT A 40 S G , SUSAN L 4 15629 BAINTREE WAY 5 WHITE CEDAR LN 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD.# 5 09 MISHAWAKA IN 46545 - 1536 HOLMDEL NJ 07733 - 2609 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2 25 GAERTNER, ADAM GAMBA, WILLIAM C GAREL- JONES, PHILIP THE GAERTNER, ELISABETH 2062 LAKEVIEW AVE # A GAREL- JONES, BEATA THE 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 507 BELLMORE NY 11710 - 4244 120 LANDSDOWNE RD S CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2524 OTTAWA ON K1 M ON4 00001 CANADA LEMMA, FRANK L GHALY, RAMSIS F GIADLA, WERONIKA LEMMA, LAURA A GIADLA, ALOJZY 14 HARBOR WOODS DR 11136 INDIAN WOODS DR 355 S GULFVIEW BLVD SAFETY HARBOR FL 34695 - 5316 INDIANHEAD PK IL 60525 - 4980 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2445 GIDARO, ARDO GIOTAKIS, WILLIAM C GLASBY, ALFRED TILFORD, ROSEANNA GIOTAKIS, MARIA GLASBY, KIMBERLY 16130 WESTON RD 2401 VIRGINIA ST 902 BALD EAGLE LAKE RD KETTLEBY ON LOG 1J0 00001 - PARK RIDGE IL 60068 - 2252 ORTONVILLE MI 48462 - 8435 CANADA GLEAVES, ROBERT N GLISE, JOHN INC GOEMAN, EMMA K THE 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 606 3900 MARKET ST 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1102 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2524 CAMP HILL PA 17011 - 4226 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2516 GOGEL, EDWARD V GONTARZ, ALBERT J GRATIAS PROERTIES LLC GOGEL, EILEEN HASTINGS, SCOTT 1359 NW 138TH STE 500 60 ENCLAVE DR 19 HAMPTON TRL CLIVE IA 50325 - WINTER HAVEN FL 33884 - 1326 WALLINGFORD CT 06492 - 2617 Ej GRATIAS PROPERTIES 1350 NW 138TH ST STE 500 CLIVE IA 50325 - 8378 GROSS, GARY A GROSS, LINDA L 1905 BUNBURY CT THOMPSONS STN TN 37179 - 9703 GUHL, PATRICIA J TR 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #706 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2513 HANDLEY, ROBERT M 1501 GULF BLVD #604 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2903 HASANADKA,SHOBHNA #1 8416 ASHLEY OAK WAY KNOXVILLE TN 37923 - 6773 HENNIGAN, MICHAEL G HENNIGAN, CHRISTINE A 2 OSBORN ST STONY POINT NY 10980 - 3651 HOSP, UWE HOSP, INGEBORG A 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 701 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2524 IBRAHIM, FAYEZ THE 2647 LAKE SHORE DR NILES MI 49120 - 9513 JIRKOVSKY, KARL K JIRKOVSKY, CHRISTIANE 450 GULFVIEW BLVD S # 1004 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2528 GRIMES, WALTER R 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #403 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2522 GROUT, MARJORIE A THE 9912 CARRINGTON DR KNOXVILLE TN 37923 - 1963 GUIRGUIS, WILSON RIYAD, INASS 440 GULFVIEW BLVD # 701 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - HANNA, NASR N HANNA, WAFAA H 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1402 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2517 HECKROW, CINDY 603 RUSKIN RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 2336 HENSGEN, CAROL W 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1706 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2519 HOUSTEAU, RAYMOND F 3620. FAWN DR CANFIELD OH 44406 - 9578 JACOB, MICAH M JACOB, MICHAEL B 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 407 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2522 KALLINIKOS, LOUIS KALLINIKOS, KATINA 128 GRAND AVE ETOBICOKE ON M8Y 2Z5 00001 - CANADA is GROSS, ALBERT JAY GROSS, DEBRA H 2215 MUIRFIELD WAY OLDSMAR FL 34677 - 1942 GRUNWALD, REBECCA A TRUST GERBER, SUZANNE J TRUST 1709 FAIRVIEW LAKE GENEVA WI 53147 - 1603 HAJ, FRIDON ESMKHANI, MOJTABA 10443 GREENDALE DR TAMPA FL 33626 - 5305 HANNAH, HUGH H III HANNAH, JAYNE F PO BOX 21281 CHATTANOOGA TN 37424 - 0281 HENDRIX, CONNIE 6745 STATE RD WADWORTH OH 44281 - 9727 HODGES, KEITH L 5280 LAKESHORE RD # 510 BURLINGTON ON L7L 5R1 00001 - CANADA HUSSEY, JEFFREY S 8120 BRINEGAR CIR TAMPA FL 33647 - 1768 JASTRZEBSKI, LUBOMIR 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1705 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2531 KAMBEROS, GEORGE G KAMBEROS, EUGENIA 10346 S LAPORTE AVE OAK LAWN IL 60453 - 4733 KARRAS, CAROL M REVOCABLE LIVI KATSETOS, STEVE G KELLY, MARK E 2048 GOVERT DR 440 GULFVIEW BLVD # 207 KELLY, ELMETTA SCHEREVILLE IN 46375 - 5125 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2509 1617 WESTERLY DR BRANDON FL 33511 - 1821 • KELLY, MARK KELLY, ELMETTA 445 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 226 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2508 KENNY, HARRY E TRUST KENNY, HARRY E THE 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 707 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2525 KOCALIS, ANTHONY J KOCALIS, IRENE A 722 KENT RD KENILWORTH IL 60043 - 1032 KEMP, SCOTT KEMP, COLLEEN 8703 CHARLESTON HILL CT MASON OH 45040 - 8853 KIRKOWSKI, EDWINA J 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1104 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2528 KOPANAKIS, NICK 757 LOUNSBURY AVE ROCHESTER MI 48307 - 2216 KOVACH, THOMAS J KRONZER, FRANK J KOVACH, CONNIE L KRONZER, SHARON L 15849 REDINGTON DR 1025 AVERY CREEK DR REDINGTON BEACH FL 33708 - 1743 WOODSTOCK GA 30188 - 2313 LA POINTE, NORMAND J LA POINTE, LORRAINE J 450 GULFVIEW BLVD #301 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2521 LIMARDI, R J LIMARDI, LAURA 107 HETHERINGTON LN GLENDALE OH 45246 - 3744 LOMBARDO, JOSEPH LOMBARDO, JOANNE 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1104 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2516 LYRAS, LOUIS G LYRAS, KARENA 80 CREED CR CAMPBELL OH 44405 - 1277 MALATY, KHAIRY A THE MALATY, EBTISAM K THE 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 901 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2526 LAN[, JOSEPH R LAN[, CAROLE R 456 WILSON AVE STATEN ISLAND NY 10312 - 3730 LISTES, CYNTHIA LISTES, JOHANNE 3965 ALFRED - LALIBERTE BOISBRIAND QC J7H 1 P7 CANADA 0 KENIG, EDWARD KENIG, STANISLAWA 433 CORONADO DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2506 KNUTSON, BARBARA F. THE 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #802 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2525 KOVAC, MICHAEL 1971 ORANGE CT DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 9423 KUMP, PAUL H KUMP, CORINNE F 610 PRAIRIE ST NORTHFIELD MN 55057 - 2624 LASAK, JAMES G JR LASAK, AMY BATES 25294 COLUMBIA BAY DR LAKE VILLA IL 60046 - 9720 LOCKART, HENRY C LOCKART, GLENDA K 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1106 00001 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2516 LOTT, EDWARD C LOTT, DEBRA E 208 GREEN AVE FREEPORT NY 11520 - 1011 MAC QUARRIE, RONALD H THE MAC QUARRIE, JOANNE A THE 1400 GULF BLVD # 801 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2830 MALO, FOTIOS MALO, ALEXANDRA 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1501 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2530 LUCARELLI, QUIRINO JR LUCARELLI, RACHEL 440 GULFVIEW BLVD # 907 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2514 MAKAR, KYRILLOS B MAKAR, ZEIZAF 1 669 TOMOKA DR PALM HARBOR FL 34683 - 5856 MAMALAKIS, JOHN S MAMALAKIS, THERESE K 7850 W 96TH ST BLOOMINGTON MN 55438 - 2913 MATUSZEK, THERESA MC CAFFERY, MICHAEL G THE MC DONALD, VIVIAN A PROCIUK, THEODORE MC CAFFERY, MARGARET M THE MC DONALD, BRENT E 140 MANCHESTER DR # 210 46 -1 REVERE RD 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1602 BUFFALO GROVE IL 60089 - 2422 DREXEL HILL PA 19026 - 5328 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2518 • MC GOVERN, JASON L MC GOVERN, KATHERINE G 2620 SWEET BROOM LN NAPERVILLE IL 60564 - 4325 MEYER, JOHN MEYER,BARBARA 2317 FINLEY AVE BENSALEM PA 19020 - 5251 MIRANDA, JOSE 3016 WHIMSICAL LN KISSIMMEE FL 34744 - MORRILL, DANIEL MORRILL, SANDY 2029 W MANITOU DR OWOSSO MI 48867 - 8727 NICKELS, JOHN H NICKELS, MARY ELLEN 426 LOWELL DR HIGHLAND HEIGHTS OH 44143 - 3616 NOVICK, CAROL A 112 LITCHFIELD LN HOUSTON TX 77024 - 6016 MECAS LLC 1628 SYLVIA DR ENDICOTT'NY 13760 - 7145 MICH, PATRICIA J 140 LN 570A LK JAMES FREMONT IN 46737 - 9002 MITCHELL, THOMAS E REVOCABLE T 3728 S EASTPARK WAY HOMOSASSA FL 34448 - 2801 MULLIGAN, JAMES STORY, THERESA A 44 PANAMOKA TRL RIDGE NY 11961 - 2202 NIKANA HOLDINGS LLC 421 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2508 O'CONNOR, DANIEL O'CONNOR, DEBORAH L 17796 WALL CIR REDINGTON SHORES FL 33708 - 1248 O'DONNELL, GERARD OLSSON, WILLIAM H O'DONNELL, JACKIE OLSSON, LYNNE A 3 PACKHORSE LN 15913 DOVER CLIFFE DR WYHALL BIRINGHAM B47 5DH 00003 LUTZ FL 33548 - 6197 UNITED KINGDOM ORN, DUANE L 5415 BROOKLYN BLVD MINNEAPOLIS MN 55429 - 3359 PALUMBO, JOHN PALUMBO, STEPHANIE 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1708 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2519 PALASKY, JON R SR 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 202 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2521 PANGERE, GEORGIANN M 13010 MONROE PL CROWN POINT IN 46307 - 9588 Is MEISER, ROBERT N MEISER, HALA A 8700 LOTHBURY CT FAIRFAX VA 22031 - MILLER, ALAN H MILLER, MARY G 1174 WAUKAZOO DR HOLLAND MI 49424 - 2637 MOORE, FRANCIS H MOORE, CLAIRE 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1501 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2518 MUTLU, ULKER 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #908 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2526 NORRIS, KELLIE M 6811 SPRINGVIEW DR WESTERVILLE OH 43082 - 8567 O'CONNOR, EDWARD L O'CONNOR; JENNIFER L 1101 OXBRIDGE DR LUTZ FL 33549 - 9397 O'NEIL, JOHN T THE 20 MONAHANSETT RD MASHPEE MA 02649 - 4742 PALERMO, PAMELA J PALERMO, LOUIS M 1855 JESSICA RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1508 PAPAGEORGIOU, DEMETRIOS G PAPAGEORGIOU, LIZA 5310 LONG MEADOW RD BLOOMFIELD HILL MI 48304 - 3660 PAPPAS, KELLIE PARSONS, GARY C PATSIS, STEVE 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1006 DOUGLAS, MARY E TRUST PATSIS, EMANUEL CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2516 6445 MEADOWBROOK CIR 157 N ALLEGHANY AVE WORTHINGTON OH 43085 - 2864 LINDENHURST NY 11757 - 4129 POLSTON, STEPHEN M POLSTON, JEAN M 28215 BOULDER CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - 8325 PORTER, CHARLES D PORTER, PATRICIA A 15411 OAKWOOD DR URBANDALE IA 50323 - 1928 PROKOP, MARILYN M 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1006 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2528 RACHOWICZ, EDWARD RACHOWICZ, MAE 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1502N CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2518 REESE, POLLY C PO BOX 400 MIDDLESBORO KY 40965 - 0400 ROPP, WALTER S 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1503N CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2518 CANADA PONTIKOS, DEAN B 15606 POMEROY BLVD STRONGSVILLE OH 44136 - 5342 POZIOS, THOEFANIS POZIOS, KOULA 825 MICHIGAN AVE MARYSVILLE MI 48040 - 2122 PRYOR,CAROL 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 907 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2526 RAMASWAMY, ASHOK 179 MARINA DEL RAY CT CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2994 REK, WILLIAM J REK, LISA A 6240 70TH AVE PINELLAS PARK FL 33781 PONTIKOS, KELI 450 S GULF VIEW BLVD # 304 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - PRATO, EDWARD DIERSCH, RAYMOND 74LOISCTE EAST MEADOW NY 11554 - 1412 QUERUBIN, KATHERINE 627 SAXONY BLVD ST PETERSBURG FL 33716 - 1297' REED, AUDREY L 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 902 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2526 RICKS, WALTER A SR THE RICKS, MILDRED H THE 440 N GULFVIEW BLVD # 903 -4169 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2514 ROSENSTEEL, DANIEL S 17082 DOLPHIN DR NORTH REDINGTON BEACH FL 33708-1324 RUCKNAGEL, MELBA A THE RUCKNAGEL FAMILY TRUST 8812 FOX PARK DR SAINT LOUIS MO 63126 - 2310 RYAN- KOUDELKA, DEBORAH A SAAD, FATHY Z SAINT GEORGE INVESTMENT INC SAMIRA S 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #706 SHENODA, 2227 KENT PL CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2525 20353 CHESTNUT GROVE DR CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 6624 TAMPA FL 33647 - 3345 PELICAN POINTE ON CLEARWATER PEAR,. DAVID W PEARL, PENNY G B 7620 OLD GEORGETOWN RD # 319 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #603 445 S GULFVIEW BLVD BETHESDA MD 20814 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2524 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2508 PENDLEY, CORBETT WAYNE PENNINGTON JANICE THE PERLIN, MICHAEL PENDLEY, JANE , 450 GULFVIEW BLVD # 501 PERLIN, JODI 420 S MARION PKWY # 1402 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2522 1970 PROMENADE WAY DENVER CO 80209 - CLEARWATER FL 33760 - 1734 PETERSON, MICHAEL D PIAZZA, LENO P PITZULO, SAMUEL J PETERSON, LAURYN L ZORZIT, MARK J PITZULO, JANET M 1315 CHURCH ST 443 ROWELL AVE 440 JANET DR EVANSTON IL 60201 - SAULT ST MARIE ON P6C 51-3 00001 CANFIELD OH 44406 - 1532 POLSTON, STEPHEN M POLSTON, JEAN M 28215 BOULDER CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - 8325 PORTER, CHARLES D PORTER, PATRICIA A 15411 OAKWOOD DR URBANDALE IA 50323 - 1928 PROKOP, MARILYN M 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1006 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2528 RACHOWICZ, EDWARD RACHOWICZ, MAE 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1502N CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2518 REESE, POLLY C PO BOX 400 MIDDLESBORO KY 40965 - 0400 ROPP, WALTER S 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1503N CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2518 CANADA PONTIKOS, DEAN B 15606 POMEROY BLVD STRONGSVILLE OH 44136 - 5342 POZIOS, THOEFANIS POZIOS, KOULA 825 MICHIGAN AVE MARYSVILLE MI 48040 - 2122 PRYOR,CAROL 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 907 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2526 RAMASWAMY, ASHOK 179 MARINA DEL RAY CT CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2994 REK, WILLIAM J REK, LISA A 6240 70TH AVE PINELLAS PARK FL 33781 PONTIKOS, KELI 450 S GULF VIEW BLVD # 304 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - PRATO, EDWARD DIERSCH, RAYMOND 74LOISCTE EAST MEADOW NY 11554 - 1412 QUERUBIN, KATHERINE 627 SAXONY BLVD ST PETERSBURG FL 33716 - 1297' REED, AUDREY L 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 902 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2526 RICKS, WALTER A SR THE RICKS, MILDRED H THE 440 N GULFVIEW BLVD # 903 -4169 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2514 ROSENSTEEL, DANIEL S 17082 DOLPHIN DR NORTH REDINGTON BEACH FL 33708-1324 RUCKNAGEL, MELBA A THE RUCKNAGEL FAMILY TRUST 8812 FOX PARK DR SAINT LOUIS MO 63126 - 2310 RYAN- KOUDELKA, DEBORAH A SAAD, FATHY Z SAINT GEORGE INVESTMENT INC SAMIRA S 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #706 SHENODA, 2227 KENT PL CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2525 20353 CHESTNUT GROVE DR CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 6624 TAMPA FL 33647 - 3345 SALIB, HANY Y GUIRGUIS, MERAY 11 COBBLERS CIR FRANKLIN PARK NJ 08823 - 1780 Salt Block 57, LLC Ken Gross 1001 E Atlantic Ave., Ste 202 Delray Beach, FL 33483 SAYROO, MICHAEL PO BOX 15736 TAMPA FL 33684 - 5736 SCHNEIDER, ROGER B SCHNEIDER, LYNETTE V 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #707 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2513 SCICCHITANO HOLDING I LLC 2701 ASTON AVE PLANT CITY FL 33566 - 9594 SEURYNCK, ELIZABETH THE 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1101 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2516 SHAW, WILLIAM M SHAW, GEORGINA 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1508 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2530 SHIRSAT, SHAM S SHIRSAT, MADHAVI S 28 CAMBRIDGE DR OAK BROOK IL 60523 - 1705 SILVONEN, LINDA J 26501 S RIVER RD HARRISON TOWNSHIP MI 48045 - 5613 i • SALNIKOV, ALEXANDER SALT BLOCK 57 LLC 212 E SCRANTON AVE 1000 MARKET ST STE 300 LAKE BLUFF IL 60044 - 2532 PORTSMOUTH NH 03801 - SANTOSTEFANO, ROBERT J FAMILY SANTOSTEFANO, OSCAR SAVOIE, ROSEMARIE 600 NORTH LAKE SHORE DR 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1001 SUITE 2505 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2526 CHICAGO IL 60611 - 5077 SCHAAF, MICHAEL L MUDIE, AUDREY 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 506 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2524 SCHULTE, CHARLES W 3723 LAKEWOOD SHORES DR HOWELL MI 48843 - 7889 SCIMONE, PETER L SCIMONE, ROSALIE L 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1003 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2526 SGOUPIS, JAMES SGOUPIS, ANNE 137 93RD ST BROOKLYN NY 11209 - 6201 SHELDAHL, ERIC A 3815 NW 109TH ST URBANDALE IA 50322 - 2010 SHOCKLEY, JAMES F SHOCKLEY, KIMBERLY A 5869 LANDOVER RD LOVES PARK IL 61111 - SIMMONS, JEAN M MC CULLOUGH, GARY S 857 SUNDANCE CIR OSHAWA ON L1J 8135 00001 - CANADA SCHAFFER, GEORGE A 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 406 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2657 SCHWALBE, MARTIN E SCHWALBE, GLENDA J 139 HAMILTON RIVER RD LABRADOR NL AOP 1 EO 00001 - CANADA SERRANO, SALOMON 2906 CONNER LN KISSIMMEE FL 34741 - SHAPPY, WILLIAM A SNAPPY, PATRICIA L 109 CHENEY HILL LN RUTLAND VT 05701 -8847 SHERRY, BEATRICE 828 WATER ST MEADVILLE PA 16335 - 3452 SIDKY, EMIL Y SIDKY, SONYA M 5451 S WOODLAWN AVE # 3 CHICAGO IL 60615 - 5209 SIMPSON, STEPHEN P 6568 W RICHARD DR WEEKI WACHEE FL 34607 - SLEDZ, WILLIAM H SMERLING, GEORGETTE SOBIESZCZYK, HARRY A JR SLEDZ, SHARON R 38 OLD DAIRY RD 581 N 4TH AVE 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 307 TRUMBULL CT 06611 - 4954 ADDISON IL 60101 - 2273 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2521 0 0 SOFRONAS, JAMES SOLIMAN FAMILY ENTERPRISES SOLU, EMINE FEZA TRUST SOFRONAS, CHRISTINE LLC SOLU, SULEYMAN SAMI THE 431 GULFVIEW BLVD 7533 JOMEL DR 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1603 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2508 SPRING HILL FL 34607 - 2018 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2531 SORSOK, NAZEEH S SPANOS, JOHANNA REVOCABLE SPEELMAN, DAVID E YOUSEF, MANAL G TRUS 6199 VIAKEN RD 2237 CLIMBING IVY DR 514 MEDINA DR HOPEWELL OH 43746 - 9601 TAMPA FL 33618 - 1712 ST LOUIS MO 63122 - 1430 STAMIS, CONSTANTINE STASIK, ALBIN STRAMAGLIA, JOHN REVOCABLE STASIK, BRONISLAW STRAMAGLIA, JEANNINE L 505 W MANAWA TRL 1180 GULF BLVD # 406 4025 GOSS MOUNT PROSPECT IL 60056 - 3719 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2756 SCHILLER PARK IL 60176 - 1827 SUESS, BERNARD H SUTHERLAND FAMILY TRUST SWANK, CHRISTOPHER P 1100 OLD POST RD 290 -18 PARADISE BLVD SWANK, JESSICA 151 DAHLIA DR PERKASIE PA 18944 - 1582 INDIALANTIC FL 32903 - ROMEOVILLE IL 60446 - 4879 THOMAS, NABIL S TIDD, VICKI A TIKRITI, GARY D THE THOMAS SAMIA TIDD, JAMES A 2849 CHANCERY LN 1145 86TH ST 5861 ROGERS RD CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 1427 DOWNERS GROVE IL 60516 - 4816 JAMESTOWN OH 45335 - 8713 TIRUPATHI, PANEENDRA FAMILY TR TIRUPATHI, SI K TIRUPATI, SRIVANI TRAKAS, ANNA THE NI 7625 LEATHER FERN CT 1616 SHERIDAN RD # 10G PINELLAS PARK FL 33782 - 4318 ANN ARBOR I HILLS 1 # 6 WILMETTE IL 60091 - 1851 ANN ARBOR MI 48108 - 1043 TROUPE, BRIAN B TRUHAN, JOSEPH G TSATALIS, MARINA C TROUPE, MARY BETH 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #1007 1379 EDGEWOOD RD 21 CHATHAM DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2516 YARDLEY PA 19067 - 4402 BEDFORD NH 03110 - 6962 TYLER, NORMAN R UHLMAN, JAMES P USHER, CEDRIC TYLER, STEPHANIE UHLMAN, SUSAN C USHER, SHEILA 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1204 2399 COLLINS DR 40 CASTLE AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2517 WORTHINGTON OH 43085 - 2808 CLONTARF DUBLIN 3 00003 - IRELAND VIDAL, ALBA L WAFAA, HANNA WARD, THOMAS G 5561 SOMERSBY RD 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1402 2817 ROEHAMPTON CLOSE WINDEMERE FL 34786 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2517 TARPON SPRINGS FL 34688 - 8426 WECHSLER, RENATE THE WEEDEN, SAM W WEGLARZ, RUSSELL J 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1101 WEEDEN, BETTIE I WEGLARZ, LAURIE A CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2528 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #703 13410 WOOD DUCK DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2513 PLAINFIELD IL 60585 - 7766 WEIS, JAY B WEIS, ERIK J 7645 LYNDALE AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55423 - 4084 WILLARD, GILLIAN M 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #807 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2514 WOOLUM, KAYETTE 201 DEAN HILL DR PINEVILLE KY 40977 - 1812 YANTEK, MINERVA M 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1008S CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2528 ZIELINSKI, DETLEF R ZIELINSKI, MONIKA 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD #805 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2513 ZUIKER, JOSEPH ZUIKER, NATALIE PO BOX FL615 SMITHS PARRISH FLBX 00005 - BERMUDA • WERTH, KENNETH D WERTH, PAMELA A 120 BARRINGTON CIR ALPENA MI 49707 - 4101 WILLIAMS, MARCUS DOYLE WILLIAMS, CARMEN M 9005 STONELEIGH CT FAIRFAX VA 22031 - 3243 WOOLUM, KERRY L WINKLER, DWIGHT L 528 KENTUCKY AVE PINEVILLE KY 40977 - • WESTWOOD, JOHN P 440 GULFVIEW BLVD # 408 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2510 WOLAK, CARRIE A 42 EVERGREENE WALLINGFORD CT 06492 - 2975 WYROZEMSKI, WALTER WYROZEMSKI, MARY 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1107 1343 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2528 YOWELL, KENNETH P YOWELL, CINDY W 132 ALBEMARLE DR PENLLYN PA 19422 - 1127 ZIMMERMANN, GUNDER 312 WINDWARD IS CLEARWATER FL 33767 ZAMMIT, ALFRED G ZAMMIT, LANA C 1805 THE COLLEGE WAY MISSISSAUGA ON L5L 5U8 00001 - CANADA ZUGALJ, IVON J ZUGALJ, MILKA -2327 1044 E 165TH ST , SOUTH HOLLAND IL 60473 - 2573