The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2008-12033F LD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD SHEPHARD'.S BEACH RESORT PLANNER OF RECORD: Ww ATLAS # 285A. ZONING: T LAND USE: RFH RECEIVED: 12/01/200. INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: MAPS: PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: DRC: I I 8I � A ch cns: i 11� 7 •1 fr/ Loe CLWCoverSheet I 8,F L r' LL ° earwa te ��: r _ U Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727 -562 -4567 Fax: 727 -562 -4865 P SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION A SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets SUBMIT FIRE PREUMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00 SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ i CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: * NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) A. APPLICANT, APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER ORIGINAL RECENED NOV 1 C 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive M11 Redevelopment Project (Revised 07/11/2008) PROPERTY OWNER(S): List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT AND INFORMATION: (Code Section William M. She hard, Trustee 619 S. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33767 727 - 442 -5107 FAX NUMBER: 727- 447 -2009 _ EMAIL William M. Shephard, Trustee JOE BURDETTE 61'8 Pineland Avenue_ Be_Ueaira FL 33756 FAX NUMBER: —4528 EMAIL: HrinrafCBanl -rr B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) PROJECT NAME: Shephards Beach Resort PROJECT VALUATION: $35 Million STREET ADDRESS 619 S. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33767 PARCEL NUMBER(S): 17- 29- 15- 05004 - 003-0010 and 17- 29 -15- 00000 - 220 -0100 PARCEL SIZE (acres): 2,68 PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 116,937.81 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit B PROPOSED USE(S): 186 unit hotel and accessory uses DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See Exhibit B Specifically identify the request (include number of units or square footage of non - residential use and all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of I:%Shephards\Permits \City of Clearwater%Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 20D8 07- 11.doc °Clearwater Planning Department. 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33766 Telephone: 727-562-4667 Fax: 72,7-662-4865 ❑ 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 $ CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: * NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (Revised 07/11/2008) —PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT— A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202-A) APPLICANT NAME: William M. Shephard, Trustee MAILING ADDRESS: 619 S. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33767 PHONE NUMBER: 727-442-5107 FAX NUMBER: 727-447-2009 CELL NUMBER EMAIL: -, '-,-- _ eMPROPERTY OWNER(S): W ehrT" List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: Keith E. Z ._gac, P.E., RLA MAILING ADDRESS: 701 Enterprise Road East, Ste 404, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 PHONE NUMBER: 727-793-9888 FAX NUMBER: 727-793-9855 CELL NUMBER: EMAIL: ICelth @ItelthZayac.com. B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) PROJECT NAME: STREET ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER(S): PARCEL SIZE (acres): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED USE(S): Shep_kaLq!� Beach Resort PROJECT VALUATION: $35 Million -6- f 9 S. Gul fvi e-w-. - B---I.v- dl, Clearwater, JFL 33767 17-29-15-050 03-0010; 17-29-15-00000-220-0100 2.68 total, 2.37 with-in T zoning PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 103,237.20 within T See Exhibit B 186 unit hotel and accessory uses 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 .inrequired number of parking spaces, specific use, etc,) ORIGINAL RECEIVED See Exhibit B -OCT 6 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 1:1Shephards\PermitskCity of Clearwater\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-1 1.doc Page 1 of 8 DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS DR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNI DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES -. NO (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4- 202.A.5) QI SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see / page 7) D. 0 1. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3- 913.A) Provide complete. responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA —Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in -which it is located. See Exhibit B 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. See Exhibit B 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working. in the neighborhood of the proposed use. See Exhibit B 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See Exhibit B 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Exhibit B 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects., including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. ORIGINAL See Exhibit B RECEIVED -- OCT 16 2000 21ANNING DERs&9ENT___- CIiY OF CLEARWATER I:SShephards%Permhs%City of Clearwater\Comprehensive Infll Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc • 0 'TZ'EN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive lnfli Redevelopment Project Criteria) Provide e complete responses to the six (6) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA — Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The development or redevelopment is .otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and /or development standards set forth in this zoning district. See Exhibit D .2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with .the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district See Exhibit D 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. See Exhibit D 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. See Exhibit D 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially after the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance. with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor. d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and /or preservation of a working waterfront use. See Exhibit D 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. in order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; O 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 ❑ Diistinctive. roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscaPe design and appropriate distances between buildings. See Exhibit D . ORIGINAL R or, P NING DEPARTMENT 1:1S mit hephards\PerslCity of ClearwaterlComprehensive Infll Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.do.'ITY OF CLEARWATER • 0 E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4- 202.A.21) M1 A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement. ❑ If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. ❑ At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following; ❑ Existing topography extending 50 .feet beyond all property lines; ❑ Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; ❑ All adjacent streets and municipal stone 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 peal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ❑ COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTA (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable ❑ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following): Stormwater plan as noted above is included Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum,. a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. CAUTION — IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562 -4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4- 202.A) 1 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; PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the 'study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ❑ PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ❑ COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; RECEIVED OCT 16 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 1:1ShephardslPermits1City of ClearwaterlComprehensive lnfill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc • • G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 202.A) ❑ SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36 "): Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; North arrow; Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; All dimensions; Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings.and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; All 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; 103,237.20 10,00.0 103,237.20 Number of EXISTING dwelling units; 96 overnight Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; 1_86 overnight. Gross floor area devoted to each use; See exhibit BK Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the 220 t86 384 number of required spaces; _ Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, 43,895 sf expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; 98,075 ,sf 34,876 sf Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; Building and structure heights; 35 —100 It 134 ft Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and 0.88 0.95 0.83 Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses: — _ ❑ REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8 % 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; ORIGINAL All open space.areas; RECEIVED Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); �1 OCT -1- 6 LO69 Streets and drives (dimensioned); PLANNING DEPARTMENT Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); CITY OF CLEARWATER Structural overhangs; MShephards\Permits\City of Clearwater \Comprehensive.lnfill Project,(FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc Page 5 of 8 • H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 1102.A) • rl! 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, bac kfilling, 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 (81/2 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 % X 11 J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS/ Section 3- 1806),50wtT� UOwr— D All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), Indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ❑ All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) ❑ Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ORIGINAL RECEIVED ❑ Reduced signage proposal (8 % X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER I: \Shephards\Permits\City of Clearwater \Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008'07- 11.doc • • K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4- 202.A.13 and 4- 801.C) 4 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 Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting' held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727- 5624750) Refer to Se ion 4 -801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement O Acknowl gement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post - development levels of service for all roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. Traffic Impact Study is not required. CAUTION — IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562- 4750. L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY: Provide Fire Flow Calculations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine If any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpi and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. CSM@IiW with the 2004 Florida ire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) Is required. RECEIVED Acknowl dgement of fire flow calculationstwater study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. OCT 16 2009 Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. r'LANNING DEPARTMEf CITY OF CLEARWATEF CAUTION — IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 5624334. M. SIGNATURE: 1, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are t and accurate to the best of my knowledge and au . City representatives to visit and photograph thWOerty described in this application. OfPF9PG#Y-8WReP4r representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEL.LAS Sw,o{n to and subscribed before me this (G day of 'v v J.a-W, b -a-h A.D. 20U_8 to me and /or by —i tom- 2— A y who is personally known has produced as identif on. 140taty pulffil, � nu► ►► ► ►,r�„�'�uu�au My ommi ion expires: KAY Y. Hql "T" r� ir/ 22012 I:1Shephards\PermitslCity of ClearwaterlComprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 ,U ; c Fla �,y,�. Inc Page 7 of 8 .. -____ _ N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed -PRINT full names: William M Shepherd, as Trustee under the provisions of the Shepherd Family en. dated February 29! 19134 _ Lagoon Resort Motel 2. That (I amhve are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) — - -- 1 roam overnight accommodations Included within a Flexible Development Application 4. That the undersigned (hasthave) appointed and (does/do) appoint Keith E Zayac, P.E., RLA; Harry S. Cline, ESQ. as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any poliiions or other documents necessary to affect such petifion; S. That this affidavit has been executed to Induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property, 619 S., Gultview Blvd.. S. 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 appliicatton- 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. 1 7- That we). the undersl ned city, he y ce that forego -mg is true and correct. P arty O er Property Owner - -- - - Property Owner - Property Owner ' - -- STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws or the State of Florida, on this _ 1 ' _ day of .�f i personally appeared _V!as S1 -- who having been first duly sworn Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 1 N09 PLANNING DEPARTMENT I :IShephardslPermilslCity of ClearwateAComprehensive Infill Pmoject (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc CITY OF CLEARWATER .MELISSA TREMBLAY Commission DD 62M - Expires January 3, 2011 .. _ 'R;,, BXXW71+- Tgy Fan ln mJfom11M,' i71119 - -- — ' — — '- Notary SeaVStemp Notary Public Signature MY Commission Expires: ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 1 N09 PLANNING DEPARTMENT I :IShephardslPermilslCity of ClearwateAComprehensive Infill Pmoject (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc CITY OF CLEARWATER EXHIBIT "B" TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT, INC. 619 S. GULFVIEW BLVD. Section B. Description of Request The applicant Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc., has owned the property located at 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard ( "Subject Property ") for over 28 years. On the Subject Property, the applicant successfully operates a 96 room, three diamond resort, which is known as the Shephard's Beach Resort. Shephard's has been a staple in the beach community for close to three decades, providing relaxing overnight accommodations, breathtaking views of the Gulf of Mexico and sunsets, good food, and great entertainment. The existing portion of Shephard's to remain includes 96 hotel rooms, a 220 space non -peak parking garage, and other accessory uses. The number of overnight accommodation units on Clearwater Beach has been significantly reduced as a result of the hotel to condominium conversion over the recent years. In response, the applicant proposes to continue the existing overnight accommodation use and redevelop the Subject Property by renovating the existing hotel rooms and add additional mid -priced hotel rooms. A development agreement application is also submitted to transfer 68 hotel units from the available density reserve to this project based upon meeting the City requirements. Specifically, the applicant seeks flexible development approval of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, in accordance with the plans submitted with this application, including the following: 1. Flexible Development approval for the redevelopment of the overall 2.689 acre property zoned tourist (T) District and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) to permit a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use within the Tourist (T) District containing 2.37 acres. 2. Lot width of 243 -feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north) 3. Front setback of 15.56 -feet to existing building (north) ORIGINAL. RECEIVED 4. Front setback of 11.20 -feet to proposed building (north) 5. Front setback of 6.50 -feet to proposed pavement (north) OCT 6. Side setback of 15.44 -feet to proposed building (east) PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7. Side setback of 0 -feet to existing pavement (west) CITY OF CLEARWATER 8. Side setback of 0 -feet to existing building (west) 9. Rear setback of 22.00 -feet to existing building and patio/boardwalk (south) • • 10. Rear setback of 5.20 -feet to proposed building from seawall (south) 11. Rear setback of 39.51 -feet to proposed building from property line (south) 12. Rear setback of 0.00 -feet to proposed pavement from seawall (south) 13. Rear setback of 22.00 -feet to existing building from property line (south) 14. A building height of 133' -10" from BFE to top of roof deck 15. 316 valet -only parking spaces plus 68 overflow spaces included for 384 total 16. Increase the permitted density by allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the reserve pool created pursuant to Beach by Design Section D. Written Submittal Requirements General Applicability Criteria: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. West: The adjacent property to the west is the renovated Holiday Inn, which is being converted to a mixed -use hotel /condominium development. North: The adjacent property to the north is a Hess gas station and convenience store, which will benefit from the proposed use and will serve the guests of the resort. East: The adjacent property to the east is the existing Econo Lodge Motel. South: The subject property is bounded on the south by the Gulf of Mexico and Clearwater Pass. The scale and size of the 2.689 -acre project is less than the adjacent 4.87 -acre Holiday Inn project. The proposed total 186 rooms are similar to the HI phase one total rooms of 189, and include the same character of overnight accommodations with accessory uses. The proposed building height of 133' -10" is within 22 -feet of the adjacent HI building with similar height. Based on the similar characteristics of the adjacent development, the proposed development will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the adjacent property that has been renovated. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 0 0 The Subject Property is currently occupied by the Shephard's Beach Resort, a 96- room mid -priced resort hotel, which is less than 60' in height and constructed in 1957. Forty rooms of the existing 96 rooms, a 192 parking space parking garage, and a night club were added to the Subject Property in 2001. The proposed project will improve current conditions on the Subject Property in a number of ways, including: (1) Superior architectural design, including tiered effect, and upgraded landscaping which will visually enhance the neighborhood and the beach community; (2) Construction of a new building which meets current building Codes, as opposed to maintaining the existing outdated building constructed over 45 years ago; (3) Surrounding property value will be positively impacted due to the construction of a new hotel, pool deck and site improvements. The project carries forward the redevelopment of the area started by the adjacent project to the north. These improvements will in no manner be a hindrance, but will serve to increase surrounding property values, improve safety and enhance the views of the site from adjacent parcels. The hotel guests of the proposed project will be potential clientele of nearby restaurants and other businesses. The hotel is consistent with the surrounding redevelopment, and will provide the tourist industry with update accommodations and group meeting space. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Demolition of the existing hotel built in 1957 and the construction of the proposed structures built to current building Codes, improves the safety of the building occupants and neighbors. The pedestrian access along Gulfview Boulevard will be modified to tie into the relocated driveways, but maintain handicapped access and enhanced sidewalk width. The project includes overnight accommodations and accessory uses that are consistent with the tourist district and does not contain any uses that would affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The applicant has provided a parking and trip generation study for the proposed project showing an excess amount of parking spaces compared with minimum requirements by code. The existing dead end parking lot will be removed and replaced with a front covered entrance for vehicle drop off, and a valet parking system with 236 stalls allocated that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self park stalls in the parking garage. • • 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The Subject property is located within Clearwater Pass District. The project is also consistent with the community character of the Clearwater Pass District, which Beach by Design describes as an area of mixed uses, including mid -priced motels and condominiums. As previously stated, the Subject Property currently functions as a hotel. The proposed use does not change the character, rather update and enhance the tourist area by providing moderately priced updated hotel rooms and accessory uses. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed redevelopment project will improve the visual appeal at this south end of Clearwater Beach, which is also visible from Clearwater Pass, the Sand Key Bridge, and Sand Key Park. The architectural style integrates a seaside beach motel design, which is appropriate and aesthetically pleasing for this waterfront property. The acoustic, olfactory and hours of operation for the proposed redevelopment project are consistent with the Subject Property's current use and the surrounding uses on the beach. The existing dead end surface parking is being relocated into an enclosed parking garage which will reduce noise and acoustic impacts of the cars. The applicant currently has an occupational license to operate a restaurant and will redevelop the Subject Property to include an upscale restaurant. The applicant is taking special care to create an enhanced "resort environment" with mid -priced rooms, which will benefit adjacent properties and businesses. The active areas such as the existing stage and pool bars are located in the rear of the project surrounded on three sides by buildings to minimize the impacts to adjacent property owners. The additional height will also serve to block sound escaping from the property, especially to the east, although the sound is well within the decibel level limit permitted by the City, having the sound better contained within the property will be a benefit. These uses are however, a positive impact and are highly utilized by both local patrons and tourists thereby increasing the tax revenues generated by the tourist district. EXHIBIT D Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and /or development standards set forth in this zoning district. Height The request for 133' -10" when 35' -100' is allowed by Code is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design which provide that height may be increased to 150` if additional density is allocated to the development with bonus hotel units. There is a reasonable relationship between the height increase and the 68 additional resort hotel units based upon other cases recommended for approval by staff and actually approved by CDB consistent with Beach by Design. The additional height will allow for the increase in developable rooms, the necessary parking to be placed within an enclosed parking garage, rather than a surface parking lot and the ability to include amenities common to moderately priced hotels along the beach. Parkins The Applicant has requested relief from Code parking requirements due to the fact that the parking serving the hotel will be full valet service. As such, the proposed plans incorporate a total of 316 non -peak full valet parking spaces and 384 peak full valet parking spaces in both garages. Setbacks The proposed front pavement setback reduction from 15.0 feet to 6.79 feet is required due to need for an exit driveway out of the proposed parking garage without an additional curb cut. The proposed planting areas along South Gulfview will be in excess of minimum requirements and heavily landscaped to screen the driveway and offset the requested relief. No surface parking is proposed as part of the new construction. The existing side pavement setback reduction from 10.0 feet to 0.0 feet was approved under DCAB Case Number V -98 -05 for a loading area which is currently active and services the existing hotel. The existing side building overhang reduction from 10.0 to 0.0 feet was approved under DCAB Case Number V -98 -05 for the covered storage and work area associated with deliveries and food storage. • 2. The development or redevelopment policies of the Comprehensive Plan, intent and basic planning objectives purpose of this zoning district. • will be consistent with the goals and as well as with the general purpose, of this Code, and with the intent and Overnight accommodations are allowed uses in - the "Resort Facilities High" residential /overnight accommodation." in the "Tourist' zoning district. Primary land use category are "high density 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood, as is more particularly discussed in General Applicability Criteria 1 and_ Comprehensive Infill Criteria 4 below, and will not impede other development. The improvement of the site will pave the way for future redevelopment and set an example for the style of quality architecture envisioned by Beach by Design. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. There is no anticipated damage or loss to the adjoining properties. The requested side setback reductions along the west property line are existing conditions that currently exist. No further construction will take place along the west property line. The proposed construction along the east property line will comply with the required code setbacks, along with a larger than required green area. The proposed height is consistent with adjacent re- development activity west of the site. In addition the updated hotel will provide an increase in tourist visits that will utilize the services of the surrounding restaurants, bars, and retail businesses. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise k land use category, be compatible substantially alter the essential use and shall demonstrate compliance objectives: 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 f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new, and /or preservation of a working waterfront use. The proposed use meets several of these criteria. Overnight accommodations are permitted by the 'Resort Facilities High" land use category and in the "Tourist" zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard, and flexible use. Redevelopment of Clearwater Beach is a significant economic contributor to the City. The proposed use is an economic contributor by increasing the number of tourists to Clearwater Beach and encouraging patronization of local businesses. The proposed project will generate new jobs in the City of Clearwater. The proposed use as overnight accommodations is characteristic of the neighborhood, specifically as the entrance to South Clearwater Beach. The use of the property is the same as the property immediately to the east and west and compatible with the redeveloped site to the west based on size, height and other development criteria. The proposed development also expands an existing economic contributor by expanding the rooms available, updated the quality of the hotel with new rooms and a parking garage, while providing additional employment opportunities to hotel support staff based on an expansion of facilities. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off- street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district. The requested side setback variances along the west property line are for existing conditions pertaining to the existing pavement, freezers and building. canopy. The property affected by the reductions is currently under redevelopment based on approved plans that took into account the existing conditions on the subject property, and has impeded the development of the site. The height variance is similar to the variance approved on the property west of the site. The height is also consistent with other approvals within the tourist district of the "beachfront property." It is anticipated that the remainder of the future development property along South Gulfview will develop in a similar highest and best use. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. The proposed project is designed to meet the requirements of Beach by Design in scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character. The stepped massing of the project is derived from the massing requirements of Beach by Design. The project places active spaces internal to the project site to reduce noise transmission and visual distraction to adjacent properties. • • The location of the units on the site provides all units in the project with water views and provides easy access for all guests to the nearby businesses by providing a handicapped accessible sidewalk from the front entrance of the building to the adjacent sidewalk within the right of way. This project furthers the City's beachside revitalization objective of creating by punctuating the newly improved beachfront with a moderately priced accommodations priced from $165 to $260 per night. The project's "modern tropical" architecture compliments the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. We provide the following information concerning the height, tower separation, design, scale, and mass criteria: Heiaht and Tower Separation The project consists of an existing two story hotel connected to an existing dining facility, public spaces, six story guest towers, and parking garage. The Owner proposes to demolish the vast majority of existing two story portion of the hotel, while retaining the balance of the buildings on the property and constructing a new tower, 133' -10" in height as measured from the FEMA minimum flood plain elevation to the top of the main roof. Per Beach by Design VII B: "...the height may be increased, however to one hundred fifty feet (150') if ": • 8.1. "Additional density is allocated to the development by ... bonus hotel units... " a) The project is requesting 68 units from the hotel density reserve. B.2 (a) "Portions of any structures which exceed one hundred feet (100') (in height) are spaced at least 100' apart." and "For structures which exceed 100' within 800'....do not occupy 40% of a north south vertical plane..." a) There are no projects which exceed 100' within 800' of the proposed development. (See Attached Development Relationship Plan) • 6.3. "The floor plate of any portion of a building that exceeds forty -rive feet in height is limited as follows: a) The largest floor plate between 45' and 100' does not exceed 25,000 square feet and is 21,038 square feet. b) The largest floor plate between 100' and 150' exceeds 10,000 square feet and is approximately 15,292 square feet at the 111' and 12th levels. Per Beach by Design deviations to the above floorplate requirements may be approved provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above 45'. The proposed building does not exceed 25,000 square feet and the mass /scale of the building creates a tiered effect thus allowing a deviation from Beach by Design. The floor plate of the building above the 45 -feet level offset occurs at elevation 43' -8" and is offset by 8' -9': Once we reach elevation 100 -feet (actual 82' -4 "), the building is offset again by 5' -0" as prescribed by Beach by Design. c) Design, Scale and Mass of Building: Buildings with a footprint of greater than 5000 square feet or a single dimension of greater than one hundred (100) feet will be constructed so that no more than two (2) of the three (3) building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. For this purpose, equal in length means that the two lengths vary by less than forty (40 %) of the shorter of the two (2) lengths. The horizontal plan measurements relate to the footprint of the building. a. The plans have been organized so that no more than two (2) of the three (3) building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. 2. No plane of a building may continue uninterrupted for greater than one hundred linear feet (100'). For the purpose of this standard, interrupted means an offset of greater than five feet (5'). a. The plans have been organized so that no plane of the building will continue uninterrupted for greater that one hundred linear feet (100'). 3. At least sixty percent (60 %) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. For the purpose of this standard, an elevation is that portion of a building that is visible from a particular, point outside the parcel proposed for development. a. A tabulation of glazing has been placed on Sheets A -20B and A- 21 B. 4. No more than sixty percent (75 %) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above forty -five feet (45') will be occupied by a building. For the purpose of this standard, theoretical maximum building envelope is the maximum permitted building volume that could be theoretically occupied by a building including any portion of the maximum possible building envelope that is not visible from a public street. a. Pease see illustration below indicating how the mass of the building is no more that twelve percent (12 %) of the theoretical HEI 150' -0'f +1 HEM T 0 0 maximum building envelope for existing and proposed located above forty -five feet (45'). THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 100% � 1 MME 1� �1 �IMM THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 100% 12% OF MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) IN CUBIC FEET 75% OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE LOCATED ABOVE 45' 5. The height and mass of buildings will be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. a. The building has been designed to comply with this requirement of Beach by Design. 6. Buildings may be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permitting uses. a. The building is designed to provide a moderately priced waterfront family style hotel with a pool, restaurant, nightclub, and other accessory services. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; a. The proposed site creates a visually responsive design for the emerging character of Clearwater Beach and seeks to facilitate a dialogue with the surrounding areas by • • incorporating a number of architectural elements which speaks to the human scale such as the entrance portico, the awnings located along north and east elevations as well as the landscape which plays the most important role in communicating to the human scale. . d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: • Changes in horizontal building planes; The building design provides multiple horizontal plane changes which allows the building to create a tiered effect at the higher elevations by offsetting the floor plate of the building above the 45' level, (actual offset occurs at 43' -8), by 8' 9" and again offsetting the floor plate at the 100' level, (actual offset occurs at 824), by 5 ° -0" as prescribed by Beach by Design. • Use of architectural details such as cornices, medallions, awnings, columns, etc; The building utilizes a variety of architectural elements beginning with the angled columns at the portico entrance as well as the free standing columns which penetrates the balconies and frames the south elevation. The use of a cornice has been placed at the very top of the building to create a termination point for the fagade. Pilasters can be found throughout all four elevations of the new and existing buildings further creating cohesiveness among the project. The balconies give the building more character by projecting off the building and by also creating transitional nodes along the elevations. The railings on the balconies shall be picket type matching the old tower on the property. The use of awnings can be found along the "Beach Walk" in order to bring the building down to human scale. • Variety in materials, colors and textures; A variety of materials have been introduced to make this project architecturally pleasing such as the smooth white stucco that will blanket a majority of the walls. Green screen walls are located on the east and west elevations of the pool deck which further provides color, texture and material variation and is used to mask the garage and introduce a tropical environment for the pool deck. The decorative metal mesh screening provides another layer of material which is primarily used to hide the parking structures. The glazing on the building and the picket railings on the balconies also adds another layer of detail to the project. • Distinctive fenestration patterns; The fenestration pattern on the lower levels of the west elevation relate to the function behind them. They are large glazed openings to reveal the retail space behind . I 1 0 0 them. Located above the glazed openings is the green screen trellis system used to mask the garage and create a natural environment for the pool deck. On the north and south elevations the lower level fenestrations are metal mesh screening panels with reveal patterns. The metal mesh screening panel system helps ensure the garage can be classified as an open garage per The Florida Building Code section 406 opening requirements. The East elevation utilizes the same metal mesh screening located on the north and south elevations, however this elevation is more distinct because of the projections created approximately every 29' -0" to comply with the Beach by Design horizontal dimensional criteria. Glazed fenestrations are used primarily throughout the tower elevations to provide daylight to the hotel units and common areas. • Building setbacks; In the vertical plane the building design provides multiple step backs which allows the building to create a tiered effect at the higher elevations by offsetting the floor plate of the building above the 45' level, (actual offset occurs at 43' -8'), by W-9" and again offsetting the floor plate at the 100' level, (actual offset occurs at 82L4), by 5L0" as prescribed by Beach by Design. In the horizontal plane the building continues to step back and forth with 5'O" or more offsets at not more than 100' 0 "intervals. • Distinctive roofs forms. The building's roof design creates unique and distinctive forms in the new tower with angled projections at 3 of the four corners. These architectural elements are also repeated at the existing stair towers of the old building to create a greater level of cohesiveness among the project. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposed project consists of overnight accommodations and assesory uses which will be visually enhanced on three sides of the property. These enhancements will correspond with the development to the west of Shephards creating a visual appearance along S. Gulfview. The east buffer will have a with a 5 -foot landscape buffer consisting of Variegated Pittosporums and groups of Sabal palms between the proposed stormwater vaults and property line. On the west side of the property there is an existing fence that will be left intact for screening purposes with additional linear footage 1 0 0 vinyl fencing. This area also consists of existing vegetation which creates a screening effect from the hotel to the west. The area on the north side of the property contains existing vegetation and a broad range of landscaping enhancements. The front of the property will match the newly redeveloped hotel landscaped frontage along S. Gulfview and will be a great enhancement to Shephards Beach Resort. Seagrapes will also be installed along the accessory uses creating a screened effect from pedestrian and other establishments. The south property line is limited on landscape enhancements due to the buffer along the south property line includes a low maintenance viburnum hedge and palm trees. It is anticipated that once the property south of this development is redeveloped, the same condition as the north property line will be encountered without public view or access. THEORETICAL MAXIMUM cn �A N� %U N A� o C � O e� s City of Clearwater 0 0 Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 28 of 28 Building Separation Relationship tt. Z Beach by Design Compliance West Elevation Vertical fins break up the elevation. Two 25' wide vertical sections are recessed 5 ft. leaving an 84' wide projection satisfying the 100ft maximum horizontal wall requirement. In order to comply with step back ri Zor , requirements, the west elevation is broken into three horizontal segments naval which are recessed at the required heights. 6-9• stepback @ 43'-8" above ve zone 5'-0" stelback @ 82'-4' above ve zone no, 14� lion 0 • to 0 43 4 In order to comply with thiil 00 P Q'-O" (ve zone, maximum horizontal wall, is divided into three sections. The two end sections are recessed 5ft- to accentuate the separation. M SHEPHARDS BEACH RESORT MARWAIR RDRIDA 1111A11D 10% CONSULTANIS: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: ..... . .... =CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: REV OW I+ YS t,.. ,4laq � � I� DAM: 12,01.2M8 DAM: 12,01.2M8 CHMUD' OIG no, 14� lion 0 • to 0 43 4 In order to comply with thiil 00 P Q'-O" (ve zone, maximum horizontal wall, is divided into three sections. The two end sections are recessed 5ft- to accentuate the separation. M SHEPHARDS BEACH RESORT MARWAIR RDRIDA 1111A11D 10% CONSULTANIS: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: ..... . .... =CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: REV OW SHEET ME WEST VIGNETTE SET MU: DRC SUMAMAL NOT FOR CONSFRXTION 1- I'll DRAWN W: 1111 DAM: 12,01.2M8 DAM: 12,01.2M8 CHMUD' OIG --ll 2 EA-3 • • S Beach by Design Compliance South Elevation 1WP 13-3! 1,6' . it y5 r 14 tot tot ip• vanes , 'sk 4 1-4 In order to comply with step back requirements the southeast corner is broken into four horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights. 1 0'4' - 12'-0" stepback @ 43'-8" above ve zone 2'-0" stepback @ 82'-4" above ve zone , x0001 0'-10" - 2'-10" stepback @ 101 "-8" above ve zone 1 6 X60"" 10 In order to comply with step back requirements, the south elevation is broken into four horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights 5'-4" - 6'-2" projection @ 43'-8" above ve zcne V-13" stepback @ 82'-4" above ve zone 3'-10" - 4'-8" stepback @ 101'-8" above ve zone M SHEPHARDS BEACH RESORT CLEAR WATER ROMA MEWED 101: CONSULTANTS: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: i V271 CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: REV TE: ME H1. now arccw+.EMa SHEET TIRE: SOUTH VIGNETTE O"C SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION JOB �M.US -11H 112.. 1, 0. 1 �CH�..�i A-33 • • EV D OR",diFiAL 'R PLANNING --.i Beach by Design Compliance East Elevation Vertical fins creak up the elevation. Two vertical sections are recessed 5 ft, leaving an 84' wide projection satisfying the )Oft. maximum horizontal wall requirement. N q4 In order to comply with step back requirements, the east elevation is broken into three horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights. 12' -9" stepback @ 43' -8" above ve zone 5 -0" stepback @ 82' -4" above ve zone 5..0" V� sp �k .� ." 4%1 � Rob- ow '�i a i a AW of meth X49' -3 "tO ofroof •-i� "to (,yo- 29::V-- 9 z9' -o?✓ � �J� I I a In order to comply with i el maximum horizontal wall. the lower east faca 2 IS broken into 29ft. wide sections. These sections are alternatively recessed 5ft to hreak up the facade 13 4_ 29' -0 I -- --._ =6•• (6' -6" navd) IM SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT _ CLW WATER ROMA PREPARED FOR: 96XVNS K/,Pil✓F.SOm 610 TOMIGYUVFW BpNNUu NFRBIFMI.HptlM3J'0' uaim' N AIBYxo CONSULTANTS: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: a I I .� REV DAIS: ISSUE MISTO SHEET TIRE: EAST VIGNETTE SET TIRE: DRc SUmTAL NOT FOR CONSIRUCRON JOB NO: 0820 DPAWN BY: CJ 18H DAIS: 12.01.2008 1 CHMUD: OIG LA-34 • • NAL REC"D PLANNING-.1 3 s a APPROXIUA IE FLOOD ZONE UNE PER MAP (M+ /CAL) -:�, ^ F4w8a � 8,7Y Rs'-V' igd Y d ti vlo ��. ll� Fv00 1p11 .SP CG�ry� R OP�O 11: msu l, f ISSUED FOR PERMITTING ONLY aswwfa3t nnaw ruPAr¢n Folc KEITH ZAYAC & ASSOCIATES, INC. (7 27 ) 793 -9888 SITE PLAN C4 a � e m -w -x--- w - 1r. 1 se as m ae�_m w "`' w C"UI - EW BOU AR D w w — nc xmnwr 55 d „E �k P„�, xR16HT -OF -WAY (P 65. ' f 7 '� '•C • ss —bo-+ww —erg e0o APPROAMA TE a000 ZONE UNE PER "A01 (TYPIE!L -:� ^ w w • m ffi'Y�SM`'' .� dJ l� g`1 4 I Rim �"� ♦ •x rt�od i 5E Q Q kso 1p�s`� \' PF \ \1 1.0 ply • QQOF�o�\ K�\ , �� la/' � SPA \ m JUN F �1 ' — EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL # � rs�eaae m.ealea mma ®rte W bI PdDj� Q-1 \i 2 C A'.. / -..41- """"° ISSUED FOR PERMITTING ONLY I� ME 4- s+ssr nnE: PROPOSED PLANT LIST L LANDSCAPE PLAN mla 9ET nn.L• PxaECT PHAg xo>• Fars mnsmucna+ .Ke xa mm ox.an ee ,M ,.... ,,,,, D �I " ,42.. UU h'ILIP OF MECHANICAL �{�NFIGHF L11�9T — ,9149 TSOd' *(TA•d'NilV6)— _ �•, agI _Q -J• h . WAIHL FIOI�A 1D K@F�GVUUnwGUO[mtru Fw+FwD °___. J ROOF �" T, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: IIiX CML�ENGINEER: A1400 LEVEL -POOL OE(� bus -r A POOL MECH LEVEL T`A' — 7 5 Nr� ��' >p p AI200 LEVEL 101�aA 11001RLTHT — — 'NA4D1 � 100'0-Ia111' NO3 tiHOO LEVFI. `� 14 oDxriF mo•xwFSrxiacnvRDry LYIOV+FPFDIKKICNMFW OOOk 0 _ AIOOO LEVEL _ - �P fl2'd" ❑ lalrrto ®AMaWmlen A900LEJ'EL � � j 15 °'�IR.°AMEVa won — EXISETNG HOTEL BEYOND NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATION - COLOR r OVE EXISTING CUPOLA ABOVE STAIRWELL, PROPOSED 3 63'L• i A700 LEVEL �srd• Q° A600 LLNFJ. {III- IH 1 HT AM 1J -0'C�M-0•NAV� F - — z A A400 [PVEL 6I I I I _.. - -j A 30DLEV¢L r 1 j... 1 _ I�1300 L� -0' EVEL E I - OROUNO LEVPI PROPOSEDNEW'H=LWV "; Q NOTE: % OF OPENINGS OR ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ON — — — — ELEVATION DRAWINGS 11 ELEVATION OPENINGS ARCHflECTURAL TOTAL ELEMENTS WEST 37% 41% 78% NORTH 19% 43% 61% 1 EAST 28% 51% 79% SOUTH 19% 41% 60% 4 BALCONIES OFFSET FROM FLOORS I l THRU 12 8 s PROPOSED NEW E \TRANCE ' I v =VESTAIRWELL,PROPOSED 1ESICV SHALL CORRELATE ATTH NEW TOWER �EXISTMG HOTEL - FROM FLOORS 11 THRU 12 [P R Illllallll ll ©� +110t,�!`��_.IIIIIIIIIII': 1111= IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIII !�iVllhlu6l�u'i�il.i�� :1 � 10 ii r� rrx, MuJlOE SIDCCO feaw.MR' I ❑9 IXc(w•mi ertFw MSHSartFrMGPNrtL mHM 1u0MNlMGPKJPF35W119wIG WKJDOOKM . WAIHL FIOI�A 1D K@F�GVUUnwGUO[mtru Fw+FwD ltpvw mHD BU¢FVeS urt SrOn60.IXP CONSULTANTS: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: ❑nun 4 uuMHLPn erD OlAss lwKrcu Q CML�ENGINEER: �rLay.FFFo 11 Fleicm�DnaonC MOU FOIwMtm 7 5 JBPo Nw[eMPNfEi fOgf1IBJEOVE. RLTmA Jd11M nIttEE: PBO� »]) untmwGFR 12 IAroJrw�DPUSnBwr caFtxscwHmnuJmrHn twa.ED CLIS SroMPwxl DDans xz 13 wATmwNLFHnvHCF PFAnrE NO3 )pa�OW 14 oDxriF mo•xwFSrxiacnvRDry LYIOV+FPFDIKKICNMFW OOOk loolrmw Dnct'aw.e+R ❑ lalrrto ®AMaWmlen 15 °'�IR.°AMEVa won — EXISETNG HOTEL BEYOND NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATION - COLOR — ALUMINUM LOUVERED AWNING SYSTEM OVER EXISTMG OVE EXISTING CUPOLA ABOVE STAIRWELL, PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE ---- FACADE DESIGN SHALL CORRELATE WITH NEW TOWER CHECKED: 06 I II- A -20 14• -r , _ EXISTING PARKING CAR AGE: _ 1;ORTH EL -- .._jjQu_ 0 - - — �HEIGITTLIMR ��ttBPOF MEF'HANIL'nL - . Stln•TTI�'A•NAV7J1.. 149 _ — �n — •�NP OF ROOF CSC ._- _.___._ _ • -: A 1100 LEVEL -FOOL D[Ci: 9 us.r ' APOOL MECH LEVEL _ ANEIOIfPLIMD` - -- _ rI 1200 LEVEL - - -- 100V� Ia114�-0`NAVOI s �IDI'.B• _ 1 j A — A 9tOIF'EI. - 5 °�, AB00 LEVEL — 4Brn _ b srd• A NEIGHt WMN ° AMN IEVD A500 LR EI. � I EMI SHEPHARDS BEACH RESORT . WAIHL FIOI�A PREPARED FOR: sHFnvmJS IIbCN loam xuMwtseweeuev � auRwAreLRFKx, lTano+ TeT n+nE: rndBP.11N1 caNUCr: waIWAM RBNJ ow��oo�mw.AU,w CONSULTANTS: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: roKAncaAaaw¢NC. � noBD.An s+R aoe • � Inn roiw�ee xws C(MKi'tE1MUYK CML�ENGINEER: mIFNIF�A� R�`JH4ol arErcrvimac nalmu4eva P•orf: Pin ivasaea CRnK :IO:nHUYK STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: IM M JBPo Nw[eMPNfEi fOgf1IBJEOVE. RLTmA Jd11M nIttEE: PBO� »]) untmwGFR REV RATE. I H Nal xz onccannelrs NO3 )pa�OW OAOCOAP.BRJ HaJ loolrmw Dnct'aw.e+R SHEET RRE: NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATION - COLOR SET URE: ORC muom NOT FOR CONSWLICRON JOR NO: Deso DRAWN RF: CJIBH DAZE: 1 .01.2008 CHECKED: 06 A -20 �.�., ATOPOF MECHANICAL ,� HlGIIT"LIMR v.�LL =x� I ( .S. � a hTOPOF 0.0UF T.- � _t- - _•. ,vurdo^ ❑uLa41W.t 4 A54M3LYWIIMFDPLUFGUSS�W�4V� _ MIaWOM aLYDi PLAMS AtH1RY � AII00 LEVEL .PMLDECK ❑E auMmsws PlaPeraoxl cools IIIO �400TEVEL POOL UEC� _ _ n�. - YIVOOAL MECH. Lf:VEL __ -I �- SHEET IRIS: EAST & WEST ELEVATION - COLOR II - - , . A121q LEVEL ,y1�Om LIMB- I - _.. .!, _ ANA 1-00 LEVEL � n A900 LEVE1 �- :B AI100 LCVFL S' :, ® : . ': U A7W LEVEL I __ hIC9DLEYEL � I'. O _ = 0960 LEVEL ' a 4 J _ 02TVYFL aOp LEVEL 11Y.4 • i r A00 LEVEL H "'G� J9Mrt - q J1 v `U��D :.1 - A30DLEVEL _� PDIOPOSEO NEW HOTEL. WING y. EOOLEVEL -' I 'P m PROPOSED NEW HOTEL WIK; �� ATOP OF MECNANN'AL 161GIrt LiMTf _ _ _ _ _— I 19 I D I I wJUD 61A6 MACi RfBRMT 510ffiROM mROxueslwa ❑uLa41W.t 4 A54M3LYWIIMFDPLUFGUSS�W�4V� GPMF MaH FCOPMHII i i NfIG S'SIFM MIaWOM aLYDi PLAMS AtH1RY � � UND%wFDrAU0F w16R4MSCEtW iP01BMrtM ❑E auMmsws PlaPeraoxl cools I �400TEVEL POOL UEC� _ xlewa euwr�aewln ®n 14 coNUnF Caoxxwl slcucNle -+ LL APODL MFLIL LEVEL I` _— �I 111 SHEET IRIS: EAST & WEST ELEVATION - COLOR II - - , . = o AIl00LEVEL Ana •_.. -_ - -� __ _.. .!, I ' - 1 M n A900 LEVE1 �- :B AI100 LCVFL S' :, ® : . ': U A7W LEVEL I Q m. O �Gqa EVFL 4r-0'NT��tIT v07- I _ aOp LEVEL 11Y.4 • i r q J1 v `U��D :.1 PDIOPOSEO NEW HOTEL. WING I�1 1 I CI'''A -__ � mJ I I LEGEND ❑1 Wxl[f1Y000M0I.OWWvul ❑9 MLtu MCw iCx[riG Vwu smal �A�.fPA1�056iNrt51ONDGV.0W00.5 W/ ORMMIXrtaoeGUM4 MHN IOIHf® 10 wJUD 61A6 MACi RfBRMT 510ffiROM mROxueslwa ❑uLa41W.t 4 A54M3LYWIIMFDPLUFGUSS�W�4V� GPMF MaH FCOPMHII i i NfIG S'SIFM MIaWOM aLYDi PLAMS AtH1RY � � UND%wFDrAU0F w16R4MSCEtW iP01BMrtM ❑E auMmsws PlaPeraoxl cools 13 wARP D4L lr auYEPeD xouowMFULOOw El xlewa euwr�aewln ®n 14 coNUnF Caoxxwl slcucNle ❑g Iaur9mAmws nmu 15 oteeE.DMnNDDaa TOMES ET FROM R5 11 f12 I I i NOTE: %OF OPENINGS OR ARCHITECVRAL ELEMENTS ON ' ELEVATION DRAWINGS ELEVATION OPENINGS I ARC CNRAL TOTAL > EL MENTS WEST 37% ' NORTH IS% I I51% 79% EAST N °6 SOUTH 19% 41% 6096 BALCONIES OFFSET - -- z FROM FLOORS I1 THRU 12 ALUMINUM LOUVERED 4 WNMG SYSTEM OVRR GRISTING PARKING STRUCTURE FACADE EXISTING PARKING GARAGE EAST EL EVATION I - _r_ ,Y I IO'fi" i o �7 LM CUPOLA ,PROPOSED SHEPHARM BEACH RESORT a EAR WAIM HOMA PRBARED TOR: SMFAVImS WsL>r Ie30m aEwwaeeMEAdL adnDe >er ome�sy uAaer� CONSULTANTS: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: rcaavxwrm.Nc %Lx�9am fnn, alR w1 • m�Nlrcrl}ucrexee a+saaa CIVIL ENGINEER: urea � STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: DSPo NM 65M SPEFi iNIWICHmVF. ilC1104 ee]W aqr[.' Nse1NA��mumrra>:tm REV PATE �� m�a r I N ISSUE R OIOI(!OW OOC COMta09 0).OY DAC Cp.TBa9 J IOA V IXIC COVr.EhS SHEET IRIS: EAST & WEST ELEVATION - COLOR M IELE: ORC SOBMI NOT FOR CONSTRUCMIN JOB NO: OBRO DRAMT! BY: CJ / BH DAIS: 12.O1.POOB CHECKED OIG A -21 REMCA'E EXISTING CUPOLA ABOVE STAIRWELL, PROPOSED DESIGN SHALL CORRELATE WITH NEW TOWER EXISTING HOTEL WI bill, 11 mlv � Jo ■ / v — v v v v v v v v v v v v -- NOTE: o OF OPENINGS OR A RCHITECTURAL ELEMENT'S ON ELEV9'ION DRAWINGS ❑9 ueowlwr rlme�sewrrsc ru+99srtm [2]v+RO9H CUS Iwaavvsuoxlc wavaoew ' oNRA.Aw�9�� 9r omlo�� uwaemn 6_VATION OPENINGS ARCHITECTURAL TOTAL % E L11% 5 ,�3 wum w.0 ulwxc[rwua VEST OT% al% TS% JORTH 19% 47% 61% ST 28% 51% 79% .ollTx 19'5 al % 611% SHEEP TIME: PY � a I fu, o �u EXISTING CUPOLA __- ALUMINUM LOUVEiFD IAIRWELL. PROPOSED AWNING SYSTEM OVFR HALL CORRELATE EXISTING PARKING N TOWER STRUCTURE FACADE JIVII I \G 111k1\.; LEGEND �, aroomwx09uCCOgelx,nwnu, ❑9 ueowlwr rlme�sewrrsc ru+99srtm [2]v+RO9H CUS Iwaavvsuoxlc wavaoew tD urtalwncnra mnu la.MRn oNRA.Aw�9�� 9r omlo�� uwaemn CONSULTANTS: �mflN1�A ❑ /.... AQ t2 orcroEwrcn+rsa�x�asmen IEulAexw rwm;o caAwnonmwr000m ,�3 wum w.0 ulwxc[rwua RXLY to WFaeoeglaVmnuoOCn 14 cfNCxrt taoiwra[vqucns[�l om ❑g ulemxrM lamwo.wmrtm ,5 ovlarn lhru000a ALUMINUM LOUVERED AWNING SYSTEM OVER EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE FACADE REMOVE EXISTING CUPOLA ABOVE STAIRWELL, PROPOSED DESIGN SHALL CORRELATE z r I E)aMNG PARKING GARAGE. EAST ELEVATION /SECTION PROPOSED HOTEL BEYOND REMOVE EXISTING CUPOLA ABOVE STAIRWELL. PROPOSED DE SIGN SHALL CORRELATE \VITH NEW TOWER HOTEL V ��I) ralmi IN'1 kill lal Illl 11111 IMlll III'.. 11111 I ®l1 1�■ Ull FAR I�flal�h■EI' L,�I _I�NI I� ��._ SHEPHARDS BEACH RESORT CLEW WAr6y ROR]A PREPARED FOR: sHPAwroseucx rescm elv�swN nlanew ealay.Im uelNUOL Romo]mm omlo�� uwaemn CONSULTANTS: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: �NvMlA990CNr¢NC e11A16E]dDfAT 9111E 101 �IWIeOC, Flgld]9ne95 CIVIL ENGINEER: aAaoauEA ec AI FM9MYIAIDGA 911E AN STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: roc w RRa DA H 10aarldroo rnt 2rw1e0s Boa' oac COM.9m N0.]1R111(Mp OGC CVea.BdS SHEEP TIME: EAST & WEST EXISTING ELEV /SECT - COLOR SET BILE: DRC SUBMRTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION JOB NO: 0820 DRAWN M: CJ /BH DATE: 14.01.2008 CHECKED: DIG A -22 AERIAL FROM NORTHWEST 1 a ri„ 1 air ms`s.FIIRI I I + lRTMIIg1E1 . 1., �+ wlTP4Rl1F4 1.1! � � °1a H i H + r 1 4ff �� pll •�lrll@' d+Ji' ffir� fi _ _ --r AERLU FROM SOUTHWEST VIEW FROM NORTHWEST VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 1111ARED NOR: �e�oun aea w�i.1a arAD1 aolna v ln� acti:: nl.ux.lem WNf04T. NllVM N.RBMo ® "1°mHiuo uArare e�w�e CONAttTANR: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: WMUVK •wOC 19nC. I s AMENGINEER: ENGINEER: wcA�vorwa, NC. � mn nsseee STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: w"wmlw�mm"'�ua aamr woo �,: Isv11nIN'IeN.timt �El•�?I�.T.T' SHEET 11TIE: RENDERINGS -1 SETVW, DRC AIEMOAl NWFM CONSMUMN JOE NO: 0110 DRAWN V: U/m MME: 11.01.100E CHE UD: OIG VIEW OF ENTRANCE CANOPY VIEW OF POOL DECK VIEW OF BOARDWALK / THU BARS VIEW OF TMI BARS ml SHEPHARDSBEACH RESORT CLWWAIRROWA PREPARED Fql: IXVR WNIARddt 0.a 11)e) N11IG.V.111A1 M. LIAR CONSULTAWS: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: _71- CML ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: llRW.l DAR I 19�—tm- Hm N01 )M✓ADl WC N.ta.An VERME: RENDERINGS-2 SUM; mcsumwm "M FM CONMRLcnON 0121 MWN 11' , Cl I W 1"IKI, DATE, 12.01.2001 1 • PARKING STUDY FOR • SHEPARDS BEACH RESORT 619 SOUTH GULFVIEW BLVD. CLEARWATER , FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: SHEPARDS BEACH RESORT PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. REVISED OCTOBER 2009 PROJECT # 08 -067 Robert Pergolizzi, WP, PTP AICP #9023, PTP #133 0 0 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing to redevelop their property on Clearwater Beach into a 186 room resort hotel. (See Figure 1) The redevelopment of the property is the subject of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment in Tourist "T" zoning district. This application requires an assessment of the parking characteristics of the redevelopment. Shepard's currently has 96 existing hotel rooms and is located at 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard. The existing parking garage is manned by valet service and has the ability to park up to 220 cars for peak conditions. Some surface spaces 'are open for self - parking. Based on City of Clearwater requirements, on -site parking should include 1.2 parking spaces per hotel room. This would result in a code requirement of 224 parking spaces. The City of Clearwater has requested a detailed analysis estimating the number of parking spaces actually needed to service the various functions of the proposed resort hotel once it is redeveloped. Prior to completing this analysis a methodology was established with the City of Clearwater staff. This parking study has been revised numerous times based on comments received by the City of Clearwater staff and subsequent modifications to the plan. II. PARKING SUPPLY After redevelopment a new parking garage will be constructed on the eastern portion of the site and the surface spaces will be removed. The total parking supply under normal operations will be 316 code compliant spaces, however with the ability to park up to 68 vehicles in garage aisles (28 in the existing garage and 40 in the proposed garage) during peak demand periods the ultimate total will be 384 spaces in the garages. The existing garage will be serviced, by valets on an as- needed basis, and the proposed garage serviced by valets at all times. In addition, vehicle stacking will be provided in the porte- cochere area. III. PARKING DEMAND Shepard's Beach Resort will have several components that will generate the need for parking vehicles. The facility will include 186 hotel rooms, internal restaurant, a small retail gift shop, a night club, and meeting rooms with seating for up to 300 meeting attendees. The facility is designed to encourage the interaction between the hotel guests and these other accessory on -site uses. The general manager of Shepard's provided data regarding expected staffing, occupancy, hours of operation of accessory uses, and mode of travel of staff and hotel guests. The parking demand assumptions for hotel staff, hotel guests, retail /night club staff, night club patrons and meeting attendees are summarized in Table 1. Hotel staff will operate on three shifts per day. Shift A (7 AM -3:30 PM would employ 45 staff members under normal operations and up to 65 staff under full occupancy. Shift B (3 PM 11:30 PM) would employ 45 staff members under a w C7 V) 0 0 I PROJECT LOCATION -- Shepard's Beach Resort 108-067 : PROJECT Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE: FIGURE: Land Development Consulting 10/2008 DRAWN BY: G.J.S. TABLE 1 - SHEPARD'S BEACH RESORT - PARKING DEMAND CALCULATIONS NORMAL OCCUPANCY (70 %) FULL OCCUPANCY+ MEETINGS SPACES REQUIRED SPACES REQUIRED FIINCTlnN VARIARI. -F NUMBER PERSONIROOM SPACES NUMBER PERSON /ROOM SPACES HOTEL STAFF SHIFT A 7AM- 3:30PM EMPLOYEES 45 40% USE CAR 18 65 40% USE CAR 26 HOTEL STAFF SHIFT B 3PM - 11:30PM EMPLOYEES 45 40% USE CAR 18 65 40% USE CAR 26 HOTEL STAFF SHIFT C 11 PM -7AM EMPLOYEES 10 40% USE CAR 4 20 40% USE CAR 8 HOTEL GUESTS 186 ROOMS 70% ROOMS 130 50% USE CAR 65 186 50% USE CAR 93 RETAIL SHOPS & NIGHT CLUB EMPLOYEES 10 40% USE CAR 4 15 40% USE CAR 6 NIGHT CLUB PATRONS PERSONS 210 20% USE CAR 42 300 20% USE CAR 60 MEETING ATTENDEES HOTEL GUEST PERSONS NA NA 0 240 NA 0 MEETING ATTENDEES NON -GUEST PERSONS i NA NA .0 1 60 12 PERSONS/CARI 30 TIKI DECK DAYTIME PATRONS PERSONS 1 200 20% USE CAR 1 40 1 300 1 20% USE CAR I 60 ASSUMPTIONS: NORMAL OCCUPANCY IS 70% WITH 50% HOTEL GUESTS USING CAR, OTHER 50% ARRIVE BY SHUTTLE, TAXI, LIMO) EMPLOYEE PARKING IS LIMITED TO 40% OF EMPLOYEES USING A CAR BASED ON EXISTING DATA MEETING ROOM CAPACITY IS 300 SEATS, 80% ASSUMED STAYING AT THE HOTEL, 20% ARRIVE BY CAR 2 PERSONS PER CAR EMPLOYEE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON SHEPARDS PROJECTIONS NIGHTCLUB PATRONS AND TIKI DECK PATRONS BASED ON SHEPARDS DATA normal operations and up to 65 staff under full occupancy. Shift C 01 PM -7 AM) would employ 10 staff members under normal operations up to 20 staff under full occupancy, The gift shop (7 AM - 11 PM) and the night club (9 PM — 2 AM) would require 10 employees under normal operations and up to 15 employees under peak season operations. Based on existing employee travel patterns approximately 40% of the employees will require a parking space since many employees travel by bus, trolley, and bicycle. During normal occupancy periods 70% of the hotel rooms are expected to be occupied which translates to 130 rooms. During rare full occupancy all 186 rooms would be used. Based on existing travel patterns approximately 50% of the hotel guests would require a parking space for a rental car, whereas the remaining 50% would arrive by others modes of travel such as taxicab, limousine service or hotel shuttle. The on -site night club is expected to serve 210 patrons on not -Mal nights and up to 300 patrons during peak season. The night club primarily draws from hotel guests or guests of other hotels within walking distance, however, it was assumed 20% of the patrons would use a car requiring a parking space. The outdoor Tiki Deck is expected to serve 200 patrons on normal days and up to 300 patrons during peak season. The Tiki Deck primarily draws from hotel guests or guests of other hotels within walking distance, however, it was assumed 20% of the patrons would arrive by car requiring a parking space. The outdoor Tiki Deck is normally utilized in the afternoon and early evenings during daylight hours. Meeting room capacity is 300 attendees. Shepards intends to market the meeting rooms to hotel guests therefore it was assumed 80% of the attendees would be hotel guests, and the remaining 20% would be arriving by car with an average of 2 persons per car, This would generate the need for 30 parking spaces. meeting were assumed to occur between 9 AM and 6 PM. A. NORMAL OCCUPANCY An analysis was conducted by time -of -day to determine the total number of parking spaces needed for normal occupancy conditions with no meetings. Table 2 summarizes the parking demand for this condition as ranging between 69 and 142 parking spaces. B. FULL OCCUPANCY WITH MEETINGS An analysis was conducted by time -of -day to determine the total number of parking spaces needed for full occupancy conditions with 300 meeting attendees, F) • TABLE 2 - NORMAL OCCUPANCY - TIME OF DAY PARKING DEMAND • HOTEL STAFF EMPLOYEES HOTEL RETAILINIGHI NIGHT CLUB TIKI DECK TOTAL ___ _ _..•__ _ _...__ .. .. . -.T. n1 1lo nrnee DATDnus POTRnNS DEMAND TIME PERIOD SHIF A 4 42 115 12 MID -1 AM 4 4 65 73 4 42 123 1 AM - 2 AM 69 2 AM - 3 AM 4 65 69 3 AM - 4 AM 4 65 69 4 AM - 5 AM 4 65 69 5 AM - 6 AM 4 65 69 6 AM - 7 AM 4 65 88 7AM -8AM 18 4 65 1 84 8 AM - 9 AM 18 65 1 84 9 AM -10 AM 18 65 1 84 10 AM -11 AM 18 65 1 1 40 124 11 AM -.12 NOON 18 65 1 40 124 12 NOON -1 PM 18 65 40 124 1 PM - 2 PM 18 65 1 1 40 142 2 PM - 3 PM 18 18 65 1 40 142 3 PM - 4 PM 18 18 65 40 124 4 PM - 5 PM 18 65 1 1 40 124 5 PM - 6 PM 18 65 1 40 124 6 PM - 7 PM 18 65 1 40 124 7 PM -8 PM 18 65 87 8 PM - 9 PM 18 65 4 4 42 129 9 PM - 10 PM 18 65 4 1 42 133 10 PM -11 PM 18 4 1 65 4 1 42 133 11 PM -12 MID 18 4 1 65 Table 3 summarizes the parking demand for this condition as ranging between 101 and 236 parking spaces. IV. COMPARION OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND A comparison was made to determine whether the calculated parking demand can be reasonably met with the proposed number of spaces to be provided on -site. During periods of normal occupancy the 142 space demand represents 45% of the proposed parking supply. During periods of full occupancy the 236 space demand represents 75% of the standard parking supply of 316 code- compliant spaces and 61% of the total proposed parking supply of 384 spaces including aisle valet parking in the garages. As such adequate parking will be provided for the hotel operations. V. CONCLUSION This analysis was conducted in accordance with a specific methodology established with City of Clearwater staff and unique characteristics of Shepard's Beach Resort. This analysis demonstrates hotel operations can easily be accommodated with the proposed 316 on -site parking spaces and 68 overflow parking spaces. 3 • TABLE 3 - FULL OCCUPANCY AND MEETINGS - TIME OF DAY PARKING DEMAND • HOTEL STAFF EMPLOYEES HOTEL RETAILINIGHI NIGHTCLUB TIKI DECK MEETING TOTAL ouirr n ewrr n n_"rere c1 i in QTerr DATwnun PATRAMR ATTFMDEES DEMAND 12 MID -1 AM 8 93 6 80 167 1 AM - 2 AM 8 93 6 60 167 2AM -3AM 8 93 101 3AM -4AM 8 93 101 4AM -6AM 8 93 101 SAM -6AM 8 93 101 6AM -7AM 8 93 101 7AM - 8 AM 26 B 93 1 128 8 AM - 9 AM 26 93 1 120 9 AM - 10 AM 26 93 1 1 30 150 10 AM -11 AM 26 93 1 30 160 11 AM- 12 NOON 26 93 1 60 30 210 12 NOON -1 PM 28 93 1 60 30 210 1 PM -2 PM 28 93 1 60 30 210 2 PM -3 PM 26 26 93 1 60 30 236 3 PM -4 PM 26 26 93 1 60 30 236 4 PM -5 PM 26 93 1 60 30 210 5 PM -6 PM 26 93 1 1 60 30 210 6 PM -7 PM 26 93 1 60 180 7 PM -8 PM 26 93 1 60 180 8 PM - 9 PM 26 93 6 125 9 PM - 10 PM 26 93 6 60 185 10 PM - 11 PM 26 8 93 6 80 193 11 PM -12 MID 28 1 8 93 6 60 193 i_ TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR SHEPARDS BEACH RESORT 619 SOUTH GULFVIEW BLVD. CLEARWATER , FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: SHEPARDS BEACH RESORT PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. OCTOBER 2008 PROJECT # 08 -067 Robert Pergola IAICP, PTP AICP 49023, PTP 4133 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing to redevelop their property on Clearwater Beach into a 226 room resort hotel. (See Figure 1) The redevelopment of the property is the subject of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment in Tourist "T" zoning district. This application requires an assessment of the traffic impacts of development. Shepards currently has 97 existing hotel rooms and is located at 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard. Prior to completing this analysis a methodology was established with the City of Clearwater staff. II. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The property has frontage on South Gulfview Boulevard east of Hamden Drive. South Gulfview Boulevard was recently reconstructed as a two -lane collector roadway with on- street parking running along Clearwater Beach. Coronado Drive was recently reconstructed as a three -lane collector roadway with on- street. Hamden Drive intersects with S. Gulfview Boulevard at a signalized intersection. Traffic counts were conducted in October 2008 at the following intersections: S. Gulfview Blvd. / Hamden Drive S. Gulfview Blvd. / Coronado Drive Hamden Drive / Coronado Drive All traffic counts were converted to annual average equivalents using FDOT seasonal adjustment factors. According to the traffic counts S. Gulfview Boulevard carries 833 vehicles east of Hamden Drive and 348 vehicles west of Hamden Drive along the beachfront. Coronado Drive carries 658 vehicles between Hamden Drive and Gulfview Boulevard, and the short segment of Hamden Drive between Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive carries 531 vehicles. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. Existing intersections were analyzed using the HCS+ software. The HCS+ printouts are included in Appendix A. Presently the signalized intersection at S. Gulfview Boulevard / Hamden Drive operates at LOS B with average delay being 10.2 seconds per vehicle. Presently the signalized intersection at S. Gulfview Boulevard / Coronado Drive operates at LOS A with average delay being 7.1 seconds per vehicle. At the intersection of Hamden Drive / Coronado Drive the primary movements are eastbound -to- southbound and northbound -to- westbound, whereas the southbound approach (Hamden Drive) is stop controlled. The HCS+ analysis shows the primary movements operate at LOS A and the southbound stop - controlled movements operate at LOS C. 0 1 a w w a 0 0 ' PROJECT LOCATION — Shepard's Beach Resort I08�067: Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE: FIGURE: Land Development Consulting 10/2008 DRAWN BY: G.J.S. N W I a w w c7 v� PROJECT NO: EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME (2008) 08 -067 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE: FIGURE: Land Development Consulting 102008 DRAWN BY: I 1 2 G.J.S. III. South Gulfview Boulevard functions as c FDOT 2002 OLOS Handbook capacity tab vehicles per hour on the undivided segment. r: ollector roadway and according to les has a LOS D capacity of 1,390 The segment of Gulfview Boulevard east of Hamden Drive and Coronado Drive are both three -lane collector roads with a LOS D capacity of 1,460 vehicles per hour. South Gulfview Boulevard between Hamden Drive and the Clearwater Pass Bridge presently operates at LOS C during the PM peak hour carrying 833 vehicles, and south Gulfview Boulevard west of Hamden Drive operates at LOS C carrying 348 vehicles, and Coronado Drive operates at LOS C carrying 658 vehicles. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As per the approved methodology existing traffic was adjusted by a 2% annual growth rate to the expected build -out year of 2010 to account for background traffic from other nearby redevelopment projects. The site will be developed as a 226 room resort hotel, expanding he existing 97 room hotel. Using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7h Edition rates, the amount of new trips was calculated and estimates are shown below: TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Land Use Amount Daily Tri ps PM Peak Trip Resort Hotel 226 Rooms 1,846 95(41/54) The vehicular access will be taken from S. Gulfview Blvd. and the expected distribution is as follows: 40% to / from the north (57) o to / from he south (3 8) PROJECT IMPACT CALCULATIONS Project Road Segment Lanes Project Trips Capacity Percent S. Gulview (Hamden — Site) 2LD 57 1460 3.90% S. Gulfview (Site — Clwtr. Pass Bridge) 2LD 38 1460 2.60% Coronado Drive (Hamden — S. Gulfview) 2LD 57 1460 3.90% Future operations at the S. Gulfview Boulevard / Hamden Drive signalized intersection would continue at LOS B with average delay increasing to 10.6 seconds per vehicle. The S. Gulfview Blvd. / Coronado Drive intersection would continue to operate at LOS A with average delay of 7.1 seconds per vehicle. 2 0 0 At the intersection of Hamden Drive / Coronado Drive the primary movements would continue to operate at LOS A and the southbound stop - controlled movements would operate at LOS D. At the project driveway all movements would operate at LOS B or better. With background traffic and project traffic added S. Gulfview Blvd. would carry 925 vehicles between Hamden Drive and the site, and 904 vehicles between the site and the Clearwater Pass Bridge. South Gulfview Boulevard west of Hamden Drive would continue to operate at LOS C carrying 361 vehicles, and Coronado Drive would operate at LOS C carrying 742 vehicles just south of the Gulfview Boulevard intersection. This represents acceptable operations. Future traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3, and the HCS+ printouts are included in Appendix B. IV. CONCLUSION This analysis was conducted in accordance with a specific methodology established with City of Clearwater staff. This analysis demonstrates traffic operations at nearby intersections and on adjacent roadways would continue at acceptable levels of service with the project impacts. M 0� N N I- I IMM� W W 5 w a C7 0 0 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME (2010) PROJECT NO: 08 -067 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE: FIGURE: Land Development Consulting 10/2008 DRAWN BY: 3 G.J.S. 0 0 APPENDIEK A Detailed Report 9 0 Page 1 of 2 HCS +� DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 1013012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection GULFVIEW/HAMDEN Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Lane Group L T T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 14 168 157 267 1241 0 9 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 10.93 0.93 10.93 10.93 0.93 0.93 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 1 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 32.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, ntrol Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 15 181 169 233 269 Lane Group Capacity, c 646 994 994 844 589 v/c Ratio, X 0.02 0.18 0.17 0.28 0.46 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.33 Uniform Delay, di 6.6 7.2 7.2 7.7 15.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 7.3 7.3 7.8 16.3 file://CADocuments and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k9B.tmp 10/30/2008 lu a" CS 10 Detailed Report • • Page 2 of 2 Control Delay Lane Group LOS A A I A A B Approach Delay 7.3 7.6 16.3 Approach LOS A A B Intersection Delay 10.2 Xc = 0.35 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.3 Generated: 10/30/2008 10:00 AM C" GM ¢^v file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k9B.tmp 10/30/2008 PEAK HOUR I P.H.F. DATA PROJECT: SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT PROJECT NO: 08 -067 LOCATION: Hamden Dr (SB) & So Gulfview Blvd (E -W) DATE: October 29, 2008 LANE TYPE: SPEED LIMIT: SIGNAL TIMING: A G Y R (SECONDS) NB N/A NB N/A NB SB 2 Lane SB 20 SB EB 2 Lane EB 20 EB WB 4 Lane WB 20 WB N/A N/A N/A N/A 21 21 4 33 0 16 4 28 14/A--l---A6— 824 4 28 5:30 -5:45 0 0` 0 188 784 HOURLY FLOW DIAGRAM 5 :45 -6:00 0 192 776 241 270' 0 0 0 484 0 16 19 301 0 0 284 496 1,600 1 1 PEAK HOUR TIME NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 9 0 232 PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME J 4:00 - 4:15 ♦ �—s 4:151{:30 4:30 -4:45 4 :45 -5:00 222 160 13 —+ t— 257 408 210 162 --► 4— 151 192 175 —► 0 0 —► 394 200 4--1 I I` 0 0 0 232 0 9 13 162 0 0 151 257 824 0 l 0 0 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR 4:00 -5:00 INTERSECTION PHF 0.93 0 1 0 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 824 PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 0 PHF NB #DIV /01 PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 241 PHF SB 0.87 �1 0.73 �• Q� PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 175 PHF EB CJ PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 408 PHF WB 0.94 cl y 4 ORIGINAL REM 2009 f PLANNING; • E Detailed Report 0 0 HCS +TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Intersection GULFVIEW /CORONA Agency or Co. GCC Area Type All other areas Date Performed 1013012008 Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Page 1 of 2 file://CADocuments and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k89.tmp 10/30/2008 va �a 9.- a. 9 �31 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 0 2 2 1 Lane Group L LR T T R Volume, V (vph) 185 7 357 294 217 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 1 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike I RTOR Volumes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 18.0 G= G= G= G= 44.0 G= G= G= IY- Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 70.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 114 102 401 330 244 Lane Group Capacity, c 455 453 2230 2230 1583 v/c Ratio, X 0.25 0.23 10.18 0.15 0.15 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.26 0.26 0.63 0.63 11.00 Uniform Delay, di 20.6 20.5 5.4 5.3 0.0 k Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 120.8 1 0.0 10.0 10.0 20.9 5.5 15.4 10.0 file://CADocuments and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k89.tmp 10/30/2008 va �a 9.- a. 9 �31 Detailed Report • • Page 2 of 2 Control Delay Lane Group LOS C I C A A A Approach Delay 20.9 5.5 3.1 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Delay 7.1 Xc = 0.20 Intersection LOS A Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.3 Generated: 10/30/2008 9:52 AM C" S file://CADocuments and Settings \rpergo1izzi.GCC \Loca1 Settings \Temp \s2k89.tmp 10/30/2008 PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: LANE TYPE: NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR TIME PM 4:15 -4:30 4:30 -4:45 4:45 -5:00 5:00 -5:15 5:15 -5:30 5 :30 -5:45 5:45 -6:00 TIME PM 4:00-4:15 4:15-4:30 4:3G-4:45 A•AF_5 nn R N/A 45 PEAK HOUR / P.H.F. DATA 24 N/A 45 4 SHEPARD'S BEACH RESORT 18 PROJECT NO: 4 08 -067 N/A Coronado Dr (N-S) 81 N/A Gulfview Blvd (EB) October 28, 2008 ,!aY�. 215 896 SPEED LIMIT: SIGNAL TIMING: A G Y (SECONDS) 3 Lane NB. 20 NB 1 1 4 Lane Div SB 20 SB 1 1 2 Lane EB 20 EB NB NB NB N/A WB N/A WB EB EB EB TIME PM 4:15 -4:30 4:30 -4:45 4:45 -5:00 5:00 -5:15 5:15 -5:30 5 :30 -5:45 5:45 -6:00 TIME PM 4:00-4:15 4:15-4:30 4:3G-4:45 A•AF_5 nn R N/A 45 4 24 N/A 45 4 24 18 18 4 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A : <4L'. .�,r s^>:i'1 p-l'ln p 1-+' -•r'�. slk �� `+-I �''-rh •j42Fn- y, 'Lg., '�li �`'.,,�)1 ... 1 • • DIAGRAM �. _. ,!aY�. 215 896 492 522 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 1' I VOLUME 1' i 1 1 �.R 260 I 1 m- I 1 .: 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR 4:00 -5 :00 INTERSECTION PHF 0.89 290 344 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1,021 PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 344 PHF NB 0.77 PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 492 PHF SB 0.89 PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 185 PHF EB 0.76 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 0 PHF WB #DIV /0! 71-031NAL Ens s Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst RP Intersection HAMDEN/CORONADO Agency/Co. GCC Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Date Performed 10131108 Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING An sis Time Period PM PEAK 5 6 Project Description East/West Street: CORONADO DRIVE North /South Street: HAMDEN DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 274 271 56 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 288 0 285 58 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — -- 2 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 21 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 0 0 22 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR Belay, Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT TR (veh /h) 0 285 25 C (m) (veh /h) 1544 1271 230 lc 0.00 0.22 0.11 95% queue length 0.00 0.86 0.36 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.3 8.6 22.6 LOS A A C lApproach Delay -- '- 22.6 file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2k11 l.tmp 10/31/2008 t� an F of Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.3 �'I Generated: 10/31/2008 8:01 AM 0 MOO !fit „i Q� z �1'0 file: / /C:\ Documents and. Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC \Local. Settings \Temp \u2kr1 Ltmp .10/3'172008 PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: LANE TYPE: NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR / P.H.F. DATA SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT PROJECT NO: 08-067 Hamden Dr (N-S) & Coronado Dr (EB) October 30, 2008 SPEED LIMIT: SIGNAL TIMING: A G Y R (SECONDS) (NOT APPLICABLE) 3 Lane NB 20 NB 2 Lane SB 20 SB 3 Lane EB 20 EB N/A WB NIA WB PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS • osu -5:45 134 546 HOURLY FLOW DIAGRAM 5:45 -6:00 108 503 23 54' 478 101 0 0 42 4 0 0 479 0 0 0 1,104 1 } TIME NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 3 20 0 PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME I l L 4:00 -4:15 8 155 264 �— 0 + �1 0 0 4:15 -4:30 137 0 0 4:30 -4:45 158 263 —► 263 0 —► 0 4:45 -5:00 151 t r 261 54 0 0 20 3 0 0 263 0 0 0 601 261 54 0 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR 4:00 -5:00 INTERSECTION PHF 0.95 283 3 315 INTERSECTION PEAK. HOUR VOLUME 601 PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 315 PHF NB 0.86 PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 23 PHF SB 0.72 PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 263 PHF EB 0.78 _ PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 0 PHF WB #DIV /01 v� Q 1,NAL �I °� 7SET 1 A 2009 �I (o wa asafAA&lEs� a-i { 2007 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: DISTRICT Category: 1500 PINELLAS COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0.94 Week Dates SF PSCF 1 01/01/2007 - 01/06/2007 1.09 1.17 2 01/07/2007 - 01/13/2007 1.05 1.12 3 01/14/2007 - 01/20/2007 1.02 1.09 4 01/21/2007 - 01/27/2007 1.01 1.08 5 01/28/2007 - 02/03/2007 0.99 1.06 6 02/04/2007 - 02/10/2007 0.98 1.05 * 7 02/11/2007 - 02/17/2007 0.96 1.03 * 8 02/18/2007 - 02/24/2007 0.95 1.02 * 9 02/25/2007 - 03/03/2007 0.94 1.00 *10 03/04/2007 - 03/10/2007 0.93 0.99 *11 03/11/2007 - 03/17/2007 0.91 0.97 *12 03/18/2007 - 03/24/2007 0.92 0.98 *13 03/25/2007 - 03/31/2007 0.92 0.98 *14 04/01/2007 .- 04/07/2007 0.92 0.98 *15 04/08/2007 - 04/14/2007 0.92 0.98 *16 04/15/2007 - 04/21/2007 0.93 0.99 *17 04/22/2007 - 04/28/2007 0.94 1.00 *18 04/29/2007 - 05/05/2007 0.95 1.02 *19 05/06/2007 - 05/12/2007 0.97 1.04 20 05/13/2007 - 05/19/2007 0.98 1.05 21 05/20/2007 - 05/26/2007 0.99 1.06 22 05/27/2007 - 06/02/2007 0.99 1.06 23 06/03/2007 - 06/09/2007 1.00 1.07 24 06/10/2007 - 06/16/2007 1.00 1.07 25 06/17/2007 - 06/23/2007 1.00 1.07 26 06/24/2007 - 06/30/2007 1.00 1.07- 27 07/01/2007 - 07/07/2007 1.00 1.07 28 07/08/2007 - 07/14/2007 0.99 1.06 29 07/15/2007 - 07/21/2007 0.99 1.06 30 07/22/2007 - 07/28/2007 1.00 1.07 31 07/29/2007 - 08/04/2007 1.01 1.08 32 08/05/2007 - 08/11/2007 1.02 1.09 33 08/12/2007 - 08/18/2007 1.03 1.10 34 08/19/2007 - 08/25/2007 1.03 1.10 35 08/26/2007 - 09/01/2007 1.04 1.11 36 09/02/2007 - 09/08/2007 1.04 1.11 37 09/09/2007 - 09/15/2007 1.05 1.12 38 09/16/2007 - 09/22/2007 1.05 1.12 39 09/23/2007 - 09/29/2007 1.04 1.11 40 09/30/2007 - 10/06/2007 1.04 1.11 41 10/07/2007 - 10/13/2007 1.04 1.11 42 10/14/2007 - 10/20/2007 1.03 1.10 43 10/21/2007 - 10/27/2007 1,04, 1.11 44 10/28/2007 - 11/03/2007 1.0 1.11 45 11/04/2007 - 11/10/2007 1.05 1.12 z 46 11/11/2007 - 11/17/2007 1.05 1.12 47 11/18/2007 - 11/24/2007 1.06 1.13 98 49 11/25/2007 12/02/2007 - 12/01/2007 - 12/08/2007 1.07 1.08 1.14 1.15 _ ppi�pp GUNIAL � 50 12/09/2007 - 12/15/2007 1.09 1.17 51 12/16/2007 - 12/22/2007 1.06 1.13 52 12/23/2007 - 12/29/2007 1.04 1.11 53 12/30/2007 - 12/31/2007 1.02 1.09 * Peak Season PLAW BNG Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4 -4 GENERALIZED PEAK HOUR TWO -WAY VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBANIZED AREAS* UNINTERRUPTED FLOW BIGHWAYS Class II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Level of Service Lanes Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Undivided 210 730 1,450 2,060 2,620 4 Divided 1,940 3,140 4,540 5,870 6,670 6 Divided 2,900 4,700 6,800 8,810 10,010 STATE TWO -WAY ARTERIALS 3,830 Class I ( >0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile) 4,920 8 Divided ** 800 Level of Service 6,060 Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Undivided ** 400 1,310 1,560 1,610 4 Divided 460 2,780 3,300 3,390 * ** 6 Divided 700 4,240 4,950 5,080 * ** 8 Divided 890 5,510 6,280 6,440 * ** Class II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Class III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of an urbanized area over 750,000) FREEWAYS Interchange spacing > 2 mi. apart Level of Service Lanes Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Undivided ** 180 1,070 1,460 1,550 4 Divided ** 390 2,470 3,110 3,270 6 Divided ** 620 3,830 4,680 4,920 8 Divided ** 800 5,060 6,060 6,360 Class III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of an urbanized area over 750,000) FREEWAYS Interchange spacing > 2 mi. apart Interchange spacing < 2 mi. apart E 7,240 11,180 15,130 19,050 23,000 Level of Service Lanes A B C D 4 2,310 3,840 5,350 6,510 6 3,580 5,930 8,270 10,050 8 4,840 8,020 11,180 13,600 10 6,110 10,110 14,110 17,160 12 7,360 12,200 17,020 20,710 Interchange spacing < 2 mi. apart E 7,240 11,180 15,130 19,050 23,000 BICYCLE MODE (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in.this table is based on roadway geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two -way maximum service volumes.) Level of Service Lanes A B C D E 4 2,050 3,350 4,840 6,250 7,110 6 3,240 5,250 7,600 9,840 11,180 8 4,420 7,160 10,360 13,420 15,240 10 5,600 9,070 13,130 16,980 19,310 12 6,780 10,980 15,890 20,560 23,360 BICYCLE MODE (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in.this table is based on roadway geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two -way maximum service volumes.) Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Divided Yes +5% 2 Undivided ** ** 450 950 1,200 2 Undivided No -20% 4 Divided ** ** 1,050 2,070 2,400 Multi Undivided Yes -5% Source: Florida Department of Transportation 05/17/07 Multi Undivided No -25% Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 ONE -WAY FACILITIES Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0450 Multiply the corresponding two - directional volumes in this table by 0.6. http: / /www. dot. state.fl.us /planning /systems /sm/los/default.htrn *Values shown are presented as hourly two -way volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. Although presented as peak hour two -way volumes, they actually represent peak hour peak direction conditions with an applicable D factor applied. This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Level of service letter grade thresholds are probably not comparable across modes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be made with caution. Furthermore, combining levels of service of different modes into one overall roadway level of service is not recommended. Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, respectively for the automobile/truck, bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes. - * *Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults. * **Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For automobile/tuck modes, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached For bicycle and �P�P�r,;a„ mndos the level of ,,d letter vrade (includine F) is not achievable. because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. __ Paved Shoulder Level of Service Bicycle Lane Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D E Coverage A B C D E 2 Undivided ** ** 500 1,200 1,470 0 -49% ** ** 310 1,310 >1,310 4 Divided ** ** 1,180 2,750 3,120 50 -84% ** 240 390 >390 * ** 6 Divided ** ** 1,850 4,240 4,690 85 -100% 300 680 >680 * ** * ** 8 Divided ** ** 2,450 5,580 6,060 PEDESTRIAN MODE Class rV (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within (Note: Level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on roadway primary city central business district of an urbanized area geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of pedestrians a over 750,000) using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number "« Level of Service of directional roadway lanes to determine two -way maximum service volumes.) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided ** ** 490 1,310 1,420 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 4 Divided ** ** 1,170 2,880 3,010 0 -49% ** ** ** 600 1,480 O 6 Divided ** ** 1,810 4,350 4,520 50 -84% ** ** ** 940 1,800 8 Divided ** ** 2,460 5,690 5,910 85 -100% ** 210 1,080 >1,080 * ** BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route) NON -STATE ROADWAYS Major City /County Roadways (Buses per hour) Level of Service (Note: Buses per hour shown are only for the peak hour in the single direction of higher traffic flow.) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided ** ** 870 902 1,480 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 4 Divided ** ** 2,030 1,9501 3,120 0 -84% ** >5 >4 >3 >2 6 Divided ** ** 3,170 4,450 4,690 85 -100% >6 >4 >3 >2 >1 q i ol f4(o D ARTERIAL/NON -STATE ROADWAY ADJUSTMENTS Other Signalized Roadways (alter corresponding volume by the indicated percent) (signalized intersection analysis) Level of Service Lanes Median Left Tums Lanes Adjustment Factors Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Divided Yes +5% 2 Undivided ** ** 450 950 1,200 2 Undivided No -20% 4 Divided ** ** 1,050 2,070 2,400 Multi Undivided Yes -5% Source: Florida Department of Transportation 05/17/07 Multi Undivided No -25% Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 ONE -WAY FACILITIES Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0450 Multiply the corresponding two - directional volumes in this table by 0.6. http: / /www. dot. state.fl.us /planning /systems /sm/los/default.htrn *Values shown are presented as hourly two -way volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. Although presented as peak hour two -way volumes, they actually represent peak hour peak direction conditions with an applicable D factor applied. This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Level of service letter grade thresholds are probably not comparable across modes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be made with caution. Furthermore, combining levels of service of different modes into one overall roadway level of service is not recommended. Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, respectively for the automobile/truck, bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes. - * *Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults. * **Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For automobile/tuck modes, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached For bicycle and �P�P�r,;a„ mndos the level of ,,d letter vrade (includine F) is not achievable. because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. __ 0 . 1 9 APPENDIX B Hotel (310) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 8.17 3.47 - 9.58 3.38 Data Plot and Equation C" X zol ------------------------ ------- - - - - -- - - - --- - - - -- - - - --- - - --- - - - - - - - --- - - - -- -- - --- - - --- - - - Number of Studies: 10 16,000 Average Number of Rooms: 476 U1 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting ----......- -- -• -- - -;- ---- - --- -- -- ------- --- Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 8.17 3.47 - 9.58 3.38 Data Plot and Equation Trip Generation, 7th Edition 551 Institute of Transportation Engineers 18,000 X 17,000 ------------------------ ------- - - - - -- - - - --- - - - -- - - - --- - - --- - - - - - - - --- - - - -- -- - --- - - --- - - - 16,000 .............. -- - -- -------- ------- ........ .......... ...................... 15,000 ----......- -- -• -- - -;- ---- - --- -- -- ------- --- 14,000 - - -- --- ------ ---- -- -------- ------ ------- - ------ --- ------------- ............... ....... 13,000 - -- ------ - -- -------- - ---- ---- - -------- --- rn C: 12,000 . ............... I - - ------ - ------- ------- --------------------- .............. w CL 11,000 - - ------ ----- ---------- ------------ -- - ----- -- ------------ F- 10,000 .......... ---------- .......... 9,000 ....................................... .............. .......... I ------ ....... 8,000 - --------------- .......... ---------- > 7,000 ---- ----- ----- ------ - "'f -- ----- -- - -- ----- ------ - < 11 6,000 ---------------- .......... ............. --------- ............. . F- 5,000 --------- --------- ---- ......... ------- .......... --------- 4,000 --------- - - ----- - ----- ----- ------ ----- ---- --- ---- --------------- --- ----- ----- -- 3,000 ......... .......... X, 2,000 ------------------ .............. ........... : -- ----- ------------- --- - ----- - -------- 1,000 - ----- ----- -- I ............................ ...................................... 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 8.95(X) - 373.16 R2 = 0.98 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 551 Institute of Transportation Engineers w • Resort Hotel (330) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Rooms: 504 Directional Distribution: 72% entering, 28% exiting Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.31 0.24 - 0.41 0.57 Data Plot and Equation 400 300 a c U-1 B- H (D U L 200 N N Q 1— 100 0 300 400 500 600 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.40(X) - 40.79 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 700 800 900 - - - - -- Average Rate R2 = 0.75 625 Institute of Transportation Engineers M. Z' ' X X ' X X X XX 0 300 400 500 600 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.40(X) - 40.79 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 700 800 900 - - - - -- Average Rate R2 = 0.75 625 Institute of Transportation Engineers M. Z' ' t Resort Hotel (330) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, Z E One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 10 Average Number of Rooms: 495 0 Directional Distribution: 43% entering, 57% exiting V, I Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.42 0.19 - 0.51 0.65 Data Plot and Equation 500 LU F- a) 0) 15 N 400 300 200 100 : X ..................... ... ---------- ----------- ------ ----------- -- . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. X----- ,- - - - - -- .......... ........ ------ - X ------------------- .................. .. . X X X ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------ --------- I ---------- X 0 -t- 100 200 300 400 500 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points - Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.44 Ln(X) - 3.62 Trip Generation, 7th Edition - - 600 700 800 900 ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.93 626 Institute of Transportation Engineers Detailed Report . Page 1 of 2 HCS +' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 1013012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection GULFVIEW/HAMDEN Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2010 WITH PROJECT J Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB LT TH RT WB LT TH RT NB LT TH RT SB LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Lane Group L T T R LTR Volume, V (vph) 14 175 163 311 276 0 9 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 10.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 32.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= G= G= ly= Y= 4 ly= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 15 188 175 281 307 Lane Group Capacity, c 643 994 994 844 590 v/c Ratio, X 0.02 0.19 1 10.18 0.33 0.52 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.33 Uniform Delay, d, 6.6 7.3 7.2 7.9 16.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 10.11 1.000 1 1.000 11.000 1 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 1 7.4 7.3 8.2 17.0 file:// Mocuments and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kCB.tmp 10/30/2008 s;a C-3 Detailed Report • 0 Page 2 of 2 Control Delay Lane Group LOS A I A I A A B Approach Delay 7.3 7.8 17.0 Approach LOS A A B Intersection Delay 10.6 Xc = 0.41 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.3 Generated: 10/30/2008 1:17 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kCB.tmp 10/30/2008 Detailed Report • 0 Page 1 of 2 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 HCS +� DETAILED REPORT General Information 0.0 Site Information 0.0 0.0 Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 1013012008 Time Period PM PEAK 0 0 0 0 Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project I D GULFVIEW/CORONADO All other areas CLEARWATER 2010 WITH PROJECT 0 Volume and Timing Input 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 EB WB NB SIB 12.0 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 Parking Maneuvers, Nm 0 2 2 1 Lane Group L LR 0 0 T 0 T R Volume, V (vph) 192 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 7 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing 404 02 03 331 226 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 08 2 G= 18.0 IY= 1Y= G= G= G= 2 G= G= 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 Y= 0.89 Y= Y= ly= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 0.89 Cycle Length, C = 70.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination 10.89 0.89 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A SB A TH RT LT TH A LT TH A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 119 105 2.0 454 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 455 453 2.0 2230 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 0.26 0.23 1 3 0.20 3 1 3 Unit Extension, LIE 11.000 3.0 13.0 0.26 0.26 13.0 1 13.0 13.0 Filterina /Metering. I 11.000 1 20.5 11.000 1 1 11.000 11.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm 5.4 0.0 10/30/2008 Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 18.0 IY= 1Y= G= G= G= G= 44.0 G= G= G= 4 Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= ly= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 70.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 119 105 454 372 254 Lane Group Capacity, c 455 453 2230 2230 1583 v/c Ratio, X 0.26 0.23 1 0.20 0.17 0.16 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.26 0.26 0.63 0.63 11.00 Uniform Delay, di 20.7 20.5 5.5 5.4 0.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 10.950 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 1 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, dz 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 1 10.0 0.0 0.0 121.0 20.8 5.6 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kDD.tmp 5.4 0.0 10/30/2008 V CA Detailed Report • Page 2 of 2 0 Control Delay Lane Group LOS C C '.. 3. .1 C6 A A A Approach Delay 20.9 5.6 3.2 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Delay 7.1 Xc = 0.22 Intersection LOS A Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.3 Generated: 10/30/2008 1:21 PM file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kDD.tmp 10/30/2008 1 '.. 3. .1 C6 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kDD.tmp 10/30/2008 TWp -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst RP Agency/Co. GCC Date Performed 10131108 Analysis Time Period PM PEAK 3roject Description ast/West Street: CORONADO DRIVE ntersection Orientation: East -West ✓ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Jla'or Street Eastbound /lovement 1 2 T L T /olume veh/h) 0 310 leak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 burly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 326 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- Jledian Type 1.00 ZT Channelized 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h .anes 0 2 ',onfiguration LT T J stream Signal 0 0 Ainnr Ctroof Nnrthhni in; Page 1 of 2 Intersection HAMDEN / CORONADO Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2010 WITH PROJECT 12 orth /South Street: HAMDEN DRI tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 RT Channelized 22 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Undivided 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 0 0 23 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 Northbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 RT Channelized 22 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 0 0 0 23 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Apprpach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Configuration I I I I TR Delay, Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT TR (veh /h) 0 331 26 C (m) (veh /h) 1540 1230 180 lC 0.00 0.27 0.14 95% queue length 0.00 1.09 0.49 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.3 9.0 28.3 LOS A A D pproach Delay -- -- 28.3 file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2k118.tmp 10/31/2008 e 'y CI TWo -Way Stop Control 0 Page 2 of 2 s /veh pproach LOS -- -- D Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 10/31/2008 9:28 AM �1 M c-# 3 . Z I go k file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k118.tmp 10/31/2008 4 Two -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst RP Agency/Co. GCC Date Performed 1013012008 Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Page 1 of 2 Intersection S. GULFVIEW /PROJECT DRIVEWAY Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2010 WITH PROJECT Major Street Eastbound Project Description East/West Street: S. GULFVIEW BLVD North /South Street: PROJECT DRIVEWAY Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 426 25 16 441 0.02 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 0 473 27 17 490 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized LOS 0 B 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h) 33 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h 36 0 23 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh /h) 17 59 C (m) (veh /h) 1064 451 /c 0.02 0.13 95% queue length 0.05 0.45 Control Delay (s /veh) 1 8.4 14.2 LOS A B file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2k103.tmp 10/30/2008 Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 0 # :* 11 0 0 Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.3 Generated: 10/30/2008 1:36 PM file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2kl03.tmp 10/30/2008 C" C5 C5 Z file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2kl03.tmp 10/30/2008 Tree Inventory Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. Clearwater, Florida Prepared by Alan Mayberry For: Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. November 23, 2008 The following report is submitted by Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist, and includes findings that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboriculture. I have no interest personally or financially in this property and my report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property of Keith Zayac & Associates and will not be given to other entities unless so directed. Site Overview and Tree Canopy Analysis The subject site is commercial property located on Clearwater Beach. The site consists of a variety of palm, species growing in landscape islands within parking lots or in landscape buffers adjacent to parking lots. The species include the native sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) and several exotic palms including the Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta), California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), Senegal date palm (Phoenix reclinata), Bottle palm (Hyophorbe lagenicaulis), Coconut palm (Cocos nucifera), Alexandra palm (Archontophoenix alexandrae), Pygmy date palm (Phoenix roebelenii), Royal palm (Roystonea regia — native to South Florida), Queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana), and Foxtail palm (Wodyetia bifurcata). The palms in general have been pruned too hard. Only dead and dying fronds should be removed as the palm recycles nutrients back to the bud from the declining frond. The palms should be fertilized four times a year with a palm special fertilizer from Lesco with a formula of 8- 2 -12 -4 (N,P,K, + Mg) and should be irrigated with an automatic system that targets the needs o f the individual species. With a few exceptions the palms are sufficiently healthy to warrant preservation or transplanting on site. All trees and palms with an overall condition rating of 3.0 and above on the following inventory are considered worthy of preservation or transplanting. Tree Inventory Data A tree inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at the time of inspection. It is a valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanation of the data used in the inventory: • • Tree# - location - Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that corresponds with a number on the site plan that identifies the location of the tree in the field. Size — Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 4.5' above grade. If there is a fork in the trunk at that point the diameter is measured at the narrowest area below the fork. Palm species are measured in feet of clear trunk (C.T.). Species — Each tree is listed by its common and botanical name the first time it is listed in the inventory. For simplicity the tree is listed by its common name thereafter. Condition Rating — The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structural strength and systemic health. Elements of structure include: 1) the presence of cavities, decayed wood, split, cracked, rubbing branches etc., 2) branch arrangements and attachments, i.e., well spaced vs. several branches emanating from the same area on the trunk, codominant stems vs. single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs. included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs. respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic health will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the tree as needed. Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in. the overall condition rating include: 1) live crown ratio (the amount of live crown a tree has relative to its mass), 2) crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth (shoot elongation is a sign that the tree is making and storing energy. The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any unique features. The rating scale is 0 -6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen. Increments of 0.5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 0- A dead tree 1- A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or property damage. 2 — A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked /split scaffold branches etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a 42 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. t 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon have included bark can be included as a #3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be included in this group particularly `if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4 is valuable to the property and should be preserved. 5 — A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and virtually free of insect or disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a 95 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6 — A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread) to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed work on a specimen tree. Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the tree but not covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data. It may include maintenance recommendations to improve the tree's overall condition rating. It may also have recommendations on whether to remove or preserve a tree. NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for 3 -5 years. However, events such as drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance and severe storms can downgrade the rating value of a tree. Conversely, remedial maintenance can upgrade the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely affected, have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. Note: Whenever possible it is advised to adhere to inventory recommendations when selecting trees to be preserved. For example, trees or palms rated 4.0 and higher should be preserved if at all possible, while trees or palms rated 2.0 and lower should be removed unless otherwise noted in the inventory. Trees or palms rated 2.5 are generally recommended for removal unless remedial work is performed to upgrade them. Trees or palms rated 3.0 and 3.5 are average trees that have good potential and warrant serious consideration for preservation but not to the extent that site plan modifications are necessary. This tree inventory was conducted on November 23, 2008. NOTE #1: The tree survey prepared by the site surveyor identifies several palms that have less than 10' of clear trunk. Palms with less than 10' of clear trunk are not protected by the City of Clearwater code and consequently are not included in the following tree inventory. The palms are identified on the attached site plan with the initials NP (not protected). NOTE 42: The tree survey prepared by the site surveyor identifies several palms that are in landscape buffers of adjacent properties. These palms were not included in the following inventory as their root systems are contained within planters and they will not be affected by future construction activities relative to the subject property. ( NOTE #3: Trees and palms with a condition rating of 3.0 or greater are considered worthy of preservation or transplanting on site. Trees and palms with a condition rating of less then 3.0 are not recommended for preservation and are followed by a comment section that describes the arboricultural reasons justifying the rating. Tree # Size Tree Inventory Species Rating 1 12' C.T. sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 3.5 2 20' C.T. Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta) 3.5 3 18' C.T. Washington palm 4.0 4 14' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 5 16' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 6 14' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 7 12' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 NOTE: Palms #8, 9, 10, 11, 34, 35 & 36 are located on the publicly owned right of way of Gulfview Boulevard but were planted by the property owner as a street tree design and as such are included in this tree inventory. 8 10' C.T. foxtail palm (Wodyetia bifurcata) 3.0 9 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 10 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 11 12' .C.T. foxtail palm 3.5 12 11' C.T. Senegal date palm (Phoenix reclinata) 3.5 13 9" Seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) 1.5 Comments: The condition of this tree is downgraded due to the presence two large basal wounds with decay located on the trunk within 2' of the grade. 7' above grade there is a gaping wound where a large branch has been torn from the tree. In addition, the crown is thinning and has dieback present. Recommend removal. 14 30' C.T. Washington palm 4.5 15 13' C.T. coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) 4.0 16 13' C.T. coconut palm 4.0 17 12' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 18 13' C.T. coconut palm 4.0 19 28' C.T. Washington palm 4.0 20 12' C.T. coconut palm 4.0 21 12' C.T. foxtail palm 1.5 Comments: Severe deficiency 22 10' C.T. coconut palm 3.0 23 30' C.T. Washington palm 4.5 =.- 24 40' C.T. Washington palm 4.5 25 14', 17', 18' C.T. Senegal date palm (cluster) 3.5 26 40' C.T. Washington palm 4.5 27 35' C.T. Washington palm 4.5 28 16' C.T. California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera) 4.0 29 16' C.T. royal palm (Roystonea regia) 4.0 30 10' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 31 15' C.T. royal palm 4.0 32 16' C.T. royal palm 4.0 33 10' C.T. Senegal date palm 3.5 34 11' C.T. foxtail palm 3.0 35 1 P C.T. foxtail palm 3.5 36 11' C.T. foxtail palm 2.0 Comments: Severe nutritional deficiency and over pruned 37 8" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.5 Comments: This tree is located 3' south of the sidewalk of Gulfview Boulevard and is growing in a 6' wide landscape buffer between the sidewalk and parking lot. The tree is downgraded due to the presence of a codominant stem with included bark in the main crotch located 4.5' above grade. The codominant stem situation is compounded by the removal of a 4" diameter branch that once formed a tri- dominant formation at this point. The decay resulting from the branch removal will further weaken the affected area. The crown has average live crown ratio and below average form due to excessive pruning and competition from adjacent plants. Recommend removal. 38 17' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 39 15' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 40 12' C.T. coconut palm 3.5 41 12' C.T. coconut palm 3.5 42 10' C.T. coconut palm 3.0 43. 11' C.T. coconut palm 3.5 44. 10' C.T. coconut palm 4.0 45. 10' C.T. coconut palm 3.0 46 28' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 47 11 C.T. foxtail palm 3.0 48 11' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 49 11' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 50 11' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 51 11' C.T. foxtail palm 2.5 Comments: Nutritional deficiency 52 16' C.T. queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana) 3.0 53 18' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 54 16' C.T. queen palm 3.0 55 15' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 56 14' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 57 16' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 58 27' C.T. coconut palm 5.0 59 24' C.T. Washington palm 4.0 • 0 SHEPHARDS BEACH RESORT STORMWATER NARRATIVE Existing Conditions The site currently contains no stormwater treatment or attenuation systems. The stormwater runoff currently runs directly into the City right of way and Clearwater Pass. Proposed Conditions SWFWMD and. City of Clearwater stormwater criteria require treatment of the first %" of runoff over the new construction area prior to discharge to the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed storm water treatment and attenuation system consists of a 22.66 ft x 41.92 ft x 3 ft[de.ep] concrete 'vault in series with a StormTrap Concrete Vault System. The aforementioned storm water system provides. 4,092 cubic feet of treatment volume prior to discharging thru a control structure [weir/control elev. = 5.50] into Clearwater Pass. Details of the treatment system are provided within the civil construction plans. STORMWATER CALCULATIONS New Project Area: 63,775 sq -ft Treatment Requirement: 3/" over new project area site Volume Required: 3/" x 63,775 SF = 3,986 cu -ft Volume Provided: 1. Vault System; Elev: 5.5 — 2.5 = 3..0 ft x. 949 sf = 2,847 cu -ft 2. StormTrap Vault; Elev: 5.5- 2.5 =3.0 ft x 41.5 sf = 1.245 cu -ft Total = 4,092 cu -ft MODRET Infiltration Simulation Information: "Pond Bottom Area" = bottom area of StormTrap system = 4"15 sf "Pond Length to Width Ratio" = length to width ratio of StormTrap system Please refer to MODRET chart INFILTRATION:SHEPHARD'S wherein the treatment volume of 3,986 cf recovers in approximately 4.25 hours. REGISTRATION # 55525 .,OCT 16 2909 A EX 4,, A , P.E. 4 N '.5IAShephards\Permits \City of Clearwater \StormwaterNarrative rev Oct14 2009.doe • MODRET • SUMMARY OF UNSATURATED & SATURATED INPUT PARAMETERS PROJECT NAME: Shephard's POLLUTION VOLUME RUNOFF DATA USED UNSATURATED ANALYSIS EXCLUDED. Pond Bottom Area Pond Volume between Bottom & DHWL Pond Length to Width Ratio (L/W) Elevation of Effective Aquifer Base Elevation of Seasonal High Groundwater Table Elevation of Starting Water Level. Elevation of Pond Bottom Design High Water Level Elevation Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Unsaturated Analysis Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Factor of Safety Saturated Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Saturated Analysis Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Pond /ExfiItration Trench Hydraulic Control Features: Groundwater Control Features - Y/N Distance to Edge of Pond Elevation of Water Level Impervious Barrier - Y/N Elevation of Barrier Bottom Analysis Date: 10/14/2009 415.00 ft2 3,986.00 ft3 12.45 -5.00 ft. 2.00 ft 5.50. ft 2.50 ft 5.60 ft 0.21 3.30 ft/d 2.00 5.00 ft/d 0.21 1.00 Top Bottom Left, Right N N N N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 N N N N 0.00 0.00 0..00 .0.00 2f5 PROJECT NAME: SHEPHARD'S STRESS PERIOD NUMBER INCREMENT OF TIME (hrs) VOLUME OF RUNOFF (ft3) Unsat 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 3,689.00 2 0.50 0.00 3 0.50 0.00 4 0.50 0.00 5 0.50 0.00 6 0.50 0.00 7 0.50 0.00 8 0.50 0.00 9 0.50 0.00 Analysis Date: 10/14/2009 3�5 • SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROJECT NAME: Shephard's CUMULATIVE TIME (hrs) WATER ELEVATION (feet) INSTANTANEOUS INFILTRATION RATE (cfs) AVERAGE INFILTRATION RATE (cfs) CUMULATIVE OVERFLOW W) 00.00-0.00 2.000 0.000 0.00000 0.00 2.000 0.28359 0.27942 1.00 5.567 0.27525 0.00 0.27317 1.50 5.555 0.27010 0.00 0.26702 2.00 5.543 0.26387 0.00 0.26072 2.50 5.531 0.25764 0.00 0.25456 3.00 5.520 0.25146 0.00 0.24837 3.50 5.508 0.24521 0.00 0.24205 4.00 5.498 0.23906 0.00 0.23607 4.50 5.487 0.23304 0.00 0.23000 5.00 5..476 0.00 Maximum Water Elevation: 5.567 feet @ 1.00 hours Recovery @ 5.000 hours * Time increment when there is no runoff` Maximum Infiltration Rate: 0.606 ft/day Analysis Date: 10/14/2009 ��s v m v= _c m E 0 0 V � INFILTRATION: SHEPHARD'S Time (hrs) J Total Volume Infiltrated = 4,627 it' • • SHEPHARD'S CLEARWATER BEACH Ms. Phuong Vo Clearwater Engineering Ms. Vo" Please accept this note., to verify that a qualified maintenance firm will be hired to provide regular scheduled maintenance on the proposed storm water vault as recommended by the manufacturer for our new proposed project on Clearwater Beach. Sincerely, Paul Andrews General Manger Shephard's Beach Resorli paul@shephards.com Fl- 'V 7i'7 * POO-2,"", I JEW + Wrl _ � ; vz StormT-ape is on the cutting edge of sustainable storm water quality management. Integration of water quality control functions are inherently easy due to the modular format of the SiingleTrap® and DoubleTrap° systems. Whether your project requires attent on to a specific water quality issue or a combination of issues, the design engineers at StormTrap° can orovide a solution. TION • Designed to remove pollutants utilizing various media 0 I L IM TE , • Elininates oil, grease, fats & other hydrocarbons • Recharge /infiltration needs Y`�ygY�su • Designed to your specific particle site removal efficiencies k1lL' zmclLlll -.l a i ll/*,2i.--2,r--o8 13:01 7275624'361 FULic UTILITIES • 1 FLOW TEST ary OF CLEARWATER WATER DEPARTUENT LOCATION DATE OF TEST psi, Gri dft ►L psi PSI C.p lcpi Y Gr k A V, e V+ lc\ 2 ains e. IN PAGE 07 Clearwater Fire & Rescue 610 Franklin Street — Clearwater, Florida 33756 Public Works Administration — Engineering Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Suite 200 — Clearwater, Florida 33756 -a., ➢`.. .. Yy�, ; ,� 4`1�xN4 3ri'`r, :j air i �ryu aK�,. , D y � , 9. .t� HY,DRANTi,' RKSHEEI"� (Revised 03/29/2006) This worksheet is required to be submitted to and approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) prior to DRC meeting for any project that is more than 3 stories or more than 30 feet in height above the lov�est Fire Dept vehicle access point or for any other project thatwill require an Automatic Wet Standpipe System and /or Fire Pump before any permitsfor new building construction, building expansion orfire hydrantswill be issued bythe City of Clearwater. Information and design must comply Wth Florida Building Code, Chapter 9 - Fire Protection Systems, Florida Fire Prevention Code to include applicable NFPA Code (NFPA 1, 13, 13D, 13E, 13R, 14, 15, 20, 291 and 1142 Annex H) and AWWA M -17 - Installation, Field Testing and Maintenance of Fire Hydrants. .�. .r ?, YA • "V`:s '�lN �,j +:�515�4. !)+W. f pa.eF - "1 Ia' - �V,rY' !l !�f ,a��f 1- ^ ?yt ,rr ..;r.tv -O Pv)L';'Vil ti 1 J�' ;i< ";S'i S'�in•rv.y.�r X. i a�Ppp`OJ EC�71� .N FO'I�IGI' MT I O N :� t, gr, ,.�rt�.+��.�t.,. ,'r!?�.,X.. .. n, ��a... t .r�?�.�IrB,dfit ?Mite'ti<�i�,U�. 11x4.` �. �.: �rtifil�' �I. �i�l� +,1�a'/�n�;!sl�i,ltl.,�fis VH•:7.!•r i!i�,. _.sJ,ei°r�{�rT:... r�t.t.ii! Project Name: She,pard's Beach Resort Project Address: h19 S. Gnlfview Blvd. { R3'AJPA it ?�. � ,.�.'l+�i Siltiri �.t�`.iL.`;�yr'fli!'�'t'!.'!fV Y "t%�''Si',t r`�'�`�<fi Y.t ➢.rt�c,�yr..�e..a:V ti.Yya i.;7;t1a i',,, "1 G EN E Tt E•R EMS I Location of Nearest Fire Hydrant NnrthwP.at ('nrnPr of Property Hydrant #: 285A Size of Water Main Supplying'Fire Flow: 1 2" Looped System or Dead End Water Main? T,nnnPd Static: 7.1 psi Residual: 59 psi Pitot: 51 psi Flow: 1200 9Pm Distance of Test Gauges Relative to the Base of the Riser. Horizontal Ft. Vertical Elevation 2 . 5 Ft. Hydrant Test Conducted by: r; , ., „.F f'1 o�ru�1- IATnI - ar T)anmPnt (Include /Attach Copy of Actual Test Sheet) F,''(NT tc*a�,',� °/��, a _ : „. li''/�t (F i, :I irN `t j!..t h. yS: 'A I�t„ 4t` �,' �, �v�E'. �R,!!? Z/ 01Rpcl �l., Ati`' S�` S-.l,.l t. 1. C�.. A.,. �l. ��tl', i.' �SXt'(. i1"; �tfT. it ki, YMAR..,t �is5i�t., r.+ �# F. 1�;,. 3i1.: a�]? t' Vl. ksPs.°. 1. Y>; Y` s�4t; vY. ik.:,. �: �SIi4,. t: �4�iL^,. d�C�i? t,` a ,�'�:R11.i.$".v�•yl�'�srSY??ni Area # Classification Desciijo on of Hazard Protected (Commodity Description, Storage Height andArrangement, if applicable): Ordinary Hazard Parking Garage AffachAdditional Sheets if Necessary Pagel of 3 ,,._,kPAHMff1 54 Area # System Type Area (sq. ft.) Density (gpn-Ift) Inside Hose (gpm) Outside Hose (gpm) Wet Sprinkler 1500 .15 50 0 Attach A Milo nal Sheets If Necessary Total Needed Fire Flow (N.F.F.) 275 GPM Is Existing System Supply Suf1dent to Meet N.F.F. Above? No X Yes System Cofrponent Applicable NFPA Standard /Year Edition and OftrApplicable Codes or Statutes Sprinklers NFPA 13 2002 Stand Pipe NFPA 14 2003 Fire Pump NFPT-20 2003 Attach Additional Sheets if Necessary If Project Includes Fire Pump, Supply the Foll oW ng: Fire Pump Information: Pump Capacity:- 1000 gpm Chum Pressure: 137 psi Rated Pressure: 120 psi Pressure @ 150% How: 90 psi On-Site Storage Tank Capacity(?): None 1. P A APIF (ERN N RK`A� AQUU--@Mv� 1' M NA �T N� fi, Q F PreparerNlame: David Q. Covalt, P.E. Company Name: DeRose Design Consultants, Inc. Mailing Address'. 470 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 206 City: Pompano Beach State: F1 n -ri d Zip: 33069 Phone: (954) 942-7703 Fax: (954) 942-7933 Page 2 of 3 P.E. Seal r ' ti ? � , ° •. , .. '; . ' _. ., , • .. t' A J DITIONAL� INFO,p�� 4 },T N RE .f. .rr. ,Q•`,� MJ�Ix:� �7Sisy.!?? �! k? �` Y. �. t19' nS��e .t.�7.T,o�.�nC�,6[u4"�,Ci�e. St?:.�1 �.. 4��.i�S"i.�k�V:i..1ri ?.+�itE�'� zew^ l�Pi�1 `�JAS�i:asA "f7f:it�m5.rlrvr.�IN -.: : a Fire Prevention Items to be Addressed Prior to DRC Approval: ' ( 1. Provide Fire Flow Calculations / Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine if ary upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and /orf ire pump. If a fire pump is required, the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with the 2004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, NFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and NFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required 2. When an FDC is required, it shall be a minimum of 15 feetfrom building and shall hav e a fire hry drant within 40 feet This hydrant shall not be located on the same main as the Fire Sprinkler and must be on the supply side of a double detector checkv&e. This hydrant is in addition to the hydrant that is required for firefighting purposes that is to be within 300 feet of building, as the hose lays, and on the same side of the street as the project 3. Provide and show on the plan a minimum 30 -f oot turning radius for emergency vehicle ingress and egress at all entrances and exits. 4. Provide and show on the site plan 24 feet of width at driveways / drive aisles f or emergency vehicle ingress and egress for front and rear parking lots. Where driveways are split by an island with one -way traffic, each side of the island shall provide and show on the site plan 20feet' of width at the My eways on each side of the island. 5. Provide a Fire Department access roadway (with tum-around,Y, T or cul- de -sac) in accordance with NFPA 1. A Fire Department access roadway must have 24400t clear width and 14-f cot v ertical clearance, and be capable of supporting the weight of Fire Department vehicles (80,0001bs). 1. Building - 3 Floors New Wing 2,3, &4 Levels Total S.F. 47,164 Fire Area Building is Type II 100% Sprinkler Coverage (222) NFPA 1 Table H5.1 Fire Flow ..is 2250 GPM_ By H5.2.1 Fire F1:6.;w ;f6.r Fully Sprinklered Building can b-e: reduced by 75% & Min. Flow Not Less Than 1000 GPM 2250 - .75(2250) = 562.5 Required Fire Flow - 1000 GPM Water Supply - 12in. Municiple Water Main - 8in. Fire Main'to Building Residual Pressure -53 PSI 0.001123Q2 Velocity Pressure Required for Flow (1000 GPM) P = - D4 12in. DI - 12.4 "ID Pressure Required to Flow 1000 GPM P = .0475 PSI 8in. DI - 8.33' ID Pressure Required-to Flow 1000 GPM P = .2555 PSI Water Supply is Sufficient for Fire Flow to Building Page of 3 :;I 1 21 Q e. 0 9, L 3 '01 72, FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ATLAS # 285A ZONING: T LAND USE: RFH RECEIVED: 12/01/2008 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: MAPS: PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: DRC: CDB: CLWCoverSheet i Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 8:16 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations Wayne Per our meeting yesterday here is where I think we should be. We can discuss all of this with Michael on the 27th. As you will see below, Shephard's will be conforming in every way so that is not the issue. What we need to talk to Michael about is how future buildings are required to add parking that results in losing units from the reserve (double- dipping). Proposed_Building GSF = 227,148 (I did not include the outside bar or the outdoor covered area: as shown on the square foot tabulation you and I reviewed) 1. Fitness Center — 1,923 square feet 2. Multifunction rooms — 5,933 square feet 3. Meeting Space — 3,376 square feet 4. , Stairs - 11,055 square feet 5. Elevators — 4,953 square feet 6. Balconies — 11,991 +�+ 7.. Garage — 56,698 mf 227,148 less, all of the above gives us a GFA = ,'square feet 7 Accessory use in this building = 11,232 square feet or 8 %' Density Calculations for the entire site are: 2.37 acres x 50 = 118 units 2.37 x 150 = 355 but a max "ask" for density is 100 118 + 100 = 218 = 91.98 units per acre Total GFA is 172,912 Proposed accessory use is 22,258 square feet Balance over 10% = 5237 square feet Land GSF = 103,237 — 4237 = 98000 divided by 43,560 = 2.24 x 91.98 units per acre = 206 units. 2.27 acres x 50 = 113. 206 allowable units less 113 units = 93 units that Shephard's could ask for and we are asking for 68. Calculations for the old building that we are not touching: 94,243 square feet (not including balconies, elevators or stairwells). The garage is 46,553 square feet leaving 47,690 square feet as GFA. As to the "old building the accessory use numbers are as follows: 1. The restaurant and inside bar area total 6,840 sq feet 2. The Wave Hotel Lounge and Bar totals 3600 square feet. 3. There is an 800 foot gift shop in the existing garage 1 Total Accessory use = 11,240 square feet. Total square GFA for both buildings = 125,219 + 47,690 = 172,909 sq. feet. Total accessory use = 22,528 square feet. (12.8 %) Amount over 10% = 5,237 sq. ft. Parking increase required for over 10% = 5,237 square feet. Using the highest requirement of 10 per 1000 square feet = 52 additional spots required. , Therefore the calculation is 186 units x 1.2 = 223 spots + 52 additional spots making the requirement 275 spots (1.4 spots per unit required) where we now have 400 spots (which include 16 cars that can be stacked in the driveway awaiting valet service as shown on the submitted plans, see sheet A -11) = 2.15 spots per unit. (As a note, the actual striped spots not including overflow or out front stacking = 314 spots or 1.6 spots per unit). 2 CITY OF • C L E A R W A T E R POST OFT710E BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 -4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE' AVENUE, CLEARWATER FLORIDA 33756 > > TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAx (727) 562 -4865 PIANNING & DEVELOPMENT November 3, 2010 Mr. Joe Burdette 618 Pineland Avenue Belleair, FL 33756 RE: FLD2008 -12033 — 619 South Gulfview Boulevard Time Extension Development Order Dear Mr. Burdette: On November 17, 2009, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved the above application with 14 conditions for (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned .T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing/propokd patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet -only in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. Section 4 -407 of the Community Development Code requires the application for a building permit within one year of the date the CDB approved the request (November 17, 2010). This same Section allows an extension of time to initiate a building permit, provided good cause is shown and documented in writing within the original period of validity. The Planning Director may also consider whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved Code amendments that would significantly affect the project. On October 28, 2010, you submitted a request for a one -year time extension to apply for a building permit to construct the improvements on this parcel. Your letter cited the problems of the slow market conditions that are also affected by tighter construction lending and tourism issues related to the BP oil spill. This proposal was submitted prior to the adoption of Code amendments for overnight accommodations. The Code has been amended in the following that affect this project: November 3, 2010 Burdette — Page Two 1. Based on Code amendments for hotels and related to the Hotel Density Reserve, when the percentage of accessory uses exceed 15 percent of the hotel gross floor area, the accessory uses must be treated as primary uses for calculation of density /intensity. This application was approved with accessory uses representing 19.94 percent of the overall hotel gross floor area. Under a mixed use calculation, when subtracting the accessory use square footage from the original lot area square footage zoned Tourist District to recalculate the net lot acreage for calculating allowable density, the maximum base density is 75 rooms. The maximum number of rooms available when the lot acreage is less than 2.5 acres is 100 rooms. Therefore, the maximum number of rooms complying with the Hotel Density Reserve provisions is 175 rooms (75 + 100). This application was approved for 186 rooms. Since this application was submitted prior to the Code amendments moderating hotel densities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to number of rooms. This determination does not prevent the allocation of the 68 rooms requested. 2. The required parking ratio for overnight accommodations was amended to 1.2 parking spaces per unit. At this new parking ratio, 223 parking spaces would be required. From an amenities standpoint accessory to the hotel, based on current Code provisions, when the percentage of accessory uses exceed 15 percent of the overall hotel gross floor area, parking for all uses must be calculated separately. Based on the accessory uses being 19.94 percent, the recalculated required parking to be 522 spaces. This application was approved providing a total of 384 parking spaces. Since this application was submitted prior to some of.the Code amendments moderating hotel densities and intensities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to the number of parking spaces provided. In considering the.above changes to the Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 -407 of the, Community Development Code, I APPROVE a six -month time extension to May 17, 2011, to submit an application for a building permit to construct the site improvements on the property at 619 South Gulfview Boulevard. In the event you are unable to proceed with the project by submitting for the building permit, the CDB may approve one additional extension of time to initiate a building permit application. Such extension shall not exceed one year, shall be for the project originally approved (or as approved through the Minor Revision process) and shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing. The CDB must receive the request for this extension within the time frame granted by the Planning Director (period of validity after the original extension approved by the Planning Director, which means that any time extension request must be submitted with sufficient lead time to be placed on the CDB agenda that precedes the above expiration date). Good causes may include, but are not limited to, an unexpected national crisis (acts of war, significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather - related delays, and the like. The CDB may also consider these same Code amendments enumerated above, whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are additional pending or approved Code amendments that would further significantly affect the project. Please be aware that the issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. November 3, 2010 Burdette — Page Three If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III at 727 -562 -4504. Sincerely, 1 is Del CP Planning and Development Director S :• Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)llnactive or Finished ApplicationslGii[fview S 0619 Shephards (T) 2009.11 -Approved - WMGulfview S 0619 Time Extension Development Order 11.3.10.doc Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 5:01 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette Re: Shephard's Beach Resort Michael — I have looked at the Regular and Consent Agendas for the November 17, 2009, CD8 meeting and there is no reference in the Request for a two -year Development Order for this project. I have also looked in the file under all application material, even specifically "their" request, and all letters and emails between Joe and their consultants with the City and I do not find any request for a two -year Development Order. The Staff Report and the Development Order do not reference as part of the Request any two -year Development Order. So, I do not find any error for this application. They did not include such in their request and therefore were granted what the Code sets forth, which is a one -year time frame to apply for a building permit or request a time extension. Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:18 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Joe Burdette Re: Shephard's Beach Resort Wayne — Is this an error? From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:23 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject:, Joe Burdette Re: Shephard's Beach Resort Michael Re: FLD 2008 -1203 ( Shephard's Beach Resort) I was in today and discovered a problem with the above referenced DO for Shephard's. At the CDB last year our request was for a 2 -year development order and the development order reads we only have 1 -year to apply for permit (which would be November 17). As this was approved on the Consent Agenda it should have been a 2 -year DO and I think it is just a typo and should read November 17, 2011. My first request is that this be changed to reflect a 2 -year DO and not a 1 -year DO. Just in case, I will send in a separate email a request for an administrative 1 -year extension, but would prefer that the DO be changed to reflect the 2 -year extension that was requested. Let me know if there are any problems and thanks in advance for your help Joe Wells, Wayne 0 From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:17 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Joe Burdette Re: Shephard's Beach Resort Extension Request Wayne — Pursuant to verification of meeting the requirements of the CDC and no impacting code changes, I will grant a one year extension as requested. Michael From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:25 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette Re: Shephard's Beach Resort Extension Request Mr. Michael Delk Planning Director City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida, 33756 Re: Shephard's Beach Resort FLD2008 -12033 (Related to DVA2008- 00002) Dear Mike Please accept this letter as our request for a 1 -year extension for the above referenced Development Order for Shephard's Beach Resort, Clearwater Beach This request is based on the land development code section 4.04 and the specific criteria for our request is as follows: 1. Market conditions have slowed completely. Construction lenders are not making any funding available for hotels in this area and there does not appear to be any forthcoming in the near future. 2. The troubles of the past year (extremely cold winter and the perceived problems with the BP oil spill) have severely cut tourism in the area and consequently revenues. Should you require any additional information, please contact me and I will see that you receive whatever information you may require. Thank you for your help in this matter. Joe Burdette Agent for Shephard's Beach Resort i° - T* 0 0 i��,�i tDS�ar arrrrr �� .�il,,, CITY OF C LEARWAT E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 -4748 r' MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUIIDING 100 SouTH MYRTLRAvENUE CLEARWATER FLoRMA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 5624567 FAx (727) 562 -4865 PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 30, 2009 Alex Azan Keith Zayac & Associates P.O. Box 1156 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 RE: Development Order — Case No. FLD2008 -12033 (Related to DVA2008- 00002) 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Dear Mr. Azan: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4- 206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On November 17, 2009, the Community Development Board reviewed your request for (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking l a side (west) setback of zero feet (tn existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing /proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet -only in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. The Community Development Board (CDB) APPROVED the application with the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval: Findings of Fact: 1. The 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive; 2. The site is comprised of two parcels; 3. The proposal is to construct a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 78.48 rooms /acre, which includes the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design; 4. A companion Development Agreement (DVA2008- 00002) that must be approved by City Council is also on this CDB agenda is, providing for the allocation of the 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve; �s TOUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATTVE ACTION EMPLOYER" i F 0 • November 30, 2009 Azan — Page 2 5. The proposal includes retaining the existing parking garage, restaurant, nightclub and 46 hotel rooms in the existing buildings on the western portion of the site; 6. The proposal includes the construction of a new building on the east side of the property with 140 hotel rooms at.a height of 134 feet (to the top of the flat roof deck) 7. This proposal complies with the maximum building height allowable under Beach by Design and with approved and existing buildings between S. Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico; 8. On -site parking will be increased through the construction of a garage in the new building with 164 total parking spaces, in addition to the 220 parking spaces in the existing parking garage, for a total of 384 parking spaces; 9. The proposal includes setback reductions from all property lines; 10. Since this proposal was submitted prior to the Code amendments moderating hotel densities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to number of rooms; 11. Since this proposal was submitted prior to some of the Code amendments moderating hotel densities and intensities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming due to the number of parking spaces provided; and 12. There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2 -801.1 and 2 -803 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2 -803.0 of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development Agreement with the City (Case DVA2008- 00002); 2. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits-, the owner shall request the two existing parcels be combined into one parcel by the Pinellas County Property Appraisers office; 3. That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 4. That the freestanding sign be a monument -style sign, be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program. All attached signage shall meet Code requirements, including the signage indicated as part of the water feature; 5. That landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing or proposed parking garages be not trimmed to create any signage, unless such is approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program; 6. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant demonstrate the proposed stormwater vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on a double ring infiltration test result; 7. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the overhead door presently proposed on the northeast side of the new building be eliminated, or relocated closer to the beach area and be reduced V ' ' • • November 30, 2009 Azan — Page 3 in size to not exceed 12 feet in width and height and the storage location of the beach equipment be indicated on all appropriate plans; 8. That the cabanas on the ground floor be used for storage only, in compliance with all Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) rules and guidelines for velocity zones. Evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in deed restrictions or like forms, shall be submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; 9. That, should the existing waverunner but be relocated to install the drainage pipes in accordance with the submitted plans, this structure be brought into compliance with FEMA regulations; 10. That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building, the existing carport- type structure on the west side of the existing building be trimmed back to the west property line, with documentation provided to the Planning and Development Department; 11. That the books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with the Hotel Density Reserve criteria of Beach by Design as allowed by general law; 12. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 13. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 14. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and the Fire Departments be addressed. Pursuant to Section 4 -407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval (November 17, 2010). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the initial building permit. The building permit must be obtained within six months of the initial permit application. This timeframe to obtain the initial building permit may be extended for an additional six months for cause by the Community Development Coordinator. Time frames do not chanve 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 December 1, 2009 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, Planner III, at 727 -562 -4504. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: www.nivelearwater.com/ gov/depts/plantil'rb-". 9 0 November 30, 2009 Azan — Page 4 Sincerely, Michael De , AICP Planning Director S: IPlarnning Depm•tmentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)Ibinctive or Finished ApplicntionslGulfviely S 0619 Shepherds (T) 2009.11 - Approved - WWIGulfview S 0619 FLD Development Order 11.30.09.doc 0 6 Wells, Wayne From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne; Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Shephard's - TDR There was a TDR application filed in 11/08 which I am assuming is not going forward. . I believe that there should be mention of the TDR'd units, if not in the advertised request in the Staff Report discussion. FYI, Pam and I had a brief discussion of whether the proposed amendment to Section 4.2.7.3.3 of the Countywide Rules may affect the application in that it prohibits density averaging or clustering from existing developed property. From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:21 PM To: Clayton, Gina; Dougall- Sides, Leslie Subject: Shephard's - TDR With the CDB ad due to the Clerk's office this Friday, I need to know if the request needs to include the density units already transferred to this site, even though they are not using them. Could you please advise? Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Oct 26 09 01:53p 1 [Sbvd Address] [City. ST Zip Code] [phone] [fax] [Web address] r Wayne, Joe ve dette 4584526 TOE Wayne Wells From., Joe Burdette Fa= 562 -4576 P"es Phone: Pam Re: [I Urgent 0 For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle p.1 • comments. Select this text and delete it or replace it with your own. To save changes to this template for future use, choose Save As from the File menu. ]n the Save As Type box, choose Document Template. Next time you want to use it choose New from the File menu, and then double - click your template. Here is all the information I have on the building at Shephard' s as it sits now. n Oct 26 09 01:54p Joe 0dette 4584521& p•2 LAND USE DATA requirec X 1 ST I x P R C, P C s;-: MPW of MAX. P E S 0 P T RESTAURANT 5 A-, E ALLOI�aC c•la (S,fl. and 1-1-L-8: 2A- 1-6!-* im Re r. t:,..1101'___ l 55 A,'l E N1,0NE. Net area taoss n-Mus 3% mw.. (or 0 MW -'M i N) ;14 SEE r. S.9 MAXI Q4 a= -1 L a L s ials.- 6mersiors on 5ite cramiral 23, strijrl -rp4._ as ul dppka�)P) S F 317S S.;:. aM4 22.021 S.F. '21%) the "ont. yard I0, and 'a or 9K .,Anaetf!r hilfrer; t a 8 3 10 5' IMIN! °ark'ng I ot interior landscaping laved vehicular areasi alsc, depict or vte plan C BF (SEE t LOtUl EXIS-ING UNITS 70 BF- C011EIINSD M ;NTG 7- XfS7lNG U,41-5 TO CONVERTEC R-DuCTION TV- N ON T Agj N=7 OF EXiS71NG NUmB-CR OF NEW UNITS; UINIT�5: 141 10 T07 AL NJM5ER OF GUEST ROOM$ MA No Si TABULAPON.. RESORT 5 1 ; 94 41 'VARIANCE GRAN-r=` 8 ;ANUAPY !QQB 0 Wells, Wayne • From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 1:31 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael; hsc @clw.macfar.com; paul @shephards.com; og @garciaarchitect.com; dk @garciaarchitect.com; bill @shephards.com Subject: Joe Burdette - Acceptance of All Conditions for FLD 2008 -1203 incl. #14 Wayne After Bill Shephard's conversation with the architects, they have decided to accept all of the conditions of approval of FLD 2008 -12033 including #14 which they previously objected to. Joe Watkins Sherry From: Kathy O'Hearn [KOH @macfar.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:18 PM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: CDB Agenda November 17, 2009 Sherry: Regarding 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard [Shephard's] — Harry said client consented to all conditions; he said possibly check w /Wayne. Thanks for all your help. Kathy Kathleen A. O Hearn Legal Assistant to Harry S. Cline Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court Street, Suite 200 Clearwater, FL 33756 Office: (727) 441 -8966 FAX. (727) 442 -8470 E -mail: koh(aD-macfar.com Please visit www.mfmiecial.com for more information about our Firm MAcFARLANE FtRGUSON & MCMULLEN r' rl3t',fs '= (s`Cldift.SE" 4J lit- Law This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or distribution of this communication to other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by collect telephone at (813) 273 -4200 or electronic mail (info(Qmfmlegal.com). Thank you IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Any tax advice in this communication is not intended or written by Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen to be used, and cannot be used, by a client or any other person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or other matter addressed herein. • Wells, Wayne L' From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:54 PM To: Wells, Wayne; hsc @clw.macfar.com Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's FLD 2008 -12033 Conditions Wayne and Harry Re: FLD 2008 -12033 Shephard's is in agreement with all the conditons for approval for the CDB meeting on Tuesday, EXCEPT for Condition #14 narrowing the side exit door to 12 feet. Shephard's reason is'that•when he needs to get vehicles (.up to the size of a regular dump.,truck)outrto the back of, his property in order to clean up the beach and his back area (particularly after storms) he has no way to do so without asking his neighbor (the Econo Lodge) for permission to go across their property and the owner of the Econo Lodge can be a very difficult person to deal with. Shephard simply wants the ability to get to the back of his property with the equipment needed to clean up the beach and do regular maintenance without having to go on his neighbor's property. Some of the larger vehicles he may need (a dump truck for instance) can not go through a 12 foot wide door and make the turn to go to the back of Shephards due to the short turn radius a -1.2 foot door allows and 20 feet is what is needed according to our architects. We will be prepared to have our architects present this to the CDB on Tuesday. They have also informed me that there is room to do all of this and still maintain the landscaping. As this door is on the side of the building and not even facing South Gulfview (so it cannot not be seen anyway), I really wish we could work this out and allow the 20 feet prior to -the CDB meeting, but if this is something the Planning Department is "dug in on," then we will have to present our case to the CDB Board on Tuesday. Joe Burdette Wells, Wayne From: Harry Cline [HSC @macfar.com) Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 11:31 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. ( Shephard's) Wayne — can you give me a call today? All conditions ok, w possible exception re #14. Not objecting as such but would at least like to discuss. Thanks. - hsc From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myC[earwater.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 11:02 AM To: alex @keithzayac.com Cc: Harry Cline; jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shepherd's) Alex — In sending you the Staff Report for the above referenced application, I forgot to mention that I need to know by noon on"Monday, November 16th, whether the conditions of approval are acceptable or not. Thanks. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP ..Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 -562 -4504 - Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 1 Alex Azan, PE Senior Project Manager Professional Affiliations Representative Project Experience Alex has over 12 years experience in several broad areas of civil engineering. His varied background includes project design/engineering, site and roadway design, Florida Professional Engineer extensive knowledge of engineering software implementation, consent order Registration No. 55525 • resolution, peer review, sewage collection and water distribution system design, • permitting, client representation regarding zoning/land use, DRIB, working together W3 with legal counsel to resolve project challenges, assembling and managing professional Oftwo I'm teams regarding large and complex projects, storm water analysis problem solving for • landfills, large mixed used residential subdivisions — all within both the private and • public sectors. Alex also speaks Spanish fluently. Alex has served as project manager • on numerous commercial /retail /office /residential developments, entertainment • facilities, residential communities, educational facilities, and municipal projects Education throughout the state of Florida. Additionally, Alex has served as the development Bachelor of Science Civil manager for several large -scale residential /mixed -use communities (CDDs) which Engineering From the University of involved extensive local government interaction/negotiations, professional proposal South Florida presentations, multi- million dollar budgets, and integration of existing environmentally • sensitive areas. He has also served as vice president of Community Development Bachelor of Science in Engineering Districts, Managing Member of Home Owner/Master Associations, and essentially is (Materials Science and experienced in all other aspects related to development, including but not limited to Engineering) From the University contract negotiations, construction management, contractor selection, and value of Florida engineering. Professional Affiliations Representative Project Experience American Society of Civil Engineers Commercial/Mixed -Use Developmeuts/Residential Florida Engineering Society Florida Professional Engineer Clark and Daughtry Medical Clinic; Lakeland, Florida Registration No. 55525 • Mariner Estates; Hernando County • Broedell Plumbing Supply; Pasco County, Florida • Florida Construction Office Building; Dunedin, Florida • Komara Dental Office; Dunedin, Florida • Bridgewater; Lakeland, Florida • Riviera Dunes; Palmetto, Florida • The Banyans Townhomes; Tarpon Springs, Florida • CalIista Cay Townhomes; Tarpon Springs, Florida • Briarwood Estates; Safety Harbor, Florida • Hemingway Townhomes; Tampa, Florida • Grand Hampton; New Tampa, Florida • Southland Corporation; Florida (state wide) • State Farm Insurance: Largo, Florida • Aqualea resort; Clearwater, Florida • Hard Rock Hotel & casino; Tampa, Florida • Hard Rock Hotel & Casino; Hollywood, Florida Municipal & Educational • Lena Road Landfill; Manatee County, Florida • Everglades City Reclaimed Water System; Everglades City, Florida • Tampa International Airport Fire Station; Tampa, Florida • Bellaire Beach Community Center; Bellaire, Florida • Eisenhower Elementary School Addition; Clearwater, Florida • Curlew Creek Elementary School • Azalea Elementary School • Oldsmar Elementary School Addition; Oldsmar, Florida • St. Petersburg College; St. Petersburg, Florida • Homosassa Elementary School; Homosassa, Florida • Espiritu Santo Catholic School: Safety Harbor, Florida Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 11:02 AM To: 'alex @keithzayac.com' Cc: hsc @macfar.com; jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shepherd's) Alex — In sending you the Staff Report for the above referenced application, I forgot to mention that I need to know by noon on Monday, November 16th, whether the conditions of approval are acceptable or not. Thanks. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:36 AM To: 'alex @keithzayac.com' Subject: FLD2008- 12033/DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shephard's) Just making sure you got this, as I may have had the email address wrong. From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:07 AM To: 'alex @keithzayac.com'; hsc @macfar.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033/DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shephard's) Alex /Harry — Attached are the Staff Reports for the above referenced FLD and DVA applications. The CDB meeting is at 1:00 pm on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Im 19 Gulfview S Gulfview S 9 FLD Staff ReI9 DVA Staff Rel 0 6 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:07 AM To: 'alex @keithzayac.com ; hsc @macfar.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033/DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shephard's) Alex /Harry — Attached are the Staff Reports for the above referenced FLD and DVA applications. The CDB meeting is at 1:00 pm on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Gulfview S Gulfview S 9 FLD Staff ReI9 DVA Staff Rel • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:39 PM To: 'alex @keithzayac.com' Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com; hsc @macfar.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Alex - C Attached is the CDB letter for the above referenced project, to be reviewed by the CDB on November 17, 2009. The original letter is being mailed. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 IR-1 Gulfview S 9 FLD CDB Lett 1 • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLoRwA 33758 -4748 MUNICIPAL SERvicEs Bun.DING, 100 SOuTH MYRTLE AvENUE, CLEARWATER, FLoRMA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAx (727) 562 -4865 October 27, 2009 Alex Azan Keith Zayac & Associates P.O. Box 1156 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Re: Community Development Board Meeting (Case Nos. FLD2008- 12033) Dear Mr. Azan: You have filed Case No. FLD2008 -12033 for property located generally at 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard for (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to . proposed building) and zero feet (to existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet -only in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. This case has been scheduled for review by the Community Development Board on November 17, 2009. The meeting will take place at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, P floor of City Hall at 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 727 -562- 4504. Sincerely, W ynY M. Wells, AICP Planner III S: (Planning DepartnnentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)IPending casesl Up for the next CDBIGulfview S 0619 Shephards (T) 2009.Ox - 11.17.09 CDB - WWIGulfview S 0619 FLD CDB Letter 10.27.09.doc SAN TQLm EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" Wells, Wayne From: Alex azan [Alex @keithzayac.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:15 AM To: Wells, Wayne; richard @keithzayac.com Cc: Watkins, Sherry; sheryl @keithzayac.com Subject: RE: FLD2008 -12033 - 619 South Gulfview Boulevard Wayne .... you are correct on all counts, except, please continue to use our original office phone no. of 727.793.9888 Thank you, Alex L. Azan, P.E. 813.205.3615 Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 1156 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 PS — you work on Sundays.....too? From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:55 PM To: alex @keithzayac.com; richard @keithzayac.com ; Cc: Sherry.Watkins @myClearwater.com : c. Subject: FLD2008 -12033 - 619 South Gulfview Boulevard Alex /Richard — The first page of this application for Shephard's indicates Keith Zayac as the agent. Should this - change to Alex Azan, Keith Zayac & Associates? Also, should your address for this application indicate P.O. Box 1156, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 or your office location at 14001 63rd Way N, Clearwater; FL 33760? Should I use Alex's phone number of 813 - 205 -3615 and Alex's email of alex @keithzavac.com? This first page of the application should be changed in all packages to reflect all appropriate changes. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 0 Wells, Wayne To: Hunraf @aol.com Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations Joe — • I appreciate your comments regarding timing. As you are aware, Shephards is not my only large project on the beach and I have deadlines to meet. My fax number is 562 -4865. 1 will place in the newspaper advertisement what I think is correct. I would appreciate help from you, but if that is not possible, then I need to move forward with the information for the newspaper advertisement that I think is correct. As to the particular information requested: a. The Wave lounge square footage would need to include the restrooms which are located within the lounge and include the mezzanine; b. As to the meeting rooms in the existing building, plans indicate them as "existing meeting" rooms and staff is unaware of any proposed changes to that indicated on the plans. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:42 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Re: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations .My conunents in Red. With all due respect, we have been trying to work through this approval since last April. and these questions you are sending and the response time you have given i.s not only not fair, most of the questions are pertaining to anew ordinance that does not apply to Shephards so why would they need to be advertised . If Shephard's ends tip :non - conforming (which it. will not) then so be it. In a message dated 10/25/2009 3:27:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com writes: Joe — I need Monday morning the following numbers confirmed by the architect or revised numbers provided, as I need such for advertising of the request: We have no architect for the old building. 1 Will fax you the last Land Use Data Shect I have that was used in our last variance request in 1.999. Please send. me your fax number. 1. 1 Existing Wave Nightclub —'does the 3,600 square feet include the restrooms attached to it and the mezzanine ?; Tari.itold by Shephards i( does not Oide the bathrooniuor the hallway whi(Olonsietsof about 400square Ccct. 2. 1 Existing restaurant and bar — does the 6,840 square feet include the restrooms attached to it and the kitchen?; .It does 3. 1 Provide the square footages of the existing meeting rooms on the Level 200 of the existing building; This i000 bcirig used aoanzec(in-voon) and. is being used on storage. There ieuulyo conference room on that floor that tozfhe sole use o[fhe nianagreillent oloog with the offices on that floor. AD cnoetiog space vj}| boin the new building. 4. 1Provide the proposed/existing tiki bar (south of the proposed pool) interior floor area of the kitchen, storage snack bar and restrooms (no square footage provided); l have oo idea. There ioosnoo]lkitchon(150mg feet nr so) and urnon'aand wnrnco's boJbr000)ofapproximately 400Sguuro feet. As Outside uses are not snbioot(o Hlcnovv ordiomlcc. Id(n/1 see the need D}zLhis. It has never huen. asked for until now. S. Provide the square footage of the jet ski building; 75 square feet or so. Again I don't understand the need for the question-.? 6. Provide the proposed floor area of Level 500 in the new building (table on Sheet A-11 indicates this floor to have 20,576 square feet), not including the stairs and elevators (all other area counts as accessory use area); Will have architects.Respond 7. Proposed spa on Level l4U0 you indicate 1/923 square feet but the pbnindkates1,3OOsf spa +S4Osf exercise + kitchen/storage roorn(need the square footage of this noonni Unclear U your square footage Unumber includes that indicted. Will have architects Respond. Istenozeu000for000st0ffhisk)boadveriseduarvoarcnotsubiccitot,onovvo[dinaoccIvvaskJd this was Ju o m�� /y��'x�� ho o�c�� o��m�� to ��o� Ordinance. We will need to discuss all of your cations later as to accessory uses and park requirements, which will need to be added to the application package. Why? We have been told we are not subject to the new ordinance and same response as above. I have no problern figuring it out for informational purposes, but if Shephard's ends u:p non - conforming (which it will not) then. so be it. If'the building ever blew down we would not build back the same building anyway. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 8:16 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations Wayne Per our meeting yesterday here is where I think we should be. We can discuss all of this with Michael on the 271h. As you will see below, Shephard's will be conforming in every, way so_ that is not the issue. What we need to talk to Michael about is how future buildings are required to add parking that results in losing units from the reserve (double- dipping). Proposed Building GSF = 227,148 (I did not include the outside bar or the outdoor covered area as shown on the square foot tabulation you and I reviewed) 1. Fitness Center — 1,923 square feet 2. Multifunction rooms — 5,933 square feet 3. Meeting Space — 3,376 square feet 4. Stairs - 11,055 square feet 5. Elevators — 4,953 square feet 6. Balconies — 17,991 7. Garage — 56,698 227,148 less all of the above gives us a GFA = 125,219 square feet Accessory use in this building = 11,232 square feet or 8 %. Density Calculations for the entisite are: 12.37 acres x 50= 118 units 2.37 x 150 = 355 but a max "ask" for density is 100 118 + 100 = 218 = 91.98 units per acre Total GFA is 172,912 • Proposed accessory use is 22,258 square feet Balance over 10% = 5237 square feet Land GSF = 103,237 — 4237 = 98000 divided by 43,560 = 2.24 x 91.98 units per acre = 206 units.: 2.27 acres x 50 = 113. 206 allowable units less 113 units = 93 units that Shephard's could ask for and we are asking for 68. Calculations for the old building that we are not touching: 94,243 square,feet (not including balconies, elevators or stairwells). The garage is 46,553 square feet leaving 47,690 square feet as GFA. As to the "old building the accessory use numbers are as follows: 1. The restaurant and inside bar area total 6,840 sq feet 2. The Wave Hotel Lounge and Bar totals 3600 square feet. 3. There is an 800 foot gift shop in the existing garage Total Accessory use = 11,240 square feet. Total square GFA for both buildings = 125,219 + 47,690 = 172,909 sq. feet. Total accessory use = 22,528 square feet. (12.8 %) Amount over 10% = 5,237 sq. ft. 4 4. . Parking increase required for ov *% = 5,237 square feet. Using the big* requirement of 10 per 1000 square feet = 52 additional spots required. Therefore the calculation is 186 units x 1.2 = 223 spots + 52 additional spots making the requirement 275 spots (1.4 spots per unit required) where we now have 400 spots (which include 16 cars that can be stacked in the driveway awaiting valet service as shown on the submitted plans, see sheet A -11) = 2.15 spots per unit. (As a note, the actual striped spots not including overflow or out front stacking = 314 spots or 1.6 spots per unit). 5 7 Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:31 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Fwd: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations From: cj @garciaarchitect.com. To: Hunraf @aol.com CC: og @garciaarchitect.com, paul @shephards.com, dk @garciaarchitect.com Sent: 10/26/2009 10:54:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: RE: Joe B Re: Shephard 's Calculations Provide the proposed floor area of Level 500 in the new building (table on Sheet A -11 indicates this floor to have 20,576 square feet), not including the stairs and elevators (all other area counts as accessory use area); Response: 18,498 sf without stairs and elevators Proposed spa on Level 1400 - you indicate 1,923 square feet, but the plan indicates 1,300 sf spa + 540 sf exercise + kitchen /storage room (need the square footage of this room). Unclear if your square footage number includes that indicted. 1,923 SF is correct and is measured to exterior walls, the breakdown is also correct because it is measured to interior; however the kitchen /storage is an additional 200 SF measured to interior walls. Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:30 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Shephards New Building Fwd: Square Footage Tabulation 100509 -1.xls Attachments: SquareFootageTabulation 100509 -1.xls From: dk @garciaarchitect.com To: Hunraf @aol.com CC: og @garciaarchitect.com, cj @garciaarchitect.com Sent: 10/26/2009 10:45:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time v Subj: Square Footage Tabulation 100509 -1.xls Joe, I have highlighted the square footage tabulation for the fifth floor and roof. The fifth floor did include stairs. Please see attached. Daniel Shepherd's Beach Resort Square Footage Tabulation c. 10/26/2009 New Hotel Tower Level 100 Leve1200 Level 300 Leve1400 LevaLfi Level 600 Leve1700 Level 800 Level 900 Level 1000 Level 1100 Level 1200 Lava11400, 3 Totals Keys per Floor 0 0 0 0 6 Momm" 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0�,,a� 140 Parkin . M� Regular 9 36 36 42 0 "'' "" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 123 Overflow 6 11 13 10 0 !h° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 Handicapped 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MMO 1 Total 16 47 49 52 �0,;,: "f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=0 164 Guest Rooms A/C 0 0 0 0 ? i0 iii 10 664 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 0 74,648 Corridors 0 0 0 0 pr,5 T16 " 2,016 2,078 2,078 2,078 2,078 2,078 2,0783333813 ;r., 21,013 Mechanical 0 0 0 0 0, 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 Oxi: 1,120 BOH 192 0 192 192192N3n1 192 449 449 449 449 449 449 6'77 4,331 Vending 316 0 0 00; 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 0,3 , •, 1,044 Stairs 1,313 2,024 1,380 1,510 690 374 374 374 374 374 374 371 3 :' 11,005 Elevators 381 381 381 381 38IM44. 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 Wft'3,8,,IMN 4,953 Balconies 0 0 0 0 XMM 6,831 2,361. 2,361 2,361 2,361 1,250 1,250 ' Food Staging 0 0 0 0 pmlm 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 1,965 Rest Rooms 0 0 0 0 =888.; . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X7..22 '1,678 Fitness 0 0 0 0 0 "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %MM,92 3 1,923 Bar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0T94 { 194 Pool Deck 0 0 0 0 O••• ,,,3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;; 9`817 9,817 Multi - Function 0 0 0 0 X8493 �fra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'a0 5,933 Meeting 0 0 0 0 3746m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a`. 3,746 Housekeeping 0 0 0_ 2,242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` 0 2,242 Water Pumps 0 0 0 518 0 %, `: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 518 Storage 588 0 420 420 mmo :..: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,428 Parkin (Excluding Ramp at 4th Floor 11,299 15,773 16,042 13,584 OKK =; ";' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 56,698 Electric 0 0 775 0 A" .z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 775 Generator 0 0 772 0 Ok ,.,, , 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 D 3 772 Fire Pump 0 0 518 0 ,,0, :.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,59" INIMIN 518 Fire Command 0 518 0 0 O ''" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "WORM 518 Cover Exterior 3,432 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a. 0 3,432 Guest Entrance 2,423 0 0 0 0 ''i ::' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ffiRHO 2,423 Pool Equipment 267 0 0 0 �.,.0,,;!;,a „h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >'0 267 r Total Floor Area A/C & Balcony) 20,211 18,696 20,480 18,847 X20 °576„ 21,038 16,571 16,571 16,571 16,571 15,460 15,4601'4898 231,950 Total Building Square Footage 231,950 • • Wells, Wavne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:42 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Re: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations 0 My comments in Red. With all due respect, we have been trying to work through this approval since last April and these questions you are sending and the response time you have given is not only not fair, most of the questions are pertaining to a new ordinance that does not apply to Shephards so why would they need to be advertised. If Shephard's ends up non - conforming (which it will not) then so be it. In a message dated 10/25/2009 3:27:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time; Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com writes: Joe — I need Monday morning the following numbers confirmed by the architect or revised numbers provided, as I need such for advertising of the request: We have no architect for the old building. I will fax you the last Land Use Data Sheet I have that was used in our last variance request in 1999. Please send me your fax number. I. Existing Wave Nightclub — does the 3,600 square feet include the restrooms attached to it and the mezzanine ?; I am told by Shephards it does not include the bathrooms or the hallway which consists of feet. about 400 square 2. 1 Existing restaurant and bar — does the 6,840 square feet include the restrooms attached to it and the kitchen ?; It does. 11 Provide the square footages of the existing meeting rooms on the Level 200 of the existing building; This is no longer being used as a meeting room and is being used as storage. There is only a conference room on that floor that for the sole use of the management along with the offices on that floor. All meeting space will be in the new building. 4. Provide the proposed /existing tiki *outh of the proposed pool) interior floor *area of the kitchen, storage I snack bar and restrooms (no square footage' provided); g p ided); I have no idea. There is a small kitchen (150 sq feet or so) and a men's and women's bathroom of approximately 400 square feet. As outside uses are not subject to the new ordinance. I don't see the need for this. It has never been asked for until now. 5. Provide the square footage of the jet ski building; 75 square feet or so. Again I don't understand the need for the question? 6. Provide the proposed floor area of Level 500 in the new building (table on Sheet A -11 indicates this floor to have 20,576 square feet), not including the stairs and elevators (all other area counts as accessory use area); Will have architects Respond 7. 1Proposed spa on Level 1400 - you indicate 1,923 square feet, but the plan indicates 1,300 sf spa + 540 sf exercise + kitchen /storage room (need the square footage of this room). Unclear if your square footage number includes that indicted. Will have architects Respond. Again, I see no reason for most of this to be advertised as we are not subject to the new ordinance. I was told this was just to see internally if Shephard's would be non - conforming after approval due to the new ordinance. We will need to discuss all of your calculations later as to accessory uses and parking requirements, which will need to be added to the application package. Why? We have been told we are not subject to the new ordinance and same response as above. I have no problem figuring it out for informational purposes, but if Shephard's ends up non - conforming (which it will not) then so be it. If the building ever blew down we would not build back the same building anyway. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto: Hun raf@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 8:16 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Shephard's Calculations Wayne L Per our meeting yesterday here is where I think we should be. We can discuss all of this with Michael on the 27th. As you will see below, Shephard's will be conforming in every way so that is not the issue. What we need to talk to Michael about is how future buildings are required to add parking that results in losing units from the reserve (double- dipping). Proposed Building GSF = 227,148 (I did not include the outside bar or the outdoor covered area as shown on the square foot tabulation you and I reviewed) 1. Fitness Center— 1,923 square feet 2. Multifunction rooms — 5,933 square feet 3. Meeting Space — 3,376 square feet 4. Stairs - 11,055 square feet 5. Elevators — 4,953 square feet 6. Balconies — 17,991 7. Garage — 56,698 227,148 less all of the above gives us a GFA = 125,219 square feet Accessory use in this building = 11,232 square feet or 8 %. Density Calculations for the entire site are: 2.37 acres x 50 = 118 units 2.37 x 150 = 355 but a max "ask" for density is 100 118 + 100 = 218 = 91.98 units per acre otal GFA is 172,912 Toposed accessory use is 22,258 square feet lalance over 10% = 5237 square feet and GSF = 103,237 — 4237 = 98000 divided by 43,560 = 2.24 x 91.98 units per acre = 206 units. 2.27 acres x 50 = 113. 3 0 1 0 206 allowable units less 113 units = 93 units. that Shephard's could ask for and we are asking for 68. Calculations for the old building that we are not touching: 94,243 square feet (not including balconies, elevators or stairwells). The garage is 46,553 square feet leaving 47,690 square feet as GFA. As to the "old building the accessory use numbers are as follows: 1. The restaurant and inside bar area total 6,840 sq feet 2. The Wave Hotel Lounge and Bar totals 3600 square feet. 3. There is an 800 foot gift shop in the existing garage. Total Accessory use = 11,240 square feet. Total square GFA for both buildings = 125,219 + 47,690 = 172,909 sq. feet. Total accessory use = 22,528 square feet. (12.8 %) Amount over 10% = 5,237 sq. ft. Parking increase required for over 10% = 5,237 square feet. Using the highest requirement of 10 per 1000 square feet = 52 additional spots required. Therefore the calculation is 186 units x 1.2 = 223 spots + 52 additional spots making the requirement 275 spots (1.4 spots per unit required) where we now have 400 spots (which include 16 cars that can be stacked in the driveway awaiting valet service as shown on the submitted plans, see sheet A -11) = 2.15 spots per unit. (As a note, the actual striped spots not including overflow or out front stacking = 314 spots or 1.6 spots per unit). 0 Wells, Wayne From: Doherty, Steve Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:45 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Rice, Scott; Shoberg, Elliot E.; Tefft, Robert Subject: FW: RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING Attachments: image002.gif Wayne, after further consideration of the stormwater Pre CDB conditions for FLD2009 -12033 619 S Gulfview Blvd (Shepherds) we have changed the conditions to be met instead as "prior to the issuance of a building permit ". In accordance with our conversation this afternoon, this message is to request that a Stormwater condition be included in the Staff Report to include a condition of approval as follows: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on a double ring infiltration test result. Thanks for your assistance Wayne. -Steve From: Doherty, Steve Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:28 PM To: Watkins, Sherry; DRC Members Subject: RE: RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING Please see review status of items below in red. FLD2009 -09035 O.K. and PLT2009 -00002 Gen. Engineering condition NOT MET Booth Road DR12009 -00001 O.K. 430 Park Place Blvd FLD2009 -09036 DOCK O.K. 300 Hamden Drive FLD2009 -08026 O.K. and DVA2009 -00002 O.K. 300 Hamden Drive "A" FLD2009 -08027 O.K. and DVA2009 -00003 O.K. 316 Hamden Drive "B" FLD2009 -09033 1225 S Highland Avenue O.K. FLD2009 -08030 900 N Osceola Ave O.K. FLD2009 -12033 619 S Gulfview Blvd Stormwater Pre CDB conditions NOT MET From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:13 AM To: DRC Members Subject: RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING 109 S McMullen DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the November 17, 2009 CDB meeting: FLD2009 -09035 and PLT2009 -00002 109 S McMullen Booth Road DR12009 -00001 430 Park Place Blvd FLD2009 -09036 DOCK 300 Hamden Drive FLD2009 -08026 and DVA2009 -00002 300 Hamden Drive "A" FLD2009 -08027 and DVA2009 -00003 316 Hamden Drive "B" FLD2009 -09033 1225 S Highland Avenue 1 FLD2009 -08030 900 N Ala Ave FLD2009 -12033 619 S Gulfview Blvd • 1 have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (please do not take it, as we need it for CDB mail out). Please review your comments /conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have cases reviewed, if possible by 12PM, October 22, 2009 Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning and Development Department 727 -562 -4582 0 0 October 16,2009 Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner III Planning Department - City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Re: Shephard's Beach Resort Development Review Committee Submittal — Responses Case No.: FLD2008 -12033 Dear Mr. Wells: Enclosed please find our response letter and attached items addressing comments received for Shephards Beach Resort. GENERAL ENINGEERING: 1. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit: 1. A city Right -of -Way permit shall be procured prior to making utility connections in adjacent street right -of -way. Response: A note has been placed on the utility plan as number 20. 2. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove /relocate and/all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) Response: A note has been placed on the demo and utility plans. 3. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and backflow device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow device. Response: A note number 20 has been placed on the utility plan 4. Correct supplied detail to show that dog house manhole will be installed on top of pre -cast or pour -in -place concrete slab. Response: On sheet C7, the doghouse detail has been revised to reflect the above information. 5. Thrust blocks shall not be utilized on unrestricted water lines (mains and fire hydrant leads. Response: Note number 19 has been placed on the utility plan. Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 14001 63rd Way North Clearwater, FI 33760 Tel: 727.488.1002 Email: richard @keithzayac.com www.keithzayac.com Oscar I. Garcia, A.I.A. Architect 318 S.E. 8th St. Fort Lauderdale Florida 33316 Tel: 954.462.1090 Fax: 954.462.9040 www.garciaarchitect.co m FL Lic: AR0012551 USV.I Lic: 652A SC Lic: 5708 City of Clearwater 0 Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 2 of 22 ENVIRONMENTAL: 1. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit: FIRE. KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 — Response does not adequately address condition.) (9/21/2009 — Met) Response: As this condition was met with our 912112009 responses to the DRC comments, no additional action is to be taken at this time. 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the Owner. (4/18/09 — Response does not adequately address condition.) (9/21/2009 — letter not found, please address issue.) Response: An additional copy of the letter that was submitted with the 912112009 DRC comments has been attached to this package for review. Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. 1. This building is deemed to meet the requirements for a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building. Will be 6" DR14 pipe pot 4" DR18 as shown. The fire line for the Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4 -13 -09 The required 2nd FDC is not shown on page C6. The FDC lines standpipe at the rear of property must be tied into the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO CDB. 9/21/2009 Letter dated September 11, 2009 did not meet condition stated on plan, the information would be on the Fire Protection Plan. No Fire Protection Plan provided to show how the fire line for the standpipe at the rear of the property is being tied into the fire pump. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response: A fire protection plan will be submitted for review to Clearwater Fire Department and City of Clearwater Engineering Department at time of building review. 2. Sheet C8 shows a 5" Stortz Connection with a 45 degree downward deflection, Clearwater Fire and Rescue only uses 2 -1/2" Siamese connection as shown in the lower part of the plan. Response: Sheet C8 has been corrected to show a 2 -1/2" Siamese connection. LJ City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 3 of 22 HARBOR MASTER: 1. No Issues. LEGAL: 1. No Issues. LAND RESOURCES: 1. No Issues. LANDSCAPING. KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 1. There is a sewer lift station at the northeast corner of the site within a four -foot high concrete block wall vault. Without impairing maintenance capabilities, install shrubs on the north and west sides to help hide this structure. Response: Additional plant material has been added around the lift station to screen its appearance. PARKS AND RECREATION: 1. The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to the issuance of building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at 727 -562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. Response: Acknowledged. 2. Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727 -562 -4818 to calculate the assessment. Response: A Textbox callout has been added to sheet C2, stating the above information. STORM WATER: 1. The following shall be addressed prior to Community Development Board: 1. Since the proposed stormwater management system does not have a positive outfall, please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on the double ring infiltration test result. Response: Enclosed please see the revised stormwater narrative which depicts the system recovering in 4.25 hours. 2. Provide a detail of the perforated pipes design and provide assurance in the signed and sealed drainage report stating that the design of these perforated pipes will not create erosion problem to the adjoining property in the future and will provide load support capacity for maintenance activities. Response: The perforated pipes have been eliminated and the grading plan revised. 3. Proposed vault bottom shall be at a minimum of 6" above the seasonal high water level. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 4 of 22 Response: 4. Response: SOLID WASTE. 1. No Issues. Please see revised stormwater narrative. *1 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 Please tie the proposed 12" deck drain to the vault for treatment before discharge. The roof decks have been revised so that the run -off will enter an inlet and then be conveyed into the control structure. General Note: DRC Review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. 1. General Note(s): 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: A textbox callout has been added to sheet C2. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for a Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Acknowledged PLANNING. 1. 9/28/09 & 6/26/09 — WW Response to General Applicability criteria #4 — Second Sentence — Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot is being removed with this proposal. Response: Please disregard this erroneous response as it is no longer relevant to the submittal. 2. 9/28/09 - WW Line of tapered fins above have been indicated on Sheet A -11 for the rear fins close to the seawall, but the fin on the front (north) side of the new building is not shown (with a setback dimension) and the fins on the existing stairwell on the NW corner of the existing parking garage are not shown on the north and south sides (with setback dimensions). For the west side of this NW corner of the existing parking garage, Sheet A -20B appears to show the fin starting a certain (non - dimensioned) distance above ground (maybe due to the exit drive on the west side used by delivery and trash truck ?). Sheet A -11 and the elevation sheets need to detail the setback dimensions and the fin starting point on this west side of the existing NW corner of the existing parking. City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 5 of 22 5/5/09 - WW Elevations indicate that the existing stairwells at the northwest corner of the existing parking garage and adjacent to the existing nightclub in the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fins" on the new building with an angled wall projection. With both the stairwells angled "fin" walls in the existing building and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured from the property lines or seawall to the furtherest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site plan needs to indicate the points of these fins and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still need to show the setback from the property lines and seawall to the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building Official, for seawall setbacks, where a variance to the seawall setbacks under the Building Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report). Response: The information being requested has been added to the plans. The Owner's Attorney will handle the variance request under separate 5/5/09 - WW Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee, and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. Response: The Owner will provide proof of unity of title under separate cover. cover. (� 9/28/09, 5/5/09, & 12/23/08 - WW Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. Response: The Owner accepts the proposed Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 9/29/09 - WW As of 9/27/09, the Property Appraiser still shows two parcels for this overall property (not one as asserted); however, both parcels now reflect the same owner. Still need to combine the two parcels into one parcel. 5/5/09 - WW Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee, and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. Response: The Owner will provide proof of unity of title under separate cover. City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 6 of 22 O 9/29/09 & 5/4/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 - WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Response: The Owner accepts as a Condition of Approval the requirements that he will be required to submit a separate signage package for approval and bring all signage into compliance prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9/27/09 & 5/5/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. Response: The Owner accepts as a Condition of Approval the limitation of finishes within the Cabanas to concrete or concrete pavers for the floors, and stucco and paint for the walls. 9/29/09 - WW The criteria and responses need to be part of the application package, just like the General Applicability and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria and responses, not in the response to DRC comments letter from the architect. Additionally, the following comments to specific criteria below is provided: (c.) Provide a calculation as to how you derived the total of 186 rooms, requesting 68 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve. Since under the maximum of 150 rooms /acre, a maximum of 237 rooms would be possible, but such is restricted to a maximum of 100 rooms by Beach by Design. So, how did we land on 68 rooms from the Reserve? (d.) Need to provide a tabulation of the square footages of all interior accessory uses of the hotel (existing and proposed). Need to provide the gross floor area of the hotel (total square footage). Need to indicate the percentage of accessory use square footage (see above) to the gross floor area. If the percentage of accessory uses is less than 10% of the total gross floor area of the existing and proposed buildings (not including parking garages), then no additional parking spaces are required and no reduction to the number of rooms from the Reserve is necessary. With the pending Code amendment for accessory uses for hotels under Ordinance No. 8044 -09, need to address the following: 0 0 City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 7 of 22 Accessory uses located within the building interior may occupy between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the development, but only when additional parking is provided for that portion of the accessory uses which exceeds 10 %. The required amount of parking shall be calculated by using the minimum off - street parking development standard for the most intensive accessory use(s). Where there is a range of parking standards, the lowest number of spaces allowed shall be used to calculate the additional amount of off - street parking required for the project. In projects where the interior accessory uses exceed 15% of the building gross floor area, all interior accessory uses shall be considered additional primary uses for purposes of calculating development potential and parking requirements. 2. In addition to the requirements above, for those projects that request additional rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design and whose interior accessory uses are between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the proposed building, density shall be calculated as follows: i. Calculate the maximum number of units allowed by the base density; ii. Calculate the maximum number of units that may be allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design; iii. Add the figures determined in i. and ii. to determine the total number of units allowed for the site; iv. Divide the total number of units allowed, as calculated in iii. by the total land area to determine the resulting units per acre for the project site; v. Determine the total floor area of all interior accessory uses exceeding 10% of the gross floor area of the proposed building; vi. Subtract the figure determined in v. from the total land area, and divide this difference by 43,560 to determine the net acreage; vii. Multiply the net acreage resulting units per acre resulting product is the allowable for the project. derived in vi. by the applicable figure determined in iv. The maximum number of rooms viii. The final allocation of rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve shall be determined by multiplying the net acreage determined in vi. by the base density and subtracting this product from the maximum number of rooms allowable for the project as determined in vii. (g.) This criteria regarding building height limitation to TDR (on Page 55 of Beach by Design) is superseded by Section B.1 on Page 64 of Beach by Design that allows building height above 100 feet through use of Hotel Density Reserve units. City f Clearwater 0 0 KZA Project #706 -08 tY J Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 8 of 22 5/5/09 - WW Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for a mid -priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a. Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed by general law. Response: The site is 2.37 acres which would allow 237 units on the site. The building that will remain has 46 units and the new proposed building will have 140 units. We are simply only asking for 68 units from the reserve as Shephard's feels that he can maintain his present 72% year around occupancy with that number of rooms. It was a business decision. 48. 9/29/09 - WW Only the fins on the south side adjacent to the seawall were detailed (see also other Planning comments relating to the same issue). Need to show the fin projection on the front of the new building and those fin projections to be added to the stair tower for the existing parking garage, including the proposed setback to property lines (Sheets A -11, A -21 and A -21 B). 4/30/09 - WW After further review of the plans and discussion with Planning Management and the Building Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and/or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fins on the building must be projected to the ground and the setback to that point indicated. These setbacks to property lines and/or seawall are what will be advertised (a variance to the seawall setback will be required by the Building Official). Response: Attached please find the revised Sheets A -M, A -21 and A -21B showing the fin projection on the front of the new building and those fin projections to be added to the stair tower for the existing parking garage, including the proposed setback to property lines. �9 9/29/09 & 5/5/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/6/09 - WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as 1 0 0 City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 9 of 22 such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. Response: The Owner agrees as a condition of approval that the landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage will not be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the fagade. 9/29/09 - WW Will need to have further discussions with the Assistant City Attorney regarding TDRs. 7/5/09 - WW I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments: 1. 665 Bay Esplanade - a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du/acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. - a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. City of Clearwater KZA 0 0 Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 10 of 22 f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du/acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312 -317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 5/6/09 - WW I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read "Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to the Sending Property in perpetuity." Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and how to resolve issues. f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b - e above be cleared up before this document is recorded. Response: Owner is no longer proposing to use any TDR's to achieve a density or height increase for the project. The application has been changed to reflect Hotel Density Reserve instead of Resort Density Pool. The property contains 2.689 acres of which is 2.37 are upland and zoned Tourist. The calculations are 2.37 x 50 hotel units per acre =118 units + 68 units from the Density Reserve Pool for a total of 186 units. 11. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - City of Clearwater 0 Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 11 of 22 Revise for the following: 0 KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 (a) Seventh line - You reference a project granted a similar height to the north. The only projects granted height increases to the north are residential projects, both under 100 feet. Do you mean the Holiday Inn property to the west? The application exhibits have been revised to reflect the property to the west. (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The size of the floor plates (gross square feet) is indicated on Sheet A -11. However, Level 6 is 21,038 sf. Revise the response to indicate this 21,038 sf (not the 18,987 sf stated); According to Beach by Design page 66 #3c deviations to the floor plate requirements may be approved provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with maximum building envelop allowance above 45' as described in section C.1.4. Our building does not exceed the maximum theoretical building envelope, and the building meets all other criteria regarding the horizontal and vertical dimensional requirements. (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The floorplate between 100'- 150' indicated (15,292 sf) exceeds that permitted (10,000sf) and there is no justification provided per Beach by Design B.3.c as to how this proposal complies with a tiered effect. Provide a response; This proposal complies with the tiered effect by offsetting the floor plate of the building above the 45' level, (actual offset occurs at 43' -8 % by 8' -9" and again offsetting the floor plate at the 100' level, (actual offset occurs at 82'4'9, by S' -0" as prescribed by Beach by Design. (b) There is no Criteria #7 (remove). Also remove a) and b) on the next page. Revise c) and the balance of this section to a new section C.1, C.2, etc.; (b)c)1- Provide a diagram that shows compliance with this dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes. The illustrations on Sheets A -32 - A -34 do not provide such information; The diagrams located on sheets A -32 thru A -34 were presented to Wayne Wells prior to being added to this submittal because it was deemed the best way to illustrate our compliance with the dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes would be a 3-Dimensional diagram. Each diagram displays our compliance with these requirements. See diagrams on page 12 thru 14: Beach by Design Compliance West Elevation Vertical fins break up the elevation. Two 25' wide vertical sections are recessed 5 ft. leaving an 84' wide projection satisfying the 100ft. maximum horizontal wall requirement. � _1 .. n In order to comply with step back requirements, the west elevation is broken into three horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights. 8' -g" stepback @ 43' -8" above ve zone 5' -0" steback @ 82' -4" above ve zone Naval 6ALCO'Je5 rO ection of rOOf 133'1 t)" to 71 In order to maximum honzontaa is divided into three sections. The two eFse are recessed 5ft. to accentuate the separation 41 I 43' =8_' _ 4' -0" 0' -0" (ve zone) : 7 -6" (6' -6" navri wo O A'+ A7 a A F"! rY w+. n CO V r+. Al r.+ d QQ �S A'+ OtGn °C o M N , C N N '* O O n O A A b b n � O � � O N O � O 00 Beach by Design Compliance South Elevation In orc requii broke are re 5'-4" - b, -z- projection L as' -a- above ve zone 1'-8" stepback @ 82'-4" above ve zone 3' -10" - 4' -8" stepback @ 101' -8" above ve zone In order to coml requirements the southeast corner is broken into four horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights. 10' -0" - 12' -0" stepback @ 43' -8" above ve zone 2' -0" stepback @ 82' -4" above ve zone 0' -10" - 2' -10" stepback @ 101 " -8" above ve zone _. 0 o. C >v C LL C n » d ,r. C rn O C A� d A� dQ >v O�J wcr CD O O eD 0 n O O n 0 e t9 r9 b "C A � O � � O N O � O 00 Beach by Design Compliance East Elevation Vertical fins break up the elevation. Two vertical sections are recessed 5 ft. leaving an 84' wide projection satisfying the 100ft. maximum horizontal wall requirement 2S p� ti 0111` In order to comply with step back requirements, the east elevation is broken into three horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights. 12' -9" stepback @ 43' -8" above ve zone 5 -0" stepback @ 82'-4" above ve zone na�tli - erL�oN�es A- 10 1W,2' t� -'Vi 'Woe r 19W 14 1W low 3, _je 149' -fr0 ofinefi ofroof In order qM maximum horizontal w broken into 29ft. wide sections. These sections are recessed 5ft. to break up the facade. K 0 o. a » b C. C I ''I 29'4r-- 29- - -O�-1 43'8' A� .r d y r. iy r. ara 4' -0_ �nno1 r/ N p y NN'*� O O • -4 n 0 CD O b � n � O 00 O O O 00 4ti4.; 0111` In order to comply with step back requirements, the east elevation is broken into three horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights. 12' -9" stepback @ 43' -8" above ve zone 5 -0" stepback @ 82'-4" above ve zone na�tli - erL�oN�es A- 10 1W,2' t� -'Vi 'Woe r 19W 14 1W low 3, _je 149' -fr0 ofinefi ofroof In order qM maximum horizontal w broken into 29ft. wide sections. These sections are recessed 5ft. to break up the facade. K 0 o. a » b C. C I ''I 29'4r-- 29- - -O�-1 43'8' A� .r d y r. iy r. ara 4' -0_ �nno1 r/ N p y NN'*� O O • -4 n 0 CD O b � n � O 00 O O O 00 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 15 of 22 HEI� 150' -0 "( +Iyr -0" I {EIGHT LIMIT • KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 (b)c)4 - Theoretical building envelop - Revise the written material to indicate 75% (not 60 %). The attached drawing to the response letter indicates the existing and proposed building above 45 feet is 12% total (existing and proposed buildings) or a total of 24% (12% for each the existing and proposed buildings)? Is this percentage of the cubic footage in the envelope between 44 - 150 feet? The attached diagram has been revised to indicate 75% theoretical maximum building envelope above 45'. The 12% building envelope is the total for the existing and proposed buildings in cubic feet of maximum theoretical building envelope. Building Envelope Diagram THEORETICAL MAXIMUM LJTHEORETICAL MAXIMUM 75% OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 100% BUILDING ENVELOPE LOCATED ABOVE 45' 12% OF MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) IN CUBIC FEET City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 16 of 22 (b)d) - Remove this section 7.d, as this is not in Beach by Design; (b) Remove sections 8 and 9, as these are not in Beach by Design; and (c) Need to provide responses to the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off and not provided; acknowledging the criteria is insufficient): c. The design, scale, and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; Our solution to the proposed site creates a visually reponsive design for the emerging character of Clearwater Beach and seeks to facilitate a dialogue with the surrounding areas by incorporating a number of architectural elements which speaks to the human scale such as the entrance portico, the awnings located along north and east elevations as well as the landscape which plays the most important role in communicating to the human scale. d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting, and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: - Changes in horizontal building planes; This building design provides multiple horizontal plane changes which allows the building to create a tiered effect at the higher elevations by offsetting the floor plate of the building above the 45' level, (actual offset occurs at 43' -8'), by 8'4" and again offsetting the floor plate at the 100' level, (actual offset occurs at 82'-4'), by 5' -0" as prescribed by Beach by Design. -Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; The building utilizes a variety of architectural elements beginning with the angled columns at the portico entrance as well as the free standing columns which penetrates the balconies and frames the south elevation. The use of a cornice has been placed at the very top of the building to create a termination point for the fagade. Pilasters can be found throughout all four elevations of the new and existing buildings further creating cohesiveness among the project. The balconies give the building more character by projecting off the building and by also creating transitional nodes along the elevations. The railings on the balconies shall be picket type matching the old tower on the property. The use of awnings can be found along the "Beach Walk" in order to bring the building down to human scale. City of Clearwater 0 • Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 17 of 22 - Variety in materials, colors and textures; A variety of materials have been introduced to make this project architecturally pleasing such as the smooth white stucco that will blanket a majority of the walls. Green screen walls are located on the east and west elevations of the pool deck which further provides color, texture and material variation and is used to mask the garage and introduce a tropical environment for the pool deck The decorative metal mesh screening provides another layer of material which is primarily used to hide the parking structures. The glazing on the building and the picket railings on the balconies also adds another layer of detail to the project. - Distinctive fenestration patterns; The fenestration pattern on the lower levels of the west elevation relate to the function behind them. They are large glazed openings to reveal the retail space behind them. Located above the glazed openings is the green screen trellis system used to mask the garage and create a natural environment for the pool deck. On the north and south elevations the lower level fenestrations are metal mesh screening panels with reveal patterns. The metal mesh screening panel system helps ensure the garage can be classified as an open garage per The Florida Building Code section 406 opening requirements. The East elevation utilizes the same metal mesh screening located on the north and south elevations, however this elevation is more distinct because of the projections created approximately every 29' -0" to comply with the Beach by Design horizontal dimensional criteria. Glazed fenestrations are used primarily throughout the tower elevations to provide daylight to the hotel units and common areas. - Building setbacks; and In the vertical plane the building design provides multiple step backs which allows the building to create a tiered effect at the higher elevations by offsetting the floor plate of the building above the 45' level, (actual offset occurs at 43' -8'9, by 8'4" and again offsetting the floor plate at the 100' level, (actual offset occurs at 82'-4'9, by S' -0` as prescribed by Beach by Design. In the horizontal plane the building continues to step back and forth with 5' -0" or more offsets at not more than 100' -0 "intervals. - Distinctive roof forms. The building's roof design creates unique and distinctive forms in the new tower with angled projections at 3 of the four corners. These architectural elements are also City of Clearwater 0 . • Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 18 of 22 repeated at the existing stair towers of the old building to create a greater level of cohesiveness among the project. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design, and appropriate distances between buildings. Response: The applications have been revised to reflect the above required information. Please read exhibit "D "for further information. 12. Sheet A -11 - Revise the table for existing and proposed hotel rooms and number of parking spaces for the Existing hotel & garage: a. Level 200 - Parking - There is a total of 32 spaces (6 + 26) (not 26); b. Level 300 - Hotel - There are 10 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 9); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); c. Level 400 - Hotel - There are 9 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 10); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); d. Level 500 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not '32); e. Level 600 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (4 + 34) (not 34) (however, there are 2 overflow spaces that could be shown, much like Level 500, that could increase the overflow to 6 spaces and a total for this level of 40 spaces); f. Level 700 - Parking - There is a total of 21 spaces (0 + 21) (indicated 4 overflow that are not shown) (however, there probably can be more than 4 overflow spaces, based on those indicated on other levels); and g. Total Parking - Revise to reflect the new total number of spaces (overflow + regular + HC). Response: The Architect has revised the table for the existing and proposed hotel rooms and number of parking spaces as indicated in the preceding paragraph. 13. Accessory waverunner business: a. Sheet C4 indicates a 6' high vinyl fence to be installed on the north and west sides of the existing structure. Site inspection reveals "windows" that open on the west side that would be obstructed by the proposed fence. Confirm this is the desired circumstance. b. Sheet C5 indicates the installation of drainage pipes directly adjacent to the east and south sides of this existing structure. As the response to comments indicates, this existing structure is not to be touched. Should this structure need to be relocated to install the proposed drainage structures, this structure will need to comply with all Code requirements, including FEMA (per the Building Official). Please acknowledge. A condition of approval regarding such will most likely be included in the Staff Report. City of Clearwater KZA Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 19 of 22 Response: Sheet C4 incorrectly showed a fence on the west side of the waverunner business obstructing pedestrian access to the structure. Accordingly, the fence has been removed for ease of access. The Owner accepts as a Condition of Approval that should the waverunner business be relocated to install the drainage pipes for the new development that the structure will be brought into compliance with FEMA regulations. The Civil Engineer has been directed to alter the location of the drainage pipe to avoid a conflict. 14. Regarding accessory Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, surrey, and bikes): Intent of permitting Fun Ride Rentals as an accessory use is that the storage of such vehicles are not to be visible. Previous comment requested the landscape plan be revised to include taller shrubs that will obscure views of this storage area. The response submitted indicates sea grapes have been added (around fence), but this was at the waverunner accessory building, not the Fun Ride Rentals on the ground level of the existing parking garage. Comment is still valid. Revise. Response: The landscape plan has been revised to reflect screening of the Fun Ride Rentals and wave runner business. 15. Parking Demand Study - Parking Supply (Page 1) - Remove the next to last sentence dealing with affordable housing. Response: Please see the attached revised parking study. 16. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following: a. Height - The request is not for 150 feet, but for 133' -10" (or 134 feet); b. Height - The request is not for "100 additional units resort hotel units," but for "68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve "; and c. Parking - Second line refers to this project as a "resort hotel," which appears contrary to other responses to criteria. This is supposed to be a mid -priced hotel, not a resort. Revise. Response: Please see attached revisions to the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 17. Sheet C2 - General Site Note #10 - Revise "total spaces required" from "(1 space /unit) (226 units) = 226 spaces" to "(1.2 spaces /unit) (186 units) = 223 spaces ". Response: On sheet C2 note number 10 has been revised to reflect, "1.2 spaces /unit': 18. Sheet C4 - Provide dimensions or information for the following: a. Distance from the front property line to the closest edge of pavement for the area between the two driveways; b. The width and length of the interior landscape island north of the Porte Cochere; c. The setback from the east property line to the existing tiki hit for the waverunner business; City of Clearwater 0 • Project #706 -08 Development Review Committee OIG Project #0820 October 16, 2009 Page 20 of 22 d. The width of the one -way drive between the driveways; and e. Indicate 6" vertical concrete curbing along the edges of all landscaped areas (typ.). Response: On sheet C4 dimension and text callouts have been revised to reflect the above information. G Sheets A -11, A -21 and A -21B - A large overhead door has been introduced on the east side of the new building at the base of the ramp to the upper levels of the new parking garage. This overhead door is shown at 16' high by 26' wide. Unclear as to the purpose of this overhead door, since this door does not provide access to anything. If this overhead door is for ventilation only, ventilation can be handled differently than a large overhead door. Revise. Response: The door in question was placed at the request of the Owner to facilitate access to the beach for maintenance purposes. The selection of this was made to allow for adequate turning radius for the equipment to be used. As indicated in the DRC meeting, the Owner will provide cut sheets under separate cover of the proposed equipment for review by the planning staff. 20. Sheet A -18 and elevation sheets - In order to comply with the Beach by Design requirement to not have a linear facade greater than 100 feet, there must be a minimum offset of five feet. The balconies on Levels 1100 and 1200 are shown four feet in depth (or one -foot shy of meeting the Beach by Design requirement). Revise the balconies to a minimum of five feet in depth. Response: Sheet A -18 has been revised to reflect a five foot balcony on Levels 1100 and 1200. 21. While windows are not indicated on the floor plans on the north side of the new building, the north elevation on Sheets A -20 and A -20B indicates a wide window that includes the elevators at the northwest corner of the building. Will windows really cover this entire distance, or will there really be a stucco finished wall for the elevator shaft as the exterior finish? Advise /revise all appropriate elevations and other renderings and vignettes. Response: The elevator will be shafts flanking the exterior of the building which will be clad in glass. 22. While windows are not indicated on the floor plans on the western portion of the west side of the new building, the west elevation on Sheets A -21 and A -21 B indicates a wide window that includes the elevators at the northwest comer ,of the building. Will windows really cover this entire distance, or will there really be a stucco finished wall for the elevator shaft as the exterior finish? Advise /revise all appropriate elevations and other renderings and vignettes. Response: The elevator will be shafts flanking the exterior of the building which will be clad in glass. 23. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #7 - Revise for the following: (a). Don't understand the 40 units per acre. City of Clearwater 0 Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 21 of 22 *KZA Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 Project has been designed utilizing the base density of 50 units per acre, plus 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve for an overall density of 78.48 units per acre; and (c.1) Provide a diagram that illustrates this assertion. Response: Refer to diagram below: TOTAL DENSITY _CALC 118 UNITS + 68 UI`11TG = 186 UNITS 50 UNITS PER ACRE 68 HOTEL DENSITY RESERVE UNITS 2.37 ACRES x 50 UNITS = 118 UNITS Other: No Comments Notes: Sufficient - To be placed on the 11/17/09 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above departments' comments by noon, 10/16/09. Packets shall be collated, folded, and stapled as appropriate. If you have any questions please give us a call. Sincerely, chard Marcel, LEED City of Clearwater 0 Development Review Committee October 16, 2009 Page 22 of 22 Building Separation Relationship 0 K7A Project #706 -08 OIG Project #0820 Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 6:44 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Planning Subject: Re: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations I understand and I am sure Shepard's will meet that(and I don't think he has to as he was already in the process), but for future projects I sincerely believe there are the people I am working that with will prefer other municipalities in Pinellas County that have adopted the County density plan (or will adopt) or similar plans that are hugely less restrictive and with half the impact fees... but that is just my opinion. Joe In a message dated 10/8/2009 5:18:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wavne.W ellsgniyClearNN,ater.com;writes: 1 Joe — The purpose of this calculation is to determine whether Shephard's will be conforming to this new Code or nonconforming upon construction. If nonconforming, then all applicable Code nonconforming provisions will apply into the future for Shephard's. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:38 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Planning Subject: Re: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Okay, that is fine for the future, but it is still our position that this does not apply to Shephards... even though we will be conforming to it.... Joe In a message dated 10/8/2009 3:33:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wayne. Wells( d cnvCleanvater.com writes: 11 Joe — • • Based on input from Michael Delk and Gina Clayton, for calculation purposes to determine compliance with this new Code provision, the "gross floor area" (GFA), as defined by Code, will be used to determine the square footage of the hotel. As such, interior square footage devoted to stairwells and elevator shafts cannot be counted toward GFA. Additionally, exterior spaces, including balconies, covered areas and bars, cannot be counted as GFA, nor can parking garage areas. The square footage of accessory uses must be compared as a percentage of the GFA to determine compliance with the parking and density requirements of the new Code provisions. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Wayne t Per our discussion today, I need some clarification on how to calculate the gross square footage of the building for purposes of applying the new 10% rule (assuming it applies to Shephards at all since we were already in the approval stage prior to this new ordinance). It is more important that I know how to calculate it for future projects. First let me say that it has been my understanding since this new ordinance first came up that the areas that were to be counted against us were areas that "would not normally be found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel." While I still disagree that that would include meeting spaces, parking, small restaurants, etc., the ordinance is passed and we will abide by it. However, I firmly disagree that the ordinance ever intended to include backing out the stairwells, balconies and elevators because they are not counted as FAR under the city code. I would argue that stairwells, balconies and elevators are things that ARE found in any hotel two stories or higher whether they be mid - sized, mid -priced or not and are certainly a part of the gross square footage of the building. 2 For calculating the 10% (to 15 %) *inance, we have always spoken in ter9of gross square footage of the building minus the parking and not just what the city considers FAR and stairwells, elevators and balconies are unquestionably a part of the gross square footage. The new ordinance is burdensome enough and is already requiring people to rethink doing projects on the beach and I don't see how penalizing them any further helps the cause of redevelopmentof what the council said they wanted on the beach, namely mid - sized, mid -priced hotel. Please let me know if you agree with this so I can get you the calculations that I need to for the CDB submittal. Again, I would stress that during every discussion I have been a part of regarding this ordinance, it has, always been that the only areas that needed to be counted are the areas that are. "not normally found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel" and I do not think that stairwells, elevators and balconies are things that are not normally found in those hotels. Thanks Joe i l Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:18 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Planning Subject: RE: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Joe — The purpose of this calculation is to determine whether Shephard's will be conforming to this new Code or nonconforming upon construction. If nonconforming, then all applicable Code nonconforming provisions will apply into the future for Shephard's. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:38 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Planning Subject: Re: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Okay, that is fine for the future, but it is still our position that this does not apply to Shephards... even though we will be conforming to it.... Joe In a message dated 10/8/2009 3:33:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wayn .e.Wells(�i,myQIearwater.coin writes: Joe — Based on input from Michael Delk and Gina Clayton, for calculation purposes to determine compliance with this new Code provision, the "gross floor area" (GFA), as defined by Code, will be used to determine the square footage of the hotel. As such, interior square footage devoted to stairwells and elevator shafts cannot be counted toward GFA. Additionally, exterior spaces, including balconies, covered areas and bars, cannot be counted as GFA, nor can parking garage areas. The square footage of accessory uses must be compared as a percentage of the GFA to determine compliance with the parking and density requirements of the new Code provisions. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Wayne 0 Per our discussion today, I need some clarification on how to calculate the gross square footage of the building for purposes of applying the new 10% rule (assuming it applies to Shephards at all since we were already in the approval stage prior to this new ordinance). It is more important that I know how to calculate it for future projects. First let me say that it has been my understanding since this new ordinance first came up that the areas that were to be counted against us were areas that "would not normally be found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel." While I still disagree that that would include meeting spaces, parking, small restaurants, etc., the ordinance is passed and we will abide by it. However, I firmly disagree that the ordinance ever intended to include backing out the stairwells, balconies and elevators because they are not counted as FAR under the city code. I would argue that stairwells, balconies and elevators are things that ARE found in any hotel two stories or higher whether they be mid - sized, mid -priced or not and are certainly a part of the gross square footage of the.building. For calculating the 10% (to 15 %) ordinance, we have always spoken in terms of gross square footage of the building minus the parking and not just what the city considers FAR and stairwells, elevators and balconies are unquestionably a part of the gross square footage. The new ordinance is burdensome enough and is already requiring people to rethink doing projects on the beach and I don't see how penalizing them any further helps the cause of redevelopmentof what the council said they wanted on the beach, namely mid - sized, mid -priced hotel. Please let me know if you agree with this so I can get you the calculations that I need to for the CDB submittal. Again, I would stress that during every discussion I have been a part of regarding this ordinance, it has always been that the only areas that needed to be counted are the areas that are "not normally found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel" and I do not think that stairwells, elevators and balconies are things that are not normally found in those hotels. Thanks Joe Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:33 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Planning Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Joe — Based on input from Michael Delk and Gina Clayton, for calculation purposes to determine compliance with this new Code provision, the "gross floor area" (GFA), as defined by Code, will be used to determine the square footage of the hotel. As such, interior square footage devoted to stairwells and elevator shafts cannot be counted toward GFA. Additionally, exterior spaces, including balconies, covered areas and bars, cannot be counted as GFA, nor can parking garage areas. The square footage of accessory uses must be compared as a percentage of the GFA to determine compliance with the parking and density requirements of the new Code provisions. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Wayne Per our discussion today, I neetl some clarification on how to calculate the gross square footage of the building for purposes of applying the ne'w 10% rule (assuming it applies to Shephards at all since we were already in the approval stage prior to this ,n &W ordinance). It is more important that I know how to ,calculate it for, future projects. First let me say that it has been my understanding since this new ordinance first came up that the areas that were to be counted against us were areas that "would not normally be found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel." While I still disagree that that would include meeting spaces, parking, small restaurants, etc., the ordinance is passed and we will abide by it. However, I firmly disagree that the ordinance ever intended to include backing out the stairwells, balconies and elevators because they are not counted as FAR under the city code. I would argue that stairwells, balconies and elevators are things that ARE found in any hotel two stories or higher whether they be mid - sized, mid -priced or not and are certainly a part of the gross square footage of the building. For calculating the 10% (to 15 %) ordinance, we have always spoken in terms of gross square footage of the building minus the parking and not just what the city considers FAR and stairwells, elevators and balconies are unquestionably a part of the gross square footage. The new ordinance is burdensome enough and is already requiring people to rethink doing projects on the beach and I don't see how penalizing them any further helps the cause of redevelopmentof what the council said they wanted on the beach, namely mid - sized, mid -priced hotel. Please let me know if you agree with this so I can get you the calculations that I need to for the CDB submittal. Again, I would stress that during eW discussion I have been a part of regAg this ordinance, it has always been that the only areas that needed to be counted are the areas that are "not normally found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel" and I do not think that stairwells, elevators and balconies are things that are not normally found in those hotels. Thanks Joe 2 0 .0 Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 1:14 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Fwd: Square Footage Tabulation 100509 -1.xls Attachments: SquareFootageTabulation 100509 -1.xls Wayne I would like to meet with you tomorrow morning to go over this. Are you available? I am out most of the afternoon today, so please call me at 727 - 458 -4528 and let's set a time to review this... I tried to simplify this as follows: Attached is the spread sheet showing the complete breakdown of the new building. I have calculated this in two ways. The first and simplest way is to look at the spread sheet on the new proposed building and I have taken into consideration the following: 1. Fitness Center — 1,923 square feet 2. Bar — 194 square feet 3. Multifunction rooms — 5,933 square feet ;. 4. Meeting Space— 3,376 square feet This is a total of 11,426 square feet. The total square footage of the building is 230,774. ,The:parking is-56;695 so the building itself is 174,079 square feet. So our FAR calculation for this building alone .would put us, at 0.93% on this building. } As to the "old building "which we will not be touching," is the following, but to answer your:question, of will we be non - conforming when the new ordinance is put in place: 1. The restaurant and inside bar area total 6,840 sq feet 2. The Wave Nightclub totals 2,600 square feet (There is other space in there, hallways and disc jockey room, bathrooms, storage etc... which would take this to a total of 4,814 square feet. 3. There is an 800 foot gift shop in the existing garage site. So the total for the existing building is 12,454 square feet The total square footage of the building that will remain is 94,243 sq feet of which the garage is 46,553 sq feet and the building is 47,690. All in all this give us a total of 278,464 with a total meeting space, restaurant, bar, gift shop, etc. (things you want us to account for) of 23,880. So when viewed as on building, we will be at 0.85 % or so and will leave us conforming to the new ordinance as an overall building. From: dk @garciaarchitect.com To: Hunraf @aol.com CC: cj @garciaarchitect.com, og @garciaarchitect.com F Sent: T10 /5/2009 9:44:43 A.M. Easterisylight Time • Subj: Square Footage Tabulation 100509 -1.xls Joe, Attached please find the revised square footages for the building reflecting 140 Units in the new wing. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman, AIA Senior Associate - Director of Operations rj Square Footage Tabulation 10/7/2009 fvel400 Leve1500 Leve1600 Leve1700 Leve1800 Leve1900 Leve11000 Leve11100 Level1200 Level1400 Totals 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0 140 { 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 0 0 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 10,664 0 74,648 0 5,716 2,016 2,078 2,078 2,078 2,078 2,078 2,078 813 21,013 0 0 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 0 1,120 192 192 192 449 449 449 449 449 449 677 4,331 0 _ 0 . _.._ 104 104 104 104 104. _ 104- 104 0 1,044 1,510 1,473 690 374 374 374 374 374 374 371 11,005 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 4,953 0 224 6,831 2,193 2,193 2,193 2,193 1,082 1,082 0 17,991 0 1,955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,955 0 956 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 1,678 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,923 1,923 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,649 9,649 0 5,933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,933 0 3,746 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,746 2,242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,242 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 518 420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 1,428 1 3,584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 775 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 772 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,432 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,423 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 267 • 18,847 20,576 21,038 16,403 16,403 16,403 16,403 15,292 15,292 14,730 230,774 2 b tnc \ ✓o �� GC�34aor �¢a �`3' r-f�} a�I` Q i - -1r�C� ✓� Q c� I� fA { Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:30 PM To: 'richard @keithzayac.com ; 'alex @keithzayac.com' Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005 -11028 and DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Richard and Alex - Attached are the Draft DRC comments for the above referenced FLD/TDR project, to be reviewed by the DRC in our offices at 2 pm on Thursday, October 1, 2009. The DVA comments will be under a separate email. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue - Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Draft 10.1.09 tC Action Agenc 1 CrrY ATTORNEY's OFFICE CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEQwA7m,FLORIDA 33758 -4748 Crrr HALL, 112 Soum Osaou AvENOE, CLuRwAuR, FLORIDA 33756 TEUPHONE (727) 562 -4010 FAx (727) 5624021 September 25, 2009 Harry S. Cline,. Esquire MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court Street P.O. Box 1669 Clearwater, Florida 33756 ; Re: Shephard's Beach Resort, FLD2008- 12033/1)VA2008- 00002, 619.S. Gulfview Blvd. Dear Mr. Cline; I have reviewed the resubmitted application materials for the above project „; and your previous and current correspondence and attachments. The.current .,, , issues, as I understand them, and my responses are set forth below: 1. Are the 68 units being requested from the Hotel Density Pool. treated the same as Transfer of Density Rights for the purpose of gaining additional4, �. ._'.. building height; i.e., can the applicant use such units in order to exceed ?the 100' height limitation? Response: The position of the City's Planning Department on this issue follows: Beach by Design is very clear on this point. Rooms allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve are not the same as rooms obtained through the transfer of development rights (TDRs). Only those "hotel rooms brought in to the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met ". The City Attorney's Office concurs with Planning. It should be noted that in correspondence dated September 11, 2009 from Daniel J. Knopman to Wayne Wells, at page 21, the following statement is made: "also, it has been determined through discussion with Wayne Wells, that units from the Hotel Density Reserve are considered to allow an increase in building height up to 150 feet." The above Planning position is contra to this assertion by the applicant. 2. Will the City accept that the two parcels have now been combined into one by the Pinellas County Property Appraiser and treat them as one parcel for purposes of the current application? „EQUAL EMPLOY. -m AND AmprdATm ACTTON EMPLOYER” Response: Yes, this issue has been adequately addressed by the applicant. 3. Is there an outstanding mortgage interest to be dealt with from the sending property? Response:; No, the applicant has provided sufficient assurances in that regard through your letter of June 17,2009 and attachments. 4. Is there. a need to put a restriction on the sending parcel(s)? Response: No. Given the fact that the City has not until recently had a standard form .for Transfer of Density Rights, the difficulty of obtaining executed .. u. amendments at this point, and that the existing recorded documents evidence an intent that the density transfer be recognized as to the sending and receiving Parcels [recorded deed of conveyance reveals the TDR], the City will not.require amended documents to be executed. I propose that this determination be recognized by a case note which I will place in the City's Tidemark software. However, as stated in staff.response /comments to the FLD application, the City has never authorized the TDRs themselves from the original sending properties. It is my understanding that the applicant is pursuing TDR approval. My records reflect that an Application for Transfer of Development, Rights was executed;_. t November 20, 2008 but l find,na'associated Case Number Should you have further questions please feel free to contact me: Very'truly yours, Leslie K. Dougall -Sid Assistant City Attorney cc: Michael L. Delk, Planning Director Wayne M. Wells, Planner III • Wells, Wayne From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael; Tefft, Robert; Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: A04- 01420: FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shepherd's) Attachments: image001.jpg Yes, thanks. From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 12:14 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: Delk, Michael; Tefft, Robert; Clayton, Gina Subject: A04- 01420: FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Shepherd's) Leslie — On July 6, 2009, 1 emailed you (copy to Harry Cline) the findings of my review of the Transfer of Density Rights (TDR) request for the Shephard's project. I am attaching that email as well as the follow -up email train regarding the TDR issue. I have not had any discussion with Harry Cline or anyone else regarding my TDR findings since the dates of the attached email. Keep in mind that the units transferred from the various other properties to the Shephard's site were never approved by the CDB as part of any project, as that prior project was withdrawn. The approval of the transfer of units from those other properties must still occur as part of this project. Does this help you? Wayne From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:58 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: A04- 01420: FW: Please review and provide any Planning - related comments. From: Kathy O'Hearn [mailto:KOH @macfar.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:08 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: bill @shephards.com Subject: Kathleen A. O'Hearn Legal Assistant to Harry S. Cline Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court Street, Suite 200 Clearwater, FL 33756 Office: (727) 441 -8966 FAX: (727) 442 -8470 E -mail: koh(a)mcfar.com Please visit www.mfmiegal.com for more information about our Firm This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader- of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or distribution of this communication to other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error. please notify us immediately by collect telephone at (813) 273 -4200 or electronic mail (info cr rnfmlegal. corn). Thank you iRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Any tax advice in this communication is not intended or written by Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen to be used, and cannot be used, by a client or any other person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or other matter addressed herein. • s MACFARLANE FER.GUSON SIT MCMULLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE TAMPA CITY CENTER, SUITE 2000 625 COURT STREET 1611 HARDEN BOULEVARD .201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET P. O.. BOX 1669 (ZIP 33757) 'LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33803 P.O. BOX 1531 (ZIP 33601) CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 1863) 680-9906 FAX (863) 683 -2849 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 (727) 441 -8966 FAX(727)442-8470 (813) 273 -4200 FAX (813), 273 -4396 IN REPLY REFER TO: www.mfmlegal.com EMAIL: infoOmfmlegal,com Clearwater September 22, 2009 Leslie Dougall -Sides VIA E -mail: leslie. dougall - sides(? nyclearwater.com Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33757 -4748 Re: Shephard's Beach Resort, S. Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, FL Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights [ "TDRs "] Dear Leslie: On June 1.7t' I sent you certain data showing the units transferred to entities owned' or controlled by,Shephard's Beach Resort. We have established that the mortgapes on the various properties have signed off, consented in or released these units, so that aspect has been satisfied,,., We also have on the public records an unconditional transfer to the Shephard entities, so I do not think it would be necessary or even. appropriate to "restrict" the sending parcel, since they have transferred these out, as a matter of public record. It is my understanding that these events happened without the City's participation; or at least I can. find no evidence of that. We would like to finalize this, since our client did pay significant funds for these units. Please consider and give me a call to discuss what we need to do to confirm or finalize this transfer into the Shephard entities. As always, thank you for your assistance and I shall look forward to your reply. Sincerely yours, rr S. Cline HSC:koh cc: Mr. William Shephard, Trustee G1HSC\SFIEP14ARD\Dougal l -S ides. 9- 21'09.doe • Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:07 AM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's • Joe — Sorry for the delay. I've had almost no "desk" time in days. Sir Wayne will be reviewing it obviously but it seems we are moving in the right direction. Michael. From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:45 PM To:'Delk; Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's Michael I am just confirming a few things before we resubmit Shephard's applicatiorl.this Friday for DRC in October First we have reduced the size from 226 units to 186 units. The F.A.R. of 15;542;square feet :will be reduce somewhat as well, but this should no longer be an issue. We were going to: give, up =asking for 17 less units (83) to accommodate that, but we are now only asking for 68 units so this should no4onger,be _an issue: Second, we are using (as discussed months ago) the Density Reserve units�as, TDRs,.strictly for the;ourpose A • obtaining height over 100 feet. The new height is under 140 feet as we took off a.compl_ete floor when_we; reduced the project by 40 units. We will also more than meet any and all parking requirements. For the 186'alpits;we will,have 316 code compliant spots and 68 overflow spots for a 2.06 ratio. Does all of this sound okay to you? I know we will still get more comments, but these are the key issues. Joe 1 ' 1'1 005- 11028, 619 S. Gultvie 0 vd Page 1 01 3 From: Joe Burdette Uburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:23 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd okay From: Wayne.WelIs @myClearwater.com [ mailto: Wayne. Wells@ myClea rwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:12 AM To: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com; keith @keithzayac.com Cc: Leslie.DougaII- Sides @myClearwater.com; hsc @macfar.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Joe — Keep in mind that the Transfer of Development Rights has never been approved by the CDB to transfer the units from the original properties. While Warranty Deeds for the TDRs have been recorded, they have never been authorized by the City. The application will start at ground zero to authorize the units from the original sending properties. Leslie will need to rule on the covenants on the original properties and, consent by mortgager. Wayne From: Joe Burdette [ mailto :jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:34 AM _. To: Wells, Wayne; keith @keithzayac.com Subject: RE: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd 665 and 645 Bay Esplande have the same seller and same lender. The one release mortgagor's consent covered both lots. From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ma i Ito: Wayne.WelIs @myClearwater.corn]. Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:07 AM. To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Keith /Joe — FYI. Comments under Planning have been revised accordingly to reflect the comments below. Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:27 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: hsc @macfar.com; Tefft, Robert; 'KOH @macfar.com' Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Leslie — file://C:\Documents and Settings \Wayne.Wells \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Co... 9/23/2009 `�° 12005 -I 1 U28, 619 N. Ciullvie 0 VC1 Page 2 of 3 This TDR application started in November 2005 with Ed Armstrong as agent at that time. Along with FLD2005- 11108, these applications were incomplete and eventually withdrawn. Since these applications were never a complete application, no review of the application material was ever performed as to whether the application material was correct. However, regarding the TDR portion, the applicant continued and recorded TDR Warranty Deeds regardless of the incompleteness of the application. Three to four years have transpired and we are now at a new application for development approval (FLD2008- 12033), which includes TDR2005- 11028. I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments (and have revised the appropriate Zoning DRC comment under FLD2008- 12033 to reflect the updated comments below): 1. 665 Bay Esplanade — a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded. in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. — Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. C. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \Wayne.Wells \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Co... 9/23/2009 '- )TD005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfvie vd Page 3 of 3 10 f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. C. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded, in OR Book 14634, Pages 312 -317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page, 314. g.. bleed a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out •with,Harry Cline as agent. I would suggest a meeting with Harry Cline so that we can review the file and update TDR applications to today's circumstances. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue k Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.386 / Virus Database: 270.13.5/2219 - Release Date: 07/05/09 17:54:00 Checked by AVG - www.avg.corn Version: 8.5.386 / Virus Database: 270.13.5/2219 - Release Date: 07/05/09 17:54:00 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \Wayne.Wells \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\Co... 9/23/2009 Wells, Wayne From: Daniel Knopman [dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: og @garciaarchitect.com Subject: 0820_SBR DRC Meeting 092409 -1 Attachments: image002.jpg Wayne, I received an email from Keith Zayac this morning informing us that we have been placed on the October 1, 2009, DRC agenda. First let me say thank you for this consideration, and secondly inquire as to the status of the DRC comments. When will the DRC comments be published so that we can be effective at the DRC meeting? Finally, prudence dictates that I ask how we move past DRC and on to CDB in order to obtain approval for this project. Thank you again for your help. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman, A.I.A. Senior Associate Director of Operations ,az 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www. g a rc i a a rc h i to ct. co ni The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender. 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic rnedia can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and /or involvernent from each electronic medium not in its possession. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender. Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages, losses; and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic rnedia be deerned a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied; for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these docurents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments: the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way frorn this message or its attachments. 0 9 Wells, Wayne From: keith @keithzayac.com Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 4:38 PM To: Daniel Knopman; Mr. Joe Burdette Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Wells, Wayne; Tefft, Robert; Paul Andrews; Bill Shephard; Oscar Garcia; Mr. Carpelo Jeoboam R.A. Subject: Re: Shepards Beach Submittal Dan I didn't receive color reductions but called jiffy and had them printed and delivered at the end of day Friday. I have your response lette and made copies as well. I also emailed you attachments b and d per our conversation Friday. Please edit the attachments so they reflect the current design. The city won't accept a response letter sa a response they will require the actual attachments to be edited as discussed in the letter since the letter will not be given to CDB members thanks - - - - -- Original Message----- - From: Daniel Knopman To: Mr. Joe Burdette Cc: Sherry L. Watkins Cc: Mr. Wayne M. Wells AICP Cc: Robert Tefft Cc:.Paul Andrews Cc: Bill Shephard Cc: LEED AP Keith Zayac P.E. R.L.A. Cc: Oscar Garcia Cc: Mr. Carpelo Jeoboam R.A. Subject: Shepards Beach Submittal Sent: Sep 12, 2009 12:32 PM Joe When I spoke with keith yesterday morning I explained that all, the _pript. ng.had: been sent to your printer and that the additonal prints could be ordered from your printer. It is my underdstanding that that was done by Keith. I speaking with my staff all other exhibits and responses were sent to Keith for a Friday AM delivery. The issues disscussed in exhibits B and D were addressesd in our written response. I will touch base with Keith again in the morning on Monday to confirm that he has everything that he needs to submit to the city. Sincerely Daniel J. Knopman, AIA Sent from my iPhone Sent from my Verizon Wireless B1ackBerry i Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 11:15 AM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Tefft, Robert; Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael; Watkins, Sherry Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Response to comments Joe — I will reiterate, Planning management will need to decide upon your submission as to what date it is scheduled for review. There are many other applications that have been submitted within the time frames published. Wayne From:,Huriraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 9:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: bill @shephards.com; dk @garciaarchitect.com; hsc @clw.macfar.com; keith @keithzayac.com; og @garciaarchitect.com; paul @shephards.com; Delk, Michael Subject: Re: FW: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Response to comments Wayne I spoke with Sherry yesterday and we will have the package to you by noon:on Monday.. We could have submitted it Friday, but it was incomplete as the architects forgot to respond.towme planning questions in Exhibits B & D and to include a color rendering of the new design. Unfortunately their iirni, is closed on Fridays so we could not get their responses. We have, as you know,'been working hard on this project for a long time and respectfully request to be put on the October DRC agenda. Joe In a message dated 9/12/2009 9:20:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jburdette505 a,tampabay.rr.co:m writes: From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 5:08 PM To: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Cc: Sherry.Watkins @myClearwater.com; Robert.Tefft @MyClearwater.com Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Response to comments Joe — As you know we have deadlines to snit applications and resubmittals in order *,e placed on certain agendas, so that the departments and /or persons have sufficient time to perform reviews. Today was the day to set the agenda for the DRC for 10/1/09. No resubmittal was presented for this application today. There are many other applications that have been submitted within the time frames published. Management will need to decide upon your submission as to what date it is scheduled for review. Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 4:02 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Reponse to comments Wayne Here is a copy of the email I received. Thank you, Sherry Watkins Administrative ,analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:44 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Reponse to comments Sherry Keith Zayac is resubmitting our response to comments for the Shephard's project today as we told you yesterday. I know you will be out later this afternoon so they will be there for you on Monday. 2 ". We have one small problem we howill be okay with you. The architects *on the East coast and they don't work on Fridays, and they forgot to answer plannings questions on exhibits B &D. I can have those for you Monday if that is alright and put them with the rest of the package. Is that okay with you. We really need to be on the October DRC (it is our third one). Joe 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Daniel Knopman [dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 12:32 PM To: Mr. Joe Burdette Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Wells, Wayne; Tefft, Robert; Paul Andrews; Bill Shephard; LEED AP Keith Zayac P.E. R.L.A.; Mr. Oscar I Garcia AIA; Mr. Carpelo Jeoboam R.A. Subject: Shepards Beach Submittal Joe When I spoke with keith yesterday morning I explained that all the printing had been sent to your printer and that the additonal prints could be ordered from your printer. It is my underdstanding that that was done by Keith. I speaking with my staff all other exhibits and responses were sent to Keith for a Friday AM delivery. The issues disscussed in exhibits B and D were addressesd in our written response. I will touch base with Keith again in the morning on Monday to confirm that he has everything that he needs to submit to the city. Sincerely Daniel 7. Knopman, AIA Sent from my iPhone i 1 C Wells, Wayne • From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 5:08 PM To: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Tefft, Robert Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Response to comments Joe — As you know we have deadlines to submit applications and resubmittals in order to be placed on certain agendas, so that the departments and /or persons have sufficient time to perform reviews. Today was the day to set the agenda for the DRC for 10/1/09. No resubmittal was presented for this application today. There are many other applications that have been submitted within the time frames published. Management will need to decide upon your submission as to what date it is scheduled for review. Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 4:02 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Reponse to comments Wayne Here is a copy of the email I received. Thank you, Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727- 562 -4562 From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:44 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Reponse to comments Sherry Keith Zayac is resubmitting our response to comments for the Shephard's project today as we told you yesterday. I know you will be out later this afternoon so they will be there for you on MOnday. We have one small problem we hope will be okay with you. The architects are on the East coast and they don't work on Fridays, and they forgot to answer plannings questions on exhibits B &D. I can have those for you Monday if that is alright and put them with the rest of the package. Is that okay with you. We really need to be on the October DRC (it is our third one). Joe 0 • September 11, 2009 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner III Planning Department - City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 • Re: Shephard's Beach Resort OIG Project #0820 Development Review Committee Submittal — Responses Case No.: FLD2008 -12033 Dear Mr. Wells: We are pleased to resubmit the Shephard's Beach Resort to the City of Clearwater for final DRC review. The project team has taken into consideration the comments made by you and the City Staff. We have made certain modifications to the design in order to conform to the requirements of Beach by Design, or City Comments as indicated below. GENERAL ENGINEERING 1. The following to be addressed prior to CDB: Clarify how the proposed queuing would operate as shown on Sheet A -11. The plan shows a drop off area completely blocked providing no space for arriving vehicles or baggage handling. The curbing shown on the east and west ends of the drop -off area limits access and may not provide maneuvering room for the vehicles as shown on the plan. Response. Please note further clarification of the queuing area on Sheet A -11 have been incorporated to better clarify the movement of the vehicles at the entry of the project. While the number of cars queued, have been reduced some, the traffic flow through this space has been improved General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. 'ORIGIN Response: Acknowledged. J ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Prior to the Community Development Board. 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 — Response does not adequately address condition.) Oscar I. Garcia, A.IA Architect 318 S.E. 8th St. Fort Lauderdale Florida 33316 Tel: 954.462.1090 Fax: 954.462.9040 www.garciaarchitect.com FL Lic: AR0012551 USVI Lic: 652A SC Lic: 5708 2009 r � J City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 2 of 27 FIRE Response. Additional design detail information has been added to plans. These details are the same as shown on two other projects constructed within the City with this system. 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the Owner. (4/18/09 — Response does not adequately address condition.) Response: Enclosed is a letter from the owner stating the proposed maintenance and schedule. Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. Response: The Owner or his representative will, if they have to already done so, have an asbestos survey performed and submitted prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections, plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on Utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building. Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB. 4 -13 -09 the required 2nd FDC is not shown on Page C6. The FDC lines will be 6" DR14 pipe not 4" DR18 as shown. The fire line for the standpipe at the rear of the property must be tied into the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Fire service connection is shown on the utility plan, as well as the two FDC locations. 2. Under comment #5 the existing parking garage has a code deficient sprinkler system and will be required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. The response was: Based on subsequent meetings with the fire department, it was agreed that since the existing building will not be added on to, or renovated at this time, the existing sprinkler system will be repaired and brought up to code over time. Letter dated April 9, 2009, in line #1 states the layout of the existing west building containing Bar, Nightclub, Restaurant, Meeting Space, and Guest Rooms will remain unchanged in terms of programming, layout, or planning and the next statement #2 The exterior stair on the east side of the existing building will be removed. This is shown on the plans sheet A -11 as the is the EXISTING buildings, if this part of the new development then the ENTIRE existing structure SHALL be brought up to code. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 3 of 27 Response: While we disagree with this observation, we have restored the stair in its current configuration, so as not to affect the existing building. - - HARBOR MASTER: 1. No Issues LEGAL: 1. No Issues LAND RESOURCES. 1. No Issues LANDSCAPING. 1. Sheet C9 — Revise the following: a. Plan indicates 11 PT in the northwest corner of the sire, but the arrow indicates such is offsite ( ?); Response: Plant callout has been revised to point to the correct area. b. Unclear, why no landscaping is proposed in the northeast corner of the site ( ?); Response: Landscaping has been added to northeast corner. C. For 5,423 sf of interior landscape area, Code requires one shade tree for each 150 sf, or a total of 36 trees. Based on the landscape plan, only five trees are proposed to be planted within the interior landscape area indicated on sheet C4. Must plant additional 31 trees. tr Response: Based on a vehicular use of 11,814.20 sf, the required interior open space is 1,181.42 which requires 8 trees. We have shown 10 equivalent trees adjacent to the VUA. ARKS AND RECREATION. 1. The Public Art Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to the issuance of building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at (727) 562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. Response: Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 4 of 27 2. Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at (727) 562 -4818 to calculate assessment. Response: Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. STORMWATER: 1. The following shall be addressed prior to CDB: 1. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. Response: System has been modified to move control structure to the seawall and overflow through a constructed notch above the sand elevation. 2. Please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in a period of 24 hours or less. Response: Calculations are enclosed The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFMD ERP permit. Response: Acknowledged 2. Please provide soil analysis with Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) at the proposed vault to demonstrate the buoyancy calculation is not required. Response: Acknowledged 3. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. Response. Acknowledged. 4. Please route all runoff, including the rear deck to the vault for treatment before discharge. Response: Acknowledged. 5. Please a detailed plan showing how roof runoff will be routed to the proposed vault. Response: Acknowledged. �i CZ 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 4 of 27 2. Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at (727) 562 -4818 to calculate assessment. Response: Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. STORMWATER: 1. The following shall be addressed prior to CDB: 1. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. Response: System has been modified to move control structure to the seawall and overflow through a constructed notch above the sand elevation. 2. Please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in a period of 24 hours or less. Response: Calculations are enclosed The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFMD ERP permit. Response: Acknowledged 2. Please provide soil analysis with Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) at the proposed vault to demonstrate the buoyancy calculation is not required. Response: Acknowledged 3. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. Response. Acknowledged. 4. Please route all runoff, including the rear deck to the vault for treatment before discharge. Response: Acknowledged. 5. Please a detailed plan showing how roof runoff will be routed to the proposed vault. Response: Acknowledged. • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 5 of 27 Response: 7. Response: 8. Response: General Note: 1. Response. 2. Response: SOLID WASTE: No Comments a The construction of the proposed Atlantis vault along the east property line will impact the existing lift station. Please address this issue. Acknowledged. Please use solid pipe for the proposed outfall as perforate may create erosion problem over a long period of time. Acknowledged Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. Acknowledged DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a building permit. Acknowledged At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any other drainage related document for review and record. Acknowledged TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: 1. The parking table on the civil plans is not consistent with the architectural plans in regard to the number of striped and overflow parking spaces in the proposed garage. AM Response: The Architectural Plans and the Civil Plans have been coordinated to 11 reflect the actual number of striped and overflow parking spaces. 2. Even though overflow parking in drive aisles has been shown on previous projects, the Traffic Operations Division continues to have concerns about this as it creates maneuverability problems due to reduced drive aisle widths and blocked vehicles. Response: The garage will be serviced by valet attendants familiar with the design of the garage and the placement of the vehicles within it, and not by the general public. It will be up to the valet attendants to move cars as necessary to facilitate the needs of the customer. While there may be a City of Clearwater 0 Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 6 of 27 sense that there could be maneuverability issues we remain confident that the proposed plan does not aversely affect service. 3. Provide a van accessible handicapped parking space whereby the vertical clear height shall be 8' -2" per Florida Building Code, Chapter 11, Section 4.6.5. Provide a note indicating such both on civil and architectural plans. Response: A van accessible space was provided in our previous submittal on the ground floor of the new building, and remains in this location. Please refer to Sheet A -11. 4. Provide a note that the vertical clear height of each garage floor level in vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm) other than the van accessible parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.2.2 clear height. Response. The Architect has added the note requested above on Sheets A -11 through A -14. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Notes: 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Response Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response Acknowledged. PARKING SYSTEM COMMENTS. R F ...� & No Comments „ ZONING CONDITION.• 1. 5/5/09 — WW P Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 — WW Sheet A -I1 — Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 7 of 27 cabanas (any television or refrigerators), and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. Response: In our response to this comment on April 9, 2009, we indicated that the cabanas were intended for daily use by the guest of the hotel. The finishes for these features will be pavers for the floors, and stucco and paint for the walls. They are not intended to have any other amenities. It appears that your comment of 515109 confirms your acceptance of our previous answer and seeks to make this a condition of approval. If this is not the case then please call me so that we can discuss this further. J2. 5/5/09 — WW Plans do not dimension the projection of the awnings. 1/4/09 — WW Sheets C4, A -11 and A -12 — Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimensions these awnings project from the building. On the architectural plans, indicate what material and color these awnings are to be. Response: The extent of the awnings has been reduced to the south side of the building with a small return on the east and west sides of the building. The requested dimensions have been placed on the drawings. 3. Ensure when resubmitting that all original sheets are submitted, as Sheet C2 was omitted from this submission. Response: Acknowledged. 4. 5/5/09 — WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 — WWI Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current code requirements. i Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage may' on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum --- height of freestanding sign under regular code is four feet; maximum of six feet under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Response. A separate comprehensive sign program application will be submitted to bring signage into compliance. 5. 1/7/09 — WW Parking Demand Study — Revise for the following: City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 8 of 27 a. Introduction — There are only 96 existing rooms at this hotel; (5/4/09 — No response — Revised study still indicates 97 existing rooms.) Response: The parking study was changed to reflect 96 rooms. b. Introduction — My counts of parking spaces in the existing parking garage do not confirm 179 spaces; (5/4/09 — WW — No response — Architectural plans only indicate 152 striped spaces in the existing garage and it is not indicated how or where any overflow spaces exist. Site inspection on 4/25/09 revealed the property posted "lot full" and only 12 striped spaces empty at 11:40PM and only 15 striped spaces empty at 12:40am, while many cars parked in overflow areas [even parked in front of elevator]. Site inspection on 5/3/09 at 3:OOPM also revealed the property posted "lot full." Response: The owner has submitted an affidavit confirming the existing number of parking spaces. The existing parking characteristics are irrelevant. A methodology was established with Mr. Wells to base the future parking characteristics on reasonable assumptions similar to those afforded other hotels on Clearwater Beach. There was never any requirement to do on -site actual demand studies, especially since massive changes to the site parking supply are proposed. JC. Parking Supply — Same comment as "b" above. The proposal includes modification to the existing parking garage to increase the number of spaces, not identified in this Study; (5/4/09 — WW — No response — Architectural plans indicate change to the ground floor parking which are not disclosed in any written material.) Response: The existing parking garage has been modified to include 192 spaces, plus an addition 28 overflow spaces. f. Parking Demand — It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted. Ensure the nightclub square footage includes both levels of the nightclub, as posted the capacity is 523 persons ra tt" in the nightclub; (5/4/09 — WW — No response — study now no longer indicates the square footage of retail, only stating "a small CIS retail gift shop." Square footage of nightclub unchanged at 2,300sf; architectural plans indicate much larger than 2,300sf.) Response: See amended parking study. Jg. Parking Demand — The banquet facility states a seating of 300 attendees, but there is a huge outdoor deck being provided on the south side of this facility. Will there be any seating or other functions at any time on this outdoor deck? (5/4/09 — WW — No response — Study still indicates 300 attendees, however, the banquet facilities have been moved to the new building and expanded in size to an entire floor, including new kitchen. Need to revise number of attendees and calculations.) City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 9 of 27 Response: The approved methodology stated banquets for up to 300 attendees. The banquet facilities are indoors and outdoor deck areas are not intended for banquet use. Jh. Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory uses, or as a mid - priced hotel with accessory uses sized to primarily meet the needs of the hotel guests. Response: The new hotel will be a 3 -star hotel which is typical of a mid priced hotel. There will be meeting space in the new structure to help the hotel market to the business community. In order to survive in the hotel business, it has to be able to fill rooms Monday through Thursday and the primary source for renting during the week is business meeting. There is also a small workout room that the traveling business man wants to be sure the hotel can provide. The meeting rooms and workout room are entirely for the use of the hotel guests. Jj. Tables 2 and 3 — On what day of the week and dates were these studies completed? It is difficult to agree with the numbers related to the nightclub 16 and 23 spaces (normal and full occupancy respectfully); (5/4/09 — WW — No response — It appears that Tables 2 and 3 are not based on actual data but on assumptions.) and Response: The methodology for the parking study was based on reasonable assumptions similar to those of other hotels on Clearwater Beach. There was never any requirement to conduct parking space occupancy counts on -site. The applicant is seeking fair and equitable treatment. Appendix — The drawing showing vehicle stacking includes vehicles blocking the public sidewalk, vehicles blocking the entrance and exit Gr La driveways for the existing parking garage, show surface parking in front of the proposed building that the proposed plans do not show and the drive Z' isle is wider than that shown on the submitted plans. (5/4/09 — WW — No T response — Based on site inspection, stacking will not work as the lot will be full and no vehicles will be entering or exiting until the end of the night.) Response: A new stacking diagram showing 16 vehicles can be stacked has been prepared by the architect and is included in the submittal package. 6. J Response to General Applicability criteria #1 — Last paragraph — The manner in which the information is put forth appears to indicate that the existing Holiday Inn building is 128 feet in height, whereas the 128 -foot height is for a proposed building that has not been constructed on the west side of the Holiday Inn property. Clarify how the Holiday Inn building heights are actually. Response: The previously approved proposed building on the west side of the Holiday Inn site has been approved at 128 feet. Please note that this City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 10 of 27 approval is beyond 500 feet front the west edge of our proposed building as depicted in the attached information. 7. 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 — WW Condition of Approval to be included in CDB: That, prior to issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. Response: Acknowledged - even though the entire property is currently in one name as indicated in the land records. The property appraiser had it wrong and that has been corrected 8. 5/5/09 — WW Response indicates there will be no changes to the existing railings; however, Sheet A -20 continues to show such aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with blue glass (not the existing aluminum picket railings) and Sheets A -22 and A -22B now shows the same aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass. Improvements to tie the existing building are necessary to be compliant with Comprehensive infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d. Advise /revise. Response: Sheet A -20 and sheets A -22 and A -22B have been revised to show the Response: The drawings have been changed to eliminate the wave pattern of landscaping on the metal mesh. No further action is required by the design team at this time. 10. 5/4/09 — WW retention of the existing railings. 1/6/09 — WW Sheet A -20 — Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing - the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -2213. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildings together as a cohesive unit. Response. Sheet A -20 and sheets A -22 and A -22B have been revised to show the k retention of the existing railings. 5/5/09 — WW .. Include as a condition of approval in Staff Report. 1/6/09 - WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the fagade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on sheet A -30. Response: The drawings have been changed to eliminate the wave pattern of landscaping on the metal mesh. No further action is required by the design team at this time. 10. 5/4/09 — WW City of Clearwater 0 Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 11 of 27 Architectural plans now indicate 48 rooms to remain in the existing hotel and 180 rooms in the new building, for a total of 228 rooms, which is still greater than the maximum of 226 indicated in the application and on C2. Additionally, based on the architectural plans, there are 152 striped parking spaces in the existing parking garage, with an unknown number of overflow spaces (not shown), and 124 striped spaces in the proposed parking garage, with 40 overflow spaces indicated. The numbers of parking spaces are not consistent with the numbers indicated on Sheet C2. Response: The existing garage is self - parked and converted to valet on an as- needed basis. The existing garage contains 192 striped spaces as indicated in the attached affidavit prepared by the Owners agent. In addition to the 192 spaces provided, the existing garage also contains 28 overflow parking spaces for a total of 220 parking spaces. The new garage is full -time valet only and contains 123 parking spaces, I handicapped accessible van parking space, and 40 overflow parking spaces for a total of 164 parking spaces. The total site when built out will contain a total of 384 parking spaces. 1/4/09 — WW Application and Sheet C4 indicates a total of 226 rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown. Number the rooms in the existing building much the same as in the new building. Revise. Response: Our proposal is for the final construction of the project to include 186 rooms. These will include 46 original rooms and 140 new rooms. Of the existing, rooms 263 and 264 shall be combined and, rooms 404 and 406 have been previously combined. Room 102 was previously converted into a keg room and will be retained as such in the final iteration of design. 11. 5/5/09 — WW Property Appraisers information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under C,r one ownership. re, 1/5/09 — WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee, and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers cm and owner's name. The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this one under one ownership and one parcel number. Response Property appraiser was in error and has corrected this. 12. 5/6/09 — WW r s City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 12 of 27 Response unclear, which states all other bars have been removed from the plans. Does this mean that they are no longer proposed or that you are just not showing them? 1/4/09 — WW Sheet C -4 — Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see Sheet A -11) Response: Subsequent to the initial submittal for approval, the Owner and Design team determined that the likelihood of the State and County accepting the exterior bars shown at grade in the proposed building as marginal due to FEMA regulations. Therefore the Owner directed the Architect to, eliminate the proposed bars shown under the building and retain a portion of the existing building currently containing the Tiki Bar. The area previously depicted as exterior bars are now being utilized as covered exterior space. 13. 7/5/09 — WW I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephard's and have the following comments: 2. 645 Bayway Blvd a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. 1. 665 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maimum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Tranfer of Density Unit Development Rights 0 recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. _ f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. Z-r g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. Response: Owner is no longer requesting any TDR. The application has been changed to reflect Hotel Density Reserve instead of Resort Density Pool. The property contains 2.689 acres of which is 2.37 are upland and zoned Tourist. The calculations are 2.37 x SO hotel units per acre = 118 units + 68 units from the Density Reserve Pool for a total of 186 units. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. City of Clearwater 0 Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 13 of 27 e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. Response: Owner is no longer requesting any TDR. The application has been changed to reflect Hotel Density Reserve instead of Resort Density Pool. The property contains 2.689 acres of which is 2.37 are upland and zoned Tourist. The calculations are 2.37x SO hotel units per acre = 118 units + 68 units from the Density Reserve Pool for a total of 186 units. J 7/6/09 — WW Structures were shown on prior construction plans and are accepted as existing. Request needs to indicate such structures at a zero -foot setback. 6/29/09 — WW Planning will review previously approved plans approved to ascertain whether such plans indicated these structures on the west side. If construction plans verify these structures were on the plans, then these structures will be accepted as existing (Comprehensive Infill request 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units todal). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible.. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recoreded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312,317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR `— � - - -.,- Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights l filled out with Harry Cline as agent. f. Exhibit C — Strongly recommend that the mess of b — e above be cleared up before this document is recorded. Response: Owner is no longer requesting any TDR. The application has been changed to reflect Hotel Density Reserve instead of Resort Density Pool. The property contains 2.689 acres of which is 2.37 are upland and zoned Tourist. The calculations are 2.37x SO hotel units per acre = 118 units + 68 units from the Density Reserve Pool for a total of 186 units. J 7/6/09 — WW Structures were shown on prior construction plans and are accepted as existing. Request needs to indicate such structures at a zero -foot setback. 6/29/09 — WW Planning will review previously approved plans approved to ascertain whether such plans indicated these structures on the west side. If construction plans verify these structures were on the plans, then these structures will be accepted as existing (Comprehensive Infill request r a City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 14 of 27 would still indicate a zero setback [to existing structures]). If construction plans do not verify these structures were approved, this application will need to obtain after - the -fact building permits) or how they will be brought into compliance otherwise. Once a review of prior approved permits is completed (anticipated to be completed the week of June 29 — July 2), Planning will inform the applicant of our findings. Response: Approved per City of Clearwater DCAB case number V- 98 -05. Response: The Architect re- introduced the column grid lines (station markers) on all plans. 16. v 6/29/09 — WW Density will need to reflect the number of rooms based on banquet hall floor area being removed from density calculation (may not be 226 rooms). 4/29/09 — WW Sheet C2 — General Site Notes #22 — Provide the overall proposed density of 95.35 rooms /acre after 226 rooms. Response: A note has been added to the plan. 14. 5/6/09 — WW Civil plans and survey updated. Unclear how /why canopy extends over the property line onto the adjacent property. Response does not address the comments below. Still unclear how the wall and canopy were constructed at a zero (or less than zero) setback and of variances /permits granted for such improvements. 1/4/09 — WW Civil plans need to indicate the existing wall along the west property line ( ?) and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any "variance" granted). Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. Response: The Survey has been corrected and included in this package. The V Canopy is shown overhanging the property -line and will be corrected ZP 15. 5/3/09 — WW Response to remove the column lines (station markers) from the was grid plans. This was not requested (see below) 0 1/4/09 — WW Zy Architectural plans — Provide station markers on the two planes of the building for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of building elements, especially in relation to property liners. Response: The Architect re- introduced the column grid lines (station markers) on all plans. 16. v 6/29/09 — WW Density will need to reflect the number of rooms based on banquet hall floor area being removed from density calculation (may not be 226 rooms). 4/29/09 — WW Sheet C2 — General Site Notes #22 — Provide the overall proposed density of 95.35 rooms /acre after 226 rooms. Response: A note has been added to the plan. r • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 15 of 27 17. After further review of the plans and discussions with Planning Management and the Building Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and/or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fins on the building must be projected to the ground and the setback to that point indicated. These setbacks to the property lines and /or seawall are what will be advertised (a variance to the seawall setback will be required by the Building Official). Response: The Architect has revised sheets A -11, A -21, and A -21B to depict the property lines, and setbacks. A request for variance has been incorporated into this submittal. 18. Sheet C2 — General Site Note # 11— Ja., Suggest a new line B for Site Area for "T" District or revising line A to the Site Area for "T" District (site data is to be evaluated ONLY on that area zoned "T" District; Response: Site area has been revised to be within the "T" district only. Jb. B. Provide the Existing, Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; and Response: J Note has been revised to include area within tourist district only. C. E. Provide the Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; Response: Note has been revised to include area within tourist district only. 19. Architectural plans for the ground level indicates vehicle stacking at VV entrance.. Unclear how this will actually work, since visual inspection of the property has shown that, at least on the weekends, onsite parking is �® full and driveways are coned off /closed. Proposal is to increase the number of hotel rooms from 96 to 226 rooms (an increase of 130 rooms), in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, outdoor tiki bar and ballroom. Proposed parking is supposedly 318 striped spaces and 66 overflow for a total of 384 parking spaces (can't confirm these numbers of parking spaces based on the plans submitted), provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site where all parking will be valet only. ,. Vehicular stacking needs to be reworked to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. and to ensure on -site traffic circulation will not be impaired. Response: Vehicular stacking has been revised to provide adequate circulation for valet attendants to maneuver about the drive isles. Plans have been revised to illustrate numbering of parking spaces in the existing and new garage to confirm the total count of 384 parking spaces in both garages. r City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 16 of 27 20. Response to General Applicability criteria #6 — Unclear what is meant by "The applicant currently has an occupational license to operate a 167 seat restaurant and will redevelop the Subject Property to include an upscale restaurant." There is no indication of any additional restaurant on the property and no indication that the existing restaurant will be remodeled for such "upscale restaurant." The purpose of he Hotel Density Reserve is to "facilitate the restoration of those lost mid -size, mid - priced hotels," not for the development of additional resorts. Response: There will be no changes to the restaurant, nor are there any plans to add additional dining facilities to the property. As for the Site inspection on April 25, 2009, we are not prepared to address opinion of db level in the absence of appropriate noise testing to validate this observation. The police and Owner continually monitor the noise at the Tiki Bar and it continues to be below the maximum decibels permitted. 21. f Response to General Applicability criteria #2 - J a. Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; and Response. Shephard's General Manager, Paul Andrews, has physically counted O'RIG'NAL -REVVJ these spaces twice, and has provided an affidavit delineating where the 192 spaces are located ° %I J b. In (3) you refer to the project to the north. If you are referring to PLANNING the Holiday Inn project, that project is to the west. Response: Acknowledged, the project we referred to is the Holiday Inn project on the West and not the North. 22. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Plan Project criteria #6 — Revise for the following: (a) 1. The side setback reduction for the existing pavement, freezers and building canopy are on the west side (not north); Response: This site plan was approved in 1998 — See City of Clearwater DCAB case number V- 98 -05. (a) 2. The height variance referred to for a similar project is to the west (not north); Response: Acknowledged 1(b) Height and Tower Separation B.2 — The Entrada project to the west 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128 feet in height. Additionally, the project at 691 S. Gulfview Blvd. (enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower 150 in height. Provide documentation that neither option 1 or 2 apply, including a diagram that shows compliance; oil, City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 17 of 27 Response: This information was previously provided and re- introduced here for clarification. The enchantment is no longer valid because it has lost its development rights. ,(b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 — Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan; Response. A note has been added to the plans. (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 — The floor plate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided per Beach by Design B.3.c, as to how this proposal complies with the tiered effect (expound); Response: The floor plates have been revised to comply with Beach by Design; this is further illustrated by the elevations and vignette shots on sheets A -20, A -20B, A -21, A -21B, A -32, A33, and A34. (b) There is no Criteria #7 (remove and remove a) and b). Revise c) and the balance of this section to C.1, C.2 etc. Response: No action required (b) c)1 - Provide a diagram that shows compliance with this dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes; Response: Sheets A -32, A -33, and A -34 have been created to illustrate compliance. (b) c)3 — Architectural elevations indicate a percentage of openings, E�t f: which is inconsistent with what the criteria/provisions call for (windows or architectural decoration). Revise Sheets A -20, A- 20B, A -21, A -21B, and place information on A -22 and A -22B; Response: Sheets A -20, A -20B, A -21, and A -21B have been revised and we have placed the requested information on A -22 and A -22B. (b) c)4 — Theoretical envelop is from all property lines, not just the half of the property being redeveloped. Update the criteria to that in Beach by Design where a maximum of 75% is permissible (not 60 %). Envelope below 45 feet not necessary to be shown. Drawing submitted is wrong and not understandable. Response: See attached revised theoretical building envelope study. (b) d) Remove this section; Response: Action required (b) Remove sections 8 and 9; and Response: No action required City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 18 of 27 (c) Need to provide response to the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off); C. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of and area; d. In order to form a cohesive , visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements; - Changes in horizontal building planes; - Uses of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; - Variety in materials, colors, and textures; - Distinctive fenestration patterns; - Building stepbacks; and - Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design, and appropriate distance between buildings. Respon e: Acknowledged 25. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Plan Project criteria #I — Revise for the following: J a. Parking — The project is proposing more than the minimum number of spaces. The `requested relief' is being requested due to parking spaces have been designed as double- stacked requiring valet parking only. Cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing garage. Even though more than the minimum number of parking spaces is being provided, the provided parking will still not be enough, based on existing characteristics. .,_„e� Response: Shephard's General Manager, Paul Andrews, has physically counted �� IVA�. RECD these spaces twice, and has provided an affidavit delineating where the 192 spaces are located We disagree that there will not be enough parking when the renovation is complete. a d b. Setbacks — No documentation has been presented as to how the west side setback was approved at a zero setback. Need to present justification for the west side and the rear setback reductions to zero feet. Response: This site plan was approved in 1998 — See City of Clearwater DCAB case number V- 98 -05. 26. Response to General Applicability criteria 44 — a. While there has been a parking study submitted and parking provided in excess of Code requirements based on site inspections, there is insufficient parking provided today and in the proposed 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 19 of 27 plan to provide for the existing and proposed uses of the property. Parking for these uses bleed onto surrounding properties and within right -of -way. Existing practice to cone and block off driveways anticipated, which creates traffic congestion, expected to be the future practice also. This is unacceptable; Response: The proposed parking equates to 1.4 spaces per room, if the overflow spaces are considered this equates to1.7 spaces per room. The owner has acknowledged parking issues and is seeking to expand the parking supply by adding another garage. b. Existing off - street loading and unloading blocks traffic circulation. This proposal does not address the existing problems; and Response: The only loading or unloading permissible is at the loading dock and not at the entrance to the property. The Owner direction to all vendors is to load and unload at the loading dock only. C. Second sentence — Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot." This is a surface parking lot that is being removed with this proposal. Response: Please disregard this erroneous response as it is no longer relevant to tlae submittal. 27. Proposed parking numbers of 318 striped and 66 overflow spaces cannot Jbe confirmed. Revise the following: a. Overflow in the existing parking garage not shown; Response: OGA to place and number spaces within existing garage. b. Sheet A -11 — Parking in the existing garage on Level A in the northwestern portion of the garage does not presently exist, SEP 14 7009 requiring removal of a wall and eliminating a storage area to create these five spaces. These northwestern two parking spaces don't PLANNING _ function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements, except on the southern portion of the garage; and Response. The spaces will be reopened when the new building is complete. We are not doing any work on the existing garage and it was approved with these spaces. See City of Clearwater DCAB case number V -98 -05 J C. Provide a table (previously provided and removed with this submission) on Sheet A -11 that includes a tabulation by floor of the number of hotel units (existing and proposed buildings) and the number of parking spaces (existing and proposed buildings, including the number of striped and overflow spaces). Response. The Architect has provided the previously removed table on Sheet A -11 as requested. 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 20 of 27 28. Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units — A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Designation Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for amid - priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density tuber of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: ( a.) Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; Response: The application has been changed to reflect Hotel Density Reserve instead of Resort Density Pool. The property contains 2.689 acres of which is 2.37 are upland and zoned Tourist. The calculations are 2.3 7, x 50 hotel units per acre =118 units + 68 units from the Density Reserve Pool for a total of 186 units. The breakdown will include 46 units remaining in the existing building and 140 units constructed in the new building. j hose properties and/or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and /or development(s) through and approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; Response: No units have been transferred off of this site. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the ��® Reserve to any development with a lot size of 2.5 acres or less. Those developments with a lot size great than or equal to 2.5 acres S� p 1 � may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it have received / PLANNING benefit of transfers of development rights in' addition to the Reserve, or not; Response Acknowledged, we do not exceed 150 units per acre. d. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a mid - priced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; Response: Hilton Garden Inns was voted the 2008 mid priced hotel of the year (500 of them) and they all contain meeting rooms and workout facilities and further identify these amenities as a necessity to attract the business traveler during the week days. e. No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached dwelling); City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 21 of 27 Response: Acknowledged. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; Response: Acknowledged we do not exceed 150 feet which is the max height at this site. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of the development, only hotel rooms brought into the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the maximum building height, but only provided that all TRD criteria are met; Response: Acknowledged - Owner is no longer using TDB's. Also, it has been determined through discussion with Wayne Wells, that units from the Hotel Density Reserve are considered to allow an increase in building height up to 150 feet. A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that �h. the overnight accommodation use will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the Nation Hurricane Center; Response: Acknowledged, and provided. OAccess to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; Response: Prior to demolition, the lobby will be moved to the existing building �� ' and remain there to service the entire project indefinitely. The Owner will submit the required demolition and design drawings for this 7SEP 14 �� renovation if different from the existing layout currently employed /within the existing building prior to permitting of the new building. PLANNIN -- ---- ( j. ► All hotel rooms obtained from the Reserve that are not constructed (2 shall be returned to the Reserve; Response: Acknowledged k.l The development shall comply with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) countywide approach to the application of concurrency management for transportation facilities, and transportation analysis conducted for the development shall include the following: - Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO; - Identification of level of services (LOS) standards for state and county roads as established by the MPO; 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 22 of 27 Utilization of proportional fair -share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO model ordinance; Utilization of the MPO traffic Impact Study Methodology; and Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the most current MPO Annual Level of Service Report. Response: The traffic study is included in the application using the methodology established by the Clearwater Traffic Department in a meeting with �Robert Pergolizzi. A reservation system shall be required as an integral part of the hotel use and there shall be a lobby /front desk area that must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area for a hotel would be operated; and Response: Prior to demolition, the lobby will be moved to the existing building and remain there to service the entire project indefinitely. The Owner will submit the required demolition and design drawings for this renovation if different from the existing layout currently employed within the existing building prior to permitting of the new building. m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with regulations as allowed by general law. Response: Acknowledged 29. Elevations indicate that the existing stairwell at the northwest corner of the existing parking garage and adjacent to the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fins" on the new building with an angled wall projection. With both stairwells angled "fin" walls in the existing RE V% and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured ORIGINAL REV% from the property lines or seawall to the furthest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site S P 116 ?LID9 plan needs to indicate the points of these fins and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still need to show the setbacks from the property lines and seawall to the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building Official, for seawall setbacks under Building Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report). Response. The Architect has revised sheets A -11, A -20, A -20B, A -21, and A -21B to depict the property lines, and setbacks. A request for variance has been incorporated into this submittal. City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 23 of 27 30. Architectural plans indicate an exterior stair to be removed from the east side of the existing building. These stairs provide egress to the second floor and to two hotel units accessed from the outside. If these stairs are being removed, how will these two hotel units be accessed in the proposed situation? Additionally, is these required egress being provided per Building and Fire Codes from this hallway and for these two hotel units. Any new internal stairwell to be provided any such required egress will affect first floor functions. Advise /revise. Response: Based on discussion at the previous DRC meeting and direction from the Owner and his representatives that the existing stair will remain. Therefore the Architect has revised his plans to restore existing stair to the plans. J3 An existing portion of the existing building will be retained that includes a bar, with second floor to be removed for an "activity deck." Unclear of the proposed use of the "existing structure" to remain indicated on Sheet A -11 adjacent to the bar. Plans indicate one set of stairs to the "activity deck." Provide documentation that this one set of stairs is sufficient to meet Building and Fire Codes for egress. Additionally, the activity deck appears to have new support columns that are not indicated on the ground level plan and on sheet C4, not indicating the setbacks from the seawall. Response. The Architect has clarified the proposed . uses within the existing building to remain, and added additional stairs from the second floor to grade which are separated more than % the diagonal distance apart and compliant with NFPA 101. The support columns shown on the second floor are carrying a fabric cover and were not deemed as necessarily requiring support from grade. 32. Exhibit B — Section B — Description of Request — Revise the following; a. First paragraph, seventh line — Plans indicate 48 rooms to remain, not 46 as indicated in this paragraph; Response: Our proposal is for the final construction of the project to include 186 rooms. These will include 46 original rooms and 140 new rooms. Of s--®- the existing, rooms 263 and 264 shall be combined and, rooms 404 and ORIGGfNAL RE ` 406 have been previously combined Room 102 was previously �� 1 converted into a keg room and will be retained as such in the final 6w- iteration of design. b. First paragraph, seventh line — Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces in the existing garage to remain; Response: The Owner has submitted an affidavit confirming the existing number of parking spaces, while the Architect has included this information on Ihis plans to reflect the information provided. Y C. Fourth paragraph, Relief #1 — See "a" above for number of existing hotel rooms to remain; and City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 24 of 27 Response. Our proposal is for the final construction of the project to include 186 rooms. These will include 46 original rooms and 140 new rooms. Of the existing, rooms 263 and 264 shall be combined and, rooms 404 and 406 have been previously combined. Room 102 was previously converted into a keg room and will be retained as such in the final iteration of design. d. Fourth paragraph — Relief #13 — Cannot confirm 318 valet -only parking spaces. Response. The existing garage is self - parked and converted to valet on an as- needed basis. The existing garage contains 192 striped spaces as indicated in the attached affidavit prepared by the Owners agent. In addition to the 192 spaces provided, the existing garage also contains 28 overflow parking spaces for a total of 220 parking spaces. The new garage is full -time valet only and contains 123 parking spaces, I handicapped accessible van parking space, and 40 overflow parking spaces for a total of 164 parking spaces. The total site when built out will contain a total of 384 parking spaces. 33. Sheet C2 — General Site Note #5 — Revise to indicate Future Land Use includes Preservation (for that zoned OS/R). Response: A note has been has been added to the plan. 34. Sheet C2 — General Site Note #8 — existing Conditions — provide the side (west) setbacks to pavement and other structures (See Exhibit B — Description of Request). Response: The setback for building and pavement has been shown as 0.00 for each. ( 35.1 Regarding accessory use of waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals fun coupes, scooters, surrey and bikes): RECT Understood that the waverunner business and building are intended to remain. How will the building be modified to comply with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d requiring a cohesive, visually interesting, and attractive -PLANNING appearance? Response: The Owner has not directed the Architect to make any changes to this existing building. �bJ There is fencing associated with the waverunner business not shown on the plans. Is this fencing intended to be removed, to remain, or be upgraded? Response. The fence has been shown on SheetA -11. 0 9 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 25 of 27 Intent of permitting Fun Ride Rentals as an accessory use is that the storage of such vehicles are not to be visible. Revise landscape plan to include taller shrubs that will obscure views of this storage area. Response: Sea Grapes have been added around fence 36. Introduction of the ballroom and meeting rooms with kitchen on Level 5 and the spa on Level 14 has been determined to be inconsistent with amenities typical of a mid - priced hotel (language from Beach by Design; Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a mid- priced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category.) As such, the square footage of Level 5 in the new building and the square footage of the spa on Level 14 must be backed out of the density /intensity (calculate similar to mixed -use), which will reduce the allowable number of hotel rooms. Additionally, Level 5 will be considered an Indoor Recreational /Entertainment use requiring 10 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet of gross floor area for Level 5 and the spa on Level 14 will be considered Retail Sales and Services use, requiring five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Response: Ballroom has been removed and replaced with meeting space. Kitchen is simply a "warming kitchen "for catered in food. 37. Elevations — a. Need to provide a height dimension from BFE to indicate the maximum height of 150 feet; and b. Need to provide a height of the mechanical room from the top of the roof of the spa/exercise to the top of the mechanical room (maximum of 16 feet). Response: The elevation datum's have been changed to clarify how the Architect meets this requirement. 38. Based on the submitted survey, prior case photos of this site, site inspections of the property and permits indicated in our computer reveals many structures have been constructed without the benefit of building permits; a. two wood pergolas southwest of the pool that provide couch seating areas; b. the roof of the bandshell structures on the dock/deck have been reconstructed to have metal roofs; and C. cloth covered canopies have been added throughout the site that are not indicated on the survey. Unless issued permits can be produced for such structures, new permits for such structures must be submitted within 30 days of this DRC meeting, and will include any penalty fees for such. 0 6 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee September 11, 2009 Page 26 of 27 Response: This issue is being worked through with Michael Delk separately. 39. Per the Development Agreement in Section 4.4, architectural plans need to, indicate which hotel rooms have full kitchens (limited to 25% of the rooms). Response: Less than25% of the rooms in the new building are intended to have kitchens, these units have been identified on the plans. 40. Unclear why this newest submission indicates 192 parking spaces now exist when the initial submission indicated 176 or 179 spaces. Not sure where these additional parking spaces were found. Ensure architectural plans accurately show the existing parking and that the numbers indicated in written material matches that shown on the architectural plans. Response: The owner has submitted an affidavit confirming the existing number of parking spaces, while the Architect has included this information on his plains to reflect the information provided. Should you have any questions, please call me at (954)462 -1090. Sincerely, OSCAR L GARCIA ARCHITECT, AIA, PA Dani . Kn man Senior Assoc Director of Operations SEP 7009 HEI0 150' -0" ( +164' -0" HEIGIIT LIMIT 45'-0" ( +59' -0" N: THEORETICAL MAXIMUM 0 CD CD C+ e CD ft N e O O<' eb n O • • ?Rt0 G) lm� .�.� Z Gip M 0 CD CD C+ e CD ft N e O O<' eb n O • • Wells, Wayne From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Oscar /Daniel - 0 0 Wells, Wayne Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:00 PM 'Oscar Garcia' 'Daniel Knopman' Shephard's Beach Resort All project plans need to be consistent as to depicted improvements, otherwise there will be questions of inconsistent plans /drawings. Therefore, yes, with the revisions suggested in this email and the email from Daniel, the renderings need to be revised to be consistent with the other plans being presented for review. Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Oscar Garcia [mailto:og @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:46 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: 'Daniel Knopman' Subject: FW: Shephard's Beach Resort Wayne: To be clear, we may be removing 1 -2 floors to the Shephards hotel project, so it has.been, suggested to us that we may not need to revise the renderings... we would like your direction. Thank you Oscar I. Garcia 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, F1 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www.earciaarchitect.com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following: 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender. 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and /or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender. Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all 1 claims, damages, losses, and Oenses including attorney fees a0ing out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 7. NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED C2007. Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 1009 compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable -.for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems. - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Daniel Knopman [mailto:dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:39 PM To: Mr. Wayne.M.. Wells AICP Cc: Mr. Oscar I Garcia AIA Subject: Shephard's Beach Resort Good Afternoon Wayne, I am writing to review an issue with the Shephard's Beach Resort Submittal. If we reduce the number of rooms and change the railings on the new building, will we be required to revise the renderings as well? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman, AIA Senior Associate Director of Operations Sent from my iPhone FA Wells, Wayne • From: Daniel Knopman [dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Mr. Oscar I Garcia AIA Subject: Shephard's Beach Resort Good Afternoon Wayne, I am writing to review an issue with the Shephard's Beach Resort Submittal. If we reduce the number of rooms and change the railings on the new building, will we be required to revise the renderings as well? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman, AIA Senior Associate Director of Operations Sent from my iPhone I , .- i 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:14 PM To: 'Joe Burdette' Cc: Keith Zayac Subject: Shephard's survey Correct From: Joe Burdette [mailto:jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:36 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Keith Zayac Subject: RE: Shephard's survey • Kelly McClung from Suncoast Survey talked to the engineering department and I am told this is resolved... no problems... out surveys are correct Joe From: Wayne. Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 1:50 PM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com; Jim.Hersh @myClearwater.com Subject: Shephard's survey Keith — As part of our internal process, we have maps created in our Engineering Department for Flexible Development (FLD) and Flexible Standard Development (FLS) cases (as well as other types of cases), which then are reflected in our GIS system to track applications. I am in the process of obtaining maps for the Shephard's FLD /TDR /DVA cases. Jim Hersh is working on creating our maps. We send a copy of the property survey to Engineering to ensure the legal description is correct. In reviewing the legal description and survey information for the Shephard's property, the legal description and survey appear to have errors. The Lots 1 -5 do not appear to the problem, but it is the unplatted portion of the property that the legal description appears to have the errors. The legal description indicates a distance of 286 feet on the west side, but the survey indicates a distance of 341.94 feet along the same property line. Lots 1 -5 are ghosted in, and there appears to be an un- platted portion of property between the platted lots and the seawall that is not legally described. Those portions of the property to the south of the seawall that Shephard's apparently owns, indicated through the L1 through L13, are not indicated in the survey or legal description. I wanted to bring this to your attention so you can look at it along with your surveyor and determine what, if any corrections, are necessary. Tom Mahony, PSM, Geographic Technology Manager, in our Engineering Department has also looked at the survey and has indicated there is a problem. Any corrections to the surveys need to be reflected on the civil and architectural site plans. I would also need one new original survey and 14 copies with the packages when you resubmit. Let me know. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727- 562 -4504 l Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 • 0 1 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 1:50 PM To: keith@keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com; Hersh, Jim Subject: Shephard's survey Keith — As part of our internal process, we have maps created in our Engineering Department for Flexible Development (FLD) and- Flexible Standard Development (FLS) cases (as well as other types of cases), which then are reflected in our GIS system to track applications. I am in the process of obtaining maps for the Shephard's FLD /TDR /DVA cases. Jim Hersh is working on creating our maps. We send a copy of the property survey to Engineering to ensure the legal description is correct. In reviewing the legal description and survey information for the Shephard's property, the legal description and survey appear to have errors. The Lots 1 -5 do not appear to the problem, but it is the unplatted portion of the property that the legal description appears to have the errors. The legal description indicates a distance of 286 feet on the west side, but the survey indicates a distance of 341.94 feet along the same property line. Lots 1 -5 are ghosted in, and there appears to be an un- platted portion of property between the platted lots and the seawall that is not legally described. Those portions of the property to the south of the seawall that Shephard's apparently owns, indicated through the L1 through L13, are not :- indicated in the survey or legal description. wanted to bring this to your attention so you can look at it along with your surveyor and determine what, if any . corrections, are necessary. Tom Mahony, PSM, Geographic Technology Manager, in our Engineering Department hasp :,v also looked at the survey and has indicated there is a problem. Any corrections to the surveys need to be reflected on the civil and architectural site plans. I would also need one new original survey and 14 copies with the packages;when. you resubmit. Let me know. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 • Wells, Wayne From: Joe Burdette Oburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:23 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd okay From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ma i Ito: Wayne.WelIs @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:12 AM To: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com; keith @keithzayac.com Cc: Leslie. Dougall- Sides @myClearwater.com; hsc @macfar.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Joe — Keep in mind that the Transfer of Development Rights has never been approved by the CDB to transfer the units from the original properties. While Warranty Deeds for the TDRs have been recorded, they have never been authorized by the City. The application will start at ground zero to authorize the units from the original sending properties. Leslie will need to rule on the covenants on the original properties and consent by mortgager. Wayne From: Joe Burdette [mailto:jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:34 AM To: Wells, Wayne; keith @keithzayac.com Subject: RE: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd 665 and 645 Bay Esplande have the same seller and same lender. The one release mortgagor's consent covered both lots. From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:07 AM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Keith /Joe — FYI. Comments under Planning have been revised accordingly to reflect the comments below. Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:27 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: hsc @macfar.com; Tefft, Robert; 'KOH @macfar.com' Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Leslie — • C This TDR application started in November 2005 with Ed Armstrong as agent at that time. Along with FLD2005- 11108, these applications were incomplete and eventually withdrawn. Since these applications were never a complete application, no review of the application material was ever performed as to whether the application material was correct. However, regarding the TDR portion, the applicant continued and recorded TDR Warranty Deeds regardless of the incompleteness of the application. Three to four years have transpired and we are now at a new application for development approval (FLD2008- 12033), which includes TDR2005- 11028. I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments (and have revised the appropriate Zoning DRC comment under FLD2008 -12033 to reflect the updated comments below): 1. 665 Bay Esplanade = a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the. subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. — a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. C. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. .y g. Need a completed ApplicatiAr Transfer of Development Rights fillout with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. C. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units Wroperty Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312- 317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. I would suggest a meeting with Harry Cline so that we can review the file and. update TDR applications to today's circumstances. Wayne M. Wells, AiCP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.386 / Virus Database: 270.13.5/2219 - Release Date: 07/05/09 17:54:00 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.386 / Virus Database: 270.13.5/2219 - Release Date: 07/05/09 17:54:00 V ` 3 • • Wells, Wayne From: Joe Burdette Oburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:35 AM To: Wells, Wayne; keith @keithzayac.com Subject: RE: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Actually it covered all the lots on Bay Esplanade. Same seller, same lender Joe From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:07 AM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Keith /Joe — FYI. Comments under Planning have been revised accordingly to reflect the comments below. Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:27 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: hsc @macfar.com; Tefft, Robert; 'KOH @macfar.com' Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Leslie — This TDR application started in November 2005 with Ed Armstrong as agent at that time. Along with FLD2005- 11108, these applications were incomplete and eventually withdrawn. Since these applications were never a complete application, no review of the application material was ever performed as to whether the application material was correct. However, regarding the TDR portion, the applicant continued and recorded TDR Warranty Deeds regardless of the incompleteness of the application. Three to four years have transpired and we are now at a new application for development approval (FLD2008- 12033), which includes TDR2005- 11028. I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments (and have revised the appropriate Zoning DRC comment under FLD2008 -12033 to reflect the updated comments below): 1. 665 Bay Esplanade - a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject prooty is currently developed with 4 dwelft units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. — a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. C. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989,!Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due: to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. C. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312- 317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. 2 f. A Release of Mortgage as to Qsfer of Density was recorded in OR BA14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. I would suggest a meeting with Harry Cline so that we can review the file and update TDR applications to today's circumstances. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.386 / Virus Database: 270.13.5/2219 - Release Date: 07/05/09 17:54:00 S 3 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:07 AM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Keith /Joe — FYI. Comments under Planning have been revised accordingly to reflect the comments below. Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:27 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: hsc @macfar.com; Tefft, Robert; 'KOH @macfar.com' Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Leslie — This TDR application started in November 2005 with Ed Armstrong as agent at that time.: Along with.FLD2005- 11108, these applications were incomplete and eventually withdrawn. Since these applications were never a complete application, no review of the application material was ever performed as to whether the application material was correct. However, regarding the TDR portion, the applicant continued and recorded TDR Warranty Deeds regardless of the incompleteness of the application. Three to four years have transpired and we are now at a new application for development approval (FLD2008- 12033), which includes TDR2005- 11028. I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments (and have revised the appropriate Zoning DRC comment under FLD2008 -12033 to reflect the updated comments below): 1. 665 Bay Esplanade — a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Baywav Blvd. — a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Tran0of Density Unit Development Rights recd in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238- 1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312- 317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. I would suggest a meeting with Harry Cline so that we can review the file and update TDR applications to today's circumstances. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 1.00 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727- 562 -4865 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:04 AM To: keith@keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Keith — After researching the records for structures on the west side, where records indicate the structures on prior construction plans, the Planning DRC comments have been revised to reflect such finding (see attached). Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 I Mz Re- revised fining Case Con 1 r w (, Oconditions Associated With FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD P4 ow r *0 44a Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 562 -4773 �� oo 0' 04/16/2009 The following to be addressed prior to CDB: Not Met 1. Clarify how the proposed queueing would operate as shown on Sheet A -11. The plan shows the drop -off area completely blocked providing no space for arriving vehicles or baggage handling. The curbing shown on the east and west ends of the drop -off area limits access and may not provide maneuvering room for vehicles as shown on the plan. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental Condition Sarah Josuns 12/22/2008 Prior to the Community Development Board: . Fire Condition 562 -4897 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the owner. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. James Keller 562 -4327 x3062 Not Met 12/29/2008 This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires 1wo;,(2). Fire . Not Met Department Connections plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing ,Fire , Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the build ing.Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4 -13 -09 The required 2nd FDC is not shown on page C6. The FDC lines will be 6" DR14 pipe not 4" DR18 as shown. The fire line for the standpipe at the rear of property must be tied int the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO CDB 05/04/2009 Under comments #5 the existing parking garage has a code deficient sprinkler system and wil be Not Met required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. The response was: Based on subdsequent meetings with the fire department, it was agreed that since the existing building will not be added on to,or renovated at this time, the existing sprinkler system will be repaired and brought up to code over time. Letter dated April 9,2009 in line #1 states that the layout of the existing west building containing Bar, Nightclub, Restaurant, Meeting Space, and Guest Rooms will remain unchanged in terms of program ming,layout, or planning and the next statement #2 The exterior stair on the east side of the existing building will be removed. This is shown on the plans sheet A -11 as this is the EXISTING buildings, if this is part of the new development then the ENTIRE existing structure SHALL be brought up to code. Harbor Master Condition 12/23/2008 No issues. Landscape 04/29/2009 Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 Sheet C9 - Revise for the following: Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 1 of 12 Not Met Not Met CaseConditons FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 a. Plan indicates 11 PT in the northwest corner of the site, but the arrow indicates such is off -site M; b. Unclear why no landscaping is proposed in the northeast corner of the site ( ?); c. For 5,423 sf of interior landscape area, Code requires one shade tree for each 150 sf, or a total of 36 trees. Based on the submitted landscape plan, only five trees are proposed to be planted within the interior landscape area indicated on Sheet C4. Must plant an additional 31 trees. Legal Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 12/23/2008 No issues. Not Met Land Resource Condition Rick Albee 727- 562 -4741 12/16/2008 No Issues. Not Met Parks & Recs Condition Chris Hubbard 12/18/2008 The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of Not Met building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at 727 - 562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. 12/18/2008 Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of 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. Storm, W;Rter;, Condition, Phuong Vo " ",562.4752 04/20/2009" The following shall be addressed prior to Community Development Board: - Not Met 1. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. 2. Please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of the Building Permit: 1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD ERP permit. 2. Please provide soil analysis with Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) at the proposed vault to demonstrate the buoyancy calculation is not required. 3. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. 4. Please route all runoff, including the rear deck to the vault for treatment before discharge. 5. Please provide a detailed plan showing how roof runoff will be routed to the proposed vault. 6. The construction of the proposed Atlantis vault along the east property line will impact the existing lift station. Please address this issue. 7. Please use a solid pipe for the proposed outfall as perforated may create erosion problem over a long period of time. 8. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a 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. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 Print Date: 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 2 of 12 • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD • Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 04/16/2009 1. The parking table on the civil plans is not consistent with the architectural plans in regard to the number of striped and overflow parking spaces in the proposed garage. 2. Even though overflow parking in drive aisles has been shown on previous projects, the Traffic Operations Division continues to have concerns about this as it creates maneuverability problems due to reduced drive aisle widths and blocked vehicles. 3. Provide a van accessible handicapped parking space whereby the vertical clear height shall be 8'2" per Florida Building Code, Chapter 11, Section 4.6.5. Provide a note indicating such on both the civil and architectural plans. 4. Provide a note that the vertical clear height of each garage floor level in vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm) other than the van accessible parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.2.2 Clear height. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Note(s): 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP - ; . 727- 562 -4504 Not Met 01/04/2009 5/5/09 - WW _ :' + Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. 01/04/2008 5/3/09 - WW Not Met Plans do not dimension the projection of the awnings. 1/4/09 - WW Sheets C4, A -11 and A -12 - Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimensions these awnings project from the building. On the architectural plans, indicate what material and color these awnings are to be. 04/29/2009 Ensure when resubmitting that all original sheets are submitted, as Sheet C2 was omitted from Not Met this submission. 12/23/2008 5/4/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 - WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 3 of 12 CaseConditons FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 05/04/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #1 - Last paragraph - The manner in which the Not Met information is put forth appears to indicate that the existing Holiday Inn building is 128 feet in height, whereas the 128 -foot height is for a proposed building that has not been constructed on the west side of the Holiday Inn property. Clarify how the Holiday Inn building heights are actually. 12/23/2008 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 - WW Not Met Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 01/06/2009 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Response indicates there will be no changes to the existing railings, however, Sheet A -20 continues to show such aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass (not the existing aluminum picket railings) and Sheets A -22 and A -22B now shows the same aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass. Improvements to tie the existing building together with the new building are necessary to be compliant with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d. Advise /revise. 1/6/09 - WW Sheet A -20 - Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -22B. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildingsJogether as a cohesive unit. 01/06/2009 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/6/09 - WW - To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. 01/04/2009 5/4/09 - WW Not Met Architectural plans now indicate 48 rooms to remain in the existing hotel and 180 rooms in the new building, for a total of 228 rooms, which is still greater than the maximum of 226 indicated in the application and on Sheet C2. Additionally, based on the architectural plans, there are 152 striped parking spaces in the existing parking garage, with an unknown number of overflow spaces (not shown), and 124 striped parking spaces in the proposed parking garage, with 40 overflow spaces indicated. The number of parking spaces are not consistent with the numbers indicated on Sheet C2. 1/4/09 - WW Application and Sheet C4 indicates a total of 226 hotel rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown. Number the rooms in the existing building much the same as in the new building. Revise. 01/05/2009 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner Print Date: 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 4 of 12 0 ! FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. 01/04/2009 5/4/09 - WW Not Met Response unclear, which states all other bars have been removed from the plans. Does this mean that they are no longer proposed or that you are just not showing them? 1/4/09 - WW Sheet C4 - Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see Sheet A -11). 01/07/2009 7/5/09 - WW Not Met I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments: 1. 665 Bay Esplanade - a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was sub.mitted,.. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. - a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 1625-627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312 -317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 5 of 12 CaseConditons • 0 FLD2008 -12033 1619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 agent. 5/6/09 - WW I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read "Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to the Sending Property in perpetuity." Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and how to resolve issues. 1/7/09 - WW Transfer of Development Rights - a. Unclear as to the need for the Affidavit submitted by Harry S. Cline; b. Exhibit A - 665 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for a total of two dwelling units from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was two actual dwelling units that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; c. Exhibit A - 655 Bay Esplanade - Under.FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in bctober 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for one dwelling unit from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was one actual dwelling unit that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; d. Exhibit B - From what property were these two dwelling units transferred from (645 Bayway Blvd ?). Same comment as "b" and "c" above; e. Under TDR2005 -11028 there was also 10 dwelling units to be transferred from 669 Mandalay Avenue. Same comment as "b ", "c" and "d" above. What has ever happened to these units? f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b - e above be cleared up before this document is recorded. 01/04/2009 7/6/09 - WW Structures were shown on prior construction plans and are accepted as existing. Request needs to indicate such structures at a zero -foot setback. 6/29/09 - WW Planning will review previously approved plans approved to ascertain whether such plans indicated these structures on the west side. If construction plans verify these structures were on the plans, then these structures will be accepted as existing (Comprehensive Infill request would still indicate a zero setback [to existing structures]). If construction plans do not verify these structures were approved, this application will need to reflect a request to retain these structures at the existing setbacks (including the need to obtain after - the -fact building permits) or how they will be brought into compliance otherwise. Once a review of prior approved permits is completed (anticipated to be completed the week of June 29 - July 2), Planning will inform the applicant of our findings. 5/6/09 - WW Civil plans and survey updated. Unclear how /why canopy extends over the property line onto the adjacent property. Response does not address the comments below. Still unclear how the wall and canopy were constructed at a zero (or less than zero) setback and of variances /permits granted for such improvements. 1/4/09 - WW Civil plans need to indicate the existing wall along the west property line ( ?) and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 6 of 12 Not Met CaseConditons • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD L' Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any "variance" granted). Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. 01/04/2009 5/3/09 - WW Not Met Response was to remove the column grid lines (station markers) from the plans. This is not was requested (see below). 1/4/09 - WW Architectural plans - Provide station markers on the two planes of the building for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of building elements, especially in relation to property lines. 04/29/2009 6/29/09 - WW Not Met Density will need to reflect the number of rooms based on banquet hall floor area being removed from density calculation (may not be 226 rooms). 4/29/09 - WW Sheet C2 - General Site Notes #22 - Provide the overall proposed density of 95.35 rooms /acre after 226 rooms. ` 04/30/2009 After further review of the plans and discussion with Planning Management and the Building Not Met Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and /or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fins on the building must be projected to the ground and the setback to that point. indicated -These setbacks to property lines and /or seawall are what will be advertised (a variance,to the seawall setback will be required by the Building Official). 05/03/2009 Sheet C2 - General Site Note #11 : Not Mete ; . a. Suggest a new line `B for Site Area for "T" District or revising line A to the Site Area for "T" District (site data is to be evaluated! ONLY on that area zoned "T" District); E b. B. Provide the Existing; Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; and c. E. Provide the Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; 05/05/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #2 - % Not Met a. Cannot confirm (based on architectural plans) that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; and b. In (3) you refer to the project to the north. If you are referring to the Holiday Inn project, that project is to the west. 05/05/2009 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Revise for the following: Not Met (a) 1. The side setback reductions for the existing pavement, freezers and building canopy are on the west side (not north); (a) 2. The height variance referred to for a similar project is to the west (not north); (b) Height and Tower Separation B.2 - The Entrada project to the west at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128 feet in height. Additionally, the project at 691 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower 150 feet in height. Provide documentation that neither Option 1 or 2 apply, including a diagram that shows compliance; (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan; (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The floorplate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided per Beach by Design B.3.c, as to how this proposal complies with a tiered effect (expound); (b) There is no Criteria #7 (remove) and remove a) and b). Revise c) and the balance of this section to C.1, C.2, etc.; (b) c)1 - Provide a diagram that shows compliance with this dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes; (b) c)3 - Architectural elevations indicate the percentage of openings, which is inconsistent with Print Date: 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 7 of 12 0 0 13xT+IIIII:1i K114M 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 what the criteria /provisions call for (windows or architectural decoration). Revise Sheets A -20, A -20B, A -21, A21 B, and place information on A -22 and A -2213; (b) c)4 - Theoretical envelop is from all property lines, not just the half of the property being redeveloped. Update the criteria to that in Beach by Design, where a maximum of 75% is permissable (not 60 %). Envelop below 45 feet not necessary to be shown. Drawing submitted is wrong and not understandable. (b) d) - Remove this section; (b) Remove sections 8 and 9; and (c) Need to provide responses to the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off): c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: - Changes in horizontal 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 land scape.design and appropriate distances between buildings. 05/05/2009 Proposed parking . numbers of 318 striped and 66 overflow spaces cannot be confirmed. Revise;-.,;, :,Not. Met for the following. , a. Overflow in the existing parking garage not shown; b. Sheet A -11 - Parking in the existing garage on Level A in the northwestern portion of the garage °i does not presently exist, requiring the "removal of a wall and eliminating a storage area,to.,create these five spaces. These northwestern two parking spaces don't function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements, except to the southern portion of the garage; and c. Provide a table (previously provided but removed with this submission) on Sheet A -11 that includes a tabulation by floor of the number of hotel units (existing and proposed buildings) and the number of parking spaces (existing and proposed buildings, including the number of striped and overflow spaces). 05/05/2009 Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Not Met Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for a mid - priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a. Those properties and /or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; b. Those properties and /or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and /or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; c. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size less than 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than or equal to 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it has received benefit of transfers of development rights in addition to the Reserve, or not; d. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; e. No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached Print Date: 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 8 of 12 0 0 1 J OY1111I:1i KINN 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 dwelling); f. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; g. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought into the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met; h. A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation /closure covenant that the overnight accommodation use will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the National Hurricane Center; i. Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; j. All hotel rooms obtained from the Reserve that are not constructed shall be returned to the Reserve; k. The development shall comply with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) countywide approach to the application of concurrency management for transportation facilities, and the transportation analysis conducted for the development shall include the following: - Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO; - Identification of level of service (LOS) standards for state and county roads as established by the MPO; Utilization of.proportional fair -share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO; model ordinance; w. „ - Utilization of:.th e MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology; and - Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the:.most,current,;; =_ -MPO Annual Level. of, Service Report. L'A:reservation system: shall be required as an integral part of the hotel use and thereFsh.all; be:a r _ lobby /front,'desk area that must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area for;ahotel.would,be operated; and m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed by general law. 05/05/2009 Elevations indicate that the existing stairwells at the northwest corner of the existing parking Not Met garage and adjacent to the existing nightclub in the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fins" on the new building with an angled wall projection. With both the stairwells angled "fin" walls in the existing building and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured from the property lines or seawall to the furtherest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site plan needs to indicate the points of these fins and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still need to show the setback from the property lines and seawall to the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building Official, for seawall setbacks, where a variance to the seawall setbacks under the Building Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report). 05/05/2009 Architectural plans indicate an exterior stair to be removed from the east side of the existing Not Met building. These stairs provide egress to the second floor and to two hotel units accessed from the outside. If these stairs are being removed, how will these two hotel units be accessed in the proposed situation. Additionally, is there required egress being provided per Building and Fire Codes from this hallway and for these two hotel units. Any new internal stairwell to provide any such required egress will affect first floor functions. Advise /revise. 05/05/2009 An existing portion of the existing building will be retained that includes a bar, with the second Not Met floor to be removed for an "activity deck ". Unclear of the proposed use of the "existing structure" to remain indicated on Sheet A -11 adjacent to the bar. Plans indicate one set of stairs to the "activity deck ". Provide documentation that this one set of stairs is sufficient to meet Building and Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 9 of 12 CaseConditons • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD • Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 Fire Codes for egress. Additionally, the activity deck appears to have new support columns that are not indicated on the ground level plan and on Sheet C4, not indicating the setback from the seawall. 05/05/2009 Exhibit B - Section B - Description of Request - Revise for the following: Not Met a. First paragraph, seventh line - Plans indicate 48 rooms to remain, not 46 as indicated in this paragraph; b. First paragraph, seventh line - Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces (based on architectural plans) in the existing parking garage to remain; c. Fourth paragraph - Relief #1 - See "a" above for number of existing hotel rooms to remain; and d. Fourth paragraph - Relief #13 - Cannot confirm 318 valet -only parking spaces (based on architectural plans). 05/05/2009 Sheet C2 - General Site Note #5 - Revise to indicate Future Land Use includes Preservation (for Not Met that zoned OS /R). 05/06/2009 Sheet C2 - General Site Note #8 - Existing Conditions - provide the side (west) setback to Not Met pavement and other structures (see Exhibit B - Description of Request). 05/06/2009 Regarding accessory uses of waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, Not Met surrey and bikes): a. There is fencing associated with the waverunner business not shown on the plans.;- ,Isthis fencing intended to be removed, to remain or to be upgraded? b. Intent of permitting Fun Ride Rentals as an accessory use is that the storage. of such.-yehicles are'not' "to be visible. Revise the landscape plan to include taller shrubs that:will obscure views of this storage area: - 0.5/06/2009 Introducton of the ballroom and meeting rooms with kitchen on Level,5.and the spa-on 1,4 :Not Met ,Level has beendetermined to be inconsistent with amenities typical of a midprice'd hotel (Language from Beach by Design: Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category.) As such, the square footage of Level 5 in the new building and the square footage of the spa on Level 14 must be backed out of the density /intensity (calculate similar to a mixed -use), which will reduce the allowable number of hotel rooms. 05/06/2009 Elevations - Not Met a. Need to provide a height dimension from BFE to indicate the maximum height of 150 feet; and b. Need to provide a height of the mechanical room from the top of the roof of the spa /exercise to the the top of the mechanical room (maximum of 16 feet). 05/06/2009 Per the Development Agreement in Section 4.4, architectural plans need to indicate which hotel Not Met rooms will have full kitchens (limited to 25% of the rooms). 05/06/2009 Unclear why this newest submission indicates 192 parking spaces now exist when the initial Not Met submission indicated 176 or 179 spaces. Not sure where these additional parking spaces were found. Ensure architectural plans accurately show the existing parking and that the numbers indicated in written material matches that shown on the architectural plans. 06/26/2009 1/7/09 - WW Not Met Parking Demand Study - Revise for the following: a. Introduction - There are only 96 existing rooms at this hotel; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Revised study still indicates 97 existing hotel rooms.) b. Introduction - My counts of parking spaces in the existing parking garage do not confirm 179 spaces; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Architectural plans only indicate 152 striped spaces in the existing garage and it is not indicated how or where any overflow spaces exist.) c. Parking Supply - Same comment as "b" above. The proposal includes modification to the existing parking garage to increase the number of spaces, not identified in this Study; (5/4/09 - CaseConditons Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 10 of 12 0 0 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 WW - No response - Architectural plans indicate changes to the ground floor parking in the existing parking garage, which are not disclosed in any written mpterial.) d. Parking Supply - This indicates that both of the parking garages will be serviced by valets. However, other information in this application indicates the garages will be self -park on non -peak times. Which is it, valet only or self -park? (5/4/09 - WW - No response.) e. Parking Supply - It has been indicated there will be provided 28 stacking spaces in the porte cochere area. Plans do not verify such statement; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Stacking revised to, and shown at, 19 vehicles. Unclear how these will be parked by patrons entering the premises in the stacking layout indicated.) f. Parking Demand - It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted. Ensure the nightclub square footage includes both levels of the nightclub, as the posted rated capacity is 523 persons in the nightclub; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Study now no longer indicates the square footage of retail, only stating "a small retail gift shop ". Square footage of nightclub unchanged at 2,300 sf; architectural plans indicate much larger than 2,300 sf.) g. Parking Demand - The banquet facility states a seating of 300 attendees, but there is a huge outdoor deck being provided on the south side of this facility. Will there be any seating or other functions at any time on this outdoor deck? (5/4/09 - WW -'No response - Study still indicates 300 attendees, however, the banquet facilities have been moved to the new building and expanded in size to an entire floor, including a new kitchen. Need to revise number of attendees and calculations. 6/26/09 - WW - Look at how the Building and Fire Codes determine maximum capacity for the new banquet facility in the new building for calculation purposes of parking demand.) - h._ Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory uses, or as a mid- priced hotel with accessory uses sized to primarily meet the needs of the hotel guests;. (5/4/09 - WW - No response.) j.' Tables 2 and 3 --On what day of the week and dates were these studies `completed? ,It is difficult to agree with the numbers related to the nightclub of 16 and 23 spaces (normal and full occupancy respectively); (5/4/09 - WW - No response - It appears that Tables 2 and 3 are not based on actual data but on assumptions.) and k. Appendix - The drawing showing vehicle stacking includes vehicles blocking the public sidewalk, vehicles blocking the entrance and exit driveways for the existing parking garage, shows surface parking in front of the proposed building that the proposed plans do not show and the drive aisles are wider than that shown on the submitted plans. (5/4/09 - WW - No response) 06/26/2009 Architectural plans for the ground level indicates vehicle stacking at entrance. Proposal is to Not Met increase the number of hotel rooms from 96 to 226 rooms (an increase of 130 rooms), in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, outdoor tiki bar and ballroom. Proposed parking is supposedly 318 striped spaces and 66 overflow for a total of 384 parking spaces (can't confirm these numbers of parking spaces based on the architectural plans submitted), provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site where all parking will be valet only. Vehiclular stacking needs to be reworked to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. and to ensure on -site traffic circulation will not be impaired. 06/26/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #6 - Unclear what is meant by "The applicant currently Not Met has an occupational license to operate a 167 seat restaurant and will redevelop the Subject Property to include an upscale restaurant." There is no indication of any additional restaurant on the property and no indication that the existing restaurant will be remodeled for such "upscale restaurant ". The purpose of the Hotel Density Reserve is to "facilitate the restoration of those lost mid -size, mid - priced hotels," not for the development of additional resorts. 06/26/2009 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following: Not Met a. Parking - The project is proposing more than the miniumum number of spaces. The "requested relief' is being requested due to parking spaces have been designed as double- stacked requiring valet parking only. Based on the architectural plans, cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing parking garage that are indicated in writing. Print Date: 07/06/2009 Page 11 of 12 CaseConditons 0 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 b. Setbacks - No documentation has been presented as to how the west side setback was approved at a zero setback. Need to present justification for the west side and the rear setback reductions to zero feet. (6/30/09 - WW - Planning staff is researching the records regarding the west side setbacks. Will inform later this week of findings. 7/6/09 - WW - Structures on the west side have been shown on prior construction plans and are accepted as existing. Modify response to reflect such existing structures.). 06/26/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - Second sentence - Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot." This surface parking lot is being removed with this proposal. Not Met Print Date: 07/06/2009 CaseConditons Page 12 of 12 Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 1:26 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Tefft, Robert Subject: FW: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's fyi From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 12:08 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Re: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's Thank you In a message dated 7/2/2009 11:31:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, michael.delkC�i MyClearwater.com writes: Go with it. mld From. Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] , Sent: Thursday.; July 02, 2009 9:50 AM .. To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's Michael My number is 15,512 sq. ft. We will back out 17 units and only ask for 83 units from the reserve. We will also put railings on the balconies of the old building to match the railings on the new building along with putting a mesh on the old garage that will have plants in it to match the same on the new building. Please confirm my numbers and I can get the architect to redesign and I can have the attorney's change the DVA to reflect 83 units. Joe i 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:58 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's FYI. We can use this information and move forward it would seem. Robert and I added up a lesser number. They need to get started making the changes. From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:50 AM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephard's Michael My number is 15,512 sq. ft. We will back out 17 units and only ask for 83 units from the reserve. We will also put railings on the balconies of the old building to match the railings on the new building along with putting a mesh on the old garage that will have plants in it to match the same on the new building. Please confirm my numbers and I can get the architect to redesign and I can have the: attorney's change the DVA to reflect 83 units. 'Joe:. . It's raining cats. and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! 1 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:42 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe B- Thanks and an FYI to save you time Wayne In order to save you time,,, the comments about zero setback on the west side and other things concerning that were approved in 1998 V- 98 -05. Back then structure was structure that elevated more than 1 foot vertical from the ground. Asphalt nor pavement was considered structure. All other variances on the new building can be found there as well. Joe It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! Wells, Wayne i\* From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:17 AM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com 'Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Keith — After discussion with Michael Delk, the Zoning DRC comments for the above referenced application have been revised (see attached). Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 "kPOF Revised ling Case Cond 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 5:31 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Michael - Sorry to be a pest From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:36 AM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Michael - Sorry to be a pest Michael I suppose we are going to have to meet again on this issue unless you can tell me otherwise. This comment: "Additionally, Level 5 will be considered an Indoor Recreational. %Entertainment use requiring 1.0 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet of gross floor area for Level. 5 and the spa on. Level l4 will be considered .Retail Sales and Services use, requiring live spaces per 1.000 square feet of gross floor area." What this seems to be saying is that not only are you considering taking units away from the hotel (allowing. less to be obtained from the Density Reserve), but the FAR is now going to have to have additional parking. There is no way we can do this and it was not a requirement of the other two hotels we just got approved (Kendall and the Holiday Inn Express) Can we schedule something Friday morning to go over this and the other issues I sent you the other day., just don't know how to respond. Dell Days of Deals! June 15 -24 - A New Deal Everyday N • • Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 5:20 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Joe Burdette - Comments I am Struggling With From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:51 AM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Comments I am Struggling With Michael Here are the comments I am struggling with. Most of them revolve parking and we will have 1.4 spaces per room off -peak (code compliant parking spaces). there may be two spaces lost if back in is not allowed, but we are still way above 1.0 spaces per room and the above the 1.2 you are seeking to go to. When 100 % valet with stacking (same as we did with Patel) we are at 1.7. I just need to know that this parking issue can go away. I want to respond to all of this next week so we can be sufficient for the August CDB. There are a number of legal issues with the TDRs, and Harry Cline is working directly with Leslie Doggel -Side on those. Wayne's Comments: My responses in RED Recent radio advertisements indicate Shephard's "has expanded the private beach" when advertising the Sunday beach party. Based on past experience and visual inspection, unclear where this expanded private beach area is located. Explain. — Natural Accretion. Based on radio and print material, it is difficult to agree with the number s of patrons of the nightclub on normal and peak nights, especially based on the posted rated capacity of the nightclub. Additionally, the Study.does not include the Tiki Bar usage that is outdoors, which apparently draws large crowds, especially on weekends (although other days are also full). They have a bandshell on the dock for this outdoor area that is not discussed. We are not changing anything in the existing building which the nightclub is in. We gave him the counts for the nightclub. Wayne went down there in the middle of Spring Break on a Saturday night and I hardly think that is representative of how it is normally. In fact, in off periods. it is only open 4 days a week. The band shell is not a part of the new building. It is a part of the Tiki deck and is staying just as is to stay in compliance with FEMA. I have heard complaints from the surrounding neighborhood regarding off -site parking on the streets, most likely to the parking garage being full; Based on site inspection on 4/25/09, the outdoor tiki deck well exceeded the 200 indicated during peak season. Note: discussions with hotel personnel, the lounge and tiki deck are full most days, especially on weekends. Based on site inspection inadequate parking exists and will e exacerbated with this proposal. Again I disagree that there is inadequate parking. This is the exact reason we are building so many parking spaces. Bill Shepherd would love to have even more if we had some additional height to work with. • • Parking —The project is proposing more than the minimum number of spaces. The `requested relief' is being requested due to parking spaces have been designed as double - stacked requiring valet parking only. Cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing garage. Even though more than the minimum number of parking spaces are being provided, the provided parking will still not be enough, based on existing characteristics. We have 226 rooms and 318 striped spaces (1.4 spaces per room). When 100% valet we have 386 spaces (1.7 spaces per room). Wayne said he could not verify the parking in the existing garage, but all he had to do was count them while he was there. The general manger of Shephard's went out personally counted them and provided an affidavit of the count. I don't know what else to do. Understood that the waverunner business and building are intended to remain. How will the building be modified to comply with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d requiring a cohesive, visually interesting, and attractive appearance? Again, this is an existing condition on the tiki deck and we are not touching the tiki deck due to FEMA rules. Setbacks — No documentation has been presented as to how the west side setback was approved at a zero setback. Need to present justification for the west side and the rear setback reductions to zero feet. Again, this is an existing condition of the building that was approved by the planning board in 1998, which is also why the current garage is so close to the road. The plans were passed by the planning board, the plans were approved by the city and it was built in accordance with that plan. This again, has nothing to do with the new proposed building which is on the other side of the property and has the required side setback. See DCAB Action #V -98 -05 where all of this was approved. Existing off - street loading and unloading blocks traffic circulation. This proposal does not address the existing problems I have no idea how to answer this. If off - street loading and unloading is illegal then they should be ticketed by the police, but the fact of the matter is that it is done routinely all over the beach. Our new building has nothing in it that requires deliveries and will not increase the number of deliveries made to the site. All deliveries will be handled exactly the way they have been handled for the past 30 years. As an aside, 99% of deliveries to Shephard's are made prior to 11:00 in the morning and most are prior to 9:00. Additionally, Level 5 will be considered an Indoor Recreational/Entertainment use requiring 10 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet of gross floor area for Level 5 and the spa on Level 14 will be considered Retail Sales and Services use, requiring five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Disagree — This space is accessory space as are things normally found in a midpriced, mid sized hotel. Response: To be addressed by the Owner or his Attorney. 23. Response to General Applicability criteria #2 - a. Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; and. Shephard's general manager, Paul Andrews, as physically counted these spaces twice and has provided an affidavit as to the 192 spaces. i. Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; Response: When we tear down the old section we are moving the lobby into the old building where it will remain after the new building is constructed. There is no internal corridor to the new building. We cannot but the lobby on the first floor of the new building as it would violate FEMA. We want the lobby to stay in the old building. Is this okay? % 0 0 38. Based on the submitted survey, prior case photos of this site, site inspections of the property and permits indicated in our computer reveals many structures have been constructed without the benefit of building permits; a. two wood pergolas southwest of the pool that provide couch seating areas; b. the roof of the bandshell structures on the dock/deck have been reconstructed to have metal roofs; and C. cloth covered canopies have been added throughout the site that are not indicated on the survey. Unless issued permits can be produced for such structures, new permits for such structures must be submitted within 30 days of this DRC meeting, and will include any penalty fees for such. Response: The roof on the bandshell was constructed without a permit as it was an emergency repair. Shephard will have someone go to the building department and deal with this and the other two issues as a part of the existing Tiki Bar. He will do that next week sometime. That will be less than 30 days before the CDB in July, don't want to miss that one. We already waited past the July one to wait for Wayne to return. Shephard has not been cited by code enforcement for any of these. Additionally, Level 5 will be considered an Indoor Recreational /Entertainment use requiring 10 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet of gross floor area for Level 5 and the spa on Level 14 will be considered Retail Sales and Services use, requiring five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Disagree — This space is accessory space as are things normally found in a midpriced, mid sized hotel. FAR was not counted against the Kendall Hotel or the Holiday Inn. Parking for FAR was never even mentioned. f. Parking Demand — It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted. Ensure the nightclub square footage includes both levels of the nightclub, as posted the capacity is 523 persons in the nightclub; (5/4/09 — WW — No response — study now no longer indicates the square footage of retail, only stating "a small retail gift shop." Square footage of nightclub unchanged at 2,300sf; architectural plans indicate much larger than 2,300sf.)- Architectural plans for the ground level indicates vehicle stacking at entrance. Unclear how this will actually work, since visual inspection of the property has shown that, at least on the weekends, onsite parking is full and driveways are coned off /closed. Proposal is to increase the number of hotel rooms from 96 to 226 rooms (an increase of 130 rooms), in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, outdoor tiki bar and ballroom. Proposed parking is supposedly 318 striped spaces and 66 overflow for a total of 384 parking spaces (can't confirm these numbers of parking spaces based on the plans submitted), provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site where all parking will be valet only. Provided vehicular stacking for valet parking still appears woefully insufficient to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. Response: Again, this is a parking issue and we far exceed code. Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory uses, or as a mid - priced hotel with accessory uses sized to primarily meet the needs of the hotel guests. — The new hotel will be a 3 -star hotel which is typical of a mid - priced hotel. There will be meeting space in the new structure to help the hotel market to the business community. In order to survive in the hotel business, it has to be able to fill rooms Monday through Thursday and the primary source for renting during the week is business meeting. There is also a small workout room that the traveling business man wants to be sure the hotel can provide. The meeting rooms and workout room are entirely for the use of the hotel guests. • Wells, Wayne From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:03 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Tefft, Robert Subject: A04- 01420: DVA2008 -0002, Shepard's • I received a letter faxed from Harry Cline with a number of attachments. I am forwarding you the letter. In the letter, Harry states: City Planning has raised 2 questions: 1. Is there an outstanding mortgage interest to be dealt with from the sending property? 2. Is there a need to put a restriction on the sending parcel? [Not specified which one]. "this is something we cannot do, and I do not think required by Code since the recorded deed of conveyance reveals the TDR." Tidemark does not show these comments per se. Can you enlighten me as to what comments Planning may have made that he is addressing and to which I will now need to respond? Thanks Leslie K. Dougall -Sides Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 (727) 562 -4010 phone (727) 562 -4021 fax Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law Admitted in Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia Senior Professional in Human Resources 1 • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:53 AM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Cc: Joe Burdette (E -mail) Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Keith - • Attached are the Draft DRC comments for the above referenced project, to be reviewed by the DRC in our offices tomorrow, May 7, 2009, at 10:25 am. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 draft 5.7.09 c action agenda 5 � Page 1 of 3 Wells, Wayne From: Keith Zayac [keith @keithzayac.com] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:56 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: 0820_SBR Theoretical Building Envelope Study 040109 -1 Just passing information on to the architects. I didn't really look at it that close, but it is good info to know that it doesn't make sense. Keith E. Zayac, PE, RLA, LEED AP President Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (727)793-9888 Phone (727)793-9855 fax From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:02 AM To: keith @keithzayac.com Subject: 0820_SBR Theoretical Building Envelope Study 040109 -1 No, I only need it for my original package (no other DRC member deals with such). I will include this as part of your submission. I will tell you that it doesn't make sense. You sent this to Bill Mills as an example for 101 Coronado, he sent it to me and he was confused. I sent him the one that was done for 100 Coronado and told him how I would do it for 101 Coronado. 4/14/2009 Page 2 of 3 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Zayac [mai Ito: keith @keithzayac.com] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:46 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: 0820_SBR Theorethical Building Envelope Study 040109 -1 Wayne, I think I left this out of the Shephards submittal. Do you need 15 copies? Keith E. Zayac, PE, RI.A, LEED AP President Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (727)793-9888 Phone (727)793-9855 fax From: Daniel Knopman [mailto:dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009.4:04. PM To: keith @keithzayac.com Cc: 'Oscar Garcia'; 'Carpelo Jeoboam'; Hunraf @aol.com Subject: 0820_SBR Theorethical Building Envelope Study 040109 -1 Keith, The attached sketch is referenced in Exhibit "D" and should be included. Oscar has suggested that we forward PDF's or have one set printed with the printer for review prior sending everything to the printer and then possibly having to make changes again. If this is acceptable to you, we will proceed in the direction. 4/14/2009 0 • Page 3 of 3 Daniel J. Knopman Senior Associate Director of Operations 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, FI 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www.garciaarchitect.com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following: 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period. of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender. 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and /or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender., Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects.. Reuse. or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any. attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full. responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 7. . NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR 1. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED ©2007. Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems. From: Brett Hertzler [ mailto:bh @garciaarchitect.com]. Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:42 PM To: Daniel Knopman Subject: 4/14/2009 F-.� Keith Zavac & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning April 9, 2009 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner M Planning Department - City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 • 701 S. Enterprise Road E., Ste 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 793 -9888 Phone (727) 793 -9855 Fax keith@keithMac.com EB 9351 LC2600021.2 Re: Shephard's Beach Resort OIG Project #0820 Development Review Committee Submittal — Responses Case No.: FLD2008 -12033 Dear Mr. Wells: We are pleased to resubmit the Shephard's Beach Resort to the City of Clearwater for final DRC review. The project team has made certain modifications to the design in order to conform to the requirements of Beach by Design, City Comments, or programmatic requirements. Some of the changes that are important to address are as follows: 1. The layout of the existing west building containing Bar, Nightclub, Restaurant, Meeting Space, and Guest Rooms will remain unchanged in terms of programming, layout, or planning. 2. The exterior stair on the east side of the existing building will be removed. 3. The exterior of the existing building will have all vinyl siding removed. All substrate will be inspected and patch if need be in order to prepare the stucco for painting. The building will then be repainted white to match the new tower being submitted. 4. The existing parking garage will be fitted with wire mesh panels in order to tie its appearance into the new tower. 5. The existing railing on the existing building will remain unchanged. 6. The cupola's on the existing building will be removed and new architectural elements will be introduced in there place in order to tie the context of the new building and existing building together. 7. A portion of the existing two story hotel containing the Tiki bar, support for the Tiki Bar, and restrooms will be retained, while the remainder of the building will be demolished. Coven the timing and permitting for this work the renovation will meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code for renovations costing less than 50% of value of the existing structure, and will not require modification to modify this portion of the work for FEMA or ADA guidelines. 8. While one floor of guestroom has been deleted in the new tower, the height and will remain the same. 9. The new building will contain 180 keys (guest rooms). The existing building will contain 46 keys (guest rooms). 10. The number of cars has been reduced in the new garage. The parking count for the new garage is as follows: 126 standard/tandem parking spaces, and 38 overflow parking spaces for a total of 164 spaces. e� ;On r LD C:) 4' We are pleased to resubmit the Shephard's Beach Resort to the City of Clearwater for final DRC review. The project team has made certain modifications to the design in order to conform to the requirements of Beach by Design, City Comments, or programmatic requirements. Some of the changes that are important to address are as follows: 1. The layout of the existing west building containing Bar, Nightclub, Restaurant, Meeting Space, and Guest Rooms will remain unchanged in terms of programming, layout, or planning. 2. The exterior stair on the east side of the existing building will be removed. 3. The exterior of the existing building will have all vinyl siding removed. All substrate will be inspected and patch if need be in order to prepare the stucco for painting. The building will then be repainted white to match the new tower being submitted. 4. The existing parking garage will be fitted with wire mesh panels in order to tie its appearance into the new tower. 5. The existing railing on the existing building will remain unchanged. 6. The cupola's on the existing building will be removed and new architectural elements will be introduced in there place in order to tie the context of the new building and existing building together. 7. A portion of the existing two story hotel containing the Tiki bar, support for the Tiki Bar, and restrooms will be retained, while the remainder of the building will be demolished. Coven the timing and permitting for this work the renovation will meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code for renovations costing less than 50% of value of the existing structure, and will not require modification to modify this portion of the work for FEMA or ADA guidelines. 8. While one floor of guestroom has been deleted in the new tower, the height and will remain the same. 9. The new building will contain 180 keys (guest rooms). The existing building will contain 46 keys (guest rooms). 10. The number of cars has been reduced in the new garage. The parking count for the new garage is as follows: 126 standard/tandem parking spaces, and 38 overflow parking spaces for a total of 164 spaces. co n (n 5 , STO ::3 C', v( . , -.�• .�!=. ' ", 1.;•� .,. .t� . °a sf '- -17F:" 1. ;r' . ,f - }. rr. r. .« t .. ,_ ... -_ .;1 —�' ' ^�._' 'I• lI`il t .r- 1•;, ..tR" U. - ? a - r. ..t '.t !_. .i" .. '• ne 'it. ... i t. . e .� -i •'!; , .. . .... 1• 'i'ir .. 1. �� e.h:'1} 1• .. •��P'i. l- .., " Pji: .. ,. � !iii / .. f - 1 f- _�+ .. f. . i• !i 3 ti It f.r i.s`• ��iii• } .�. ': ::�, t'.. ? .. r �rl• ! '�) .. Pr.." .�'T'�_ •t• t,j11 / in •? t)1.. .. - .!'YL 7,) 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 2 of 19 11. The fifth floor which was previously devoted to parking has been changed to ballroom, meeting rooms, and support services. GENERAL ENGINEERING 1. Prior to review by Community Development Board. _ -) ; tA 1.1 Explain how differing slopes of the east and west ramps in the parking CX �- garage in the new building function. C) Response: The east ramp is a speed ramp and has a maximum slope of 12% with z a 6% blend slope at the top and bottom. The speed ramp is located in the same position on each of the floors from the ground floor through fourth floors. The west ramp has a maximum slope of 5% and engages parking on both sides of the ramp. 1.2 Explain how existing bandstand and deck conform to the existing "Permanent Nonexclusive Easement for Public Beach and Construction of a Protective beach Berm," as recorded in Official Records Book 5776, Pages 115 -124. Response. The existing bandstand is not part of this submittal, as no changes the existing structure or use is being requested Prior to issuance of a Building Permit: 1. Turning radii at all driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet per City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #108. Response: The parking garage turning radii and drop off are shown on Sheet All of the attached DRC submittal drawings and reflect a turning radii of 30 feet or greater. The site radii within the drop off area are also shown on the civil site plan. Urban flares have been used at the entrance driveway based on coordination with the City Beach Walk construction staff. 2. Show on the plans the location of solid waste staging and pick -up area(s). Response. The solid waste staging and pickup areas are shown on the civil site plans and Sheet All of the attached DRC submittal drawings. The location is not proposed to change from the existing location. 3. Grease trap locations shall be shown on the plans for any proposed restaurant/food service occupancies. Response. Please refer to sheet C -6 of the Civil Engineering drawings for the locations of the existing grease trap locations as well as the new grease trap location. 4. A separate tap on the water main shall be made for potable water service for the building; domestic and fire water cannot share same tap on main. Response: The fire and potable taps have been separated 5. Installation of a new sanitary manhole over existing 8 -inch sewer main will require the use of a doghouse manhole. Provide a detail for doghouse manhole that shows installation of a precast or poured in place concrete slab under the manhole. Response. A doghouse manhole detail has been added to the detail sheet. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 3 of 19 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. Response. The Owner or his agent will make the appropriate submittals and request the proper inspections prior to his request for a Certificate of Occupancy. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Prior to review by Community Development Board: r01�i4 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. Response: The stormwater vault has been revised to a vault within the parking garage and exterior vault. A cross section of the vault systems have been added to the civil plans. 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the Owner. Response. Prior to construction plan approval a proposed maintenance schedule will be submitted along with the SWFWMD approval. 1. Architectural plan in existing building shows new assembly area capable of holding more than 100 people and as such this building needs to be sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. Per the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2007 edition. Acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. Response. The plans no longer show the new assembly area in the existing building capable of holding more than 100 people As such no provisions are being made to upgrade the fire sprinkler system for the existing structures as they will remain unaffected by this submittal. 2. Must meet the requirements of Ordinance NO.7617 -06 Radio System Regulations for Buildings. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. Response. The Owner will meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 7617 -06, complying with the Radio System Regulations for Buildings with the completion of the construction of the building. 3. This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections, plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on Utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building. Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Civil plan sheet C -6 shows the fire connection to the public water system, hydrant locations, and FDC locations. The FDC connections Pig 0 -,r a .6 z w • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 4 of 19 Response: A new fire hydrant has been added to Utility Plan. 8. Fire Department Connections shall be identified by a sign that states "NO PARKING, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION" and it SHALL be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage. Acknowledge PRIOR TO DRC. Response. Fire department signage will be coordinated with fire department and added to plans prior to building permit submittal LANDSCAPING: 11. Plans call for an underground stormwater vault on the east side of the and internal fire system design will be prepared by the fire protection consultant as part of the building plan submittal: 4. Provide details showing fire lanes being marked with freestanding signs with the wording of "NO PARKING FIRE LANE BY ORDER OF THE FIRE MARSHALL." Acknowledge this PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Details added 5. The existing parking garage has a code deficient sprinkler system and Response: will be required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. J 2. Acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Based on subsequent meetings with the fire department, it was agreed 0 im Response. that since the existing building will not be added on to, or renovated at this time, the existing sprinkler system will be repaired and brought up 3. to code over time. 6. The center landscape island needs to be to be moved to allow the fire Response: apparatus to use the drive as a Tee Turn. Acknowledge PRIOR TO �4. CDB. Response: Center Landscape Island has been relocated to allow Fire Department access 7. Add a new fire hydrant at the drive entrance. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. Response: A new fire hydrant has been added to Utility Plan. 8. Fire Department Connections shall be identified by a sign that states "NO PARKING, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION" and it SHALL be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage. Acknowledge PRIOR TO DRC. Response. Fire department signage will be coordinated with fire department and added to plans prior to building permit submittal LANDSCAPING: 11. Plans call for an underground stormwater vault on the east side of the ® ' ® �. C) ' __@ Ct new building that is a minimum of 18 -inch below ground (typically 24- inches below ground). Location of such vault disallows any significant landscape plantings. Additionally, building plans indicate an awning possibly 10 feet above the ground elevation on the east side of the building. Proposal is to place palm trees, which must have a 10 -foot clear trunk, next to the building, which will be under the awning. This will not work. Revise. Response: The vault and landscaping have been revised and coordinated J 2. Sheet C4 — Foundation landscaping cannot be counted toward interior landscape area. Revise. Response. Foundation landscape areas have been deleted from interior landscape counts. 3. Sheet C 10 — Irrigation notes need to reflect this project is within the City of Clearwater and not under County jurisdiction. Response: Note has been revised �4. Sheet C9 — Given the existing nature of the business of the property and the proposed revisions, is it realistic to expect cutouts in the deck within the paver areas will remain long -term as landscaping with India Hawthorn. If not realistic, revise. Raised planters with built -in seating probably make better sense, whether located adjacent to the ® ' ® �. C) ' __@ Ct w • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 5 of 19 existing/proposed building or to the seawall. Pedestrian flow needs to be considered. Response. Landscaping has been deleted and replaced with pavers. 5. Sheet C9- Revise for the following: a. Proposed Plant List indicates 215 RI, but the plan indicates 230 RI. b. Existing Plant Materials indicate 16 NO, but the plans indicate 83 NO. C. Existing Plant Material indicates 48 VS, but the plan indicates 49 VS. d. Existing Plant Material indicated 1 CV, but plans indicate 16 CV. e. Existing Plant Material indicates 83 PT, but the plans indicate 11 PT. f. Plan indicates 11 PT existing, but does not indicate where these are located; and g. Plan indicates 25 PS existing, but does not indicate where these are located. Response: Plant counts have been revised to reflect updated landscape plans. PARKS AND RECREATION• 1. The Public Art Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to the issuance of building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at (727) 562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. Response: Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. 2. Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at (727) 562 -4818 to calculate assessment. Response: Acknowledged, the Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. STORMWATER: The following shall be addressed prior to CDB: 1. According to the vault cross - section provided, the vault does not provide sufficient volume and does not fit into the area provided between the east property line and the building footprint. Response. The vault has been revised to a structural vault within the parking garage and a smaller underground system outside the building. 2. It appears that the thickness of the vault and the modules inside the vault take up substantial amount of the vault's volume. Will a larger vault be provided to address these issues? Response: The vault calculations have been revised to include the 10% loss factor as indicated by the enclosed manufacturers information. 3. The proposed project is located on the section of Gulfview Blvd. that the City plans to improve. The project is at 90% design phase. Please contact the City project manager, Melvin Macioleck at (727) 562 -4750 to 001 0 0 ,� s • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 6 of 19 obtain the latest plan and coordinate the design of the proposed driveways with the City's plans. Response: We spoke with the project manager and obtained latest plans. It is noted that the driveway has been revised to an urban flare to match. The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of Building Permit: 1. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. Response: Control structure detail has been augmented with additional dimensions. 2. Please account the thickness of the vault in the design of the control structure, invert, top of vault, and other structures connected to the vault. Response: Calculations for the new system are incorporated in this submittal. 3. Provide an east to west and a north to south cross - section of the proposed vault with detailed information showing how this vault is to be constructed. Response: Cross section and details have been added to civil plans. 4. Proposed trench drains shall have an adequate slope to drain runoff to the vault. Response: Trench drains have internal slopes that are built into drains. 5. Please provide a detail of the Zurn trench drain. Cross - sections shall show invert elevations and clearance between the 10" PVC pipe and the trench drain. Response: A detail of the trench drain has been added along with inverts and clearances. 6. Invert elevation of structures shall indicate whether it is North, South, East, or West. Response. Direction of inverts added 7. Provide the buoyancy calculations supportive by the soil analysis performed at the proposed vault. Response. The vault is not located below the water table and therefore will not be subject to buoyancy. 8. Provide north -south cross section at the two proposed driveways. Show that the proposed trench drains effectively intercept the runoff before overflowing to the right -of -way. Response. A north -south cross section of the driveway has been added A 12" wide drain has been used to facilitate collection of stormwater runoff, rather than a smaller trench drain. 9. The proposed curb at the western driveway blocks runoff from draining into the existing inlet. It appears that this inlet is to keep the existing garage directly west of it from flooding. Please redesign the curb and provide an east -west cross - section at this location showing that no additional runoff generated from the redeveloped area be contributed to this low area. Response: Area has been revised and a cross section provided General Note. 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a building permit. Response. Acknowledged i"On C7) . CW.J y� City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 7 of 19 2. At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any other drainage related document for review and record. Response: Acknowledged TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: 1. D Driveways shall be limited to one vehicle at a time both for ingress driveway and egress driveway. Response. D Driveways have been reduced to 24 feet in width to allow adequate room for one car along with fire truck access and limousine access. 2. R Reduce the width of both driveways to be a maximum of 12' wide or the minimum width for fire lanes that may be required by the City of Clearwater Fire Department. Response. A Access width has been reduced to 24 feet wide to provide for fire truck and limousine access. 3. P Provide curb radius of 30' for all driveways. Response. B Based on coordination with engineering department, entrance driveways have been revised to urban flares to match City improvements. 4. T To provide a t -turn for Fire Department vehicles and tour busses and to reduce vehicle conflict points in this area, the applicant shall move the interior landscape island north to eliminate the east/west drive aisle and align the south curb of the landscaped island with the north curb line of o o the access aisle into the new parking garage. 0 Response: I Interior Landscape Island has been relocated M �1 0 c City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 8of19 PARKING SYSTEM COMMENTS. The following items shall be addressed prior to review by the Community Development Board. 1. Removal of wheel stops — use continuous curbing instead as wheel stops cannot be permanently affixed to the structure and become a liability. Response: Wheel stops have been removed from the plans. 2. Permanent concrete bollards should be planned in the design to protect the service area (i.e., stairwells, elevators, etc.). Bollards most likely will not be able to be installed properly due to the tendons in the decking. Response. Bollards are now shown on the plans and will be coordinated in the Contract Documents so that they will not conflict with the reinforcing systems. 3. How will vehicles queue for the valet stacking of up to 28 vehicles in the porte - cochere area? Response: Vehicular queuing has been added to the plans and is shown on Site Plan. 4. Will there be a fee for parking and how /where will that be collected? Response. The Owner does not currently charge a fee for valet parking, and has not indicated that they have any immediate plans to change their business plan in relation to this application. If the Owner decides in the van accessible parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.22 Clear Height. Response: The code required minimum clear heights will be maintained in the garage. 9. Depict on a plan how vehicles will queue in front of the building while awaiting valet service. This design shall take into consideration the Fire Department's requirements for establishment of fire lanes in front of the building. Response: Vehicular queue is shown on Site Plan. 10. As there is no loading space shown on the plans, describe how deliveries will be made to the building. Response. The property currently receives deliveries via a curb cut and driveway on the west side of the existing building. No changes to the current operational plan for receiving of goods and services are anticipated with this application. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development (CDB) hearing. a General Note(s): ®. F 4.A 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: The Owner or his representative will address this requirement as the project progresses. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for building permit review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a building permit application. Response. Acknowledged PARKING SYSTEM COMMENTS. The following items shall be addressed prior to review by the Community Development Board. 1. Removal of wheel stops — use continuous curbing instead as wheel stops cannot be permanently affixed to the structure and become a liability. Response: Wheel stops have been removed from the plans. 2. Permanent concrete bollards should be planned in the design to protect the service area (i.e., stairwells, elevators, etc.). Bollards most likely will not be able to be installed properly due to the tendons in the decking. Response. Bollards are now shown on the plans and will be coordinated in the Contract Documents so that they will not conflict with the reinforcing systems. 3. How will vehicles queue for the valet stacking of up to 28 vehicles in the porte - cochere area? Response: Vehicular queuing has been added to the plans and is shown on Site Plan. 4. Will there be a fee for parking and how /where will that be collected? Response. The Owner does not currently charge a fee for valet parking, and has not indicated that they have any immediate plans to change their business plan in relation to this application. If the Owner decides in • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 9 of 19 5. Response: PLANNING: ,/1. Response: .%2. esponse: 3. Response. 4. v Response: 5. Response: J6. • the future to re- address his business model, he will address this matter accordingly at that time. The parking study states 40% of staff will require parking. Where will the other staff member park? Shephard's Beach Resort staff will be ineligible to participate in the Beach Employee Parking Permit Program even if the program is not maxed out/closed. The parking study indicates that 40% of the staff will require parking on the property. This anticipates that the remaining employees will continue to car pool or utilizes public transportation. The Owner will not be requesting eligibility for participation in ht a Beach Employee Parking Permit Program. Drive aisle into the new parking garage is proposed at a zero front setback. This is where turning movements are the greatest with no protection to pedestrians walking on the public sidewalk. Staff will not support this proposed from setback from pavement. Drive aisle has been revised to a5.2' front setback Sheet C4 — General Site Note #15 — Note appears to conflict with proposed trash staging area next to S. Gulfview Blvd. My understanding is that the existing trash facilities on the west side will be used. Need to show such dumpster and any enclosure. Unclear why a new trash staging area is needed. If not needed, remove trash staging area. Trash staging area has been removed Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. Acknowledged Sheets C3 -C6 and C9 — Increase size of the written material on the plan itself (too small to read; scanning will not help future readability). Font size increased, and scale of plans revised to 1 " =20 Sheet C4 — General Site Note #5 — Revise for the following: a. Zoning of the property includes 2.3x (fill in the "x" — see comment below regarding acreage discrepancies) acres zoned Tourist (T) District and 0.30x (fill in the "x" — see comment below regarding acreage discrepancies) acres zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District; �b Future Land Use needs to include Preservation (for that zoned OS/R); and c. There are only 96 existing units (not 97 units). Notes have been revised and moved to C2 Sheet C4 — General Site Note #7 — Revise for the following: a. The total land area of 116,937 square feet (or 2.6845 acres) does not match the 2.689 acres indicated by the surveyor; b. The site for "T" zoning of 102,663 square feet (or 2.3568 acres) does not match the 2.37 acres indicated by the surveyor; c. The site area for "OS/R" zoning of 14,275 square feet (or 0.3227 acres) does not match the 0.319 acres indicated by the surveyor; s City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 10 of 19 Response: (0 Response. J Response. 9. Response. 9. Response. 10. d onse: 11. fteVonse: 12. • d.. All of the above must be correctly calculated, as the proposed number of hotel rooms does not work if the site area for "T" zoning is actually 2.35 acres (only produces 117 rooms at 50 units per acre); e. The entire site will be evaluated for compliance with Code provisions. Remove the line for "Project Area for "T" Zoning" Notes have been revised and moved to C2 Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular code is four feet; maximum of six feet under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. A separate comprehensive sign program application will be submitted to bring signage into compliance. All electric and communication lines must be underground. Include a note regarding such. Note added to Utility Plan. Proposal is to increase the hotel to 226 rooms in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, and ballroom. All 366 parking spaces provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site will be valet only. Provided vehicular stacking for valet parking for valet parking is woefully insufficient to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. Indicate all stacking spaces on the Plan. Revise. Vehicular queue shown on Site Plan. Sheet C4 — General Site Note #I I a. Number this as #11; b. The entire site will be evaluated for compliance with Code provisions. Remove the line for `B. Project Area "; c. Provide site data (existing and proposed) for the 2.35 acre area of the site zoned Tourist District for Items C -I. Data provided is inaccurate; and d. Item J — Required is 50 units /acre, which produces 117 units. Notes have been revised and moved to C2 Sheet C5 — Provide proposed grades for the area around the pool deck and paver decking along the south between the building and the seawall. Additional grades have been added to CS Sheet C4 — Second General Site Note #6- a. Change to Note #8; and b. Existing Conditions — provide the side (west) setback to pavement Note changed and west setback to pavement added There are portions of the existing building to remain to be demolished and additions proposed, as well as changes to the existing parking garage (ground floor). Need to reflect such changes to these existing structures on the site plan, as the entire site is being evaluated. On Sheet C3, remove the words "project limits" and the dashed line delineating such. . 0` < 7 LU 0 1 • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 11 of 19 Response. The "project limits" note and line have been removed from plans. The work within the building envelopes are shown on the enclosed architectural plans. Any modifications to the first floor are graphically shown on the first floor; however the details will be shown on the architectural plans. 13. While truck loading space(s) is required, deliveries to this site block driveways. On my site visit on 12/31/08, an 18- wheeler was parked in the northern drive aisle on the north side of the parking garage making a delivery (backed in) and a beer truck had the entrance driveway (middle driveway) completely blocked by the truck and beer kegs. This proposal is to retain the existing popular (accessory) nightclub and restaurant, provide a new ballroom, and expand the rooms from 96 to 226. Unclear where or how deliveries of food, beer, and hotel materials will be handled. Today's circumstance is inadequate and a bad situation appears to be getting worse. Revise /advise. Response. The Owner has indicated that there are no additional new facilities (L a, bars or restaurant space) imposing a demand for deliveries on the property, and their current methodology for deliveries and operations will remain unchanged with the inclusion of the proposed tower and meeting facilities. 14 Proposed parking space number of 366 spaces cannot be confirmed. Revise for the following: a. Some parking is not shown, such as on the ramp to Level B in the existing garage. Provide a parking plan for each floor, including the existing garage, numbering each space; b. Architectural plans propose parking spaces in the drive aisles "as of right" not in an overflow situation when operating at peak demand. Other recently approved hotel projects on the beach have provided a plan showing "normal" parking (including tandem parking spaces) and an additional plan showing overflow parking in drive aisles when at peak demand. Number spaces on each plan; c. Sheet A -11 — Parking in the existing garage on Level A in th northern portion of the garage does not presently exist, requiring tho removal of a wall and eliminating a storage area to create these fives spaces. The northern two parking spaces don't function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements, except to the southern portion of the garage. Staff will not accept designing nonfunctional parking in any garage, regardless if it is valet -only; d. Parking spaces #8 -9 (Sheet A -11) in the new garage do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements; e. Tandem parking spaces inappropriately block adjacent parking in perpendicular parking rows, such as on Sheet A -12, spaces #20 -22 blocking space #29; f. Parking spaces #185 -187 (Sheet A -15) in the new garage do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements; g. Sheet A -16 — Three parking spaces are shown on the north end of the upper level of the existing parking garage, which do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements. Additionally, a column is located within the southernmost space. e� C:n..t � A c .1J. tw Vii, City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 12 of 19 • Additionally, columns are shown within spaces on the southern portion of this level of the existing parking garage; and Response: For items a, b, c, d, e, f & g, please refer to amended plans for LU clarification of overflow and normal parking. h. Provide a better table than provided on sheet A -I1 that includes the number of hotel units and parking spaces in the existing building/garage. Ensure the numbers in the table are correct. Response. Please refer to attached traffic impact study guide and civil site plan sheet C -4. 15. Application and Sheet C4 indicates a total of 226 rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown. Number the rooms in the existing building much the same as in the new building. Revise. Response: The number of rooms has been revised on sheet C -2. Provide on sheet PC4 a calculation of hotel density — how you derived the number of hotel units proposed, including the acreage being used to calculate density, the number of units derived by the base density, the number of units being requested from the reserve pool, and the number of units derived by TDR's. Include an overall density calculation based on the land area zoned Tourist District ftesponse. The number of rooms has been revised on sheet C -2. 16. Civil plans need to indicate the existing wall along the west property line ( ?) and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any "variance" granted). Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. ponse: A density calculation has been added to sheet C-4. 17. Architectural plans — Provide station markers on the two planes of the building for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of building elements, especially in relation to property liners. Response: The column grid lines (Station Markers) depicted in the previous DRC submittal has been deleted for clarity. 118. Sheet A -11 — Unclear of the function of the "loading zone" shown. Explain/advise as to what this is for. Response: The area depicted as "loading zone" on the previous DRC submittal drawings, has been removed It is currently anticipated to be a stripped no parking area. There presently exists a wave runner business on the property, as well as Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, surrey, and bikes). Please confirm that these businesses are being removed with this proposal or, if proposed to be retained, show the location of the waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals, including all storage of their business material and "vehicles." Fun Ride Rentals currently takes up parking spaces in the existing parking garage. LU a. VE • 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 13 of 19 Response. The plans have been revised to reflect the extent of the occupancy of the Wave Runner business and Fun Ride rentals, along with their associated storage facilities. 20. Sheets C4, A -11 and A -12 — Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimensions these awning project from the building. Response. The extent of the awnings has been reduced to the south side of the building with a small return on the east and west sides of the building. The requested dimensions have been placed on the drawings. 21 Sheet C4 — Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see Sheet A -11). Response. The current submittal includes the existing Tiki Bar to remain and a small bar on the second floor of the remaining building. All other bars have been removed from the plans. The paved area under the new building may be used for outdoor seating. 422. Sheet C4 — Unclear the information the setback from the seawall of 37.52 feet is indicating, since there are structural columns closer to the seawall than the stairwell. Suggest removing this dimension. Response. The Architectural and civil plans have been amended and coordinated to reflect the current proposed placement of the building and its / associated distance from the retaining wall, J 23. Sheet A -15 — Unclear what the dashed lines on the south side of the proposed building depict, as well as the dashed lines south of parking space #185, as there are no structures at or below this floor with these configurations. Suggest removing these dashed lines. Response. The dashed lines on Sheet A -15 depict the balconies overhanging the 424. floor above. Sheet A -16 — Indicate what will divide the balconies between units in the proposed building (elevations appear to indicate floor to ceiling walls). Response. Sheet A -16 has been revised to clarify the materials separating the balconies. Some of the balconies are floor to ceiling walls, while some r of the balconies are separated by opaque glazed balcony dividers. d 25. Section C.2 of Beach by Design guidelines prohibits any plane of a building to continue uninterrupted without a minimum five -foot offset for one hundred feet of the building. The east and west sides of the new building have planes of 120 feet, not meeting this requirement. It is noted that notes on the floor /level plans and elevations indicate that th balconies are offset from floors 12 -14. These are only offset by two feet2 and do not meet the offset required by this provision. Revise. It is also noted that the western plan of the existing hotel building and existing, garage both do not meet this provision, having planes of 132 feet and 152 feet respectively. Revisions are necessary to this western plan of these structures also. Response. The plans and elevations have been revised to more accurately address Section C2 of the Beach by Design Guidelines. g6-) Sheet A -11 — Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any television or refrigerators), and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. c.; ot';, o uw 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 14 of 19 Response. The Cabanas are intended for daily use by the guest of the hotel The finishes for these features will be pavers for the floors, and stucco and / paint for the walls. They are not intended to have any other amenities. 27. V Wheel stops are not required for any parking spaces in either parking garage. Response: Wheel stops have been removed from the plans in both parking garages. 28. Sheets A -20 and A -20B — Unclear of the intention of the verbiage at the bottom of the elevation regarding "new bandshell," since no new bandshell is shown. Advise /remove verbiage. Response. The existing bandstand is not part of this submittal, as no changes the existing structure or use is being requested 29. Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities ® " C) ® (William M. Shephard, Trustee, and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. W C%-J [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name. The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this one under one ownership and one parcel number. Response: Based on subsequent meetings the ownership entity has been resolved and shown on sheet C2 30. J Based on a site inspection the northern, egress drive from the existing parking garage does not appear to be such today. The "connection" between the parking garage and the entrance driveway to this site is constructed of turf block and there appears to be a significant slope to this dive. Today it does not function as such, being blocked by Fun Ride Rentals. Unclear if this really is an existing egress drive, whether it needs to be an egress drive and whether it can function as such due to the slope. Ground level parking within the existing parking garage appears to be able to function without this egress drive. Advise/Revise. Response: Sheet A -T/ of the attached DRC drawings continue to show the northern most access to the existing garage as being in- accessible. This was done to allow for access of cars and emergency vehicles while developing afire lane and queuing for valet. 31. Sheet A -00 — I realize that there is some architectural license being taken here with the perspective drawings provided, but the trees depicted do not match that indicated on the landscape plan. There needs to be a reasonable resemblance to the proposed plans, otherwise it gives a false impression. As an example, the right hand perspective looking northeast shows trees on the west side of the existing building. These trees must be located on the adjacent site (Holiday Inn), as there are no trees existing or proposed on this side. Response. The renderings were prepared to illustrate the character and architectural expression of the project. While we have amended the renderings to more closely depict the landscaping being shown on the Landscape Plans, the Landscape should be used to illustrate the code planting for the project. 32. Jrequired Sheet A -I1 — Is the existing Tiki bar on the south side of the existing nightclub, which shows up on the survey, being removed? 4 6V ® " C) ® r a � W C%-J C_Ul • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 15 of 19 Response. 33. J Response. 34. J Response. 35. Response. 36. Response. 37. • There is not a Tiki Bar currently shown on the South side of the existing nightclub. There is however, a Tiki bar attached to the existing two story wing of the hotel, as well as a free standing portable structure south east of Tiki bar and north of the bandshelb The free standing portable structure will be demolished and is not part of this application. Sheet A -11 — Unclear if in the proposed building what is shown in the north side of the BOH (trash dumpster and trash chute). Looking at Sheets A -16 — A -19, unclear what is meant by "T.C." and "L.C." (trash chute and laundry chute ?). A small rolling dumpster will be placed on the ground floor of the new building, while the T.C. and L.C. reflect the placement of a Trash Chute and Linen Chute. Sheet A -11 — Plan needs to clearly delineate and note what changes are occurring with the existing building, as there are existing exterior stairs being removed from the east side of the building and apparently being replaced with a new interior stairwell. The grill and bar #1 is new. Additionally, based on existing conditions, there is new parking being proposed in the west side of the existing parking garage, as it presently is a storage room. Further, the existing loading on the west side is not loading, but rather the compactor dumpster and outdoor storage. Ant loading occurs in the drive on the west side of the existing parking garage. The only change being requested in the existing building containing the dining room, me ting- space, and guest rooms will be the removal of the exterior stairs on the east side of the building. The previously proposed bar #I and grille are no longer being considered for this application. A revision to the amount of demolition of the existing two story wing of the hotel is being considered to include retention of the existing Tiki bar and a portion of the adjacent structure for support services. Loading will continue to occur in the drive on the west side of the property. Sheet A -12 — Roof deck outside new ballroom needs to be indicated as "new." Sheet A -12 no longer reflects a rook deck associated with a new ballroom. No changes from the existing function and spaces on this level are anticipated V Elevations appear to indicate that the existing stairwell at the northeast comer of the existing parking garage will have a vertical angle to the exterior walls on the north and west sides, that does not exist today. Floor plans do not show how this is being accomplished. Is this correct? The plans and elevations have been coordinated for the inclusion of this feature to the existing stair well on the existing parking garage. Sheet A -20 — Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -2213. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildings together as a cohesive unit. fir ® LU C-4 > -N 21 �� r= _ Cn 'sip' c 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 16 of 19 Response. There will not be any changes to the existing railings. The elevations submitted in this package continue to reflect the use of the existing 38. Jrailings. Need to indicate the vertical clearance for vehicles under the porte- cochere on the elevations (Sheets A -2013, A -21B, and A -2213). Response: Please refer to Sheets A -20B, A -21A, and A -22B for the vertical clearance requirements under the Porte Cochere. 09. To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the fagade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on sheet A -30. Response: The renderings were intended to be illustrative and not literal. They have been amended so that they will not create confusion about a future intent. 40 Exhibit B- Section B- Description of Request- Revise for the following: a. First paragraph, third line — There are only 96 rooms existing: b. First paragraph, seventh line — There are not 97 (or 96) rooms to remain, but 40 rooms; c. First paragraph, seventh line — Cannot confirm that there are 179 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; d. Second paragraph — It is noted that under Case TDR2005 -11028 that a total of 15 dwelling units proposed to be transferred to the Shephard's site. The accompanying FLD case was withdrawn as it was not going forward. No review of whether the sending sites from where these dwelling units were being transferred from was completed. Such will be completed with this review; however, there appears to be 10 dwelling units unaccounted for. Please advise; e. Fourth paragraph — Relief #13 is unnecessary, as the Code permits such mechanical enclosure to exceed the height by a maximum of 16 feet; f. Fourth paragraph — Relief #4 is unnecessary, as this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project; and g. Revise request to match what has been prepared by Staff. The application will still need to provide justification for any reduction in setbacks (whether to existing or proposed structures) or increase to height. Response: The renderings were intended to be illustrative and not literal: They have been amended so that they will not create confusion about a future intent 41 Response to General Applicability criteria #I — Revise for the following: 1 a. West — The Holiday Inn is to the west (not Ramada Inn) and proper terminology is a mixed -use (not multi -use); Jb. Fifth paragraph — The project to the west is Entrada (not Estrada); and Expound on HOW this proposal is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, and density of the adjacent properties. Projects within this area can be referenced also, but the criteria require discussion regarding the adjacent properties. Response: Attached response revised C" +r • City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 17 of 19 42. Response to General Applicability criteria #2 — Revise for the following: a. Shephard's is an existing 96 -room hotel (not 97 rooms); b. Cannot confirm that there are 179 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain (it was 179 spaces in the Description of Request); c. I would not characterize the proposed landscaping as "lush." Landscaping proposed is fairly minimal to meet Code; d. (2) All new construction and remodeling must meet current Building Codes. Unclear what this has to do with showing compliance with the criteria; e. (3) Stacking and traffic congestion will not be improved or eliminated (respectively, but rather current issues will be compounded in the negative; f. (4) Since proposed driveways are essentially in their present location, unclear how there will be improved pedestrian flow. It is the City making sidewalk and lighting improvements to Gulfview Blvd.; and g. (5) Unclear how property values will "significantly" increase. What data can you provide from someone in the real estate appraisal business? Otherwise, a revision to the language to state that the construction of the proposed project will have a positive effect on the surrounding property values would be appropriate. Response: I Attached response revised 43. V Response to General Applicability criteria #3 - the City is building the Beach Walk improvements along the frontage of this site, not the applicant, which the City is doing to improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and safety for this portion of S. Gulfview Blvd. as a public improvement. Unclear how the City improvements are being included in this proposal. Res onset Attached response revised 44. Response to General Applicability criteria #4 — Revise for the following: a. (1) Disagree, based on Planning, Traffic and Fire comments, that the proposal "affords ease of movement for pedestrians and vehicles. Based on the proposed increased intensity of the site, with the existing and proposed accessory uses, and the vehicular circulation pattern proposed, the proposal will not reduce traffic backups on S. Gulfview Blvd.; b. (2) There are existing issues with off-street loading and unloading. The proposed driveways will not improve, and may further denigrate, the existing conditions. Response: Attached response revised 45. J Response to General Applicability criteria #5 — Revise for the following" a. First paragraph — The City is making improvements in the right -of- way, not this project. Presently, the scope of work does not include any trees within the widened sidewalk; and b. Second paragraph — The project to the west is approved for mixed - use (not multi -use), but is currently only a hotel (no condominiums). Response: Attached response revised 46. Response to General Applicability criteria #6 — Unclear how the increased intensity of the site will improve or minimize adverse acoustic effects of the outdoor activities, including the bandstand on the dock, for the surrounding area. �n y in 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 18 of 19 Response: Attached response revised 47. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 — Revise for the following: a. Height — Unclear where the 129 units is coming from, since the request is to obtain 100 units from the reserve pool. b. Height — Describe in detail the "reasonable relationship" between the. height increase and the number of units requested; c. Parking — The project is not providing 366 spaces normally (see other Planning comments). Cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing garage. d. Parking — It was my understanding that the parking for this property is valet -only 100% of the time. Unclear where statement of "self parking" on off -peak times is coming from, since the garage does not meet Code parking standards. e. Setbacks — An additional curb will not help the proposed on -site vehicular circulation and it is unclear whether Staff would support another driveway. Staff will not support the requested setback reduction to zero feet to pavement for this drive to the new building parking garage. The curve of this drive is adjacent to the public sidewalk within the right -of -way and is not safe. There is no ability to provide any landscaping at this point. Need to provide detailed justification for all other setbacks to pavement and to building for existing conditions, as the review of this project is for the entire site. 1Response: Attached response revised 48. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 — Revise for the following: a. West — The Holiday Inn is to the west (not Ramada Inn) and proper terminology is a mixed -use )not multi -use); b. The responses do not address the criteria. HOW will this not produce substantial detriment on adjoining properties? Response: / Attached response revised 49. J Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 — Response must detail HOW this proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses. Neither of the other criteria mentioned addressed compatibility. Response: Attached response revised QResponse to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 — Revise for the following: a. Response needs to address HOW the flexibility requested for setbacks and height are justified; b.1. Explain HOW the location of the units provides easy access for all guests to the nearby businesses; b.2. The project has been described as a "world class resort." The Hotel Density Reserve was created for mid -priced hotels. HOW is this, a mid - priced hotel? b.3. Beach by Design B.1 - Revise language from "density pool" to "hotel density reserve "' b.4. Beach by Design B.2 — The Entrada project to the west at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128 feet in height. Additionally, the project at 691 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower 150 feet in •' 4 �' ® c�a 0 0 City of Clearwater Development Review Committee March 18, 2009 Page 19 of 19 height. Provide documentation that neither Option 1 nor 2 apply; b.5. Beach by Design B.3 — This is still part of Beach by Design B.2 and should be renumbered or adjusted appropriately' b.6. Beach by Design B.4 — Renumber to B.3 to correspond to Beach by Design; b.7. Beach by Design B.4 — a) Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan. Unclear what this 19,237 square -foot floor plate is located on; b.8. Beach by Design B.4 — b) The floor plate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided by Beach by Design B.3.c. Unclear how this proposal complies with a tiered effect. Expound; b.9. Beach by Design C.1 — No response has been provided for this provision; b.10. Beach by Design C.2 — The proposal does not comply with this provision (see other Planning comments); b.11. Beach by Design C.3 — Provide the percentage each elevation has, meeting this provision. Include such percentage on each elevation drawing of the architectural plans; b.12. Beach by Design C4. Beach by Design was changes to 45 feet to coordinate the written material with the drawings. Revise calculations based on 45 feet. Provide calculation and a drawing of how the provision has been achieved. b.13. Beach by Design C.5 — The response says it "will be" correlated. Please provide how the proposal HAS been correlated; c. Explain HOW does this design support the established or emerging character of the area; d. Provide a response to this criteria (none provided); e. Landscaping is not working along the east side (see Landscaping comments) and landscaping along S. GU1fView Blvd. is not enhanced when a zero setback to pavement is requested. Response. Attached response revised 51. Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - Application has stated and responded to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Density Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Revise. Provisions are for a mid - priced - hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Response: Response revised and calculations provided Sincerely, CS q t 4�eith E. g; ac, PE, RLA, LEED AP Pile/sident f ey_ _�5 C) From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 6:37 PM To: 'Daniel Knopman' Cc: Hunraf @aol.com; 'Oscar Garcia'; 'Carpelo Jeoboam; Tefft, Robert Subject: 0820_SBR Beach by Design Changes 032609 -1 Daniel - I have looked the east and west elevation material over and brought this up to my administration. It appears that you have resolved the 100 -foot linear plane issue for both the garage levels and the upper levels. I will, however, reserve a final determination on this issue until the larger drawings are submitted to be better able to review the plans.. Any additional information, such as you have provided two elevation information sheets to illustrate compliance with Beach by Design requirements, when you resubmit the application package would be helpful in performing such reviews. Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Daniel Knopman [mailto:dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:16 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Hunraf @aol.com; 'Oscar Garcia'; 'Carpelo Jeoboam' Subject: 0820_SBR Beach by Design Changes 032609 -1 Wayne, I am writing to follow -up on our two prior e- mails, regarding the changes we proposed to the previous DRC submittal to reflect the conformance with Beach by Design. Is there anything else you need from us to render a determination on conformance with the Beach by Design criteria? If there is nothing else you need please let me know if you find the information we provided to you previously acceptable. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman Senior. Associate Director of Operations 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www_g_a..rciaa rch itect. com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following: 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects 3/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and/or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender. Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 7. NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR 1. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED 002007. Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems. 3/27/2009 From: Daniel Knopman [dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:25 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: 'Oscar Garcia; 'Carpelo Jeoboam; Hunraf @aol.com Subject: 0820_SBR Beach by Design Compliance Easat Elevation 032509 -1 Wayne, In support of our DRC application for the Shephard's Beach Resort project, I am enclosing a copy of the vignette showing the changes to the East Elevations of the proposed project for your review. This vignette illustrates the manner in which we are conforming to Beach by Design. Your comments would be welcomed as we are anticipating submittal of these revisions with the April DRC deadline. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman Senior Associate Director of Operations 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www.garciaarchitect.com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following: 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender. 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and/or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender. Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic inedia. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 3/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 7. NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR 1. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR 1. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED ©2007. Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems. From: Brett Hertzler [mailto:bh @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:13 AM To: Daniel Knopman Cc: Oscar Garcia Subject: Shephards Beach by Design Dan Please see attached east vignette. 3/27/2009 . — Beach by Design Compliance EasloElevation Vertical fins break up the elevation. Two vertical sections are recessed 5 ft. leaving an 84' wide projection satisfying the 100ft. maximum horizontal wall requirement. S".0. A 'A. 89'_ I cy 5,-0" - )r)Q) In order to comply with step back '14) requirements, the east elevation is broken into three horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights. 12'-9') stepback @ 43'-8" above ve zone 5-0" stepback @ 82'-4" above ve zone -31V 0, j3,A CofjIC5 A I of tnech 146 -9 to 0 15 of roof ORIGINAL RECEIVED M AR 2 ' 2003, -�.) PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER K � � Page 1 of 2 Wells, Wayne From: Daniel Knopman [dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:28 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Hunraf @aol.com; 'Oscar Garcia; 'Carpelo Jeoboam' Subject: 0820_SBR Beach by Design Compliance 032409 -1 Wayne, I am attaching some modifications to the vignettes we provided to you previously in order to illustrate our compliance with the Beach by Design requirements for th'e Shephard's Beach Resort project. As we complete the development of the east elevation I will forward these to you as well. Please let me know if there is any additional information you may need in order to evaluate these changes. It is our expectation that baring any objections to the offsets in the building, we will be submitting as a group the revised DC drawings to the City by April 2, 2009. Thank you, Daniel J. Knopman Senior Associate Director of Operations ... 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www9ariLoarch itect.com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following: 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender. 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and/or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender. Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 3/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 7. NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED ©2007. Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems. From: Brett Hertzler [mailto:bh @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24,. 2009.12:57 PM. To: Daniel Knopman Cc: Oscar Garcia Subject: Shephards Beach by Design Dan Please see attached west elevation vignette. 3/27/2009 Beach by Desln Compliance WeVElevation Vertical fins break up the elevation. Two 25' wide vertical sections are recessed 5 ft. leaving an 84' wide projection satisfying the 100ft. maximum horizontal wall requirement. 735 9 llg 0 In order to comply with step back requirements, the west elevation is broken into three horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights. 12'-8" stepback @ 43'-8" above ve zone 5'-0" steback @ 82'-4" above ve zone E 51 � 2 8„ Q 0"0" I AX, to of roof "' 146 9� 41 I Pa. � ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAR 2 4 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER b 1 1-12 11 PA. In order to comply witht e 1 maximum horizontal wall, the green wall is divided into three sections. The two end sections rD'-Q" (6'-6" navd) are recessed 5ft. to accentuate the separation. .7 Wells, Wayne From: Joe Burdette [jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:45 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Shephards. Beach Resort Thanks Wayne No problem with. me Joe 0 - - - -- Original. Message---- - From:. Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009.8:05 PM To: dk @garciaarchitect.com Cc: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com; michael.delk @MyClearwater.com; Gina.Clayton @myClearwater.com;. Robert.Tefft @MyClearwater.com Subject: Shephards. Beach. Resort Daniel - I met briefly with Michael Delk today and showed him the plans. When reviewing projects that are subject to the design guidelines of Beach by Design,. application of such regulations must be applied evenly and fairly to all projects. Section C.2 limits. the plane of a building uninterrupted to no more than 100 feet, with at least a minimum of a five -foot offset. There is no variation to this rule available. The east and west sides of the buildings as presented, including the garage levels,. do not comply with this rule. 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus. Database: 270.11.16/2005 - Release Date: 3/16/2009 7:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG.. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus. Database: 270.11.16/2005 - Release Date: 3/16/2009 7:01 PM Wells, Wayne 0 0 From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:05 PM To: 'dk @garciaarchitect.com' Cc: Joe Burdette (E- mail); Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Tefft, Robert Subject: Shephards Beach Resort Daniel - I met briefly with Michael Delk today and showed him the plans. When reviewing projects that are subject to the design guidelines of Beach by Design, application of such regulations must be applied evenly and fairly to all projects. Section C.2 limits the plane of a building uninterrupted to no more than 100 feet, with at least a minimum of a five -foot offset. There is no variation to this rule available. The east and west sides of the buildings as presented, including the garage levels, do not comply with this rule. 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 4 l Beach by Desiln Compliance Wes�Elevation In order to comply with step back requirements, the west elevation is broken into three horizontal segments which are recessed at the required heights. 12' -8" stepback @ 43' -8" above ve zone 5 -0" stepback @ 82` -4" above ve zone �3 U� y eti 11 y,iq 411-6" moo, �. f w yy� f /' -0„ 1 , ^2„ 11'_6„ (ve zone) r k Beach by Desitn Compliance Eas"Elevation Vertical fins break up the elevation in order to comply with the 100ft. maximum horizontal wall. ! I ,r 9� In order to comply with step back requirements, the east elevation is broken into three horizontal segments a�a� which are recessed at the required heights. T -8" stepback @ 43' -8" above ve zone 5 -0" stepback @ 82` -4" above ve zone T t £yk 5 159,-4" to of mo h 14 „tom 29 Q„ Beach by Design Compliance Sou Elevation G In order to compl, requirements the OVL LI IV-- OL k V1Ilul to broken into four horizontal segments which are recessed at the - required heights. 10' -0" - 12` -0" stepback @ 43' -8" above ve zone 2' -0" stepback @ 82' -4" above ve zone 0' -10" - 2' -10" stepback @ 111 " -4" above ve zone Ir ;. Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Brett Hertzler [bh @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 10:22 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Shephards Beach Resort Mr. Wells, Please see attached renderings of the roof top bar. The images are for your meeting with Dan at 11:00. Thank You, Brett Hertzler 3/16/2009 A qk 0 0 '44w, WIN- \S F bt.- /// Fj 3? 3p . Page 1 of 4 Wells, Wayne From: Daniel Knopman. [dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Wednesday, March. 11,. 2009 12:04 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: og @garciaarchitect.com Subject: RE: Shephards. Beach. Resort -. Meeting 0309 -1 Wayne, Let plan on meeting the 16th at 11:00. We will be sending you some vignettes of the changes in advance of our meeting for your review.. Daniel J. Knopman Senior Associate Director of Operations 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, FI 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice. (954) 462 -9040 Fax www.garciaarchitect.com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following: 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender.. 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and/or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender. Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 7. NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED 02007. 3/11/2009 Page 2 of 4 Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systerns, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems. From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] . Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:00 PM To: dk @garciaarchitect.com. Cc: og @garciaarchitect.com. Subject: Shephards. Beach Resort - Meeting 0309 -1 Daniel am still available at 11:00 am on Monday, March 16th. I will see you then. (Note: I am out of the office March 18th - 20th, not just the 18th.) Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Daniel Knopman [ mailto:dk @garciaarchitect.com]. Sent:. Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:32 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: og @garciaarchitect.com Subject: RE: Shephards Beach. Resort -. Meeting 0309 -1. Wayne, I. am sorry I did. not get back to you sooner. If you are still available on Monday the 16th at 11:00am I would like to meet with you to. review the changes on the Shephards. Beach project. If this will not work for you, I am available any day next week other than the 17th.. Please let me know what works best for you.. Daniel J. Knopman Senior Associate Director of Operations 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, FI 33316. (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www_ga rciaarch itect. com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following: 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender. 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and/or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender. Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all 3/11/2009 :; Page 3 of 4 0 0 claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 7. NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE'WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR 1. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR 1. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED ©2007. Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems.. From:. Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myC[earwater.com]. Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 5:42 PM To: dk @garciaarchitect.com Subject: Shephards Beach Resort - Meeting 0309 -1 Daniel - I will be out of the office on March. 18th. How about 10:00 or 11:00 am on Monday, March 16th ?. Wayne - - - -- Original Message - - - - -. From: Daniel Knopman [mailto:dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:42 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Hunraf @aol.com; og @garciaarchitect.com; bill @shephards.com; paul @shephards.com; gerri @shephards.com; wshephardl @yahoo.com;. keith @keithzayac.com; hsc @clw.macfar.com Subject:. 0820—Shephards Beach. Resort - Meeting 0309 -1 Dear Mr. Wells; I. would like to schedule a meeting with you for mid morning on March 16, 2009 or March 18, 2009, to review the changes that we have made on. the Shephards Beach. Resort project prior to resubmitting for DRC approval. Please let me know what your availability is for either of these. dates. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Daniel J. Knopman Senior Associate Director of Operations 3/11/2009 Page 4 of 4 . , . 'k 0 0 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, FI 33316. (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www.ga rciaa rch itect.com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following: 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender.. 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and/or involvement from each electronic medium not in its possession.. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender. Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media.. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 7. NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR I. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED 02007. Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems. 3/11/2009 Page 1 of 2 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 5:42 PM To: 'Daniel Knopman' Subject: Shephards Beach Resort - Meeting 0309 -1 Daniel - will be out of the office on March 18th. How about 10:00 or 11:00 am on Monday, March 16th? Wayne. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Daniel Knopman [mailto:dk @garciaarchitect.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:42 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Hunraf @aol.com; og @garciaarchitect.com; bill @shephards.com; paul @shephards.com; gerri @shephards.com; wshephardl @yahoo.com; keith @keithzayac.com; hsc @clw.macfar.com Subject: 0820—Shephards Beach Resort - Meeting 0309 -1 Dear Mr. Wells;. I would like to schedule a meeting with you for mid morning on March 16, 2009 or March 18, 2009, to review the changes that we have made on the Shephards Beach Resort project prior to resubmitting for DRC approval. Please let me know what your availability is for either of these dates. Thank you in advance.. Sincerely,. Daniel J. Knopman Senior Associate Director of Operations 318 S.E. 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33316 (954) 462 -1090 Voice (954) 462 -9040 Fax www.ciarciaarchitect.com The use of these files, in whole or in part, constitutes Recipient's agreement to the following: 1. The electronic files furnished by the Sender to the Recipient are submitted for an acceptance period of five (5) days. Any defects the Recipient discovers during this period shall be reported to the Sender. 2. Due to the potential that the information set forth on the electronic media can be modified, unintentionally or otherwise, the Sender shall reserve the right to remove all indices of its ownership, professional corporation name, and /or involvement from each electronic 3/5/2009 1W , 1 0 0 Page 2 of 2 medium not in its possession. 3. The Recipient recognizes that use of such electronic media will be at their sole risk and without any liability risk or legal exposure to the Sender. Furthermore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Recipient defends, and holds harmless the Sender from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of, or resulting from the use of such electronic media.. 4. Under no circumstances shall transfer of electronic media be deemed a sale by the Sender, and the Sender makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, for any purpose. 5. The use of this electronic media is restricted to the original site for which it was prepared. Material shall not be transferred to any other party for use in other projects. Reuse or reproduction of the documents (in whole or in part) for any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended is prohibited. Title to these documents is prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions.. 6. The sender believes that this E -Mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking proactive and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's business entity is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 7. NO COPIES, TRANSMISSIONS, REPRODUCTIONS, OR ELECTRONIC MANIPULATION OF ANY PORTION OF THESE DRAWINGS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OSCAR 1. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL DESIGNS INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF OSCAR 1. GARCIA, A.I.A. ARCHITECT. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED ©2007. Information stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, may not be 100% compatible with other systems, therefore, the Sender shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided due to difference in computer and software systems. 3/5/2009 • Page 1 of 1 i Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February .18,.2009 6:43. AM To: Delk,. Michael; Wells, Wayne Subject: Shephard's Michael and Wayne Just to keep you updated, we will be responding to comments sometime in March and whatever DRC that puts us on is fine. Thanks for offering the slight extension, but after talking with Kevin Garriott we decided to make some additional changes in the V zone and I know, even thought we will not be asking for anything there, Wayne wants to see the project as one and that is fine This will not affect the character of architecture or most anything else. Thanks again Joe You can't always choose whom you love, but you can. choose how to find. them.. Start with AOL Personals_ 2/18/2009 Page 1 of Y Z Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:13 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Joe Burdette - Quick Question Ok. I'll give him till close of business on the 10th. Michael L. Delk, AICP Planning Director City of Clearwater, Florida myclearwater.com - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:06 AM To: Delk, Michael Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: Joe Burdette - Quick Question Michael - They are responding to comments. Sherry must distribute the packages to DRC members on March 11th. I don't have a problem with his request, so long as their revised packages (one original and 14 copies) are submitted by 9:00 am on March 11th. If they are making "major changes ",1 might suggest they maybe meet with me prior to submitting the revised packages so that I can give some direction as to their revised submittal package. Additionally, there is the associated Development Agreement. I understand that Leslie is taking a "model" Development Agreement for the allocation of the Hotel Density Reserve units to City Council on March 2nd. Their Development Agreement may need to be revised to comply with the format and language City Council approves. Wayne - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Delk, Michael Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:29 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Joe Burdette - Quick Question Wayne - FYI. Can we give him a little extra time? Michael L. Delk, AICP Planning Director City of Clearwater, Florida 2/4/2009 0 0 Page 2 ofy Z_. myclearwater.com - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:36 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Re: Joe Burdette - Quick Question Micahel The major changes are only responses to comments ... I really need to March 11 ... I can live with March 8,9,10,11.... This is one that will actually be built.... just need a little slack... Joe In a message dated 2/3/2009 1:27:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, michael.delk @MyClearwater.com writes: Joe - If they are making major changes we really need to try to get them back in. A day or two I can handle but it gets more difficult beyond that. See what you can get them to do. michael Michael L. Delk, AICP Planning Director City of Clearwater, Florida mvrloo nrotor rnm - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:18 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Quick Question Michael We had Shephard's new plan at the DRC in January and have until It does not look like I will be able to make that date that as they are making some major changes. The next application date is March 2 (Cycle 3) and the determination of . completeness is March 11. As we have already been deemed complete, can I have until March 11 to get this back in and be on Cycle 3 so I don't lose yet another month? Joe 2/4/2009 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:53 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Cc: Joe Burdette (E -mail) Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Keith - 0 Attached are the Draft DRC comments for the above referenced project, to be reviewed by the DRC in our offices tomorrow, January 8, 2009, at 10:00 am. 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 . . Draft 1.8.09 C Action Agend Page 1 of 1 0 Wells,. Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 3:20 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Subject: Joe Burdette Joe - Yes. I will most likely send out DRC comments on Monday, January 5th, as normal. Comments are still being generated. Jim Keller (Fire. Dept) and I went to Shephard's this morning to. look at the, portion of the property to remain. Comments will be generated due to this site inspection. :>)., Enjoy the evening ringing in the new year. I am off on Friday. Remember - Don't drink and drive!!!! Wayne - - - -- Original Message--- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:38 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe Burdette Wayne. Am I getting too greedy asking for DRC comments on Shephard's? Joe. New year ... new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines.. 0 12/31/2008 0 • Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 11:18 AM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Subject: Joe Burdette - DRC Schedule Joe - 20 Kendall is at 9:00 am and Shephard's is at 10:00 am on Jan. 8th. Happy New Year!!! Be safe!!! Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 11:12 AM To:. Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe Burdette - DRC Schedule Wayne I am trying to make travel arrangements for our out -of -town architects for next weeks DRC for Shephard's. Has the DRC schedule been set for this yet? If it has, could you also tell me what time my other one is (Uday's hotel on Norht Beach). Thanks.... Have a Happy New Year... New year ... new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. 12/31/2008 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:30 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Keith - Attached is a Letter of Completeness for the above referenced project. The original letter is being mailed to you. 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 Letter of ipleteness 12.9. °arwater December 09, 2008 Keith Zavac 701 Enterprise Road East Suite 404 Safety Harbor, F134695 CITY OF CLEARWATE R PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4576 W W W.MYCLEARWATER.COM VIA FAX: (727) 793 -9855 RE: FLD2008 -12033 --.619 S GULFVIEW BLVD -- Letter of Completeness Dear Keith Zayac : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2008- 12033. 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 January 08, 2009, in the Planning Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building. The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in downtown Clearwater. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments may be generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727 -562 -4504 or Wayne.Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, - Weez L Wells. AICP Planner III Letter of Completeness - FLD2008 -12033 - 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning December 8, 2008 Mr. Wayne Wells City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 • 701 S. Enterprise Road E., Ste 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 793 -9888 Phone (727) 793 -9855 Fax keith@keithMac.com EB 9351 LC26000212 RE: SHEPHARDS FLD2008 -12033 — 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD. Dear Mr. Wells: Enclosed please fmd 15 copies of revised applications and attachments addressing incompleteness comments dated December 4, 2008 including the following items: 1. The application has been revised to include Lagoon Resort Motel as an additional property owner, with a signature from Bill Shephard as representative of both owners. 2. One copy of the signed and sealed stormwater narrative is enclosed. 3. Sight visibility triangles for the existing western driveway have been added to plans. 4. The vehicular parking area and required open spaces has been added to site plan and notes. 5. Vehicular parking area open space has been graphically depicted on site plan. 6. A note has been added to the site plan indicating solid waste will be handled by existing on -site facilities. 7. The existing facilities have been graphically enhanced to show existing buildings and pavement. 8. A note has been added to site plan calling for all site lighting to be attachbd to existing and proposed buildings. 9. Revised color site plans reductions are enclosed. 10. Based on a project site study, the existing landscaping has been added to landscape plan. 11. The plant schedule has been updated to include existing on -site plant material. 12. Revised color landscape plan reductions are enclosed. 13. Site plan has been revised to include a front foundation landscape area in front of proposed building, and calculations to show a minimum of 10% vehicularuse open space. 14. The sign location has been ado& o the site plan. Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RLA President q :f „ ORIGINAL A MUTiIE® rlcC 09 2008 i CRY OF CLR�W :y q • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:33 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: keith @keithzayac.com Subject: Joe Burdette - Quick Question • Page 1 of 1 The Code requirement is contained in Section 3- 1202.E.2, which is a requirement whether there is any parking outside of the building or not.. This same Code. applied to the Patel project at 100 Coronado Drive and was dealt with (their building "fns" were at a zero setback, but the rest of the building met the requirement). - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: keith @keithzayac.com Subject: Joe Burdette - Quick Question Wayne This appears to be breaking new ground? We have no parking outside of the garages. Only drop -off? "No foundation landscaping (minimum width of five feet) is proposed and it is unclear whether interior landscape area of a mirnilnum. of 1.0% of the vehicular use area is required and provided. If either of these requirements are not being provided or are being proposed to be reduced, need to submit a COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. 12/5/2008 • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:39 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: FLD2008- 12033, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. Keith - • Attached is a Letter of Incompleteness for the above referenced project. In order to stay on track, please respond with the revised application material no later than 9:00 am on Tuesday, December 9, 2008. The original letter is being mailed to you. 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 Letter of impleteness 12. rwater December 04, 2008 Keith Zayac 701 Enterprise Road East Suite 404 Safety Harbor, F134695 CITY OF CLEAhWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4576 W W W . MYCLEARWATER. COM VIA FAX: (727) 793 -9855 RE: FLD2008 -12033 -- 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD -- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Keith Zayac : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2008- 12033. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments. 1. Page 1 - Application - Parcel Number(s) - Only one parcel number is listed, but need to add 17/29/15/00000/220 /0100. Additionally, based on Property Appraiser information, this additional parcel is owned by Lagoon Resort Motel. Application needs to. include this additional owner and an Affidavit to Authorize Agent needs to be submitted from this additional owner. 2. It appears drainage calculations have been submitted as part of the Stormwater Narrative, but the calculations are not ci vnerl anal sealed by the (vigil Fnvineer 3. Sheets C4 and C9 - Need to show the sight visibility triangles at the existing western driveway. 4. Sheet C4 - Site Data Table - Vehicular Parking Area is indicated as N /A, yet the regulation is vehicular use area and, outside of the parking garages, there. is vehicular use area. Need to calculate based on those paved areas outside of the parking garages, including the existing areas on the west side of the site. If greater than 4,000 square feet, need to provide 10% interior landscape area within the vehicular use areas. 5. Sheet C4 - Plan needs to depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. 6. Plans need to show the location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening. 7. As stated previously, this application is dealing with the entire site, not half the site. Civil and Landscape Plan need to show all existing and proposed improvements and landscaping. 8. Plans need to show or indicate the location of all outdoor lighting fixtures. 9. Provide a reduced color site plan to scale (8 %2 X 11). 10. Show the location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule. 11. Provide a 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. 12. Provide a reduced color landscape plan to scale (8 %2 X 11). Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2008 -12033 - 619 S GULMEW BLVD 41) 0 afpr I` �% U December 04, 2008 *CITY OF CLEWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4576 W W W .MYCLEARWATER. COM 13. No foundation landscaping (minimum width of fivdfeet) is proposed and it is unclear whether interior landscape area of a minimum of 10% of the vehicular use area is required and provided. If either of these requirements are not being provided or are being proposed to be reduced, need to submit a COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. 14. While the application states that a Comprehensive Sign Program application will be submitted at a later date, the site and landscape plans needs to show the location of any proposed freestanding signage, so that sight visibility triangles, s_ etbacks and coordination with existing and proposed landscaping can be reviewed. Section 4 -202 of the Community Development Code states that if an application is deemed incomplete, the deficiencies of the application shall be specified by Staff. No further development. review action shall be taken until the deficiencies are corrected and the application is deemed complete. Please resubmit by 9:00 am on Tuesday, December 9, 2008. at NOON. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727 -562 -4504 or W ayne. W ells @myclearwater. com. Sincerely yours, pa Wa e Wells Planner III Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2008 -12033 - 619S GULFVIEW BLVD ' • Page 1 of-4' Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008.3:42 PM To:. 'Hunraf @aol.com; keith@keithzayac.com Subject: Joe Burdette Re: Shephards Checks are made out to "City of Clearwater ", including the Fire Review fee.. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:12 PM To: Wells, Wayne; keith@keithzayac.com Subject: Joe Burdette Re: Shephards Wayne. Are all these checks made out to The City of Clearewater? Including the fire review. fee Joe In a message dated 11/26/2008.3:11:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com writes: Comp. Infill - $1205.00; Fire review $200.00; TDR - No additional when filed with the FLD; Development Agreement: $1500.00; and No credit for prior application. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Zayac [mailto:keith @keithzayac.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 8:33 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Hunraf @aol.com Subject: Shephards Wayne, Could you verify the current fees for me for a Comp. Infill submittal, Development Agreement and Transfer of Density. Also can we get a credit for the previous application fee since the application was pulled? Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RILA President Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 11/26/2008 Page 1 of"' i Wells, Wayne From: Wells,. Wayne Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:11 PM To: 'Keith Zayac' Cc: Hunraf @aol.com Subject: Shephards Comp. Infill - $1205.00; Fire review - $200.00; TDR No additional when filed with the FLD; Development Agreement: $1500.00; and No credit for prior application. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Zayac [mailto:keith @keithzayac.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 8:33 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Hunraf @aol.com Subject: Shephards Wayne, Could you verify the current fees for me for a Comp. Infill submittal, Development Agreement and Transfer of Density. Also can we get a credit for the previous application fee since the application was pulled? Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RLA President Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (727)793 -9888 Phone (727)793-9855 fax 11/26/2008 • • Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting • Engineering • Planning • Transportation • Permitting COT Center 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 Phone: (727) 524 -1818 Fax: (727) 524 -6090 November 11, 2008 Mr. Wayne Wells, AICP City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue, 2nd Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 RE: Shepard's Beach Resort — Parking Study Methodology Dear Mr. Wells: ORIGINAL RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER or- - WW 1(/14-) 0 C6 Per our discussion we are submitting this correspondence to confirm a methodology for estimating parking requirements and adequacy of proposed parking for the redevelopment of Shepard's Beach Resort. Parking Suuuly - Currently Shepard's contains a 179 space parking garage (which will remain) and 18 surface spaces. A new 187 space parking garage will be constructed on the eastern portion of the site and three (3) surface spaces will be provided. The total parking supply is 369 parking spaces. Additional vehicle stacking for up to 28 cars is provided at the porte - cochere. Parking Demand — The parking demand will be estimated based on expected facility operations, employee characteristics, guest characteristics, and banquet occasions. The parking demand will be estimated to determine hourly variations in parking demand. A. Normal Operations For normal operations the hotel average occupancy will be factored by a mode split to determine spaces to be used by hotel guests. Employees by shift will be factored by a mode split for employee space utilization. This will include hotel employees and retail / night club space employees. B. Banquet Operations Major events such as banquets may occur. The proposed banquet facility will have a seating capacity of 300 people. Additional banquet service staff will be included. The expected number of additional vehicles that will need to be parked to accommodate people attending the event will be calculated and added to the normal time of day demand to calculate a peak parking demand. • • Parking Supply vs. Parking Demand Comparison — A comparison will be made between the needed spaces and the parking supply. A report will be prepared and submitting summarizing the findings. Please contact me if you have any questions or require a meeting to discuss the assumptions. Sincerely, �f Robert Pergolizzi, AICP / PTP Principal CC. Paul Andrews Joe Burdette 08 -067 • • Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 5:33 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com; Elbo, Bennett Cc: bill @shephards.com; paul @shephards.com; hsc @clw.macfar.com Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Parking Study Joe - I see that Bennett Elbo has given you a number of firms that have prepared studies for applications that have been filed with us. Hopefully this list helps you. Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:36 PM To: Elbo, Bennett Cc: bill @shephards.com; paul @shephards.com; hsc @clw.macfar.com; Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Parking Study Bennett I need the names of a few firms who are approved to do parking studies by the city. Roy Chapman has declined to give us a proposal and Pregolizzi will give us a proposal. Bill Shephard has ask that I get three bids and I know of no other people or firms to bid.. Thanks Joe Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! 12/19/2008 I Page 1 of'Z' Wells, Wayne From: Elbo, Bennett Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:15 AM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: bill @shephards.com; paul @shephards.com; hsc @clw.macfar.com; Wells, Wayne; Patni, Himanshu Subject: RE: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Parking Study Good morning Joe, These are some of the engineering firms that we have received either a Traffic Impact Analysis or Parking Study from: Avid Engineering, CPH, DKS, DRMP, Florida Design Consultants, Gulf Coast Consulting, Kimley -Horn, King Engineering, Lincks & Associates, TBE, Tindale Oliver, URS, Wilbur Smith Associates. Their phone numbers and information can be looked up through a web browser such as Google. Bennett Elbo City of Clearwater Traffic Operations Division Tel: (727)562 -4775 fax: (727)562 -4755 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:36 PM To: Elbo, Bennett Cc: bill @shephards.com; paul @shephards.com; hsc @clw.macfar.com; Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: Shephards Parking Study Bennett I need the names of a few firms who are approved to do parking studies by the city. Roy Chapman has declined to give us a proposal and Pregolizzi will give us a proposal. Bill Shephard has ask that I get three bids and I know of no other people or firms to bid.. Thanks Joe 12/19/2008 • Wells, Wayne From: Lee, Catherine Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:30 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Shepard's expansion - 619 S. Gulfview Wayne, • As you know, Joe Burdette and crew (lawyer, engineer, two architects) came to BPRC today making a proposal for Shepard's... They plan on. two phases - -the first will be a renovation (between 25% and 50% of the existing value of the structure) of the existing structure; the. second will be an expansion. One of their main concerns is whether these can processed as two separate phases if they bond. Here are some preliminary numbers. for the new structure: 100% valet parking Total units: 226 (100 units from the density pool, and they are pooling other units from somewhere else - -Joe said he had discussed it with Michael Delk and. Robert) Total parking: 190 spots (they are saying that only 1/3 of their employees will drive) Stories: 15 I told them to contact you, as we. had discussed. Go Rays! Cate • Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:45 PM To: Wells, Wayne • Page 1 of 2 Subject: FW: Frank V. Hibbard? John Doran ?George N. Cretekos ?Carlen A. Petersen ?Paul F. Gibson and Community Deployment Board FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Paul Andrews [mailto:paul @shephards.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:33 PM To: Manni, Diane Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: Frank V. Hibbard? John Doran ?George N Deployment Board Cretekos ?Carlen A. Petersen ?Paul F. Gibson and Community Mr. Major, City Council Members & Community Development Board, While the City is indeed increasing density (for some properties... not all), the new plan places lower height restrictions that are not now in place by requiring that transfer of density be used in order to gain height. If there is a density increase, there would be no need to buy units from other properties to transfer as most parcels would have all the units they could build. It appears this provision may prohibit the construction of any new resort hotels, and we are simply asking the Council to deem the use of density pool units as transferred density. We are in no way suggesting any more heights than are currently allowed on the beach by using transferred units. The original Beach by Design allowed density pool units to be counted as such, and we are simply requesting for that provision to remain. William. M. Shephard President & Owner Paul Andrews General Manager & Clearwater Beach Camber Exceuctive Board Memeber paul@shephards.com Shephard's Beach Resort 619 South Gulfview Blvd. Clearwater Beach, FI 33767 12/19/2008 Pagel of 3 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:57 AM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com; Wells, Wayne; Tefft, Robert Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: RE: Joe Burdette - A few questions. The proposal supports the mid -sized hotel within the 100' height limitation established for the Beach, unless TDR are and that there is a direct relationship between the units transferred and the amount of height that can exceed 100'. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:20 AM To: Clayton, Gina; Wells, Wayne; Tefft, Robert Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Re: Joe Burdette - A few questions. The problem is that with the density we don't need TDR's, so what you are saying is that there is no way to get additional height unless you buy more units than you need? Joe In a message dated 3/11/2008 8:40:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Gina.Clayton @myClearwater.com writes: Joe - the height provisions regarding TDRs try to bring a more proportional relationship between TDRs and exceeding the maximum height for each character district. Thanks for you input. Gina - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:44 PM To: Clayton, Gina; Wells, Wayne; Tefft, Robert Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Re: Joe Burdette - A few questions. Gina This apparently has the effect of lowering heights? For instance, if I understand this correctly, Shephard has 15 units he can transfer in so only those 15 units can be above 100 feet. Is that correct? Whereas before I could have gotten 148 feet. It also has the effect of Shephard not being able to build the number of parking spaces he would like to build. Shephard's plans call for an nearly 125 more parking spaces that he is currently required and we would have to lose some of 12/19/2008 Page 2 of 3 0 0 those to lower the building? As parking is a premium on the beach I would not think you would want this to happen. If density units from the pool do not count as TDRs this plan does not work in my opinion. Joe In a message dated 3/10/2008 11:42:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Gina.Clayton @myClearwater.com writes: Joe - see my answers below. If you have other questions; please let me know. Thanks. Gina 12/19/2008 - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 7:02 PM To: Tefft, Robert; Clayton, Gina Subject: Joe Burdette - A few questions. Do you know the answer to his questions? Do you want to answer the email (copying me) or do you want me to answer the email (which, then I need the information)? - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 5:43 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe Burdette - A few questions. Wayne. Under this new density proposal that we just learned of for the beach, how does one get to 150 feet in character districts that allows that height, but only by using TDRs.[Clayton, Gina] There was a public meeting on the beach on. February 13th to discuss the hotel density proposal. There was a traffic signal board placed on the beach advertising the meeting, press releases were sent to newspapers, information placed on the City's T.V. channel advertising the meeting and the Beach Chamber and registered neighborhoods were also notified. You can only exceed the character district height by TDRs and then the height increase can only be for the units transferred. With the new density TDRs would not be necessary as we Page 3 of 3 I 1 0 0 would have all the units needed considering we will probably have 3 floors of parking below ?[Clayton, Gina] Not sure what the question is. For instance, the Shephard's project I brought to BPRC last month would. want 116. units out of the pool to build the. 173 new rooms that he is proposing.. With the parking requirement,. we are at about 148. feet. [Clayton, Gina] We would need to know the lot size to see if you would be eligible for more than 100 units from the Hotel Density Reserve. The 100' height limitation could only be exceeded if TDRs were used and you needed 48 feet to accommodate those transferred units.. Does. that work? Does getting units. from the density pool count as TDRs? I also assume that there is no FAR with this proposal and we are back to accessory use? Is that correct? [Clayton, Gina] The Hotel Density Reserve is not a TDR. The proposal does not include a FAR calculation for a hotel and parking garage as required for all other land. use categories consistent with the PPC requirements.. There is a provision of the Reserve that indicates if you provide amenities that exceed those typical of a mid - priced hotel,. those would have to comply with FAR requirements (1.0). Joe It's Tax Time! Get . tips, . forms and advice _on_AOL Money & Finance. It's Tax Time! Get tios forms and advice on AOL Money& Finance. It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance. 12/19/2008 Wells, Wayne • From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:49 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: MuniAgenda Status for 11/29 WS & 12/2 Council Mtg Attachments: image002.gif Michael — • There were no conditions of approval on any FLS or FLD application regarding limiting noise /sound /music levels for Shephards. Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:41 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: MuniAgenda Status for 11/29 WS & 12/2 Council Mtg Wayne — I don't recall any sound limits on Shepherds. IS that correct? mid From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, November: 18, 2010 2:38 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: FW: MuniAgenda Status for 11/29 WS & 12/2 Council Mtg Re item on Line 3; Oufdoor Amplified Sound, Pam asked me to request Planning to research whether there are any existing conditions on outdoor amplified sound imposed upon development approvals for the Shephard's property under either the current CDC or past land development codes. These could have arisen through conditional use approvals, building permit approvals, or FLS /FLD approvals. Since I know that Planning & Devt. Services staff have been extremely busy, please advise if this request creates a problem and I will try other avenues. From: Vaughan, Karen Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:50 PM To: Call, Rosemarie; Carnley, Rick; Castelli, Joelle Wiley; Clayton, Gina; Davis -Gryce, Cynthia; Delk, Michael; Donnelly, Jim; Dougall- Sides, Leslie; Dunbar, Kevin E.; Fahey, Robert; Geary, Jim; Geer, Jamie; Gloster, Earl; Gomez, Robin; Holloway, Anthony; Holmes, Michael; Horne, William; Irwin, Rod; Johnson, Gary; Kivett, Tara; Mahony, Laura; Lopez, Geraldine Campos; Mahony, Thomas; Mayer, Daniel; McKibben, George; Mercer, Tracy; Morris, William D.; Orr, Courtney; Patni, Himanshu; Pickell, Barbara; Quillen, Michael; Ravins, Jay; Rice, Scott; Roseto, Joseph; Scott, John C.; Silverboard, Jill; Soto, Camilo; Surette, Rob; Warrington, Chuck; Wilson, Tina Cc: Herman, Jason; Abbott, Jamie; Aldrich, Angela; Alequin, Ray R.; Ausanio, Holly; Ayo, Ellen; Balog, Denise; Barden, Carol; Barrett, Earl; Beane, Andrea; Bedini, Kathleen; Bennett, Nan; Bertels, Paul; Bruch, Tracey; Cameron, Laura; Chaplinsky, Paula; Chase, Susan; Cheatham, Kristi; Chesney, Ed; Clement, Betsy; Crawford, Judith; Cressman, Mary; Webb, Shaun; Dembinski, Pawel; Dewitt, Gina; Doherty, Steve; DuPont, Kimberly; Eckman, Alice; FitzGerald, Diane; Ford, Deborah; Foster, Kim; Garriott, Kevin; Geary, Cindy; Gilmore, Stephanie; Haley, Kiana Reine; Hall, Donald; Harriger, Sandy; Hastings, Lynn; Holbrook, LeAnn; Jackson, Kari; Jaroszek, Bill; Josef, Veronica; Kivett, Tara; Kolmer, Judith; Kuligowski, Patricia; Kurtz, Timothy M.; Lacey, Rosanne; LaCosse, Judith; Langille, Brian; Lee, Catherine; Lutz, Deb; Manni, Diane; Maran, Robert (Bob); Martell, Joan; Matzke, Lauren; Maue, Robert; Moran, Martin; Murray, Michael; Newell, Lindsey; Nguyen, Lan -Anh; O'Brien, Kelly; O'Brien, Kelly (P.D.); Powers, David; Prior, Ian; Reid, Debbie; Rini, �1 i _.' Gail; Robertson, Tom; Rowland, Terriihr, Michael; Sansom, Stephanie; Shobergqliot E.; Sides, Ken; Sprague, Nicole; Stefanelli, Stephanie; Tearney, Laura; Tefft, Cathy; Tefft, Robert; Teunis, Mark; Vaughan, Karen; Vo, Phuong; Vrana, Tammy; Walton, Sharon; Watkins, Sherry; Wells, Wayne; Westerfield, Rosie; Wills, Anne; Wilson, Charles E.; Yellin, Catherine Subject: MuniAgenda Status for 11/29 WS & 12/2 Council Mtg Hello! Please see attached MuniAgenda Status for items scheduled to go to the 11/29 Work Session and the 12/2 Council Meeting. Thanks! Karen Vaughan Administrative Analyst Official Records & Legislative Services Ph #: 727 - 562 -4091 Fax #: 727 - 562 -4086 2 CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH) BEACH BY DESIGN CHARACTER South Beach/Clearwater Pass DISTRICT: PROPERTY USE: Current Use: 96 -room hotel /motel Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 —Page 1 of 13 CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009► Case Numbers: FLD2008 -12033 (Related to DVA2008- 00002) Agenda Item: D.4. (Related to E.3.) Owner /Applicant: William M. Shephard, Trustee Representative: Alex Azan, Keith Zayac & Associates Address: 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet -only in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH) BEACH BY DESIGN CHARACTER South Beach/Clearwater Pass DISTRICT: PROPERTY USE: Current Use: 96 -room hotel /motel Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 —Page 1 of 13 EXISTING SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES: ANAT.VCTC- Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 186 rooms (78.48 rooms /acre on lot acreage zoned Tourist (T) District, including the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve) and approximately 37,647 square feet of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 134 feet (to flat roof deck) North:Tourist (T) District South: Preservation (P) District East: Tourist (T) District West: Tourist (T) District Automobile Service Station and Attached dwellings Gulf of Mexico Overnight accommodations Overnight accommodations Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres, zoned Open Space /Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive. The site is comprised of two parcels. 'The subject property is currently developed with a 96 -unit hotel /motel. There is approximately 16,224 square feet of accessory uses. An automobile service station and attached dwellings exists to the north of the subject property. The Holiday Inn hotel is located to the west and the Econo Lodge hotel is located to the east of the site. The Gulf of Mexico is located to the south. In 2005, an application was filed to redevelop this property as a mixed -use for 111 overnight accommodation rooms and two dwelling units under Case No. FLD2005- 11108. Part of this proposal included the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) from four- sending sites for five dwelling units and 10 overnight accommodation units (Case No. TDR2005- 11028). This proposal never proceeded past an incomplete status and eventually was withdrawn. However, the five dwelling units were actually transferred by recorded warranty deeds to this site without City authorization. Development Proposal: The proposal is for the redevelopment of the existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 78.48 units /acre on the lot acreage zoned Tourist (T) District, which includes the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design. This is the fifth hotel to be placed on the Community Development Board agenda since the amendment of Beach by Design in July 2008 creating the Hotel Density Reserve as a means to encourage the construction of new mid -size hotels on the beach in response to the loss of hotel rooms since 2002. Also on this CDB agenda is a companion Development Agreement (DVA2008- 00002) that must be approved by City Council, which provides for the allocation of the 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve. This Development Agreement provides for mandatory evacuation/closure of the hotel in the event of the posting of a Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 2 of 13 9 0 hurricane watch including Clearwater Beach by the National Hurricane Center, which also complies with Beach by Design criteria. This proposal complies with the Beach by Design criteria to access all rooms through a lobby and internal corridors. The proposal is to redevelop the property by demolishing basically the eastern portion of the existing improvements. The existing parking garage, restaurant, nightclub and 46 hotel rooms will be retained in the existing buildings on the western portion of the site. The proposal includes the construction of a new building on the east side of the property with 140 hotel rooms at a height of 134 feet (to the top of the flat roof deck). A colonnade will connect the existing building to the new building with a water wall feature on the south side of the colonnade. A new pool is proposed south of this colonnade. North of this colonnade is proposed a drop- off /pick- up porte cochere that can stack 16 vehicles. This new entrance area will provide access to the existing parking garage, as well as providing access to the parking garage in the new building. The hotel registration desk located in the building to be demolished will be relocated to the lobby of the western building being retained. The first floor of the proposed building will provide guest entrance area to the elevators and storage rooms, as well as a total of 16 parking spaces. Level 200, 300 and 400 will provide a total of 47, 49 and 52 parking spaces respectively. Level 500 will provide a total of 18,498 square feet of multi- function and meeting room space for guests. Levels 600 through 1200 will provide 20 hotel rooms per floor. Level 1400 provides a spa and exercise area, as well as a rooftop pool. Covered areas on this rooftop area comply with Code provisions for maximum building height due to the rooftop occupancy afforded. Hotel rooms are primarily oriented with east and west views, but the balconies provide views of the Gulf of Mexico. The new building is described as a seaside beach motel design, which is appropriate and aesthetically pleasing for this waterfront property. Railings on the balconies of the new building will match that of the existing building so that there is continuity of design elements. The main exterior color of the existing and proposed buildings is white. Windows and glass doors in the new building are planned with a blue tint. Beach by Design provisions require no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. The proposed building fagade has been designed in compliance with this requirement so that this maximum 100 -foot dimension is not exceeded. The proposed parking garage levels (Ground through Level 400) will be clad with a decorative metal mesh screening panel system for screening views of the vehicles. At least on the north side of the new building for Levels 200 through Level 500 a landscaped fagade is planned with a greenscreen trellis system. The existing parking garage will also be enhanced with the same decorative metal mesh screening panel system for screening views of the vehicles. At least the existing parking garage is planned to be planted with climbing vines that will assist with screening of the vehicles. In order to ensure the landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing or proposed parking garages are not trimmed to create any signage, a condition of approval to prevent such is recommended, unless such signage is approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program. There are four cabanas planned poolside as part of the ground floor of the new building. To ensure that the cabanas on the ground floor are used for storage only, in compliance with all Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) rules and guidelines for velocity Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 3 of 13 0 0 zones, a condition of approval is recommended to be included in any approval of this request. Evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in deed restrictions or like forms, will need to be submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. During the final DRC review, it was noted that a large 26 -foot wide by 16 -foot high overhead door was introduced at the northeast corner of the proposed building. Staff questioned the size, location and purpose of this overhead door. The owner's response was that the size of this overhead door was to provide for beach maintenance equipment. Such equipment is not presently on -site and the applicant has not provided any documentation to Staff regarding such equipment. This proposed overhead door is also located at the base of the ramp that provides access to and from the upper parking levels, where critical turning movements occur enter and exiting the garage. Additionally, the location of the overhead door is at the farthest point of the building from the beach area, where any such tractor would damage ,_the.landscaping, and possibly the stormwater system, along this side of the site. Finally, the applicant has not indicated where such beach equipment would be stored in the building, which may displace parking spaces. The applicant has not justified the introduction of this large overhead door. As such, Staff would recommend that such overhead door be eliminated, or relocated closer to the beach area to minimize such damage and be reduced to a size not to exceed 12 feet in width and height. Parking spaces on the south side of the building can be removed to provide building access for this beach equipment. Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC,. Section 2- 801.1, the maximum density for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities. High is 50 overnight accommodation units per acre. Based on the 2.37 acres zoned Tourist District, a maximum of 118 overnight accommodation units are permissible under current regulations. The proposal also requests 68 hotel rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted as an amendment to Beach by Design under Ordinance 7925 -08. The overall density for this project is 78.48 overnight accommodation units /rooms per acre, which meets and is less than the maximum established in Beach by Design for projects that have acquired units from the Hotel Density Reserve. Based on recent Code amendments for hotels and related to the Hotel Density Reserve, when the percentage of accessory uses exceed 15 percent of the hotel gross floor area, the accessory uses must be treated as primary uses for calculation of density /intensity. Based on the proposed overall hotel gross floor area of 188,725 square feet and a total of 37,647 square feet of accessory uses, the accessory uses represent 19.94 percent of the overall hotel gross floor area. Staff has performed a mixed use calculation, where the accessory use square footage (37,647 square feet) is subtracted from the original lot area square footage zoned Tourist District (103,237 square feet) to produce a net lot acreage of 1.5057 acres for calculating allowable density. Based on the net lot acreage and 50 rooms /units per acre, the maximum base density is 75 rooms. Again, based on the net lot acreage and 150 rooms /units per acre, the maximum number of hotel rooms under the Hotel Density Reserve is 225 rooms. When the 75 rooms is subtracted from the 225 rooms, this equals 150 rooms. The maximum number of rooms available when the lot acreage is less than 2.5 acres is 100 rooms. Therefore, the maximum number of rooms complying with the Hotel Density Reserve provisions is 175 rooms (75 + 100). The proposal is for 186 rooms. Since this proposal was submitted prior to the Code amendments moderating hotel densities Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 4 of 13 based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to number of rooms. This determination does not prevent the allocation of the 68 rooms requested, or the approval of this application. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2- 801.1, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.83, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, the minimum lot area for overnight accommodations can range between 10,000 — 20,000 square feet. The overall existing site is 103,237 square feet of lot area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for overnight accommodations can range between 100 — 150 feet. The lot width along S. Gulfview Boulevard is approximately 389 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, the minimum front setback for overnight accommodations can range between 0 — 15 feet, the minimum side setback can range between 0 — 10 feet and the minimum rear setback can range between 0 — 20 feet. The proposal includes reductions to the front (north) .setback -to 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and .6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), to the side (east) setback to 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner .accessory building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking), to the side (west) setback to zero feet (to existing building, pavement and decking) and to the rear (south) setback to 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing/proposed patio decking). The proposal includes retaining the existing development on the west side of the site, including 46 hotel rooms, the accessory uses of the restaurant and nightclub and the parking garage. The existing parking garage is located at a 15-foot front setback. The existing improvements along the west side at a zero -foot side setback were approved under a variance granted in 1998. These existing improvements, including .a covered trash and equipment area, .pavement to access loading/trash area and an outdoor patio for the nightclub, will be retained at -their existing zero - foot setback under this proposal. This proposal includes trimming the existing carport-type structure on the west side so that it does not extend over the west property line. The existing building will retain its 22 -foot rear setback, along with the zero -foot setback to the existing patio decking. The proposal includes retaining a portion of an existing building east of the restaurant, remodeling the ground floor for an expanded kitchen for the tiki deck, providing a snack bar oriented toward the proposed pool, removing the second floor enclosed area and turning this second floor to an open activity deck. The rear setback to the existing structure is approximately 26 feet to the south property line. The proposal basically reconstructs the eastern half of the property with new development. Revised driveways are proposed on S. Gulfview Boulevard, as well as a new drop -off porte cochere and a colonnade "connecting" the old and new buildings. A new pool is proposed south of the entry colonnade. Since the new building will be constructed on the east side of the site, the proposal includes reductions to the front (north) setback to 11.2 feet (to proposed building), Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 5 of 13 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement). Due to the angle of the front property line, the proposed front setback to the building is at the northeast corner of the building, as the setback increases toward the west. The 6.5 -foot setback is to a sidewalk leading to a storage room on the east end of an exit stairwell. The site has been designed with a drive access from the entry area to the parking garage in the new building, with the edge of the pavement at 6.79 feet to the front property line. This setback, along with the landscaping proposed between the property line and this edge of pavement, will provide sufficient protection to pedestrians on the public sidewalk within the S. Gulfview Boulevard right -of -way. An existing waverunner accessory building is proposed to be retained, which is located at a side (east) setback of 9.58 feet. The proposed building and decking is proposed at a side (east) setback of 15.44 feet, which exceeds the minimum side setback requirement. The proposed building is located at a rear setback of 59.25 feet to the south property line. Staff notes ,that the architectural design includes tapered fins on the front (north) and rear (south) sides of the new building. While the bottoms of the architectural fins at ground -level are closer to the building':, the upper reaches of the fins are closer to the front property line and the seawall at the rear. Adjacent to S. Gulfview Boulevard, the top of the tapered fin is located approximately 19.83 feet from the front property line. At the rear,.. the. Building Code requires an 18 -foot setback to seawalls due to the deadmen. The top of the tapered fins are located approximately 11.67 feet to the seawall, which will require a variance to the Building Code seawall setback requirement. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, the maximum allowable height for overnight accommodations can range between 35 — 100 feet. Section B.1 of the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design allows the building height to be increased to a maximum of 150 feet for properties that obtain additional density from the Hotel Density Reserve for properties located between S. Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed building is 134 feet in height from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof This site is located within the. South Beach/Clearwater Pass character district of Beach by Design, which does not prescribe any maximum heights. This proposal complies with the maximum building height allowable under Beach by Design. There have been other projects approved at a maximum height of 150 feet within this same South Beach/Clearwater Pass character district between S. Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico. Minimum Off - Street Parking: When this project was submitted for review, the minimum required parking for overnight accommodations was one parking space per room, or a minimum of 186 parking spaces. The existing parking garage contains 192 regular parking spaces and 28 overflow parking spaces during peak demand (total of 220 parking spaces). The existing garage will operate as self -park for hotel guests and as valet parking during peak demand. The overflow parking is by valet only. The proposal includes constructing a four -level parking garage as part of the new building, which will be by valet parking only, with a total of 124 regular parking spaces and 40 overflow parking spaces during peak demand (total of 164 parking spaces). Overall, this site will contain a total of 384 parking spaces (316 regular parking spaces and 68 overflow parking spaces). The proposal includes 2.06 parking spaces per room. CDC Table 2 -803 has been amended to require 1.2 parking spaces per overnight accommodation room. At this new parking ratio, 223 parking spaces would be required. From an amenities Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 6 of 13 0 0 standpoint accessory to the hotel, based on current Code provisions, when the percentage of accessory uses exceed 15 percent of the overall hotel gross floor area, parking for all uses must be calculated separately. Based on the accessory uses being 19.94 percent, Staff has recalculated required parking to be 522 spaces. The proposal provides a total of 384 parking spaces. Since this proposal was submitted prior to some of the Code amendments moderating hotel densities and intensities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to the number of parking spaces provided. This determination does not prevent the approval of this application. The existing site currently has three driveways. The westernmost driveway acts as an exit from the existing parking garage and provides access to the loading and trash area. This driveway will remain. in its present condition. The existing center and easternmost driveways are close to each other in proximity to the existing parking garage.. The proposal will retain the existing .center driveway and, provide greater separation to the easternmost driveway. All existing surface parking spaces will be removed. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC••Section 3- 201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible: from public streets and/or abutting properties. There; will be mechanical equipment located on top of the flat roof of the new building. The mechanical area will be screened by a metal louvered screening system in compliance with this requirement. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 904.A, to minimize. hazards at the. driveways on S. 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. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. Utilities: °Pursuant to CDC Section 3 -911, for development that does not involve a subdivision; all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this hotel will be installed underground on -site in compliance with this requirement. Electric panels, boxes and meters are proposed to be located in an electrical room on the Level 300 of the new building. Landscaping_ Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 1202.13, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District for this overall site. This proposal complies with the minimum five -foot wide building foundation landscaping along S. Gulfview Boulevard extending out to the front property line. The front area of the existing building on the west side is planted with shrubs (viburnam, philodendron and croton), ground covers (confederate jasmine, grand lily and bird of paradise) and trees (coconut palm, Washington palm and sea grape). The proposal will enhance the existing parking garage building with Indian hawthorn and sea grape shrubs and trees (southern wax privet and cabbage palms). Some of this enhanced landscaping will help screen from view a lower area of the existing parking garage used for accessory bike, electric bike, moped and segway rentals. The redeveloped front areas for the new driveways and building will be landscaped with shrubs (variegated pittosporum, Indian hawthorn and ixora), confederate jasmine ground cover and palms (Washington and cabbage). Landscaping assists with softening and reducing building massing to Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 7 of 13 0 9 both pedestrians and motorists. The northern portion along the west side of the site adjacent to an exit driveway and loading area is presently planted with a hedge of oleanders and pittosporum shrubs. The east side of the site adjacent to 625 S. Gulfview Boulevard will be planted with a hedge of variegated pittosporum and seagrape shrubs and cabbage palms. The balance of this east side will be sodded. Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize hotel housekeeping staff to remove trash from units and transport the trash to the existing dumpster location on the west side of the existing hotel building being retained. The existing location and its screening has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. Signa e: The site contains an existing freestanding sign that exceeds the maximum sign height of the .Code and is therefore ,:nonconforming. As part of this proposal,, this existing - nonconforming sign will be required to be replaced with a new freestanding sign meeting current Code provisions. The proposal indicates this new freestanding sign located between .the center and easternmost driveways. This freestanding sign should be designed as a monument -style sign, match ;the exterior materials .and color of the building and be a maximum height -of four, feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program, in accordance, with the flexibility criteria of .CDC Section 2- 803.I.3. Attached signage must meet Code "requirements, including the signage indicated as part of the water feature by the colonnade. Additional Beach by Design Guidelines::. 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 20,211 square feet. The project's overall horizontal plane dimensions, are approximately. 109 feet along, S. Gulfview Boulevard and 199 feet deep. (north to south), while the vertical plane is approximately 141 feet from grade to the top of the ,flat roof. None of -these dimensions are equal. Modulation of the building massing also,-provides, considerable. 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 proposed building facade has been designed in compliance with this requirement so that this maximum 100 -foot dimension is not exceeded. The east and west sides of the lower levels (ground through Level 500), which is the parking and meeting room levels, has been designed with a linear dimension of no more than 40 feet for portions of the building. The north side of the lower levels (ground through Level 500) has been designed with a linear dimension of no more than 33 feet for one portion of the building. The south side of the lower levels (ground through Level 500) has been designed with a linear dimension of no more than 46 feet for a portion of the building. Starting with Level 600, the hotel tower tapers narrower east to west, with the entire building at Levels 600 — 1000 not exceeding 92 feet. At Levels 1100 — 1400, the building is further tapered to approximately 82 feet east to west. On the north to south direction for Levels 600 — 1400, the building has been designed with a linear dimension of no more than 84 feet for portions of the building. Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 8 of 13 • • Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows /openings or architectural decoration elements. The applicant has calculated the north elevation facing S. Gulfview Boulevard at 61 percent, the south elevation at 60 percent, the east elevation at 79 percent and the west elevation at 78 percent. Section CA 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 proposed building mass between 45 — 100 feet at 12 percent of the total site zoned Tourist District. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. ` - -COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use (hotel) with the standards as per CDC Tables 2- 801.1 and 2 -803: c r': 1 Includes 68 units /rooms allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve pursuant to Beach by Design 2 See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board —November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 9 of 13 Standard Proposed Consistent .Inconsistent .Density 50 units /rooms per acre 186 units /rooms r XZ„ (maximum of 118 units /rooms) (78.48 units /rooms per acre)' Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.83 ,X• Minimum Lot Area 10,000 — 20,000 sq. ft. 103,237 sq. ft. (area zoned - Tourist District Minimum'Loi`Width 100— 150 feet 389 feet ::X, •; ; Minimum Setbacks Front: 0 — 15 feet 15 feet (to existing building); " + -X?: 11.2 feet (to proposed_ , building); 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk); 6.79 feet to proposed pavemenij Side: 0 - 10 feet "' 'East: 9.58 feet (to existing x2, waverunner accessory building); 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking) West: 0 feet (to existing building, pavement and decking) Rear 0 — 20 feet 22 feet (to existing X2 building); 59.25 feet (to proposed building); 0 feet (to existing/proposed patio decking) Maximum Height 35 — 100 feet 134 feet to flat roof) X2 Minimum t(186 One parking space per unit/room 384 parking spaces (2.06 X2 Off - Street Parkin spaces) s aces er unit/room) 1 Includes 68 units /rooms allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve pursuant to Beach by Design 2 See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board —November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 9 of 13 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2 -803.0 (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): rnncirtent I inconciOent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X1 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'fiiture land use X1 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 a. 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 XI 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. I See analysis in Staff Report. Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 10 of 13 • • COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3 -913: I See analysis in Staff Report. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: ; x` The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meetings of January 8, 2009, May 7, 2009, 'and October 1, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of Jaw: . Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having;reyiewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:; L. The 2.689 total, acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive; 2. The site is comprised of two parcels; 3. The proposal is to construct a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 78.48 rooms /acre, which includes the allocation of 68' units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design; 4. A companion Development Agreement (DVA2008- 00002) that must be approved by City Council is also on this CDB agenda is, providing for the allocation of the 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve; 5. The proposal includes retaining the existing parking garage, restaurant, nightclub and 46 hotel rooms in the existing buildings on the western portion of the site; 6. The proposal includes the construction of a new building on the east side of the property with 140 hotel rooms at a height of 134 feet (to the top of the flat roof deck) 7. This proposal complies with the maximum building height allowable under Beach by Design and with approved and existing buildings between S. Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico; Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 11 of 13 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 X1 visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of o eration impacts on adjacent proper—ties. I See analysis in Staff Report. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: ; x` The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meetings of January 8, 2009, May 7, 2009, 'and October 1, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of Jaw: . Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having;reyiewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:; L. The 2.689 total, acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive; 2. The site is comprised of two parcels; 3. The proposal is to construct a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 78.48 rooms /acre, which includes the allocation of 68' units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design; 4. A companion Development Agreement (DVA2008- 00002) that must be approved by City Council is also on this CDB agenda is, providing for the allocation of the 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve; 5. The proposal includes retaining the existing parking garage, restaurant, nightclub and 46 hotel rooms in the existing buildings on the western portion of the site; 6. The proposal includes the construction of a new building on the east side of the property with 140 hotel rooms at a height of 134 feet (to the top of the flat roof deck) 7. This proposal complies with the maximum building height allowable under Beach by Design and with approved and existing buildings between S. Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico; Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 11 of 13 0 0 8. On -site parking will be increased through the construction of a garage in the new building with 164 total parking spaces, in addition to the 220 parking spaces in the existing parking garage, for a total of 384 parking spaces; 9. The proposal includes setback reductions from all property lines; 10. Since this proposal was submitted prior to the Code amendments moderating hotel densities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to number of rooms; 11. Since this proposal was submitted prior to some of the Code amendments moderating hotel densities and intensities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become a nonconforming due to the number of parking spaces provided; and 12. There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property., Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following 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 Flexibilit y -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 and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the (1) Flexible Development application to permit the redevelopment of an existing. 96 =unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T)'District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview ; Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of -15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed- building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet -only in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development Agreement with the City (Case DVA2008- 00002); 2. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall request the Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 12 of 13 0 0 two existing parcels be combined into one parcel by the Pinellas County Property Appraisers office; 3. That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 4. That the freestanding sign be a monument -style sign, be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program. All attached signage shall meet Code requirements, including the signage indicated as part of the water feature; 5. That landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing or proposed parking garages be not trimmed to create any signage, unless such is approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program; 6. That, prior to the issuance-,,of any permit, the applicant demonstrate the proposed stormwater vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on a double ring infiltration test result; 7. That, prior to the issuance of the.building permit, the overhead door presently proposed on the northeast side of the new building be' eliminated, or relocated closer to the beach area and be reduced in size to not exceed 12 feet in width and height and the storage location of the beach equipment be indicated on all: appropriate plans; 8. That the cabanas on the ground floor be used for storage only, in compliance with all Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) rules and guidelines for velocity zones. Evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in deed restrictions or like forms, shall be submitted to the Building Official prior to.the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; 9. That, should the existing waverunner but be• relocated to install the drainage pipes in accordance with the submitted`.plans". this, structure be brought into, compliance with FEMA regulations; 10. That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate ,of Occupancy for the new building, the existing carport-type structure on the, west. side of the existing building be trimmed back to the west property line, with documentation. provided to the Planning and Development Department; 11. That the 'books and records peftaining.to. use of each hotel room be open -for inspection by authorized representatives of the City; uponr reasonable notice, in order, to- confirm, . compliance with the Hotel Density Reserve criteria of Beach by Design as allowed by general law; 12. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 13. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 14. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and the Fire Departments be addressed. Prepared by Planning and Development """V_ Deppartment Staff: 114 op. Wayne . Wells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; Photographs of Site and Vicinity S: (Planning DepartmentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)IPending cases)Up for the next CDBIGulfview S 0619 Shepherds (T) 2009.Ox - 11.17.09 CDB - WWI Gulfview S 0619 FLD Staff Report.doc Community Development Board — November 17, 2009 FLD2008 -12033 — Page 13 of 13 go 40 SECOND ST QR THIRD _ z. w LL � z � o cr 0 U J� 8RIG 'VJ HT WATER DR Frfi77, ST vi Z Ott BAYSIDE PROJECT SITE ay / �y I s B S �V V LOCATION MAP Owner: William M. Shephard, Trustee Cases: FLD2008 -12033 TD R2005 -11028 DVA2008 -00002 Site: 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Property Size: 2.37 acres zoned "T" 0.319 acres zoned "OS /R" PINS: 17- 29 -15- 05004 - 003 -0010 Atlas Page: 232B 17- 29 -15- 00000 - 220 -0100 �H w r. e1-�y AW ' � 7r1 7 N- ^� A0 0 * 00 A. t.' " ,�. `1M►� 14A i ' A - 11 FAT Owner: William M. Shephard, Trustee Cases: F1 D2008-12033 TDR2005 -11028 DNA2008 -00002 Site: 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Property Size: 237 acres zoned "f" 0 319 acres zoned "OS /R" PINS: 17- 29 -15- 05004- 003 -0010 Atlas Page: 2326 17- 29 -15- 00000 - 220 -0100 00 00 p A5 445 2 2 Q Q z P �ry 514 Q ,�O �O 8Af'WAyB4VD T N O O 0 O561 00� N ro O 0 a P ZONING MAP Owner: William M. Shephard, Trustee Cases: FLD2008 -12033 TDR2005 -11028 DVA2008 -00002 Site: 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Property Size: 2.37 acres zoned "T" 0.319 acres zoned "OS /R" PINS: 17- 29 -15- 05004 - 003 -0010 Atlas Page: 232B 17- 29 -15- 00000 - 220 -0100 00 00 ve! t/ / L J �s d z ° 4 / 87 2 2 r 19 // v�1er /88 fight � oda ion y0� 151 SEE 508 -29 -15 FOR PARCEL INFO Attached s Dwellings r--- C�/ "b y 36565 r —� L J *58925 0 � �%a�ed, Lo �'� d ngsr--,s6� o Overnight IR L Ailac e Bq 3'yVq Accommodations h YB� 1/p D Aut(p�ayy}yo FOR PARCEL INFO �4 1 I,.p _a (� '' 6 6° e1'Y 00417-2291 FOR fA NFO 8 I Sta_ ' n' utddoy " I / Entehaiarilfent 4 56 1 I / 1 250 / 5 / / � / 24 ,23 11 7 / 8 / 2 / — B 20 / 4) s 3 / / / /Wtdil �tp0 4 I 1 I l 1 / / 5 / / / Sakes o / * SEE PLAT FOR DIMENSIONS Ve night I /Ac ihihodl/tioT 19 Attache / ,o I / / /11 DwellinLys 1 / r 7865 1 L J 16 / EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Owner: William M. Shephard, Trustee Cases: FLD2008 -12033 TD R2005 -1 1028 DVA2008 -00002 Site: 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Property Size: 2.37 acres zoned "T" 0.319 acres zoned "OS /R" PINs: 17- 29 -15- 05004 - 003 -0010 Atlas Page: 232B 17- 29 -15- 00000 -220 -0100 • 0 00 View looking SW along S. Gulfview Blvd. at subject property View lo4i-ig SW ahng a CuWiew Blvd. at parking garage on View looking W along front of subject property along S. Gulfview Blvd. View looting S along W 3ido of property from S. Gulfview Blvd. at l3adizg & r=ash 3e- (Holiday Inn to the right View looking E at rear of subject property (at seawall) with outdoor dining area View looUn€ E at waverun -ler but at rear of subject property 619 S. Gulfview Bou_ev ird FLD2008- 12033/DVA20G8 -00002 Page 1 of 3 • • 00 1 View looking N from beach area of subject property at View looking W at existing parting garage at accessor- bike, etc. rental (to be screened under proposal) c View looking N from interior of subject property (existing on View looking E at existing dec,/dock at rear of subject left to remain; existing on right & in background to be removed) property View looking NE at attached dwellings at 530 S. Gulfview Blvd. 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard FLD2008- 12033/1)VA2008 -00002 Page 2 of 3 09 00 View looking NE at automobile service station at 601 Bayway Blvd_ (across S. Gulfview Blvd. from subject property) View looking NE at miniature € olf at 630 S. Gulfview Blvd. View looking S at hotel at 625 S. Gulfview Blvd. (E of subject property) � View looking SE along S. Gulftiew Blvd. at developm nt E of View looking SW at hotel at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. (W of subject property) View looking NW along S. Gulfview Blvd. at development W of subject property (Shephard's on left) 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard FLD2008- 12033[DVA2008 -00002 Page 3 of 3 �, BYE ll" Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 562 -4773 09/21/2009 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: Not Met 1. A city Right -of -Way Permit shall be procured prior to making utility connections in adjacent street right -of -way. 2. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove /relocate any /all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) 3. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and backflow prevention device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow prevention device. 4. Correct supplied detail to show that dog house manhole will be installed on top. of a; pre -cast or poured in place concrete slab. 5. Thrust blocks shall not be utilized on unrestricted water lines (mains and fire hydrant leads). Parks & Recs Condition Debbie Reid 562 -4818 12/18/2008 Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to 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. 12/18/2008 The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of Not Met building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at 727 - 562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. Storm Water Condition Phuong Vo ,,_. 562 -4752 09/21/2009 The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a Building,.Permit: Not Met 1. Since the proposed stormwater management system does not have a positive outfall, _please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on the double.. ring infiltration test result. 10/22/2009 NOT MET 2. Provide a detail of the perforated pipes design and provide assurance in the signed and sealed, drainage report stating that the design of this perforated pipes will not create erosion problem to the adjoining property in the future and will provide load support capacity for maintenance activities. MET - PERFORATED PIPE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED 3. Proposed vault bottom shall be at a minimum of 6" above the seasonal high water level. 10/22/2009 NOT MET 4. Please tie the proposed 12" deck drain to the vault for treatment before discharge. 10/22/2009 NOT MET General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 09/23/2009 General Note(s): Not Met 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 CaseConditons Print Date: 11/12/2009 Page 1 of 7 Oconditions Associated Witf� =. FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD �, BYE ll" Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 562 -4773 09/21/2009 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: Not Met 1. A city Right -of -Way Permit shall be procured prior to making utility connections in adjacent street right -of -way. 2. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove /relocate any /all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) 3. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and backflow prevention device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow prevention device. 4. Correct supplied detail to show that dog house manhole will be installed on top. of a; pre -cast or poured in place concrete slab. 5. Thrust blocks shall not be utilized on unrestricted water lines (mains and fire hydrant leads). Parks & Recs Condition Debbie Reid 562 -4818 12/18/2008 Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to 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. 12/18/2008 The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of Not Met building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at 727 - 562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. Storm Water Condition Phuong Vo ,,_. 562 -4752 09/21/2009 The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a Building,.Permit: Not Met 1. Since the proposed stormwater management system does not have a positive outfall, _please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on the double.. ring infiltration test result. 10/22/2009 NOT MET 2. Provide a detail of the perforated pipes design and provide assurance in the signed and sealed, drainage report stating that the design of this perforated pipes will not create erosion problem to the adjoining property in the future and will provide load support capacity for maintenance activities. MET - PERFORATED PIPE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED 3. Proposed vault bottom shall be at a minimum of 6" above the seasonal high water level. 10/22/2009 NOT MET 4. Please tie the proposed 12" deck drain to the vault for treatment before discharge. 10/22/2009 NOT MET General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 09/23/2009 General Note(s): Not Met 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 CaseConditons Print Date: 11/12/2009 Page 1 of 7 • • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 01/06/2009 J 9/29/09 & 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/6/09 - WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. 12/23/2008 f 9/29/09 & 5/4/09 - WW Not Met 'V Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 - WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. 'Code requires bringing this nonconforming._, freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.., 01/05/2009 ! 10/25/09 - WW tj Require as part of a condition of approval.: 9/29/09 - WW As of 9/27/09, the Property Appraiser still shows two parcels for this overall property (not one as asserted); however, both parcels now reflect the same owner. Still need to combine the two parcels into one parcel. 5/5/09 - WW Property Appraiser information still shows-two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done, to get1his under one ownership. 1/5/097 W W Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. 05/05/2009 10/25/09 - WW Not addressed. 9/29/09 - WW The criteria and responses need to be part of the application package, just like the General Applicability and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria and responses, not in the response to DRC comments letter from the architect. Additionally, the following comments to specific criteria below is provided: (c.) Provide a calculation as to how you derived the total of 186 rooms, requesting 68 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve. Since under the maximum of 150 rooms /acre, a maximum of 237 rooms would be possible, but such is restricted to a maximum of 100 rooms by Beach by Design. So, how did we land on 68 rooms from the Reserve? (d.) Need to provide a tabulation of the square footages of all interior accessory uses of the hotel (existing and proposed). Need to provide the gross floor area of the hotel (total square footage). Need to indicate the percentage of accessory use square footage (see above) to the gross floor area. If the percentage of accessory uses is less than 10% of the total gross floor area of the existing and proposed buildings (not including parking garages), then no additional parking Not Met Not Met Print Date: 11/12/2009 CaseConditons Page 2 of 7 • • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 spaces are required and no reduction to the number of rooms from the Reserve is necessary. With the pending Code amendment for accessory uses for hotels under Ordinance No. 8044 -09, need to address the following: 1. Accessory uses located within the building interior may occupy between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the development, but only when additional parking is provided for that portion of the accessory uses which exceeds 10 %. The required amount of parking shall be calculated by using the minimum off - street parking development standard for the most intensive accessory use(s). Where. there is a range of parking standards, the lowest number of spaces allowed shall,. be used to calculate the additional amount of off - street parking required for the project. In projects where the interior accessory uses exceed 15% of the building gross floor,.area -, alh,i.nterior ... accessory uses shall be considered additional primary uses for purposes of calculating development potential and parking requirements. 2. In addition to the requirements above, for those projects that request additional rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design and whose interior accessory uses are between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the proposed building, density shall be calculated as follows: i. Calculate the maximum.num.ber of units allowed by the base density; ii. Calculate the maximum number of units that may be allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design; iii. Add the figures determined in i. and ii. to determine the total number of units allowed for the site; iv. Divide the total number of units, allowed, as calculated in iii., by the total land area to determine..: the resulting units per acre for'the projec' csife v. Determine the total floor area of all interior accessory uses exceeding 10% of the gross floor area of the proposed building; vi. Subtract the figure determined in. v..from the total land area, and divide this difference by 43,560 to determine the net acreage; vii. Multiply the net acreage derived in vi. , by the applicable resulting units per acre figure determined in iv. The resulting product is the maximum.number of rooms allowable,;for the project. viii. The final allocation of rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve shall be determined by multiplying the net acreage determined in vi. by the base density and subtracting this product from the maximum number of rooms allowable for the project as determined in vii. (g.) This criteria regarding building height limitation to TDR (on Page 55 of Beach by Design) is superceded by Section B.1 on Page 64 of Beach by Design that allows building height above 100 feet through use of Hotel Density Reserve units. 5/5/09 - WW Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for a mid - priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a. Those properties and /or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; b. Those properties and /or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and /or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; c. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size less than 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than or equal to 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it has received benefit of transfers of development rights in Print Date: 11/12/2009 Page 3 of 7 CaseConditons • • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 addition to the Reserve, or not; d. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; e. No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached dwelling); f. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; g. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought into the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building (height, 'but only provided that-all TDR criteria 'are met;, h. A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation /closure covenant that the overnight accommodation use will -be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the National Hurricane Center; i. Access to overnight accommodation units-.must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; j. All hotel rooms obtained from the Reserve that are not constructed shall be returned to the Reserve k. The development.shall comply with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) countywide approach to the application of concurrency management for transportation facilities, and the transportation analysis conducted for the development shall include the following: : . - Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO; _ - Identification of level of service (LOS) standards for state and county roads as established, by,the. MPO; - Utilization of'proportional fair -share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO model ordinance; - Utilization of.the MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology; and - Recognition of the :MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the most current,- . MPO Annual Level of Service Report. A reservation .system shall be required as an integral part of the hotel use and there.shall,be -a- lobby /front desk area that must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area for a hotel would. be operated; and , m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed by general law. 12/23/2008 9/28/09, 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 - WW Not Met Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 09/30/2009 1 10/25/09 - WW Not Met J No information submitted. Discuss in the staff report and condition reduction in size and /or location. 9/30/09 - WW Sheets A -11, A -21 and A -21 B - A large overhead door has been introduced on the east side of the new building at the base of the ramp to the upper levels of the new parking garage. This overhead door is shown at 16' high by 26' wide. Unclear as to the purpose of this overhead door, since this door does not provide access to anything. If this overhead door is for ventilation only, ventilation can be handled differently than a large overhead door. Revise. 01/04/2009 9/27/09 & 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion CaseConditons Print Date: 11/12/2009 Page 4 of 7 • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD • Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. 01/07/2009 10/25/09 - WW City Attorney wants the TDRs discussed in the staff report. 9/29/09 - WW Will need to have further discussions with the Assistant City Attorney regarding TDRs. 7/5/09 - WW have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application. for Shephards and have the following comments: 1. 665 Bay Esplanade - a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be'. placed on the subject property.., . c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The,Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty, Deed Transfer. of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to.the, TDR of 2 dwelling units. ; f.. No'Consent of Mortgager was submitted. "g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with HarrytCline.as.: . - ,agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. - ; a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet=(0.,1568 acre). b. The parcel is. presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building, , c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in additionf to the existing` 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312 -317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as Print Date: 11/12/2009 Page 5 of 7 CaseConditons 0 • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 agent. 5/6/09 - WW I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read "Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to the Sending Property in perpetuity." Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and how to resolve issues. 1/7/09 - WW Transfer of Development Rights - a. Unclear as to the need for the Affidavit submitted by Harry S. Cline; b. Exhibit A - 665 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included, the transfer of development rights for a total of two dwelling units from this property (TDR2005711,028). There was no determination whether there was two actual dwelling units that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; -Exhibit A - 655 Bay. Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never, pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included,the transfer of development rights for one dwelling unit from this property (TDR2005711028). There, was no,. :determination whether there was one actual dwelling unit that could be transferred.fro,m this.: property. This still heeds to be determined; d. Exhibit B - From what property were these two dwelling units transferred from (6451Bayway = Blvd ?). Same comment as "b" and "c" above; e. Under TDR2005- 1.1.028 there was also 1.0 dwelling units to be transferred from 669 Mandalay.• Avenue. Same comment as "b ", "c" and "d" above. What has ever happened to these units? f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b - e above be cleared up before th,is,.{ document is recorded. 09/29/2009 J 10/25/09 - WW - Revise for the following: I Not Met a. Level 300 - Hotel - There are 10 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 9); b. Level 400 - Hotel - There are 9 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 10); 9/29/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Revise the table for existing and proposed hotel rooms and number of parking spaces for the Existing hotel & garage: a. Level 200 - Parking - There is a total of 32 spaces (6 + 26) (not 26); b. Level 300 - Hotel - There are 10 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 9); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); c. Level 400 - Hotel - There are 9 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 10); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); d. Level 500 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); e. Level 600 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (4 + 34) (not 34) (however, there are 2 overflow spaces that could be shown, much like Level 500, that could increase the overflow to 6 spaces and a total for this level of 40 spaces); f. Level 700 - Parking - There is a total of 21 spaces (0 + 21) (indicated 4 overflow that are not shown) (however, there probably can be more than 4 overflow spaces, based on those indicated on other levels); and g. Total Parking - Revise to reflect the new total number of spaces (overflow + regular + HC). 09/29/2009 10/25/09 - WW Not Met Include a condition of approval regarding this existing building - see Response to Comments letter regarding condition of approval. Print Date: 11/12/2009 Page 6 of 7 CaseConditons FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 9/29/09 - WW Accessory waverunner business: Ja. Sheet C4 indicates a 6' high vinyl fence to be installed on the north adn west sides of the existing structure. Site inspection reveals "windows" that open on the west side that would be obstructed by the proposed fence. Confirm this is the desired circumstance. b. Sheet C5 indicates the installation of drainage pipes directly adjacent to the east and south sides of this existing structure. As the response to comments indicates, this existing structure is not to be touched. Should this structure need to be relocated to install the proposed drainage structures, this structure will need to comply with all Code requirements, including FEMA (per the Building Official). Please acknowledge. A condition of approval regarding such will most likely be included in the Staff Report. Print Date: 11/12/2009 Page 7 of 7 CaseConditons V ISConditions Associated With* FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 09/21/2009 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: 562 -4773 Not Met 1. A city Right -of -Way Permit shall be procured prior to making utility connections in adjacent street right -of -way. 2. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove /relocate any /all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) 3. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and backflow prevention device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow prevention device. 4. Correct supplied detail to show that dog house manhole will be installed on top, of a:pre._cast or r,.; poured in place concrete slab. 5. Thrust blocks shall not be utilized on unrestricted water lines (mains and fire hydrant leads). Parks & Recs Condition Debbie Reid 562 -4818 12/18/2008 Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to 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. 12/18/2008 The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of Not Met building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at 727 - 562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. Storm Water Condition Phuong Vo 562 -4752 09/21/2009 The following shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: Not Met 1. Since the proposed stormwater management system does not have a positive outfall, please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on the double ring infiltration test result. 10/22/2009 NOT MET 2. Provide a detail of the perforated pipes design and provide assurance in the signed and, sealed: . drainage report stating that the design of this perforated pipes will not create erosion problem to the adjoining property in the future and will provide load support capacity for maintenance activities. MET - PERFORATED PIPE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED 3. Proposed vault bottom shall be at a minimum of 6" above the seasonal high water level. 10/22/2009 NOT MET 4. Please tie the proposed 12" deck drain to the vault for treatment before discharge. 10/22/2009 NOT MET General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 09/23/2009 General Note(s): Not Met 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 Print Date: 10/25/2009 CaseConditons Page 1 of 7 • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD • Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 01/06/2009 9/29/09 & 5/5/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/6/09 - WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. Not Met 12/23/2008 9/29/09 & 5/4/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 -,,WW Existing freestanding sign is' nonconforming.' Code requires bringing this nonconforming , freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. 'Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 01/05/2009 10/25/09 - WW Require as part of -.a, condition of approval.: 9/29/09 - WW As of 9/27/09, the Property Appraiser still shows two parcels for this overall property (not one as- asserted); however, both parcels now reflect the same owner. Still need to combine the two +. parcels into one parcel. 5/5/09 - WW Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done;to'get'this under one ownership. 1/5/09,-WW. Overall' verall property has'two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard,' Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. 05/05/2009 10/25/09 - WW Not addressed. 9/29/09 - WW The criteria and responses need to be part of the application package, just like the General Applicability and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria and responses, not in the response to DRC comments letter from the architect. Additionally, the following comments to specific criteria below is provided: (c.) Provide a calculation as to how you derived the total of 186 rooms, requesting 68 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve. Since under the maximum of 150 rooms /acre, a maximum of 237 rooms would be possible, but such is restricted to a maximum of 100 rooms by Beach by Design. So, how did we land on 68 rooms from the Reserve? (d.) Need to provide a tabulation of the square footages of all interior accessory uses of the hotel (existing and proposed). Need to provide the gross floor area of the hotel (total square footage). Need to indicate the percentage of accessory use square footage (see above) to the gross floor area. If the percentage of accessory uses is less than 10% of the total gross floor area of the existing and proposed buildings (not including parking garages), then no additional parking Print Date: 10/25/2009 Page 2 of 7 Not Met CaseConditons • 9 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 spaces are required and no reduction to the number of rooms from the Reserve is necessary. With the pending Code amendment for accessory uses for hotels under Ordinance No. 8044 -09, need to address the following: 1. Accessory uses located within the building interior may occupy between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the development, but only when additional parking is provided for that portion of the accessory uses which exceeds 10 %. The required amount of parking shall be calculated by using the minimum off - street parking development standard for the most intensive accessory use(s). Where there is a range of parking standards, the lowest number of spaces allowed shall be used to calculate the additional amount of off - street parking required for the project. In projects where.the interior accessory uses exceed 15% of the building gross floor,area, -all interior,::_ accessory uses shall be considered additional primary uses for purposes of calculating development potential and parking requirements. 2. In addition to the requirements above, for those projects that request additional rooms from the . Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design and whose interior accessory uses are between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the proposed building, density shall be calculated as follows: is Calculate the maximum number.of,units allowed by the base density; ii. Calculate the'maximum number of units that may be allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve established in-Beach by Design; iii. Add the figures determined in is and ii. to determine the'total number of units allowed for.the site; iv. Divide the total number of units allowed, as calculated in iii., by the total land area to determine the resulting units per acre for the project site; v. Determine the total floor area of all interior`accessory uses exceeding 10% of the gross floor .. area of the proposed building; vi. Subtract the figure determined in. v. from the total land area, and divide this difference by: 43,560. to determine the net acreage; Vii. Multiply the net acreage derived in vi. by the applicable resulting units per acre figure determined in iv. The resulting product is the maximum number ofrrooms allowable: for-the"", project. viii. The final allocation of rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve shall be determined by multiplying the net acreage determined in vi. by the base density and subtracting this product from the maximum number of rooms allowable for the project as determined in vii. (g.) This criteria regarding building height limitation to TDR (on Page 55 of Beach by, Design) is superceded by Section B.1 on Page 64 of Beach by Design that allows building height above 100 feet through use of Hotel Density Reserve units. 5/5/09 - WW Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for a mid - priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a. Those properties and /or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; b. Those properties and /or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and /or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; c. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size less than 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than or equal to 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it has received benefit of transfers of development rights in Print Date: 10/25/2009 Page 3 of 7 CaseConditons • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD • Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 addition to the Reserve, or not; d. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; e. No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached dwelling); f. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; g. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought into the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise. maximum building h'eighf;` but only provided that aIhTDR ceiteria`are met; h. A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation /closure covenant that the overnight accommodation use will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the National Hurricane Center; i. Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; j. All hotel rooms obtained from the Reserve that are not constructed shall be returned t9 the Reserve; ,7 k. The development shall comply with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO);countywide approach to the application of concurrency management for transportation facilities,, and-the transportation analysis .conducted.for the development shall include the following:, - Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO; Identification of level ofaervice (LOS) standards for state and county roads as established by the WPO; = Utilization of proportional fair -share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO model ordinance; .- !Utilization of'the MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology; and :. Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the most, current, MPO Annual Level of Service Report. I A ti t h 11 d t 1 1+ h h fth t 1 dth IIb m reserva on. sys e s a e require as an• m egra pa o e o e use.an er!_fo a ..e; a lobby /front desk area that must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area fora hotel would be operated; and m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed by general law. 12/23/2008 9/28/09, 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 - WW Not Met Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 09/30/2009 10/25/09 - WW Not Met No information submitted. Discuss in the staff report and condition reduction in size and /or location. 9/30/09 - WW Sheets A -11, A -21 and A -21 B - A large overhead door has been introduced on the east side of the new building at the base of the ramp to the upper levels of the new parking garage. This overhead door is shown at 16' high by 26' wide. Unclear as to the purpose of this overhead door, since this door does not provide access to anything. If this overhead door is for ventilation only, ventilation can be handled differently than a large overhead door. Revise. 01/04/2009 9/27/09 & 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion Print Date: 10/25/2009 Page 4 of 7 CaseConditons 0 0 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. 01/07/2009 10/25/09 - WW Not Met City Attorney wants the TDRs discussed in the staff report. 9/29/09 - WW Will need to have further discussions with the Assistant City Attorney regarding TDRs. 7/5/09 - WW I have completed my review.of, the TDR portion,of the FLD2008 -12033 applicationlfor Shephards . and have the following comments: 1. 665 Bay Esplanade - a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 1,4606. Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to. the,, . TDR of 2 dwelling units. - .f. No Consent of Mortgager was,submitted. g. Need a completed Application forTransfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline.as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. - a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre) b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on'a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to'the existing 2,330 square-foot commercial' building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312 -317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as Print Date: 10/25/2009 Page 5 of 7 CaseConditons 0 • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 agent. 5/6/09 - WW I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read 'Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to the Sending Property in perpetuity." Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs.. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and ho%Wto resolve issues. 1/7/09 - WW Transfer of Development Rights - a. Unclear as to the need for the Affidavit submitted by Harry S. Cline; b. Exhibit A.- 665 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which w_ as deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application includedthe transfer of development rights for a total of two dwelling units from this property (TDR2005- 11028)..; .There was no determination whether there was two actual dwelling units that could be transferred, from this property. This still needs to be determined; c. Exhibitr.A - 655 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 1 1 1 08, which, was deemed incomplete, .never pursued and withdrawn October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for one dwelling unit from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was. no„ determination whether there was one actual dwelling unit that could be transferred.from-.this . property. `This still needs to be determined; d. Exhibit B - From what property were these two dwelling units transferred from (645.Bayway : Blvd ?). Same comment as "b" and "c" above; e: ;Under TDR2005 -11028 there was also 10 dwelling units jo. be transferred from 66,9-Mandalay.. Avenue. Same comment as "b ", "c" and "d" above. What has ever happened to these units? f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b - e above be cleared up before this document is recorded.. 09/29/2009 10/25/09 - WW - Revise for the following: Not Met a. Level 300 - Hotel - There are 10 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 9); b. Level 400 - Hotel - There are 9 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 10); 9/29/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Revise the table for existing and proposed hotel rooms and number of parking spaces for the Existing hotel & garage: a. Level 200 - Parking - There is a total of 32 spaces (6 + 26) (not 26); b. Level 300 - Hotel - There are 10 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 9); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); c. Level 400 - Hotel - There are 9 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 10); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); d. Level 500 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); e. Level 600 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (4 + 34) (not 34) (however, there are 2 overflow spaces that could be shown, much like Level 500, that could increase the overflow to 6 spaces and a total for this level of 40 spaces); f. Level 700 - Parking - There is a total of 21 spaces (0 + 21) (indicated 4 overflow that are not shown) (however, there probably can be more than 4 overflow spaces, based on those indicated on other levels); and g. Total Parking - Revise to reflect the new total number of spaces (overflow + regular + HC). 09/29/2009 10/25/09 - WW Not Met Include a condition of approval regarding this existing building - see Response to Comments letter regarding condition of approval. Print Date: 10/25/2009 CaseConditons Page 6 of 7 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD • Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 9/29/09 - WW Accessory waverunner business: a. Sheet C4 indicates a 6' high vinyl fence to be installed on the north adn west sides of the existing structure. Site inspection reveals "windows" that open on the west side that would be obstructed by the proposed fence. Confirm this is the desired circumstance. b. Sheet C5 indicates the installation of drainage pipes directly adjacent to the east and south sides of this existing structure. As the response to comments indicates, this existing structure is not to be touched. Should this structure need to be relocated to install the proposed drainage structures, this structure will need to comply with all Code requirements, including FEMA (per the Building Official). Please acknowledge. A condition of approval regarding such will most likely be included in the Staff Report. Print Date: 10/25/2009 CaseConditons Page 7 of 7 9 Wells, Wayne 0 From: Albee, Rick Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:32 AM To: Watkins, Sherry; DRC Members Subject: RE: RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING Attachments: image002.gif 109 McMullen Booth- Updated conditions, remaining conditions shall be required by building permit. 430 Park Place -No issues. 300 Hamden -No issues. 316 Hamden -No issues. 1225 Highland - Updated conditions, remaining condition shall be required by building permit. 900 Osceola- No issues. 619 Gulfview -No issues. From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:13 AM To: DRC Members Subject: RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the November 17, 2009 CDB meeting: FLD2009 -09035 and PLT2009 -00002 109 S McMullen Booth Road DR12009 -00001 430 Park Place Blvd FLD2009 -09036 DOCK 300 Hamden Drive FLD2009 -08026 and DVA2009 -00002 300 Hamden Drive "A" FLD2009 -08027 and DVA2009 -00003 316 Hamden Drive "B" FLD2009 -09033 1225 S Highland Avenue FLD2009 -08030 900 N Osceola Ave FLD2009 -12033 619 S Gulfview Blvd have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (please do not take it, as we need it for CDB mail out). Please review your comments /conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met' or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have cases reviewed, if possible by 12PM, October 22, 2009 Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning and Development Department 727 -562-4582 1 Wells, Wayne 0 0 From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:07 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Shephard's - TDR Do you have all the answers? From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:28 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Shephard's - TDR Then I would not include the TDRs in the request language, but include mention of them in the Staff Report narrative. From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thu 10/22/2009 8:53 AM To: Clayton, Gina; Dougall- Sides, Leslie Subject: Shephard's - TDR The TDR system, if there was one, is broke. If people can buy density or intensity, units without any oversight from the City, as to whether the sending site has the density or intensity units available to.sell, only to have these units surface some undefined time: period in the future, where many times the Special Warranty Deeds are flawed, and there isn't any Consent by the Mortgagee, there is a problem. There is no controls in place. Other recent TDR issues show the TDR "system" has major flaws. There has already been discussion regarding Shephard's selling these density units he purchased from the three sites to other people. I just need to know-if I need to include something in the request for Shephard's. They have not resubmitted any TDR application material for their request at this point. From: ,Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:39 AM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Shephard's - TDR So we should Wayne do? He wants to somehow track them even though they haven't technically been used and aren't proposed to be used in this project — is that correct Wayne? From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:37 AM To: Clayton, Gina; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Shephard's - TDR It's my understanding that they are not using the TDRs in conjunction with this project. From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thu 10/22/2009 7:31 AM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Shephard's - TDR Are they using the TDRs in conjunctio th this project? Is so they should be app9ed. From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:29 AM To: Clayton, Gina; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Shephard's - TDR No, the conveyance deeds were simply executed without City approval. We have told the applicant that at some point they would have to go through the approval procedure. They filed a TDR application but apparently that has not been processed to CDB as they decided not to use the units in the FLD concept. From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thu 10/22/2009 7:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Dougall- Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Shephard's - TDR Our code doesn't recognize TDR until they are part of a site plan. Were those approved by the CDB previously? From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:21 PM r° To: Clayton, Gina; Dougall- Sides, Leslie Subject: Shephard's - TDR With the CDB ad due to the Clerk's office this Friday, I need to know if the request needs to include the density units already transferred to this site, even though they are not using them. Could you please advise? Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 2 • Wells, Wayne C From: Doherty, Steve Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:28 PM To: Watkins, Sherry; DRC Members Subject: RE: RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING Attachments: image002.gif Please see review status of items below in red. FLD2009 -09035 O.K. and PLT2009 -00002 Gen. Engineering condition NOT MET 109 S McMullen Booth Road DR12009 -00001 O.K. 430 Park Place Blvd FLD2009 -09036 DOCK O.K. 300 Hamden Drive FLD2009 -08026 O.K. and DVA2009 -00002 O.K. 300 Hamden Drive "A" FLD2009 -08027 O.K. and DVA2009 -00003 O.K. 316 Hamden Drive "B" FLD2009 -09033 1225 S Highland Avenue..O.K. FLD2009 -08030 900 N Osceola Ave O.K. FLD2009 -12033 6`19 S Gulfview Blvd Stormwater Pre CDB conditions NOT MET From: Watkins, Sherry. Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:13 AM To: DRC Members Subject: RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the November, 7"20.09 GDB meeting: FLD2009 -09035 and PLT2009 -00002 109 S McMullen Booth Road DR12009 -00001 '430 Park Place Blvd FLD2009 -09036 DOCK 300 Hamden Drive FLD2009 -08026 and DVA2009 -00002 300 Hamden Drive "A" FLD2009 -08027 and DVA2009 -00003 316 Hamden Drive "B" FLD2009 -09033 1225 S Highland Avenue FLD2009 -08030 900 N Osceola Ave FLD2009 -12033 619 S Gulfview Blvd I have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216. in our office for your review (please do not take it, as we need it for CDB mail out). Please review your comments /conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have cases reviewed, if possible by 12PM, October 22, 2009 Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727-562-4582 Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning and Development Department 727 -562 -4582 1 • Wells, Wayne • From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:13 AM To: DRC Members Subject: RESUBMITTALS FOR THE NOVEMBER CDB MEETING Attachments: image001.gif DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the November 17, 2009 CDB meeting: FLD2009 -09035 and PLT2009 -00002 109 S McMullen Booth Road DR12009 -00001 430 Park Place Blvd FLD2009 -09036 DOCK 300 Hamden Drive FLD2009 -08026 and DVA2009 -00002 300 Hamden Drive "A" FLD2009 -08027 and DVA2009 -00003 316 Hamden Drive "B" FLD2009 -09033 1225 S Highland Avenue FLD2009 -08030 900 N Osceola Ave FLD2009 -12033 619 S Gulfview Blvd I have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (please do not take it, as we need it for CDB mail out). Please review your comments /conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have cases reviewed, if possible by 12PM, October 22, 2009 Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning and Development Department 727 - 552 -4582 Wells, Wayne From: Sent: To: Subject: My response to Michael Clayton, Gina Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:58 AM Wells, Wayne; Delk, Michael FW: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:57 AM To: Delk, Michael Subject: RE: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Joe' last paragraph doesn't make sense. He's trying to make a connection where one doesn't exist. With that said, when we developed the ordinance, we relied on the code's definition of gross floor area to determine what constitutes "building area." The definition states "the total interior floor area of a building measured at the inside face of exterior walls, but excluding parking garages, carports, stairwells and elevator shafts." When we did our research and calculations we used this definition to determine building area of the various hotels we looked at (this is also used when we determine FAR). From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:26 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Joe Burdette -'Re: 10% Calculations What have we always counted or not counted? I don't want to start doing it differentty-that has been historically applied. Do we know how we've done it? We can't start excluding something because it does not fit our preferences if we should have taken it into consideration when we- contemplated the 10 %. From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:52 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Matzke, Lauren; Delk, Michael Subject: RE: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations We clearly intended to meet the City of Clearwater's definition of gross floor area. We based all of our research on how the code defines the building area when calculating FAR. From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:50 AM To: Matzke, Lauren; Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Lauren /Michael /Gina — I have told Joe that he cannot count as gross square footage of a hotel (Shephard's) the stairwells, elevator shafts, balconies and garage parking areas, as they are not included under "gross floor area ". You can see Joe's argument below. How are we going to calculate the gross square footage for purposes of calculating per the new ordinance? Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:HunrWaol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Joe Burdette - Re: 10% Calculations Wayne Per our discussion today, I need some clarification on how to calculate the gross square footage of the building for purposes of applying the new 10% rule (assuming it applies to Shephards at all since we were already in the approval stage prior to this new ordinance). It is more important that I know how to calculate it for future proj ects. First let me say that it has been my understanding since this new ordinance first came up that the areas that were to be counted against us were areas that "would not normally be found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel." While I still disagree that that would include meeting spaces, parking, small restaurants, etc., the ordinance is passed and we will abide by it. However, I firmly disagree that the ordinance ever intended to include backing out the stairwells, balconies and elevators because they are not counted as FAR under the city code. I would argue that stairwells, balconies and elevators are things that ARE found in any hotel two stories or higher whether they be mid - sized, mid -priced or not and are certainly a part of the gross square footage of the building. For calculating the 10% (to 15 %) ordinance, we have always spoken in terms of gross square footage of the ,:. building,• minus the parking and not just what the city considers FAR and stairwells, ;elevators and balconies are unquestionably a part of the gross square footage. The new ordinance is burdensome enough and is already requiring people to;rethinkdoing.projects on the beach, and I don't see how penalizing them any further helps the cause of redevelopmentof-�whatthe council said they wanted on the beach, namely mid - sized, mid -priced hotel. Please let me know if you agree with this so I can get you the calculations that I need to for the CDB submittal. Again, I would stress that during every discussion I have been a part of regarding this ordinance, it has always been that the only areas that needed to be counted are the areas that are "not normally found in a mid - sized, mid - priced hotel' and I do not think that stairwells, elevators and balconies are things that are not normally found in those hotels. Thanks Joe Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:29 AM To: 'Richard Marcel, LEED AP NC' Subject: Shephards and Surf Style Attachments: image002.gif Richard — • 1. Shephards — This application was found sufficient to move forward to the CDB. Yes, this is full resubmittal with all plans and documents. 2. Surf Style —This application was found insufficient, requiring additional DRC review. Plans and documents need to be revised to comply with the DRC comments and only those plans and documents revised need to be resubmitted (examples: If the survey did not change; fire flow calculations did not change or a detail sheet did not change, they are not needed to be resubmitted). Obviously, you need to look at the package as to whether it is easier to resubmit an entire document or set of plans than leaving out one or two sheets of such document or set of plans. Wayne From: Richard Marcel, LEED AP NC [mailto:Richard @Keithzayac.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:07 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Shephards and Surf Style Just to be clear, these two are FULL resubmittal with all documents? - Also, Just want to thank you for all your help over the past week. Thank you, Richard Marcel, LEED AP NC Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 14001 63rd Way North Clearwater, FI 33760 727 - 488 -1002 PLEASE NOTE, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 28, 2009 OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBERS WILL BE.' KEITH ZAYAC & ASSOCIATES, INC! P.O. BOX 1156 SAFETY HARBOR, FL 34695 OUR OFFICE LOCATION WILL BE: 14001 63RD WAY NORTH CLEARWATER, FL 33760 'New Phone Numbers: ;Richard Marcel - 727 - 488 -1002 Alex Azan - 813 - 205 -3615 DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (KZA) makes the electronically stored data available for information purposes only. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made regarding the accuracy or reliability of the aforementioned data. KZA reserves the right to revise, update, and improve its electronically stored data without notice and assumes no responsibility for any images which may arise as a result of the use of its data. The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for the intended use. KZA makes every effort to ensure the data is virus free; however, KZA assumes no responsibility for damages caused by the installation /use of the enclosed data. Use of the enclosed data indicates the user accepts the conditions contained herein. Please note, in some cases final approval may not have been issued by all the permitting agencies; hence, modifications, which are not depicted on the enclosed electronically stored data, may be required. Unless other arrangements have been agreed to, use of the electronically stored data for any activities shall proceed solely at the risk and responsibility of recipient/user of said electronically stored data. Additionally, any use of the enclosed electronically stored data shall relieve KZA and /or any of its employees from liability/responsibility regarding any modifications to said electronically stored data which may be required due to reviewing agencies' comments and /or final design revisions /modifications. . - ,� • • Wells, Wayne From: Richard Marcel, LEED AP NC [Richard @Keithzayac.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:35 PM To: Keller, James Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: Shephards Beaqch Resort - FLD2008 -12033 Attachments: shephards fire dept letter- 1.pdf; image001.gif Mr. James Keller, Please accept this letter requesting that comment #1 under Fire be a condition of approval for Building Department Review. If you have any questions please give me a call. Thank you, Richard Marcel, LEED AP NC Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 14001 63rd Way North Clearwater, FI 33760 727 - 488 -1002 PLEASE NOTE, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 28, 2009 OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBERS WILL BE: KEITH ZAYAC & ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 1156 SAFETY HARBOR, FL 34695 OUR OFFICE LOCATION WILL BE: . _ .r A .14001 63RD WAY NORTH CLEARWATER, FL 33760 New Phone Numbers: Richard Marcel - 727 - 488 -1002 Alex Azan - 813 - 205 -3615 DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (KZA) makes the electronically stored data available for information purposes only. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made regarding the accuracy or reliability of the aforementioned data. KZA reserves the right to revise, update, and improve its electronically stored data without notice and assumes no responsibility for any images which may arise as a result of the use of its data. The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for the intended use. KZA makes every effort to ensure the data is virus free; however, KZA assumes no responsibility for damages caused by the installation /use of the enclosed data. Use of the enclosed data indicates the user accepts the conditions contained herein. Please note, in some cases final approval may not have been issued by all the permitting agencies; hence, modifications, which are not depicted on the enclosed electronically stored data, may be required. Unless other arrangements have been agreed to, use of the electronically stored data for any activities shall proceed solely at the risk and responsibility of recipient/user of said electronically stored data. Additionally, any use of the enclosed electronically stored data shall relieve KZA and /or any of its employees from liability/responsibility regarding any modifications to said electronically stored data which may be required due to reviewing agencies' comments and /or final design revisions /modifications. 1 4;v 0 0 Keith Za ac & Associate's Inc. P.O. Box 1156 Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 488 -1002 richard &keithzavac.com EB 935I LC26000212 Mr. James Keller, Fire Inspector 11 October 7, 2009 Clearwater Fire & Rescue 61.0 Franklin Street Clearwater, F133756 [P] 727.562 -4372 RE: Shephards Beach Resort — FLD2008 -12033 (619 South Gulfview) Dear Mr. Keller: Regarding Shephards on Clearwater Beach latest DRC comments; the following items are respectfully requested to be a condition of approval for Building Review: Fire: W. This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a high rise and requires two (2) Fire Department Connections, plans only show one. Provide Details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8 "fire main beingfed from the existing 12" watermain ' and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building. Acknowledged intent to comply and show on utilityplan prior to CDB. The resubmission to address DRC comments will .depict the requested additional FDC connection'-Ii along with applicable details as requested under comment #2. Our revised Civil Utility Plans will r also detail fire line size, type, location and stub -outs 5' away from the building envelope for internal routing to the fire room. Once we.move forward with Building Review a Fire Protection Engineer will prepare signed and sealed. Fire Protection Plans depicting how the fire department connections and new high rise tie into the fire.purnp. Sincerely, Richard Marcel, LEED AP Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. CC: FILE KZA# 706-08 Wells, Wayne • From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 8:44 AM To: 'Richard Marcel, LEED AP NC'; Keller, James Cc: alex @keithzayac.com Subject: FLD2008 -12033 and DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Sherphards Beach Resort) Richard — For both the FLD and DVA cases, yes, the deadline for resubmittal is noon on 10/16/09. Wayne From: Richard Marcel, LEED AP NC [mailto:Richard @Keithzayac.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 8:36 AM f, •,- - To: Wells, Wayne; Keller, James Cc: alex @keithzayac.com Subject: RE: DVA2008- 00002; 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Sherphards Beach Resort) Wayne, Good morning we wanted to make sure that the resubmittal deadline is 10/16/09 by noon.,, Y. Inspector Keller, , ;� t:, .. Per Fire Protection comment #1; A Fire protection plan is needed to show how the!FDC's tie into the fire, pump... Can this be a condition of approval for Building Review? This comment is usual adhered to for building review. . What are your thoughts on this? Thank you, Richard Marcel, LEED AP NC Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 14001 63rd Way North Clearwater, FI 33760 727 - 488 -1002 PLEASE NOTE, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 28, 2009 OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBERS WILL BE: IKEITH ZAYAC & ASSOCIATES, INC. 'P.O. BOX 1156 SAFETY HARBOR, FL 34695 OUR OFFICE LOCATION WILL BE: 14001 63RD WAY NORTH_ CLEARWATER, FL 33760 New Phone Numbers: Richard Marcel - 727 - 488 -1002 Alex Azan - 813 - 205 -3615 1 0 0 DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (KZA) makes the electronically stored data available for information purposes only. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made regarding the accuracy or reliability of the aforementioned data. KZA reserves the right to revise, update, and improve its electronically stored data without notice and assumes no responsibility for any images which may arise as a result of the use of its data. The user agrees to verify the data to ascertain its accuracy for the intended use. KZA makes every effort to ensure the data is virus free; however, KZA assumes no responsibility for damages caused by the installation /use of the enclosed data. Use of the enclosed data indicates the user accepts the conditions contained herein. Please note, in some cases final approval may not have been issued by all the permitting agencies; hence, modifications, which are not depicted on the enclosed electronically stored data, may be required. Unless other arrangements have been agreed to, use of the electronically stored data for any activities shall proceed solely at the risk and responsibility of recipient /user of said electronically stored data. Additionally, any use of the enclosed electronically stored data shall relieve KZA and /or any of its employees from liability /responsibility regarding any modifications to said electronically stored data which may be required due to reviewing agencies' comments and /or final design revisions /modifications. From :`Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [mailto: Wayne .Wells @myClearwater.corn] >; -„ Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:37 PM To: hsc @macfar.com Cc: richard @keithzayac.com; alex @keithzayac.com; jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: DVA2008- 00002, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. E :. Harry - Attached are the Draft DRC comments for the above referenced Development Agreement -for Shephard's, to. be, reviewed by the DRC (along with the associated, FLD, case) at 2:00 pm on Thursday, October;1,�2009, in .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 <<Draft 10.1.09 DRC Action Agenda 9.30.09.pdf>> 2 0 - 0 FLD2008 -12033 - DRC Attendees First DRC: January 8, 2009 City: Wayne Wells, Robert Tefft, Scott Rice, Steve Doherty, Jim Keller, Mark Beery Applicant: Keith Zayac, Joe Burdette, Harry Cline, Robert Pergolizzi, Oscar Garcia, Daniel Knopman Second DRC: May 7, 2009 City: Wayne Wells, Scott Rice, Jim Keller Applicant: Keith Zayac, Joe Burdette, Daniel Knopman, Paul Andrews, M. Foley, C. Jeobalo Third DRC: October 1, 2009 City: Wayne Wells, Robert Tefft, Scott Rice, Steve Doherty, Eliott Shoberg, Jim Keller, Leslie Dougall -Sides Applicant: Richard Marcel, Alex Azan, Joe Burdette, Daniel Knopman, Paul Andrews 2:00 pm Case Number: FLD2008 -120-- 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD • Owner(s): Shephard, William M Tre C/O Easley Mccaleb & Assoc Clearwater, Fl 33767 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Representative: Keith Zayac Fib eso, ) 191,1101 OQC �MM►TS 701 Enterprise Road East Safety Harbor, F134695 TELEPHONE: (727) 793 -9888, FAX: (727) 793 -9855, E -MAIL: keith @keithzayac.com Location: 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open Space /Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 285A Zoning District: T, Tourist Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), xx feet (to proposed building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of xx feet (to existing building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), xx feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top of roof deck) and xx valet -only parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from. the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights of total of five dwelling units (being converted to eight overnight accommodation units), including two dwelling units from 665 Bay Esplanade, one dwelling unit from 625 Bay Esplanade and two dwelling units from 645 Bayway Blvd., under the provisions of Section 4 -1402 (TDR2005- 05022). (Related to DVA2008- 00002) 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: See case file for DRC attendees for 1/8/09, 5/7/09 and 10/1/09 The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: I . Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: 1. A city Right -of -Way Permit shall be procured prior to making utility connections in adjacent street right -of -way. 2. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove /relocate any /all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) 3. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and backflow prevention device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow prevention device. 4. Correct supplied detail to show that dog house manhole will be installed on top of a pre -cast or poured in place concrete slab. 5. Thrust blocks shall not be utilized on unrestricted water lines (mains and fire hydrant leads). Environmental: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 38 DRC Action Agmda I.I Prior to issuance oelding permit: • f 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) (9/21/2009 - MET) 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the owner. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) (9/21/2009 - letter not found, please address issue.) Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. Fire: 1 . This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building.Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4 -13 -09 The required 2nd FDC is not shown on page C6. The FDC lines will be 6" DR14 pipe not 4" DR18 as shown. The fire line for the standpipe at the rear of property must be tied int the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO CDB 9/21/2009 Letter dated September 11, 2009 did not meet condition as stated on plan the information would be on the Fire Protection Plan no Fire Protection Plan provided to show how the fire line for the standpipe at the rear of the property is being tied into the fire pump. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB 2. Sheet C8 shows a 5" Stortz Connection with a 45 degree downward deflection, Clearwater Fire and Rescue only uses the 2 1/2" siamese connection as shown in the lower part of the plan.ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Harbor MV ster: 1 No issues. Legal: 1 . No issues. Land'Resources: 1 . No Issues. Landscaping: 1 . There is a sewer lift station at the northeast corner of the site within a four -foot high concrete block wall vault. Without impairing maintenance capabilities, install shrubs on the north and west sides to help hide this structure. Parks and Recreation: 1 . 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 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, October 1, 2009 - Page 39 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 The following shoe addressed prior to Community Developmen0ard: 1. Since the proposed stormwater management system does not have a positive outfall, please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on the double ring infiltration test result. 2. Provide a detail of the perforated pipes design and provide assurance in the signed and sealed drainage report stating that the design of this perforated pipes will not create erosion problem to the adjoining property in the future and will provide load support capacity for maintenance activities. 3. Proposed vault bottom shall be at a minimum of 6" above the seasonal high water level. 4. Please tie the proposed 12" deck drain to the vault for treatment before discharge. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Solid Waste: I . No issues. Traffic Engineering: I . General Note(s): Planning: 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, October 1, 2009 - Page 40 DRC Aoion Agnida 1.1 9/28/09 & 6/26/09W • Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - Second sentence - Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot." This surface parking lot is being removed with this proposal. 9/28/09 - WW Line of tapered fns above have been indicated on Sheet A -11 for the rear fins close to the seawall, but the fin on the front (north) side of the new building is not shown (with a setback dimension) and the fins on the existing stairwell on the NW corner of the existing parking garage are not shown on the north and south sides (with setback dimensions). For the west side of this NW corner of the existing parking garage, Sheet A -20B appears to show the fin starting a certain (non- dimensioned) distance above ground (maybe due to the exit drive on the west side used by delivery and trash truck ? ?). Sheet A -11 and the elevation sheets need to detail the setback dimensions and the fm starting point on this west side of the existing NW corner of the existing parking garage. 5/5/09 - WW Elevations indicate that the existing stairwells at the northwest corner of the existing parking garage and adjacent to the existing nightclub in the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fns" on the new building with an angled wall projection. With both the stairwells angled "fin" walls in the existing building and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured from the property lines or seawall to the furtherest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site plan needs to indicate the points of these fins and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still need to show the setback from the property lines and seawall to the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building Official, for seawall setbacks, where a variance to the seawall setbacks under the Building Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report). 9/28/09, 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 - WW Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 9/29/09 - WW As of 9/27/09, the Property Appraiser still shows two parcels for this overall property (not one as asserted); however, both parcels now reflect the same owner. Still need to combine the two parcels into one parcel. 5/5/09 - WW Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. 9/29/09 & 5/4/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 - WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 41 DRC Action Agenda I.I 6 . 9/27/09 & 5/5/09 0 Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 42 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 7 . 9/29/09 - WW 0 0 The criteria and responses need to be part of the application package, just like the General Applicability and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria and responses, not in the response to DRC comments letter from the architect. Additionally, the following comments to specific criteria below is provided: (c.) Provide a calculation as to how you derived the total of 186 rooms, requesting 68 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve. Since under the maximum of 150 rooms /acre, a maximum of 237 rooms would be possible, but such is restricted to a maximum of 100 rooms by Beach by Design. So, how did we land on 68 rooms from the Reserve? (d.) Need to provide a tabulation of the square footages of all interior accessory uses of the hotel (existing and proposed). Need to provide the gross floor area of the hotel (total square footage). Need to indicate the percentage of accessory use square footage (see above) to the gross floor area. If the percentage of accessory uses is less than 10% of the total gross floor area of the existing and proposed buildings (not including parking garages), then no additional parking spaces are required and no reduction to the number of rooms from the Reserve is necessary. With the pending Code amendment for accessory uses for hotels under Ordinance No. 8044 -09, need to address the following: 1. Accessory uses located within the building interior may occupy between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the development, but only when additional parking is provided for that portion of the accessory uses which exceeds 10 %. The required amount of parking shall be calculated by using the minimum off - street parking development standard for the most intensive accessory use(s). Where there is a range of parking standards, the lowest number of spaces allowed shall be used to calculate the additional amount of off - street parking required for the project. In projects where the interior accessory uses exceed 15% of the building gross floor area, all interior accessory uses shall be considered additional primary uses for purposes of calculating development potential and parking requirements. 2. In addition to the requirements above, for those projects that request additional rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design and whose interior accessory uses are between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the proposed building, density shall be calculated as follows: i. Calculate the maximum number of units allowed by the base density; ii. Calculate the maximum number of units that may be allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design; iii. Add the figures determined in i. and ii. to determine the total number of units allowed for the site; iv. Divide the total number of units allowed, as calculated in iii., by the total land area to determine the resulting units per acre for the project site; v. Determine the total floor area of all interior accessory uses exceeding 10% of the gross floor area of the proposed building; vi. Subtract the figure determined in v. from the total land area, and divide this difference by 43,560 to determine the net acreage; vii. Multiply the net acreage derived in vi. by the applicable resulting units per acre figure determined in iv. The resulting product is the maximum number of rooms allowable for the project. viii. The final allocation of rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve shall be determined by multiplying the net acreage determined in vi. by the base density and subtracting this product from the maximum number of rooms allowable for the project as determined in vii. (g.) This criteria regarding building height limitation to TDR (on Page 55 of Beach by Design) is superceded by Section B.1 on Page 64 of Beach by Design that allows building height above 100 feet through use of Hotel Density Reserve units. 5/5/09 - WW Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for a mid- priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a. Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 43 DRC Action Agmda I.I Density Pool are Agible to have rooms allocated from the Reseo b. Those properties and/or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and/or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; c. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size less than 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than or equal to 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it has received benefit of transfers of development rights in addition to the Reserve, or not; d. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; e. No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached dwelling); f. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; g. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought into the project.- through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building. height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met; h. A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that the overnight accommodation use will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the National Hurricane Center; i. Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; j. All hotel rooms obtained from the.Reserve that are not constructed shall be returned to the Reserve; k. The development shall comply with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) countywide approach to the applicatiori.of concurrency management for transportation facilities;., and the transportation analysis conducted for the development shall include the following: - Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO; -Identification of level of service (LOS) standards for state and county roads as established by_ the MPO; - Utilization of proportional fair -share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO. model ordinance; - Utilization of the MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology; and - Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the most current MPO Annual Level of Service Report. 1. A reservation system shall be required as an integral part of the hotel use and there shall be a lobby /front desk area that must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area for a hotel would be operated; and m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed by general law. 8. 9/29/09 - WW Only the fins on the south side adjacent to the seawall were detailed (see also other Planning comments relating to the same issue). Need to show the fin projection on the front of the new building and those fin projections to be added to the stair tower for the existing parking garage, including the proposed setback to property lines (Sheets A -11, A -21 and A -21B). 4/30/09 - WW After further review of the plans and discussion with Planning Management and the Building Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and/or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fins on the building must be projected to the ground and the setback to that point indicated. These setbacks to property lines and/or seawall are what will be advertised (a variance to the seawall setback will be required by the Building Official). Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 44 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 9 . 9/29/09 & 5/5/09 0 0 Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/6/09 - WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 45 DRC Action Ag.dx 1.1 10 . 9/29/09 - WW 0 • Will need to have further discussions with the Assistant City Attorney regarding TDRs. 7/5/09 - WW I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments: 1. 665 Bay Esplanade - a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du/acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. - a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages . 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du/acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312 -317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 5/6/09 - WW I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read "Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to the Sending Property in perpetuity." Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and how to resolve issues. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 46 DRC Action Agoida I.1 1/7/09 - WW 0 0 Transfer of Development Rights - a. Unclear as to the need for the Affidavit submitted by Harry S. Cline; b. Exhibit A - 665 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for a total of two dwelling units from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was two actual dwelling units that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; c. Exhibit A - 655 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for one dwelling unit from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was one actual dwelling unit that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; d. Exhibit B - From what property were these two dwelling units transferred from (645 Bayway Blvd ?). Same comment as "b" and "c" above; e. Under TDR2005 -11028 there was also 10 dwelling units to be transferred from 669 Mandalay Avenue. Same comment as "b ", "c" and "d" above. What has ever happened to these units? f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b - e above be cleared up before this document is recorded. 11 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Revise for the following: (a) Seventh line - You reference a project granted a similar height to the north. The only projects granted height increases to the north are residential projects, both under 100 feet. Do you mean the Holiday Inn property to the west? (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The size of the floor plates (gross square feet) is indicated on Sheet A -11. However, Level 6 is 21,038 sf. Revise the response to indicate this 21,038 sf (not the. 18,987 sf stated); (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The floorplate between 100' -150' indicated (15,292 sf) exceeds that permitted (10,000 sf) and there is no justification provided per Beach by Design ;. B;3.c as to how this proposal complies with a tiered effect. Provide a response; . (b) There is no Criteria #71(remove). Also remove a) and b) on the next page, - Revise c) andithe, balance of this section to a new section C.1, C.2, etc.; (b) c) 1 - Provide a diagram that shows compliance with this dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes. The illustrations on Sheets A -32 - A -34 do not provide such information; ;.•;, , , ..• (b) c)4-- Theoretical building envelop -Revise the written material to indicate 75% (not 60 %D).. The attached drawing to the response letter indicates the existing and proposed building above 45 feet is 12% total (existing and proposed buildings) or a total of 24% (12% for each the existing and proposed buildings)? Is this percentage of the cubic footage in the envelop between 44 = 150 feet? (b) d) - Remove this section 7.d, as this is not in Beach by Design; (b) Remove sections 8 and 9, as these are not in Beach by Design; and (c) Need to provide responses to the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off and not provided; acknowledging the criteria is insufficient): c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; 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. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 47 DRC Action Agmda I.1 12 . Sheet A -11 - Revis*e table for existing and proposed hotel rooms9number of parking spaces for the Existing hotel & garage: a. Level 200 - Parking - There is a total of 32 spaces (6 + 26) (not 26); b. Level 300 - Hotel - There are 10 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 9); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); c. Level 400 - Hotel - There are 9 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 10); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); d. Level 500 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); e. Level 600 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (4 + 34) (not 34) (however, there are 2 overflow spaces that could be shown, much like Level 500, that could increase the overflow to 6 spaces and a total for this level of 40 spaces); f. Level 700 - Parking - There is a total of 21 spaces (0 + 21) (indicated 4 overflow that are not shown) (however, there probably can be more than 4 overflow spaces, based on those indicated on other levels); and g. Total Parking - Revise to reflect the new total number of spaces (overflow + regular + HC). 13. Accessory waverunner business: a. Sheet C4 indicates a 6' high vinyl fence to be installed on the north adn west sides of the existing structure. Site inspection reveals "windows" that open on the west side that would be obstructed by the proposed fence. Confirm this is the desired circumstance. , , b. Sheet C5 indicates the installation of drainage pipes directly adjacent to the east and south sides of this existing structure. As the response to comments indicates, this existing structure is not to be touched. Should this structure need to be relocated to install the proposed drainage structures, this structure will need to comply with all Code requirements, including FEMA (per the Building Official). Please acknowledge. A condition of approval regarding such will most likely be included in the Staff Report. 14 : Regarding accessory Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, surrey and bikes): Intent of permitting Fun Ride Rentals as an accessory use is that the storage of such vehicles are not to be visible. Previous comment requested the landscape plan be revised to include taller shrubs that will obscure views. of this storage area. The response ,submitted indicates sea grapes have :been added (around fence), but this was at the waverunner accessory building, not the Fun Ride. Rentals on'the ground level of the existing parking garage. Comment is still valid. Revise., 15 Paiking Demand Study - Parking Supply (Page 1) — Remove the next to last sentence dealings with affordable housing. 16 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the, following:; a. Height - The request is not for 150 feet, but for 133' -10" (or 134 feet); b. Height - The request is not for "100 additional units resort hotel units ", but for "68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve "; and c. Parking - Second line refers to this project as a "resort hotel ", which appears contrary to other responses to criteria. This is supposed to be a mid- priced hotel, not a resort. Revise. 17. Sheet C2 - General Site Note #10 - Revise "total spaces required" from "(1 space /unit) (226 units) = 226 spaces" to "(1.2 spaces /unit) (186 units) = 223 spaces ". 18. Sheet C4 - Provide dimensions or information for the following: a. Distance from the front property line to the closest edge of pavement for the area between the two driveways; b. The width and length of the interior landscape island north of the porte cochere; c. The setback from the east property line to the existing tiki hit for the waverunner business; d. The width of the one -way drive between the driveways; and e. Indicate 6" vertical concrete curbing along the edges of all landscaped areas (typ). 19. Sheets A -11, A -21 and A -21B - A large overhead door has been introduced on the east side of the new building at the base of the ramp to the upper levels of the new parking garage. This overhead door is shown at 16' high by 26' wide. Unclear as to the purpose of this overhead door, since this door does not provide access to anything. If this overhead door is for ventilation only, ventilation can be handled differently than a large overhead door. Revise. 20. Sheet A -18 and elevation sheets - In order to comply with the Beach by Design requirement to not have a linear facade greater than 100 feet, there must be a minimum offset of five feet. The balconies on Levels 1100 and 1200 are shown four feet in depth (or one -foot shy of meeting the Beach by Design requirement). Revise the balconies to a minimum of five feet in depth. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 48 DRC Action Agmda L I 21 . While windows A indicated on the floor plans on the north side &e new building, the north elevation on Sheets A -20 and A -20B indicates a wide window that includes the elevators at the northwest corner of the building. Will windows really cover this entire distance, or will there really be a stucco finished wall for the elevator shaft as the exterior finish? Advise /revise all appropriate elevations and other renderings and vignettes. 22. While windows are not indicated on the floor plans on the western portion of the west side of the new building, the west elevation on Sheets A -21 and A -21B indicates a wide window that includes the elevators at the northwest corner of the building. Will windows really cover this entire distance, or will there really be a stucco finished wall for the elevator shaft as the exterior finish? Advise /revise all appropriate elevations and other renderings and vignettes. 23 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #7 - Revise for the following: (a). Don't understand the 40 units per acre. Project has been designed utilizing the base density of 50 units per acre, plus 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve for an overall density of 78.48 units per acre; and (c.1). Provide a diagram that illustrates this ascertion. Other: No Comments Notes: Sufficient - To be placed on the 11/17/09 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above departments' comments by noon,'10 /16/09. Packets shall be'collated, folded and stapled as appropriate -, : , - Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 49 DRC Action Ag-da 1.1 2:00 pm Case Number: F1,132008 -120 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD i PrX6 Owner(s): Shephard, William M Tre C/O Easley Mccaleb & Assoc ' O •'� O Clearwater, FI 7 AM TELEPHONE: E: No No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Representative: Keith Zayac 701 Enterprise Road East Safety Harbor, Fl 34695 TELEPHONE: (727) 793 -9888, FAX: (727) 793 -9855, E -MAIL: keith @keithzayac.com Location: 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 285A Zoning District: T, Tourist Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), xx feet (to proposed building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of xx feet (to existing building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), xx feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top of roof deck) and xx valet -only parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights of a total of five dwelling units (being converted to eight overnight accommodation units), including two dwelling units from 665 Bay Esplanade, one dwelling unit from 625 Bay Esplanade and two dwelling units.,,i-om:645. Bayway Blvd., under the provisions of Section 4 -1402 (TDR2005- 05022). (Related to DVA2008- 00002),. ,. 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): i TELEPHONE: 443 -2168, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: papamurphy @aol.com Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: 1/ 8/ 09: Wells,Tefft,Rice,Doherty,Keller, Beery; 5 /7 /09:Wells,Rice,Doherty,Keller Applicant: 1 /8 /09:Keith Zayac,Joe Burdette,Harry Cline,Robert Pergolizzi3Oscar Garcia,Daniel Knotman; 5/7/09: Zayac, Burdette ,Knotman,P.Andrews,M.Foley,C. Jeobalo The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: 1 . Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: 1. A city Right -of -Way Permit shall be procured prior to making utility connections in adjacent street right -of -way. 2. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove /relocate any /all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) 3. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and backflow prevention device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow prevention device. 4. Correct supplied detail to show that dog house manhole will be installed on top of a pre -cast or poured in place concrete slab. 5. Thrust blocks shall not be utilized on unrestricted water lines (mains and fire hydrant leads). Environmental: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 36 DRC Action Agcnda I.I Prior to issuance oloding permit: 0 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) (9/21/2009 - MET) 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the owner. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) (9/21/2009 - letter not found, please address issue.) Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. Fire: 1 . This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building.Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4 -13 -09 The required 2nd FDC is not shown on page C6. The FDC lines will be 6" DR14 . pipe not 4" DR18 as shown. The fire line for the standpipe at the rear of property must be tied int the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO CDB 9/21/2009 Letter dated September 11, 2009 did not meet condition as stated on plan the information would be on the Fire Protection Plan no Fire Protection Plan provided to show how. the fire line for the standpipe at the rear of the property is being tied into the fire pump. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB 2. Sheet C8 shows a 5" Stortz Connection with a 45 degree downward deflection, Clearwater,Fire aridRescue only uses the 2 1/2" siamese connection as shown in the lower part of the ; plan.ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Aarbor Master: _. x.. 1 . No issues: Legal: 1 No issues. Land Resouscese 1 . No Issues. Landscaping: 1 . There is a sewer lift station at the northeast corner of the site within a four -foot high concrete block wall vault. Without impairing maintenance capabilities, install shrubs on the north and west sides to help hide this structure. Parks and Recreation: 1 . 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 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, October 1, 2009 - Page 37 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 1 . The following shle addressed prior to Community Developmenl6rd: 1. Since the proposed stormwater management system does not have a positive outfall, please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on the double ring infiltration test result. 2. Provide a detail of the perforated pipes design and provide assurance in the signed and sealed drainage report stating that the design of this perforated pipes will not create erosion problem to the adjoining property in the future and will provide load support capacity for maintenance activities. 3. Proposed vault bottom shall be at a minimum of 6" above the seasonal high water level. 4. Please tie the proposed 12" deck drain to the vault for treatment before discharge. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Solid Waste: 1 . No issues. Traffic Engineering: 1 . 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, October 1, 2009 - Page 38 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 1 . 9/28/09 & 6/26/094W Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - Second sentence - Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot." This surface parking lot is being removed with this proposal. 2. 9/28/09 - WW Line of tapered fins above have been indicated on Sheet A -11 for the rear fins close to the seawall, but the fin on the front (north) side of the new building is not shown (with a setback dimension) and the fins on the existing stairwell on the NW corner of the existing parking garage are not shown on the north and south sides (with setback dimensions). For the west side of this NW corner of the existing parking garage, Sheet A -20B appears to show the fin starting a certain (non- dimensioned) distance above ground (maybe due to the exit drive on the west side used by delivery and trash truck ? ?). Sheet A -11 and the elevation sheets need to detail the setback dimensions and the fin starting point on this west side of the existing NW corner of the existing parking garage. 5/5/09 - WW Elevations indicate that the existing stairwells at the northwest corner of the existing parking garage and adjacent to the existing nightclub in the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fins" on the new building with an angled wall projection. With both the stairwells angled; "fin" walls in the existing building and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured from the property lines or seawall to the furtherest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site plan needs to indicate the points of these fins and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still need to show the setback from the property lines and seawall to the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building Official, for seawall setbacks, where a variance to the seawall setbacks under the Building Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report). 3. 9/28/09, 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 - WW Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the; public records. 4. 9/29/09 - WW As of 9/27/09, the Property Appraiser still shows two parcels for this overall property (not one as asserted); however, both parcels now reflect the same owner. Still need to combine the two parcels into one parcel. 5/5/09 - WW Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. 5 . 9/29/09 & 5/4/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 - WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 39 DRC Action Agmda I.I 6 . 9/27/09 & 5/5/09 19 • Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 40 DRC Action Agcoda 1.1 7 . 9/29/09 - WW 0 9 The criteria and responses need to be part of the application package, just like the General Applicability and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria and responses, not in the response to DRC comments letter from the architect. Additionally, the following comments to specific criteria below is provided: (c.) Provide a calculation as to how you derived the total of 186 rooms, requesting 68 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve. Since under the maximum of 150 rooms /acre, a maximum of 237 rooms would be possible, but such is restricted to a maximum of 100 rooms by Beach by Design. So, how did we land on 68 rooms from the Reserve? (d.) Need to provide a tabulation of the square footages of all interior accessory uses of the hotel (existing and proposed). Need to provide the gross floor area of the hotel (total square footage). Need to indicate the percentage of accessory use square footage (see above) to the gross floor area. If the percentage of accessory uses is less than 10% of the total gross floor area of the existing and proposed buildings (not including parking garages), then no additional parking spaces are required and no reduction to the number of rooms from the Reserve is necessary. With the pending Code amendment for accessory uses for hotels under Ordinance No. 8044 -09, need to address the following: 1. Accessory uses located within the building interior may occupy between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the development, but only when additional parking is provided for that portion of the accessory uses which exceeds 10 %. The required amount of parking shall be calculated by using the minimum off - street parking development standard for the most intensive accessory use(s). Where there is a range of parking standards, the lowest number of spaces allowed shall be used to calculate the additional amount of off - street parking required for the project. In projects where the interior accessory uses exceed 15% of the building gross floor area, all interior accessory uses shall be considered additional primary uses for purposes of calculating development potential and parking requirements. 2. In addition to the requirements above, for those projects that request additional rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design and whose interior accessory uses are between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the proposed building, density shall be calculated as follows: i. Calculate the maximum number of units allowed by the base density; ii._ Calculate the maximum number of units that may be allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design; iii. Add the figures determined in i. and ii. to determine the total number of units allowed for the site; iv. Divide the total number of units allowed, as calculated in iii., by the total land area to determine the resulting units per acre for the project site; v. Determine the total floor area of all interior accessory uses exceeding 10% of the gross floor area of the proposed building; vi. Subtract the figure deternned in v. from the total land area, and divide this difference by 43,560 to determine the net acreage; vii. Multiply the net acreage derived in vi. by the applicable resulting units per acre figure determined in iv. The resulting product is the maximum number of rooms allowable for the project. viii. The final allocation of rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve shall be determined by multiplying the net acreage determined in vi. by the base density and subtracting this product from the maximum number of rooms allowable for the project as determined in vii. (g.) This criteria regarding building height limitation to TDR (on Page 55 of Beach by Design) is superceded by Section B.1 on Page 64 of Beach by Design that allows building height above 100 feet through use of Hotel Density Reserve units. 5/5/09 - WW Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for a mid- priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a. Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 41 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 Density Pool are n &gible to have rooms allocated from the Reser, b. Those properties and/or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and/or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; c. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size less than 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than or equal to 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it has received benefit of transfers of development rights in addition to the Reserve, or not; d. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; e. No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached dwelling); f. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; g. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought into the project,, „•.:._ ;, ;; ._, ?_ through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building ; height, but only provided, that all TDR criteria are met; h. A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that the overnight accommodation use will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the National Hurricane Center; i. Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; j. All hotel rooms obtained from the Reserve that are not constructed shall be returned to the $;•_; Reserve; k. The development shall'complywith .the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) ' countywide• approach.to'the'applicatio'n.of concurrency management for transportation facilities;. and the transportation analysisrconducied forthe developinentshall include the following: - Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO; ; -Identification of level of;service (LOS) standards f6f state: and county roads as established by ,, •:.. ,. .. ;:;'; G; , , the MPO;. -. - Utilization of proportional fair -share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO model ordinance; - Utilization of the MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology; and - Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the most current MPO Annual Level of Service Report. 1. A reservation system shall be required as an integral part of the hotel use and there shall be a lobby /front desk area that must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area for a hotel would be operated; and m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed by general law. 8. 9/29/09 - WW Only the fins on the south side adjacent to the seawall were detailed (see also other Planning comments relating to the same issue). Need to show the fin projection on the front of the new building and those fin projections to be added to the stair tower for the existing parking garage, including the proposed setback to property lines (Sheets A -11, A -21 and A-2 1B). 4/30/09 - WW After further review of the plans and discussion with Planning Management and the Building Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and/or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fins on the building must be projected to the ground and the setback to that point indicated. These setbacks to property lines and/or seawall are what will be advertised (a variance to the seawall setback will be required by the Building Official). Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 42 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 9 . 9/29/09 & 5/5/09 * 0 Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/6/09 - WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 43 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 10 . 9/29/09 - WW , 0 Will need to have further discussions with the Assistant City Attorney regarding TDRs. 7/5/09 - WW I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments: 1. 665 Bay Esplanade - a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du/acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. - a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of.3: dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238 -1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in - perpetuity the subject, property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage.as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646: _ g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline, . as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du/acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14634, Pages 312 -317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 5/6/09 - WW I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read "Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to the Sending Property in perpetuity." Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and how to resolve issues. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 44 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 1/7/09 - WW • Transfer of Development Rights - a. Unclear as to the need for the Affidavit submitted by Harry S. Cline; b. Exhibit A - 665 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for a total of two dwelling units from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was two actual dwelling units that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; c. Exhibit A - 655 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for one dwelling unit from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was one actual dwelling unit that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; d. Exhibit B - From what property were these two dwelling units transferred from (645 Bayway Blvd ?). Same comment as "b" and "c" above; e. Under TDR2005 -11028 there was also 10 dwelling units to be transferred from 669 Mandalay Avenue. Same comment as "b ", "c" and "d" above. What has ever happened to these units? f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b - e above be cleared up before this document is- recorded. 11 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Revise for the following: (a) Seventh line - You reference a project granted a similar height to the north. The only projects granted height increases to the north are residential projects, both under 100 feet. Do you mean the Holiday Inn property to the west? (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The size of the floor plates (gross square feet) is indicated on Sheet A -11:: However, Level 6 is 21,038 sf. Revise the response to indicate. this 21,038 sf (not the 18,987 sf stated); (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 -The floorplate between 100' -150' indicated;(,15,292.sf) exceeds-that permitted (10,000 sf) and there is no justification provided per :Beach-by Design: B.3.c as to how'this proposal complies with a tiered effect. Provide a response; (b) There is no Criteria #7 .(remove):: Also remove a) and b) on the next page. ;Revise c) and the a balance of this, section to a new. section C.1, C.2, etc.; (b) c)1 - Provide: a diagram:that'shows compliance with this dimensional. criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes. e The illustrations on Sheets A -32 - A -34 do not provide such information; (b)�c)4 - ;Theoretical building envelop - Revise the written material to indicate 75% (not 60 %). The attached drawing to the response. letter indicates the existing and proposed, building above 45;.;: feet is 12% total (existing and proposed buildings) ma total of 24% (12% for each'the existing and proposed buildings)? Is this percentage of the cubic footage in the envelop between 44 - 150 feet? (b) d) - Remove this section 7.d, as this is not in Beach by Design; (b) Remove sections 8 and 9, as these are not in Beach by Design; and (c) Need to provide responses to the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off and not provided; acknowledging the criteria is insufficient): c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; 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. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 45 DRC Action Agmda I.I Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 46 DRC Action Agenda I.1 laumber 12 . Sheet A -11 - Revi* table for existing and proposed hotel rooms of parking spaces for the Existing hotel & garage: a. Level 200 - Parking - There is a total of 32 spaces (6 + 26) (not 26); b. Level 300 - Hotel - There are 10 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 9); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); c. Level 400 - Hotel - There are 9 rooms indicated on the floor plans (not 10); Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); d. Level 500 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (6 + 32) (not 32); e. Level 600 - Parking - There is a total of 38 spaces (4 + 34) (not 34) (however, there are 2 overflow spaces that could be shown, much like Level 500, that could increase the overflow to 6 spaces and a total for this level of 40 spaces); f Level 700 - Parking - There is a total of 21 spaces (0 + 21) (indicated 4 overflow that are not shown) (however, there probably can be more than 4 overflow spaces, based on those indicated on other levels); and g. Total Parking - Revise to reflect the new total number of spaces (overflow + regular + HC). 13. Accessory waverunner business: a. Sheet C4 indicates a 6' high vinyl fence to be installed on the north adn west sides of the existing structure. Site inspection reveals "windows" that open on the west side that would be obstructed by the proposed fence. Confirm this is the desired circumstance. b. Sheet C5 indicates the installation of drainage pipes directly adjacent to the east and south sides of this existing structure. As the response to comments indicates, this existing structure is not to be touched. Should this structure need to be relocated to install the proposed drainage structures,, this structure will need to comply with all Code requirements, including FEMA (per the Building Official). Please acknowledge. A condition of approval regarding such will most., likely be included in the Staff Report. 14. Regarding accessory Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, surrey and bikes): Intent of permitting Fun Ride Rentals as an accessory use is that the storage of such•vehicles are not to be Visible. Previous comment, requested the landscape plan be revised' a.. include ;taller shrubs.A, hat. will obscure views of this -storage area. The response submitted indicates sea grapes. have been ,.. A• . ; , added- (around fence);- butAhis was at the waverunner accessory: building, not the Fun Ride,,.,,,-,;' Rentals on the. ground level of the existing parking garage. Comment is still valid. Revise ,; 15 . .Parking Demand Study`. Parking Supply (Page 1) - Remove the next to last sentence.dealmgl,with ,• F, affordable housing. 1! 16 , Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for- the.following a. Height - The request is not for 150 feet, but for 133' -10" (or 134 feet); . b. Height - The request is not for "100 additional units resort hotel units ", but for, "68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve "; and c. Parking - Second line refers to this'project as a "resort hotel ", which appears contrary to other responses to criteria. This is supposed to be a mid- priced hotel, not a resort. Revise. 17. Sheet C2 - General Site Note #10 - Revise "total spaces required" from "(1 space /unit) (226 units) = 226 spaces" to "(1.2 spaces /unit) (186 units) = 223 spaces ". 18. Sheet C4 - Provide dimensions or information for the following: a. Distance from the front property line to the closest edge of pavement for the area between the two driveways; b. The width and length of the interior landscape island north of the porte cochere; c. The setback from the east property line to the existing tiki hit for the waverunner business; d. The width of the one -way drive between the driveways; and e. Indicate 6" vertical concrete curbing along the edges of all landscaped areas (typ). 19. Sheets A -11, A -21 and A -21B - A large overhead door has been introduced on the east side of the new building at the base of the ramp to the upper levels of the new parking garage. This overhead door is shown at 16' high by 26' wide. Unclear as to the purpose of this overhead door, since this door does not provide access to anything. If this overhead door is for ventilation only, ventilation can be handled differently than a large overhead door. Revise. 20. Sheet A -18 and elevation sheets - In order to comply with the Beach by Design requirement to not have a linear facade greater than 100 feet, there must be a minimum offset of five feet. The balconies on Levels 1100 and 1200 are shown four feet in depth (or one -foot shy of meeting the Beach by Design requirement). Revise the balconies to a minimum of five feet in depth. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 46 DRC Action Agenda I.1 21 . While windows ar0 indicated on the floor plans on the north sidoe new building, the north elevation on Sheets A -20 and A -20B indicates a wide window that includes the elevators at the northwest corner of the building. Will windows really cover this entire distance, or will there really be a stucco finished wall for the elevator shaft as the exterior finish? Advise /revise all appropriate elevations and other renderings and vignettes. 22. While windows are not indicated on the floor plans on the western portion of the west side of the new building, the west elevation on Sheets A -21 and A -21B indicates a wide window that includes the elevators at the northwest corner of the building. Will windows really cover this entire distance, or will there really be a stucco finished wall for the elevator shaft as the exterior finish? Advise /revise all appropriate elevations and other renderings and vignettes. 23. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #7 - Revise for the following: (a). Don't understand the 40 units per acre. Project has been designed utilizing the base density of 50 units per acre, plus 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve for an overall density of 78.48 units per acre; and (c.1). Provide a diagram that illustrates this ascertion. Other: No Comments Notes: Sufficient - To be placed on the 11/17/09 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above`departments' comments by noon,, 10/16/09: - Packets shall be collated, folded and staple&as appropriate. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 1, 2009 - Page 47 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 Property Appraiser General Information I,nteracti e Map of this Sales Back to-Query _ .. parcel Query'. Results. Search .. • Page 1 of 6 ia�Co.... Collector Question /Co.mment_aboutthis Pale page 17- 29 -15- 05004 - 003 -0010 Portabtl.ty Data Current as of September 24, 2009 Improvenetit Va.lt Print Calculator [ 11:43 am Sunday September 27] p er F.S. 553.844 Ownership /Mailing Site Address (First Building) Address Homes Cap SHEPHARD FAMILY No TRUST 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER 33767 C/O SHEPHARD, No WILLIAM M THE No 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Jump to building: CLEARWATER FL 33767- (1) 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER 33767 2002 2643 2001 Property Use;, 3912 (Hotels and Motels (50 units or more)) Living Units: 0 [click here to hide] Legal Description BAYSIDE SUB NO. 5 BLK C, LOTS 1 THRU 5 & RIP RTS .. `, i . 2009 Exemptions. Homestead: No Save - Our -Homes Cap Percentage: 0.00% Non- Homestead.1 0% Cap: Yes Government: No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 2009 Parcel Information Original Trim Notice Most Recent Conveyance Sales.Com arison 11 Census Tract Plat Book/,Pa e. 04567 /1565 Sales uer 121030260023 038/039 2009 Value Information (PRELIMINARY) Year Sal e -Our Just/Market Assessed_ Value/' County School Mu_ ni.c pal Homes Cap Value so. H_Cap Taxable Value Taxable Value Taxable Value 2009 No $9,150,000 $9,150,000 $9,150,000 $9,150,000 $9,150,000 Just /Market Value $9,500,000 $9,950,400 $10,441,700 $7,950,000 $6,050,000 $5,500,000 $4,700,000 $4,711,600 $3,907,500 $3,552,700 $3,551,600 [click here to hide] Value History Asse5sed...Value/ SOH Can $9,500,000 $9,950,400 $10,441,700 $7,950,000 $6,050,000 $5,500,000 $4,700,000 $4,711,600 $3,907,500 $3,552,700 $3,551,600 County Taxable Value $9,500,000 $9,950,400 $10,441,700 $7,950,000 $6,050,000 $5,500;000 $4,700,000 $4,711,600 $3,907,500 $3,552,700 $3,551,600 School Taxable Value $9,500,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Municipal, Taxable Value $9,500,000 $9,950,400 $10,441,700 $7,950,000 $6,050,000 $5,500,000 $4,700,000 $4,711,600 N/A N/A N/A http : / /www.pcpao.org /general.php ?strap = 152917050040030010 9/27/2009 Sav eiOur- Year Homes Cap 2008 No 2007 No 2006 No 2005 No 2004 No 2003 No 2002 No 2001 No 2000 No 1999 No 1998 No Just /Market Value $9,500,000 $9,950,400 $10,441,700 $7,950,000 $6,050,000 $5,500,000 $4,700,000 $4,711,600 $3,907,500 $3,552,700 $3,551,600 [click here to hide] Value History Asse5sed...Value/ SOH Can $9,500,000 $9,950,400 $10,441,700 $7,950,000 $6,050,000 $5,500,000 $4,700,000 $4,711,600 $3,907,500 $3,552,700 $3,551,600 County Taxable Value $9,500,000 $9,950,400 $10,441,700 $7,950,000 $6,050,000 $5,500;000 $4,700,000 $4,711,600 $3,907,500 $3,552,700 $3,551,600 School Taxable Value $9,500,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Municipal, Taxable Value $9,500,000 $9,950,400 $10,441,700 $7,950,000 $6,050,000 $5,500,000 $4,700,000 $4,711,600 N/A N/A N/A http : / /www.pcpao.org /general.php ?strap = 152917050040030010 9/27/2009 Property Appraiser General Information • Page 2 of 6 1997 No $3,550,300 1996 No $3,545,100 $3,550,300 $3,545,100 $3,550,300 $3,545,100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2008 Tax Information Ranked Sales See all transactions Current Tax Bill Tax District: Sale Date Book/Page Price Q/U V /%. . ... CW 1977 04567/1565 $1,250,000 Q Total Millage: 20.3578 1973 03996/0856 $1,048,000 U Non Advalorem $0.00 Interior Finish: Dry Wall Assessments: Fixtures: 293 Year Built: 1957 Taxes: $193,399.10 Effective Age: 10 Cooling: Heat & Taxes without any $193,399.10 Cooling Pkg exemptions: A significant change in taxable value may occur when sold due to changes in the market or the removal of exemptions..i c.. k..._. .h....r...e.._fo.r...._ more . information. Land Information Seawall: No Frontage: Gulf of Mexico View: Land Use Land Size Unit Value Units Method. Hotels And Motels (39) 335x280 70.00 8189,6.0000,,... SF [click here to hide] Building 1 Structural Elements Back to Top Site Address: 619 S- GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER 33767 Qualify`:; Average Foundaton: Spread/Mono Footing Floor System: Masonry Pil/Stl Exterior Wall: Concrete Blk/Stucco Roof Frame: Gable & Hip Roof Cover: N",--,, Buildi'lir". Draw Composition Shingle Stories: 2 Floor Finish: Carpet Awaltab1c; Combination Interior Finish: Dry Wall Fixtures: 293 Year Built: 1957 Effective Age: 10 Cooling: Heat & Cooling Pkg http : / /www.pcpao.org/general.php ?strap= 152917050040030010 9/27/2009 Property Appraiser General Information 9 Page 3 of 6 Building 1 Sub Area Information Description Building Finished Ft2 Gross Area Ft2 Factor Effective Ft2 :Base 47,991 47,991 1.00 47,991 Cano _y only or loading 0 462 0.25 116 Waif M) j. Open P. li 0 5,296 0.30 1,589 Utility Unl misled 576 576 0.40 230 Total Building finished SF: 48,567 Total Gross SF: 54,325 Total Effective SF: 49,926 [click here to hide] Building 2 Structural Elements Back to Top Site Address: Quality: Average Foundaton: Special Footing Floor System: Concrete Reinforced Exterior Wall: Concrete Blk/Stucco Roof Frame: Bar Joint/Rigid Frame Roof Cover: ,Built Up /Composition Stories: 0 F1oor.Finish: Carpet Combination Interior Finish: Dry Wall Fixtures: 113 Year Built: 2000 Effective Age: 9 Cooling: Heat & Cooling Pkg Building 2 Sub Area Information Description BuildinL- Finished Ft2 Gross Area FV7 Factor Effective Ft2 Base. 24,672 24,672 1.00 24,672 Total Building finished SF: 24,672 Total Gross SF: 24,672 Total Effective SF: 24,672 [click here to hide] Building 3 Structural Elements 0-ack -to Top Site Address: Quality: Average Foundaton: Spread /Mono Footing http : / /www.pcpao.org/general.php ?strap= 152917050040030010 9/27/2009 Property Appraiser General Information . f Floor System: Concrete Reinforced Exterior Wall: Concrete Block Roof Frame: Reinforced Concrete Roof Cover: Op Pkg Gar Stories: 6 Floor Finish: Concrete Finish Interior Finish: None Fixtures: 0 Year Built: 2001 Effective Age: 8 Cooling: None 0 No 13-t-lilding D rAk Building 3 Sub .Area Information . Description Bu_ilding_Finished F0 Gros'sArea Ft2 Base. 91,518 91,518 Office Average 540 540 Total Building finished SF: 92,058 Total Gross SF: 92,058 Page 4 of 6 Factor Effective Ft 1.00 91,518 1.75 945 Total Effective SF: 92,463 Depreciated Value Year $19,743.00 1985 $5,580.00 1993 $18,600.00 1985 $14,316.00 0 $29,750.00 0 $13,325.00 1985 $43,400.00 1991 $43,423.00 2000 $165,704.00 2001 $24,000.00 2001 $16,800.00 2001 [click here to hide] Permit Data Permit information is received from the County and Cities. This data may be incomplete and may exclude permits that do not result in field reviews (for example for water heater replacement permits). Any questions regarding permits should be directed to the permitting office in which the structure is located. http : / /www.pcpao.org /general.php ?strap= 152917050040030010 9/27/2009 [click here to hide] Extra Features Description Dimensions Value/Unit Units Total NewValue DOCK 641 $40.00 641.00 $25,640.00 SPA/JAC/HT $9,000.00 1.00 $9,000.00 POOL 600SF $30,000.00 1.00 $30,000.00 CONC PAVE 3579SF $4.00 3,579.00 $14,316.00 ASPHALT 17000 $1.75 17,000.00 $29,750.00 PATIO/DECK 1791 $12.00 1,791.00 $21,492.00 GAZEBO 1000 $70.00 1,000.00 $70,000.00 FIRESPRINK 24672 $2.00 24,672.00 $49,344.00 FIRESPRINK ALL $2.00 92,058.00 $184,116.00 ELEV PASS 2000LB $30,000.00 1.00 $30,000.00 ELEV STOP 3 STOPS $7,000.00 3.00 $21,000.00 Page 4 of 6 Factor Effective Ft 1.00 91,518 1.75 945 Total Effective SF: 92,463 Depreciated Value Year $19,743.00 1985 $5,580.00 1993 $18,600.00 1985 $14,316.00 0 $29,750.00 0 $13,325.00 1985 $43,400.00 1991 $43,423.00 2000 $165,704.00 2001 $24,000.00 2001 $16,800.00 2001 [click here to hide] Permit Data Permit information is received from the County and Cities. This data may be incomplete and may exclude permits that do not result in field reviews (for example for water heater replacement permits). Any questions regarding permits should be directed to the permitting office in which the structure is located. http : / /www.pcpao.org /general.php ?strap= 152917050040030010 9/27/2009 Property Appraiser General Information Page 5 of 6 Permit Number Description 11 Issue Date 11 Estimated Value 200801416 FIRESPRINK 11 04 Mar 2008 $9,996 200705477 ASPHALT 02 Jul 2007 F $2,400 200704419 ROOF 01 Jun 2007 $6,100 200607545 ROOF 30 Aug 2006 $11,000 200410613 SPECIAL USE 19 Jan 2005 $23,000 200409467 FIRESPRINK 17 Nov 2004 $2,000 200409632 ROOF 17 Nov 2004 $9,532 200309577 COMMERCIAL ADD 11 22 Sep 2004 $5,500 200401704 PATIO /DECK 23 Mar 2004 $14,000 200309577 SPECIAL USE 30 Dec 2003 $5,500 200305073 PATIO /DECK 17 Jun 2003 $3,055 200108465 COMMERCIAL ADD 26 Nov 2001 $7,000 199910605 PATIO/DECK 22 Jan 2001 $8,912 199912154 SEA WALL 11 21 Aug $24,000 CA2778699 DOCK 21 Dec 1999 $0 98050673 ROOF 12 Jun 1998 $4,985 98030065 FIRESPRINK 01 May 19987F $6,400 97120389 COMMERCIAL ADD 11 18 Mar 1998 $2,400 98010444 COMMERCIAL ADD 04 Mar 1998 IF $77,658 97030281 - DOCK V. OlMavI997 11 $6,000 Wius erials: 2009 Color rans arenc 0.5 feet): 1281 i . _ p Y:� . .. f you do not see map, the SVG viewer has not been installed. Click here for information and installation. low to copy and paste a static map using Internet Explorer: Right -click on the map; Select "Copy SVG "; Open a Word c . *cial" from Edit menu on toolbar; Select Bitmap, then OK low to copy and paste a static map using Mozilla Firefox: Right - click on the map; Select "This Frame "; Select "Open Fra rom the new window. Click. here for Interactive Map http : / /www.pcpao.org/general.php ?strap = 152917050040030010 9/27/2009 Property Appraiser General Information C Page 6 of 6 I..nte ac.tiv.e Ma.p_ol'this Sales Back to...Que...ry. 'stew. Tax Collector......Hot��.e... OLIestion. C or... meat about this parcel Query. Re. Its Se..arch Page page http : / /www.pcpao.org /general.php ?strap = 152917050040030010 9/27/2009 Welcome to VDB on the Web 0 Aerial Photography: 12009 Color Transparency (0.0 -r 1.0 ) 1-*- J Theme Description This is the default set. It has no data layers, just linework. All of the map layers are black. 0 Page 1 of 1 http: / /vdb.pepao.org./vdb.php 9/27/2009 Property Appraiser General Information Pagel of 3 Interactive Map this Sales Sack to_Query "New Tax Collector Horne Question Comment about this Marcel Query Results Search Page. Me 17- 29 -15- 00000 - 220 -0100 Po-tahilty Data Current as of September 24, 2009 Calculator [11:45 am Sunday September 27] Print Ownershi /Mailin Address Site Address SHEPHARD FAMILY TRUST C/O SHEPHARD, WILLIAM M THE No site address found 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD No CLEARWATER FL 33767 -2643 No Property Use :. 1000 (Vacant Commercial Land - lot & acreage) Living Units: [click here to hide] Legal Description BEG AT NW COR OF LOT 1 BLK C OF BAYSIDE #5 SUB RUN N 54 DEG W 65.14FT S 12 DEG W 351.52FT TO S'LY LN OF IIF DISCLAIMER NO. 22310 TH S 77 DEG E.60FT MOL TH N 12 DEG E TO POB 2009 Exemptions Homestead: No Save - Our -Homes Cap Percentage: 0.00% Non - Homestead 10% Cap: Yes Government: No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 2009 Parcel Information Or�ginal_Trim Noti,.ce. Most Recent Conveyance Sales Comparison. ison. Ceas.us I l:act 011 -04567/1565 Sales Qucry 11 121030260023 Year Save-Ow--, Homes Cap 2009 No 2009 Value Information (PRELIMINARY) Just"Marlcet Assessed Value/ Count' School Value SOH, Cap Taxable.Valu...e.... Taxable Value $1,176,441 $1,176,441 $1,176,441 $1,176,441 l U.S t /MA.rhet Value $2,030,600 $2,432,000 $2,520,900 $1,176,400 $1,008,400 $924,400 $840,300 $840,300 $470,600 $470,600 $470,600 $476,100 [click here to hide] Value History Assessed Value.. /. SOII Cap $2,030,600 $2,432,000 $2,520,900 $1,176,400 $1,008,400 $924,400 $840,300 $840,300 $470,600 $470,600 $470,600 $476,100 Cou»ty Taxable, _Value $2,030,600 $2,432,000 $2,520,900 $1,176,400 $1,008,400 $924,400 $840,300 $840,300 $470,600 $470,600 $470,600 $476,100 School Taxable. Value $2,030,600 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A at Book/Page Municipal Taxab.Ie Value $1,176,441 Mun. c J.pal Taxable Value $2,030,600 $2,432,000 $2,520,900 $1,176,400 $1,008,400 $924,400 $840,300 $840,300 N/A N/A N/A N/A http: / /www.pcpao. org/ general. php? pn = 152917000002200100 &sn= 0 &idTool= true &aerFla... 9/27/2009 SAY-e-7-0 u r.,-.. Year H-Qnjes Cap 2008 No 2007 No 2006 No 2005 No 2004 No 2003 No 2002 No 2001 No 2000 No 1999 No 1998 No 1997 No 2009 Value Information (PRELIMINARY) Just"Marlcet Assessed Value/ Count' School Value SOH, Cap Taxable.Valu...e.... Taxable Value $1,176,441 $1,176,441 $1,176,441 $1,176,441 l U.S t /MA.rhet Value $2,030,600 $2,432,000 $2,520,900 $1,176,400 $1,008,400 $924,400 $840,300 $840,300 $470,600 $470,600 $470,600 $476,100 [click here to hide] Value History Assessed Value.. /. SOII Cap $2,030,600 $2,432,000 $2,520,900 $1,176,400 $1,008,400 $924,400 $840,300 $840,300 $470,600 $470,600 $470,600 $476,100 Cou»ty Taxable, _Value $2,030,600 $2,432,000 $2,520,900 $1,176,400 $1,008,400 $924,400 $840,300 $840,300 $470,600 $470,600 $470,600 $476,100 School Taxable. Value $2,030,600 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A at Book/Page Municipal Taxab.Ie Value $1,176,441 Mun. c J.pal Taxable Value $2,030,600 $2,432,000 $2,520,900 $1,176,400 $1,008,400 $924,400 $840,300 $840,300 N/A N/A N/A N/A http: / /www.pcpao. org/ general. php? pn = 152917000002200100 &sn= 0 &idTool= true &aerFla... 9/27/2009 Property Appraiser General Information • Page 2 of 3 1996 No $476,100 $476,100 $476,100 N/A N/A 2008 Tax Information Ranked Sales See all transactions Current Ta .Bill Tax District: CW Sale Date Book/Page Price Q/U Val, Total Millage: 20.3578 1977 04567/1565 $1,250,000 U Non Advalorem $0.00 1970 03366/0880 $27,000 Q Assessments: Taxes: $41,338.55 Taxes without any $41,338.55 exemptions: A significant change in taxable value may occur when sold due to changes in the market or the removal of exemptions. C.Ilck here for__more information. Land Information Seawall: No Frontage: None View: Land Use Land Size Unit Value Units :Method Vacant Commercial (10) 60050 70.00 19772.1200 SF [click here to hide] Extra Features Description . ; Dimensions Value/Unit Units Total NewValu.e Depreciated Value Year No Extra Features on Record click here to hide Permit Data x. ? Permit information is received from the County and Cities. This data may be incomplete and may exclude - permits that do;not result infield 'r reviews (for example for waier,heater replacement permits). Any questions regarding permits should be directed to.the,permitting office in which the structure is located. Permit Number Description Issue Date Estimated Value No Permit Data Found adius feet : 1029 enals: 2009 Color ELM Transparency: 0 5 ( ) _. - If you do not see map, the SVG viewer has not been installed. Clicherefor.... information installation. k..._.. ow - to copy and paste a static map using Internet Explorer: Right -click on the map; Select "Copy SVG "; Open a Word c Special" from Edit menu on toolbar; Select Bitmap, then OK How to copy and paste a static map using Mozilla Firefox: Right -click on the map; Select "This Frame "; Select "Open Fra from the new window. http: / /www.pcpao. org/ general. php? pn = 152917000002200100 &sn= 0 &idTool= true &aerFla... 9/27/2009 Property Appraiser General Information Page 3 of 3 In.teractitie Rlap_ of this Sil.es. Back to_Query e.w Tax C.o...11ec torIlone (�uestiorvComment Grout this parcel Query Results. Search Paz pale http: / /www.pcpao. org/ general. php? pn = 152917000002200100 &sn= 0 &idTool= true &aerFla... 9/27/2009 Welcome to VDB on the Web I 0 0 Page 1 of 1 1.U) �.. Theme Description This is the default set. It has no data layers, just linework. All of the map layers are black. http: / /vdb.pepao.org /vdb.php 9/27/2009 Shephards numbers- Enterprise ult Archived Item Page 1 of 1 From Matzke, Lauren Date Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:21:30 AM To Wells, Wayne Cc Subject Shephards numbers HAUS.xlsx (26 KB HTML) l Shephards Hypothetical Parking Scenario.xlsx (17 KB .HTM.-L ) <<HAUS.xlsx>> And for fun you can see how I ran their parking (I think I showed you this already) «Shephards Hypothetical Parking Scenario.xlsx>> Lauren Matzke Planner lll, City of Clearwater T: 727.562.4547 F: 727.562.4865 E: lauren.matzke@.myclearwater.com http: / /evault. clearwater- fl. com /EnteipriseVault /ViewMessage. asp ?VaultId= 198E419877B... 10/9/2009 �1 • o USE 619 Gulfview Blvd Building Footprint Floor Area Shepherds (existing + proposed) parking standard (per 1000) Spa Floor Area 1,300 5 Retail Sales / Bike Rental Floor Area 1,334 5 Meeting Room Floor Area 10,702 5 Restaurant / Kitchen Floor Area 9,893 7 Exercise Floor Area 540 10 Lounge / Bar Floor Area 1,864 10 Nightclub Floor Area 3,219 10 Business Center/ Library Floor Area 168 ?? Pre - Function Lobby Floor Area 1,600 ?? Non - Restaurant Dining Floor Area 0 n/a Locker Room and Restrooms Floor Area 0 n/a Number of Meeting Rooms 10 n/a Number of Hotel Rooms 226 n/a Number of Parking Spaces 318 n/a Building Footprint Floor Area 99,628 n/a Gross Floor Area (A/C Floor Area) 192,112 n/a Gross Floor Area (A /C Floor Area) 192,112 Building Footprint Floor Area 99,628 Total Accessory Floor Area 30,620 Interior Accessory Uses as % of Gross Floor Area 15.94% Interior Accessory Uses as % of Building Footprint Floor Area 30.73% Required Parking (10 -15 %) Calculation 10% Bldg Footprint 15% BF 49.8141 9962.81 14944.2 S VX"t Z �c�oc comments retail retail indoor recreation nightclub nightclub Difference 4981.4 Comparison of Interior Accessory Uses within Overnight Accommodation Projects Goss FloorArea(AIC RoorAreo) 20 Kendall St 101 Coronado Dr 3070 Gulf- to-Bay Blvd 940 Court St 619 Gu[Mm Blvd 1590 Gulf Blvd Building Footprint Fl"Area Ambiance Holiday Inn Fxpress Fairfield Inn Marriott Residence Inn Shephards (existing ♦ proposed) Cabana Club Number oJNOtel Rooms 88 108 127 115 226 38 Gross RwA/e. WC Floor Area) 70,355 66,351 69,627 80,629 192,112 45,793 Building Footprint RoorAreo 20,908 12,875 14,162 1L864 99,628 18,604 Number ojparking Spaces 94 94 127 119 318 56 Number oJMeeung Rooms 1 1 1 1 10 0 Meeting Room R-Areo 740 988 387 - 580 10,702 0 ExerdseRwAreo 0 444 387 490 540 0 Lounge /Bar Floor Area 742 0 0 0 1,864 0 Restaurant /Mtchen Floor Area 0 0 0 0 9,893 5,337 Non - Restaurant Dining Floor Area 0 0 1,160 2,616 0 0 Spa R"Areo 0 0 0 0 L300 0 Pre - Function Lobby RoorAreo 0 0 0 0 1,600 0 Nightclub RoorAreo 0 0 0 0 3,219 0 Business Center/Ubrory R"Area 0 0 163 0 168 0 Retail Sales /Bike Rental FloorAreo 0 0 0 0 1,334 0 Lotter Room and RestroomsRwAr- 0 0 0 0 0 1,080 Goss FloorArea(AIC RoorAreo) 70,355 66,351 69,627 80,629 192,112 45,793, Building Footprint Fl"Area 20,908 12,875 14,162 1L864 99,628 18,604 Totalik- oryRoorAreo 1,482 1,432 2,077 3,686 30,620 6,417 InteriorAmessory Uses as %o/ Gross RaarArea 2.11% 2.16% 2.98% 4.57% 15.94% 14.01% Interi0 /Aaxssory Uses Floor as %o/ Building Footprint Area 7,09% 1L12% 14.6796 3L07% 30.73% 34.49% July 23, 2009 _,A . � 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:27 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: hsc @macfar.com; Tefft, Robert; 'KOH @macfar.com' Subject: TDR2005- 11028, 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Leslie — This TDR application started in November 2005 with Ed Armstrong as agent at that time. Along with FLD2005- 11108, these applications were incomplete and eventually withdrawn. Since these applications were never a complete application, no review of the application material was ever performed as to whether the application material was correct. However, regarding the TDR portion, the applicant continued and recorded TDR Warranty Deeds regardless of the incompleteness of the application. Three to four years have transpired and we are now at a new application for development approval (FLD2008- 12033), which includes TDR2005- 11028. I have completed my review of the TDR portion of the FLD2008 -12033 application for Shephards and have the following comments (and have revised the appropriate Zoning DRC comment under FLD2008 -12033 to reflect the updated comments below): 1. 665 Bay Esplanade — a. The subject property is 0.273 acres in size (per FLD2005- 01009). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.273 acres, a maximum of 8 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units. d. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14606, Page 951, does not include a covenant restriction in 'perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. No Consent of Mortgager was submitted. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 2. 645 Bayway Blvd. — a. Per the Property Appraiser information, the parcel is 61'x112', or 6,832 square feet (0.1568 acre). b. The parcel is presently developed with a 2,330 square -foot commercial building. c. Based on a Mixed -Use calculation, in addition to the existing 2,330 square -foot commercial building, a maximum of 3 dwelling units could also be placed on this parcel. d. The TDR for 2 dwelling units is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Transfer of Density Unit Development Rights recorded in OR Book 14989, Pages 1238- 1239, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 2 dwelling units. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 16598, Pages 644 -646. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. 3. 625 -627 Bay Esplanade a. The subject property is 0.229 acres in size (per FLD2005- 03027). b. Based on a maximum of 30 du /acre and 0.229 acres, a maximum of 6 dwelling units could be placed on the subject property. c. The subject property is currently developed with 4 dwelling units (Property Appraiser still indicates 2 units in one building and 4 units in a second building; City BTR indicates only 4 total units [3 rented; 1 owner occupied]; site inspection only indicates 4 units total). d. The TDR for 1 dwelling unit is permissible. e. The Warranty Deed Tran - of Density Unit Development Rights recd in OR Book 14634, Pages 312- 317, does not include a covenant that the City desires restricting in perpetuity the subject property due to the TDR of 1 dwelling unit. f. A Release of Mortgage as to Transfer of Density was recorded in OR Book 14634, Page 314. g. Need a completed Application for Transfer of Development Rights filled out with Harry Cline as agent. I would suggest a meeting with Harry Cline so that we can review the file and update TDR applications to today's circumstances. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Q 2 0 .0 0 4-00 CITY OFL. -�'.t; PI_ N ING Prnr \/F'F (F I3(ia •} f ti _. :;Y'. r_F. l :.')F:. .> :oft \lciPAi. Fat u: IOf) So, i ( Z t zoov ,,.,., Mr. William M. Shephard 619 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater FL 33767 RE: Revised Development Order regarding the Shephard's Beach Resort located at 619 Gulfview Boulevard Dear Pdr. Shephard: The City has received a modified site plan for your resort that incluLles a total land area of 2.37 acres and 94 hotel rooms. The amendment to the site plan is considered minor and maybe approved on an administrative level. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the modified site plan has been approved. 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 which require this prior development approval. Impact fees may be required prior to the issuance of any permit or license. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mark Parrv, Planner at 562- 4558. Congratulations on continued success of your business! Sincerely yours, Ralph Stone Planning Director ('c: Steve Fowler, ?architect Afs .' :PDS'i'?ammngDeparmerriCDR'CDr Srandard; le ' Xw r, narrn'C or. °�r,;.:h� .'a,ec rn.;!i•ldtr:i F1 %. ,�, ^rurd;l:;rlri.r,.x. F ,y revered DE[ -FL( P.1IE.N'T DRDER.doc C: 0 • 04 -02. 99 07:50 FAX 5134626362 ( :, RK. _.. .L�.� aTER FIRE - Central -Per �j.01 TO_ Development Review Committee FROM: Antonia Gerli, Development Review Manager DATE: March 16, 1999 RE: Certified Site Plan for Shephard's Resort Attached is the site ptnn submitted by Shephard's Resort for certification under the old code and a copy of the variance application an.: - ,inutes. Please review under the old code regulations for meeting April S. Post -it' Fax Note 7671 D° pages 'W - co.,Uw:. O r rig/ Pt cne It Phone + Fax 0 Fax + 0 0 CITY OF CLEARWATER DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VARIANCE STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 8, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: C5 CASE *: VR 98 -05 OWNER /APPLICANT (BUSINESSYREPRESENTATIVE: William Shephard, Trustee / Lagoon Resort / Harry Cline LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Bayside Subdivision No. 5, Block "C ", Lots 1 thru 5, and Sec. 17-29 - 15, M &B 22.01, and riparian rights ADDRESS: 619 S. Gulfview Blvd. LOCATION: South side of S. Gulfview Blvd. at the intersection of Bayway Blvd. AREA: 2.38 acre EXISTING /PROPOSED USE: Motel ZONING: CR 28 (Resort Commercial "Twenty - eight ") VARIANCE REQUEST TYPE`OF VARIANCE: REQUESTED REQUfiREMENTICODE _ : , CITATION REQUEST/ PROPOSED, . VARIANCE . )NEEDED Clear space 77.8 feet / 41.131(6) 15 feet 62.8 feet Side setback (west side) 77.8 feet / 41.131(2) 15 feet 62.8 feet Front yard open space i 50 percent / 40.406(6)(a) 40.1 percent 9.9 percent NEWSPAPER AD: William Shephard. Trustee (Lagoon Resort) for the following variances: (1) a clear space variance of 62.8 ft. to allow a clear space distance of 15 ft. where a distance of 77.8 ft. is required; (2) a setback variance of 62.8 ft. to allow a building 15 ft. from the west side property line where a minimum setback cf 77.8 ft. is required; (3) a front yard open space variance of 9.9 percent to allow 40.1 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required, at 619 South GuIfview Boulevard, Bayside Subdivision, No. 5, Block "C ", Lots 1 thru 5, Section 17- 29 -15, M &B, 22.01, and riparian rights, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial "Twenty- eight "). VR 98 -25 SURROUNDING LAND USES (Please refer to attached map for surrounding zoning districts): North: Retail East: Motel South: Clearwater Pass West: Motel POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Generally compatible as proposed. OTHER REQUIRED REVIEWS /PUBLIC HEARINGS: Development Review Committee - Site Plan Review. STAFF ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: This is waterfront property developed with a motel. Construction of a new four -story parking garage is proposed on the west side of the property. On the north side of the garage in proximity to S. Gulfview Blvd., ground -level shops are proposed. On the south side of the garage, a five - story addition is proposed that will include a new nightclub: banquet room, and 14 new motel units. Three variances are requested: • Waterfront properties are required to have a clear space from the street to the water equal to 20 percent of the width of the property. For this property, the required clear space is 77.8 feet. A variance of 62.8 feet is requested to allow a clear space of 15 feet. • Waterfront properties are required to have a side setback equal to 20 percent of the width of the property. A variance of 62.8 feet is requested to allow a setback of 15 feet from the • VR 98 -05 Page 2 west side property line. • The front yard is required to be at least 50 percent open space. A variance of 9.9 percent is requested to allow 40.1 percent open space for the front yard. This property does not currently conform to the clear space, side setback, or front yard open space requirements of the zoning code. At present, only 17 percent of the front yard is open space. The proposed site plan for this property increases the front yard open space to 40.1 percent. While the new structures are being constructed within the west side setback area, there is no real effect on clear space because there is no existing clear space. The increase in front yard open space, the addition of a parking garage with additional parking to help with the parking demands on this site and the beach in general and the other improvements that are being made to the site would appear to counterbalance the variances. The hardship according to the applicant is that new construction cannot comply with code without moving existing structures. Note: The application makes reference to interior landscaping which is not applicable for a parking structure. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL STANDARDS (SEC. 45.24): Appears to comply with the standards for approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SHOULD THE BOARD APPROVE THE VARIANCES: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, wil! result in this variance being null and of no effect. 2) The requisite building permit shall be obtained within one year. 3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact Central Permitting staff to review tropical seascape design criteria proposed for Clearwater Beach. As part of this design review, the applicant and City staff shall consider means to utilize the sidewalk in front of the street level shops as an activity area, such as a sidewalk cafes, to increase the level of interest along the public sidewalk. PREVIOUS RELATED BOARD ACTIONS: None. OTHER DEPARTMENT /CITIZEN /OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS: See attached comments from other reviewing City departments. NOTE: THIS REPORT IS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MEMBERS AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A FINAL DECISION OF THIS CASE. A FINAL DECISION WILL BE MADE BY THE BOARD AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DATE LISTED ABOVE. VR 98 -05 — staff report '2 0 LAND USL DATA 0 reqp aC `. 1 / w _ 4t: Lot bd (LI. Ind Icref) � S te Caau OR t•r �,trr 1�3137St�(L�I tdc�lL. � i bet id i frd1 d n OK fee 4td11Ck 243' 1W' (M Q) .d.4ep fChedwA sl! u 2�' 1s18 lay' M� J n 1 Saud eetseamp -75 AMAX 401Ae 5EE pSErr`J% — _Ae_ 'f��iloS,F.�0. 94,2%3SF.�0.9t� setto C l (do ncl.de &Sens" on Its p4n 61e*g► Frme• 55 W 19 Mtn. iiirn. dnrtret �/K �/� 'GOr ttega�_ "!o' t l5' bd (Max } tuft.li Anik erom fit i.d t of wt 45,498 SF 313M SF. ►J/b. aJ I- N. N I.! For the Iran lbd (it. Md % of ,4b1 (Il . - - -A #.— .tea. rug, olrs lul..frm limato Pileq kit .&error bndw"q , I►f. Ind % d wed veiwir ieek ds41de�ct m ste �I� � 3G� 5p Q. 1,5 04 st= (8.4At,1a�S e�e5 "Arl °1" eat 115 ;231 157 (su- eaww) VFq4S4 U41TS F8Z 411t1?O 05E rVeMLJ" + U (n-±,),L 4.38.40 � Qit 9T•4 - Io °ISst OAL i) P fob 924 ,WQe. A • ResTAVa -JTG e,,'1'10 sr' ta4! �1Jle'j 10 SP �ax�� -ra.� -tJ�� 1o►J s • RI =��deT e 1 �►.r� = '13 fZ�jD�bN j G t !mom 9 36 15� PRO)E C T 4,� LAaD Use ■O■ FOWLED ASSOCIATES COMM. NO. -77. 1 pAj° rco_ ■■ ARCHITECTS, INC. DATE O I 11 � FxpAgSleg.) 1421 COURT STREET. SUTE I 0 0 i us o/ OLD& AM • Sm Urm 1 1 TAR ARIA 1 11 11 EbST21G RESTAURANT I • i If/ STAR TO SO' NEW RESORT e•.s.�. CWD MSO S.t 7 be SITE FLAN r _so. -0, `—� • NEW LOss7/ p OPMIM — REMODEUNG STING RESORT ROOMS./ Lim 1� �ww IMP- 0 0. 1� T Rkn► - UP El MOM I MON Gum GOUT MRS sifR 8XIbTWO RB80RT STAR T40M wo CITY OF CLEARWATER VARIANCE TRANSMITTAL TRANSMIT TO: Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk (Original) Leslie Dougall- Sides, Asst., City Attorney Stephen Doherty, Central Permitting Supervisor Earl Dussault, Steve Sarnoff, Don Malone; Zoning Review MEETING DATE: January 8, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: 5 CASE 8: VR 98 -05 0 VR#98 -05 Mike Gust, Traffic Engineering Vic Chodora, Building Official Tom Miller, Environmental -'Lead Planner OWNER /APPLICANT (BUSINESS) /REPRESENTATIVE: William Shephard, Trustee / Lagoon Resort / Harry Cline LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Bayside Subdivision No. 5, Block 'C', Lots 1 thru 5, Section 17- 29 -15, M & B 22.01, and riparian rights ADDRESS: 619 South Gulfview Boulevard LOCATION: 400 East of Hamden Drive, lying on the South side of Gulfview Blvd. AREA: 2.38 acres EXISTING /PROPOSED USE: Motel PROPOSED ZONING CR 28 (Resort Commercial 'Twenty Eight ") VARIANCE REQUEST TYPE,OF VARIANCE REQUESTED; REQUIREMENT /CODE CITATION REQUEST/ PROPOSED VARIANCE NEl= DEt3:..: Clear space 77.8 ft. / 41.131(6) 15 ft. 62.8 ft. Structural setback (West side) 77.8 ft. / 41.131(2) 15 ft. 62.8 ft. Front yard open space 50 percent / 40.406(6)(a) 40.1 percent 9.9 percent NEWSPAPER AD: William Shephard. Trustee (Lagoon Resort), for the following variances (1) a clear space variance 62.8 ft. to allow a clear space distance of 15 ft. where a distance of 77.8 ft. is required; (2) a setback variance of 62.8 ft. to allow a building 15 ft. from the Westerly side property line where a minimum setback of 77.8 ft. is required; (3) a front yard open space variance of 9.9 percent to allow 40.1 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required, at 619 South Gulfview Boulevard, Bayside Subdivision, No. 5, Block "C ", Lots 1 thru 5, Section 17- 29 -15, M & B, 22.01, and riparian rights, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial 'Twenty Eight "). VR 98 -05 SURROUNDING LAND USES (Please refer to attached map for surrounding zoning districts): North: Retail East: Motel South: Clearwater Pass West: Motel CITY OFFICIALS WISHING TO COMMENT MAY DO SO IN THE SPACE PROVIDED BELOW (COMMENTS SHOULD BE RETURNED TO ZONING AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE Other Board Actions Required: NONE a w •a w ,w-� TRANSMITTED BY: Dort Malone ncv wv ; i 17i QF DATE: December 12, 1997 FOR PUBLIC HEARING BY THE DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VR9805 TRANSMITTAL.doc •CITY OF CLEARWATER • VARIANCE TRANSMITTAL TRANSMIT TO: Cynthia Goudesu, City Clerk (Original) Leslie Dougal(- Sides, Asst., City Attorney Stephen Doherty, Central Permitting Supervisor Earl Dussault, Steve Sarnoff, Don Melons; Zoning Review MEETING DATE: January 8, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: 5 CASE A• VR 98 -05 VR#99 -05 Mike Gust, Traffic Engineering Vic Chodors, Building Official Tom Miller, Environmental Lead Planner OWNER /APPLICANT (BUSINESS) /REPRESENTATIVE: William Shepherd, Trustee / Lagoon Resort / Harry Cline LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ea sida Subdivision No 5 Block "C ", Lots 1 thru 5, Section 17- 29 -15, M & B ADDRESS: LOCATION: AREA: EXISTING /PROPOSED PROPOSED ZONING Y 22.01, and riparian rights 619 South Gulfview Boulevard 400 East of Hamden Drive, lying on the South side of Gulfview Blvd 2.38 acres USE: Motel CR 28 (Resort Commercial "Twenty Eight ") VARIANCE REQUEST TYPE VARIANCE REQUEST/ VARIANCE .OF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT /CODE CITATION PRO POSED ;: NEEDEI?' -: Clear space 77.8 ft. / 41.131(6) 15 ft. 62.8 ft. Structural setback (West side) 77.8 ft. / 41.131(2) 15 ft. 62.8 ft. Front yard open space 50 percent / 40.406(6)(a) 40.1 9.9 percent percent NEWSPAPER AD: William Sheahard Trustee (Lagoon Resort), for the following variances (1) a clear space variance 62.8 ft. to allow a clear space distance of 15 ft. where a distance of 77.8 ft. is required; (2) a setback variance of 62.8 ft. to allow a building 15 ft. from the Westerly side property line where a minimum setback of 77.8 ft. is required; (3) a front yard open space variance of 9.9 percent to allow 40.1 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required, at 619 South Gulfview Botfievard, Bayside Subdivision, No. 5, Block "Co, Lots 1 thru 5. Section 17- 29 -15, M & B, 22.01, and riparian rights, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial "Twenty Eight'). VR 98-0 SURROUNDING LAND USES (Please refer to attached map for surrounding zoning districts): North: Retail East: Motel South: Clearwater Pass West: Motel CITY OFFICIALS WISHING TO COMMENT MAY DO SO IN THE SPACE PROVIDED BELOW (COMMENTS SHOULD BE RETURNED TO ZONING AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING). w Other Board Actions Required: NONE 1 TRANSMITTED BY: Don Melons Revised 12/19/97 DATE: December 12, 1997 FOR PUBLIC HEAPING BY THE DEVELOPME T CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VR9805 TRANSMITTAL.doc . I 1** 0 9 CE` *TRAL PERMITTING DEPARTMENT 100 SO. MYRTLE AV$.9 2 FLOOR -0 CLEARWATER, FL 54616 4z a-CI t a 8( � PHONE: 562 -4567; FAX 562.4676 01 's 3Go -00 INSPECTION LINE: 5624580 V H# `1g - 05 685A & ADDRESS: REPRESENTATIVES(S) (if any) NAME & ADDRESS: TRUSTEE HARRY S. CLINE, ESQ. Boulevard POST OFFICE BOX 1669 CLEARWATER FL 33757 � (813 442 -5107 NAME OF BUSINESS (IF APPLIUABL b): LAGOON RESORT ZONING DISTRICT` LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: CR -28 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT' PROPERTY: Metes and Bounds (see attached Exhibit "A ") I'PARCEL NUMBER 17 / 2 9 / "This information is avaiable fom your -. _ _ __- ---I _22MtI&V Att"I tax 814 (813) 441 -896 ; AND AREA: 2.38 acres / 05004/ 003/ 0010 or contact Pinellas Co. Property Appraiser's Office at 464 -3207. h sheet. r DESCRIBK SUtttcv�rL►.x�v s+�••,• •,- - - -- - - -- East: North; Motel Convenience Store West: Motel . South: Clearwater Pass VARIANCE(S) REQUEST: view corridor on west side of ro ert _f _ax-L-stIng �. ordinances setback is 48' and .proposed setback is 15 , view corriclo� re uire a side setback equal to 208 of the front width of the property which would " av ire sck a variance corridor _,ordinance 1 7_ variance is requ�sted from the side yard setback, on the west side of the property, where there presently exists 48'; side seLDdGX LCylilLc be 23', making a requested side yard setback variance of 81. CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE 0 • STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL- A variance shell not be granted by the Development Code Agju4Unent Hoc t unlese the application and evi' ,ncs presented clearly support the following condition,: U -Men are special circumstances related to the particular physical sw- vundiW- shape or topographical wn&dons apphcable to the land or building% and such circumstances are peculiar to such land or buildings and do act sppb► =enera► to the land or bu�i ding is the applicable soninc district because: thRS airigwa* ai rPT P1,!k nxi c ti ng Alildiog l i aM e_qtAb1is1ed before • �+ t ti is • as to the interior larldscapa m, Applicant prCE=es 1) The strict application of the provisions of the code would deprive the applicant Of the reasonable use a( the lead arbuildhWbecaum I ;istoric uy are established by multi -story buildin4s and Applicant - -•� •, eri thaut mavira existira stnactxu�es; interio` 1 a rrq would not be e for la v� s�.ble and the size of the recauested variancrld_�u>Q is de minims. 3) The variance is not based exclusively upon a desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner because: r a pro is to provide parks r>g and additional _fig ext'lans • • s gial overation. 4) The grunting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and will not be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare because: ' s to establish a pazicirng ctargage the came ity gene—rally, and s1=1d f _ _ r —49 ..,,o �,,, ,•�,.,T,�, m nrmert es. Insofar as the variances dfm rssg circumstances. are u the requests represent no iange 4 THIS SUBMISSION GIVES AN APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BEQUEST THE VARIANCE AND AppEAR BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD. FEES PAID ARE NON REFUNDABLE REGARDLESS OF SIN� OF M ACKNOWLEDGING THAT FEES P DO NOT GU R� Pt 0 THIS lAPPLICATION SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER (OR name otoompany Cappli(able) 1 Sworn to and subwml*d before me skis day d AD November ., l! 97 BARRY S . CLINE who is pereonaIIy know to me or has Produced / N /A .. , _as identification. STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF P INELLAS t:(. ou r Public 0 KATHLEEN A. EARN Name of Notary typed. printed or stamped Commission: = �� % Q T A q0� o S S[• *comm. Ems; z ,�� `O� r #% •OF .Fe,.P NOTES- 7 " " "� PROPERTY OWNER OR REPRESENTArnTR�� A1IL�T A�URATE�TE MILAN, .vptar.ATION SHALL INCLUDE A FOR%I .VARIANCE APPLICATIC,X (Xovemb.r 6, 19V I4104wI DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m, at City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, review of meeting procedures, and Explanation of appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #A - Time Extension Reauests Al) (Approved 02/22/98) James Michael & Mar-gee Hoe McDaniel for a time extension of an additional one year for the following variances (1) a setback variance of 21.2 feet to permit a 2nd floor addition 3.8 feet from the southerly right -of -way line of Eldridge St., rather than the 25 feet setback required; (2) a setback variance of 18 feet to permit a 2nd floor addition 7 feet from the westerly right -of -way line of Eldridge St., rather than the 25 feet setback required; and (3) a setback variance of 5.75 feet to permit a 2nd floor addition 4.25 feet from a rear property line, rather than the It 0 feet rear setback required at 301 Eldridge St., Eldridge Town House, Lot 1 together with submerged land to West, zoned RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential). V 98 -03 In his December 9, 1998, letter, Mr. McDaniel requested a continuation due to construction difficulties and delays in obtaining engineering documents. Steve Fowler, representative, said the owner has had health problems. In response to a question, he said this second floor project will continue forward according to submitted plans. Member Johnson moved to approve a one -year extension for Item #A1. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. A2) (Approved 01/08/98) William M. Shepard, Trustee Magoon Resort) for a time extension of an additional one year for the following variances (1) a variance to allow a mdc0199 1 01/14/99 CITY OF CLEARWATER January 14, 1999 Present: William Schwob Chair William Johnson Vice -Chair Shirley Moran Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall -Sides Assistant City Attorney Antonia Gerli Planning Manager Patricia 0. Sullivan Board Reporter Absent: Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member (resigned as of January 14, 1999) The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m, at City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, review of meeting procedures, and Explanation of appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #A - Time Extension Reauests Al) (Approved 02/22/98) James Michael & Mar-gee Hoe McDaniel for a time extension of an additional one year for the following variances (1) a setback variance of 21.2 feet to permit a 2nd floor addition 3.8 feet from the southerly right -of -way line of Eldridge St., rather than the 25 feet setback required; (2) a setback variance of 18 feet to permit a 2nd floor addition 7 feet from the westerly right -of -way line of Eldridge St., rather than the 25 feet setback required; and (3) a setback variance of 5.75 feet to permit a 2nd floor addition 4.25 feet from a rear property line, rather than the It 0 feet rear setback required at 301 Eldridge St., Eldridge Town House, Lot 1 together with submerged land to West, zoned RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential). V 98 -03 In his December 9, 1998, letter, Mr. McDaniel requested a continuation due to construction difficulties and delays in obtaining engineering documents. Steve Fowler, representative, said the owner has had health problems. In response to a question, he said this second floor project will continue forward according to submitted plans. Member Johnson moved to approve a one -year extension for Item #A1. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. A2) (Approved 01/08/98) William M. Shepard, Trustee Magoon Resort) for a time extension of an additional one year for the following variances (1) a variance to allow a mdc0199 1 01/14/99 clear space distance of 15 feet where a distance of 77.8 feet is required; (2) a setback variance of 62.8 feet to allow a building 15 feet from the westerly side property line where a minimum setback of 77.8 feet is required; and (3) a front yard open space variance of 9.996 to allow 40.1 % where a minimum of 50% is required at 619 S. Gulfview Blvd., Sect. 17- 29 -15, M b B 22.01, Bayside Subdivision No. 5, Block C, Lots 1 -5 and riparian rights; zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V98 -05 In his December 16, 1998, letter, Stephen Fowler, representative, requested a one - year extension due to market changes and revisions to the schematic plans that delayed construction. Mr. Fowler said market generated decisions have resulted in some changes. While plans related to approved variances will not change, he said shops will not be constructed next to the street. Member Johnson moved to approve a one -year extension for Item #A2. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #B - Continued Variance Requests 131) (Cont'd from 12/10/98) James. W. Soboleski & Deborah L. Groen for a variance to allow a 10.5 feet structural setback for a covered passageway where 25 feet is required at 191 Devon Dr., Bayside Sub, Lots 32 -34, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential), V 98- The applicant seeks a variance to add a porte cochere (covered passageway) to a single family residence in the front yard setback. Staff indicates the cut -de -sac impacts only a smal! portion of the property. Planned renovations will move the front door closer to the property line and align the porte cochere with that door's new location. The half -acre property contains one lot with a residence and one vacant lot and is large enough to construct additions without a variance. Staff recommends denial of the request. Planning Manager Antonia Gerli said setbacks are haphazard along Devon Drive. The new code would allow this request to be considered for approval as flexible development. Owners James Soboleski and Deborah Groen confirmed Harry Cline's authority to speak on their behalf. Mr. Cline said the applicants purchased the property in its current two -lot configuration in this older neighborhood. He said the applicants seek to retain the architectural integrity of their 1930s era home and add a porte cochere to the home's west side. He said the home's floor plan necessitates the relocation of the front door. He said the porte cochere meets the front setback requirements except at the northern edge of the cul -de -sac. Mr. Cline distributed an aerial photograph for reference. noting Devon Drive is a dead -end street. He said vehicles in the driveway will have less impact on the neighborhood if the driveway is moved to the south as planned. He said the structure is 30 feet from the seawall and this addition to the property's front will only impact the water view of one western neighbor, who has submitted a letter of support for the plan. He said previous plans were to construct a 3 -story house on the vacant lot. He distributed three letters of support from immediate neighbors and the site plan. In response to a mdc0199 2 01/14199 0 . *T A1PPi20VlEiD C5. William M. Shepard, Trustee (Lagoon Resort) for the following variances (1) a clear space variance 62.8 ft to allow a clear space distance of 15 ft where a distance of 77.8 ft is required; (2) a setback variance of 62.8 ft to allow a building 15 ft from the Westerly side property line where a minimum setback of 77.8 ft is required; and (3) a front yard open space variance of 9.9 percent to allow 40.1 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required at 619 S. Oulfview Blvd., Sec 17- 29-15, M8@ 22.01, Bayside Sub No. 5, Blk C, Lots 1 -5 and riparian rights, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 98 -06 Mr. Richter presented background information, written staff recommendations, property location and current development of the motel property. The applicant proposes addition of a four -story parking garage with ground level shops and a five -story addition for use as a nightrJub, banquet room, and 14 new motel units. He related clear space, setback, and front yard open space requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, provided a brief history of the existing 59- unit motel, its other uses, and neighboring uses. He stated a five -story building is consistent with the surroundings. Special circumstances justify the variances because existing development has non- conforming side setbacks and little clear or open space. The applicant is substantially increasing front yard open space over what currently exists. He discussed the net parking increase proposed, needed because Shepard's is a destination point. He presented an aerial photograph of existing develop on the subject and surrounding properties. While economic gain is a factor weighed with every commercial application, the applicant is not adding revenue-generating uses. The proposal will not be materially injurious or substantially sarmful and no impact will result. Absence of side setbacks and open space is typical for properties in the vicinity. Architect Steve Fowler displayed a conceptual drawing of the expansion, proposed to accommodate weddings, banquets, a service area, improve emergency vehicle access, el'a,... ate front parking, and add landscaping. He provided elevation drawings of the parking structure, pointing out aesthetics, functional features, and four ground flax service shops to support the hotel use. A net increase of 728 parking spaces is provided. In response to questions, he demonstrated location of the 14 hotel units in relation to the screened service, dumpster and walk -in freezer areas. He submitted a panoramic photograph of the front cf the existing property. General discussion ensued regarding the proposal. No verbal or written support was expressed. Two persons spoke in opposition to the request, expressing concerns with late public hearing notification, failure to comply with standards for approval, blocking view to the water from street level and from adjacent motel rooms, increased noise, and the negative impact of large crowds driving customers away from surrounding businesses. Discussion ensued regarding locations of the guest room wing and parking garage, and their potential impacts on view for the adjacent motel property. Concems were expressed the proposed structure is configured to fill in the open spaces of the property. The board's authority to vary clear space was questioned. Ms. Dougall -Sides responded code provides the board may not vary density, but the restriction does not include clear space. She noted dimensional non-conformities are different from non-conformities of use. mdc01 a98 6 01/08/98 . -OT APPROVED Discussion ensued regarding history of variance requests for the subject and surrounding properties. It was not known whether the proposal will go before the Planning and Zoning Board. Responding to the opposition, Mr. Cline stated the applicant is not maximizing floor area ratio, density, or overbuilding the site. The proposal is a reasonable attempt to deal with an existing market and problems associated with the establishment's success. The speaker system will be redesigned to direct music downward and inward, rather than toward the residential area. The impact on the neighbors' view is not extreme. Ccntaining more of Shepard's customers onsite will produce a positive impact on the community. The proposal is consistent with what many feel is appropriate on the beach. The opposition reiterated Shepard's does not need variances to enjoy reasonable use of the land. Mr. Cline maintained the variances are to serve the people who are already coming to the establishment. In response to questions, Mr. Cline stated improvement of the motel facade is not needed currently, but will be addressed when needed in the future. Valet parking will be available and the parking structure can be be open to the public when not in use by Shepard's patrons. Concerns were expressed with lack of a site plan. A Traffic Engineering Department recommendation not to grant variances prior to development of a site plan was referenced. Mr. Cline expressed surprise, in view of the large number of meetings conducted with City staff. He said the applicant received no traffic input until two days ago. Lengthy board discussion ensued regarding the issue. Questions were raised regarding which City officials support the proposal and how it fits with immediate and long range plans for City -wide improvements. Concerns were expressed with the concept of creating a miniature "Ybor City' on Clearwater beach. Questions were raised regarding police department reaction to the existing and proposed establishment. Discussion ensued regarding the relative merits of a private parking facility in the area. One member pointed out the police issue is beyond the scope of the board and the noise issue can be handled administratively. While concerned about variances to clear and open space, he was inclined to support the proposal due to staffs indication it is moving in the right direction for the beach. Member Jonnatti moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to tae following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact Central Permitting staff to review tropical seascape design criteria proposed for Clearwater Beach. As part of this design review, the applicant and City staff shall consider means to utilize the sidewalk in front of the street level shops as an activity area, such as a sidewalk cafe, to increase the level of interest along the public sidewalk; and 4) The applicant shall work with the Traffic Engineering Department to reach an amenable traffic flow situation on site. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. mdc012198 7 01/08/98 0 0 May 21, 1999 Robert Gregg 2963 Gulf -To -Bay Blvd. Suite 220 Clearwater FL 33759 RE: Development Order approving an application for flexible standard development to operate a concession stand at Shephard's Beach Resort located at 619 Gulfview Boulevard Dear Mr. Gregg: The Development Review Committee has reviewed the application submitted on behalf of Shephard's Beach Resort to conduct a concession stand at the Resort and has unanimously recommended approval to the Planning Director. The Planning Director concurs with the findings of the Development Review Committee and, through this letter, approves your application for flexible standard development with the following conditions: 1. The proposed business is limited to six (6) waverunners, a parasail boat, a six (6) passenger banana boat, beach chair and umbrella rentals and the storage of pool and beach maintenance equipment. 2. The size of the portable storage shed is limited to 160 square feet; 3. The shed shall not be located in any sideyard setback; 4. Employees shall not utilize the parking required for the patrons and employees of the Shephard's Beach Resort; 5. No signage shall be visible from the street or adjacent properties; signage shall only be used in the interior of the property to attract hotel guests; 6. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to sunset; • • 7. All fuel shall be stored in UL- approved flame retardant containers with shut -off spouts. 8. The business operator shall inform all customers renting jetskis and waverunners about no wake zones surrounding Clearwater Beach and general safety measures applicable to their watercraft and to the water. 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 which require this prior development approval. Impact fees may be required prior to the issuance of any permit or license. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the Planning Department at 562- 4561. Sincerely yours, Ralph Stone Planning Director A 9 0 0 Q O b BANQUET ftpalT T-, a GUEST CAMT 8N1NMII TE I SNUfEm m M EXISTING RESORT NU STAN! TOM* Wells, Wayne • From: Hersh, Jim Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:00 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Map Request for FLD2008- 12033 /TDR2005- 11028/DVA2008 -00002 From: Wells, Wayne Sent:.Monday, July 27, 2009 9:23 AM To: Hersh, Jim Cc: Herman, Jason Subject: Map Request for FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005- 11028/DVA2008 -00002 Jim - Attached is a map request for Cases FLD2008- 12033 /TDR2005- 11028/DVA2008 -00002 for the property at 619 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 << File: Map Request Form 7.27.09.docx >> 1 ZONE AERIAL EXIST LOC From: Wells, Wayne Sent:.Monday, July 27, 2009 9:23 AM To: Hersh, Jim Cc: Herman, Jason Subject: Map Request for FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005- 11028/DVA2008 -00002 Jim - Attached is a map request for Cases FLD2008- 12033 /TDR2005- 11028/DVA2008 -00002 for the property at 619 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 << File: Map Request Form 7.27.09.docx >> 1 0 0 Map Request Planner Name: Wayne Wells Case Numbers: FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005 -1 1028/DVA2008 -00002 Date Requested: July 27, 2009 Date Requested for (date): August 10, 2009 Maps Requested ® Location Map ® Aerial Map ® Zoning Map ® Existing Surrounding Uses Map Required Documents to be submitted to Engineering ® Legal Description -= ox oCL - ® Survey ® Map with Proposed Site Highlighted IN ADDITION TO THE REQUESTED MAPS, PLEASE PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WE HAVE PROVIDED IS CORRECT A D AC ORATE. Thomas Mandny, PSM, Geographic Technology Manager #W Id Izkl. ls'ig'lure Map Name Owner: William M. Shephard, Trustee Cases: FLD2008 -12033 TDR2005 -11028 DVA2008 -00002 Site: 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Property Size: 2.37 acres zoned "T" 0.319 acres zoned "OS /R" PINs: 17- 29 -15- 05004- 003 - 0010' - Atlas Page: 285A✓ 17- 29 -15- 00000 - 220 -0100. Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:23 AM To: Hersh, Jim Cc: Herman, Jason Subject: Map Request for FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005- 11028/DVA2008 -00002 Jim - Attached is a map request for Cases FLD2008- 12033 /TDR2005- 11028/DVA2008 -00002 for the property at 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard. I will bring over the paperwork. The survey you may keep. 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 Map Request arm 7.27.09.doc 1 El Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:50 PM To: Matzke, Lauren; Clayton, Gina Cc: Tefft, Robert; Porter, Catherine; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Shephards hypothetical parking • It seems that we are on the right track but could have the added benefit of knowing that exceptional occurrence beyond these percentages will enable us to get additional parking to serve the needs of the development. From: Matzke, Lauren . Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:28 PM To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina Cc: Tefft, Robert; Porter, Catherine; Wells, Wayne Subject: Shephards hypothetical parking I have run some calculations for Shephards using our current proposed language in a hypothetical world (pretending the square footage of accessory uses for Shephards was exactly equal to 15% as opposed to 15.9%),,; S Assumption: Parking standard for hotels is 1.2 spaces per unit [would be 271 spaces] • Assumption: Additional parking required for square footage between 10 -15% • - Most intense accessory uses proposed: nightclub (3,219 sf), lounge /bar ( 1, 864sf );and,exe•rcise.s:pace;,all of.., "' which have a parking standard of 10 spaces / 1000 sf �;_:,, ;, ;•, ! _ Based on the above, Shephards would be required to provide a total of 321 spaces [271 spaces. for rooms + 50 spaces for accessory space]. This is 3 spaces more than they are currently proposing to provide (318). For what it's worth. Lauren Matzke Planner Bl, City of Clearwater T: 727.562.4547 F: 727.562.4865 E: lauren.matzke @myclearwater.com Fi Ptaf�� - Its__ /TAR.t�oS`�1►��fd�v�ter�•v000� if BBB �J 0 276A 27 ` 6ftlarwater r - -- PREPARED BY ` ✓v'�n 7. "Yf� J r:, „„ —T r — --t PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION +,,,,, P ENGINEERING I GIS O '�1 •�i Lam e"'TYAr S `0°D01 ,� 100 S. Myrtle Ave,, Clearwater, FL 33756 Ph.: Fax: (727)526-4755 ! _ (727)562.4750, www.MyClearwateccom p ° r. Ir„c P - I ,WbYdaneN,n d.NNhYNfh.d by lM UNdGb.n.Nr by A .0WjeNEiph..Np, eM V 6 1..oc•°r.d .nd w.d UM .ndhp M.I Yn d.N t F F : � X. uw'd.wk aftrPwhc hrn.lncbn Nwnbry. Af loch fN L•YAd, G.env.nr Wmfnm = Yli FF 0- e.A . w.n.naA «mooed or YrrpN0. ,&Wn ew nry, oonmFeNnru. nYeblYN. u•evMebwN lY w. d.N bent' /Gefm'ebr°tVAA: ' S L�`J{ _ ...... Ew �pe,IkuW UU. FUMermoN, dw GN o noY.WIN w/uNOe.sreful.Nd WM Ih. w.wmNw. I ��, 4 A ^Xr W E c «I / - ,m rao o mo 1 ' 1 i Geu 1 .... MJIOEMi.LL Oa,RCTs ryR «e.•. 1 I WR .NV'OwWN RrbenlW Nem.PN 11,IP �Wba CIWmO-CwdxM� N�YNarMed Ce«w.uen '� O eucoo "w+�rnwcw...lon oowFnaA�plrmlcTC mYCVl ucc mTRw,c o.olYS IRT. nm.wlRe. TWvdoY/ ' «mh.a T �Ta.Yln I�MNUeb,ul O �C.mnnNl OdR�O«n YY«✓R,veWaue 1 e.ewbn P- ReeervWen Me. City Owned Property Agreement to Annex ! 0 Annexation o Deannexatlon i �' • Correction a Rezoning I m Ern Refer Plot) SUB NUMBER (' - to — i i O BLOCK NUMBER OSUB PARCEL NUMBER PARCEL NUMBER(M&B) I i i if I! I I e....... LAND HOOK (COMMON OWNERSHIP) I i ii PLATTED SUSONISION BOUNDARY OS /R �-- COUNTY HIGHWAY i °l I)l; IJ• O STATE HIGHWAY `\ to U.S. HIGHWAY Outside City of Clearwater Zoning Atlas - -1 — - -- — -'j —,i :_i-f-- Mar 21, 2005 NW 114 of 17.29.15 285A 2&tA �J 0 • r Map Request Planner Name: Wayne Wells Case Numbers: FLD2008- 12033/TDR2005 -1 1028/DVA2008 -00002 Date Requested: July 27, 2009 Date Requested for (date): August 10, 2009 Maps Requested ® Location Map ® Aerial Map ® Zoning Map Existing Surrounding Uses Map Required Documents to be submitted to Engineering ® Legal Description ® Survey ® Map with Proposed Site Highlighted IN ADDITION TO THE REQUESTED MAPS, PLEASE PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WE HAVE PROVIDED IS CORRECT AND ACCURATE. Thomas Mahony, PSM, Geographic Technology Manager Signature Map Name Owner: William M. Shephard, Trustee Cases: FLD2008 -12033 TDR2005 -1 1028 DVA2008 -00002 Site: 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Property Size: 2.37 acres zoned "T" 0.319 acres zoned "OS /R" PINS: 17- 29 -15- 05004 - 003 -0010 Atlas Page: 285A 17-29-15-00000-220-0100 • r Wells, Wayne From: Matzke, Lauren Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:28 PM To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina Cc: Tefft, Robert; Porter, Catherine; Wells, Wayne Subject: Shephards hypothetical parking I have run some calculations for Shephards using our current proposed language in a hypothetical world (pretending the square footage of accessory uses for Shephards was exactly equal to 15% as opposed to 15.9 %). • Assumption: Parking standard for hotels is 1.2 spaces per unit [would be 271 spaces] •' Assumption: Additional parking required for square footage between 10 -15% [would be 4,981 sf] • Most intense accessory uses proposed: nightclub (3,219 sf), lounge /bar (1,864sf) and exercise space, all of which have a parking standard of 10 spaces / 1000 sf Based on the above, Shephards would be required to provide a total of 321 spaces [271'spaces for rooms + 50 spaces for accessory space]. This is 3 spaces more than they are currently proposing to provide (318). For what it's worth. Lauren Matzke Planner III, City of Clearwater T: 727.562.4547 F:,727.562.4865 E lauren .matz`ke@myclearwater.com 1 �,,,�,� ".� .� • ?; 40conditions Associated With* FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 04/16/2009 The following to be addressed prior to CDB: 562 -4773 �tuliai 6.30. Plot Met 1. Clarify how the proposed queueing would operate as shown on Sheet A -11. The plan shows the drop -off area completely blocked providing no space for arriving vehicles or baggage handling. The curbing shown on the east and west ends of the drop -off area limits access and may not provide maneuvering room for vehicles as shown on the plan. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental Condition Sarah Josuns 12/22/2008 Prior to the Community Development Board: 562 -4897 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the owner. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or., renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information,.; Not Met Fire Condition James Keller 562 -4327 x3062 12/29/2008 This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requirestwo..(2),Fire :, Not Met Department Connections plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the,existing; Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building.Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4 -13 -09 The required 2nd FDC is not shown on page C6. The FDC lines will be 6" DR14 pipe not 4" DR18 as shown. The fire line for the standpipe at the rear of property must be tied int the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO CDB 05/04/2009 Under comments #5 the existing parking garage has a code deficient sprinkler system and wil be Not Met required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. The response was: Based on subdsequent meetings with the fire department, it was agreed that since the existing building will not be added on to,or renovated at this time, the existing sprinkler system will be repaired and brought up to code over time. Letter dated April 9,2009 in line #1 states that the layout of the existing west building containing Bar, Nightclub, Restaurant, Meeting Space, and Guest Rooms will remain unchanged in terms of program ming,layout, or planning and the next statement #2 The exterior stair on the east side of the existing building will be removed. This is shown on the plans sheet A -11 as this is the EXISTING buildings, if this is part of the new development then the ENTIRE existing structure SHALL be brought up to code. Harbor Master Condition 12/23/2008 No issues. Landscape 04/29/2009 Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 Wayne Wells, AICP 727- 562 -4504 Sheet C9 - Revise for the following: Print Date: 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 11 Not Met Not Met CaseConditons `,, 0 0 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 a. Plan indicates 11 PT in the northwest corner of the site, but the arrow indicates such is off -site (?); b. Unclear why no landscaping is proposed in the northeast corner of the site ( ?); c. For 5,423 sf of interior landscape area, Code requires one shade tree for each 150 sf, or a total of 36 trees. Based on the submitted landscape plan, only five trees are proposed to be planted within the interior landscape area indicated on Sheet C4. Must plant an additional 31 trees. Legal Condition 12/23/2008 No issues. Land Resource Condition 12/16/2008 No Issues. Parks & Recs Condition Wayne Wells, AICP Rick Albee Chris Hubbard 727 - 562 -4504 727 - 562 -4741 12/18/2008 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. Not Met Not Met Not Met 12/18/2008 ' "'iOpen space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if, Not Met .,applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it isjecommended, that. you contact Debbie Reid at 727 - 562 -4818 to calculate the assessment. Storm Water;Condition; .. Phuong Vo 562 - 4752 , 04/20/2009 The following shall be addressed prior to Community Development Board:,. Not: Met 1. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. 2. Please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of the Building Permit: 1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD ERP permit. 2. Please provide soil analysis with Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) at the proposed vault to demonstrate the buoyancy calculation is not required. 3. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. 4. Please route all runoff, including the rear deck to the vault for treatment before discharge. 5. Please provide a detailed plan showing how roof runoff will be routed to the proposed vault. 6. The construction of the proposed Atlantis vault along the east property line will impact the existing lift station. Please address this issue. 7. Please use a solid pipe for the proposed outfall as perforated may create erosion problem over a long period of time. 8. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a 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. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 Print Date: 06/30/2009 CaseConditons Page 2 of 11 0 0 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 04/16/2009 1. The parking table on the civil plans is not consistent with the architectural plans in regard to the Not Met number of striped and overflow parking spaces in the proposed garage. 2. Even though overflow parking in drive aisles has been shown on previous projects, the Traffic Operations Division continues to have concerns about this as it creates maneuverability problems due to reduced drive aisle widths and blocked vehicles. 3. Provide a van accessible handicapped parking space whereby the vertical clear height shall be 8'2" per Florida Building Code, Chapter 11, Section 4.6.5. Provide a note indicating such on both the civil and architectural plans. 4. Provide a note that the vertical clear height of each garage floor level in vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm) other than the van accessible parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.2.2 Clear height. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Note(s): 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP ;-: ;,; 727 7562 -4504 01104/20W,- 5/5/09 WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. i/4/o9 - W V1/ ; y Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. 01/04/2008 5/3/09 - WW Not Met Plans do not dimension the projection of the awnings. 1/4/09 - WW Sheets C4, A -11 and A -12 - Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimensions these awnings project from the building. On the architectural plans, indicate what material and color these awnings are to be. 04/29/2009 Ensure when resubmitting that all original sheets are submitted, as Sheet C2 was omitted from Not Met this submission. 12/23/2008 5/4/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 - WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior Print Date: 06/30/2009 Page 3 of 11 CaseConditons • • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 05/04/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #1 - Last paragraph - The manner in which the Not Met information is put forth appears to indicate that the existing Holiday Inn building is 128 feet in height, whereas the 128 -foot height is for a proposed building that has not been constructed on the west side of the Holiday Inn property. Clarify how the Holiday Inn building heights are actually. 12/23/2008 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 - WW Not Met Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 01/06/2009 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Response indicates there will be no changes to the existing railings, however, Sheet A -20 continues to show such aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass (not the existing aluminum picket railings) and Sheets A =22 and A -22B now shows the same aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass. Improvements to tie the existing building together with the new building are necessary to be compliant with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d. Advise /revise. 1/6/09 - WW Sheet A -20 - Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the ,proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -22B. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildings togetheras a cohesive unit.. 01/06/2009': 5/5/09 - WW „ Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/6/09 - WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. 01/04/2009 5/4/09 - WW Not Met Architectural plans now indicate 48 rooms to remain in the existing hotel and 180 rooms in the new building, for a total of 228 rooms, which is still greater than the maximum of 226 indicated in the application and on Sheet C2. Additionally, based on the architectural plans, there are 152 striped parking spaces in the existing parking garage, with an unknown number of overflow spaces (not shown), and 124 striped parking spaces in the proposed parking garage, with 40 overflow spaces indicated. The number of parking spaces are not consistent with the numbers indicated on Sheet C2. 1/4/09 - WW Application and-Sheet C4 indicates a total of 226 hotel rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown. Number the rooms in the existing building much the same as in the new building. Revise. 01/05/2009 5/5/09 - WW Not Met Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner Print Date: 06/30/2009 CaseConditons Page 4 of 11 • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. 01/04/2009 5/4/09 - WW Not Met Response unclear, which states all other bars have been removed from the plans. Does this mean that they are no longer proposed or that you are just not showing them? 1/4/09 - WW Sheet C4 - Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see Sheet A -11). 01/07/2009 5/6/09 - WW Not Met I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read "Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to the Sending Property in perpetuity." Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and how to resolve issues. 1/7/09 - WW Transfer of Development Rights - a. Unclear as to the need for the Affidavit submitted'.by Harry.S. Cline; b. Exhibit A - 665 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for a total of two dwelling units from this property (TDR2005,:1;1,028). There ,,was no determination whether there was two actual dwelling units,that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; c. Exhibit A - 655 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for one dwelling unit from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was one actual dwelling unit that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; d. Exhibit B - From what property were these two dwelling units transferred from (645 Bayway Blvd ?). Same comment as "b" and "c" above; e. Under TDR2005 -11028 there was also 10 dwelling units to be transferred from 669 Mandalay Avenue. Same comment as "b ", "c" and "d" above. What has ever happened to these units? f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b - e above be cleared up before this document is recorded. 01/04/2009 6/29/09 - WW Not Met Planning will review previously approved plans approved to ascertain whether such plans indicated these structures on the west side. If construction plans verify these structures were on the plans, then these structures will be accepted as existing (Comprehensive Infill request would still indicate a zero setback [to existing structures]). If construction plans do not verify these structures were approved, this application will need to reflect a request to retain these structures at the existing setbacks (including the need to obtain after - the -fact building permits) or how they will be brought into compliance otherwise. Once a review of prior approved permits is completed (anticipated to be completed the week of June 29 - July 2), Planning will inform the applicant of our findings. 5/6/09 - WW Civil plans and survey updated. Unclear how /why canopy extends over the property line onto the adjacent property. Response does not address the comments below. Still unclear how the wall and canopy were constructed at a zero (or less than zero) setback and of variances /permits granted for such improvements. 1/4/09 - WW Print Date: 06/30/2009 CaseConditons Page 5 of 11 • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD 0 Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 Civil plans need to indicate the existing wall along the west property line ( ?) and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any "variance" granted). Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. 01/04/2009 5/3/09 - WW Response was to remove the column grid lines (station markers) from the plans. This is not was requested (see below). 1/4/09 - WW Architectural plans - Provide station markers on the two planes of the building for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of building elements, especially in relation to property lines. 04/29/2009 6/29/09 - WW Density will need to reflect the number.of rooms based on banquet hall floor area being removed from density calculation (may not be 226 rooms). 4/29/09 - WW Sheet C2 - General Site Notes #22 - Provide the overall proposed density of 95.35 rooms /acre after 226 rooms. 04/30/2009 After further review of the plans and discussion with Planning Management and the Building Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and /or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fins on the building . must, be projected to the ground and the setback to that point indicated.. These setbacks, to property lines. and /or seawall are what will be advertised (a variance to the seawall setback will be required by the Building Official). 05/03/2009 Sheet C2 - General Site Note #11 a. Suggest a new line B for Site Area for "T" District or revising line A to the Site Area for "T District (site data is to be evaluated ONLY on that area zoned "T District); b. B. Provide the Existing, Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; and c. E. Provide the Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met 05/05/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #2 - Not Met a. Cannot confirm (based on architectural plans) that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; and b. In (3) you refer to the project to the north. If you are referring to the Holiday Inn project, that project is to the west. 05/05/2009 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Revise for the following: (a) 1. The side setback reductions for the existing pavement, freezers and building canopy are on the west side (not north); (a) 2. The height variance referred to for a similar project is to the west (not north); (b) Height and Tower Separation B.2 - The Entrada project to the west at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128 feet in height. Additionally, the project at 691 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower 150 feet in height. Provide documentation that neither Option 1 or 2 apply, including a diagram that shows compliance; (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan; (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The floorplate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided per Beach by Design B.3.c, as to how this proposal complies with a tiered effect (expound); (b) There is no Criteria #7 (remove) and remove a) and b). Revise c) and the balance of this Not Met Print Date: 06/30/2009 CaseConditons Page 6 of 11 FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 section to C.1, C.2, etc.; (b) c)1 - Provide a diagram that shows compliance with this dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes; (b) c)3 - Architectural elevations indicate the percentage of openings, which is inconsistent with what the criteria /provisions call for (windows or architectural decoration). Revise Sheets A -20, A -2013, A -21, A21 B, and place information on A -22 and A -2213; (b) c)4 - Theoretical envelop is from all property lines, not just the half of the property being redeveloped. Update the criteria to that in Beach by Design, where a maximum of 75% is permissable (not 60 %). Envelop below 45 feet not necessary to be shown. Drawing submitted is wrong and not understandable. (b) d) - Remove this section; (b) Remove sections 8 and 9; and' (c) Need to provide responses to the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off): c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: - Changes in horizontal 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,f - Distinctive roofs forms e. The proposed development provides for; appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances. between buildings 05/05/2009 Proposed parking numbers of 318 striped and 66 overflow spaces cannot be confirmed. Revise for the following: a. Overflow in the existing parking garage not shown; b. Sheet A -11 - Parking in the existing garage on Level A in the northwestern portion of the garage does not presently exist, requiring the removal of a wall and eliminating a storage area to create these five spaces. These northwestern two parking spaces don't function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements, except to the southern portion of the garage; and c. Provide a table (previously provided but removed with this submission) on Sheet A -11 that includes a tabulation by floor of the number of hotel units (existing and proposed buildings) and the number of parking spaces (existing and proposed buildings, including the number of striped and overflow spaces). 05/05/2009 Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - A response to the criteria on Pages 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for a mid - priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a. Those properties and /or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; b. Those properties and /or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and /or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; c. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size less than 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than or equal to 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it has received benefit of transfers of development rights in addition to the Reserve, or not; Print Date: 06/30/2009 Page 7 of 11 Not Met CaseConditons FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 d. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; e. No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached dwelling); f. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; g. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought into the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met; h. A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation /closure covenant that the overnight accommodation use will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the National Hurricane Center; i. Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; j. All hotel rooms obtained from the Reserve that are not constructed shall be returned to the Reserve; k. The development shall comply with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) countywide . approach to the application of concurrency management for transportation facilities, and the transportation analysis conducted for the development shall include the following: - Recognition of- standard data sources as established by the MPO; - Identification of level of service, (LOS) standards for state and county roads as established by the;. MPO; - Utilization of proportional . fair=share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO,;-,, model ordinance; - Utilization of the. MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology; and - Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the most current MPO Annual Level of Service Report. I. A reservation system shall be required as an integral part of the hotel use and there shall be a lobby /front desk area that must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area for a hotel would be operated; and m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed by general law. 05/05/2009 Elevations indicate that the existing stairwells at the northwest corner of the existing parking Not Met garage and adjacent to the existing nightclub in the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fins" on the new building with an angled wall projection. With both the stairwells angled "fin" walls in the existing building and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured from the property lines or seawall to the furtherest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site plan needs to indicate the points of these fins and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still need to show the setback from the property lines and seawall to the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building Official, for seawall setbacks, where a variance to the seawall setbacks under the Building Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report). 05/05/2009 Architectural plans indicate an exterior stair to be removed from the east side of the existing Not Met building. These stairs provide egress to the second floor and to two hotel units accessed from the outside. If these stairs are being removed, how will these two hotel units be accessed in the proposed situation. Additionally, is there required egress being provided per Building and Fire Codes from this hallway and for these two hotel units. Any new internal stairwell to provide any such required egress will affect first floor functions. Advise /revise. Print Date: 06/30/2009 Page 8 of 11 CaseConditons Zoning Condition • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 05/05/2009 An existing portion of the existing building will be retained that includes a bar, with the second Not Met floor to be removed for an "activity deck ". Unclear of the proposed use of the "existing structure" to remain indicated on Sheet A -11 adjacent to the bar. Plans indicate one set of stairs to the "activity deck ". Provide documentation that this one set of stairs is sufficient to meet Building and Fire Codes for egress. Additionally, the activity deck appears to have new support columns that are not indicated on the ground level plan and on Sheet C4, not indicating the setback from the seawall. 05/05/2009 Exhibit B - Section B - Description of Request - Revise for the following: Not Met a. First paragraph, seventh line - Plans indicate 48 rooms to remain, not 46 as indicated in this paragraph; b. First paragraph, seventh line - Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces (based on architectural plans) in the existing parking garage to remain; c. Fourth paragraph - Relief #1 - See "a" above for number of existing hotel rooms to remain; and d. Fourth paragraph - Relief #13 - Cannot confirm 318 valet -only parking spaces (based on architectural plans). 05/05/2009 Sheet C2 - General Site Note #5 - Revise to indicate Future Land Use includes Preservation (for Not Met that zoned OS /R). 05/06/2009 Sheet C2 General Site Note #8 - Existing Conditions - provide the side (west) setback :tot: r; ;:',., Not Met- pavement-and other structures (see Exhibit B - Description of Request). ,t 05/06/2009 Regarding'accessory uses of waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters;; -Not Met surrey and bikes): a.-There-is, fencing associated with the waverunner business not shown on the plans „Is this fencingnintended . to be removed, -to remain or to be upgraded? b. Intent -of permitting Fun Ride Rentals as an accessory use is that the storage of such vehicles are not to be visible. Revise the landscape plan to include taller shrubs that will obscure views of this storage area. 05/06/2009 Introduction of the ballroom and meeting rooms with kitchen on Level 5 and the spa on Level 14 Not Met has been determined to be inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel (language from Beach by Design: Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category.) As such, the square footage of Level 5 in the new building and the square footage of the spa on Level 14 must be backed out of the density /intensity (calculate similar to a mixed -use), which will reduce the allowable number of hotel rooms. 05/06/2009 Elevations - Not Met a. Need to provide a height dimension from BFE to indicate the maximum height of 150 feet; and b. Need to provide a height of the mechanical room from the top of the roof of the spa /exercise to the the top of the mechanical room (maximum of 16 feet). 05/06/2009 Per the Development Agreement in Section 4.4, architectural plans need to indicate which hotel Not Met rooms will have full kitchens (limited to 25% of the rooms). 05/06/2009 Unclear why this newest submission indicates 192 parking spaces now exist when the initial Not Met submission indicated 176 or 179 spaces. Not sure where these additional parking spaces were found. Ensure architectural plans accurately show the existing parking and that the numbers indicated in written material matches that shown on the architectural plans. 06/26/2009 1/7/09 - WW Not Met Parking Demand Study - Revise for the following: a. Introduction - There are only 96 existing rooms at this hotel; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Revised study still indicates 97 existing hotel rooms.) b. Introduction - My counts of parking spaces in the existing parking garage do not confirm 179 Print Date: 06/30/2009 Page 9 of 11 CaseConditons • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD • Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 spaces; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Architectural plans only indicate 152 striped spaces in the existing garage and it is not indicated how or where any overflow spaces exist.) c. Parking Supply - Same comment as "b" above. The proposal includes modification to the existing parking garage to increase the number of spaces, not identified in this Study; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Architectural plans indicate changes to the ground floor parking in the existing parking garage, which are not disclosed in any written material.) d. Parking Supply - This indicates that both of the parking garages will be serviced by valets. However, other information in this application indicates the garages will be self -park on non -peak times. Which is it, valet only or self -park? (5/4/09 - WW - No response.) e. Parking Supply - It has been indicated there will be provided 28 stacking spaces in the porte cochere area. Plans do not verify such statement; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Stacking revised, to, and shown at, 19 vehicles. Unclear how these will be parked by patrons entering the premises in the stacking layout indicated.) f. Parking Demand - It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted. Ensure the nightclub square footage includes both levels of the nightclub, as the posted rated capacity is 523 persons in the nightclub; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Study now no longer indicates the square footage of retail, only stating "a small retail gift shop ". Square footage of nightclub unchanged at 2,300 sf; architectural plans indicate much larger than 2,300 sf.) g. Parking Demand - The banquet facility states a seating of 300 attendees, but there is a huge ,.ou tdoor deck being provided on the south side of this facility. Will there be any. seq, ing or other.:;;: functions at any on this outdoor deck? (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Studys #illindicates 300 attendees,.however, the banquet facilities have been moved to the new building and;expanded;in. 'size 'to an entire floor, including a new kitchen. Need to revise number of attendees{and ,calculations. :6 /26/09 - WW - Look at how the Building and Fire Codes determine�Ma)qrnum< capacity for the new banquet facility in the new building for calculation purposes of, parking demand.) h: Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory uses, or;as a mid- priced hotel with accessory uses sized to primarily meet the needs of the hotel guests; (5/4/09 - WW - No response.) j. Tables 2 and 3 - On what day of the week and dates were these studies completed? It is difficult to agree with the numbers related to the nightclub of 16 and 23 spaces (normal and full occupancy respectively); (5/4/09 - WW - No response - It appears that Tables 2 and 3 are not based on actual data but on assumptions.) and k. Appendix - The drawing showing vehicle stacking includes vehicles blocking the public sidewalk, vehicles blocking the entrance and exit driveways for the existing parking garage, shows surface parking in front of the proposed building that the proposed plans do not show and the drive aisles are wider than that shown on the submitted plans. (5/4/09 - WW - No response) 06/26/2009 Architectural plans for the ground level indicates vehicle stacking at entrance. Proposal is to Not Met increase the number of hotel rooms from 96 to 226 rooms (an increase of 130 rooms), in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, outdoor tiki bar and ballroom. Proposed parking is supposedly 318 striped spaces and 66 overflow for a total of 384 parking spaces (can't confirm these numbers of parking spaces based on the architectural plans submitted), provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site where all parking will be valet only. Vehiclular stacking needs to be reworked to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. and to ensure on -site traffic circulation will not be impaired. 06/26/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #6 - Unclear what is meant by "The applicant currently Not Met has an occupational license to operate a 167 seat restaurant and will redevelop the Subject Property to include an upscale restaurant." There is no indication of any additional restaurant on the property and no indication that the existing restaurant will be remodeled for such "upscale restaurant ". The purpose of the Hotel Density Reserve is to "facilitate the restoration of those lost mid -size, mid - priced hotels," not for the development of additional resorts. Print Date: 06/30/2009 Page 10 of 11 CaseConditons • FLD2008 -12033 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD • Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 06/26/2009 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following: a. Parking - The project is proposing more than the miniumum number of spaces. The "requested relief' is being requested due to parking spaces have been designed as double- stacked requiring valet parking only. Based on the architectural plans, cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing parking garage that are indicated in writing. b. Setbacks - No documentation has been presented as to how the west side setback was approved at a zero setback. Need to present justification for the west side and the rear setback reductions to zero feet. (6/30/09 - Planning staff is researching the records regarding the west side setbacks. Will inform later this week of findings). 06/26/2009 Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - Second sentence - Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot." This surface parking lot is being removed with this proposal. Not Met Not Met CaseConditons Print Date: 06/30/2009 Page 11 of 11 10:25 am Case Number: FLD2008 -1216- - 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Owner(s): Shephard, William M Tre C/O Easley. Mccaleb & Assoc Clearwater, F133767 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E- MAIL: No Email Representative: Keith Zayac F, 1 701, Enterprise Road East�� Safety. Harbor, F134695 TELEPHONE:. (727) 793 - 9888, FAX: (727) 793 -9855, E- MAIL:. keith@keithzayac.com Location: 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600. feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 285A Zoning District: T, Tourist Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to. permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 226 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres, a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15. feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of xx feet (to existing building), 14.27 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to proposed decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to. existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of xx feet (to. existing building), xx feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 150 feet (to top of roof deck) and 318 valet -onlyy parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 100 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design; and (3) Transfer of Development Rights of a total of five dwelling units (being converted to eight overnight accommodation units), including two. dwelling units from 665 Bay Esplanade, one dwelling unit from 625 Bay. Esplanade and two dwelling units from 645 Bayway Blvd., . under the provisions of-Section 4 -1402 (TDR2005- 05022). (Related to DVA2008- 00002) 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: 1/8/09: Wells ,Tefft,Rice,Doherty,Keller, Beery; 5 /7 /09:Wells,Rice,Doherty,Keiler Applicant: 1 /8 /09:Keith Zayac,Joe Burdette,Harry Cline,Robert Pergolizzi3Oscar Garcia,Daniel Knotman; 5/ 7/ 09: Zayac, Burdette ,Knotman,P.Andrews,M.Foley, C.Jeobalo. The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: 1 . The following to be addressed prior to CDB: 1. Clarify how the proposed queueing would operate as shown on Sheet A -11. The plan shows the drop -off area completely blocked providing no space for arriving vehicles or baggage handling.. The curbing shown on the east and west ends of the drop -off area limits access and may not provide maneuvering room for vehicles as shown on the plan.. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 17 DRC Acpon Agmda 1.1 I . Prior to the Comm* Development Board: 0 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 -. Response does not adequately address condition.) 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the owner.. (4/18/09 -. Response does not adequately. address condition.) Please. Note:.. An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. Fire: I , This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections plans only show one.. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise. will be joined with the fire. pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8 ". fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property. will this be brought into the building.Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4-13-09.. The required 2nd FDC is not shown on page. C6. The FDC lines will be 6" DR14 . pipe. not 4" DR18. as shown.. The fire line for the standpipe at the rear of property must be tied int the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. PRIOR TO CDB 2. Under comments #5. the existing parking garage has a code deficient sprinkler system and wil be required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. The response was: Based on subdsequent meetings with the fire department, it was agreed that since the existing building will not be added on to,or renovated at this time, the existing sprinkler system will be repaired and brought up to code over time. Letter dated April 9,2009 in line #1. states that the layout of the existing west building containing Bar ,Nightclub,Restaurant,Meeting Space, and Guest Rooms will remain unchanged in terms of programming,layout, or planning and the next statement #2 The exterior stair on the east side of the existing building will be removed. This is shown on the plans sheet A -11 as this is the EXISTING buildings, if this is part of the new development then the ENTIRE existing structure. SHALL be brought up to code. Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1 , No issues. Land Resources: 1 . No Issues. Landscaping: 1 . Sheet C9. - Revise for the following: a. Plan indicates 11 PT in the northwest corner of the site, but the arrow indicates such is off -site ( ?); b. Unclear why no landscaping is proposed in the northeast corner of the site ( ?); c. For 5,423. sf of interior landscape area, Code requires one shade tree for each 150 sf, or a total of 36 trees. Based on the submitted landscape plan, only five trees are proposed to be planted within the interior landscape area indicated on Sheet C4. Must plant an additional 31 trees. Parks and Recreation: 1 . 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 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, May 7, 2009 - Page 18 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 1 . The following soe addressed prior to Community Developmei *ard: 1. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. 2. Please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of the Building Permit: 1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD ERP permit. 2. Please provide soil analysis with Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) at the proposed vault to demonstrate the buoyancy calculation is not required. 3. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. 4. Please route all runoff, including the rear deck to the vault for treatment before discharge. 5. Please provide a detailed plan showing how roof runoff will be routed to the proposed vault. 6. The construction of the proposed Atlantis vault along the east property line will impact the existing lift station. Please address this issue. 7. Please use a solid pipe for the proposed outfall as perforated may create erosion problem over a long period of time. 8. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify. and redesign accordingly to address this issue. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a 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: No Comments Traffic Engineering: 1 . 1. The parking table on the civil plans is not consistent with the architectural plans in regard to. the number of striped and overflow parking spaces in the proposed garage. 2. Even though overflow parking in drive aisles has been shown on previous projects, the Traffic Operations Division continues to have. concerns about this as it creates maneuverability problems due to reduced drive aisle widths and blocked vehicles. 3.. Provide a van accessible handicapped parking space whereby the vertical clear height shall be 8'2" per Florida Building Code, Chapter 11, Section 4.6.5. Provide a note indicating such on both the civil and architectural plans. 4. Provide a note that the vertical clear height of each garage floor level in vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7. feet (2134. mm) other than the van accessible . parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.2.2 Clear. height. Planning: The above. to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB). hearing. General Note(s):. 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 19 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 1 . 5/5/09 - WW • Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity, zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. 2. 5/3/09. - WW Plans do not dimension the projection of the awnings. 1/4/09. - WW Sheets C4, A -11 and A -12 - Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimensions these awnings project from the building.. On the architectural plans, indicate what material and color these awnings are to be. 3.. Recent radio advertisements indicate Shephard's "has expanded the private beach ". when advertising the Sunday beach party. Based on past experience and visual inspection, unclear where this expanded private beach area is located. Explain. 4. Ensure when resubmitting that all original sheets are submitted, as Sheet C2 was omitted from this submission. 5. 5/4/09 WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 - WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements: Most likely a Comprehensive. Sign Program will be utilized for signage, on this site.. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive. Sign Program.. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, . will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 20 DRC Action Agenda I.I 1/7/09 - WW • Parking Demand Study - Revise for the following: a. Introduction - There are only 96 existing rooms at this hotel; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Revised study still indicates 97 existing hotel rooms.) b. Introduction My counts of parking spaces in the existing parking garage do not confirm 179 spaces; (5/4/09. -. WW - No response -. Architectural plans only indicate 152 striped spaces in the existing garage and it is not indicated how or where any overflow spaces exist. Site inspection on 4/25/09 revealed the property posted "lot full" and only 12 striped spaces empty at 11:40 pm and only 15 striped spaces empty at 12:40 am, while manyy cars parked in overflow areas [even parked in front of the elevator]. Site inspection on 5/3/09 at 3:00 pm also revealed the property posted "lot full'.) c. Parking Supply - Same comment as "b" above. The proposal includes modification to the existing parking garage to increase the number of spaces, not identified in this Study; (5/4/09. -. WW - No response -. Architectural plans indicate changes to the ground floor parking in the existing parking garage, which are not disclosed in any written material.) d. Parking Supply - This indicates that both of the parking garages will be serviced by valets.. However, other information in this application indicates the garages will be self -park on non -peak times. Which is it, valet only or self - park? (5/4/09 - WW - No. response.) e. Parking Supply -. It has been indicated there will be provided 28 stacking spaces in the porte cochere area.. Plans do not verify such statement; (5/4/09 -. WW -. No response - Stacking revised to, and shown at, 19 vehicles.. Unclear. how these will be parked by patrons entering the premises in the stacking layout indicated.) f. Parking Demand - It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted. Ensure the nightclub square footage includes both levels of the nightclub, as the posted rated capacity is 523. persons in the nightclub; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Study now no longer indicates the square footage of retail, only stating "a small retail gift shop ". Square footage of nightclub unchanged at 2,300 sf; architectural plans indicate much larger than 2,300 sf.) g. Parking Demand - The banquet facility states a seating of 300 attendees, but there is a huge outdoor deck being provided on the south side of this facility. Will there be any seating or other functions at any time on this outdoor deck? (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Study still indicates 300 attendees, however, the banquet facilities have been moved to the new building and expanded in size to an entire floor, including a new kitchen. Need to revise number of attendees and calculations.) h. Parking Demand - Based on radio and print material, it is difficult to agree with the numbers of patrons of the nightclub on normal and peak nights, especially based on the. posted rated capacity of the nightclub. Additionally, the Study does not include the Tiki Bar usage that is outdoors, which apparently draws large crowds, especially on weekends (although other days,are also full). They have a bandshell on the dock for this outdoor area that is not discussed.. I have heard complaints from the surrounding neighborhood regarding off -site parking on the. streets, most likely due to the parking garage being full; (5/4/09.7 WW -. No. response - Based on site inspection on 4/25/09, the outdoor tiki deck well exceeded the 200 indicated during peak season. Note - Based on discussions with hotel personnel, the lounge and tiki deck are full most days, especially on weekends.. Based on site inspection, inadequate. parking exists and will be exacerbated with this proposal.) i. Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory uses, or as a mid- priced hotel with accessory uses sized to primarily meet the needs of the hotel guests; j. Tables 2 and 3 - On what day of the week and dates were these studies completed? It is difficult to agree with the numbers related to the nightclub. of 16 and 23 spaces (normal and full occupancy respectively); (5/4/09 - WW - No response - It appears that Tables 2 and 3 are not based on actual data but on assumptions.) and k. Appendix - The drawing showing vehicle stacking includes vehicles blocking the. public sidewalk, vehicles blocking the entrance and exit driveways for the existing parking garage, shows surface parking in front of the proposed building that the proposed plans do not show and the drive aisles are wider than that shown on the submitted plans. (5/4/09 - WW No response - Based on site inspection, stacking will not work as the lot will be full and no vehicles will be entering or exiting until the end of the night.) Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 21 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 7 . Response to Genel*pplicability criteria #1 - Last paragraph - ThAuier in which the information is put forth appears to indicate that the existing Holiday Inn building is 128 feet in height, whereas the 128 -foot height is for a proposed building that has not been constructed on the west side of the Holiday Inn property. Clarify how the Holiday Inn building heights are actually. 8. 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 - WW Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 9. 5/5/09 - WW Response indicates there will be no changes to the existing railings, however, Sheet A -20 continues to show such aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass (not the existing aluminum picket railings). and Sheets A -22 and A -22B now shows the same aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass.. Improvements to tie the existing building together with the new building are necessary to be compliant with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d. Advise /revise. 1/6/09 WW Sheet A -20 Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -22B.. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildings together as a cohesive unit. 10. 5/5/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/6/09 -. WW To be clear . so as to. not create a future. Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the. Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. 11 . 5/4/09 - WW Architectural plans now indicate 48 rooms to remain in the existing hotel and 180 rooms in the new building, for a total of 228 rooms, which is still greater than the maximum of 226 indicated in the. application and on Sheet C2. Additionally, based on the architectural plans, there are 152 striped parking spaces in the existing parking garage, with an unknown number of overflow spaces (not shown), and 124 striped parking spaces in the proposed parking garage, with 40 overflow spaces indicated. The number of parking spaces are not consistent with the numbers indicated on Sheet C2. 1/4/09 WW Application and Sheet C4. indicates a total of 226 hotel rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown. Number the rooms in the existing building much the same as in the new building.. Revise. 12. 5/5/09 WW Application now includes a ballroom and meeting rooms on Level 5 in the new building with a new kitchen. Response provided to the comment below indicates there are no proposed improvements to the existing conditions and the reponse is inconsistent with plans submitted. With existing problems identified and no improvements proposed, it is difficult for Staff to support the. proposal. 1/4/09 - WW While no truck loading space(s) is required, deliveries to this site blocks driveways. On my site visit on 12/31/08, an 18- wheeler was parked in the northern drive aisle on the north side of the parking garage making a delivery. (backed in) and a beer truck had the entrance driveway (middle driveway) completely blocked by the truck and beer kegs. This proposal is to retain the existing, popular (accessory) nightclub and restaurant, provide a new ballroom and expand the rooms from 96 to 226. Unclear where or how deliveries of food, beer and hotel materials will be handled. Today's circumstance is inadequate and a bad situation appears to be getting worse. Revise /advise. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 -. Page 22 DRC Action Agmda I.1 13 . 5/509 - WW . • Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one. ownership and one parcel number. 14. 5/4/09 - WW Response unclear, which states all other bars have been removed from the plans. Does this mean that they are no longer proposed or that you are just not showing them? 1/4/09 - WW Sheet C4 - Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see Sheet A -11). 15.. 5/6/09 WW I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read "Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity. no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to the Sending Property in perpetuity." Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and how to resolve issues. 1/7/09 - WW Transfer of Development Rights - a. Unclear as to the need. for the Affidavit submitted by Harry S. Cline; b. Exhibit A - 665 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for a total of two dwelling units from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was two actual dwelling units that could be transferred from this property.. This still needs to be determined; c. Exhibit A - 655 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for one dwelling unit from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There . was no determination whether there was one actual dwelling unit that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; d. Exhibit B - From what property were these two dwelling units transferred from (645 Bayway Blvd ?). Same comment as "b" and "c" above; e. Under TDR2005 -11028 there was also 10 dwelling units to be transferred from 669 Mandalay Avenue. Same comment as "b ", "c" and "d" above... What has ever happened to these units? f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b - e above be cleared up before this document is recorded. 16. 5/6/09 - WW Civil plans and survey updated. Unclear how /why canopy extends over the property line onto the adjacent property. Response does not address the comments below. Still unclear how the wall and canopy were constructed at a zero (or less than zero) setback and of variances /permits granted for such improvements. 1/4/09 - WW Civil plans need to indicate the existing wall along the west property line ( ?). and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any. "variance" granted). Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 23 DRC Action Agmda I.1 17 . 5/3/09 - WW 1 Response was to remove the column grid lines (station markers) from the plans. This is not was requested (see below). 1/4/09 - WW Architectural plans - Provide station markers on the two planes of the building for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of building elements, especially in relation to property. lines. 18_ Sheet C2 -. General Site Notes #22 - Provide the overall proposed density of 95.35 rooms /acre after 226 rooms. 19. After further review of the plans and discussion with Planning Management and the Building Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and/or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fins on the building must be projected to the ground and the setback to that point indicated.. These setbacks to property lines and/orr seawall are what will be advertised (a variance to the seawall setback will be required by the Building Official). 20.. Sheet C2 -. General Site Note #11 - a. Suggest a new line B for Site Area for "T ". District or revising line A to the Site Area for "T" District (site data is to be evaluated ONLY on that area zoned "T ". District); b. B. Provide the. Existing, Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; and c. E. Provide the Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; 211. Architectural plans for the ground level indicates vehicle stacking at entrance. Unclear how this will actually work, since visual inspection of the property has shown that, at least on weekends, onsite parking is full and driveways are coned off/closed.. Proposal is to increase the number of hotel rooms from 96 to 226 rooms (an increase of 130 rooms), in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, outdoor tiki bar and ballroom. Proposed parking is supposedly 318 striped spaces and 66 overflow for a total of 384 parking spaces (can't confirm these numbers of parking spaces based on the plans submitted), provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site where all parking will be valet only.. Provided vehiclular stacking for valet parking still appears woefully insufficient.to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. 22. Response to General Applicability criteria #6 - Unclear what is meant by "The applicant currently has an occupational license to operate a 167 seat restaurant and will redevelop the Subject Property to include an upscale restaurant." There is no indication of any additional restaurant on the property and no indication that the existing restaurant will be remodeled for such "upscale restaurant ".. The purpose of the Hotel Density. Reserve is to "facilitate the restoration of those lost mid - size, mid -priced hotels," not for the development of additional resorts. Site inspection on 4/25/09. indicates there is much noise to the surrounding area attributable to the tiki deck music. 23. Response to General Applicability. criteria #2 -. a. Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; and b. In (3) you refer to the project to the north. If you are referring to the Holiday Inn project, that project is to the west. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 24 DRC Action Agamda 1.1 24. Response to Comonsive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria Aevise for the following: (a) 1. The side setback reductions for the existing pavement, freezers and building canopy are on the west side (not north); (a) 2. The height variance referred to for a similar. project is to the west (not north); (b) Height and Tower Separation B.2 - The Entrada project to the west at 521. S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128 feet in height.. Additionally, the project at 691 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower. 150 feet in height. Provide documentation that neither Option 1 or 2 apply, including a diagram that shows compliance; (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3. - Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan; (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3 - The floorplate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided per Beach by Design B.3.c, as to how this proposal complies with a tiered effect (expound); (b). There is no Criteria #7 (remove) and remove a) and b). Revise c) and the balance of this section to C.1, C.2, etc.; (b) c)1. Provide a diagram that shows compliance with this dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes; (b) c)3. -. Architectural elevations indicate the percentage of openings, which is inconsistent with what the criteria/provisions call for (windows or architectural decoration). Revise Sheets A -20, A -20B, A -21, A21B, and place information on A -22 and A -22B; (b) c)4 - Theoretical envelop is from all property. lines, not just the half of the property being redeveloped. Update the criteria to that in Beach by Design, where a maximum of 75% is permissable (not 60 %). Envelop below 45 feet not necessary to be shown. Drawing submitted is wrong and not understandable. (b) d) Remove this section; (b) Remove sections 8 and 9; and (c) Need to provide responses to. the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off): c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes mi 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. 25. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following: a. Parking - The project is proposing more than the miniumum number of spaces. The "requested relief' is being requested due to parking spaces have been designed as double - stacked requiring valet parking only. Cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing parking garage.. Even though more than the minimum number of parking spaces are being provided, the provided . parking will still not be enough, based on existing characteristics. b.. Setbacks - No documentation has been presented as to how the west side setback was approved at a zero setback. Need to present justification for the west side and the rear setback reductions to zero feet. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 25 DRC Action Ag®da 1.1 26 . Response to Gene *pplicability criteria #4 - 0 a. While there has been a parking study submitted and parking provided in excess of Code requirements, based on site inspections, there is insufficient parking provided today and in the proposed plan to provide. for existing and proposed uses of the property. Parking for these uses bleed onto surrounding properties and within rights -of -way.. Existing practice to cone and block off the driveways anticipated, which creates traffic congestion, expected to be the future practice. also. This is unacceptable; b. Existing off - street loading and unloading blocks traffic circulation.. This proposal does not address the existing problems; and c. Second sentence Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot.". This surface parking lot is being removed with this proposal. 27. Proposed parking numbers of 318 striped and 66 overflow spaces cannot be confirmed. Revise for the following: a. Overflow in the existing parking garage not shown; b. Sheet A -11 - Parking in the existing garage on Level A in the northwestern portion of the garage does not presently exist, requiring the removal of a wall and eliminating a storage area to. create these five spaces. These northwestern two parking spaces don't function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements, except to. the southern portion of the. garage; and c. Provide a table (previously provided but removed with this submission). on Sheet A -11 that . includes a tabulation by floor of the number of hotel units (existing and proposed buildings) and the. number of parking spaces (existing and proposed buildings, including the number of striped and overflow spaces). Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 -. Page 26 DRC Action Agmda L 1 28 . Granting of Hotelsity. Pool Units -A response to the criteria ones 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to. be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density. Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for a mid -priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density. (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a. Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; b. Those properties and/or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and/or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; c. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size less than 2.5. acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than or equal to 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve a density. of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it has received benefit of transfers of development rights in addition to the Reserve, or not; d. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require . compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; 0. . e. No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to. a residential use (i.e. attached dwelling); f. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; g. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought into the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met; h. A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that the overnight accommodation•use will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the National Hurricane. Center; . . . i. Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; j. All hotel rooms obtained from the Reserve that are not constructed shall be returned to the Reserve; k. The development shall comply with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) countywide approach to the application of concurrency management for transportation facilities, and the transportation analysis conducted for the development shall include the following: Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO; - Identification of level of service (LOS) standards for state. and county roads as established by the MPO; - Utilization of proportional fair- share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO model ordinance; Utilization of the MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology; and - Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the most current MPO Annual Level of Service Report. 1. A reservation system shall be required as an integral part of the hotel use and there shall be a lobby /front desk area that must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area for a hotel would be operated; and m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance . with these regulations as allowed by general law. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 27 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 29 . Elevations indicate the existing stairwells at the northwest cornel0the existing parking garage and adjacent to the existing nightclub in the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fins" on the new building with an anled wall projection. With both the stairwells angled "fin ". walls in the existing building and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured from the property lines or seawall to. the furtherest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site plan needs to indicate the points of these fms and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still need to show the setback from the property lines and seawall to. the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building Official, for seawall setbacks, where a variance to the seawall setbacks under the Building Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report). 30. Architectural plans indicate an exterior stair to be removed from the east side of the existing building. These stairs provide egress to the second floor and to two hotel units accessed from the outside. If these stairs are being removed, how will these two hotel units be accessed in the proposed situation.. Additionally, is there required egress being provided per Building and Fire Codes from this hallway and for these two hotel units.. Any new internal stairwell to provide any such required egress will affect first floor functions. Advise /revise. 31. An existing portion of the existing building will be retained that includes a bar, with the second floor to be removed for an "activity deck ". Unclear of the proposed use of the "existing structure" to remain indicated on Sheet A -11 adjacent to the bar.. Plans indicate one set of stairs to the "activity. deck ".. Provide documentation that this one set of stairs is sufficient to meet Building and Fire Codes for egress. Additionally, the activity deck appears to have new support columns that are not indicated on the ground level plan and on Sheet C4, not indicating the setback from the seawall. 32. Exhibit B - Section B - Description of Request - Revise for the following: a. First paragraph, seventh line -. Plans indicate 48 rooms to remain, not 46 as indicated in this ; paragraph; b. First paragraph, seventh line - Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; c. Fourth paragraph - Relief #1 See "a above for number of existing hotel rooms to remain; and d. Fourth paragraph - Relief #13 -. Cannot confirm 318. valet -only parking spaces. 33 . Sheet C2 - General Site Note #5 - Revise to indicate Future. Land Use includes Preservation (for that zoned OS/R). 34. Sheet C2 - General Site Note #8 - Existing Conditions - provide. the side (west) setback to pavement and other structures (see Exhibit B - Description of Request). 35 . Regarding accessory uses of waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, surrey and bikes): a. Understood that the waverunner business and building are. intended to remain. How will the building be modified to comply with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d requiring a cohensive, visually interesting and attractive appearance? b. There is fencing associated with the. waverunner business not shown on the plans. Is this fencing intended to be removed, to remain or to be upgraded? c. Intent of permitting Fun Ride Rentals, as an accessory use is that the storage of such vehicles are not to be visible. Revise the landscape plan to include taller shrubs that will obscure views of this storage area. 36. Introduction of the ballroom and meeting rooms with kitchen on Level 5 and the spa on Level 14. has been determined to be inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel (language. frdm Beach by Design: Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category.) As such, the square footage of Level 5 in the new building and the square footage of the spa on Level 14 must be backed out of the density/intensity (calculate similar to a mixed -use), which will reduce the allowable number of hotel rooms. Additionally, Level 5 will be considered an Indoor Recreation/Entertainment use, requiring 10 parking spaces per 1,000. square feet of gross floor area for Level 5. and the spa on Level 14 will be considered a Retail Sales and Services use, requiring five spaces per 1,000 square feet of "gross floor area. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 28 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 ` 37 . Elevations - • a. Need to provide a height dimension from BFE to indicate the maximum height of 150 feet; and b. Need to provide a height of the mechanical room from the top of the roof of the spa /exercise to the the top of the mechanical room (maximum of 16 feet). 38. Based on the submitted survey, prior case photos of this site, site inspections of the property and permits indicated in our computer reveals many structures have been constructed without the benefit of building permits: a. two wood pergolas southwest of the pool that provide couch seating areas; b. the. roofs for the bandshell structures on the dock/deck have been reconstructed to have metal roofs; and c. cloth covered canopies have been added throughout the site that are not indicated on the survey. Unless issued permits can be produced for such structures, new permits for such structures must be submitted within 30 days of this DRC. meeting, and will include any penaltyy fees for such. 39. Per the Development Agreement in Section 4.4, architectural plans need to indicate which hotel rooms will have full kitchens (limited to. 25% of the rooms). 40— It is interesting that this newest submission indicates 192 parking spaces now exist when the initial submission indicated 176 or 179 spaces. Not sure where these additional parking spaces were found. Other: No Comments Notes: Application is insufficient to. move forward to. CDB.. Revise and resubmit 15 copies (one original and 14 copies) of revised material for additional DRC review. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 29 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 10:25 am Case Number: FLD2008 -120 - 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Owner(s): Shephard, William M Tre �, "16 C/O Easley Mccaleb & Assoc Clearwater, F133767 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E- MAIL: No Email I>LCW Representative: Keith Zayac CftffA404*1Vk 701 Enterprise Road East Safety Harbor, F134695 TELEPHONE: (727) 793 -9888, FAX: (727) 793 -9855, . E -MAIL: keith@keithzayac.com Location: 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319. acres zoned Open Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page:. 285A Zoning District:. T, Tourist. Request:. (1) Flexible. Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 226 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres, a lot width of 243. feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15. feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of xx feet (to existing building), 14.27 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to proposed decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to. existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of xx feet (to existing building), xx feet (to proposed building) and zero. feet (to existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 150 feet (to top of roof deck) and 318 valet -only parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 100 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design; and (3) Transfer. of Development Rights of a total of five dwelling units (being converted to eight overnight accommodation units), including two dwelling units from 665 Bay. Esplanade, one dwelling unit from 625 Bay Esplanade and two dwelling units from 645 Bayway Blvd., under the provisions of Section 4 -1402 (TDR2005- 05022). (Related to DVA2008- 00002) 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, Mark Beery Applicant:. Keith Zayac, Joe Burdette, Harry. Cline, Robert Pergolizzi, Oscar Garcia, Daniel Knotman The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: I . The following to be addressed prior to CDB: 1.. Clarify how the proposed queueing would operate as shown on Sheet A -11. The plan shows the drop -off area completely blocked providing no space for arriving vehicles or baggage handling. The curbing shown on the east and west ends of the drop -off area limits access and may not provide maneuvering room for vehicles as shown on the plan. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 16 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 Prior to the Comna Development Board: 0 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) 2.. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the owner. (4/18/09 - Response does not adequately address condition.) Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. Fire: 1.. This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire. Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building.Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4-13-09. The. required 2nd FDC is not shown on page C6. The FDC lines will be 6" DR14 pipe not 4 ". DR18 as shown. The fire line for the standpipe at the rear of property must be tied int the system side of the fire pump and must be DR14 pipe. ADDRESS. THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO CDB 2. Under comments #5. the existing parking garage has a code deficient sprinkler system and wil be required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. The. response was: Based on subdsequent meetings with the fire department, it was agreed that since the existing building will not be added on to,or renovated at this time, the existing sprinkler system will be repaired and brought up to code over time. Letter dated April 9,2009 in line #1 states that the layout of the existing west building containing Bar ,Nightclub,Restaurant,Meeting Space, and Guest Rooms will remain unchanged in terms of programming,layout, or planning and the next statement #2 The exterior stair on the east side of the existing building will be removed. This is shown on the plans sheet A -11 as this is the EXISTING buildings, if this is part of the new development then the ENTIRE existing structure SHALL be brought up to code. Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1— No issues. Land Resources: 1 . No Issues. Landscaping: 1 . Sheet C9 Revise for the following: a. Plan indicates 11. PT in the northwest comer of the site, but the arrow indicates such is off -site ( ?); b. Unclear why no landscaping is proposed in the northeast comer of the site ( ?); c. For 5,423 sf of interior landscape area, Code requires one shade tree for each 150 sf, or a total of 36 trees. Based on the submitted landscape plan, only five trees are proposed to be planted within the interior landscape area indicated on Sheet C4. Must plant an additional 31 trees. Parks and Recreation: 1 . The Public Art and Design Impact Feeds 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 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, May 7, 2009 - Page 17 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 The following s4e addressed prior to Community Developmexsard: 1. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly to address this issue. 2. Please demonstrate that the proposed vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of the Building Permit: 1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD ERP permit. 2. Please provide soil analysis with Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) at the proposed vault to demonstrate the buoyancy calculation is not required. 3. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. 4. Please route all runoff, including the rear deck to the vault for treatment before discharge. 5. Please provide a detailed plan showing how roof runoff will be routed to the proposed vault. 6. The construction of the proposed Atlantis vault along the east property line will impact the existing lift station. Please address this issue. T. Please use a solid pipe for the proposed outfall as perforated may create erosion problem over a long period of time. 8. Proposed outfall invert elevation appears to be below the. existing grade. Please verify and redesign accordingly. to address this issue. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a 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: No Comments Traffic Engineering: 1 . 1. The parking table on the civil plans is not consistent with the architectural plans in regard to the number of striped and overflow parking spaces in the proposed garage.. 2. Even though overflow parking in drive aisles has been shown on previous projects, the Traffic Operations. Division continues to have concerns about this as it creates maneuverability problems due to reduced drive aisle widths and blocked vehicles. 3. Provide a van accessible. handicapped parking space whereby the vertical clear height shall be 8'2" per Florida Building Code, Chapter 11, Section 4.6.5. Provide a note indicating such on both the. civil and architectural plans. 4. Provide a note that the vertical clear height of each garage floor level in vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm) other than the van accessible parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.2.2 Clear height. Planning: The above to be. addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Note(s): L. 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, May 7, 2009 - Page 18 DRC Action Agmda t.1 1 . 5/5/09 - WW • 0 Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/4/09 - WW Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators). and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. 2. 5/3/09 - WW Plans do not dimension the projection of the awnings. 1/4/09 - WW Sheets C4, A -11 and A -12 - Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimensions these awnings project from the building. On the architectural plans, indicate what material and color these awnings are to be. 3— Recent radio advertisements indicate Shephard's "has expanded the private beach" when advertising the Sunday beach party. Based on past experience and visual inspection, unclear where this expanded private beach area is located. Explain. 4. Ensure when resubmitting that all original sheets are submitted, as Sheet C2 was omitted from this submission. 5. 5/4/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 12/23/08 - WW Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated.. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance. will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 19 DRC Action Agwda 1.1 6 . 1/7/09 - WW 0 Parking Demand Study - Revise for the following: a. Introduction - There are only 96 existing rooms at this hotel; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Revised study still indicates 97 existing hotel rooms.) b. Introduction - My counts of parking spaces in the existing parking garage do not confnm 179 spaces; (5/4/09 -. WW - No response - Architectural plans only indicate 152 striped spaces in the existing garage and it is not indicated how or where any overflow spaces exist. Site inspection on 4/25/09 revealed the property posted "lot full" and only 12 striped spaces empty at 11:40 pm and only 15 striped spaces empty at 12:40 am, while many cars parked in overflow areas [even parked in front of the elevator]. Site inspection on 5/3/09 at 3:00 pm also revealed the property posted "lot full'.) c. Parking Supply Same comment as "b" above. The proposal includes modification to the existing parking garage to increase the number of spaces, not identified in this Study; (5/4/09. - WW - No response -. Architectural plans indicate changes to the ground floor parking in the existing parking garage, which are not disclosed in any written material.) d. Parking Supply - This indicates that both of the parking garages will be serviced by valets.. However, other information in this application indicates the garages will be self -park on non -peak times. Which is it, valet only or self -park? (5/4/09 - WW - No response.) e. Parking Supply - It has been indicated there will be provided 28 stacking spaces in the porte cochere area. Plans do not verify such statement; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Stacking revised to, and shown at, 19 vehicles. Unclear how these will be parked by patrons entering the premises in the stacking layout indicated.) f. Parking Demand - It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted. Ensure the nightclub square footage includes both levels of the nightclub, as the posted rated capacity is 523 persons in the nightclub; (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Studyy now no longer indicates the square footage of retail, only stating "a small retail gift shop ". Square footage of nightclub unchanged at 2,300 sf; architectural plans indicate much larger than 2,300 sf.) g. Parking Demand - The banquet facility states a seating of 300 attendees, but there is a huge outdoor deck being provided on the south side of this facility. Will there be any seating or other functions at any time on this outdoor deck? (5/4/09 - WW - No. response Study still indicates 300 attendees, however, the banquet facilities have been moved to the new building and expanded in size to an entire floor, including a new kitchen. Need to revise number of attendees and calculations.) h. Parking Demand - Based on radio and print material, it is difficult to agree with the numbers of patrons of the nightclub on normal and peak nights, especially based on the posted rated capacity of the nightclub.. Additionally, the Study does not include the Tiki Bar usage that is outdoors,. !which apparently draws large crowds, especially on weekends (although other days are also full). They have a bandshell on the dock for this outdoor area that is not discussed. I have heard complaints from the surrounding neighborhood regarding off -site parking on the streets, most likely due to the parking garage being full; (5/4/09 -. WW No response - Based on site inspection on 4/25/09, the outdoor tiki deck well exceeded the 200 indicated during peak season. Note - Based on discussions with hotel personnel, the lounge and tiki deck are full most days, especially on weekends. Based on site inspection, inadequate parking exists and will be exacerbated with this proposal.) i. Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory. uses, or as a mid- priced hotel with accessory uses sized to primarily meet the needs of the hotel guests; j. Tables 2 and 3 - On what day of the week and dates were these studies completed? It is difficult to agree with the numbers related to the nightclub of 16 and 23 spaces (normal and full occupancy respectively); (5/4/09 WW - No response - It appears that Tables 2 and 3 are not based on actual data but on assumptions.) and k. Appendix - The drawing showing vehicle stacking includes vehicles blocking the public sidewalk, vehicles blocking the entrance and exit driveways for the existing parking garage, shows surface. parking in front of the proposed building that the proposed plans do not show and the drive aisles are wider than that shown on the submitted plans. (5/4/09 - WW - No response - Based on site inspection, stacking will not work as the lot will be full and no vehicles will be entering or exiting until the end of the night.) Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 20 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 7 . Response to GeneOpplicability criteria #1 - Last paragraph - Th *er in which the information is put forth appears to indicate that the existing Holiday Inn building is 128 feet in height, whereas the 128 -foot height is for a proposed building that has not been constructed on the west side of the Holiday Inn property. Clarify how the Holiday Inn building heights are actually. 8. 5/5/09 & 12/23/08 - WW Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 9. 5/5/09 - WW Response indicates there will be no changes to the existing railings, however, Sheet A -20 continues to show such aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass (not the existing aluminum picket railings) and Sheets A -22 and A -22B. now shows the same aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass.. Improvements to tie the existing building together with the new building are necessary to be compliant with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d. Advise /revise. 1/6/09 - WW Sheet A -20 -. Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -22B. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildings together as a cohesive unit. 10. 5/5/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 1/6/09. -. WW To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be. depicted on Sheet A -30. 11 . 5/4/09 - WW Architectural plans now indicate 48. rooms to remain in the existing hotel and 180 rooms in the new building, for a total of 228 rooms, which is still greater than the maximum of 226 indicated in the application and on Sheet C2. Additionally, based on the architectural plans, there are 152 striped parking spaces in the existing parking garage, with an unknown number of overflow spaces (not shown), and 124 striped parking spaces in the proposed parking garage, with 40 overflow spaces indicated. The number of parking spaces are not consistent with the numbers indicated on Sheet C2. 1/4/09 - WW Application and Sheet C4 indicates a total of 226 hotel rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown. Number the rooms in the existing building much the same as in the new building. Revise. 12. 5/5/09 - WW Application now includes a ballroom and meeting rooms on Level 5 in the new building with a new kitchen. Response provided to the comment below indicates there are no proposed improvements to the existing conditions and the reponse is inconsistent with plans submitted. With existing problems identified and no improvements proposed, it is difficult for Staff to support the proposal. 1/4/09 - WW While no truck loading space(s). is required, deliveries to this site blocks driveways. On my site visit on 12/31/08, an 18- wheeler was parked in the northern drive aisle on the north side of the parking garage making a delivery (backed in) and a beer truck had the entrance driveway (middle driveway) completely blocked by the truck and beer kegs. This proposal is to retain the existing, popular (accessory) nightclub and restaurant, provide a new ballroom and expand the rooms from 96 to 226. Unclear where or how deliveries of food, beer and hotel materials will be handled. Today's circumstance is inadequate and a bad situation appears to be getting worse. Revise /advise. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 21 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 13 . 5/509 - WW 0 Property Appraiser information still shows two entities of ownership and two parcel numbers. Unclear of what has been done to get this under one ownership. 1/5/09 - WW Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. 14. 5/4/09 - WW Response unclear, which states all other bars have been removed from the plans.. Does this mean that they are no. longer proposed or that you are just not showing them? 1/4/09. - WW Sheet C4 - Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see. Sheet A -11). 15.. 5/6/09 - WW I still need to complete reviews of the TDRs, but a review of the recorded documents reveals that the deeds do not contain covenants restricting use of the sending sites to read "Party of the First Part does hereby acknowledge that the Sending Property in perpetuity no longer has appurtenant thereto, development rights of the density units hereby transferred and does hereby covenant with respect to the Sending Property that it shall be restricted in perpetuity with a reduction of [insert number] units that are entitled to be developed thereon. This restriction and covenant shall run with title to. the Sending Property in perpetuity. ". Additionally, no documents submitted indicate that the mortgager of the sending sites consented to the TDRs. We will need to further discuss the TDRs and how to resolve issues. 1/7/09 -. WW Transfer of Development Rights - a. Unclear as to the need for the Affidavit submitted by Harry. S. Cline; b. Exhibit A - 665 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for a total of two dwelling units from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was two actual dwelling units that could be transferred from this property.. This still needs to be determined; c. Exhibit A - 655 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for one dwelling unit from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There . was no determination whether there was one actual dwelling unit that could be transferred from this property.. This still needs to. be. determined; d. Exhibit B - From what property. were these two dwelling units transferred from (645 Bayway Blvd ?). Same. comment as "b ". and "c ". above; e. Under TDR2005- 11028 there was also 10 dwelling units to be transferred from 669 Mandalay Avenue. Same comment as "b ", "c" and "d" above. What has ever happened to these units? i. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b e above be cleared up before this document is recorded. 16. 5/6/09 - WW Civil plans and survey updated. Unclear. how /why canopy extends over the property line onto the adjacent property. Response does not address the comments below. Still unclear how the wall and canopy were constructed at a zero (or less than zero) setback and of variances /permits granted for such improvements. 1/4/09 - WW Civil plans need to indicate. the existing wall along the west property line ( ?) and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any "variance" granted).. Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 22 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 17 . 5/3/09 - WW 10 • Response was to remove the column grid lines (station markers) from the plans. This is not was requested (see below). 1/4/09 - WW Architectural plans - Provide station markers on the two planes of the building for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of building elements, especially in relation to property lines. 18. Sheet C2 General Site Notes #22 -. Provide the overall proposed density. of 95.35 rooms /acre after. 226 rooms. 19. After further review of the plans and discussion with Planning Management and the Building Official, while there is a proposed setback indicated from the property line and/or seawall, the uppermost edge of the tapered fms on the building must be projected to. the ground and the setback to that point indicated. 'These setbacks to property lines and/or seawall are what will be advertised (a variance to the seawall setback will be required by the Building Official). 20. Sheet C2 -. General Site Note #11 - a..Suggest a new line B for Site Area for "T District or revising line A to the Site Area for "T ". District (site data is to be evaluated ONLY on that area zoned "T District); b. B.. Provide the Existing, Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; and c. E. Provide the Proposed and Required square footages for open space based on the area zoned Tourist District ONLY; 21.. Architectural plans for the ground level indicates vehicle stacking at entrance.. Unclear. how this will actually work, since visual inspection of the property has shown that, at least on weekends, onsite parking is full and driveways are coned off/closed. Proposal is to increase the number of hotel rooms from 96 to 226 rooms (an increase of 130 rooms), in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant, outdoor tiki bar and ballroom. Proposed parking is supposedly 318 striped spaces and 66 overflow for a total of 384 parking spaces (can't confirm these numbers of parking spaces based on the plans submitted), provided in two. parking garages on opposite sides of the site where all parking will be valet only. Provided vehiclular stacking for valet parking still appears woefully insufficient to avoid backups into S. Gulfview. Blvd. 22. Response to General Applicability criteria #6 - Unclear what is meant by "The applicant currently has an occupational license to operate. a 167. seat restaurant and will redevelop the Subject Property. to include an upscale restaurant." There is no indication of any additional restaurant on the property and no indication that the existing restaurant will be remodeled for such "upscale restaurant ". The purpose of the Hotel Density. Reserve is to "facilitate the restoration of those lost mid - size, mid -priced hotels," not for the development of additional resorts.. Site inspection on 4/25/09 indicates there is much noise to the surrounding area attributable to the tiki deck music. 23— Response to General Applicability criteria #2 -. a. Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; and b. In (3) you refer to the project to the north. If you are referring to the Holiday Inn project, that project is to the west. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 Page 23 DRC Action Agenda I.I 24 . Response to Com nsive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria Sevise for the following: (a) 1. The side setback reductions for the existing pavement, freezers and building canopy are on the west side (not north); (a) 2. The height variance referred to for a similar project is to the west (not north); (b) Height and Tower Separation B.2 - The Entrada project to the west at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128 feet in height. Additionally, the project at 691 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower 150 feet in height. Provide documentation that neither Option 1 or 2 apply, including a diagram that shows compliance; (b) Height and Tower. Separation B.3. - Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan; (b) Height and Tower Separation B.3. - The floorplate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided per Beach by Design B.3.c, as to how this proposal complies with a tiered effect (expound); (b). There is no Criteria #7 (remove) and remove a) and b). Revise c) and the balance of this section to C.1, C.2, etc.; (b) c) 1. -. Provide. a diagram that shows compliance with this dimensional criteria for the horizontal and vertical planes; (b) c)3 - Architectural elevations indicate the percentage of openings, which is inconsistent with what the criteria/provisions call for (windows or architectural decoration). Revise Sheets A -20, A -2013, A -21, A21B, and place information on A -22 and A -2213; (b) c)4 - Theoretical envelop is from all property lines, not just the half of the property being redeveloped. Update the criteria to that in Beach by Design, where a maximum of 75% is permissable (not 60 %). Envelop below 45 feet not necessary to be shown. Drawing submitted is wrong and not understandable. (b) d) - Remove this section; (b) Remove sections 8 and 9; and (c) Need to provide responses to the following Comp Infill criteria c -e (left off): c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: - Changes in horizontal 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. 25 . Response to Comprehensive Ill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following: a. Parking - The project is proposing more than the miniumum number of spaces.. The "requested relief' is being requested due to parking spaces have been designed as double - stacked requiring valet parking only. Cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing parking garage. Even though more than the minimum number of parking spaces are being provided, the provided parking will still not be enough, based on existing characteristics. b. Setbacks - No documentation has been presented as to how the west side setback was approved at a zero setback.. Need to present justification for the. west side and the rear setback reductions to zero feet. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 24 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 26 . Response to Geneftpplicability criteria #4 - 0 a. While there has been a parking study submitted and parking provided in excess of Code requirements, based on site inspections, there is insufficient parking provided today and in the proposed plan to provide for existing and proposed uses of the property. Parking for these uses bleed onto surrounding properties and within rights -of -way. Existing practice to cone and block off the driveways anticipated, which creates traffic congestion, expected to be the future practice also. This is unacceptable; b. Existing off - street loading and unloading blocks traffic circulation. This proposal does not address the existing problems; and c. Second sentence - Unclear of the meaning of "a valet parking system that will speed up the circulation movements of the existing self -park surface lot." This surface parking lot is being removed with this proposal. 27. Proposed parking numbers of 318 striped and 66 overflow spaces cannot be confirmed. Revise for the following: a. Overflow in the existing parking garage not shown; b. Sheet A -11 - Parking in the existing garage on Level A in the northwestern portion of the garage does not presently exist, requiring the removal of a wall and eliminating a storage area to create these five spaces. These northwestern two parking spaces don't function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements, except to the southern portion of the garage; ,and c. Provide a table (previously provided but removed with this submission) on Sheet A -11 that includes a tabulation by floor of the number of hotel units (existing and proposed buildings) and the number of parking spaces (existing and proposed buildings, including the number of striped and overflow spaces). Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 25 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 28 . Granting of Hotel &ity Pool Units -A response to the criteria ones 55 and 56 of Beach by Design needs to be provided. Prior application had responses to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Provisions are for a mid -priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Criteria as follows: a. Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; b.. Those properties and/or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and/or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible. to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; c. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size less than 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than or equal to 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre.. However, in no instance . shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it has received benefit of transfers of development rights in addition to the Reserve, or not; d. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base. FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; e. No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached dwelling); f. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; g. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought into the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met; h. A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that the overnight accommodation use will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the National Hurricane Center; i.. Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; j. All hotel rooms obtained from the Reserve that are not constructed shall be returned to the Reserve; k. The development shall comply with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) countywide approach to the application of concurrency management for transportation facilities, and the transportation analysis conducted for the development shall include the following: - Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO; - Identification of level of service (LOS) standards for state and county roads as established by the MPO; -. Utilization of proportional fair -share requirements consistent with Florida Statues and the MPO. model ordinance; - Utilization of the MPO Traffic. Impact Study Methodology; and - Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the most current MPO Annual Level of Service Report. 1. A reservation system shall be required as an integral part of the hotel use and there shall be a lobby /front desk area that must be operated as a typical lobby /front desk area for a hotel would be operated; and m. The books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance . with these regulations as allowed by general law. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 26 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 29 . Elevations indicatot the existing stairwells at the northwest com0the existing parking garage and adjacent to the existing nightclub in the existing building will be retrofitted to match the "fins" on the new building with an anled wall projection. With both the stairwells angled "fin" walls in the existing building and the "fins" on the new building setbacks will be measured from the property lines or seawall to the furtherest point of the uppermost reaches of these fins projected down vertically to the ground. The site plan needs to indicate the points of these fins and the proposed setbacks to property lines and to the seawall (this is what will be advertised). Still need to show the setback from the property lines and seawall to the ground floor portions of these architectural fins as a point of reference and justification for setback reductions. This has been discussed with Kevin Garriott, Building Official, for seawall setbacks, where a variance to the seawall setbacks under the Building Code will be required (condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report). 30. Architectural plans indicate an exterior stair to be removed from the east side of the existing building. These stairs provide egress to the second floor and to two hotel units accessed from the outside. If these stairs are being removed, how will these two hotel units be accessed in the proposed situation. Additionally, is there required egress being provided per Building and Fire Codes from this hallway and for these two hotel units. Any new internal stairwell to provide any such required egress will affect first floor functions. Advise /revise. 31 . An existing portion of the existing building will be retained that includes a bar, with the second floor to be removed for an "activity deck ".. Unclear of the proposed use of the "existing structure" to remain indicated on Sheet A -11 adjacent to the bar. Plans indicate one set of stairs to the "activity deck ". Provide documentation that this one set of stairs is sufficient to meet Building and Fire Codes for egress. Additionally, the. activity deck appears to have new support columns that are not indicated on the ground level plan and on Sheet C4, not indicating the setback from the seawall. 32. Exhibit B - Section B - Description of Request - Revise for the following: a. First paragraph, seventh line - Plans indicate 48 rooms to remain, not 46, as indicated in this paragraph; b. First paragraph, seventh line. Cannot confirm that there are 192 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; c. Fourth paragraph - Relief #1 - See "a" above for number of existing hotel rooms to remain; and d. Fourth paragraph - Relief #13 Cannot confirm 318 valet -only parking spaces. 33 . Sheet C2 - General Site Note #5 - Revise to indicate Future Land Use includes Preservation (for that zoned OS/R). 34. Sheet C2 -. General Site Note #8 - Existing Conditions - provide the side (west) setback to pavement and other structures (see Exhibit B Description of Request). 35. Regarding accessory uses of waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, surrey and bikes): a. Understood that the waverunner business and building are intended to remain. How will the building be modified to comply with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6.d requiring a cohensive, visually interesting and attractive appearance? b. There is fencing associated with the waverunner business not shown on the plans.. Is this fencing intended to be removed, to remain or to be upgraded? c. Intent of permitting Fun Ride Rentals as an accessory use is that the storage of such vehicles are not to be visible. Revise the landscape. plan to include taller shrubs that will obscure views of this storage area. 36. Introduction of the ballroom and meeting rooms with kitchen on Level 5 and the spa on Level 14 has been determined to be inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel (language from Beach by Design: Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a midpriced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category.) As such, the square footage of Level 5 in the new building and the square footage of the spa on Level 14 must be backed out of the density/intensity (calculate similar to a mixed -use), which will reduce the allowable number of hotel rooms. 37 . Elevations - a. Need to provide a height dimension from BFE to indicate the maximum height of 150 feet; and b. Need to provide a height of the mechanical room from the top of the roof of the spa/exercise to the the top of the mechanical room (maximum of 16 feet). Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 -. Page 27 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 38 . Based on the subnG survey, prior case photos of this site, site inoons of the property and permits indicated in our computer reveals many structures have been constructed without the benefit of building permits: a. two wood pergolas southwest of the pool that provide couch seating areas; b. the roofs for the bandshell structures on the dock/deck have been reconstructed to have metal roofs; and c. cloth covered canopies have been added throughout the site that are not indicated on the survey. Unless issued permits can be produced for such structures, new permits for such structures must be submitted within 30 days of this DRC meeting, and will include any penalty fees for such. 39— Per the Development Agreement in Section 4.4, architectural plans need to indicate which hotel rooms will have full kitchens (limited to 25% of the rooms). Other: No Comments Notes:. Application is insufficient to move forward to CDB. Revise and resubmit 15 copies (one original and 14 copies) of revised material for additional DRC review. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Page 28 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 10:00 am Case Number: FLD2008 -120 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD 11 Owner(s): Shephard, William M Tre I. ` C/O Easley Mccaleb & Assoc Clearwater, FI 7 TELEPHONEE: : No No Phone,.. FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Representative: Keith Zayac \MN 701 Enterprise Road East Safety Harbor, F134695 TELEPHONE: (727)793-9888,. FAX: (727).793-9855,.E-MAIL: keith @keithzayac.com Location: 2.68 total acres (2.35 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.33 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 285A Zoning District: T, Tourist Request: (1) Flexible Development approval for the redevelopment of the overall 2.68 acre - property zoned Tourist (T) District and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) to permit a 226 -unit overnight accommodation use within the Tourist (T) District (xx units existing to remain; xx units proposed) with a lot area of 2.35 acres, a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 23 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 15 feet (to proposed building) and xx feet (to proposed awning), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing pavement) and xx feet (to existing freezers), a rear (south) setback of 21 feet (to existing building and patio/boardwalk), a building height of 150 feet (to top of roof deck) and 366 valet -only parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of xx overnight accommodation units from the reserve pool created pursuant to Beach by Design; (3) Transfer of Development Rights of a total of five dwelling units (being converted to eight overnight accommodation units), including two dwelling units from 665 Bay Esplanade, one dwelling unit from 625 Bay Esplanade and two dwelling units from 645 Bayway Blvd., under the provisions of Section 4 -1402 (TDR2005- 05022); and (4) To reduce the required foundation landscaping along S. Gulfview Blvd. from five to zero feet (to building and pavement), as a Comprehensive,Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3- 1202.G. (Related to DVA2008- 00002) 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: papamutphy @aol.com Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Robert Tefft, Scott Rice, Steve Doherty, Jim Keller, Mark Beery Applicant: Keith Zayac, Joe Burdette, Harry Cline, Robert Pergolizzi, Oscar Garcia, Daniel Knotman The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review. Agenda -. Thursday, January 8, 2009. Page 9 DRC Action Ag®da 1.1 Prior to review by loommunity Development Board: 0 L. Explain how differing slopes of the east and west ramps in the parking garage in the new building function. 2. Explain how existing bandstand and deck conform to the existing "Permanent Nonexclusive Easement for Public Beach and Construction of a Protective Beach Berm ", as recorded in Official Records Book 5776, Pages 115 - 124. Prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. Turning radii at all driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet per City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #108. 2. Show on the plans the location of solid waste staging and pickup area(s). 3. Grease trap locations shall be shown on the plans for any proposed restaurant/food service. occupancies. 4. A separate tap on the water main shall be made for potable water service for the new building; domestic and fire water cannot share same tap on main. 5. Installation of a new sanitary manhole over existing 8 -inch sewer main will require the use of a doghouse manhole. Provide a detail for doghouse manhole that shows installation of a precast or poured in place concrete slab under the manhole. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: L. 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:. DRC. review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: Fire: Prior to the Community Development Board: 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. 2. Please provide a vault maintenance. schedule that has been signed and accepted by the owner. Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464- 4422) for further information. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 10 DRC Action Agcoda I.I 1 . Architectual planOxisting building shows new assembly area capitle of holding more than 100 people and as such this building needs to be sprinklered in accordance NFPA 13. Per the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2007 edition. Acknowledge intet to comply. PRIOR TO CDB 2. Must meet the requirements of Ordinance NO. 7617 -06 Radio System Regulations for Buildings. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 3. This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12" water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building.Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4. Provide details showing fire lanes being marked with freestanding signs with the wording of " NO PARKING FIRE LANE BY ORDER OF THE FIRE MARSHAL Acknowledge this PRIOR TO CDB 5. . The existing Parking Garage has a code deficiant sprinkler system and will be required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. Acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB 6. The center Landscape Island needs to be moved to allow the fire apparatus to use the drive as a Tee Turn. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 7. Add a new fire hydrant at the drive entrance. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 8. Fire Department Connections shall be identified by a sigh that state " NO PARKING,FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION and it SHALL be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage. Acknowledge PRIOR TO DRC Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: I . No issues. Land Resources: 1 . No Issues. Landscaping: 1 . Plans call for an underground stormwater vault on the east side of the new building that is a minimum of 18- inches below ground (typically 24- inches below ground). Location of such vault disallows any significant landscaping plantings. Additionally, building plans indicate an awning possibly 10 feet above the ground elevation on the east side of the building. Proposal is to place palm trees, which must have a 10 -foot clear trunk, next to the building, which will be under the awning. This will not work. Revise. 2. Sheet C4 - Foundation landscaping cannot be counted toward interior landscape area.. Revise. 3 . Sheet C10 -. Irrigation Notes need to reflect this project is within the City of Clearwater and not under County jurisdiction. 4. Sheet C9 Given the existing nature of the business on the property and the proposed revisions, is it realistic to expect the cutouts in the deck within the paver areas will remain longterm as landscaping with India Hawthorn. If not realistic, revise. Raised planters with built -in seating probably make better sense, whether located adjacent to the existing/proposed building or to the seawall. Pedestrian flow needs to be considered. 5.. Sheet C9 -. Revise for the following: a. Proposed Plant List indicates 215 RI, but the plan indicates 230 RI; b. Existing Plant Material indicates 16 NO, but the plan indicates 83 NO; c. Existing Plant Material indicates 48 VS, but the plan indicates 49 VS; d. Existing Plant Material indicates 1 CV, but the plan indicates 16 CV; e. Existing Plant Material indicates 83 PT, but the plan indicates 11 PT; f. Plan indicates 11 PT existing, but does not indicate where these are located; and g. Plan indicates 25 PS existing, but does not indicate where these are located. Parks and Recreation: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 11 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 1 . The Public Art an *esign Impact Fee is due and payable on this plot 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 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 CDB: 1. According to the vault cross - section provided, the vault does not provide sufficient volume and does not fit into the area provided between the east property line and the building footprint.. 2. It appears that the thickness of the vault and the modules inside the vault take up substantial amount of vault's volume. Will a larger vault be provided to address these issues? 3. The proposed project is located on the section of Gulfview Blvd. that the City plans to improve. The project is at 90% design phase. Please contact the City, project manager, Melvin Macioleck at 727 -562 -4750 to obtain the latest plan and coordinate the design of the proposed driveways with the City's plan. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of Building Permit: 1. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. 2. Please account the thickness of the vault in the design of the control structure, invert and top of vault, and other structures connected to the vault. 3. Provide an east to west and a north to south cross - section of the proposed vault with detailed information showing how this vault is to be constructed. 4. Proposed trench drains shall have an adequate slope to drain runoff to the vault. 5. Please provide a detail of the Zurn trench drain. Cross - sections shall show invert elevations and clearance between the 10" PVC pipe and the trench drain. 6. Invert elevation of structures shall indicate whether it is North, South, East, or West. 7. Provide the buoyancy calculations supportive by the soil analysis performed at the proposed vault. 8. Provide north -south cross section at the two proposed driveways. Show that the proposed trench drains effectively intercept the runoff before it overflowing to the right -of -way. 9. The proposed curb at the western most driveway blocks runoff from draining into the existing inlet. It appears that this inlet is to keep the existing garage directly west of it from flooding.. Please redesign the curb and provide an east -west cross - section at this location showing that no additional runoff generated from the redeveloped area be contributed to this low area. 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: No Comments Traffic Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 12 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 Planning: Driveways shall b�ted to one vehicle at a time both for the ing9driveway and egress driveway. 2. Reduce the widths of both driveways to be a maximum of 12' wide or the minimum width for fire lanes that may be required by the Clearwater Fire Department.. 3. Provide curb radius of 30' for all driveways. 4. To provide a t -turn for Fire Department vehicles and tour busses and to reduce vehicle conflict points in this area, the applicant shall move the interior landscaped island North to eliminate the East/West drive aisle and align the south curb of the landscaped island with the North curb line of the access aisle into the new parking garage. 5. Access aisle width(s) into the new parking garage shall be 24' wide from edge of pavement to edge of pavement for bi- directional 2 -way traffic. 6. Parking spaces along drive aisles shall not be allowed because they block parking spaces and reduces the drive aisle widths for two -way traffic. 7. Parking spaces: 20 & 25,70 & 75,120. &125, and 180 &185 impede each other. (PLEASE NOTE: TWO SHEET. A -12's HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED WITH THIS APPLICATION AND THE PARKING SPACE NUMBERING IS NOT CONSISTENT. REFERENCED SPACES ARE ON SOUTH SIDE OF PARKING GARAGE AND PARTIALLY BLOCK AISLES BEHIND. SOUTHERLYMOST PARKING SPACES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.) 8. Provide a van accessible handicapped parking space whereby the vertical clear height shall be 8'. 2 ". Provide a note indicating such on both the civil and architectural plans. 9. The vertical clear height of each garage floor level in vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm) other than the van accessible parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.2.2 Clear height. 10. Depict on a plan how vehicles will queue in . front of the building while awaiting valet service. This design shall take into consideration the Fire Department's requirements for establishment of fire lanes in front of the building. 11. As there is no loading space shown on the plan, describe how deliveries will be made to the building. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Note(s): 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. PARKING SYSTEM COMMENTS The following items shall be addressed prior to review by the Community Development Board: 1. Removal of wheel stops - use continuous curbing instead as wheel stops cannot be permanently affixed to the structure and become a liability. 2. Permanent concrete bollards should be planned in the design to protect the service area (i.e., stairwells, elevators, etc.). Bollards most likely will not be able to be installed properly due to the tendons in the decking.. 3. How will vehicles queue for the valet operation (both drop -off and pick -up)? The parking study mentions an area for vehicle stacking of up to. 28 vehicles in the porte - cochere area. 4. Will there be a fee for parking and how / where will that be collected? 5. The parking study states 40% of staff will require parking. Where will the other staff members park? Shephard's Beach Resort staff will be ineligible to participate in the Beach Employee Parking Permit Program even if the program is not maxed out / closed. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 13 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 I . Drive aisle into tho parking garage is proposed at a zero front A. This is where turning movements are the greatest with no protection to pedestrians walking on the public sidewalk. Staff will not support this proposed front setback to pavement. 2. Sheet C4 - General Site Note #15 - Note appears to conflict with proposed trash staging area next to S. Gulfview Blvd. My understanding is that existing trash facilities on the west side will be used. Need to show such dumpster and any enclosure. Unclear why a new trash staging area is needed. If not needed, remove trash staging area. 3. Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 4. Sheets C3 - C6 and C9 - Increase the size of the written material on the plan itself (too small to read; scanning will not help future readability). 5. Sheet C4 -. General Site Note #5 - Revise for the following: a. Zoning of the property includes 2.3x (fill in the "x" -. see comment below regarding acreage discrepancies) acres zoned Tourist (T) District and 0.3x (fill in the 'Y' - see comment below regarding acreage. discrepancies) acres zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District; b. Future Land Use needs to include. Preservation (for that zoned OS/R); and c. There are only 96 existing units (not 97 units). 6. Sheet C4 -. General Site Note #7 -. Revise for the following: a. The total land area of 116,937 square feet (or 2.6845 acres) does not match the 2.689 acres indicated by the surveyor; b. The site area for "T" zoning of 102,663 square feet (or 2.3568 acres) does not match the 2.37 acres indicated by the surveyor; c. The site area for "OS/R" zoning of 14,275 square feet (or 0.3277 acres) does not match the 0.319 acres indicated by the surveyor; d. All of the above must be correctly calculated, as the proposed number of hotel rooms does not work if the site area for "T" zoning is actually 2.35. acres (only produces 117 rooms at 50 units per acre); e. The entire site will be evaluated for compliance with Code provisions.. Remove the line for "Project Area for "T" Zoning ". 7. Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance. with current Code requirements. Most likely a Comprehensive Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note:. Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. All electric and communication lines must be underground.. Include a note regarding such. 9. Proposal is to increase the hotel to 226 rooms in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant and ballroom. All 366 parking spaces provided in two parking garages on opposite sides of the site will be valet only. Provided vehiclular stacking for valet parking is woefully insufficient to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. Indicate all stacking spaces on the plan. Revise. As points of comparison, a. A 230 -room hotel project approved by the CDB in October 2008 at 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. provided 296 parking spaces (all valet) with 21 stacking spaces at the entrance porte cochere; and b. A 450 -room hotel project approved by the CDB in October 2008 at 100 Coronado Dr. provided 466 parking spaces (all valet) with 21 stacking spaces at the entrance porte cochere. 10. Sheet C4 - General Site Note #11 - a. Number this as #11; b. The entire site will be evaluated for compliance with Code provisions.. Remove the line for "B. Project Site Area "; c. Provide site data (existing and proposed) for the 2.35 -acre area of the site zoned Tourist District for Items C -1. Data provided is inaccurate; and d. Item J - Required is 50 units /acre, which produces 117 units. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 14 DRC Action Agwda I.1 11 . Sheet C5 Provideoposed grades for the area around the pool decd paver decking along the south between the buildings and the seawall. 12. Sheet C4 - Second General Site Note #6 -. a. Change to Note #8; and b. Existing Conditions provide the side (west) setback to pavement. 13. There are portions of the existing building to remain to be demolished and additions proposed, as well as changes to the existing parking garage (ground floor). Need to reflect such changes to these existing structures on the site plan, as the entire site is being evaluated. On Sheet C3, remove the words "project limit" and the dashed line delineating such. 14. While no truck loading space(s) is required, deliveries to this site blocks driveways. On my site visit on 12/31/08, an 18- wheeler was parked in the northern drive aisle on the north side of the parking garage making a delivery. (backed in) and a beer truck had the entrance driveway (middle driveway) completely blocked by the truck and beer kegs. This proposal is to retain the existing, popular (accessory) nightclub and restaurant, provide a new ballroom and expand the rooms from 96 to 226. Unclear where or how deliveries of food, beer and hotel materials will be handled. Today's circumstance is inadequate and a bad situation appears to be getting worse.. Revise /advise. 15. Proposed parking space number of 366 spaces cannot be confirmed. Revise for the following: a. Some parking is riot shown, such as on the ramp to Level B in the existing garage. Provide a parking plan for each floor, including the existing garage, numbering each space; b. Architectural plans propose parking spaces in drive aisles "as of right" not in an overflow situation when operating at peak demand. Other recently approved hotel projects on the beach have provided a plan showing "normal" parking (including tandem parking spaces) and an additional plan showing overflow parking in drive aisles when at peak demand. Number spaces on each plan; c. Sheet A -11 - Parking in the existing garage on Level A in the northern portion of the garage does not presently exist, requiring the removal of a wall and eliminating a strorage area to create these five spaces. The northern two parking spaces don't function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements, except to the southern portion of the garage. Staff will not accept designing nonfunctional parking in any garage, regardless if it is valet -only; d. Parking spaces #8 -9 (Sheet A -11) in the new garage do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements; e. Tandem parking spaces inappropriately block adjacent parking in perpendicular parking rows, such as on Sheet A -12, spaces #20 -22 blocking space #29; f. Parking spaces #185 -187 (Sheet A -15) in the new garage do not function, as they, cannot back out without multiple turning movements; g. Sheet A -16 - Three parking spaces are shown on the north end of the upper level of the existing parking garage, which do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements. Additionally, a column is located within the southernmost space. Additionally, columns are shown within parking spaces on the southern portion of this level of the existing parking garage; and h. Provide a better table than that provided on Sheet A -11 that includes the number of hotel units and parking spaces in the existing building/garage. Ensure the numbers in the table are correct. 16. Application and Sheet C4 indicates a total of 226 hotel rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown. Number the rooms in the existing building much the same as in the new building.. Revise. 17. Provide on Sheet C4 a calculation of hotel density - how you have derived the number of hotel units proposed, including the acreage being used to calculate density, the number of units derived by the base density, the number of units being requested from the reserve pool and the number of units derived by TDRs. Include an overall density calculation based on the land area zoned Tourist District. 18. Civil plans need to indicate the existing wall along the west property line ( ?) and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster.. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any "variance" granted). Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 15 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 19 . Architectural plansleovide station markers on the two planes of Alding for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of building elements, especially in relation to property lines. 20. Sheet A -11 - Unclear of the function of the "loading zone" shown. Explain/advise as to what this is for. 21 . There presently exists a waverunner business on the property, as well as Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, surrey and bikes). Please confirm that these businesses are being removed with this proposal or, if proposed to be retained, show the location of the waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals, including all storage of their business material and "vehicles ". Fun Ride Rentals currently takes up parking spaces in the existing parking garage. 22. Sheets C4, A -11 and A -12 - Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimensions these awnings project from the building. On the architectural plans, indicate what material and color these awnings are to be. 23 . Sheet C4 - Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see Sheet A -11). 24. Sheet C4 - Unclear . the information the setback from the seawall of 37.52 feet is indicating, since there are structural columns closer to the seawall than the stairwell.. Suggest removing this dimension. 25. Sheet A -15 - Unclear what the dashed lines on the south side of the proposed building depict, as well as the dashed lines south of parking space #185, as there are no structures at or below this floor with these configurations. Suggest removing these dashed lines. 26. Sheet A -16 Indicate what will divide. the balconies between units in the proposed building (elevations appear to indicate floor to ceiling walls). 27. Section C.2 of Beach by Design guidelines prohibits any plane of a building to continue uninterrupted without a minimum five -foot offset for one hundred feet of the building. The east and west sides of the new building have planes of 120 feet, not meeting this requirement. It is noted that notes on the floor /level plans and elevations indicate the balconies are offset from floors 42 14. These are only offset by two feet and do not meet the offset required by this,.,;: provision. Revise. It is also noted that the western plane of the existing hotel building and existing garage both do not meet this provision, having planes of 132 feet and 152 feet respectively. Revisions are necessary to this western plane of these structures also. 28. Sheet A -11 - Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building.. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any televisions or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. 29_ Wheel stops are not required for any parking spaces in either parking garage. 30. Sheets A -20 and A -20B -. Unclear of the the intention of the verbiage at the bottom of the elevation regarding "new bandshell", since no new bandshell is shown. Advise /remove verbiage. 31 . Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity. of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one ownership and one parcel number. 32. Based on a site inspection, the northern, egress drive from the existing parking garage does not appear to. be such today. The "connection" between the parking garage and the entrance driveway to this site is constructed of turf block and there appears to be a significant slope to this drive. Today it does not function as such, being blocked by Fun Ride Rentals. Unclear if this really is an existing egress drive, whether it needs to be an egress drive and whether it can function as such due to the slope. Ground level parking within the existing parking garage appears to be able to function without this egress drive. Advise /revise. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 16 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 33 . Sheet A -00 I reaat there is some architectural license being there with the perspective drawings provided, but the trees depicted don't match that indicated on the landscape plan. There needs to be a reasonable resemblance to the proposed plans, otherwise it gives a false impression. As an example, the right hand perspective looking northeast shows trees on the west side of the existing building. These trees must be located on the adjacent site (Holiday Inn), as there is no trees existing or proposed on this side. 34. Sheet A -11 -. Is the existing tiki bar. on the south side of the existing nightclub, that shows up on the survey, being removed? 35. Sheet A -11 - Unclear if in the proposed building what is shown in the north side of the BOH (trash dumpster and trash chute). Looking at Sheets A -16 - A -19, unclear what is meant by "T.C." and "L.C." (trash chute and laundry chute ?). 36. Sheet A -11 Plan needs to clearly delineate and note what changes are occurring with the existing building, as there are existing exterior stairs being removed from the east side of the building and apparently being replaced with a new interior stairwell. The grill and bar. #1. is new. Additionally, based on existing conditions, there is new parking being proposed in the west side of the. existing parking garage, as it presently is a storage room. Further, the existing loading on the west side is not loading, but rather the compactor dumpster and outdoor storage: Any loading occurs in the drive on the west side of the existing parking garage. 37. Sheet A -12 -. Roof deck outside new ballroom needs to be indicated as "new ". 38. Elevations appear to indicate that the existing stairwell at the northeast corner of the existing parking garage will have a vertical angle to the exterior walls on the north and west sides, that does not exist today.. Floor plans do not show how this is being accomplished. Is this correct? 39. Sheet A -20 - Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -22B. Need to tie the existing and proposed buildings together as a cohesive unit. 40. Need to indicate the vertical clearance for vehicles under the porte cochere on the elevations (Sheets A -20B, A -21B and A -22B). 41. To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern on the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. 42. Exhibit B - Section B - Description of Request - Revise for the following: a. First paragraph, third line - There are. only 96 rooms existing; b. First paragraph, seventh line - There are not 97 (or 96) rooms to remain, but 40 rooms; c. First paragraph, seventh line - Cannot confirm that there are 179 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; d. Second paragraph It is noted that under Case. TDR2005 -11028 that a total of 15 dwelling units proposed to be transferred to the Shephard's site. The accompanying FLD case was withdrawn as it was not going forward. No review of whether the sending sites from where these dwelling units were being transferred from was completed. Such will be completed with this review; however, there appears to be 10 dwelling units unaccounted for... Please. advise; e. Fourth paragraph - Relief #3. is unnecessary, as the Code permits such mechanical enclosure to exceed the height by a maximum of 16 feet; f. Fourth paragraph - Relief #4 is unnecessary, as this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infi11 Redevelopment Project; and g. Revise request to match what has been prepared by Staff. The application will still need to provide justification for any reductions to setbacks (whether to existing or proposed structures) or increase to. height. 43. Response to General Applicability criteria #1 - Revise for the following: a. West - The Holiday Inn is to the west (not Ramada Inn) and proper terminology is a mixed -use (not multi-use); b. Fifth paragraph - The project to the west is Entrada (not Estrada); and c. Expound on HOW this proposal is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage and density of the adjacent properties. Projects within this area can be referenced also, but the criteria requires discussion regarding the adjacent properties. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 17 DRC Action Ag®da I.I 44 . Response to Gener9pplicability criteria #2 -. Revise for the follow a. Shephard's is an existing 96 -room hotel (not 97 rooms); b. Cannot confirm that there are 176 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain (it was 179 spaces in the Description of Request); c. I would not characterize the proposed landscaping as "lush ". Landscaping proposed is fairly minimal to meet Code; d. (2) All new construction and remodeling must meet current Building Codes. Unclear what this has to do with showing compliance with the criteria; e. (3) Stacking and traffic congestion will not be improved or eliminated (respectively), but rather current issues will be compounded in the negative; f. (4) Since proposed driveways are essentially in their present location, unclear how there will be improved pedestrian flow. It is the City making sidewalk and lighting improvements to Gulfview Blvd.; and g. (5) Unclear. how property values will "significantly" increase. What data can you provide from someone in the real estate appraisal business. Otherwise, a revision to the language to state that the construction of the proposed project will have a positive effect on the surrounding property values would be appropriate. 45. Response to General Applicability criteria #3 -. The City is building the Beach Walk improvements along the frontage of this site, not the applicant, which the. City is doing to improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and safety for this portion of S. Gulfview Blvd as a public improvement. Unclear how the City improvements are being included in this proposal. 46. Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - Revise for the following: a. (1) Disagree, based on Planning, Traffic and Fire comments, that the proposal "affords ease of movement for pedestrians and vehicles ". Based on the proposed increased intensity of the site, with the existing and proposed accessory uses. and the vehicular circulation pattern proposed, the proposal will not reduce traffic backups on S. Gulfview Blvd.; b. (2) There are existing issues with off - street loading and unloading. The proposed driveways will not improve, and may further denigrate, the existing conditions. 47. Response to General Applicability criteria #5 - Revise for the following: a. First paragraph The City is making improvements in the right -of -way, not this project. Presently, the scope of work does not include any trees within the widened sidewalk; and b. Second paragraph -. The project to. the west is approved for a mixed -use (not multi-use), but is currently only a hotel (no condominiums). 48. Response to General Applicability criteria #6 - Unclear how the increased intensity of the site will improve or minimize adverse acoustic effects of the outdoor activities, including the bandstand on the dock, for the surrounding area. 49. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following: a. Height Unclear where the 129 units is coming from, since the request is to obtain 100 units from the reserve pool; b. Height Describe in detail the "reasonable relationship" between the height increase and the number of units requested; c. Parking - The project is not providing 366 spaces normally (see other Planning comments). Cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing parking garage. d. Parking It was my understanding that the parking for this property is valet -only 100% of the time. Unclear where the statement of "self parking" on off -peak times is coming from, since the garage does not meet Code parking standards; e. Setbacks - An additional curb cut will not help the proposed on -site vehicular circulation and it is unclear whether Staff would support another driveway. Staff will not support the requested setback reduction to zero feet to pavement for this drive to the new building parking garage.. The curve of this drive is adjacent to the public sidewalk within the right -of -way and is not safe. There is no ability to provide any landscaping at this point.. Need to provide detailed justification for all other setbacks to pavement and to building for existing conditions, as the review of this project is for the entire site. 50. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4. - Revise for the following: a. West - The Holiday Inn is to the west (not Ramada Inn) and proper terminology is a mixed -use (not multi-use); b. The responses do not address the criteria. HOW will this proposal not produce substantial detriment on adjoining properties? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 -. Page 18 DRC Action Agenda I.1 51 . Response to Comp *nsive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria Aesponse must detail HOW this proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses. Neither of the other criteria mentioned addressed compatibility. 52. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Revise for the following: a. Response needs to address HOW the flexibility requested for setbacks and height are justified; b. 1. Explain HOW the location of the units provides easy access for all guests to the nearby businesses; b. 2. The project has been described as a "world class resort". The Hotel Density Reserve was created for mid -priced hotels. HOW is this a mid- priced hotel? b. 3. Beach by Design B.1 - Revise language from "density pool' to "hotel density reserve "; b. 4. Beach by Design B.2 - The Entrada project to the west at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128 feet in height. Additionally, the project at 691 S. Gulfview Blvd. (Enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower 150 feet in height. Provide documentation that neither Option 1. or 2 apply; b. 5. Beach by Design B.3 This is still part of Beach by Design B.2 and should be renumbered or adjusted appropriately; b. 6. Beach by Design B.4 -. Renumber to B.3 to correspond to Beach by Design.; b. 7. Beach by Design B.4 - a) Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan.. Unclear what floor this 19,237. square -foot floorplate is located on; b. 8. Beach by Design B.4 - b) The floorplate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided by Beach by Design B.3.c. Unclear how this proposal complies with a tiered effect. Expound; b. 9. Beach by Design C.1. -. No response has been provided for this provisision; b. 10. Beach by Design C.2 - The proposal does not comply with this provision (see other Planning comments); b. 11. Beach by Design C.3. Provide the percentage each elevation has, meeting this provision.. Include such percentage on each elevation drawing- of the architectural plans; b. 12.. Beach by Design C.4 - Beach by Design was changed to 45 feet to coordinate the written material with the drawings.. Revise calculations based on 45 feet. Provide the calculation and a drawing of how the provision has been achieved. b. 13. Beach by Design C.S. - The response says it "will be ". correlated... Please provide how the proposal HAS been correlated; c. Explain HOW. does this design support the established or emerging character of the area; d. Provide a response to this criteria (none provided); e. Landscaping is not working along the east side (see Landscaping comments) and landscaping along S. Gulfview Blvd. is not enhanced when a zero setback to pavement is requested. 53 . Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - Application has stated and responded to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density. Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Revise. Provisions are for a mid -priced hotel, not a resort. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 -. Page 19 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 54 . Parking Demand * - Revise for the following: • a. Introduction - There are only 96 existing rooms at this hotel; b. Introduction - My counts of parking spaces in the existing parking garage do not confirm 179 spaces; c. Parking Supply - Same comment as "b" above. The proposal includes modification to the existing parking garage to increase the number of spaces, not identified in this Study; d. Parking Supply -. This indicates that both of the parking garages will be serviced by valets. However, other information in this application indicates the garages will be self -park on non -peak times. Which is it, valet only or self -park? e. Parking Supply -. It has been indicated there will be provided 28 stacking spaces in the porte cochere. area. Plans do not verify such statement; f. Parking Demand - It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted. Ensure the nightclub square footage includes both levels of the nightclub, as the posted rated capacity is 523 persons in the nightclub; g. Parking Demand The banquet facility states a seating of 300 attendees, but there is a huge outdoor deck being provided on the south side of this facility. Will there be any seating or other functions at any time on this outdoor deck? h. Parking Demand - Based on radio and print material, it is difficult to agree with the numbers of patrons of the nightclub on normal and peak nights, especially based on the posted rated capacity of the nightclub. Additionally, the Study does not include the Tiki Bar usage that is outdoors, which apparently draws large crowds, especially on weekends (although other days are also full). They have a bandshell on the dock for this outdoor area that is not discussed. I have heard complaints from the surrounding neighborhood regarding off -site parking on the streets, most likely due to the parking garage being full; i. Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory uses, or as a mid -priced hotel with accessory uses sized to primarily meet the. needs of the hotel guests; j. Tables 2 and 3 - On what day of the week and dates were these studies completed? It is difficult to agree with the numbers related to the nightclub of 16 and 23. spaces (normal and full occupancy respectively); and k. Appendix - The drawing showing vehicle stacking includes vehicles blocking the public sidewalk, vehicles blocking the entrance and exit driveways for the existing parking garage, shows surface parking in front of the proposed building that the proposed plans do not show and the drive. aisles are wider than that shown on the submitted plans. 55 . Transfer of Development Rights - a. Unclear as to the need for the Affidavit submitted by Harry S. Cline; b. Exhibit A - 665 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for a total of two dwelling units from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was two actual dwelling units that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; c. Exhibit A - 655 Bay Esplanade - Under FLD2005- 11108, which was deemed incomplete, never pursued and was withdrawn in October 2007 due to inactivity, this application included the transfer of development rights for one dwelling unit from this property (TDR2005- 11028). There was no determination whether there was one actual dwelling unit that could be transferred from this property. This still needs to be determined; d. Exhibit B - From what property were these two dwelling units transferred from (645 Bayway. Blvd ?). Same comment as "b" and "c" above; e.. Under TDR2005- 11028 there was also 10 dwelling units to be transferred from 669 Mandalay Avenue.. Same. comment as "b ", "c" and "d" above. What has ever happened to these units? f. Exhibit C - Strongly recommend that the mess of b. -. a above be. cleared up before this document is recorded. Other: No Comments Notes: Application is insufficient to move forward to CDB.. Revise and resubmit 15 copies (one original and 14 copies) of revised material for additional DRC review. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 20 DRC Action Ag®da 1.1 10 :00 am Case Number: FLD2008 -12*-- 619. S GULFVIEW BLVD • Owner(s): Shephard, William M Tre C/O Easley Mccaleb & Assoc Clearwater, F133767 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E- MAIL: No Email Representative: Keith Zayac G" 701 Enterprise Road East Safety Harbor, Fl 34695 TELEPHONE: (727) 793 -9888, FAX:. (727) 793 -9855, E -MAIL: keith @keithzayac.com Location: 2.68 total acres (2.35 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.33 acres zoned Open Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S.. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 285A Zoning District: T, Tourist Request: (1) Flexible Development approval for the redevelopment of the overall 2.68 acre - property zoned Tourist (T) District and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) to permit a 226 -unit overnight accommodation use within the Tourist (T) District (xx units existing to remain; xx units proposed) with a lot area of 2.35 acres, a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 23 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 15 feet (to proposed building) and xx feet (to proposed awning), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing pavement) and xx feet (to existing freezers), a rear (south) setback of 21 feet (to existing building and patio/boardwalk), a building height of 150 feet (to top of roof deck) and 366 valet -only parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 803.C; (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of xx overnight accommodation units from the reserve pool created pursuant to Beach by Design; (3) Transfer of Development Rights of a total of five dwelling units (being converted to eight overnight accommodation units), including two dwelling units from 665 Bay Esplanade, one dwelling unit from 625 Bay Esplanade and two dwelling units from 645 Bayway Blvd., under the provisions of Section 4 -1402 (TDR2005- 05022); and (4) To reduce the required foundation landscaping along S. Gulfview Blvd. from five to zero feet (to building and pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3- 1202.G. (Related to DVA2008- 00002) 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, Rick Albee, Scott Rice, Steve Doherty, Jim Keller Applicant: Keith Zayac, Joe Burdette, Harry. Cline The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 9 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 I . Prior to review by0ommunity Development Board: • 1. Explain how differing slopes of the east and west ramps in the parking garage in the new building function. 2. Explain how existing bandstand and deck conform to the existing "Permanent Nonexclusive Easement for Public Beach and Construction of a Protective Beach Berm ", as recorded in Official Records Book 5776, Pages 115 124. Prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. Turning radii at all driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet per City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #108. 2. Show on the plans the location of solid waste staging and pickup area(s). 3. Grease trap locations shall be shown on the plans for any proposed restaurant/food service occupancies. 4. A separate tap on the water main shall be made for potable water service for the new building; domestic and fire water cannot share same tap on main. 5. Installation of a new sanitary manhole over existing 8 -inch sewer main will require the use of a doghouse manhole. Provide a detail for doghouse manhole that shows installation of a precast,or poured in place concrete slab under the manhole. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 1 Applicant shall submit 5 sets of as -built drawings that are signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Professional Engineer. The Construction Services Inspector will field inspect as -built drawings for accuracy. -GENERAL NOTE:. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional ; 'comments maybe forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: I . Prior to the Community Development Board: Fire: 1. Please submit the specifications and other documents from the Atlantis vault manufacturer showing that the vault provides water quality benefits. 2. Please provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the owner. Please Note:. An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County. Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 10 DRC Action Agmda I.I 1 . Architectual planOxisting building shows new assembly area captle of holding more than 100 people and as such this building needs to be sprinklered in accordance NFPA 13. Per the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2007 edition. Acknowledge intet to comply PRIOR TO. CDB 2. Must meet the requirements of Ordinance NO. 7617 -06 Radio System Regulations for Buildings. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 3. This building is deemed to meet the requirements of a High Rise and this requires two (2) Fire Department Connections plans only show one. PROVIDE details showing how the. existing Fire Department Connection and the New High Rise will be. joined with the fire pump and New Fire Line. Show on utility plan the proposed 8" fire main being fed from the existing 12 water main and how this will tie into the fire pump, and where on the property will this be brought into the building.Acknowledge intent to comply and show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB 4. Provide details showing fire lanes being marked with freestanding signs with the wording of " NO PARKING FIRE LANE BY ORDER OF THE FIRE MARSHAL" Acknowledge this PRIOR TO CDB 5. . The existing Parking Garage has a code deficiant sprinkler system and will be required to be brought up to meet NFPA 13 requirements. Acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB 6. The center Landscape Island needs to be moved to allow the fire apparatus to use the drive as a Tee Turn. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. (7. Add a new fire hydrant at the drive entrance. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 8. Fire Department Connections shall be identified by a sigh that state " NO PARKING,FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION " and it SHALL be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage. Acknowledge. PRIOR TO DRC Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1 . No issues. Land Resources: 1. No Issues. Landscaping: 1 . Plans call for an underground stormwater vault on the east side of the new building that is a minimum of 18- inches below ground (typically 24- inches below ground). Location of such vault disallows any significant landscaping plantings. Additionally, building plans indicate an awning possibly 10 feet above the ground elevation on the east side of the building.. Proposal is to place palm trees, which must have a 10 -foot clear trunk, next to the building, which will be under the awning. This will not work. Revise. 2. Sheet C4 - Foundation landscaping cannot be counted toward interior landscape area. Revise. 3.. Sheet C10 - Irrigation Notes need to reflect this project is within the City of Clearwater and not under County jurisdiction. 4. Sheet C9 - Given the existing nature of the business on the property and the proposed revisions, is it realistic to expect the cutouts in the deck within the paver areas will remain longterm as landscaping with India Hawthorn. If not realistic, revise. Raised planters with built -in seating probably make better sense, whether located adjacent to the existing/proposed building or to the seawall. Pedestrian flow needs to be considered. 5 . Sheet C9. Revise for the following: a. Proposed Plant List indicates 215. RI, but the plan indicates 230 RI; b. Existing Plant Material indicates 16 NO, but the plan indicates 83. NO; c. Existing Plant Material indicates 48 VS, but the plan indicates 49. VS; d. Existing Plant Material indicates 1 CV, but the plan indicates 16 CV; e. Existing Plant Material indicates 83 PT, but the plan indicates 11 PT; f. Plan indicates 11 PT existing, but does not indicate where these are located; and g. Plan indicates 25 PS existing, but does not indicate where these are located. Parks and Recreation: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 Page 11 DRC Action Agenda L 1 1 , The Public Art aAsign Impact Fee is due and payable on this pet 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 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: 1 . The following shall be addressed prior. to CDB: 1. According to the vault cross - section provided, the vault does not provide sufficient volume and does not fit into the area provided between the east property line and the building footprint. 2. It appears that the thickness of the vault and the modules inside the vault take up substantial amount of vault's volume. Will a larger vault be provided to address these issues? 3. The proposed project is located on the section of Gulfview Blvd. that the City plans to improve. The project is at 90% design phase. Please contact the City project manager, Melvin Macioleck at 727 -562 -4750 to obtain the latest plan and coordinate the design of the proposed driveways with the City's plan. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of Building Permit: 1. Provide a control structure with all dimensions. 2. Please account the thickness of the vault in the design of the control structure, invert and top of vault, and other structures connected to the vault. 3. Provide an east to west and a north to south cross - section of the proposed vault with detailed information showing how this vault is to be constructed. 4. Proposed trench drains shall have an adequate slope to drain runoff to, the vault. 5. Please provide a detail of the Zuni trench drain. Cross - sections shall show invert elevations and clearance between the 10" PVC pipe and the trench drain. 6. Invert elevation of structures shall indicate whether it is North, South, East, or West. 7. Provide the buoyancy calculations supportive by the soil analysis performed at the proposed vault. 8. Provide north -south cross section at the two proposed driveways. Show that the proposed trench drains effectively intercept the runoff before it overflowing to the right -of -way. 9. The proposed curb at the western most driveway blocks runoff from draining into. the existing inlet. It appears that this inlet is to keep the existing garage directly west of it from flooding. Please redesign the curb and provide an east -west cross - section at this location showing that no additional runoff generated from the redeveloped area be contributed to this low area. 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: No Comments Traffic Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 12 DRC Action Agmda I.l Planning: Driveways shall Ated to one vehicle at a time both for the ingr9driveway and egress driveway. 2. Reduce the widths of both driveways to be a maximum of 12' wide or the minimum width for fire lanes that may be. required by the Clearwater Fire Department. 3. Provide curb radius of 30' for all driveways. 4. To provide a t -turn for Fire Department vehicles and tour busses and to reduce vehicle conflict points in this area, the applicant shall move the interior landscaped island North to. eliminate the East/West drive aisle and align the south curb of the landscaped island with the North curb line of the access aisle into the new parking garage. 5. Access aisle width(s) into the new parking garage shall be 24' wide from edge of pavement to edge of pavement for bi- directional 2 -way traffic. 6. Parking spaces along drive aisles shall not be allowed because they block parking spaces and reduces the drive aisle widths for two -way traffic. 7. Parking spaces: 20 & 25,70 & 75,120 &125, and 180 &185 impede each other. (PLEASE NOTE: TWO. SHEET A -12's HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED. WITH THIS APPLICATION AND. THE PARKING SPACE NUMBERING IS NOT CONSISTENT. REFERENCED. SPACES ARE ON SOUTH SIDE OF PARKING GARAGE AND PARTIALLY BLOCK AISLES BEHIND SOUTHERLYMOST PARKING SPACES ON THE WEST. SIDE OF THE BUILDING.) 8. Provide a van accessible handicapped parking space whereby the vertical clear height shall be 8'2". Provide a note indicating such on both the. civil and architectural plans. 9. The vertical clear height of each garage floor level in vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 nun) other than the van accessible parking per Florida Building Code, Section 406.2.2 Clear. height. 10. Depict on a plan how vehicles will queue in front of the building while awaiting valet service. This design shall take into consideration the Fire Department's requirements for establishment of fire lanes in front of the building. 11. As there is no loading space shown on the plan, describe how deliveries will be made to the building. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Note(s):. 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate. of.Occupancy (C.O.). 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. PARKING SYSTEM COMMENTS The following items shall be addressed prior to review by the Community Development Board: 1. Removal of wheel stops - use continuous curbing instead as wheel stops cannot be permanently affixed to the structure and become a liability. 2. Permanent concrete bollards should be, planned in the design to protect the service area (i.e., stairwells, elevators, etc.). Bollards most likely will not be able to be installed properly due to the tendons in the decking. 3. How will vehicles queue for the valet operation (both drop -off and pick -up)? The parking study mentions an area for vehicle stacking of up to 28 vehicles in the porte - cochere area. 4. Will there be a fee for parking and how / where will that be collected? 5. The parking study states 40% of staff will require parking. Where will the. other staff members park? Shephard's Beach Resort staff will be ineligible to participate in the Beach Employee Parking Permit Program even if the program is not maxed out / closed. Development Review Agenda Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 13 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 1 . Drive aisle into dis parking garage is proposed at a zero front setl�ck. This is where turning movements are the greatest with no protection to pedestrians walking on the public sidewalk. Staff will not support this proposed front setback to pavement. 2. Sheet C4 - General Site Note #15 - Note appears to conflict with proposed trash staging area next to S. Gulfview Blvd. My understanding is that existing trash facilities on the west side will be used. Need to show such dumpster and any enclosure. Unclear why a new trash staging area is needed. If not needed, remove trash staging area. 3. Condition of Approval to be included in any approval by CDB: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records. 4. Sheets C3. - C6 and C9 - Increase the size of the. written material on the plan itself (too small to read; scanning will not help future readability). 5. Sheet C4 - General Site Note #5 - Revise for the following: a. Zoning of the property includes 2.3x (fill in the "x ". - see comment below regarding acreage discrepancies) acres zoned Tourist (T) District and 0.3x (fill in the "x" see comment below regarding acreage discrepancies) acres zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District; b. Future Land Use needs to include Preservation (for that zoned OS/R); and c. There are only 96 existing units (not 97 units). 6. Sheet C4 - General Site Note #7 - Revise for the following: a. The total land area of 116,937 square feet (or 2.6845. acres) does not match the 2.689 acres indicated by the surveyor; b. The site area for "T" zoning of 102,663 square feet (or 2.3568 acres) does not match the 2.37 acres indicated by the surveyor; c. The site area for "OS/R" zoning of 14,275. square feet (or. 0.3277 acres) does not match the 0.319 acres indicated by the surveyor; d. All of the above must be correctly calculated, as the proposed number of hotel rooms does not work if the site area for "T" zoning is actually 2.35. acres (only produces 117 rooms at 50 units per acre); e. The entire site will be evaluated for compliance with Code provisions. Remove the line for "Project Area for "T Zoning ". 7. Existing freestanding sign is nonconforming. Code requires bringing this nonconforming freestanding sign, as well as all other nonconforming attached signage, into full compliance with current Code requirements.. Most likely a Comprehensive. Sign Program will be utilized for signage on this site. All signage (freestanding and attached), including that indicated as part of the water feature, will be evaluated. Note: Maximum height of freestanding sign under regular Code is four feet; maximum of six feet high under Comprehensive Sign Program. It is noted that no accessory uses, such as the existing store on the ground floor of the existing parking garage, will be permitted signage. Bringing all signage into compliance will be a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. All electric and communication lines must be underground. Include a note regarding such. 9. Proposal is to increase the hotel to 226 rooms in addition to accessory uses of a nightclub, restaurant and ballroom. All 366 parking spaces provided in two parking garages on opposite . sides of the site will be valet only.. Provided vehiclular stacking for valet parking is woefully insufficient to avoid backups into S. Gulfview Blvd. Indicate all stacking spaces on the plan. Revise. As points of comparison, a. A 230 -room hotel project approved by the CDB. in October 2008 at 430 S. Gulfview Blvd. provided 296 parking spaces (all valet) with 21 stacking spaces at the entrance porte cochere; and b. A 450 -room hotel project approved by the CDB in October. 2008 at 100 Coronado Dr. provided 466 parking spaces (all valet) with 21 stacking spaces at the entrance porte cochere. 10. Sheet C4 General Site Note #11 - a. Number this as #11; b. The entire site will be evaluated for compliance with Code provisions. Remove the line for "B. Project Site Area "; c. Provide site data (existing and proposed) for the 2.35 -acre area of the site zoned Tourist District for Items C - I. Data provided is inaccurate; and d. Item J - Required is 50 units /acre, which produces 117 units. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 14 DRC Action Ag.da 1.1 11 . Sheet C5 - Provide0osed grades for the area around the pool dece paver decking along the south between the buildings and the seawall. 12. Sheet C4 - Second General Site Note #6 -. a. Change to Note #8; and b. Existing Conditions - provide the side (west) setback to pavement. 13. There are portions of the existing building to remain to be demolished and additions proposed, as well as changes to the existing parking garage (ground floor). Need to reflect such changes to these existing structures on the site plan, as the entire site is being evaluated. On Sheet C3, remove the words "project limit" and the dashed line delineating such. 14. While no truck loading space(s) is required, deliveries to this site blocks driveways. On my site visit on 12/31/08, an 18- wheeler was parked in the northern drive aisle on the north side of the parking garage making a delivery (backed in) and a beer truck had the entrance driveway (middle driveway) completely blocked by the truck and beer kegs. This proposal is to retain the existing, popular (accessory) nightclub and restaurant, provide a new ballroom and expand the rooms from 96 to. 226.. Unclear where or how deliveries of food, beer and hotel materials will be handled. Today's circumstance is inadequate and a bad situation appears to be getting worse.. Revise /advise. 15.. Proposed parking space number of 366 spaces cannot be confirmed. Revise for the following: a. Some parking is not shown, such as on the ramp to Level B in the existing garage. Provide a parking plan for each floor, including the existing garage, numbering each space; b. Architectural plans propose parking spaces in drive aisles "as of right ". not in an overflow situation when operating at peak demand. Other recently approved hotel projects on the beach have provided a plan showing "normal parking (including tandem parking spaces) and an additional plan showing overflow parking in drive aisles when at peak demand. Number spaces on each plan; c. Sheet A -11 - Parking in the existing garage on Level A in the northern portion of the garage does not presently exist, requiring the removal of a wall and eliminating a strorage area to create these five spaces. The northern two parking spaces don't function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements, except to the southern portion of the garage. Staff will not accept designing nonfunctional parking in any garage, regardless if it is valet -only; d. Parking spaces #8 -9 (Sheet A -11) in the new garage do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements; e. Tandem parking spaces inappropriately block adjacent parking in perpendicular. parking rows, such as on Sheet A -12, spaces #20 -22 blocking space #29; f. Parking spaces #185 -187 (Sheet A -15) in the new garage do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements; g. Sheet A -16 - Three parking spaces are shown on the north end of the upper level of the existing parking garage, which do not function, as they cannot back out without multiple turning movements. Additionally, a column is located within the southernmost space.. Additionally, columns are shown within parking spaces on the southern portion of this level of the existing parking garage; and h. Provide. a better table than that provided on Sheet A -11. that includes the number of hotel units and parking spaces in the existing building/garage. Ensure the numbers in the table are correct. 16. Application and Sheet C4 indicates a total of 226 hotel rooms proposed in both the existing and proposed buildings.. Based on the rooms indicated on the architectural plans, there are 229 rooms shown.. Number the rooms in the existing building much the same as in the new building. Revise. 17. Provide on Sheet C4 a calculation of hotel density how you have derived the number of hotel units proposed, including the acreage being used to calculate density, the number of units derived by the base density, the number of units being requested from the reserve pool and the number of units derived by TDRs. Include an overall density calculation based on the land area zoned Tourist District. 18. Civil plans need to indicate the existing wall along the west property line ( ?) and the canopy over the dumpster. Additionally, update the survey to show the wall and canopy over the dumpster.. Survey needs to indicate whether the canopy overhangs onto the adjacent property ( ?). Survey inaccurately shows the location of a large metal freezer on this west side. Unclear when the wall and canopy were constructed. Wall is taller than six feet in height (unclear of any "variance" granted). Provide the building permit number(s) these structures were constructed under. Development Review Agenda Thursday, January 8, 2009 Page 15 DRC Action Agwda 1.1 19 . Architectural planoovide station markers on the two planes of theuilding for reference purposes (usually indicated through the center of columns) (A thru whatever on one plane; 1 thru whatever on the other plane) so as to be able to ascertain the location of building elements, especially in relation to property lines. 20. Sheet A =11 - Unclear of the function of the "loading zone" shown. Explain/advise as to what this is for. 21 . There presently exists a waverunner business on the property, as well as Fun Ride Rentals (fun coupes, scooters, surrey and bikes). Please confirm that these businesses are being removed with this proposal or, if proposed to be retained, show the location of the waverunner business and Fun Ride Rentals, including all storage of their business material and "vehicles ". Fun Ride Rentals currently takes up. parking spaces in the existing parking garage. 22. Sheets C4, A =11 and A -12 - Show all awning overhangs on the plans, along with dimension these awnings project from the building. On the architectural plan, indicate what material and color these awnings are to be. 21. Sheet C4 - Need to indicate all bars on this plan, as they are presently shown as "blank" areas (see Sheet A -11). 24. Sheet C4 - Unclear the information the setback from the seawall of 37.52 feet is indicating, since there are structural columns closer to the seawall than the stairwell.. Suggest removing this dimension. 25. Sheet A -15 - Unclear what the dashed lines on the south side of the proposed building depict, as well as the dashed lines south of parking space # 185, as there are no structures at or below this floor with these configurations. Suggest removing these dashed lines. 26. Sheet A -16 - Indicate what will divide the balconies between units in the proposed building (elevations appear. to indicate floor to ceiling walls). 27. Section C.2 of Beach by Design guidelines prohibits any plane of a building to continue uninterrupted without a minimum five -foot offset for one hundred feet of the building. The east and west sides of the new building have planes of 120 feet, not meeting this requirement. It is noted that notes on'the floor/level plans and elevations indicate the balconies are offset from floors 12 - 14. These are only offset by two feet and do not meet the offset required by this provision. Revise. It is also noted that the western plane of the existing hotel building and existing garage both do not meet this provision, having planes of 132 feet and 152 feet respectively. Revisions are necessary to this western plane of these structures also. 28. Sheet A -11 -Cabanas are indicated on the west side of the proposed building. Since this portion of the building is below the base flood elevation in a velocity zone, there can be nothing but storage and parking below the base. flood elevation. Need to include in the written material the intended use of these cabanas, what features will be included in these cabanas (any television or refrigerators) and how they will comply with FEMA regulations for areas below base flood elevation. 29_ Wheel stops are not required for any parking spaces in either parking garage. 30.. Sheets A -20 and A -20B - Unclear of the the intention of the verbiage at the bottom of the elevation regarding "new bandshell", since no new bandshell is shown. Advise /remove verbiage. 31 . Overall property has two parcel numbers, owned by two entities (William M. Shephard, Trustee and Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. [formerly Lagoon Resort Motel]). Application lists both parcel numbers and owner's name). The property line between these two parcels goes directly through the existing building and parking garage to remain. As stated in another Planning comment, a Unity of Title will be required to be recorded. Unclear why there isn't just one owner and one parcel number, especially given where the parcel lines are located. Need to get this under one. ownership and one parcel number. 32. Based on a site inspection, the northern, egress drive from the existing parking garage does not appear to be such today. The "connection" between the parking garage and the entrance driveway to this site is constructed of turf block and there appears to be a significant slope to this drive. Today it does not function as such, being blocked by Fun Ride Rentals. Unclear if this really is an existing egress drive, whether it needs to be an egress drive and whether it can function as such due to the slope. Ground level parking within the existing parking garage appears to be able to function without this egress drive. Advise /revise. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January. 8, 2009 - Page 16 DRC Action 4.da L I 33 . Sheet A -00 - I realat there is some architectural license being to *here with the perspective drawings provided, but the trees depicted don't match that indicated on the landscape plan. There needs to be a reasonable resemblance to the proposed plans, otherwise it gives a false impression. As an example, the right hand perspective looking northeast shows trees on the west side of the existing building. These trees must be located on the adjacent site (Holiday Inn), as there is no trees existing or proposed on this side. 34. Sheet A -11 - Is the existing tiki bar on the south side of the existing nightclub, that shows up on the survey, being removed? 35 . Sheet A -11 - Unclear if in the proposed building what is shown in the north side of the BOH (trash dumpster and trash chute).. Looking at Sheets A -16 - A -19, unclear what is meant by "T.C." and "L.C." (trash chute and laundry chute ?). 36. Sheet A -11 - Plan needs to clearly delineate and note what changes are occurring with the existing building, as there are existing exterior stairs being removed from the east side of the building and apparently being replaced with a new interior stairwell. The grill and bar #1 is new. Additionally, based on existing conditions, there is new parking being proposed in the west side of the existing parking garage, as it presently is a storage room. Further, the existing loading on the west side is not loading, but rather the compactor dumpster and outdoor storage. Any loading occurs in the drive on the west side of the existing parking garage. 37. Sheet A -12 - Roof deck outside new ballroom needs to be indicated as "new ". 38. Elevations appear to indicate that the existing stairwell at the northeast corner of the existing parking garage will have a vertical angle to the exterior walls on the north and west sides, that does not exist today. Floor plans do not show how this is being accomplished. Is this correct? 39. Sheet A -20 Elevation appears to indicate the existing hotel units will be retrofitted with balcony railings similar to the proposed building (aluminum and seamless glass railing assembly with tinted blue glass), which would tie the existing building together with the proposed building. Plans, however, do not indicate such, especially when viewing the west elevation on Sheets A -22 and A -2213. Need to tie the. existing and proposed buildings together as a cohesive unit. 40. Need to- indicate the vertical clearance for vehicles under the porte cochere on the elevations b +,, (Sheets. A -2013, A -21B. and A -2213). 41. To be clear so as to not create a future Code problem, landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing parking garage cannot be trimmed to create a "wave" pattern one,, the facade, as such may constitute signage under the Code (the. Wave Lounge), as may be depicted on Sheet A -30. 42. Exhibit B - Section B - Description of Request - Revise for the following: a. First paragraph, third line - There are only 96 rooms existing; b. First paragraph, seventh line -. There are not 97. (or 96) rooms to remain, but 40 rooms; c. First paragraph, seventh line - Cannot confirm that there are 179. spaces in the existing parking garage to remain; d. Second paragraph - It is noted that under Case TDR2005 -11028 that a total of 15 dwelling units proposed to be transferred to the Shephard's site. The accompanying FLD case was withdrawn as it was not going forward. No review of whether the sending sites from where these dwelling units were being transferred from was completed. Such will be completed with this review; however, there appears to be 10. dwelling units unaccounted for. Please advise; e. Fourth paragraph - Relief #3 is unnecessary, as the Code permits such mechanical enclosure to exceed the height by a maximum of 16 feet; f. Fourth paragraph - Relief #4 is unnecessary, as this application is being processed as a Comprehensive. Infill Redevelopment Project; and g. Revise request to match what has been prepared by Staff. The application will still need to provide justification for any reductions to setbacks (whether to existing or proposed structures) or increase to height. 43. Response to General Applicability criteria #1 - Revise for the following: a. West - The Holiday Inn is to the west (not Ramada Inn) and proper terminology is a mixed -use. (not multi -use); b. Fifth paragraph - The project to the west is Entrada (not Estrada); and c. Expound on HOW this proposal is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage and density of the adjacent properties.. Projects within this area can be referenced also, but the criteria requires discussion regarding the adjacent properties. Development Review Agenda -. Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 17 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 44 . Response to GeneraTRpplicability criteria #2 - Revise for the followt a. Shephard's is an existing 96 -room hotel (not 97 rooms); b. Cannot confirm that there are 176 spaces in the existing parking garage to remain (it was 179 spaces in the Description of Request); c. I would not characterize the proposed landscaping as "lush ". Landscaping proposed is fairly minimal to meet Code; d. (2) All new construction and remodeling must meet current Building Codes. Unclear what this has to. do with showing compliance with the criteria; e. (3) Stacking and traffic congestion will not be improved or eliminated (respectively), but rather current issues will be compounded in the negative; f. (4). Since proposed driveways are essentially in their present location, unclear how there will be improved pedestrian flow. It is the City making sidewalk and lighting improvements to Gulfview Blvd.; and g. (5) Unclear how property values will "significantly increase.. What data can you provide. from someone in the real estate appraisal business. Otherwise, a revision to the language to state that the construction of the proposed project will have a positive effect on the surrounding property values would be appropriate. 45. Response to General Applicability criteria #3 -. The City is building the Beach Walk improvements along the frontage of this site, not the applicant, which the City is doing to improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and safety for this portion of S. Gulfview Blvd as a public improvement._ Unclear how the City improvements are being included in this proposal. 46. Response to General Applicability criteria #4. - Revise for the following: a. (1) Disagree, based on Planning, Traffic and Fire comments, that the proposal "affords ease of movement for pedestrians and vehicles ". Based on the proposed increased intensity of the site, with the existing and proposed accessory uses. and the vehicular circulation pattern proposed, the proposal will not reduce traffic backups on S. Gulfview Blvd.; b. (2) There are existing issues with off - street loading and unloading. The proposed driveways ,will not improve, and may further denigrate, the existing conditions. 47.. - Response to; General Applicability. criteria #5. - Revise for the following: a. First paragraph - The City is making improvements in the right -of -way, not this project.. Presently, the scope of work does not include any. trees within the widened sidewalk; and b. Second paragraph - The project to the west is approved for a mixed -use (not multi -use), but is currently only a hotel (no condominiums). 48. Response to General Applicability criteria #6 - Unclear how the increased intensity of the site will improve or minimize adverse acoustic effects of the outdoor activities, including the bandstand on the dock, for the surrounding area. 49. Response to Comprehensive. Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Revise for the following: a. Height - Unclear where the 129 units is coming from, since the request is to obtain 100. units from the reserve pool; b. Height - Describe in detail the "reasonable relationship between the height increase and the number of units requested; c. Parking - The project is not providing 366 spaces normally (see other Planning comments). Cannot verify the parking numbers in the existing parking garage. d. Parking - It was my understanding that the parking for this property is valet -only 100% of the time. Unclear where the statement of "self parking" on off -peak times is coming from, since the garage does not meet Code parking standards; e. Setbacks - An additional curb cut will not help the proposed on -site vehicular circulation and it is unclear whether Staff would support another driveway. Staff will not support the requested setback reduction to zero feet to pavement for this drive to the new building parking garage. The curve of this drive is adjacent to the public sidewalk within the right -of -way and is not safe. There is no ability. to provide any. landscaping at this point. Need to provide detailed justification for all other setbacks to pavement and to building for existing conditions, as the review of this project is for the entire site. 50. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 - Revise for the following: a. West - The Holiday Inn is to the west (not Ramada Inn) and proper terminology is a mixed -use (not multi-use); b. The responses do not address the criteria. HOW. will this proposal not produce substantial detriment on adjoining properties? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 -. Page 18 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 51 . Response to CompOnsive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #50esponse must detail HOW this proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses. Neither of the other criteria mentioned addressed compatibility. 52. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Revise for the following: a. Response needs to address HOW the flexibility requested for setbacks and height are justified; b. 1. Explain HOW the location of the units provides easy access for all guests to the nearby businesses; b. 2. The project has been described as a "world class resort". The Hotel Density. Reserve was created for mid -priced hotels. HOW is this a mid -priced hotel? b. 3. Beach by Design B.1 - Revise language from "density pool" to "hotel density reserve "; b. 4. Beach by Design B.2 -. The Entrada project to the west at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. is still valid and includes a tower 128. feet in height. Additionally, the project at 691 S. Gulfview Blvd.. (Enchantment) is still valid and includes a tower. 150 feet in height.. Provide documentation that, neither Option 1 or 2 apply; b. 5.. Beach by Design B.3 -. This is still part of Beach by Design B.2 and should be renumbered or adjusted appropriately; b. 6. Beach by Design B.4 - Renumber to. B.3. to correspond to Beach by Design.; b. 7. Beach by Design B.4 -. a) Size of the floor plates need to be reflected on the floor plan sheets in the architectural plan. Unclear what floor this 19,237 square -foot flooiplate is located on; b. 8. Beach by Design B.4 - b) The flooiplate indicated exceeds that listed and there is no justification provided by Beach by Design B.3.c. Unclear how this proposal complies with a tiered effect. Expound; b. 9. Beach by Design C.1 No response has been provided for this provisision; b. 10. Beach by Design C.2 - The proposal does not comply with this provision (see other Planning comments); b. 11. Beach by Design C.3 Provide the percentage each elevation has, meeting this provision. Include such percentage on each elevation drawing of the architectural plans; b. 12. Beach by Design CA - Beach by Design was changed to 45 feet to coordinate the written material with the drawings.. Revise calculations based on 45 feet. Provide the calculation; and a drawing of how the provision has been achieved. b. 13. Beach by Design C.5 -. The response says it "will be" correlated. Please provide how the proposal HAS been correlated; c. Explain HOW does this design support the established or emerging character of the area; d. Provide a response to this criteria (none provided); e. Landscaping is not working along the east side (see Landscaping comments) and landscaping along S. Gulfview Blvd. is not enhanced when a zero. setback to pavement is requested. 53 . Granting of Hotel Density Pool Units - Application has stated and responded to the wrong criteria, listing that for the Destination Resort Density Pool rather than the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted under Ordinance 7925 -08. Revise. Provisions are for a mid -priced hotel, not a resort.. Include the calculation of how the proposed density (number of rooms) was derived. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - Page 19 DRC Action Agrnda 1.1 54. Parking Demand *- Revise for the following: 40 a. Introduction - There are only 96 existing rooms at this hotel; b. Introduction - My counts of parking spaces in the existing parking garage do not confirm 179 spaces; c. Parking Supply - Same comment as "b" above. The proposal includes modification to the existing parking garage to increase the number of spaces, not identified in this Study; d. Parking Supply - This indicates that both of the parking garages will be serviced by valets. However, other information in this application indicates the garages will be self -park on non -peak times. Which is it, valet only or self -park? e. Parking Supply It has been indicated there will be provided 28 stacking spaces in the porte . cochere area. Plans do not verify such statement; f. Parking Demand It is stated that there will be 800 square feet of retail shops. Unclear where such retail shops are located, based on the plans submitted. Ensure the nightclub square footage . includes both levels of the nightclub, as the posted rated capacity is 523 persons in the nightclub; g. Parking Demand -. The banquet facility states a seating of 300 attendees, but there is a huge outdoor deck being provided on the south side of this facility. Will there be any seating or other functions at any time on this outdoor deck? h., Parking Demand - Based on radio and print material, it is difficult to agree with the numbers of patrons of the nightclub on normal and peak nights, especially based on:the posted rated capacity of the nightclub. Additionally, the Study does not include the Tiki Bar usage that is outdoors, which apparently draws large crowds, especially on weekends (although other days are also full). They have a bandshell on the dock for this outdoor area that is not discussed.. I have heard complaints from the surrounding neighborhood regarding off -site parking on the streets, most likely due to the parking garage being full; i. Unclear if this proposal is being reviewed as a resort, with full accessory uses, or as a mid- priced hotel with accessory uses sized to. primarily meet the needs of the hotel guests; j. Tables 2 and 3. - On what day of the week and dates were these studies completed? It is difficult to agree with the numbers related to the nightclub. of 16 and 23. spaces (normal and full occupancy respectively); and k. Appendix -. The drawing showing vehicle. stacking includes vehicles blocking the public sidewalk, vehicles blocking the entrance and exit driveways for the existing parking garage, shows surface parking in front of the proposed building that the proposed plans do not show and the drive aisles are wider than that shown on the submitted plans., Other: No Comments Notes: Application is insufficient to move forward to CDB. Revise and resubmit 15. copies (one original and 14 copies) of revised material for additional DRC review. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, January 8, 2009 -. Page 20 DRC Action Ag®da 1.1 sc Map Okitput 10 Page 1 of 2 http: / /puhlicgis.myclearwater. com/servlet /com. esri. esrimap .Esrimap ?ServiceName= OVMa... 12/4/2008 Previous on List Next on List Return To List Events Name History Detail by Entity Name Florida Profit Corporation SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT, INC. Filing Information Document Number 648998 FEI Number 591950743 Date Filed 12/20/1979 State FL Status ACTIVE Last Event NAME CHANGE AMENDMENT Event Date Filed 09/18/2000 Event Effective Date NONE Principal Address 619 SOUTH GULFVIEW BOULEVARD CLEARWATER BEACH FL 34630 -2643 Mailing Address 619 SOUTH GULFVIEW BOULEVARD CLEARWATER BEACH FL 34630 -2643 Registered. Agent Name & Address CLINE, HARRY S ESQ. 625 COURT ST., #625 CLEARWATER FL 33756 US Name Changed: 05/27/2008 Address Changed: 05/27/2008 Officer /Director Detail Name & Address Title PD SHEPHARD, WILLIAM 44 N. PINE CIRCLE BELLEAIR FL Title ST Pagel of 2 Forms H http : / /www. sunbiz. orglscriptslcordet. exe ?action= DETFIL &inq_doc_ numb er =64899 8 &inq... 12/4/2008 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State SHEPHARD, WILLIAM 44 N. PINE CIRCLE BELLEAIR FL Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2006 04/11/2006 2007 03/05/2007 2008 05/27/2008 Document Images Previous on List Next on List Return To List Events Name History • Home Contact us Document Searches E- Filing Services Forms Help Copyright and Privacy Policies Copyright © 2007 State of Florida, Department of State. Page 2 of 2 http: / /www. sunbiz.org/scripts /cordet.exe? action = DETFIL &inq_doc_number = 648998 &inq... 12/4/2008 94 4*o 19 1 '* ' ��. FILING OF DOCUMENTS Date: Septembct ;:2000 /g RE: Articles of Amendment to the Articles Our File #10198 <; 'i�9. of Incorporation of Lagoon Resort Motel Inc. Enclosed is the original of the Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation o?Ngoon Resort Motel, Inc. Please file the original and return a certified copy to our office. Also enclosed is our check #6152 in the amount of $43.75. Of that amount $35.00 is for the Filing Fee and $8.75 for a Certified Copy of the Articles of Amendment. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for your cooperation. Division of Corporations Florida Department of State P.O. Box 6327 Tallahassee, FL 32314 rjnv Encl. L cc: William M. Shephard JoAnn M. Reinhardt Estate Planning Assistant Law Vices RAYMOND L. PARRI, P.A. 1217 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Clearwater, FL 33756 _ (727) 586 -4224 or 849 -1958 .09/10/00--01131--006 *aF?k**43.75 *****43. 75 ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO THE FILED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF 00 SEP 18 AM 9= 52 LAGOON RESORT MOTEL, INC. � EWADRIbA Pursuant to the provisions of Section 607.187 of the Florida Statutes, the undersigned Corporation adopts the following Articles of Amendment to its Articles of Incorporation: 1. The name of the Corporation is the: LAGOON RESORT MOTEL, INC. 2. The following Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was adopted by the sole shareholder of the Corporation on August 18, 2000, in the manner prescribed by the Florida General Corporation Act. The name of the Corporation is changed to: SHEPHARD'S BEACH RESORT, INC. — 3. The number of shares of the corporation's outstanding stock at the time of the adoption was 100, and the number of shares entitled to vote thereon was 100. 4. There is only one class of shares which is common stock and all shares are owned by the sole shareholder. 5. All of the shares were voted in favor of such amendment. Dated: August 18, 2000 •• .•• By �� President Its A Its Secretary R- \U51R \jmr \C0xV \3hephard1a Beach Aeaort \Amend to Atticie9 Of XACOrp State of Florida County of Pinellas The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _Leday of August, 2000, by WILLIAM M. SHEPHA.RD, as President and CONSTANCE M. SHEPHARD, as Secretary of Lagoon Resort-Motel, Inc., a Florida Corporation, on behalf of the Corporation, who [X] are personally known to me, [ ] have respectively produced as i tification,'or [ J was 'den ' zed y a credible wi s affidavit. Sign _ Print L. ARRI Notary Public, tate of Florida (Notary Seal) My commission number is: My commission expires: Raymond L Pam MYCOMMWON # CC770433 EXPfRES August 25, 2002 ZI BONDED7HRU 7g FAMi MI9URRNM MIC R: \USER \J.r \CORP \Shepha -d'9 Beach aesort \Amend to Articles of zncorp Property Appraiser General Information: 17/29/15/05004/003/0010 Card I • 9 Interactive Map of this Comparable Sales Ba.a. to Ouery New ew Tax Collector parcel Results Search Information . . ......... 11 .......... Page I of 4 Question / Comment about this Parcel 17/29/15/05004/003/0010 Building 2of 3 Building 1 Data Current as of November A, L 2008 [6:08. pm Thursday December. 4] Nonresidential Property Owner, Address, and Sales Print Motel/Hotel < 4 Property Use: 312 Stories BAYSIDE SUB NO. 5. BLK C, LOTS I THRU 5 & RIP RTS 2008 _E_ xemptions Homestead: No Use: 0% Ownership: 0% Tax Exempt: 0% Government:. No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 2008 Value 2008 Tax Information Comparable Sales Value:: $0 Tax District: CW E.S. 553.844 Just/Market Value: Millage: 20.3578 $9,500,000 Non Ad Valorem Assessments: $.00 Assessed Value/ SOH Cap: $9,500,000 Taxes: $193,399.00 History . Taxable Value: $9,500,000 Taxes without Save-Our-Homes cap: $193,399.00 .A significant taxable value increase may Taxes without any exemptions: $193,399.00 occur when sold. Click here for details. Owner/Mailing Property Address Sale Date Book/Page Price QIU V/I Address 1977 4567/1565 $1,250,000 Q I SHEPHARD, WILLIAM 1973 3996/856 $1,048,000 U I M THE C/O EASLEY MCCALEB Plat Year Plat Book/Page(s) & ASSOC 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD 1955 038/ 038 - 039 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767-2643 Parcel Information Book/Page: Land Use: Hotels, 06758/1631 Motels (39). Census Tract: 260.02 http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ nadet.php ?pn= 1529170500400300101 12/4/2008 Property Appraiser General Information: 17/29/15/05004/003 /0010 Card I 0 0 Seawall: Land Use Hotels, Motels(39) Land Information Frontage: Gulf View: Page 2 of 4 Land Size Unit Value Units Method 335 x 280 130.00 81,896.00 S Structural Elements Foundation: Spread/Monolithic Footing Floor System: Slab on Grade Exterior Wall: Concrete Block/Stucco Roof Frame: Gable & Hip Roof Cover: Composition Shingle Height Factor: 0 Floor Finish: Carpet Combination Interior Finish: Drywall Party wall: None Structural Frame: Masonry Pillar & Steel Cabinet & Mill: Average Quality: Average Heating & Air: Heating & cooling Package Electric: Average Bath Tile: Half Wall Fixtures: 127 Total Units: 0 Year Built: 1957 Effective. Age: 10 Other Depreciation: 0 Functional Depreciation: 0 Economic Depreciation: 0 No Building Drawing for this card http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ nadet.php ?pn= 1529170500400300101 12/4/2008 Property Appraiser General Information: 17/29/15/05004/003 /0010 Card 1 Description Base Area Open Porch Finished Utility Room. Unfinished Page 3 of 4 Sub Area information Building Finished Ft2 Gross Area_Ft2 _Factor Effective FO 47,991 47,991 1.00 47,991 5,296 .30 1,589 576 .40 230 Canopy 462 .25 116 Total Building Finished SF: 47,991 Total Gross SF: 54,325 Total Effective SF: 49,926 http: / /www.pcpao.org/ general_ nadet .php ?pn = 1529170500400300101 12/4/2008 Nonresidential Extra Features Description Dimensions Value/Unit Units Total NewValue Depreciated Value Year Dock 641 $40.00 641 $25,640.00 $21,280.00 1985 Pool 600SF $30,000.00 1 $30,000.00 $20,400.00 1985 Concrete Pavement 3579SF $4.00 3579 $14,320.00 $14,320.00 Unknown Asphalt 17000 $1.75 17000 $29,750.00 $29,750.00 Unknown Patio/Deck 1791 $12.00 1791 $21,490.00 $14,610.00 1985 Gazebo 1000 $70.00 1000 $70,000.00 $47,600.00 1991 Spa/Jacuzzi/Hot Tub $9,000.00 1 $9,000.00 $6,120.00 1993 http: / /www.pcpao.org/ general_ nadet .php ?pn = 1529170500400300101 12/4/2008 Welcome to VDB on the Web Page 1 of 1 0 0 Aerial Photography: 2007 Color--JMIJ Transparency (0.0- o j 1.0 ) Theme Description This is the default set. It has no data layers, just linework. All of the map la ers are black. http: / /vdb.pcpao.org /vdb.php 12/4/20018 Property Appraiser General Information: 17/29/15/05004/003 /0010 Card 2 • 0 Interactive Map of this Comparable Sales Back to ueM New Tax Collector parcel Listing Results Searcb. Information Pagel of 4 QuestioiVComm.ent about this parcel. 17/29/15/05004/003 /0010 «Building 1. Bui_l_ding_3of 3 Building 2 Data Current as of November 30, 2008 [6:15 pm Thursday December 4] Nonresidential Property Owner, Address, and Sales Print Motel/Hotel < 4 Property Use: 312 Stories BAYSIDE SUB NO. 5 BLK C, LOTS 1 THRU 5 & RIP RTS 2008 Exemptions Homestead: No Use: 0% Ownership: 0% Tax Exempt: 0% Government:. No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 2008 Value. 2008 Tax Information Comparable Sales Value:: $0 Tax District: CW F.S. 553.844 Just /Market Value: Millage: 20.3578 $9,500,000 Non Ad Valorem Assessments: $.00 Assessed Value/ SOH Cap: $9,500,000 Taxes: $193,399.00 History Taxable Value: $9,500,000 Taxes without Save -Our -Homes cap: $193,399.00 A significant taxable value increase may Taxes without any exemptions: $193,399.00 occur when sold. Click here for details. Owner/Mailing Property Address Sale Date Book/Page Price � V/I Address 1977 4567/1565 $1,250,000 Q I SHEPHARD, WILLIAM 1973 3996/856 $1,048,000 U I M THE C/O EASLEY MCCALEB Plat Year Plat Book/Page(s) & ASSOC 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD 1955 038/ 038 - 039 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 -2643 Parcel Information Book/Page: Land Use: Hotels, 06758/1631 Motels (39) Census Tract: 260.02 http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ nadet.php ?pn= 1529170500400300102 12/4/2008 Property Appraiser General Information: 17/29/15/05004/003 /0010 Card 2 0 • Seawall: Land Use Hotels, Motels(39) Land Information Frontage: Gulf View: Page 2 of 4 Land Size Unit Value Units Method 335 x 280 130.00 81,896.00 S Structural Elements Foundation: Special Footing Floor System: Structural Slab Exterior Wall: Concrete Block/Stucco Roof Frame: Bar Joist/Rigid Frame Roof Cover: Built -up Composition Height Factor: 0 Floor Finish: Carpet Combination Interior Finish: Drywall Party wall: None Structural Frame: Concrete Reinforced Cabinet & Mill: Average Quality:. Average Heating & Air: Heating & cooling Package Electric: Average Bath Tile:. Floor and Wall Fixtures: 113 Total Units: 0 Year Built: 2000 Effective Age: 8 Other Depreciation: 0 Functional Depreciation: 0 Economic Depreciation: 0 No Building Drawing for this card http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ nadet.php ?pn= 1529170500400300102 12/4/2008 Property Appraiser General Information: 17/29/15/05004/003 /0010 Card Page 3 of 4 Sub Area information Description Building Finished Ft2 Gross Area Ft2 Factor Effective Ft2 Base Area 24,672 24,672 1.00 24,672 Total Building Finished SF: 24,672 Total Gross SF: 24,672 Total Effective SF: 24,672 Nonresidential Extra Features Description Dimensions Value/Unit Units Total NewValue Depreciated Value Year Fire Sprinkler 24672 $2.00 24672 $49,340.00 $44,410.00 2000 http:// www. pcpao.org/general_nadet.php ?pn= 1529170500400300102 12/4/2008 operty Appraiser General Information: 17/29/15/05004/003 /0010 Card •3 Interactive Map.of this Comp_a...rable Sales Back to_Quety; New; Tai: Collector parcel Listing Results Searc...h_. Information Page 1 of 4 Questiou/Comment aboutth s _ parcel 17/29/15/05004/003/0010 «Bu_il din 2 . -- - Building 3 Data Current as of November. 30,. 2008 [6:16. pm Thursday December 4]... , Nonresidential Property Owner, Address, and Sales Print Parking Garage Pro erty_Use: 312 BAYSIDE SUB NO. 5 BLK C, LOTS 1 THRU 5 & RIP RTS. 2008 Exemptions Homestead: No Use: 0% Ownership: 0% Tax Exempt: 0% Government: No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 2008 Value 2008 Tax Information Comparable Sales Value:: $0 Tax District: CW F.S. 553.844 Just/Market Value: Millage: 20.3578 $9,500,000 Non Ad Valorem Assessments: $.00 Assessed Value/ SOH Cap $9,500,000 Taxes: $193,399.00 History . Taxable Value: $9,500,000 Taxes without Save - Our -Homes cap: $193,399.00 A significant taxable value increase may Taxes without any exemptions: $193,399.00 occur when sold. Click here for details. Owner/Mailing Property Address Sale Date Book/Page Price Q/U V/I Address 1977 4567/1565 $1,250,000 Q I SHEPHARD, WILLIAM 1973 3996/856 $1,048,000 U I M THE C/O EASLEY MCCALEB Plat Year Plat Book/Page(s) & ASSOC 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD 1955 038/ 038 - 039 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 -2643 Parcel Information Book/Page: Land Use: Hotels, 06758/1631 Motels (39) Census Tract: 260.02 http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ nadet.php ?pn= 1529170500400300103 12/4/2008 F�roperty Appraiser General Information: 17/29/15/05004/003 /0010 Card: Seawall: Land Use Hotels, Motels(39) Land Information Frontage: Gulf View: Page 2 of 4 Land Size Unit Value Units Method 335 x 280 130.00 81,896.00 S Structural Elements Foundation: Spread/Monolithic Footing Floor System:. Slab on Grade Exterior Wall: Concrete. Block Roof Frame:. Reinforced Concrete Roof Cover:. Corrugated Asbestos Height Factor: 0 Floor Finish: Concrete Finish Interior Finish: None Party wall: None Structural Frame: Concrete Reinforced Cabinet & Mill: None Quality: Average Heating & Air: None Electric: Average Bath Tile: None Fixtures: 0 Total Units: 0 Year Built: 2001 Effective Age: 7 Other Depreciation: 0 Functional Depreciation: 0 Economic Depreciation: 0 No Building Drawing for this card http:// www. pcpao.org/general_nadet.php ?pn= 1529170500400300103 12/4/2008 Property Appraiser General Information: 17/29/15/05004/003 /0010 Card Sub Area information Page 3 of 4 Description Building Finished Ft2 Gross Area R2 Factor Effective. Ft2 Base Area 91,518 91,518 1.00 91,518 Office Area 540 540 1.75 945 Total Building Finished SF:. 92,058 Total Gross SF: 92,058 Total Effective SF: 92,463 http: / /www.pcpao.org /general _ nadet.php ?pn = 1529170500400300103 12/4/2008 Nonresidential Extra Features Description Dimensions Value/Unit Units Total NewValue Depreciated Value Year Fire Sprinkler ALL $2.00 92058 _ $184,120.00 $167,550.00 2001 Elevator 2000LB $30,000.00 1 $30,000.00 $24,900.00 2001 Elevator Stop 3 STOPS $7,000.00 3 $21,000.00 $17,430.00 2001 http: / /www.pcpao.org /general _ nadet.php ?pn = 1529170500400300103 12/4/2008 Property Appraiser General Information: 17/29/15/00000/220/0100 Car4d Pagel of ,a 0 -1,,,i,i.t,e,ra.,cti.-ve...-Mal)..of this. Back --to Query New Tax.C-ollectar. QuestioWComment about this parcel Results Search Infion-n.a.tio n. P 17/29/15/00000/220/0100 Data -Current as of November 30, 2008 - ----- [6:17 pm Thursday December 4] Vacant Property Owner, Address, and Sales Print Property 0 BEG AT NW COR OF LOT 1 BLK C OF BAYSIDE #5 SUB RUN N 54 DEG W 65.14FT S 12 DEG W 351.52FT TO S'LY LN OF IIF DISCLAIMER NO. 22310 TH S 77 DEG E 60FT MOL TH N 12 DEG E TO POB I!_-- Click kbere for sbortlegal 2008_ Exe_mpto.ns Homestead: No Use: 0% Ownership: 0% Tax Exempt: 0% Government: No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 2008 Value 2008 Tax Information Comparable Sales Value:: $0 Tax District: CW Just/Market Value: $2,030,600 Millage: 20.3578 Assessed Value/ SOH Ca : $25030,600 Non Ad Valorem Assessments: $.00 History Taxable Value..: $2,030,600 Taxes: $41,338.60 A significant taxable value increase may Taxes without Save-Our-Homes cap: $41,338.60 occur when sold. Click .here for details. Taxes without any exemptions: $41,338.60 Owner/Mailing Property Address Sale Date Book/Page Price ()/U _ W I Address 1977 4567/1565 $1,250,000 U V LAGOON RESORT 1970 3366/880 $27,000 Q V MOTEL 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD Plat Year Plat Book/Page(s) CLEARWATER FL Not Platted 33767-2643 Parcel Information Book/Page: Land Use: Vacant 04567/1565 Commercial (10) Census Tract: 260.02 Seawall: Land Use Vacant Commercia)(1.0) Land Information Frontage: None Land Size 60 x 350 View: .Unit Value Units method 130.00 19,772.12 S http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ vadet.php ?pn= 1529170000022001000 12/4/2008 Property Appraiser General Infon ation: 17/29/15/00000/220 /0100 Car6 Page 2 of 2 Interactive. Mapp, of this Back to. Query New Tax Collector Question/Comment about this parcel Results Search Information naee http:// www. pcpao.org/general_vadet.php ?pn= 1529170000022001000 12/4/2008 Welcome to VDB on the Web is Page 1 of I Aerial Photography: 2007 Color Transparency (0.0 -- 1.0- Theme Description This is the default set. It has no data layers, just linework. All of the map layers are black. http: / /vdb.pcpao.org/vdb.php 12/4/2008 7"'� -)-x k., �Y ) -7 1 0 09 00 1 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, November 17, 2009, beginning at 1:00 PM, 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. John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DeGiovanni as Co- Trustees of Tropicana Resort Land Trust. are requesting 1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 142 -room overnight accommodation use, 3,900 square feet of retail sales floor area and 2,750 square feet of restaurant floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 48,190.53 sq. ft (1.106 acres), a lot width of 167 ft along Hamden Dr., 220 feet along Third St. and 243.68 ft along Coronado Dr., a front (east) setback along Hamden Dr. of 9.3 ft (to building), 6.5 ft (to upper level balconies) and 13.8 ft (to pavement), a front (north) setback along Third St. of 11.8 feet (to building), 6.7 ft (to upper level balconies) and 5 ft (to patio), a front (west) setback along Coronado Dr. of 16 ft (to building), 12 ft (to upper level balconies) and 5.4 ft (to patio), a side (south and east) setback of zero ft (to building and pavement adjacent to proposed Hotel B), a side (south) setback of 21 ft (to building adjacent to Coronado Dr.), a building height of 74.33 ft (from BFE to flat roof) and 82 ft (to top of architectural embellishments) and 182 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of CDC Sec. 2- 803.C, and approval of a two - year development order; and (2) Increase the permitted density by the allocation of 95 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. [Proposed Use: : Overnight accommodation use of a total of 142 rooms (148.90 rooms /acre on net lot acreage, including the allocation of 95 units from the Hotel Density Reserve), restaurant use of 2,750 sq. ft, retail sales use of 3,900 sq ft (0.137 FAR for restaurant and retail sales uses based on total lot area) and approximately 5,190 sq ft of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 74.33 ft (to flat roof deck)]at 300 Hamden Dr. (including 301 305, 309 and 315 Coronado Dr. and a / TT 1 T\_ 'Related T� 7 A ^,nnn nnnn� rr T'lnnn non 7/i�` r A'lnn nnnn .7 T4'T T portion of 310' Hamden Dr.) 'Related to "vr1GVV7- VVVV2, FJ_D'2VV7-VOV2 //L V t1LVV9 -000103 and l 1_1`2000 VV_1- 09036), Parcel No. 08- 29 -15- 17604 - 000 - 0020.08- 29 -15- 17604 - 000 -0010; 08-29-15- 17586- 0010 ;08- 29- 15- 17586- 0040. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2009 -08026 2. John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DeGiovanni as Co- Trustees of Tropicana Resort Land Trust; and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers, LLC. are requesting : (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 118 -unit overnight accommodation use and 1,335 sq. ft of retail sales floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 35,730.06 sq. ft (0.82 acres), a lot width of 312 ft along Hamden Dr., a front (east) setback along Hamden Dr. of 9.3 ft (to building), 6.5 feet (to upper level balconies) and 11 ft (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 10 ft (to building), a side (north) setback of zero ft (to building adjacent to proposed Hotel A), a rear (west) setback of zero ft (to building adjacent to proposed Hotel A) and 10.7 ft (to Hotel B building), a building height of 84 ft (from BFE to flat roof) and 99.5 ft (to top of architectural embellishments) and 120 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of CDC Sec. 2- 803.C, and approval of a two -year development order; and (2) Increase the permitted density by the allocation of 79 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. [Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 118 rooms (149.44 rooms /acre on net lot acreage, including the allocation of 79 units from the Hotel Density Reserve), retail sales use of 1,335 sq. ft (0.037 FAR for retail sales use based on total lot area) and approximately 1,060 sq ft of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 84 ft (to flat roof deck)] at 316 Hamden Dr. (including a portion of 316 Hamden Dr. and 326 and 330 Hamden Dr) (Related to DVA2009- 00003, FLD2009- 08026/DVA2009 -00002 and FLD2009- 09036), Parcel No. 08- 29 -15- 17604 - 000 - 0020 ;08- 29 -15- 17604 - 000 -0030. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2009 -08027 00 00 3.John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DeGiovanni as Co- Trustees of Tropicana Resort Land Trust; and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers, LLC are requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a commercial dock in conjunction with proposed hotels at 300 and 316 Hamden Dr. for 18 slips totaling 2,592.7 sq. ft, under the provisions of Section 3- 601.C.3, and approval of a two -year development order.. (Proposed Use: Commercial dock for 18 -slips) at 300 and 316 Hamden Dr. (Related to FLD2009- 08026/DVA2009 -00002 and FLD2009- 08027/DVA2009- 00003), Parcel No. 08- 29 -15- 17604 - 000 -0010; 08- 29 -15- 17604 - 000 -0020; 08- 29 -15- 17604- 000 -0030; 08- 29 -15- 17586 -001 -0010; 08- 29 -15- 17586- 001 -0040. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2009 -09036 4. William M. Shephard, Trustee are requesting (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96 -unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186 -unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 ft along S. Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 ft (to existing building), 11.2 ft (to proposed building), 6.5 ft (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 ft (to proposed pavement), a side (east) setback of 9.58 ft (to existing waverunner accessory building) and 15.44 ft (to proposed building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero ft (to existing building, pavement and decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 ft (to existing building), 59.25 ft (to proposed building) and zero ft (to existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 ft (to top of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet -only in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec. 2- 803.C; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. [Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 186 rooms (78.48 rooms /acre on lot acreage zoned Tourist (T) District, including the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve) and approximately 37,647 square ft of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 134 ft (to flat roof deck)] at 1619 & Gulfview Blvd; Parcel No. 17- 29 -15- 00000 - 220 -0100; 17- 29 -15- 05004- 003 -0010. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2008 -12033 5. Clearwater Basin Marina, LLC are requesting : Flexible Development approval to permit an 87 -slip marina in the Downtown (D) District with a dockmaster building height of 17.33 ft and 50 parking spaces, under the tr nnn T �_ _. i wr 019-29-15-32100 n nn� provisions of Sec. 2- 903.H. (ProposeU Use: Marina) at 7VV % Osceola rive., Parcel ' o. - r -VV'.- 0020. Assigned Planner: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. FLD2009 -08030 6. O & P Investments of Tampa, Inc. and RLI Beneficial Acquisitions of Tampa, Inc are requesting Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings in the High Density Residential (HDR) District and Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 140,075 sq. ft, a lot width of 166 ft (along Highland Ave.) and 627 ft (along Barry St.), a front (west) setback of 289.3 ft (to porte- cochere) and 29.2 ft (to pavement), a front (north) setback of 26 ft (to building) and 17.5 ft (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 22.8 ft (to building) and 8.3 ft (to pavement), a side (west) setback of 30.3 ft (to building), a rear (south) setback of 134.1 ft (to building), a side (east) setback of 24.7 ft (to building) and 16 ft (to pavement), a rear (south) setback of five ft (to pavement), a side (west) setback of four ft (to pavement), a rear (south) setback of 13 ft (to pavement) and a side (east) setback of 41.6 ft (to building) and five ft (to pavement), a building height of 49 ft (to midpoint of roof) and 91 parking spaces under the provisions of Community Development Code Sec. 2 -504.17 and 2 -704.0 as a residential infill project and comprehensive infill redevelopment project respectively and a reduction to interior landscape requirements from 10 percent to 5.5 percent, a reduction to the side (east) landscape buffer from 10 ft to five ft, a reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer from 10 ft to four ft and a reduction to the rear (south) landscape buffer from 10 ft to five ft as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code See. 3- 1202G. (Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings) at 1225 S Highland Ave., Parcel No. 23- 29 -15- 29034 - 000 -0060; 23- 29 -15- 00000- 210 -0310. Assigned Planner: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. FLD2009 -09033 7. Agostino DiGiovanni is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit four attached dwellings in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District, as a Residential Infill Project, under the 00 00 provisions of Section 2- 204.E.; and Preliminary Plat approval for a 4 -lot subdivision for attached dwellings. (Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings) at 109 McMullen Booth Road, Parcel No. 16- 29 -16- 00000- 240 -0200. Assigned Planner: Matt Jackson, Planner II. FLD2009- 09035/PLT2009 -00002 8. Daniel and Sharon Meek are appealing a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) denial decision, pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4- 501.A.3, for a front (north) setback reduction from 25 to 21 feet for a garage addition (related to Case No. FLS2009- 09016). (Existing Use: Detached Dwelling) at 321 Lotus Path, Parcel No. 16- 29 -15- 36270 - 000 -1320. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. APP2009 -00007 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 Depa —. ..ent, 100 S. M,-tle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact the assigned planner 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 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: / /cearwater granicus domNiewPublisher.php ?view id =11 and click on "Resident Engagement Video." You can also check the informational video out from any Clearwater public library. Ad: 11/05/09 AINSWORTH, GEORGE W AINSWORTH, JEAN W 314 FALCON CT COPPELL TX 75019 - ALDINGER, GUENTER ALDINGER, DAGMAR SCHWALBENWEG 4 74395 MUNDELSHEIM GERMANY FLD2 0 &12.033/DVA2008- 00002: 190 iA- AINSWORTH, GEORGE W AINSWORTH, JEAN W 530 GULFVIEW BLVD S # 501 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - AMOROSO, DANIEL F AMOROSO, EDWINA 196 DAM VIEW DR 00003- MEDIA PA 19063 - 1832 ANASTASOPOULOS, ELIAS ANASTASOPOULOS, ANASTASIOS 630 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2642 BALKIN, JAMES M 640 BAYWAY BLVD # 206 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2604 BARBIERE, MICHAEL J BELANGER, JILL R 165 BAYOU ST MARQUETTE MI 49855 - 9101 BAYWAY SHORES CONDO ASSN INC PO BOX 3882 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 8882 BERKOVSKY, PETER BERKOVSKY, HELGA 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 508 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2666 BRADLEY, FELICIA N 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD #907 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2678 CAPELUTO FAMILY PTNSHP CAPELUTO, NACE L 28050 US HIGHWAY 19 N STE 100 CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 2600 ANASTASOPOULOS, ELIAS ANASTASOPOULOS, HELEN 1600 GULF BLVD # PHNO 1 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2973 BARBER, WILLIAM R BARBER, BARBARA N 675 GULFVIEW BLVD # 601 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2666 BAY HARBOR CLEARWATER CONDO AS 600 BAYWAY BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2640 BEACH FUN 1 LLC STE H 1022 MAIN ST DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 5237 BLAKELY, JOSEPH E THE BLAKELY, BARBARA THE 31 ISLAND WAY APT 104 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2205 BUGLIONE, PHILIP BUGLIONE, KAREN 1029 KNICKERBOCKER RD ISLAND PARK NY 11558 - 1932 CENTER FAMILY LTD PROP TAX DEPT -09439 ONE HESS PLAZA WOODBRIDGE NJ 07095 - ALBER, VIRGINIA L 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 604 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2666 AMOROSO, DANIEL AMOROSO, JEAN 201 WILTSHIRE RD WYNNEWOOD PA 19096 - 3332 BAKER, VICKI L 144 THE WOODLANDS KANSAS CITY MO 64119 - 1877 BARBIERE, JOYCE L TRUST 155 BAYOU ST MARQUETTE MI 49855 - 9101 BAY HARBOR LLC 2901 W BUSCH BLVD STE 701 TAMPA FL 33618 - 4569 BENDERLY, ZIVA N CREDIT SHELTE 875 WEST END AVE NEW YORK NY 10025 - 4919 BOSTROM, ERIK SUNDQUIST, BRITTA 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 505 CLEARWATER BC 33467 - CALLAHAN, ANNA MARIE CALLAHAN, JOHN 532 SPORTSMAN PARK DR SEFFNER FL 33584 - 4152 CHAMBERS, ANN M 15 GRAY BIRCH TRL MADISON WI 53717 - 1505 CHENOWETH, JOHN CRAIG CLEARWATER BEACH SALES CLEARWATER GRANDE DEV LLC 656 BAYWAY BLVD # 2 CENTER 20001 GULF BLVD STE 5 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2668 645 BAYWAY BLVD INDIAN SHORES FL 33785 - 2417 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2602 • 0 • CLOW, CUSICK CLOW, CUSIK CONTINENTAL TOWERS INC JOHNSON, MARQUERITE PALLS, BYRON P 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 206 675 GULFVIEW BLVD # 905 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 905 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2646 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2678 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2678 CONWAY, E P FAM LTD PTNSP PO BOX 3318 BOARDMAN OH 44513 - 3318 CREACO,ANTHONY CREACO, LAURA 144 WASHINGTON AVE GARDEN CITY NY 11530 - 3013 DAGOSTINO, FRANK 102 W WHITING ST # S -300 TAMPA FL 33602 - 5139 DE VOS, ROBERT PO BOX 476 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 0476 DONES, FELIX DONES, RAMONA RODRIGUEZ 1451 SUNRAY DR PALM HARBOR FL 34683 - 3961 FLINT IMP FUND THE 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2643 FONTANA, ERIC M SANDHOFF, JEFFREY A 21405 MARSH HAWK DR LAND O LAKES FL 34638 - 3368 FULLER, KERRY FULLER, JO ELLYNN 530 GULFVIEW BLVD S # 504 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - CORMEY, WALTER P CORMEY, CAROLYN M 675 GULFVIEW BLVD # 301 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2646 CUNNINGHAM, IRENE A THE 10900 W BLUEMOUND RD # 202 MILWAUKEE WI 53226 - 4145 DE RUBEIS, BEN PACE, RALPH 5 FERNVIEW CT STONY CREEK ON L8G 4W1 CANADA DEVANEY, CHRISTOPHER 1030 BLUE BEECH PT ATHENS GA 30606 - 7616 COWAN, BRADLEY L COWAN, KAREN L 45738 TOURNAMENT DR NORTHVILLE MI 48168 - 9631 CURRENT OWNER 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 307 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2657 DE VITA, MICHAEL J DE VITA, HELEN C 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 205 00001 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2646 DORMER, JAMES J DORMER, DORIS J 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1103 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2645 FLAA, MARY KENNEDY, TIMOTHY 1731 5TH ST NE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55413 -1312 FORREST, BETTY J THE 656 BAYWAY BLVD # 1 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2668 GALBIATI, THOMAS A 986 S BREWSTER RD VINELAND NJ 08361 - DIAZ, FERNANDO R DIAZ, JACQUELINE 14171 VALENTINE TRL LARGO FL 33774 - 2834 DOULAS, GARIFALIA 40 -417 HARDING BLVD W RICHMOND HILL ON L4C 9S5 00001 - CANADA FOLEY, BETHANY A FOLEY, JOHN R 640 BAYWAY BLVD # 306 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2605 FRANGOS, STEVE MIHALAKIS, THEODORA 415 ORANGE ST E TARPON SPRINGS FL 34689 - 4352 GARBIS, ANTHONY GARBIS, ANTOINETTE 204 S VINE ST HINSDALE IL 60521 - 4042 GERACI, CHARLES D GIAMMATTEI, CAROL GOMEZ REAL PROPERTY TRUST GERACI, MARGARET M GIAMMATTEI, GUIDO 1806 BREEZY TRL 530 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 603 801 TWELVE OAKS PKWY VERONA WI 53593 - 7901 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2527 WOODSTOCK IL 60098 - 4317 00 * 0 GRACILLA, MARY L GRATIAS PROPERTIES LLC GRGURICH, JOHN 302 CLAY FURNACE RD 1350 NW 138TH ST STE 500 GRGURICH, KATICA SHARPSVILLE PA 16150 - 3104 CLIVE IA 50325 - 8378 5021 W CAROLL AVE SKOKIE IL 60077 - GRUBER, CRAIG M HALIMI, INAET HANKINS, JOHN M 1350 GULF BLVD # 401 HALIMI, VASFI 640 BAYWAY BLVD # 201 CLEARWATER BEACH FL 33767 - 530 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 701 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2606 2858 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2527 HARBORVIEW GRANDE CONDO HARBORVIEW GRANDE HART, MARY B ASSN I PROPERTIES 1 909 EUCLID AVE 530 S GULFVIEW BLVD 2240 DEKALB PIKE ORLANDO FL 32806 - 1328 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2454 NORRISTOWN PA 19401 - 2030 HOLT, SUE E THE HOWELL, LESLIE F JR TRUST 148 SUMMER ST HOWELL, LESLIE F JR THE NEW BEDFORD MA 02740 - 5247 656 BAYWAY BLVD # 4 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2668 J B& B INVESTMENTS J S J ASSETS LLC 16401 VILLALENDA DE AVILA 4332 RADCLIFF DR TAMPA FL 33613 - PALM HARBOR FL 34685 - 3682 HULLE, HAROLD 15 DALE LN E SMITHTOWN NY 11787 - 4843 JACOBS, ROGER P 1310 GULF BLVD # 10 F CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2860 JANIS LIVING TRUST JENKINS, ADRIAN C F JONES, ALAN 10300 S LONG AVE 620 BAYWAY BLVD # 4 JONES, CHRISTINE H OAK LAWN IL 60453 - 4643 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2669 PO BOX 86720 MADEIRA BEACH FL 33738 - 6720 KALLAS, LELA KAMINSKAS, STEVEN W KELLER, ELIZABETH M 4 BAY VIEW CIR KAMINSKAS, LEISA 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 802 SALEM MA 01970 - 2630 4N160 HAWTHORNE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2647 BENSENVILLE IL 60106 - 2909 KELTY, JAMES SR KENNEDY, EDWARD L KLEEMAN, PAUL KELTY, SUSAN LEE, JEFF E KLEEMAN, SHERYL 3994 NAPIER RD PO BOX 1537 1370 GULF BLVD # 604 CANTON MI 48187 - 4628 LAFAYETTE IN 47902 - 1537 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2842 KONPAN LLC KOZMINSKI, JACK KRANC, ROBERT J 2110 DREW ST KOZMINSKI, GRAZYNA KRANC, EUNCHAE CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 4758 S PULASKI RD 3245 LINCOLNWAY W CHICAGO IL 60632 - 4114 SOUTH BEND IN 46628 - 1450 KRITICOS, CHRISTOPHER KRITICOS, SAM KUIJTEN TRUST 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 405 KRITICOS, ELIZABETH 300 BEACH DR NE # 904 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2657 757 MANDALAY ST PETERSBURG FL 33701 - 3407 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1433 00 00 KURKOWSKI, KIM E LE COMPTE, LENA LEE, ALAN S 74 -C W FRONT ST 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1105 LEE, SHERRILYN S RED BANK NJ 07701 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2645 409 BUTTONWOOD LN LARGO FL 33770 - 4060 LEE, NADYNE S LENART, TED THE LINARES, ANTHONY 908 WALLACE LENART, MARIA THE LINARES, LOUISE LEITCHFIELD KY 42754 - 1479 LENART FAMILY TRUST 530 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 804 625 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2538 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2643 LLANIO, BEATRIZ LOVITZ, PHYLLIS V LYONS, ROBERT E PO BOX 160761 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 501 PO BOX 152 ALTAMONTE SPRINGS FL 32716 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2657 LARGO FL 33779 - 0152 0761 MAGAS, PETER N MAKRIS, COSTAS MAKRIS, JIMMY MAGAS, KATHERINE M MAKRIS, STELLA MAKRIS, CAROL 580 TURNER AVE 2110 DREW STREET 2110 DREW ST GLEN ELLYN IL 60137 - CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 3231 CLEARWATER FL 33765 - MANGANO, THEODORE J MARCHEWKA, HARRY MARCONCINI, GLEN M 10542 GREENSPRINGS DR MARCHEWKA, VICKI 14 CARMEL LN TAMPA FL 33626 - 1725 1269 COUNTRY CLUB RD BRENTWOOD TN 37027 - 8929 MOHONGAHELA PA 15063 - 1057 MARKOS, CHRIS MARRIOTT, CHRISTINE MARTIN, GARY M 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1204 530 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 207 MARTIN, BERNICE J CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2679 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2505 1046 ARDEN DR VILLA HILLS KY 41017 - 3727 MC DONALD, MARY MC GEE, JOHN P MC GILL, MARGUERITE A 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 807 620 BAYWAY BLVD # 6 OMINSKY, PAUL L CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2678 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 7 TIGGER LN SOUTH HADLEY MA 01075 - 3322 MC GRATH, MICHAEL MC KENNA, GREGORY E MC KERROW, DONALD C THE MC GRATH, REDIA MC KENNA, LINDA S 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1102 933 ORVILLEWOOD RD 6 KEW GARDENS CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2645 CHESTERFIELD MO 63005 - 4205 FARMINGTON CT 06032 - 1562 MC MULLIN, DONALD J MC MULLIN, MICHAEL MENDELSOHN, CATHERINE NAKIS MC MULLIN, MARGARET U THE PO BOX 3912 1558 21ST CT N 500 JOHN F KENNEDY BLVD # 628 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 8912 ARLINGTON VA 22209 - WILDWOOD NJ 08260 - 5891 MENDELSOHN, HARVEY H MEYER, JAMES W MICHAEL, FAMILY LLC MENDELSOHN, CATHERINE MEYER, LINDA K 7041 BRIDGETOWN RD 675 GULFVIEW BLVD # 806 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 401 CINCINNATI OH 45248 - 2005 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2678 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2657 • • • 0 MILAM, ROWLAND M MILAM, ROWLAND WADE MILAM, KATHY L MILAM, KATHY LOUISE 1828 VENETIAN POINT DR 1828 VENETIAN POINT DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1752 MIZRACHI, NISSIM MONCRIEFZ, J SCOTT MIZRACHI, HAYA MONCRIEFF, SUZANNE S PO BOX 3819 1570 WERNER DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 8819 ALVA FL 33920 - 3545 MORELLI, JOSEPH M MOSCA, LANA L IANITELLI, GLORIA R 9502 120TH LN 751 STONEHENGE WAY SEMINOLE FL 33772 - 2623 PALM HARBOR FL 34683 - 6349 NASSIF, FREDERICK J THE NASSIF, FREDERICK J 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1005 NASSIF, JANET L CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2645 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1005 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2645 OFSTEDAL, IRVIN J ORGETTAS, MICHAEL THE OFSTEDAL, LUCILLE 74 CENTRAL ST 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 403 PEABODY MA 01960 - 4357 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2657 PALLS, BYRON P PALMER, JAMES D PALLS, BEATRICE K PALMER, CATHERINE M 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1002 27 FETTERS MILL DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2645 MALVERN PA 19355 - 1262 PARR, VINCENT E PEDZISZ, ANTONI PARR, LUNEY A PEDZISZ, HALINA 633 OAKLAND 8422 W DOHANNA DR TAMPA FL 33617 - NILES IL 60714 - POLEMENAKOS, SOTIROS POLEMENAKOS,THEOHARI 352 ATLANTIC AVE MARBLEHEAD MA 01945 - 2732 PURPURA, JAMES PURPURA, JEAN 1370 GULF BLVD # 302 TAMPA FL 33767 - 2834 POUNDERS & ASSOCIATES XVI LLC 158 ANA DR STE C FLORENCE AL 35630 - 1766 PURTEE, MARK PURTEE, GARGES 9872 GULF BLVD TREASURE ISLAND FL 33706 - 3214 MISKEL, ELIZABETH V 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 702 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2647 MORAITIS, CHRIST 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 705 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2647 MOZO, MICHAEL FONTANA, MARK 9369 PEBBLE BEACH CT E SEMINOLE FL 33777 - 4532 NORRIS, WILLIAM J 148 MIDDLE HWY BARRINGTON RI 02806 - 2424 OSADCHEY, MICHAEL B OSADCHEY, JONI 7524 CHELTNAM CT NEW PORT RICHEY FL 34655 - 4218 PANUTHOS, PANIAGOTTA TRUST PANUTHOS, PANIAGOTTA THE 675 GULFVIEW BLVD # 706 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2647 PETRIK, CONSTANCE C REVOCABLE 4794 HAMPTON CT OLDSMAR FL 34677 - PRICE, TIM E 781 69TH AVE S ST PETERSBURG FL 33705 - 6247 RACUNAS, ROBERT V RACUNAS, KAREN S 436 MUNNTOWN RD EIGHTY FOUR PA 15330 - 2640 RAMSEY, CLAIR J REAL PROPERTY MGMT LLC ROOTH, CRAIG J RAMSEY, BARBARA M 8810 TWIN LAKES BLVD 675 GULFVIEW BLVD S # 1201 1406 SAINT GOTTHARD AVE TAMPA FL 33614 - 1767 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2679 ANCHORAGE AK 99508 - 5052 00 1 00 ROY, JOHN B RUSSELL, SHELDON P ROY, JANE S 1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1001 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2678 1002 SCHAFFER, GEORGE A SCHLUTER, ALVIN L 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 406 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 602 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2657 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2666 SELIMAJ, ISUF SGROI, RALPH O 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1007 SGROI, LAURA J CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2645 2781 ST ANDREWS BLVD TARPON SPRINGS FL 34688 - 6312 SHAIKH, IRFAN SHEFFIELD, JAMES S 501 HUNGRY HARBOR RD SHEFFIELD, LINDA L VALLEY STREAM NY 11581 - 3639 PO BOX 3296 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 8296 SHEPHARD, WILLIAM M THE SHEWA, MANOJ 619 S GULFVIEW BLVD DIPI, MASUMA A CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2643 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2677 SMITH, JOHN DAVID SPAGNOLA, JOHN 9251 YONGE ST SPAGNOLA, ROSALYN C BLDG 8 STE 814 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 204 RICHMOND HILL L4C 9T3 00001 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2646 CANADA STURM, ROBERT A STURM, JUNE M 29897 HILLIARD BLVD WESTLAKE OH 44145 - 2908 TRASK, SONIA H TRASK, ALVIN F 3327 LEGATION ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20015 - 1711 VENN, STEVEN W VENN, KERRY A 655 W IRVING PARK RD # 1901 CHICAGO IL 60613 - 3180 THIBEAULT, JOSEPH MC KENNA, GREGORY E 112 SPICEWOOD LN KENSINGTON CT 06037 - 2837 TRUST NO 620 PO BOX 186 LAKE WALES FL 33859 - 0186 VLAHOS, ELAINE 32 MAPLE ST WEST BABYLON NY 11704 - 7718 RUSSO, KAREN B RUSSO, ANTHONY J 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 901 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2678 SCOTT, MICHAEL V 656 BAYWAY BLVD # 3 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2668 SHAIKH, IRFAN 501 HUNGRY HARBOR RD NORTH WOODMERE NY 11581 - 3639 SHENODA, SAMIRA SAAD, FATHY Z 20353 CHESTNUT GROVE DR TAMPA FL 33647 - 3345 SILVERMAN, DIANE 2121 BATHURST ST # 620 TORONTO ON M5N 2P3 00001 - CANADA STEWART, NORMAN L STEWART, NANCY L 530 GULFVIEW BLVD S # 705 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - TINED, REINALDO SIERRA, ANA C 1624 KENNESAW DR CLERMONT FL 34711 - 6871 TU,DUANHUA ZHANG,FENG 675 GULFVIEW BLVD # 803 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2647 VUJIC, GROZDAN 3321 SAWMILL VALLEY DR MISSISSAUGA ON L5L 3C9 00001 - CANADA WAGNER, WILLIAM H WALKER, MARK A WARE, GEORGE R JR WAGNER, JOSEPHINE C 10305 LAKE GROVE DR PO BOX 3884 640 BAYWAY BLVD # 205 ODESSA FL 33556 - 2506 SEMINOLE FL 33775 - 3884 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2604 I . 00 WEGLARZ, RUSSELL MC PHILLIPS - WEGLARZ, LAURIE A 13410 WOOD DUCK DR PLAINFIELD IL 60585 - 7766 ZEFELIPPO, MARIA R 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 708 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2647 WOODS, NOEL D 640 BAYWAY BLVD # 305 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2605 ZEIER, NORBERT G ZEIER, MARGARET E 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 503 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2666 CLEARWATER BEACH ASSOCIATION CLEARWATER NEIGHBORHOODS JAY KEYES, PRESIDENT COALITION 100 DEVON DR. SHELLEY KUROGLIAN, PRESIDENT CLEARWATER, FL 33767 1821 SPRINGWOOD CIR S CLEARWATER, FL 33763 ZAREMBA, THOMAS S A SEAGATE SUITE # 1700 TOLEDO OH 43604 - ZHUN, ELLEN M FAMILY TRUST 675 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1005 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2645 • • Z2--3 "3 S . 1 11/12/09 Mixed Use Calculation for Shephard's — 619 S. Gulfview Blvd Property is zoned Tourist District (maximum FAR =1.0 and maximum base density = 50 du /acre) 1. Permitted FAR ...................................... ............................1.0 2. Building square footage of non - accessory hotel acc. uses . ......... x 37,647 sf 3. Lot square footage required to support non - accessory hotel acc. uses ............. ............................... 37,647 sf 4. Lot square footage ( original) ............. ............................... 103,237 sf 5. Subtract the lot square footage required to support non - accessory hotel acc. uses. ( 0) ....... ............................... 37,647 sf 6. Net lot square footage (sf) to calculate the maximum number of hotel rooms ............................... ..............................= 65,590 sf 7. Divide #6 ..................................... ............................... 65,590 sf 8. Land area in an acre ........................ ..............................— 43,560 sf 9. Net lot acreage ............................. ..............................= 1.5057 acres 10. Multiply net lot acreage ................... ............................... 1.5057 acres 11. Maximum base density ................... ..............................x 50 rooms /acre 12. Maximum base number of Hotel rooms permitted .................... - 75 rooms 13. Net lot acreage ..... ............................... .........................1.5057 acres 14. Maximum density by Beach by Design Hotel Density Reserve....x150 rooms /acre 15. Maximum total number of hotel rooms ...... ............................225 rooms 16. Maximum total number of hotel rooms by Beach by Design..........225 rooms 17. Subtract base number of hotel rooms .... ............................... - 75 rooms 18. Difference .......... ............................... ............................150 rooms 19. Maximum number of hotel rooms from Hotel Density Reserve...... 100 rooms 20. Maximum number of hotel rooms from Hotel Density Reserve...... 100 rooms 21. Add to #20 the base number of hotel rooms .. .............................75 rooms 22. Total number of hotel rooms permissible .... ............................175 rooms 23. Proposed total number of hotel rooms ........ ............................186 rooms ** 24. Proposed building square footage of non - accessory hotel acc. uses.. 37,647 sf 25. Proposed density (based on net lot acreage ) ......................123.53 rooms /acre 26. Proposed FAR (based on original lot square footage ) .......................0.364 * *Proposed number of rooms will be nonconforming to current Code provisions FA i Z� _ 0 - 1 Lqw A � rl 2,oa76 — S)Dccs — 3 -71 ��e3T --- C"tdvG�vrS 3 VG`1_C�i Z- 5 0 . ?=AZ--3 I _ 53 5 1212 Z 10-39 _u Z- -7-7S — S --s-7-+ coo f 'b ,�tce_� U r,� � � �c,,\ e..or' ►as � Z�.� �7 �tU -1 ob4 �S3 $ 2..0 F') • Wells, Wayne From: Matzke, Lauren Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:22 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Gross Floor Area This is what Robert had calculated. Gross Floor Area (A /C Floor Area) Existing: 61,456 Proposed: 130,656 Total: 192,112 Lauren Matzke Planner///, City of Clearwater T: 727.562.4547 F: 727.562.4865 E: lauren.matzke @mvclearwater.com Shepherd's Beach Resort Square Footage Tabulation 10/26/2009 New Hotel Tower Level 100 Level 200 Level 300 Level 400 jj L*VOVOO ,' Level 600 Level 700 Level 800 Level 900 Level 1000 Level 1100 Level 1200 Level`1;400 Totals Ke s er Floor 0 0 n Parkin 0 0 Q . 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0 "J u' 140 Re ular 9 36 36 Overflow 6 1 16 11 0 47 13 0 49 42 10 0 52 o 0 ^„ 0 i - Am"r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Oa° 0 0 0 0." .E m0';ir Oaz 123 40 1 164 Handicapped Total Guest Rooms (A/C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 B 7162. ;a 10,664 2,016. 10,664 2,078 10,664 2,078 10,664 2,078 10,664 2,078 10,664 2,078 10,664 2,078 0 MOO 74,648 21,013 Corridors Mechanical BOH 192 0 0 039 160 160 180 160 160 160 160 Or' 1,120 Vending 0 192 1022 EEL 192 449 449 449 .449 449 449 �8Z7�' 4 331 Stairs 316 0 0 0 0 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 a �Q 1,044 Elevators 1,313 2,024 1,380 1,510 1473 'm, 690 1 374 374 374 374 374 374 11,005 Balconies 381 381 381 381 581VP,,A.. 381 381 1 381 381 1 381 381 381 ; 38x1 '€ 4,953 Food Staging 0 0 0 0 224:n 6,831 2,361 2,361 2,361 2,361 1,250 1,250 0��' 18,999 Rest Rooms 0 0 0 0 1 965,:! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %,p !, 1,955 Fitness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 958 0 ... 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01925 0 0 ; F22 194 9 8 F7 `, 1,678 1,923 194 9,817 Bar Pool Deck Multi- Function M 0 0 0 0 5 93 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. _. 5,933 Housekeeping 0 0 0 0 3746 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 3,746 Water Pum s 0 0 2,242 M0 �, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0 2,242 Storage 0 588 0 0 0 518 0 -° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 518 Parkin (Excluding Ramp at 4th Floor 11,299 15,773 420 16,042 420 13,584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q• 1,428 Electric 0 0 775 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 A ,0 56,698 Generator 0 0 772 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 775 Fire Pump 0 0 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •0 ",;:e 772 Fire Command 0 518 0 0 0�^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 518 Cover Exterior 3,432 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 518 Guest Entrance 2,423 0 0 0 OEM 0 0 0: 3,432 Pool Equipment 267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 267 Total Floor Area A/C &. Balcony) 20,211 18,696 20,480 IRM 18,847 i�iX4eW.13 20 576 21,038 16,571 16,571 16,571 16,571 15,460 15,460 1.4,$98 231,950 Total Building Square Footage 231,950 ,` AM i • A-CC"- -42- O-S� N-�l --S— ke, _.r 2�x��S w\e-OX- I 3 -7 cc e sso 7 b � IL!GRA__tw.P�Sii�_w,s t_b �I !i I� I I I • • 2-A �- �- �- • X 2-1 13 '8 +-.(o- r(o 4- )-7 x _ 4 - -- f -7.A-,;-- - - - VJON Qr N-\ 5 I X --I b = l'o b_Z. *..o3x_l (o _ _ (0-.\D-- -- -- �-- = -- 2 \w e. — Z x s