The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2012-05011; 425 EAST SHORE DR; FRENCHY'S SALTWATER CONCEPT � 425 EAST SHORE DR Date Received: 5/1/2012 11 :28:28 AM Frenchy's Saltwater Concept ZONING DISTRICT: Tourist LAND USE: Resort Facilities High (30 du/acre) ATLAS PAGE: 267A PLANNER OF RECORD: PLANNER: Mark Parry, Planner III CDB Meeting Date: Julv 17, 2012 Case Number: FLD2012-05011 Agenda Item: E. 1. Owner/Applicant: Michael G. Preston,Revocable Trust Representative: Roberta Klar; Klar and Klar Architects Inc. Address: 425 &441 East Shore Drive CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a Restaurant use of 10,749 square feet in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 13,557 square feet (uplands only); lot width of 100 feet; zero parking spaces; and to permit a 28-slip, 7,420 square-foot Commercial Dock with an increase to the permitted width of a dock from 75 percent of the waterfront lot width (75 feet) to 79 percent (79 feet) and an increase from the permitted length of a dock from 75 percent (75 feet) of the waterfront lot width to 300 percent (300 feet) by utilizing the lot widths the two adjacent properties along with the subject property in determining the permitted width of the subject dock as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C. ZONING: Tourist (T) District FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High(RFH) BEACH BY DESIGN CHARACTER DISTRICT: Marina District PROPERTY USE: Current: Attached dwelling (17 units) Proposed: Restaurant (10,749 square feet) with a 28-slip Commercial Dock 300 feet in length and 79 feet in width and publicly- accessible Boardwalk 15 feet in width and approximately 309 feet in length. EXISTING North: Tourist(T} District Vacant commercial land SURROUNDING South: Tourist(T) District Overnight accommodations ZONING AND USES: East: Preservation (P)District Clearwater Harbor West: Tourist(T) District Attached Dwellings, O�ce Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 1 of 19 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.31 acre site (upland only; 0.515 acres total) is located at the southeast corner of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street. The subject property is comprised of two parcels with a combined frontage of approximately 100 feet along East Shore Drive and frontage along Clearwater Harbor. The subject property is zoned Tourist (T) District and is located within the Marina District of Beach by Design. The Marina District envisions the redevelopment of East Shore Drive as a pedestrian- and boater-friendly destination that includes a mix of hotels, commercial, restaurant, residential and mixed-use developments. East Shore Drive is characterized by older overnight accommodation, retail and attached dwelling uses. Many lots are vacant. A majority of the properties along East Shore Drive include parking spaces at least partially in the right-of- way and which back out into the right-of-way. Redevelopment in this district has mostly been though the refurbishing of a few modest properties with the notable exception of Belle Harbor at the northeast corner of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street. The properties to the north, south and west are presently developed with attached dwellings, non-chain overnight accommodations (motels and inns) and office and retail uses. The property across Papaya Street to the north is currently vacant however, a site plan recently approved by the Community Development Board at its June 2012 meeting includes a seven-story, 134-unit mid-priced hotel including a 6,500 square foot restaurant. This hotel project includes a 15 foot wide publicly-accessible boardwalk along the intracoastal. Clearwater Harbor is located to the east access to which is generally private and restricted to the occupants/users of the existing uses along East Shore Drive. The site is developed with 17 apartment units located in two, two-story buildings. The site includes two docks approximately 120 feet in length. Parking is provided via nine parking spaces partially located on and backing into East Shore Drive. Development Proposal: The proposal is to construct 10,749 square foot restaurant with a 28-slip commercial dock 300 feet in length. In addition, a 4,635 square foot publicly-accessible boardwalk is proposed to extend along the subject site as well as the two commonly-owned properties to the south (boat tie-ups are not proposed as part of the boardwalk). All existing structures will be removed including the two existing docks. The proposed restaurant will replace the existing Frenchy's Saltwater located at 419 Poinsettia Avenue approximately a half block to the south. The proposed restaurant, at 10,749 square feet, more than double the approximately 3,700 square feet of the Frenchy's Saltwater restaurant. The City has demonstrated through the creation of Beach by Design and subsequent amendments to the plan that it recognizes the need for pedestrian- and boater-friendly development in order to create a vibrant active waterfront serving tourists and locals alike. It is understood that a broad range of uses including retail sales and service, hotels and motels and restaurants contribute to the creation of the unique character and atmosphere that is Clearwater Beach. The vision of the Marina District of Beach by Design provides for a broad range of uses with the caveat that they be pedestrian- and boater- friendly. While the document acknowledges that development within the District may be inhibited by existing parcel size and depths it does recognize that the Marina District's location "in the heart of the tourist district presents prime opportunities for tourist-oriented" development. The document also expresses the requirement of developments utilizing a height bonus to provide a publicly-accessible boardwalk 15 feet in width along Clearwater Harbor. This is the first non-residential redevelopment project Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 2 of 19 providing extensive boater access and a publicly-accessible boardwalk within the Marina District since the adoption of Beach by Design. It is important to note that a height bonus is not requested. Generally, the request of a height bonus would otherwise be the impetus for requiring the provision of such a boardwalk provided by the Marina District in Beach by Design. In fact the height of the proposed building is two feet less than the otherwise permitted (Flexible Standard Development) maximum height of 35 feet. The applicant is requesting that the parking reduction and dock dimension deviations be considered as the triggers for the provision of the boardwalk. The two-story restaurant, as mentioned, is proposed at a height of 33 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the mid-point of the highest roof structure. The first floor will contain the kitchen, restrooms and customer-use areas including two bars and indoor and outdoor dining areas. The second floor will include storage and mechanical equipment. No customer-use areas are proposed on the second floor. The restaurant will operate between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. seven days a week with employees being on site one hour prior to opening and one hour after closing. The applicant anticipates there being two shifts of employees daily with the first shift (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) consisting of 10 employees and second shift (4:00 p.m. to midnight). The two shifts overlap between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. resulting in up to 18 employees on site at the same time. Employee parking will be provided via 22 spaces with 14 spaces located at the current site of Frenchy's Saltwater Cafe (419 Poinsettia Avenue) and eight spaces at the Frenchy's Seafood Company site located approximately 100 feet to the south. The proposed building can be characterized as a modern interpretation of the traditional Key West-style of architecture including a metal standing seam roof, extensive decking along the east, north and west elevations and finish treatments commonly found in tropical vernacular architecture such as stucco, wood (faux) and horizontal siding, large projecting overhangs and deep porches/decks. The building has been design to be open on three sides (north, east and west) and accessible from the west, northwest and east. Five exterior colors are proposed including black, white and three earth-tones (see color samples included in the submittal packet). Five accent colors are proposed including light green, red, orange, yellow and blue (see color samples included in the submittal packet). The site is designed to be pedestrian-friendly with the provision of a generous building entrance angled at the corner of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street, tropically-themed landscaping along the north (Papaya Street), west (East Shore Drive) and south sides of the site, a ten-foot sidewalk along the north (Papaya Street) and west (East Shore Drive) sides of the site and a publicly- accessible boardwalk 15 feet in width. Half of the sidewalk will be located on the subject property. The boardwalk will span the width of the subject site as well as the two adjacent properties to the south, 423 and 419 East Shore Drive (all in common ownership with the subject site) for a total of almost 310 linear feet. The proposal will also include benches, street lighting and a bike rack placed on the sidewalk along East Sl�ore Drive and/or Papaya Street (location(s) to be determined/agreed upon by the City). Due to the size of the site and the desire of the owner to meet the letter as well as the spirit of the Marina District with regard to a pedestrian-friendly site layout parking is not provided on site. The proposal includes a request to reduce the required number of parking spaces for restaurants from between 75 and 161 spaces (based on seven to 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area as otherwise required as a Flexible Standard Communiry Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011—Page 3 of 19 Development) to zero spaces. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Narrative that discusses the opportunities for public parking in the area and the parking needs of the proposed restaurant. With the exception of two requests specific to the proposed commercial dock there are no other requested exceptions to the Code. As mentioned above, the applicant is also requesting flexibility from Section 3-601 with regard to the permitted length and width of a proposed commercial dock. The first request for flexibility is to increase the width of the dock from 75 percent (75 feet) of the width of the property to 79 percent (79 feet). The second request for flexibility is to base the length of the dock on the combined property widths of the subject property and the two properties to the south (419 and 423 East Shore Drive) thereby increasing the length of the dock from 75 percent (75 feet) of the width of the subject property to 300 percent (300 feet) as based on the width of the subject property. This is discussed further in this analysis. Floor Area Ratio (FAR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of Resort Facilities High is 1.0. The proposal is for a total of 10,749 square feet of floor area which yields an FAR of 0.79, which is consistent with the Code provisions and less than the existing FAR of 0.95. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The overall proposed ISR is 0.81, which is consistent with the Code provisions and less than the existing ISR of 0.94. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, far a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, Flexible Standard Development Standards, the minimum lot area for restaurants can range between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet. The lot area is 13,557 square feet. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for restaurants can range between 50 and 100 feet. The lot width along East Shore Drive is approximately 100 feet. The proposal meets this Code provision. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-802 (Flexible Standard Development Standards), the minimum front setback for restaurant uses can range between 10 and 15 feet and minimum side setback between zero and 10 feet. Rear setbacks do not apply to the subject site as it is a corner lot with two front and two side setbacks under the provisions of 3-903.D. The proposal includes front (north and west) setbacks of 10 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of 10 feet (to building) and a side (east) setback of 89 feet (to building). The east (side) property line is located approximately 90 feet offshore. The proposed setbacks meet ar exceed the requirements of Code. Maximum Building Hei� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to the aforementioned CDC Table 2-802, the maximum allowable height for restaurant uses can range between 25 and 35 feet. The proposed building height of 33 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the mid-point of the highest roof structure is below the Code maximum. This Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 4 of 19 site is located within the Marina District of Beach by Design which envisions East Shore Drive to be developed with hotels, commercial establishments, restaurants and mixed-use developments two stories above parking (for parcels located on the east side of East Shore Drive). Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum off-street parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, the minimum required parking for restaurants ranges between seven and 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This results in a requirement of between 75 and 161 parking spaces for a 10,749 square foot restaurant. The proposal does not provide any off-street parking. The applicant submitted a Parking Demand Study that analyzed the available parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The study concluded, in accordance with methodology established with the City of Clearwater staff, that there are a total 186 available parking spaces within the study area. Due to the size and configuration of the site the most reasonable way to provide dedicated onsite parking and enough dining area to warrant the redevelopment of the site as a restaurant would be to provide parking as a first floor feature with the restaurant located on top. However, that would negate the pedestrian-friendly feel outlined by Beach by Design and desired by the property owner. It should be noted that the Marina District is adjacent to the Retail and restaurant District immediately to the west. Beach by Design does not envision that parking would be provided on the individual properties of the Retail and Restaurant District, but instead within a parking garage that would provide convenient parking to that District. It is reasonable to predict that those using the services provided in the Marina District would also use such a parking garage. The applicant anticipates that a significant number of the restaurant's customers will stem from nearby hotels, motels and inns and multi-family residential developments contributing to a relatively low demand for dedicated on-site parking spaces. Based on experience with his other restaurants, the proposed commercial dock is anticipated to be heavily used by boat going customers further reducing the need for dedicated parking spaces. Employee parking will be provided via 22 spaces with 14 spaces located at the current site of Frenchy's Saltwater Cafe and eight spaces at the Frenchy's Seafood Company site two properties to the south. Furthermore, many customers represent captured vehicle trips in that they are already at the beach for other activities (i.e. beach use) and dining is simply another amenity of which to be taken advantage. Finally, while outside the 1,000 foot radius of the restaurant there are 764 publicly-accessible parking spaces at the Hyatt Aqualea parking garage and 139 spaces at the Pier 60 parking lot. As a point of reference a complete roundtrip within the Countryside Mall is approximately 3,000 (between JcPenny and Sears)not including any distance traveled from the parking lot. The roundtrip walking distance between the Pier 60 parking lot and the subject is also approximately 3,000 feet. A one-way walking trip between the Hyatt Aqualea and the subject property is approximately 2,700 feet. Therefore, adequate parking is available within reasonable walking distance of the project to serve the subject property and proposed use. 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 roof of the building. The location of the mechanical equipment and the building parapets surrounding the roof appear to be sufficient to screen the Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 5 of 19 mechanical equipment. This screening of the mechanical equipment will also be reviewed at time of the building permit submission. Sight Visibili Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on East Shore Drive, 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. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.B, to enhance views of the water, no structures or landscaping may be installed within 20-foot waterfront sight visibility triangles. This proposal does not propose any structures within the waterfront sight visibility triangles and landscaping within them will be limited to groundcovers and low shrubs, complying with this provision. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, 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 development will be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. There are existing overhead utility lines, serving this development, within the right-of-way along the east side of East Shore Drive and the south side of Papaya Street that will need to be undergrounded. The applicant has been in contact with Progress Energy regarding power line along the south side of Papaya Street. There are some known challenges with regard to undergrounding these power lines including a gas line, a four- and 12-inch water main, sewer lines and a possible fiber optic line. Should Progress Energy believe that undergrounding this power line is practicable then this utility will also need to be relocated underground. Landscapi•n�: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District far this site. This proposal meets the required minimum five-foot wide building foundation landscape area along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street. The applicant has provided foundation plantings five feet in width along the south as well. The site will be planted with palm trees (Sabal and specimen Chinese Fan Palms), accent trees (wax myrtle), shrubs (bird of paradise, duranta, and viburnum) and ground covers(desert candles and lilies). Solid Waste: A dumpster is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. The dumpster area will be screened by a solid wall with a stucco finish to match the primary exterior color of the restaurant. The access gate to the dumpster will match the architectural style of the railings of the restaurant. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments. Si n�a,�e: The proposal does not include a freestanding sign at this time. However, any future 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-foot height through a Comprehensive Sign Program and maintain a setback of five feet. Attached signage is not proposed at this time but must also meet Code requirements. It should be noted that the decorative fish element attached to the front fa�ade of the building near the main entry is considered signage and will require a separate permit and review. Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 6 of 19 Beach bv Desi�n: Section VII. Design Guidelines: Section C.l of Beach by Design 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 10,749 square feet. The project's overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately 60 feet along East Shore Drive and 100 feet along Papaya Street. The building is angled to present a formal entryway at the corner of East Share Drive and Papaya Street. This farade is approximately 25 feet long. The vertical plane varies from 24 feet to the top of the lowest roof structure to 39 feet from grade to the top of the highest (18 to 33 feet from BFE). None of these dimensions are equal. Modulation of the building massing both vertically and horizontally also provides considerable dimensional variation. It should be noted that extensive decking along the west, north and east facades contribute greatly to a vibrant street life and support a pedestrian-friendly feel to the project. Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. No fa�ade is greater than 100 feet in length however, all fa�ades of the building have been designed in compliance with this requirement through the use of windows, entryways and decking. Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation (with elevation being defined as that portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for development) to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The application indicates compliance with this requirement through the use of windows, architectural decoration and decks incorparated into the north, east and west elevations. While the south elevation will not be generally visible from any street right-of-way windows are provided on the second floor providing architectural relief and interest. In the interest of maintaining privacy for the adjacent motel,the proposal does not provide for windows on the first floor. Section D.1 suggests that the area between the building and edge of the right-of-way should be 12 feet in width. In addition, this section also provides that a 10-foot wide pedestrian path is an essential element in establishing a pedestrian-friendly place in the nonresidential environment. The proposal includes a 10-foot setback from the property line to the building and a sidewalk 10 feet in width (five feet of the sidewalk will be in the right-of-way and five feet will be located on the subject site); thus largely in compliance with the intent of this section. It should be noted that the goal is to bring the activity of the restaurant as close as possible to the right-of-way and, if FEMA regulations were not applicable, it would be desirous to locate the building directly down and along the north and west property lines. As it stands, the building is required to incorporate a Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) which raises the usable portion of the building to approximately six feet above grade. Aesthetically, the main reason the building is setback from the property line is simply for the provision of landscaping to soften the impact between the sidewalk and the foundation of the building and to provide for a 10-foot sidewalk. , Section E addresses issues of street-level facades and the incorporation of human-scale features into the facades of buildings. The proposed building provides a modern take on the classic Key West-style architecture through the provision of a variety of building materials and a generally low-slung building with a metal standing seam roof. The building includes a generous entrance angled directly at the intersection of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street and an extensive use of Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 7 of 19 outdoor covered decking for use by restaurant patrons. These features are intended to blur the line between the private space within the restaurant and the public space on the sidewalks abutting the property on the north and west while meeting Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) regulations with regard to required base flood elevations (BFE). Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is supported by various Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element Objective A.6.7—Redevelopment activities shall be sensitive to the city's waterfront and promote appropriate public access to the city's waterfront resources. The proposal addresses this Objective through the provision of a publicly-accessible boardwalk along Clearwater Harbor which spans not only the subject site but the two parcels immediately to the south resulting is a boardwalk 15 feet in width and nearly 310 feet in length. Policy A.6.7.1 -Encourage the preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts and marinas and other water-dependent facilities. The proposal showcases an existing working waterfront by providing direct public access to docks utilized by the Frenchy's restaurant fishing fleet through a boardwalk. It also provides a large dock for use by patrons of the proposed restaurant. Policy A.6.8.9 Promote a variety of transportation modes such as walking, bicycling, ride sharing and mass transit to increase transportation choices and decrease dependence on the single-occupancy automobile. The proposal encourages the use of boats, bicycles and walking as modes of transportation for potential customers through the provision of bike racks and a large dock. By not providing on- site parking customers will need to use centralized public parking lots or on-street metered parking. This will result in getting cars off the street more quickly, encouraging walking and helping to reduce traffic congestion. Coastal Mana�ement Element Policy E.5.2.1 Priorities for shoreline uses in priority order shall be water-dependent uses, water- enhanced uses and non-water dependent uses. All priorities shall be encouraged in redevelopment programming, land use planning, zoning, and infrastructure development. The proposal supports this Policy with the redevelopment of a parcel with a waterfront restaurant, boardwalk and dock. Policy E.5.3.1 The City will review and modify the Tourist District standards within the Community Development Code and modify Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines where necessary to provide incentives for water- dependent and water-enhanced uses. The City has acknowledged the importance of appropriate redevelopment on Clearwater Beach and specifically for waterfront parcels through the adoption of and subsequent amendments to Beach by Design. The proposal meets the intent if not letter of the Marina District and the Design Guidelines provided within Beach by Design. The Marina District provides that additional height may be granted should a publicly-accessible boardwalk along the intercoastal waterway. The incentive to provide a boardwalk in exchange for additional height through a Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 8 of 19 building with two stories above parking is not requested nor desired given the applicant's goal of incorporating a pedestrian-friendly environment along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street. The applicant is requesting a reduction in parking to zero spaces and the ability to utilize the lot widths of the two properties to the south along with the subject site in determining the m�imum permitted length of a proposed dock. The applicant recognizes that the creation of a pedestrian- and boater-friendly environment and the provision of a publicly-accessible boardwalk are good for the City of Clearwater as a whole, Clearwater Beach and the Marina District and for his business. Community Development Code: The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment. The property owner will remove an unattractive, outdated and inefficient motel/apartment improving the site with a new attractive building, a vibrant use (restaurant) and contribute to the public space with sidewalks 10 feet in width along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street and a public boardwalk 15 feet wide and approximately 300 feet in length. Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties. Surrounding properties are generally retail sales and services, offices, restaurants, attached dwellings and overnight accommodations. The proposed restaurant will constitute an appropriate use for the neighborhood and is a targeted desired use within the Marina District of Beach by Design. Surrounding properties will be enhanced through the addition of a use which will contribute to an active and vibrant street life as well as through the provision of a publicly- accessible boardwalk stretching over 300 feet in length. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The proposal includes the removal of an outdated motel/apartment use and replacing it with a new restaurant and publicly-accessible boardwalk. While the proposed restaurant will replace the existing Frenchy's Saltwater located approximately a half block to the south it will be approximately 7,300 square feet larger thereby positively contributing to the City's economy and its tax base. Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes a new attractive building characterized by a modern interpretation of the traditional Key West-style of architecture including a metal standing seam roof, extensive decking along the east, north and west elevations and finish treatments commonly found in tropical vernacular architecture such as stucco, wood (faux) and horizontal siding, large projecting overhangs and deep porches/decks. The building has been design to be open and accessible on three sides (north, east and west). This proposal meets the required minimum five- foot wide building foundation landscape area along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street. The applicant has provided foundation plantings five feet in width along the south as well. The site will Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-OS011 —Page 9 of 19 be planted with palm trees (Sabal and specimen Chinese Fan Palms), accent trees (wax myrtle), shrubs(bird of paradise, duranta, and viburnum)and ground covers(desert candles and lilies). Section 1-103.E.S. Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the community for both the resident and tourist population consistent with the city's economic underpinnings. The development includes the provision of a new dock and the removal of two docks which are in poor condition. The new dock will be designed to preserve existing beds of sea grass and will have no negative impact on the surrounding ecosystem. The proposal will increase the aesthetics of the immediate area through the demolition of two outdated buildings and the construction of a new attractive building. The proposal will support both the resident and tourist populations with a new restaurant, 10-foot wide sidewalks along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street and a 15-foot wide, 300-foot long boardwalk along the intercoastal waterway. The proposal will be consistent with regard to the form and function of the existing working waterfront anchored by the Frenchy's Seafood Company commercial docks to the south. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 30 dwelling units/acre N/A X 50 rooms/acre Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.81 �{ Minimum Lot Area N/A 13,557 square feet (031 acres) X (upland) Minimum Lot Width N/A 100 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 10 feet(to building) X West: 10 feet(to building) X Side: N/A East: 10 feet(to building) X South: 10 feet(to building) X Maximum Height N/A 33 feet (from BFE to midpoint of X the highest roof structure) Minimum N/A Zero parking spaces X� Off-Street Parkin � See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 10 of 19 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.0 (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractica]without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation;or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters,porticos,balconies,railings,awnings,etc.; D Variety in materials,colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks;and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landsca e desi and a ro riate distances between buildin s. Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 11 of 19 Development Proposal (Dock): The development proposal also includes one commercial dock totaling 7,420 squaxe-feet with 28 wet slips. Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.3 of the Community Development Code, a commercial dock is defined as any dock, pier, or wharf, including boatlifts, that is used in connection with a hotel, motel or restaurant where the slips are not rented, leased or sold. The dock is proposed to be constructed in one phase in conjunction with the upland development. The applicant is requesting flexibility from Section 3-601. The first request for flexibility is to permit the width of the dock to increase from 75 percent (75 feet) of the width of the width of the property to 79 percent (79 feet). The second request for flexibility is to increase the length of the dock from 75 percent (75 feet) of the width of the property to 300 percent (340 feet) of the width of the property by considering the total width of the subject property along with the two properties immediately to the south (419 and 423 East Shore Drive). COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL DOCKS (SECTION 3-601.C.3.a-g): The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the criteria for commercial docks. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided by the applicant and are included with their application. The individual criteria for commercial docks are set forth in the following table: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed dock sha11 be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort, X convenience or necessities of the osers or the occupants of the principal use of the property. 2. The proposed dock shall be in harrnony with the scale and character of adjacent X properties and the neighborhood in general. 3. The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general vicinity. X 4. Impacts on Existing Water Recreation Activities. The use of the proposed dock X shall not adversely impact the health,safeTy or well being of persons currently using the adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, it shall not hinder or discourage the existing uses of the adjacent waterway by uses including but not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats. 5. Impacts on Navigation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a X detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation, recreational or other public conveniences. 6. Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine X grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas. 7. Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural mazine habitats, grass flats X suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine soil suitable for producing plant growth of a type usefu] as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life;manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such artificial reef which has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to be approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity; oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries or shell fisheries areas;and habitats desirable as�uvenile fish habitat. Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 12 of 19 Consistent Inconsistent 8. All tuming basin,access channels,boat mooring areas and any other area associated X with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest member of a vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the water body at mean or ordinary low water(-0.95 NGVD datum). 9. The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage,shoaling X of channels, ar adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the area or limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in the area in which the dock is proposed to be located. 10. The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of X wildlife,marine life,and other natural resources,including beaches and shores,so as to be contrary to the public interest. 11. The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas;vegetative,terrestrial, X or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one or more of the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or feeding grounds;habitats which display biological or physical attributes which would serve to make them rare within the confines of the City; designated preservation areas such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan, national wildlife refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other designated preservation areas, and bird sanctuaries. 12. Impacts on Wetlands HabitaWplands. The dock shall not have a material adverse X affect u on the u lands surroundin . COMPLIANCE WITH DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS: The dimensional standards criteria set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h state that docks shall be located no closer to any property line as extended into the water than the distance equivalent to ten percent of the width of the waterfront property line. The width of the waterfront property line on the subject property is 100 feet; therefore the proposed dock must be set back from both the north and south property line a minimum of 10 feet. As proposed, the dock will be set back from each property line a distance of 10 feet. With regard to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or seawall of the subject property more than 75 percent of the width of the subject property as measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock is limited to 75 feet. As proposed, the dock has a length of 300 feet. The same threshold that applies to length also applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed dock should not exceed 75 feet. The total width of the dock is proposed to be 79 feet. Pursuant to Section 3-601.C.3.i of the Community Development Code, a commercial dock may be extended an additional 50 percent of the allowable length or to project into the navigable portion of the waterway by no more than 25 percent of such waterway, whichever length is less. The width of the subject property is 100 feet which yields 75 feet. An additional 50 percent will provide for a dock width of 112.5 feet. The width of the navigable waterway in this area of Clearwater Harbor is approximately 1,385 feet 25 percent of which is 346 feet. The proposed dock is 300 feet; greater than the otherwise maximum permitted by lot width but less than the maximum permitted by the width of the adjacent waterway. The applicant is requesting that the widths of the two properties adjacent to the south (423 and 419 East Shore Drive) be used in determining the permitted length of the proposed dock. These Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011—Page 13 of 19 two properties are also owned by the applicant and currently include two docks with one approximately 55 feet in length (423 East Shore Drive) and the other approximately 270 feet in length(419 East Shore Drive). The total width of all properties (including the subject site) is 300 feet and can yield dock with a maximum of 337.5 feet in length has yielded by the sum of 75 percent of the total property width (225 feet) and 50 percent of that figure (112.5 feet). The reasoning behind parlaying the width of the two adjacent properties with the subject property is that the applicant will effectively tie all three properties together through the construction of the 15 foot wide publicly-accessible boardwalk (discussed earlier in this analysis). From an environmental standpoint the extended length will allow for the preservation of existing sea grass beds located within 45 feet of the seawall and provide adequate room for enough boats further reducing the need for vehicular parking. The applicant will be required file a deed restriction prohibiting the addition of any other docks at 419 and 423 East Shore Drive and submit evidence of the same prior to the issuance of any building permits (see conditions of approval). The deed restriction will allow the maintenance and repair of the existing docks but prohibit the expansion of them. The deed restriction will also provide that in the event one or the other or both of the existing two docks are removed that any replacement docks may not exceed the maximum length and width permitted for each respective property per Code Section 3-601.C.3.h (75 percent of the width of the subject property) nor encroach into any required setbacks. In other words, a replacement dock at 423 East Shore Drive may not exceed under any circumstances 92 feet in length and width and a replacement dock at 419 East Shore Drive may not exceed under any circumstances 57 feet in length and width. This will preclude the ability to request any deviation from the minimum standards of Article 3, Division 6, Docks. The applicant is also requesting a four percent variation from the maximum width of the dock from 75 feet to 79 feet. Using the total width of all properties involved with the request for the increase in the length of the dock the resulting permitted dock width would be 225 feet. Regardless, the applicant asserts that the minor increase (as based only on the subject site's lot width of 100 feet) will allow the practical use of the interior mooring areas while still maintaining the required side setbacks. The following table depicts the development proposals consistency with the standards and criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C3.h: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Dock Setbacks 10%of the width of the subject property(10 feet) North: 10 feet X (Minimum) 10%of the width of the subject property(78 feet) South: 10 feet X Dock Length 75%of the width of the subject property including 300 feet X' (Maximum) 419 and 423 East Shore Drive plus an additional 50% (337.5 feet) Dock Width 75%of the width of the subject property including 79 feet X' (Maximum) 419 and 423 East Shore Drive(225 feet) � See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-050]1 —Page 14 of 19 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage,density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual,acoustic and olfacto and hours of o eration im acts on ad'acent ro erties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 7, 2012, 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 law: Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed 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: 1. The 0.31 acre subject property (upland) is located at the southeast corner of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street; 2. That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High(RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is located in the Marina District of Beach by Design; 4. The proposal is to construct 10,749 square foot restaurant; 5. The proposed building height is 33 feet from the Base Flood Elevation(BFE)to mid-point of the highest roof structure; 6. The proposal includes zero parking spaces; 7. The subject property is comprised of two parcels with approximately 100 feet of frontage along East Shore Drive and frontage along Clearwater Harbor and 138 feet along Papaya Street; 8. The parcel contains 17 attached dwellings within two, two-story buildings; 9. The proposal includes front (west and north) setbacks of 10 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (east} setback of 89 feet (to building) (zero feet to seawall); 10. The proposal includes 10 foot sidewalks along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street consistent with the Design Guidelines provided by Beach by Design; 11. The proposal includes lighting, benches and a bike rack located within the portion of the sidewalks on the subject property adjacent to the rights-of-way along East Shore Drive and/or Papaya Street (specific location(s}to be coordinated with and determined by the City); Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 15 of 19 12. The proposal includes a 4,635 square foot, 15-foot wide publicly-accessible boardwalk approximately 310 feet in length along the subject site and the two adjacent properties to the south (419 and 423 East Shore Drive) consistent with the Marina District of Beach by Design; 13. The proposal also consists of a 7,420 square foot commercial dock with 28 slips; 14. The proposal includes a deviation to increase the length of the dock from 75 percent of the subject site's waterfront lot width to 300 percent and requests permission to incorporate and consider the width of the two properties adjacent to the south (419 and 423 East Shore Drive) which are held in common ownership with the subject site in determining the permitted length of the dock; 15. The proposal includes a deviation to increase the width of the dock from 75 percent of the subject site's waterfront lot width to 79 percent and requests permission to incorporate and consider the width of the two properties adjacent to the south (419 and 423 East Shore Drive) which are held in common ownership with the subject site in determining the permitted width of the dock; and 16. There are no active Code Compliance cases for 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 Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 803.0 of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial dock review criteria as per Section 3-601 of the Community Development Code; 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the Marina District of Beach by Design; and 6. 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 Flexible Development application to permit a Restaurant use of 10,749 square feet in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 13,557 square feet (uplands only); lot width of 100 feet; zero parking spaces; and to permit a 28-slip, 7,420 square-foot Commercial Dock with an increase to the permitted width of a dock from 75 percent of the waterfront lot width (75 feet) to 79 percent (79 feet) and an increase from the permitted length of a dock from 75 percent (75 feet) of the waterfront lot width to 300 percent (300 feet) by utilizing the lot widths the two adjacent properties along with the subject property in determining the permitted width of the subject dock as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.C., subject to the following conditions: Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 16 of 19 Conditions of A�roval: General/Miscellaneous Conditions 1. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2. That no freestanding signs be permitted on the site; 3. That use of the docks be for exclusive use for the mooring of boats by patrons of the restaurant and that the docks are not permitted to be rent�d, leased or sold separately; 4. That boatlifts, fueling capabilities and dry storage facilities or any like structures and/or uses of any kind are prohibited; 5. That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the entrance to the docks containing wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity; 6. That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law; 7. That all irrigation systems connected to the public potable water supply system shall include a backflow preventer at the service connection per Section 3-1202 General Landscaping Standards; and 8. That all other applicable state ar federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. Timing Conditions 9. That application for a building permit to construct the restaurant be submitted no later than July 17, 2013, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 10. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the restaurant, the sidewalk and any associated sidewalk amenities be installed to the satisfaction of City Staff along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street; 11. That prior to the issuance of any permits evidence of filing and recording in the public records of deed restrictions for properties located at 423 and 419 East Shore Drive (Parcel Identification Numbers 08-29-15-02592-003-0030 and 0050, respectively) be furnished to the City for review and approval. The deed restrictions shall, at a minimum, provide for the following: (a) That no additional docks, piers, boat lifts or similar devices may be located on the properties located at 419 and 423 East Shore Drive; (b) The existing docks may be maintained and/or repaired as necessary to ensure their functionality, appearance and provide for the safety of their users; (c) The existing docks may not be enlarged in any way; (d) Should either or both of the existing docks be destroyed outright or damaged to an extent where 50 percent or more of the existing square footage of the respective dock is rendered unusable or unsafe by the City, County or any other regulatory body that the dock(s)be fully removed; Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 17 of 19 (e) The existing docks may be replaced however any such replacement may not exceed the m�imum dimensional requirements of Section 3-601C.3.h without any deviations as otherwise provided by Section 3-601.C.3.i. 12. That prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all utilities including individual distribution lines serving this development within the right-of-way along the east side of East Shore Drive and/or the south side of Papaya Street, shall be installed underground as applicable and/or practicable. Specifically, the power lines along the south side of Papaya Street adjacent to the subject property shall be placed underground if such action is found to be practicable by Progress Energy; 13. That prior to the issuance of the building permit for the restaurant, the location and visibility of electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the building where visible from any street frontage, be shown to be painted the same color as the portion of the building to which such features are attached; 14. That prior to the issuance of a Certification of Occupancy for the dock, vertical construction of the restaurant commences to the satisfaction of Staff; 15. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the restaurant, a Certificate of Occupancy of the publicly-accessible boardwalk is granted OR that meaningful (as determined by the Community Development Coordinator) progress has been made with regaxd to securing the appropriate and needed permits from State and/or Federal agencies; 16. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the restaurant, a Certificate of Occupancy for the dock is granted OR that meaningful (as determined by the Community Development Coordinator) progress has been made with regard to securing the appropriate and needed permits from State andlor Federal agencies; 17. That prior to commencement of construction, a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit and any other applicable environmental permits, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of permission to use State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning and Development Department; 18. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation and/or Public Art and Design Impact Fees be paid; 19. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in arder to ensure that an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150 percent of its rated capacity; and 20. That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. Boardwalk Conditions 21. That the applicant finance, coordinate and oversee the construction of a publicly-accessible boardwalk (including an access point from Papaya Street the design specifics of which shall be coordinated with and approved by City Staf� extending from Papaya Street to the southern edge of property located at 419 East Shore Drive as portrayed in the submitted application and that such boardwalk and access point be constructed in its entirety to the satisfaction of City Staff; Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011 —Page 18 of 19 22. That an easement be granted (to be coordinated with City Staf� permitting free and clear access by the public of the proposed boardwalk for the entire length of the boardwalk including a well-marked access point at the northern termini of the proposed length of boardwalk; 23. That the location of the boardwalk be consistent with the plans approved by the CDB or as otherwise determined/required by City Staff; and 24. That the fit, finish, materials and installation methodology of the proposed boardwalk (including built-in lighting, benches and trash receptacles) and the access point at Papaya Street be coordinated with and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of any permits. Sidewalk Conditions 25. That an easement be granted for the portion of the sidewalk along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street which extends onto the subject site; 26. That the final location of the sidewalk along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street be consistent with the plans approved by the CDB or as otherwise determined/required by City Staff; 27. That the fit, finish, materials, installation methodology of the sidewalk and associated sidewalk amenities (such as benches, trash receptacles, trees, lighting) be coordinated with and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; and 28. That the location of sidewalk amenities be located solely on the portion of the sidewalk located on the subject property and outside of the right-of-way and be coordinated with and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of any permits. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: � Mark T. Pany,AICP,Planner III ATTACHMENTS:Location Map;Aerial Map;Zoning Map;Existing Surrounding Uses Map;and Photographs Community Development Board—July 17,2012 FLD2012-05011—Page 19 of 19 MARK T. PARRY 1655 Linwood Drive Tel: (727) 742.2461 Clearwater, FL 33755 E-mail: mparry tampabay rr com SUMMARY OF QUALIFICAT/ONS A dedicated, AICP certified professional Planner focused on contributing to the field of Urban Planning experienced in public and private sector planning. An excellent communicator, able to effectively interact with clients, local government officials and business professionals at all levels. Experienced in various aspects of urban design and planning, zoning regulations and permitting. OBJECTIVE To secure a Planning position which will allow me to continue improving the built environment and my community through sound and innovative planning and design principals. EDUCATION COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, New Brunswick, NJ B.S. Landscape Architecture Major, Urban Planning Certification B.S. Environmental Planning and Design Certificate Urban Planning Golden Key National Honor Society; Sigma Lambda Alpha American Planning Association (Florida Chapter); member AICP#020597 40-hour OSHA (Hazwoper) Training EXPERIENCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CLEARWATER 04/12 - Present 08/98—04/05 Lead Planner; Senior Planner/Acting Development Review Manager • Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting. • Assist in the implementation and subsequent review of the Community Development Code. • Responsible for assessing and writing Community Development Code amendments. • Land Development Code development, interpretation and application. • Provide, inspect and direct landscape reviewldesign. • Acting Development Review Manager 9/99— 11/99 and 01/05—03/05. • Manage and direct Associate Planners. • Review, process and present variance/conditional use, land use/zoning atlas amendment and annexation applications at in-house and public review meetings. • Principle Planner in creating and implementing Clearwater's Downtown Design Guidelines. Assisted in the implementation and application of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan. DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CARDNO TBE 04/05 —04/12 Senior Planner • Planner of record for Cities of Indian Rocks Beach, Seminole and Clearwater and Town of Belleair. • Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting. • Perform site design and inspections. . Provide technical planning support for engineering department. • Provide support for Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Plan amendments. • Research and write Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. • Create and update Special Area Plans/Form-based Codes. • Provide CADD support. • Assist with creating redevelopment marketing material. . Perform technical environmental services including soil and groundwater sampling. GREENSCAPES-GLD, MARLBORO, NJ g�g2 _6�gg Designer/Owner • Founded and established a local garden and landscape business. • Plan and oversee installation of commercial and residential landscaping projects utilizing a variety of CADD and photo-manipulation programs. • Develop and implement advertising programs, brochures and graphics. • Estimate, bid and negotiate jobs. � Source and negotiate purchase of materials and equipment. • Manage, train and schedule installation crews. LONGSTREET FARM, MONMOUTH COUNTY PARK SYSTEM, HOLMDEL, NJ 6/87 - 8/93 Program Supervisor • Assisted in formulating and running children's summer program ("Hayseed"). • Created and coordinated daily programs and schedules for 6-9 year old groups. • Supervised several other programs throughout the year. • Created a demand which was twice the program's capacity after the first year. COMPUTER SK/LLS Access, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Works, ClarisWorks, MS Word, Land Designer Pro, Permit Plan, Excel, Cornerstone, AutoCADD, PowerPoint, Publisher f 1 W p0 L_I KENDALL �uanita Z � �a � e BAY ESPLANADE N� � o z z ROCKAWAY `M Sw PP Ambler 0 BAYMONT ST SKIFF pO�N� �¢ , � SAN MARCO a PROJECT � � o SI TE oo ° Cpy�N P01NT o PAPAYA ST �-- ppSSAGE J k ¢ DORY Z 2 W D � O a Pier gp O a ��c Causeway Blvd � ��'� WINDWARD Q �EVp � m" � 0 SECOND �FV� �� ST N DR O 7HIRD � ST W � � QO 0 � Z � O � O U BR�GHT WATER DR LOCATION Owner: Michael G. Preston, Revocable Trust Case: FLD2012-05011 Site: 425 8�441 East Shore Drive Property Size: 0.31 acre site (uplands only; 0.515 acres total PIN: 08-29-15-02592-003-0010 Atlas Page: 267A 08-29-15-02592-003-0020 �� _ 33 � 47p � 32 7 — — 31 q s � � _ 301 8 464 �+ 8 — — — o � � Zy J a71 � � 5 -zz � 46 ��28 9 g 46 � e �s � — 27 1 — 470 ? �a 46 Q - - t o 1 o B _485 8 �6 �_6�� 25� 11 1 11'�48 463 g — �� 45 Q a 453 23 4�3 45 - - - - 7s 4'� �rn,� ' ¢.rt1 22 1 12 _ 4 1� 12 t0 _ 4s ^�' �9 20 J _13 4s4 9� �345 I— — — — CLEARWATER � 45 J �9 » 14 �4 � A93_18 1 — — — N _ y � �s I � is �2 HARBOR 16 � 3 as g �ll !��/�� `� z — 32� +� � h � •441 � � �3� 4 41 �Z h z436 r 425 z 430 , _42Q � � — — — � - � y �9 3 423 3 J — 8 � 39 Z 4zg � 4 — - - - Q �3 9 —�- - - O 9 a a2s g 2 10 I 38 5426 47y_ _ — _ — _ „ � 41��z 37 _ I O 6 � Q —6— — — 411 �a3 A � �422 � — — — — � 15 423 � � — — — — — 407 i s 423 $ ^^'i� N 9 � 4�19 - - - - - �03"j g � 34 � 408 I (� ��19 � Q � 399 20 33_ _ L �o � 409 —�o — — — — 3 5 22 _ 32 — �I » 406 405_ _��_ 23 — — — — � ��24_ _31 — -I — 12 — — 'Z — — — — — 26 30 400 I 13 403 13 � 27 29 1 � 14�OOI 401 14— - — - - 28 J �--� so � -- (15) 390 391 � v�erEa ' 30 OT 2 , � � MEMOR/AL CSWY + 5 � � � 8 9 e� MEMOR/AL CS Y EXISTING CONDITIONS Owner: Michael G. Preston, Revocable Trust Case: FLD2012-05011 Site: 425 8�441 East Shore Drive Property Size: 0.31 acre site (uplands only; 0.515 acres total PIN: 08-29-15-02592-003-0010 Atlas Page: 267A 08-29-15-02592-003-0020 47p � 47p � � 473 473 464 � 471 � t 46 467 466 y o 4 Z ` 46 � 470 2 46 465 46 46 457 � 46 463 45 453 453 454 45 45 451 451 45 45 �9 454 45 45 �9 447 448 4 � 443 qq � 44 , Q i een 443 � J 435 v v v v ; �n ��..�..�-��/�■� -■-/��a v� � �441 ■ Q 433 Q � � w � 431 � 432 Q 436� �425 � h ■ 43 � 429 h r!_�_��.5.. ..■��-* 427Meter y 439 423 a 428 p � �423 4 429 , 426 479 � 415 Q _._� � � �3� 422 Q Z 407 I 423q � 0 I � �B�A -_.-_ , Y------� y 4>, I I sos h � 401 —J(�—� I � 399 � 409 � J I I aos � —� 395 _� I � 405 �389 I ��' I 400 i 403 ---- I ��9 I � I 400 f I 40> II � I' i ( _J I S/T 390 391 O _ x I � ,CAU EWAY B MEMOR/AL CSWY i ' 61 MEMOR/AL CS ZONI NG Owner: Michael G. Preston, Revocable Trust Case: FLD2012-05011 Site: 425 8� 441 East Shore Drive Property Size: 0.31 acre site (uplands oniy; 0.515 acres total PIN: 08-29-15-02592-003-0010 Atlas Page: 267A 08-29-15-02592-003-0020 i+�,, ' � �^� - » � ,�� ,�m � . :. ��t. � �. "�� ' � � ��, � �� ,� � . . � � �� £� .� � '.,� �� „� ��: , �' �... �� } �" �r�« .� � �. ��' "�� `� �t t# �► � w.� '� "'� Ym � � i 2 � � �"�}� ��,s�� .i�Yt �� -�. ., . � � � �� - �, � " '° � � '� •,^�..�!`—..�.. �� -,�: 3 t � ��n at. +�'�,. '' 1' � �►�,� .�`.�} �� { � ... " $� �� t � T � t �� {n � � �lF :� � �f �� ` � � � ��.` � d,� ,J« } ��. � �� # � � �J � : � -r � ' •`:��iy` g , . • 1�� `1. . � �. � � , �� ... � � �, -r� .+ b iJ r t �t ' ' , ,:..,_ � , , .. «..r�re r .� . .� �,� � _, r�t �� F -r � _., � � � #"�" � � � ��. '� �� .� �r �� . �,� _� t � . �� 6„�>_� � � n. � � ��m« .Y��;�� J:�• r �'�� . � ��. � #� j °� � �� .`'�+J f , � �.,� M"` �`«,wr-.t � . +�, ,14g' _ �a �,""�"'�is�� rr ,:� , � q� j . y. ��. x w� ��a i . �. y . ,. '� � s� pr"�f�� 1 ,�=2 � + i. r �lAr � �z� � I��' ��„5 �. � �,1� ��` �. ��r, � � � n�;�-r.- 'J e�lr i �t .,.,� � �� -- !� � § ; ;� ..{ ,�� J . . ..,� r.;� .�. � ;� � ; ' � ; ��'�� i . r x �i �� + � �� x � � �; #'yt iir� � ' i�., ' '�` < rt� ' , �� .ew� *, „�J h ��{ �i �.. � ., � ' +n ±�a� �� +' �S. . �� °�` d�� w- l� �s� �� `�,� y.`t''u `� � �S. _[ `� ' �.� �� .,; �"�' `3� • �- . , fw :�, a"R��,� `�. UP ,� +q� � ` ( �; � � `.:• ��' � �'��• '�"��° � � • , . $ r � s, � , �, « �� ! �'�'+ �t ��'��„��a;, ��,s�� "�' � i S� ��, #�,�,a��t��1�� ^�.� ..�� ;� ��;��; �,r�;� � . � "` � i�t��sy� rre # � 'x � �� q � � � � i`�� t�x�� ,.� + � ��4� � �� 3 ,. , �+�l `5Y " q � R ,�� 4�� ` � . �r_" , � — , �� ?;�i��`��ti,�'i�+�"��t3��,�,� ' . ;r . - t� , . .... :�.�.:...., ..:�.. .. ,. � � . �. ` , '�,� ° �"�� _ ��*�.; , �� _ '1t9Llt'«�I:II�L C�t'cl " �.��: r � _ AERIAL Owner: Michael G. Preston, Revocable Trust Case: FLD2012-0501 1 Site: 425 8� 441 East Shore Drive Property Size: 0.31 acre site (uplands only; 0.515 acres total PIN: 08-29-15-02592-003-0010 Atlas Page: 267A 08-29-15-02592-003-0020 -i ��...?�*:_ � __ _ - ,.. _ ____. — ��. . � .,�� ' � ' . � �` � °�t� n � � __ __ } . . .... s 6 . '"�*� . . �n� � w ..�. ii"� %� ;�� F�x`�,�- ��w �� _ 1 , . �_ � � � : �� '�� p,�� . i��._. �� ,°,� ' � �r�in�z� ;�.�fi„g, _.� . �m � .t E� — _ .. ,. °� ... � �� -� � �Il�lfl�l�miliiMil�� ' � .�:� --- � �- ..tr� . � • ,� � �; _ � --_ o � n_� - , �...�. ,e _ �w _._,__.—�,,, . , a � _ _ ;�„ ...�s,,.> -. tiv_� .�� • � . �� ri�t�. , � � � � �� : � � �.,� � �� '' �``�°�,� � � ,� � 5 � �Y� 2 . .. �11 N�^'m: e � �_ k� �,�. ,� b e .� ""`°-.a,,,, � � ��,�a �. ,,,.,. .. � � � � � �. � � ` ��' �` 44�` � � , .mk „ ��. � . < �.... .�,�„'��' ,., , .� . ,. Q...,..��.rx ,3.�..1' ._ ,,s,..,�. ._ w.....,...,,m�:�,..-�,,,.r ,-� ..,�. �� ..,.. _ .. . �: .� . `.^. F �' �`�� a�^,*,.:_ "i. �y , . �_ . �, TAr�l'Y �"'� � \ � '� 4'�1 i.. 99P}�..._ .. . _ �� 4 ~ '. , � ' R" �- , .. Ii�r. ! ; , t ,� -. �. v . 'a � _"�'"." �,. .L'-- tii� 0� �. � ��qij� .�l� ,� "� _ f, ,�. • . . � -� ��E�� ; �-�� - .!` ,� �: . _ , � �� ` �� l�`�t � _ � k� -�',t:. l ' Y ,�_�,,. r �.- � � _� -...__ ^ . t � .5,- ��. `_. Cl.. . ��TA� �° .sNt,� �� .. �a is � , . , a '� j � �� -. � � ' . � ,.S . .l�� . -"�,i.t ,. � _ � 'V: � �.,+rMx�... .. :,.'j� . 1 �n � . . � . . � � ... � - . � ,„ ...... W . . . . .. .. . .N+� �.K�n�5L- ai sub�ect propert� trom�,ast�hore llr.dnct � ! _ �' �pava Ave. " � � .... ``��, ,; _..,_....:_ ., ' � � � � � , � 1 - �� ` • -- " _ - � - : - , � .� , - --_ � �t � r�C I'�� '^, ■! LI;'E �.-- t" , ' � ' -.� . _�. G � � `� *-� , � � �� . � , . < . _ ..-. :, _.--s,i� � � ,�M _ , .,._ ' � 1 •; ' y}' . _��:. '_=,, ;; .,� � , t . -r.,—,�r��..W . "��r � � `:iq Fr�l`�t4. r. ,�� :�.;tiy �i�lE��. (� i k�i , ", � �-�,� $, � � 7� � '��1.� i��,��( -� - �� •�,....,s.,�' �,� l_g � � �y,� ' � �{ � I�• ' a� .>� . � "ed`' _ L� 13 � ��'��.� � t_C.n��h � �� u� uLi;� �t'c(t� ,i�l�t)!�.iV�Y,� ... -_ 'zt .. tilCh� , ,.. . .. . � � 425 East Shore Drive �' FLD2012-05011 � June 15, 2012 Mr. Mark Parry, Development Review Manager . City of Clearwater Planning Department klar and klar 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, 2�d Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 architects inc. Re: FLD2012-05011 425 East Shore Drive Dear Mr. Parry: Confirming our recent DRC meeting on June 7, 2012, regarding the above- referenced project, each of the comments has been addressed below. Engineering Review— 1. Applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed beach walk and 28473 u.s. 19 n. commercial dock shall meet ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Recreational Facilities (Boating Facilities) as per 201 0 ADA c I e a r w a t e r Standards for Accessible Design, Department of Just�ce florida 33761 (September 15, 2010). Acknowledged. Note has been added to the dock plans to state the proposed boardwalk and commercial dock will meet ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Recreational Facilities (Boating Facilities) per 2010. ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Department of Justice (September 15, 2010). 2. A reclaimed water main is located in the Poinsettia Avenue right- of-way. As per City of Clearwater Reclaimed Water System Ordinances, 32.351, Intent, and 32.376, Use of potable water for , ` irrigation is prohibited, the irrigation system shall be hooked up to the reclaimed water system that is available to this site. ph. 727J99.5420 fax 727J99.9625 This proposed project has 1,854 s.f. of open space / landscape area www.klarklar.com around the perimeter of the building along the north, west and south sides. The plants proposed within these landscaped areas are to be drought-tolerant, indigenous species which should not need any irrigation after the first thirteen (13) weeks of establishment and acclimation. These xeriscaped areas and associated plants will be hand-watered the first thirteen (13) weeks until such time they have been established and irrigation will not be needed after this period. Therefore, reclaimed water will not be needed for this project. Prior to Building Permit: 1. Applicant shall construct all sidewalks and sidewalk ramps ' adjacent to or a part of the project in compliance with current A.D.A. standards (truncated domes per FDOT Index#304). roberta s. klar aia steven I. klar aia 1 �;:t��k ` � . Acknowledged. . Environmental Review -Sarah Josuns - 562-4897 � General Note 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a. Building Permit Application. Acknowledged. Fire Review-James Keller- 562-4327 x3062 Note: This is a D.R.C. approval only. Other issues may develop and will be addressed at building permit stage. 1. Fire Alarm system, Fire Suppression for Hood System, exits will all be addressed at building permit stage. 2. Plan shows Fire Department Connection on the building, shall be a minimum of 15 feet from building and shall have a fire hydrant within 40 feet on the same side of the street. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB As discussed with Inspector Keller at the DRC meeting and subsequent correspondence, the Fire bepartment Connection (FDC) and the Fire Hydrant Assembly (FHA) for the proposed building are located at a 6' offset from the front of the building abutting East Shore Drive as shown on revised sheet C3. The FDC for the dock is located along the south side of the site and also will abut East Shore Drive. The"FHA fronting the building will also serve this Dock FDC. 3. Must meet the requirements of NFPA 303 Fire Not Met Protection Standard for Marinas and Boatyards 2006 Edition a. 6.4 Fire Standpipe Systems. b. 6.4.1 Class I standpipe systems shall be provided for piers, bulkheads, and buildings where the hose lay distance from the fire apparatus exceeds 150 feet plan shows an F.D.C. connection for dock this connection exceeds the 150 feet-45 m. Must be relocated at street for Fire Department Access. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Acknowledged. Note has been added to the dock plans to state the docks will meet the requirements of NFPA 303 Fire Protection Standards for Marinas and Boatyards 2006 Edition; 6.4 Fire Standpipe Systems. 4. Must meet the requirements of NFPA-303, 2006 edition 6.4.2 Standpipe systems, where installed, shall be in accordanc�with NFPA14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems, except for the provisions identified in 6.4.3 through 6.4.6. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Acknowledged. Note has been added to the dock plans to state the docks will meet the requirement of NFPA 303 Fire Protection Standards for Marinas and Boatyards 2006 Edition; 6.4 Fire Standpipe Systems and NFPA 14. 5. Must meet the requirements of NFPA-303, 2006 edition 6.3.3 Combustible Piers and Substructures a. 6.3.3.1 Combustible piers and substructures in excess of 25 ft 7.62 m in width or in excess of 5000 ft2 -465 m2. in area, or within 30 ft- 9.14 m of other structures or superstructures required to be so protected, shall be protected in accordance with Section 4.3 of NFPA 307, Standard for the Construction and Fire Protection of Marine Terminals, Piers, and Wharves, unless otherwise permitted by 6.3.3.2, 6.3.3.3, or6.3.3.4. 6.3.3.2 Fixed piers shall not be required to be protected as specified in 6.3.3.1 where the vertical distance from the surface of inean high water level to the underside of the pier surface does not exceed 36 in. 914 mm. 6.3.3.3 Floating piers shall not be required to be protected as specified in 6.3.3.1 where the vertical distance from the surFace of the water to the underside of the pier surFace does not exceed 36 in. - 914 mm. Acknowledged. Note has been added to the dock plans to state the docks will meet the requirement of NFPA 303 Fire Protection Standards for Marinas and Boatyards 2006 Edition; 6.3.3 Combustible Piers and Substructures. 6. Must meet the requirements of NFPA-303, 2006 edition 6.2 Portable Fire Extinguishers. a. 6.2.1 Placement. b. 6.2.1.1 Placement of portable fire extinguishers shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of NFPAIO, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, unless otherwise permitted by 6.2.1. I .I, 6.2.1 .I .2, or 6.2.1 .I .3. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. _ Acknowledged. Note has been added to the dock plans to state the docks will meet the requirement of NFPA 303 Fire Protection Standards for Marinas and Boatyards 2006 Edition; 6.2 Portable Fire E�inguishers. 7. Plan shows dumpster enclosure against the building. All dumpsters, and any associated screening which consists of combustible fencing around the dumpster pad shall have a minimum separation from the nearest building or building overhang of ten feet- 10 feet. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Dumpster enclosure is to be constructed of non-combustible materials and fencing. The dumpster enclosure to be protected by one or more fire sprinkler heads of a fire protection system designed in accordance with sound engineering practices. 8. Must meet the requirements of NFPA-1, Chapter 18, 18.3.4.3 Fire r Department connections shall be identified by a sign that states: No Parking Fire Department Connection and shall be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage. Two signs that state "No Parking Fire Department Connection" have been added adjacent to the two proposed FDCs as shown on revised sheet C3. Planning Review- Mark Parry 727-562-4741 General Site Plan and Application Comments 4. How many slips are proposed with the new dock? There are 28 slips proposed for the commercial dock. � 2. How many units are on the site now?What is the current use - OVA or MFR? PineUas County Property Appraiser has the site listed as having the use of Motels/Hotels (3913). Existing units are noted on page 3 of application (17). 3. The application is incorrect with regard to the number of required parking (page 3). The app. Says 73 spaces. It should be between 75 and 161 spaces). The number of parking spaces has been revised to state °Between 75 — 162" (based on 7 spaces/1000sf& 15 spaces/1000sf parking criteria) as shown on the revised Site Data Table on the cover sheet. 4. Need a statement about existing trees (or the lack thereof) not � being removed. There are (3) existing trees being removed on the site as shown on sheet C2. 5. We need to get details of the vault submitted. As agreed to at DRC, the details of the vault will not be required to be provided at this time. These details and specifications will be defined and provided at time of Final Site Plan / Site Permit. 6. Provide the exact colors proposed for the building. As agreed at DRC, the color samples provided are sufficient. 7. Providing benches and bike racks would be a nice gestu�e indicating a commitment to a pedestrian-friendly environment. A note has been added on sheet C3 stating "See Architectural Plans for the bicycle racks and bench details and locations". 8. Need to show the site with a 1,000 foot buffer indicated from the edges of the property and all the parking areas clearly shown. Going over the water is not really necessary, though. See attached Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. 9. How many spaces are within 1,000 feet? See attached Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. 10. How about getting some sort of a parking count on a Saturday and see how many spaces are available within 1,000 feet? Not required per staff discussion. 11. How are employees going to park? A lot about 300 feet away is mentioned with 14 parking spaces. Need an aerial showing this lot in relation to the subject site. Are these spaces spoken for- is there double dipping going on? See attached Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. 12.Where is (are) the AC unit(s)? Clarify how all mechanical equipment will be screened. Mechanical equipment is located on roof and will be screened from public view by parapet. 13. Show site visibility triangles at all corners. Site Visibility Triangles have been added and are shown on Revised sheet C3. 14. Confirm that overhead wires serving the site will be put underground. The telephone and cable overhead lines currently serving the site from the south will be installed underground to serve this development. It may not be practicable to re-roufe the overhead power lines, that currently serve the site to the north, underground. This OH line would have to be directional bored =from the existing pole at the NW corner of Papaya and East Shore Drive -- under East Shore Drive. This would require a bore pit at this corner for the directional bore. This underground bore would have to cross an existing gas main; a 4" and a 12"water main; a gravity sewer main; and an existing telephone line which may be fiber optic cable. We are currently coordinating with Progress Energy regarding the feasibility of installing this line underground but at this time, we do not have a definitive answer from them regarding this. We wilt fully explore this underground installation, but the viability of this underground installation will ultimately be the decision of Progress Energy. As such, we request that this condition of approval be modified since the decision to perform or allow this work may not be under our control. 15.The scale on the landscape plan is incorrect. It is listed as 20 � scale but it is actually 10 scale. The scale has been corrected on sheet L1.00. 16. Provide details on dumpster enclosure; materials and color. Dumpster enclosure to be 8" CMU (non-combustible) construction with stucco finish as noted on architectural elevations. Color to be within color submittal range. 17.Any signage at this time? Clarify. The fish shape at the front of the building counts and needs to be quantified at this time if it is going to included with the rest of the application otherwise remove it and we can address it later. However, if any variations from Code are needed it is best to deal with it now rather than later. - Signage to be determined prior to building permit. AS discussed at DRC meeting the fish shape at front of building is to remain. 18. East and west elevations on the elevation sheet are revered. Please correct. See revised redated sheet A2.0 east and west elevation tags corrected. 19.The proposal provides 10 feet between building and r-o w and five of sidewalk. We need to talk about either shaving some � footage off the building on the north and west sides OR shaving some of the landscape down. Either way we need to get a 10 foot sidewalk. We also need to talk about providing some street furniture (benches, bike racks)which will also add to the pedestrian experience. A 10' wide sidewalk has been provided along the west and north sides of this re-development as shown on revised sheet C3. 20.What is the intended phasing for construction of the restaurant, dock and boardwalk? The construction of the upland restaurant will occur before the commercial docks and boardwalk. The actual timing of when the commercial docks and boardwalk will be constructed is heavily dependent on the time frame to obtain the required Florida Department of Environmental Protection and U.S_ Army Corps of . Engineers permits. Therefore, as soo,n as all permits are obtained, the applicant will select a contractor and then construction can begin per the contractor's schedule. It is anticipated that the same contractor who builds the commercial dock will also build the boardwalk so that the commercial dock and boardwalk will be built during the same course of work. We are requesting the time frame to file for a building . permit for the commercial dock and the boardwalk be separate from � the restaurant and that a minimum of one additional year be allowed (November 2013). 21.Where did the figure of 1,385 feet with regard to the width of the navigable waterway come from? The distance is measured perpendicular from the applicant's seawall to the opposite seawall across the waterway. IYs measured from GIS and Google Earth�aerials and has been used extensively by the Harbormaster for similar projects in this area. 22. The details of the deed restriction need to be hashed out. The thinking is to have the following as part of any such deed restriction: a. No additional docks, piers, boat lifts or similar devices may be located on the properties located at 419 and 423 East Shore Drive; . b. The existing docks may be maintained and/or repai�ed as necessary to ensure their functionality, appearance and provide for the safety of their users; c. The existing docks may not be enlarged in any way; d. Should either or both of the existing docks be destroyed outright or damaged to an extent where 50 percent or more of the existing square footage of the respective dock is rendered unusable or unsafe by the City, County or any other regulatory • body that the dock(s) be fully removed; e. The existing docks may be replaced however any such replacement may not exceed the minimum requirements of Section 3-601. The applicant acknowledges and is in agreement for the need for a deed restriction for the existing docks that will remain. Although the applicant agrees with the line of"thinking" provided in your comments (a through e), we trust the exact deed restriction language will be defined at the appropriate time. 23.An access easement will need to be granted for the boardwalk. This will need to cover the boardwalk itself and will need to provide for free and clear access to and from the northern and southern termini of the proposed length of boardwalk. Need to clarify how the entrance at Papaya Street will be clearly delineated per Marina District Beach by Design. � The applicant acknowledges and is in agreement for the need for an access easemenf with regard to the boardwalk. 24.A maintenance or transfer of ownership agreement will need to occur with regard to the boardwalk. A Development Agreement will probably be necessary. The applicant acknowledges and is in agreement for the need for a maintenance or Development agreement with regard to the boardwalk. 25.An access easement will be needed for the five feet of sidewalk � along East Shore and Papaya. An Access or Sidewalk Easement will be prepared and executed for that portion of sidewalk within private property, prior to C.O. of this building. 26.Add the square footage of the restaurant to the description of the request in the application; the way is stands now it seems that the dock is the main object of the request. See revised application with added square footage of restaurant, which is 10,794 u.s.f. 27.The question will come up sooner or later;why not just redevelop the adjacent parcel (or two)to create a site plan with the restaurant of the size you need with the parking that is required? Unfeasible. 28. Clarify the material proposed for the boardwalk; will need to coordinate with City to ensure that as other properties add to the boardwalk that everything matches. This also applies to the proposed sidewalk along East Shore and Papaya. Acknowledged. The applicant is aware of the need to coordinate with City Staff on the materials to be used for the boardwalk. 29.The square footage for the proposed boardwalk changes befinreen documents; nail down the exact area and length. My figures show that a boardwalk 15 feet in width and 309 feet in length (Sheet 2.B Woods Consulting packet) yields 4,635 square feet. The square footage of the boardwalk is 15 ft x 309 ft for a total of 4,635 sq ft. 30:What sort of improvements can we make to the south facade to meet the intent of the Design Guidelines? It is understood that privacy is desired for the motel but how about including some windows at the upper edge of the second floor and some sort of minimal architectural relief? See revised redated sheet A2.0, note south elevation was revised to, show minimal architectural design. 31. Remove the on street parking along Papaya Street. There is no room to turn around. If the City desires parking there the City will install it. The two street parking spaces on Papaya Street have been deleted as shown on revised sheet C3. • Parking Demand Study 1. The required number of spaces is between 75 and 161. The number of spaces has been revised to 75 and 162 as shown on the Cover sheet. 2. Clarify how the 14 spaces mentioned as being on a nearby property are going to work. Where are they located? Are they required parking for something else? If these are going to be for employees then we will need a deed restriction for those spaces. See attached Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. 3. Provide get an exact count of on-street spaces to add to the off- street public lot spaces. See attached Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. 4. Leave City Staff support(or lack thereof, as the case may be) out of the Parking Demand Study. You may state that the methodology has been approved by Staff, though. See attached Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. 5. Need a greater discussion of how providing no spaces on the site will lead to greater pedestrian-friendliness. Could mention, lack of curb cuts, providing for a building that is not raised up over parking bringing a vibrant use closer to the street. See attached Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. 6. Use spell check - customers - is misspelled on page two at the bottom. Acknowledged. 7. Provide page numbers on all submissions for easier referencing. Page numbers are included in the FLD General Applicability Criteria Narrative and the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria. 8. Talk about the desires for the Marina District with regard to pedestrian-friendliness and working waterfront characteristics. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 9. Any figures for how many boaters use other Frenchy's restaurants? See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). General Applicability Criteria 1. Criteria 1 -talk about the heights and bulk of surrounding properties and how they compare to the proposai -also talk about Beach by Design. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 2. Criteria 1 - how will the restaurant provide a <node>?Talk about • the orientation of the building the entrance, sidewalk widths, � street furniture, materials, bike racks, lighting, etc. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 3. Criteria 2 - How witl the proposed development fit<in line>? See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 4. Criteria 3 -How will safety be improved? Additional street life, wide sidewalks, no curb cuts? See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 5. Criteria 4 - How will a more pedestrian walkway cut down on traffic congestion? Probably want to mention how vehicles will be consolidated into public parking lots restricting much of the traffic congestion to a few controlled points rather than spreading the traffic around. The public parking lots will also get people out of their cars quicker and walking which may also decrease traffic congestion - less people driving more people walking. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 6. Criteria 5 - Clarify where a <�shing village>theme is discussed in Beach by Design as applicable to the subject site and character district(Mariana). See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 7. Criteria 6 -also mention that the main entrance is aimed at the intersection of Papaya Street and East Shore Drive. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). C1RP Criteria Comments 1. Criteria 1 - How would putting parking under the building be bad? Need to discuss the detriments of that course of action. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 2. Criteria 2 - How will the proposal result in an improved pedestrian street? Talk about the Marina District and Design Guidelines from • Beach by Design. Is it really wise to talk about the site being an important<node> for vehicular traffic from the roundabout (which does not need to be in quotes as that is what it is called - one word actually)when we were previously talking about how the proposal will decrease vehicular traffic? See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 3. Criteria 2 - Is Papaya Street really a major axis between the Gulf and Harbor? Unless there are some figures that support that I • would drop it. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 4. Criteria 2 - Specify which Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed development. It is mentioned in the response but does not go any farther. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 5. Criteria 2 -You should clarify that the boardwalk is a major goal of the Marina District. You may want to consider rewording your response in that the proposed development is not necessarily <extremely compatible with the goals of Beach by Design> but rather it is well supported by BDD and in turn realizes the goals of the Marina District and embodies the spirit and letter of the design guidelines. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 6. Criteria 2 - It is implied that the proposal will now provide the first � aspect of a boating destination for tourists and locals on the beach. Surely there are other uses on the beach that cater to boaters or act a boating destination. In addition, it is asserted that that are no other casual restaurants in north Pinellas that can be accessed by boats. This is a rather sweeping claim. 1 thought that another Frenchy's restaurant already provides boat access. If true, that claim would be false. You need to be prepared to � back this up. A safer way to say what you want to say in 2.c is to state that the proposal will dramatically add to boater access on the beach and add to the many reasons boaters and non-boaters alike have to visit the beach. The goal is to acknowledge that the proposal will fit into the fabric of the neighborhood while supporting the goals of the Marina District and BBD design guidelines. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 7. Criteria 3 - maybe the phrase <clean up>would be better phrased as <enhance>? See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 8. Criteria 3 -The proposal will not continue the boardwalk so much , as begin the boardwalk. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 9. Criteria 3 - How will the development encourage other development? See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 10. Criteria 4 -talk about how adjoining and nearby properties will benefit from a publicly-accessed boardwalk. ' See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 11. Criteria 5 -what is happening to the existing Frenchy's restaurant? This is the first that it is mentioned. One could argue that there will be no new net increase in businesses in the area. Need an exhibit which shows the existing Frenchy's Saltwater in relation to the existing site. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 12. Criteria 5 just put<N/A> for the affordable housing part. _ See attached Frenchy's 44�1 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 13. Criteria 5 -you missed criteria 5.e. What you listed as 5.e is actually 5.f. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 14. Criteria 6 -the proposed development<meets and/or exceeds the following objectives>. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). 15. Criteria 6 - How, how how? How will the proposal encourage new development? How does the proposal comply with and support BBD Design Guidelines? How is a<fishing village> theme created? Talk about sidewalk widths, street furniture, street life, active use along street, no curb cuts, reduced traffic, increased boating, boardwalk, etc. See attached Frenchy's 441 East Shore Drive Narrative (FLD). Proposed Draft Conditions of Approval 1. That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later than November 15, 2012, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; . The applicant requests the time frame to file for a building permit for the commercial dock and the boardwalk be separate from the restaurant and that a minimum of one additional year be allowed (November 2013) 2. That a publicly-accessible boardwalk extending from Papaya Street to the southern edge of property located at 419 East Shore Drive as portrayed in the submitted application be completed in its entirety prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy; The applicant`s commitment of building the public boardwalk is not to offset variances for the upland restaurant building but rather for the ability to construct the commercial dock utilizing the lot widths of adjacent properties in common ownership. Therefore, it is not appropriate to require the boardwalk be constructed in its entirety before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the restaurant building due the time frame of obtaining the required State and Federal Permits associated with the commercial dock and boardwalk. The restaurant will likely be constructed long before the commercial docks and boardwalk construction can begin. It would be more appropriate to place a condition on the commercial docks so that they cannot be used (obtain C.O.) until the boardwalk is constructed or other similar language. 3. That the fit, finish and materials of the proposed boardwalk be consistent with those approved by CDB; Acknowledged. The applicant is aware of the need to coordinate with City Staff on the materials to be used for the boardwalk. 4. That an access easement be granted permitting free and clear access by the public of the proposed boardwalk for the entire length of the boardwalk including a well marked access point at the northern and southern termini of the proposed length of boardwalk; The applicant acknowledges and is in agreement for the need for an access easement with regard to the boardwalk. 5. That a maintenance agreement be provided for the boardwalk. May require a Development Agreement. This needs to be hashed out; • The applicant acknowledges and is in agreement for the need for a maintenance or Development Agreement with regard to the boardwalk. 6. That an access easement be granted for the portion of the sidewalk along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street which extends onto the subject site; An Access or Sidewalk Easement will be prepared and executed for . that portion of sidewalk within private property, prior to C.O. of this building. 7. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy any required street furniture (benches, trash receptacles, bike racks) and lighting be purchased/paid for by the applicant. � Acknowledged. � 8. That, prior to the issuance of any permits evidence of filing and recording in the public records of deed restrictions for properties located at 423 and 419 East Shore Drive (Parcel Identification Numbers 08-29-1 5-02592-003-0030 and 0050, respectively) be furnished to the City for review and approval. The deed restrictions shall provide for the following: a. No additional docks, piers, boat lifts or similar devices may be located on the properties located at 419 and 423 East Shore Drive; b. The existing docks may be maintained and/or repaired as necessary to ensure their functionality, appearance and provide � for the safety of their users; c. The existing docks may not be enlarged in any way; d. Should either or both of the existing docks be destroyed outright or damaged to an extent where 50 percent or more of the existing square footage of the respective dock is rendered unusable or unsafe by the City, County or any other regulatory body that the dock(s) be fully removed; e. The existing docks may be replaced however any such � replacement may not exceed the maximum requirements of Section 3-601 C.3.h without deviations as provided for in Section 3-601 .C.3.i. The applicant acknowledges and is in agreement for the need for a deed restriction for the existing docks that will remain. Although the applicant agrees with the line of"thinking" provided in your comments (a through e), we trust the exact deed restriction language will be defined at a later time. 9. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB. Acknowledged. 10. That the final design and materials of the sidewalk along East Shore Drive and Papaya Street be consistent with the plans approved by the CDB or as otherwise required by City Staff. Acknowledged. 11. That the final design and materials of the boardwalk be consistent with the plans approved by the CDB or as otherwise required by City Staff; Acknowledged. The applicant is aware of the need to coordinate with City Staff on the materials to be used for the boardwalk. 12. That no freestanding signs be permitted on the site. Acknowledged. 13. That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, existing overhead utility lines serving this development within the right-of-way along the east side of East Shore Drive and/or the , south side of Papaya Street, as applicable, be placed, underground; The telephone and cable overhead lines currently serving the site from the south will be installed underground to serve this development. It may not be practicable to re-route the overhead power lines, that currently serve the site to the north, underground. This OH line would have to be directional bored —from the existing pole at the NW corner of Papaya and East Shore Drive -- under East Shore Drive. This would require a bore pit at this corner for the directional bore. This underground bore would have to cross an existing gas main; a 4" and a 12" water main; a gravity sewer main; and an existing telephone line which may be fiber optic cable. We are currently coordinating with Progress Energy regarding the feasibility of installing this line underground but at this time, we do not have a definitive answer from them regarding this. We will fully explore this underground installation, but the viability of this underground installation will ultimately be the decision of Progress Energy. As such, we request that this condition of approval be modified to state that "the overhead lines serving the site from Papaya Street may be installed � underground if deemed practicable or allowed by Progress Energy", since the decision to perform or allow this work may not be under our controL 14. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the location and visibility of electric equipment(electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the building where visible from any street frontage, be painted the same color as the building. Acknowledged. 15. That no docks be constructed prior to vertical construction of the upland restaurant(alternative—That no Certification of Occupancy be granted for the docks prior to vertical construction of the upland restaurant); Acknowledged. 16. That use of the docks be for exclusive use for the mooring of boats by patrons of the restaurant and that the docks are not permitted to be rented, leased or sold separately; Acknowledged. � 17. That boatlifts, fueling capabilities and dry storage facilities of any kind are prohibited; Acknowledged. _ 18. That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the entrance to the docks containing wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity; Acknowledged. 19. That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit and any other applicable environmental permits, Corps of Engineers Permit and proof of permission to use State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement ' of construction; Acknowledged. 20. That all Parks and Recreation fees and any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and Acknowledged. 21. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. Acknowledged. � Public Art Review- Chris Hubbard - 1. 05/22/2012 -The Public Art& Design Program Impact Fee may not apply to this project, however, the project value must be verified before it can be determined that the project is exempt from Ordinance requirements. Storm water Review - Phuong Vo -562-4752 The following shall be addressed at the time of Building Permit submittaL 1. All onsite runoff including runoff from roof, balconies, and driveway, etc. shall be routed to the proposed vault. Acknowledged. 2. Drainage report and design of the drainage system will be reviewed at the Building Permit submittal. Acknowledged. 3. Show that proposed project does not block offsite drainage. This proposed project will not impeded or block any offsite drainage or affect any existing drainage patterns. This information will be provided to the City as part of the Site Permit. 4. Submit a copy of the SWFWMD permit. Acknowledged. 5. Please be advised that, the proposed 2 parking spaces in the right-of-way will be temporarily impacted by the construction of the City's drainage project. , These parking spaces have been deleted. General notes: 1. All re-submittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how each department condition has been met. Acknowledged. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Acknowledged. Traffic Eng Review— Prior to Community Development Board: 1. Parking study did not go through a methodology meeting. A parking study was not necessary. 2. The parking study did.not address how many spaces are being occupied by other beach visitors in any given day of the week during mid-day hours and on weekends Per discussion with City staff a parking study is no longer required. 3. The parking analysis shall include the other parking studies that would occupy the same public lots within the same vicinity: 400 East Shore (Walgreen's), 454 Mandalay Ave (Union Burger/Coffee Cafe), 522 Mandalay Ave (Cork & Bistro) and 387 Mandalay Ave (Hooters/Ron Jons). Per discussion with City staff a parking study is no longer required. 4. Remove lot#63 from parking study this lot will be occupied by the proposed Walgreens. The parking spaces for Lot#63 are not included in the parking , narrative. 5. The parking study indicates 2 accessible/parallel parking spaces on street however the civil site plan page C3 shows 1 accessible/parallel parking spaces and 1 regular parallel parking space. Both parking spaces have been removed per Mark Parry's request. 6. Show 20' x 20' sight visibility triangles at Palm Street and Easf Shore Drive intersection. There shall be no objects in the sight triangle over the City's acceptable vertical height criteria at a ' level between and eight feet above grade. (City's Community Development Code, Section 3-904). Sight visibility triangles have been added to three of the four corners of the site as shown on sheet C3. Parking Division comments: 1. How many employees will proposed development have and where will they park? See attached Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. 2. The beach lots 34 & 35 are metered 2 hour spaces. See attached Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. 3. Papaya St. has 7 on street metered parking of 2 hours only. The two proposed parking spots on Papaya Street will be metered by the City and will require coordination with the Parking Department at the time of Building Construction Permit. See attached Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. . Prior to Building Permit: 1. The parallel accessible parking space shall have a 5 x 8 access aisle and connect at the head or foot of the parking space. These parking spaces have been removed per Mark Parry's request. 2. The parallel accessible parking space shall comply with 2010 FDOT design Standards, Index 17346 page 12 of 14. Both parking spaces have been removed per Mark Parry's request. 3. On the site data table, remove 33 parking spaces from the 122 total city parking spaces available due to a proposed Walgreens occupying lot#63: ` The number of parking spaces has been revised per the Frenchy's Parking Narrative Summary. General Note(s): 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). Estimated TIF for proposed restaurant: $65,973.59 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. , If you have any questions regarding these issues, please call to discuss. Respectfully, ��i-�r� S ��.�-'�-�/ Roberta S. Klar, Principal Klar and Klar Architects, Inc. Enc: (15) Copies—Woods Consulting Boardwalks and docks resubmittal package. . (15) copies- FLD Application (15) copies- Civil and Landscaping, C-1, G2, C-3, L1.0, L2.0 (15) copies-Architectural A1.0, A2.0 Original DRC comments. � i � o (�� Planning&Development Department � la ea� Flexible Develo ment A lication p pp � Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY,AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON(NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES)AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED fOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS(1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PIANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED,STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200 APPLICATION FEE: $1,205 PROPERTY OWNER(PER DEED): Michaei G Preston, Revocable Trust Maiurv�a��RESS: 419 East Shore Dr. Clearwater Beach, FI. 33767 PHONE NUMBER: 7Z7 449 Z7Z9 EMai�: mpreston@frenchysoniine.com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: RObeC't8 KIaP MAILING ADDRESS: 28473 US 'I9N St@ 6O2 Ciearwater, FL. 33761 PHONE NUMBER: 727 799 542� EMai�: Roberta@KlarKlar.com a��RESS oF sua�ECr PROPERrY: 425 & 441 East Shore Dr. Clearwater Beach, FL 33767 PARCEL NUMBER(S): 0829'I5O2592�030�'I� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOtS � at1CI Z, Block C, Barbour-Morrow Subdivision, According to the plat there of, as recorded in plat book 23, page 45, of the Public records of Pinellas county, FL. PROPOSEO usE�s): Restaurant �ESCRiPriorv oF REQUEST: We are requesting a reduction of the required number of off street Specifically identify rne request parkind spaces to zero and to construct a 7,420 sq ft commerical dock as (include oll requested code flexibility,• amenl�/ t0 11@W CeSt8UP8f1t, construct new 3,290 sq ft public boardwalk for e.g., reduction in required number of parking spaces, height, setbacks, �or public use, a variance to increase width of dock from 75ft allowable to 79ft S�ze,iorW�drn,SPe��f��5e er�.�: proposed and a variance to increase lenqth of dock from 225 ft allowed to 300 ft proposed.Proposed new restaurant is 10,749 GSF. Planning 8�Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567; Fax:727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01/12 t ► o (� + Planning&Development Department } � ''a�at�er 'ble Develo ment A lication � V � Flexi p pp � Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: TOUI'ISt DIStI"ICt' FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: �RFH�R R@SOI't FBCIIItI@S HIgII EXISTING USE(currently existing on site): Apal�mentS �R-2� PROPOSED USE(new use,if any;plus existing,if to remain): ReStaUl'allt ��,�rj � %�,4� '�y��b`� � SITE AREA: �3,557 sq.ft. .32 acres GROSS FLOOR AREA(total square footage of all buildings): Existing: �2,882 sq.ft. Proposed: 10,749 sq.ft. Maximum Allowable: 13,557 sq.ft. GROSS FLOOR AREA(total square footage devoted to each use,if there will be multiple uses): First use: 10,749 sq.ft. Second use: sq.ft. Third use: sq.ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO(total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: •95 Proposed: � Maximum Allowable: � BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT(lst floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 5400 sq.ft. ( 40 %of site) Proposed: �8�9 sq.ft. ( � _ %of site) Maximum Permitted: 12879.15 sq.ft. ( 95 %of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA(green space within the parking lot and interior of site;not perimeter buffer): Existing: � sq.ft. ( � %of site) Proposed: � sq.ft. ( � %of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA(parking spaces,drive aisles,loading area): Existing: +/- 2000 Sq,{t, � 15 %of site) Proposed: � sq.ft. ( � %of site) Planning&Development Department,700 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tei:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 t • IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO(total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: 12, 741 Proposed: ��,103 Maximum Permitted: �Z,879.15 DENSITY(units,rooms or beds per acre): BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: 17 Existing: +/- 22' from grade Proposed: � Proposed: +/- 33' from BFE Maximum Permitted: n/a Maximum Permitted: 35' from BFE OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: 14 Proposed: �� Minimum Required: 15'� �Cp'Z... WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? S 2.5 million ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: rvorth: Tourist (RFH) _ soutn: Tourist (RFH) East: OUfIS _ west: Tourist (RFH) _ STATE OF FLORIDA,COUNTY OF PINELLAS �:¢ I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of representations made in this application are true and ��'��?,,� � �(.� .to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize r ,,( City representatives to visit and photograph the l�G��e�� I �-�� J who is personally known has property described in this application. produced �'�� fl�-� �`��%4-7�7-(YI--��/3-L as identification. <�''� , / �� r ---'� 'lr� c1� �.�: f , � ,, � � .� ;,{,� �� Signature of property owner or representative Notary public, �ryPUbNc,S1at�1F�3 Uty Comm.Expires My commission expires: No.DDe8eo59 Planning&Development Department,100 S.6Nyrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 07/12 � r o (` Planning&Development Department > et��at�r Flexible Develo ment A lication � l� p pp � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT(FLD)APPLICATION,ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: ❑ Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. ❑ If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S.§723.083,the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other si milar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on private and commercial docks. ❑ A site plan prepared by a professional architect,engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: ❑ Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. ❑ North arrow,scale,location map and date prepared. ❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases,if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. ❑ Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area,and the Base Flood Elevation(BFE)of the property,as applicable. ❑ location,footprint and size of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site. ❑ Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site,with proposed points of access. ❑ Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalls and any proposed utility easements. ❑ Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including calculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit. ❑ Location of solid waste collection facilities,required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. ❑ Location of off-street loading area,if required by Section 3-1406. ❑ All adjacent right(s)-of-way,with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. ❑ Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building separations. ❑ Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height and building materials. Planning&Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fa�c:727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 07/12 � j ❑ Typical floor plans,including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. ❑ Demolition plan. ❑ Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. ❑ If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% (excluding those standards where the difference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study will need to be provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved.Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. ❑ A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed,if any. ❑ A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff.Check with staff. ❑ A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: ■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour(directional trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting streets)and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day;or ■ Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unacceptable levels;or ■ The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided by the City of Clearwater Police Department;or ■ The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. ❑ A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use;or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: ❑ Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names. ❑ Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species,size and location,including drip line. ❑ Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and vehicular use areas. ❑ Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, inciuding but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. ❑ Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. ❑ Drainage and retention areas,including swales,side slopes and bottom elevations. ❑ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles,if any. Planning 8 Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 07/12 S � o } Planning&Development Department > l�a�al��r Flexible Development Application � � U General Applicability Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX(6)GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL,THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PERTHIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 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. �F, ��I�c:�kf�� i��itCr� ��rnrrr�t.- '�a9:r►rr.�nn�..tr� �2 ��-r�,;r�tr a�� P�tTv �T�PLI�c� i�k%IiC� S48Y�1TC�1- ��,i�F,1MME�T� ��oc�IL P�-1n t'�='��1�. 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. Srr x�;�� 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. l�� f't��l 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. < r� �� 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. � � �� 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts,on adjacent properties. Planning&Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fa�c:727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12 Y � o (� Planning&Development Department > � �ater Flexible Develo ment A lication � l� �a p pp � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(S)BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(S)IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW,IN DETAIL, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL(USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). �. G� �YC"t�-� Co`N�.�'�1��5�v�, ��n��l C�c�V�.�oar.�,v�� 'a�v� C��ec��, ��r-��n� an �P�p � �.-� ��re�nchu s `-111 �A�T SN�R-E U��vl r� — �.�e,�A�n v�r. 2. �.�c, ��lT� 3. �� .�� - 4. �rL ��v� 5. �� -��v� - 6. �� :�I��r� — �. � �+�v� s. �E� fi�'1�v�•• Planning&Development Department,700 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01H2 { � ` - �,,i--� ��C1��`�� ` ' ' � � ��r r� ,� ,::� _ Planning&Development Departmez�t � :: :::::::�, ��r > :� � �lexib�e Developmen�Application � _,.: ::::.: � Affid.avi� �o+ l�u�horize Agent/Represen�ative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed—PRiNT full names: _ �S�D f1� �\L� t°z.t� (,-��C.�C�L�, ��iP��r i � �v�e��L x�r r �1 — 2. That(I amfwe are}the owner(s}and record title holder(s)of the foliowing described�roperty: , � �� S �.��r 3, That this property constitutes the property for which a request for(describe request); \�� ` �� wmt � �� (ZJ��7 �i�� e� f°' �v��1o�J► a� � �{�,, ��,-� --��-- �� ° � s��'• i�u� 13� ��1� ' �2. -��'� �c.� r��t�. 4, That the undersigned(has/I�ave)appointed and(does/do)appoint: as�(his/their)agent(s��ecute an�y ptetiti/o�ns or other dacuments necessary to affect such petiCion; 5. That this afFidavit has been executed to induce the City of Ciearwater, Florida to consider and act on the a6ove described property; 6, That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property deseribed in this application; 7. That I/we),the ider ' ned authority,hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. � ` .Property Owner Property Owner Properfy Owner Property Owner S7'ATE OF FLORiDA,COUNTY OF PCNELLAS BEFORE ME 7HE UNDER5IGNED,AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY�HE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,ON THIS DAY OF I�'1-�/'�`` , �(�-- ,PERSONALLY APPEAREQ � � WHO HAVING BEEN F1RST DULY SWORN DEPOSEd Ai�D SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF TNE AFFIDAViT THAT HEISHE 51GNED, A6B`(R.LUKACS , =Q,�'�n MY COMMISSI0�1#ff1Q�692 � • % ptPIRES:JUL 05,2015 (�otary Public Signature : a+�'� @onded through 1st State I►�suranco 0� � ;3;;,,,; , Notary SeallStamp My Commission Expires: Pfanning&Development Department,9�0 S.MyrtEe Avenue,Clearwater,FL 3375fi,Tel:727-582-4567;Eax�evi ad20112 Page8of8 [ � FRENCHY'S 441 EAST SHORE DRIVE NARRATIVE 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. The 0.32 acre site is located within the Marina District of Beach by Design. The area is a mixed area containing motels, commercial, and restaurant uses. The subject parcel has an underlying land use of Resort Facilities High (RFH) which allows a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 and an impervious surface ratio of 0.95. Most existing uses have very high FAR and lot coverage ratios, including the subject property that has an existing ISR of 0.93. The proposed FAR of 0.80 and the ISR of 0.86 is not out of character for the area, and in harmony with the surrounding uses in scale,bulk, coverage and density. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The site has frontage along East Shore Drive to the west and Papaya Street right-of-way to the north. Adjacent lands to the west across East Shore Drive are already developed with commercial uses including Cocomo Construction office, Cooters restaurant, and motel rooms. Additional commercial uses operated by Frenchy's exist to the south. The vacant parcel to the north is proposed to be developed with a hotel, which will be complemented by the proposed Frenchy's restaurant, rather than hindered. In fact, Beach by Design encourages restaurant uses at the node of the East Shore/Papaya Street intersection. Therefore, the project will not hinder or discourage the appropriate use of adjacent lands. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The proposed restaurant development will provide eating/drinking opportunities in close proximity to major tourist destination, hotels, residential condominiums, etc. on Clearwater Beach. It should be a complementary use to people working in the area or residing in the area. Having no parking on-site or curb-cuts and providing a wide sidewalk will create a better pedestrian environment and enhance street activity on East Shore as well as the boardwalk, which in-turn should lead to increased safety in the area. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposed restaurant would generate 1,276 daily trips, 186 mid-day trips, and 112 trips during the PM peak hour per the ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition Land Use Code 932 (Sit- Page 1 of 6 � � Down Restaurant). A detailed traffic study was prepared that demonstrated reduced vehicle trip generation due to other modes of transportation. All traffic operations were determined to be operating at acceptable levels of service. The vehicular traffic will most likely be dispersed to areas containing public parking rather than converging on the site, given no on-site parking. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The community character is mixed-use and includes retail, motel, restaurant uses, and vacation rentals. The proposed restaurant containing 10,794 square feet is consistent with the immediate character of the area and is below the permitted intensity for a property with an RFH land use designation. The site is located in the Marina District of Beach by Design which encourages pedestrian and boater friendly destinations that include a mix of hotels, commercial restaurant and residential uses, as well as dock facilities. This project embodies each of these aspects of Beach by Design. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The buildings are situated with sufficient setbacks from adjoining uses to minimize visual, acoustic and olfactory impacts. The site is surrounded by other commercial and restaurant uses on the west and south, and a vacant site to the north which is proposed for a hotel. Hours of operation will be 11 AM— 11 PM. The main entrance is oriented toward the intersection of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street which will be open and inviting. A large portion of the seating area will be oriented toward the public boardwalk along Clearwater Harbor (east) furthering the interaction between the restaurant and walking/boating customers. The outdoor area will therefore be shielded from the existing Oasis motel immediately to the south. Page 2 of 6 � � COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT Project Criteria 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the intensity and development standards. The property is very small (0.32 acres) and it is impossible to provide on-site parking for this project. Placing parking underneath the building would create operational difficulties for the restaurant, would create pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at the driveway, and destroy the dining experience with e�aust fumes. Multiple parking studies have shown on-site parking is not necessary for retail or restaurant uses on Clearwater beach as these place "feed off of'the beach, hotels, and residences. 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. The site is presently occupied with two old motel buildings. Redevelopment is essential to provide more vibrant street life particularly in close proximity to the waterfront and the proposed boardwalk. Upon completion, the project will be valued at $2.5 million and will be an integral part of the mixed-use Marina District area envisioned in Beach by Design. The development of this site is consistent with the goals of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) land use category of the Comprehensive Plan (high density residential and resort, tourist facilities), and fosters the development types envisioned in Beach by Design. (i.e.: pedestrian friendly, boater friendly, dock facilities). In addition, the proposed dock facility will add to boater access on Clearwater Beach and add to the many reasons to visit the beach. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The redevelopment of the site will not impede development or redevelopment of surrounding property. All surrounding property is presently developed with motel, restaurant, retail, or vacation rental uses. The vacant site to the north is proposed to be developed with a hotel. This redevelopment would enhance the area by providing a destination restaurant along the boardwalk envisioned in Beach by Design. Additional "foot-traffic" along East Shore Drive will be beneficial to nearby retail uses possibly encouraging expansion and/or enhancement of these properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. Page 3 of 6 The development of the site as a restaurant is compatible with adjacent land uses. All surrounding property is presently developed with motel, retail, or restaurant uses. This is a complementary use to the nearby Frenchy's Seafood Company that is a working waterfront use. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or fleacible 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 spot land use or zoning designation; f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use a. The proposed restaurant use is permitted in the RFH land use category and is a permitted use per the Tourist (T) zoning district guidelines. It is a preferred use as discussed in Beach by Design. b. The proposed use would contribute to the local economy and create up to 50 jobs on a site that is currently underutilized. c. The proposed use is a re-development of a small motel. The redevelopment will provide a much more vibrant environment, create additional jobs, enhance the taxable value of the property, and enhance sales tax revenue. d.NA e. The area is characterized by existing mixed uses including motels, restaurants and retail commercial uses and a land use plan amendment ar rezoning are not necessary. f. The project involves a waterfront use. The ability to provide eating/drinking opportunities directly adjacent to the waterfront provides a unique experience, and an experience craved by many visitors to Clearwater Beach. It will enhance the already existing working waterfront at Frenchy's Seafood Company(working fish dock) Page 4 of 6 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height, and off-street parking are justi�ed 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: i. Changes in horizontal building planes ii. Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters,porticos, balconies, railings, awnings,etc. iii. Variety of materials and colors iv. Distinctive fenestration patterns v. Building stepbacks; and vi. Distinctive roof forms e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhances landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. a. The development of the restaurant will not impede the development of surrounding properties as they are already developed with uses allowed in the Tourist (T) zoning district. Many of these properties are already developed and the parcel to the north is proposed to be developed wit ha hotel. This would be a complementary use to the hotel. b. The proposed building is architecturally interesting and provides unique design features that open it up to the waterfront as well as the East Shore/ Papaya Street intersection. c. The design, scale and intensity are consistent with that already established within the Marina District. The proposed building height is consistent with the adjoining properties and the FAR and ISR are consistent with that allowed in the RFH land use category and the Tourist(T) district and the area as a whole. d. The proposed buildings are architecturally interesting and provide unique design features such as colorful fish motifs in the columns, railings and hanging fish art facing East Shore Drive. The design incorporates varying heights, an open air seating area on the waterfront, an open/inviting entrance at the corner, and a wide sidewalk to encourage pedestrian usage. Page 5 of 6 e. The development provides 10-foot building setbacks on the west and north sides adjacent to a wide sidewalk. Landscaped areas are appropriately placed on the west, south, and north sides. Page 6 of 6 � . E Frenchy's Restaurant Docks & Public Boardwalk Revised for CDB Request: 1. Construct a 7,420 sq ft commercial dock as amenity to new upland restaurant; 2. Construct a 4,635 sq ft public boardwalk over water for public use; 3. Variance to increase the width of the dock from 75 ft allowed to 79 ft proposed; and 4. Variance to increase the length of the dock from 225 ft allowed to 300 ft proposed. Written Submittal Repuiremenfs Responses to the Flexibility Criteria for the specific use being requested as set forth in the Zoning Districts in which the subject property is proposed Dock Criteria Section 3-601C.3 (a) through (h) a. Use and compatibilitv The proposed 7,420 sq ft commercial floating dock is for use by the new restaurant patrons. The applicant has demonstrated insurmountable success in the restaurant business on Clearwater Beach. The floating docks just to the south are already extremely busy with boaters who travel by boat to a restaurant destination and the new docks are expected to have the same level of use. Boaters traveling by boat to their restaurant destinations often remain on the Beach to shop and visit other places. Increasing boating access to the Beaches is exactly what the City of Clearwater envisioned in Beach by Design for the developments along East Shore Dr. Therefore, the proposed commercial dock is consistent with the vision of increasing waterfront and boating access to Clearwater Beach. The applicant is also proposing to construct a public boardwalk as part of the project. A public boardwalk is an amenity the City has placed great value in along the properties on East Shore Dr. The public boardwalk and will increase pedestrian traffic that will draw and unite visitors to existing and future East Shore Dr. developments. The public boardwalk will begin at the parcel just south of Papaya St. It will continue along the seawall for approximately 100 linear feet where it will extend out over water continuing south to connect and cross through the existing dock at the newly updated Oasis Motel and then connect to Frenchy's seafood docks. Future developments on East Shore Dr. will be able to connect to this boardwalk and continue south. The applicant owns all of the combined properties allowing him to build the boardwalk as part of his new restaurant and dock project. The applicant acknowledges and agrees to grant a public easement to the City of Clearwater along the entire length of the boardwalk. The applicant intends to build the new commercial dock and boardwalk at the same time and the timing will be dependent on obtaining all of the required government permits. The new commercial restaurant dock and the boardwalk will require permits from Pinellas County Water& Navigation, the Florida Department of �nvironmental Protection and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers before construction can begin. 1 , As regards the use and compatibility of the dock project, the use of docks in the immediate area are tied to their respective upland uses such that hotel docks are only used by hotel guests and residential docks are only used by unit owners. Likewise the proposed restaurant docks will only be used by restaurant patrons. As regards the existing docks in the immediate area, please see the attached Woods Consultinq Exhibit 1. This exhibit was created to show the length of the proposed docks in relation to the existing docks in the immediate area. The exhibit also shows docks that have been approved by the City of Clearwater but are not yet constructed. • Immediately to the north of the project site is Papaya St., a right of way (R.O.W.). There currently are no docks on this R.O.W. • The property immediately to the north of Papaya St. is 443 East Shore Dr. This property combined with 463 East Shore Dr. was approved by the City for a commercial dock that is 275 ft in length. The docks have not yet been constructed. • The property to the north of 463 East Shore Dr. is the East Shore Resort. The East Shore Resort recently built their docks that are approximately 250 ft in length. • At the north end of the exhibit are the Belle Harbour Condominiums that currently have docks that are approximately 332 ft in length as measured from the seawall. • The property to the south of the project site is the Oasis Motel. This dock is us�d as fishing pier and will remain for the hotel guests. The proposed public boardwalk will actually connect and pass through this dock. • To the south of the Oasis Motel is the seafood dock located at 419 East Shore Dr. that extends into Clearwater Harbor approximately 273 ft. The seafood dock provides transient mooring for restaurant patrons and permanent mooring for commercial fishing vessels. • The upland property to the south of the seafood docks is 411 East Shore Dr. The property is vacant but has an existing dock that is approximately 60 ft in length. The city approved a new commercial docking facility for docks that are 318 ft in length. The docks have not yet been constructed. • Other docks built within Clearwater Harbor include the Barefoot Bay commercial docks that extend 250 ft in length and the Island Way Yacht Club's commercial docks that extend 400 ft in length into the waterway. 2 . � b. Impacts on existina water recreation activities The proposed dock will not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently using the adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. The dock will not preclude the existing uses of the adjacent waterway. The proposed dock does not impede navigation or use of existing recreational areas. Although a length variance is being requested, the width of the waterway at this location is approximately 1,385 ft. The dock will extend only 22% of the width of the waterway which is less than 25%the width of the waterway—a criterion generally accepted for how far docks can extend into a waterway. The proposed docks are also 255 ft away from the west boundary of the nearest channel. See the attached Exhibit 1 that shows the project in relation to the width of waterway and Mandalay Channel. c. Impacts on naviqation. The dock as proposed will not have a detrimental impact on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation, recreational or other public conveniences.As noted above, please see the attached Exhibit 1 that shows the proposed dock in relation to Mandalay Channel. The proposed dock is approximately 255 ft from the edge of Mandalay Channel and the proposed dock only extends out into the waterway 22%the width of the waterway. This allows for more than 50% of the waterway to remain open for safe navigation. d. Impacts on marine environment. The site was surveyed for the presence of protected resources such as sea grass beds. Sheet 3 of the Woods Consulting dock plan drawings show where these sea grass beds are in relation to the dock project. The dock, as designed, will have minimal to no adverse impacts to the marine environment. The proposed docks are designed to not have boats traveling or mooring over sea grass beds. Additionally, the fixed dock approach is only 4 ft wide to minimize shading impacts to submerged resources. By moving the floating dock out past the sea grass beds, it also provides greater depths for boat mooring to ensure minimum water depths of 3 ft at mean low water. Boats mooring at the dock will have a minimum of 1 ft clearance between the deepest draft and the marine bottom at mean low water. Therefore boats do not rest on the marine bottom during low tides and do not cause prop scarring of sea grass beds or the marine bottom. The applicant is also proposing to install (1) "Florida Friendly Boating" sign for manatee awareness, (1) "Caution Manatee" sign and (1) "Caution Seagrass" sign to inform boaters of protected resources in the area. e. Impacts on water quality. All turning basin, boat mooring areas and any other area associated with use of the dock will have adequate circulation and existing water depths to ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest member of a vessel and the bottom at mean low water. The fixed dock approach, ramp and floating docks will not cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage, shoaling of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the area or limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in the area in which the dock is proposed. The mooring of short-term transient vessels at the facility is not expected to adversely 3 � , impact water quality. The new floating docks will be installed using pre-treated pilings that are vinyl-wrapped from the mud-line to 2 ft above the mean high water line to prevent leaching of copper, arsenic and/or chromium from the timber into the water. Also, there are no fueling, no marine service activities, no wash-racks, no commercial activities, etc. that would contribute to a water quality problem. The restaurant will also provide trash receptacles that will be emptied daily by staff. f. fmpacts on natural resources The dock will not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so as to be contrary to the public interest. The dock will not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative, terrestrial, or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species. As previously stated above, sea grass beds are avoided by moving the dock out away from the seawall. The fixed dock approach is only 4 ft wide to limit shading over sea grass and the dock is in deeper water where there is a minimum of 1 ft clearance between the deepest draft of a vessel and the marine bottom at mean low water. q. Impacts on wetlands habitat/uplands The dock will not have a material adverse affect upon the uplands surroundings. There are no upland wetlands, only surFace waters and submerged vegetation at the site. The docks are located to avoid the submerged resources. h. Dimensional standards. The dimensional standards for commercial docks are determined by the length of shoreline owned by the applicant. Setbacks for commercial docks shall be located so that the setback from any property line as extended into the water shall be a minimum of 10% of the applicant's waterfront property measured from the side property lines. The proposed dock meets the required side setbacks based on the shoreline of the new restaurant parcel being 100 ft. The side setbacks as proposed are 10 ft on either side. The width for commercial docks shall not exceed 75% of the applicant's waterFront property measured from the side property lines. The proposed dock is wider than allowed based on the shoreline of the new restaurant parcel being 100 ft. Based on a shoreline of 100 ft, the maximum width allowed is 75 ft which is not quite wide enough to use the interior mooring areas of the proposed dock. The goal in widening the dock was to be as wide as possible to gain more distance on the interior of the"U-shaped"dock but not extend beyond the required side setbacks. In doing so, the dock is 79 ft wide which is 79%the width of the shoreline—a 4%variance to what is allowed. The length for commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or seawall of the applicant's property more than 75% of the width of the applicant's property measured at the waterFront property line. The length of the proposed dock in this case is being calculated using the combined shoreline of the contiquous waterfront properties owned by the applicant, which is 4 Y L approximately 300 linear feet. The combined shoreline allows a dock length of 225 ft which is insufficient because of the sea grass beds that are present along the shoreline and must be avoided for docking. The presence of the sea grass beds and the need for adequate water depth has the docks pushed out from the seawall approximately 45 ft. The maximum additional length that can be requested with a variance is 50% of the maximum length allowed 50% of 225 #t is 112.5 additional feet. The applicant is not requesting the maximum length variance allowed per code but rather only an additional 75 ft for an overall dock length of 300 ft. The applicant acknowledges and agrees to the City of Clearwater placing deed restrictions on the properties used to achieve the 300 ft length with such deed restrictions limiting the use of those properties with regards to docks. In return for being able to use the combined shoreline in calculating the dock length, the applicant is building a public boardwalk along the combined shoreline even though the new restaurant, the Oasis Motel and the existing seafood company are not required to build a boardwalk. The boardwalk will improve waterfront pedestrian access and meets a vital goal of the City to have a continuous boardwalk along the East Shore devetopments of the Marina District. Written Submittal Requirements Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coveraqe, densitv and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposed commercial dock will be in character of the adjacent properties. The commercial dock will provide slips to restaurant patrons. The existing parcels along East Shore Drive are a mix of hotels, a seafood company and residential properties. The use of the existing docks in the immediate area are tied to their respective upland uses such that hotel docks can only be used by hotel guests, residential docks can only be used by the resident unit owners and the restaurant docks can only be used by the commercial fishing boats and the restaurant patrons. As the proposed commercial dock will be for use only by the restaurant guests, this use is consistent with the adjacent properties. The proposed commercial dock will be in harmony with the scale, bulk and coverage of the docks in the immediate area even with an increased length as requested. As proposed, the commercial dock is 300 ft in length which is similar in size to the docks in the immediate area that are already built or have been approved by the City but not yet built. The usable portion of the dock is approximately 250 ft long and attached to the seawall via a 45 ft fixed dock approach and a ramp. The docks are moved out and away from the seawall to avoid boaters using the area in close proximity to submerged resources, particularly the sea grass beds. In addition to moving the docks out away from the sea grass beds, the variance for length will allow the maximum number of wet slips providing the maximum use of the waterfront in this area of Clearwater that has been designated as a Marina District. 5 x , As regards the existing docks in the immediate area, please see the attached Woods Consulting Exhibit 1. This exhibit was created to show the proposed docks in relation to the existing docks in the immediate area as well as some docks that have been approved by the City of Clearwater but not yet constructed. As noted previously, • Immediately to the north of the project site is Papaya St., a right of way (R.O.W.). There currently are no docks on this R.O.W. • The.property immediately to the north of Papaya St. is 443 East Shore Dr. This property combined with 463 East Shore Dr. was approved by the City for a commercial dock that is 275 ft in length. The docks have not yet been constructed. • The property to the north of 463 East Shore Dr. is the East Shore Resort. The East Shore Resort recently built their docks that are approximately 250 ft in length. • At the north end of the exhibit are the Belle Harbour Condominiums that currently have docks that are approximately 332 ft in length as measured from the seawall. • The property to the south of the project site is the Oasis Motel. This dock is used as fishing pier and will remain for the hotel guests. The proposed public boardwalk will actually connect and pass through this dock. • To the south of the Oasis Motel is the seafood dock located at 419 East Shore Dr. that extends into Clearwater Harbor approximately 273 ft. The seafood dock provides transient mooring for restaurant patrons and permanent mooring for commercial fishing vessels. • The upland property to the south of the seafood docks is 411 East Shore Dr. The property is vacant but has an existing dock that is approximately 60 ft in length. The city approved a new commercial docking facility for docks that are 318 ft in length. The docks have not yet been constructed. • Other docks built within Clearwater Harbor include the Barefoot Bay commercial docks that extend 250 ft in length and the Isiand Way Yacht Club's commercial docks that extend 400 ft in length into the waterway. Therefore the use of the commercial dock will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the area as envisioned by Beach by Design and in size is �imilar to the existing docks or docks that have been approved but not yet constructed. 6 _ x , 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discouraqe the appropriate development and use of ad�acent land and buildinq or sianificantly impair the value thereof The proposed commercial dock will not hinder or discourage appropriate use and development of adjacent land or impair the value thereof. In fact, the docks witl significantly improve the value of the surrounding properties. The proposed commercial dock will not hinder or discourage development at adjacent properties as the proposed dock meets the required side setbacks. Although variances for length and width are being requested, the proposed length is consistent with several large existing and approved docks in Clearwater Harbor. The width is needed to provide the maximum maneuvering distance between the docks without crossing into setback areas. The proposed commercial dock will allow maximum use of the waterfront for this property and meets the vision of a Marina District for this area. Additionally, the proposed dock does not impede ingress or egress to the neighboring docks and does not impede navigation in Mandalay Channel. Much care and consideration was given to ensure the proposed dock would not impede use of the waterway in this area. 3. The proposed development will not adverselv affect the health or safety of persons residinq or workinq in the neiqhborhood of the proposed use The proposed commercial dock will be for the use by the patrons of the upland restaurant. A docking assistant will be available during peak hours to assist boaters using the dock. The restaurant will establish rules and regulations and such regulations often address appropriate behavior, enforcing proper use of boating equipment, enforcing proper use boating and navigation waterways, boater education and environmental education. 4. The proposed development is designed to avoid traffic conqestion. The proposed commercial dock will be for the use of the restaurant patrons and therefore no additional traffic will be created with the proposed dock. In fact, the ability for restaurant guests to arrive by boat actually decreases traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the communitv character of the immediate vicinitv of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed dock is consistent with the zoning, future land use and Beach by Design. The proposed dock is consistent with the size and scale of large docks that are located in the immediate area. The Clearwater Beach area is dependent on the waterfront developments to attract tourists and residents to the area. By having wet slips available to the restaurant guests, the proposed dock will improve the community character of the area. 7 . , , 6. The desi n of the ro osed dsvelo ment minimizes adverse effects inciudin visual acoustic and olfacto and hours of o eration im acts on the ad�acent ro erties. There will be no negative adverse effects visually as the docks will be constructed as either aluminum, wood or concrete floating docks fixed in place by wooden pilings. The construction materials and installation requirements will adhere to the Pinellas County dock construction code. There will be no negative adverse effects acoustically as this will operate only as a commercial dock for restaurant guests. There are no high/dry slips, no load out, no wash racks, no fueling facilities, etc. With so few wet slips, there, there is little noise expected to be generated. The hours of operation of the dock will be established by the restaurant management and will be enforced. There will be no adverse olfactory effects as there is no fixed sewage pumpout station or upland holding tanks proposed, trash receptacles will be emptied by employees daily to make sure there are no garbage odors, and there will be no fish cleaning stations onsite. 8 „ __. SCALE: 1"=3QOFT EXHIBIT 1 . EXISTING AND PROP�SED C�t��KS ,��. � �� ,. __ _ . � �� - ; r � ......-.-w.��.` �, ; ,��, ;. ,'E� P � '. � , �. s � � . n. , �:� ,'�'a �. 't �.�, � � � � .�r <, r� +�e ,� A �� ,+ � } fi � �t �` .r.�.�a,`��'�� , j �` l`'�� ,-_�_ . .� — �.' ► 6-�,� k'rt s ' i� �� r��.3� ��': a•'l�a� ^.�i� BE=LLE HARBOUR+ �� i'•` ,a, , �� ; , , . :� �•i x . v.' � a rt ... .�.. - , , ...� �, _-7�t � � � ,.!=�t m r 4 : ...��. ° °�.. . = ,� ; e _: 5. � !�.' �lm�-�.�'�.. 7 ^a "-� �”�� t � � s � �:� {� � ,z��.��.'�'J�4` °�' t-'�'�'"e" s .,r ��. 7 7 1" � s3, �:` �'�'r� x � .;`� �� 1 �,� '..�::- .w -_�.,�.�� ,��..' 1�U l�t'..� �" k .:r�t,��'v" , ,�.. � �� - � ��. � �'+w�.�, y f .,j8a�, � s.. � � a� �•`T'��'� -- k, _� �� - - - �- ��. ��= � >' ' � �: ,_-- ,��, t• ,' t� '7 �-.� {-. � 'x.. _ � +� �;�.• � � ��y_ �' ��-� .?4�� a�'�1,`�,((�- �- ! � �,ig.�.i"` 'P `� ° a+3 iz•',:/•r" � � .� � � y � i 1 s: A �S o i �. r� . ,.� l� �y �``t �+t ? ,. j„_ . i�yt 9 z . dz . � �:..' �� 'L �F.= �� ^ �� N ��f�.`,-��_ �_ .T_1� d a ��°;� *3a {'f0 °'��,ry`� �`` �^ t mC, . � ��,�, �_��.z� � �..��. ��,..�>�,.1��- �*J �n;� ,. F . .,, r : 473 EAST SHORE DR ,�` �_ ' ��'—` � ` � �. '� �' �7�. S �� Y`Ll �9 � �.! �t�� .� '� � 1 S� � � _.-.r�r �``. a ��"+�3 ry _, � o 'p� ^ ` . . . } a< � f��l�"y' J-,;�i ^" � .}' �'� a i i �;t r �� 6 �� i l` C ��` -��a�� wi ti. �.,�. ,Z� � �� g� ,�k y _ . r� ,. . . � �:��E ; F � �,,-f-,,. �� . ,�J � 443/463 EAST�SHOREOR a� s � . :� . . � ,� �-y,{ � y��4�'��„ � -r �'li � �'3�,,.,< :, ' � � L C{��1 3 „ '�.°` 3 1 t , tjC: j �_ a� , � t�ll� � � �' " � . � . � �:. � e��. �,3 � tc� � r �' '�` ,/ „�'� �� `"�l-"'� . • .t - • _ .' .� �' �"G 3i .�,.. ..._. �,?'°�,/' .� :'� cj°;� �"� . 425/4-0t EhST SF'ORE OR � l ' �+ �' ��. � � ___.� ..,. w � ei - � , • . ` . — - -- . . .,..�. .fi, �`=.e-�^, .. .. . �e'`.��`2"4�i'�"� ` �.9,1 . , .,�. �lt , Sj � ., �� "� Y7`°"`,•:,�aa�,....... „s.,.,. ....�.�,� -`-,:�...�.�.�.-:; . r,� �. \ . \`. � �,t', .. � ,.! � ��'.' �-.~� J S}... I i � �� .� ++f" ,,//�?� �� S �� 1�.�`�� :t'_ r.l' 1�3 <19 EAST SHORE DR .••...1's3..,,,�,�,j��"�`�^-�� M / ' � �r J- b �+� '�� a'`•. i � r� � �: � ..��, &s� ' i� _ ,r��' �� , F i� g�, '_ � {..,.�'" ,�i . i� . , � L i ��fA ��r�`'.� � f1 t �a. _ � ` I t�,{.� �P x �;� r �� ,, �P ,`t y�, � �, r=:x p,. ` � "(}p r P � �' ... �--,4�^^'� :. �f V r rp� % \ �*�'/. ..411EAST�SHORE �„��, �� I n� � _ � :5:�, --.-�.�i�3da� �.��f/ .;�. .. . �t'-�:t(' , � � �� .� ;� -t"`" ,�f }',.,t �.`3'i��•,� \•� ��,�.,�� n'-' �( ��.#� ��/',/ o °�t, s.,. y . � . ... . � Y�. *f� �l,�(j. � 5.�� Y.=' A .l4 �`�_ -�`t . . . . . � � �� '�!a" � �p.,- • � � r ��G� f . :� BAREFOOTBAY R,�,.-,�.,,.�. . ��i�+jr-�yT` ,�. �. r;;'. �wv� ��,F k '_��,a��E�� ' L a }� �1 � t �r s �.. -+ .- _ r � . � . ��r�� J� p a'' �f. ''�6 .. .y�` �49s.__.-;s`=i F�.tc..�.�,�.r.,.. . ._�..si _. `-��- . . l�,+� 7r A�1 ,"° .�-;. -..�� 4^�i�-,... ' °.,-"'�_ J r oR.DCi ' �_� ,_,�� y) f�l �� .�'�'�: � -� . �F � -.- �--r--�� ``�� '" `r-_—�`°°� �� ►., t I2! =`��k � Y �� 1 :. � ya..t- � a + �r ., , . r.. � BL f !. 1—._��rr �t � �� ,� t`y �A;� S7'{ - � • 'il '�`TM �_.. r ��.,..�.. ._. ��C'�. �` 7� .. � ♦. .a.+ d •. o _._ � �\`• t!. ,J;, � � «^'�. 3,�� "�.� .. ��._ �,��+ 4Ved,29 Jun 2011-10:16am F:WROJECTS1Frenchy's hiotel Docks(513-11)1CAD�FRENCHYS MRSTER REV 4 FINAL.drry PRESTON DOCKS I EXl�TlNG ANL� PRC�P�SEL� � �_ WOl3DS CONSULTING DOCKS IN RELATION T4 ,"4 `°"'m H°�'° ,.5°�� NAVIGATION AND WIDTH DUNEDA� FL 3i69'J FAX�27� 7E6-�74 ��. OF WATERWAY 4 , ~ STORMWATER NARRATIV� 441 East Shore Drive This project consists of two (2) parcels which total 0.51 acres, which includes the intracoastal water area. The storinwater design will be in compliance with the guidelines set forth from the City of Clearwater and The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). Stormwater runoff for the site will be captured, treated and released at less than the pre-development rate utilizing a concrete vault (at grade level under the elevated building foundation) along with a control structure that outfalls into the Clearwater HarUor. The subject site stormwater quality and rate of runoff will be improved over the current existing site drainage conditions in which stormwater runoff sheet flows in various directions from the property but eventually outfalls to Clearwater Harbor. The proposed drainage system will collect and convey stonnwater runoff to the vault storage area at the rear of the site and eventually discharge into Clearwater Harbor. -------__ ___ - �--_- ��: • " I i ,, ,,� ��'° �°; ' I �I � € �, i. x .. � � � �� E�.� � .�� "�R�...�� ; w � � .�r, _ _—_—_ _ - - ' �„ � � � � � � —� �� -° � - _ _ � � „�. �ff;�,�� . � �.� - _ � �� ! �;: � � � � :,�:. � � � � , ��'x" °�x "�"� f .. � ,��.�,, . � ��.�° ; �- . , , � �� , y��'� ,YI,��' l ;��ot �� '� � ,; � , ,� � �� L�. , g � � � �� '� � � � �' � .�,, � �. .� . . � � � � � � � � � Copyright.All righte re5erved-no part of thi5 document may be reproduced in any form wlthout permiseion or Klar and Klar Architecte,inc. klar and klar architect5 inc. date: 28473 u.5. 19 n. 5te. 602 clearwater, fl 33761 (727) 799-5420 fax (727) 799-9625 �,��,�� e-mail: info@klarklar.com project: drawing no.: klcsr ar�d klar �� architects inc. ° �� e� c � �� . PARKING NARR.ATIVE SUMMARY FOR FRENCHY'S 425 AND 441 EAST SHORE DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. JUNE 2012 PROJECT # 12-020 I.INTRODUCTION/ANALYSIS The project site is located on the corner of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street and currently contains two apartment buildings that were originally two motels. The site is proposed to be redeveloped as a restaurant, dock, and public boardwalk. The restaurant will contain 10,794 square feet of space. The hours of operation would be 11 AM — 11 PM, and employees would work in two shifts. The site is located in the Tourist (T) zoning district, and per Section 2-803 of the Community Development Code has a minimum parking requirement of 7-15 spaces per 1,000 square feet "GFA". According to the code the proposed development would be required 75 - 162 parking spaces. Due to unique circumstances on the property, the applicant is proposing no on-site spaces. There will be 14 spaces available solely for the proposed restaurant in a lot owned by I Michael "Frenchy" Preston next to the current Frenchy's Saltwater located at #419 Poinsettia Avenue. This lot is +/- 350' away from the proposed development. Also Frenchy's Seafood Company along the waterfront south of the site contains 8 spaces for use by this project. The proposed restaurant is a relocation of Frenchy's Saltwater. The current Frenchy's Saltwater will close once the new restaurant is opened, therefore there will not be a double requirement for parking for 2 separate restaurants. The applicant commits to reserving these spaces for Frenchy's parking. In addition there are 122 public parking spaces available on public lots #35, # 34, #63, and#43. However, an approved development on Lot #43 will result in the loss of 33 public parking spaces, therefore there are 89 spaces in these lots within 1,000 feet of the site. In addition, based on prior studies conducted by GCC there is on-street parking available, along Mandalay Avenue, Papaya Street, and Baymont Street that provide an additiona197 metered public spaces. City of Clearwater staff understands allowing the restaurant fa�ade and a new sidewalk to be the border of East Shore Drive would provide a benefit. This would provide a more desirable streetscape and walking experience, as opposed to a parking lot fronting East Shore Drive. City of Clearwater staff has recognized the proposed development on Clearwater Beach is in close proximity to municipal parking lots, on-street parking spaces, nearby hotels/motels and residential condominiums within walking distance, have a great potential for "walk-up" costumers. Staff also recognizes the available parking in nearby lots serves two functions, one to serve beachgoers, and two to provide parking for beach related business. Previous studies by GCC have revealed only 50% of the customers require a parking space at most beach businesses and restaurants. In addition, this proposed development will attract customers traveling by boat which provides a unique added dimension further reducing the need for automobile parking. This is currently the situation with the docks at Frenchy's Seafood Company serving customers at Frenchy's Saltwater, where approximately 30% of the customers arrive by boat. As a result, it is anticipated the customer parking requirement would by 20% of that required by code. The parking parameters are shown in Table l, and a Time of Day Matrix is shown in Table 2. Based on Table 2 the maximum parking demand would occur late afternoon (4-6 P1Vn on weekends with a total of 50 spaces being needed. Of these, 18 would be for employees, which will all be accommodated in other Frenchy's lots, therefore demand would be limited to customer parking of 32 vehicles. II.NEED FOR FLEXIBLITY The request for zero on-site parking is because the lot is so small that if we were to provide on- site parking there would be an impractical building footprint available far a restaurant. To make the project a viable business venture a minimum number of seats needed to be designed, this would force the kitchen to be on a second level. This becomes difficult for deliveries, seating, and food preparation. Furthermore, if parking were to occur on-site the only available street frontage is East Shore Drive which would create an unattractive farade. In order to cohesively work with the ideals of Beach by Design, to improve pedestrian friendly streets and create a lively street life ahnosphere, parking onsite cannot exist. Furthermore if onsite parking is placed on the proposed site underneath the building, the driveway entrances will negatively affect the pedestrian nature of the sidewalk, a connection that Beach by Design is 'i trying to improve for Clearwater Beach, and vehicle exhausts would affect the dining experience. III. CONCLUSION It is estimated that most of the customers to the proposed development will be walk-up traffic and boaters both taking advantage of the unique situation created by the site having direct access to the waterfront promenade and private dock. There are 186 public spaces available within 1,000 feet of the project, including the loss of 33 spaces on municipal lot #63. In addition, a wider view of Clearwater Beach shows there are an additional 764 publicly accessible spaces in the Hyatt Aqualea garage. Though technically beyond the 1,000 foot radius these spaces are within reasonable walking distance of the project, given the nature of Clearwater Beach. In addition, there will be 14 spaces provided by the owner's own parking lot at the existing Saltwater Cafe, and 8 spaces provided at Frenchy's Seafood Company. A customer demand of only 32 parking spaces can be satisfied by on-street spaces and available spaces within municipal lots on Clearwater Beach. TABLE 1 -FRENCHY'S#441 EAST SHORE -PARKING DEMAND PARAMETERS SPACES REQUIRED FUNCTION VARIABLE NUMBER PERSON/ROOM SPACES FRENCHY'S STAFF (SHIFT A- 11 AM to 5 PM) EMPLOYEES 12 80% USE CAR 10 FRENCHY'S STAFF SHIFT B-5 PM to 11 PM EMPLOYEES 10 80% USE CAR 8 FRENCHY'S CUSTOMERS CUSTOMERS 162 20% USE CAR 32 ASSUMPTIONS: EMPLOYEE PARKING IS LIMITED TO 80% OF EMPLOYEES USING A CAR BASED ON CLEARWATER EXPECTATIONS FRENCHY'S CUSTOMERS PARKING BASED ON CODE REQUIREMENT OF 15 SPACES/1000 SF FOR RESTAURANT ACTUAL EXPECTED USAGE ASSUMES 20% USE CAR AND NEED A PARKING SPACE ,_ , w TABLE 2- TIME OF DAY PARKING DEMAND SPACES NEEDED FRENCHY'S FRENCHY'S FRENCHY'S TOTAL TIME PERIOD SHIFT A SHIFT B CUSTOMERS DEMAND 12 MID-1 AM 0 1 AM-2AM 0 2AM -3AM 0 3AM-4AM 0 4AM-5AM 0 5AM-6AM 0 6AM-7AM 0 7AM-8AM 0 8AM-9AM 0 9AM- 10AM 0 10 AM- 11 AM 10 10 11 AM- 12 NOON 10 32 42 12 NOON - 1 PM 10 32 42 1 PM-2 PM 10 32 42 2PM -3PM 10 32 42 3PM-4PM 10 32 42 4PM-5PM 10 8 32 50 5PM-6PM 10 8 32 50 6PM -7PM 8 32 40 7 PM-8 PM 8 32 40 8PM-9PM 8 32 40 9PM- 10PM 8 32 40 10PM - 11 PM 8 32 40 11 PM - 12 MID 8 32 40 4 �J ; x. - � a, �.�, �� r . � � - �-� .� � � - — -��''�•� ` � � � __ ,._ _ _ � : �..I'.r/"'�i�'I►'��i�' - ...J��\ -�"�x� .� . � ��l `_— �. , � . :<�;�w n:. , — ,;.� �.,�I r .� �� .�.�d �� - �� i � r .� - �t�� _ : �,r , � _ -- , . �.. � ,�sy � _,r:.�:.. - ,_ �,: �: � � �. � , a� n ,I' � � , . __ -�� ...f._.-_.."'�.,., r °'. .r�'�_�. � � �- �.---�� t� �� _ � _ �� , =�— ---� �!'�� -.,�� - _ _ � �- � - ' .>-� > . :, i 1 �� ,,;,"�'��C�'� .,.-� .�� . .. �.� .,. _ ` , , s . :- � _ � � �� :4 � „ ,. :...�.��... .: . �1 R�.�-, -.,. 1� � �" � -� �,A _ �-� �'�• + '�j��. ° ." . /� �� '� �`��'"` _.��I�� \�, t1c�� . .: �Iw''�'�,.ic�-a��`��,\�-`_"1+:.. ,„ . � �i�'_.w � � , a ::� ' . . .... v.......,-_.�„ � �� . : � � . �., • .. � �7E.. _. �- . ' ....,. . —=��—��,`'fr��^-=�� llr_��7 `-,w � ��"�� ..�. �� - �j ��. �`. _ . _ ,.-... . __ i� � � �.�, .,.� j � _ .� _ l ��'� I '"..*: : � ��"i�� r �� YN.� ' *. _�'� �r�" � -- .. � ! � 4 �� - + I _..____� ,`� _� ,� --_ � ! - i?.-:`'�l':;:.��,. �- ..: .._ �s1�� _ • � _ �. '.�,'i' * �i 'r,� .I� r�� — .�:; �-.;, _ � .�; � � � � � I -... 1 l t �r- � �. i�+�►�� I�� I � � —�s_ ''a'-oe 4 ��i '� �� "�,� �,'�.!� ��+�1� '�j� � ✓�� y��..�1�1��6d � � � [ • `� � � �''� {� ""srx�� -��.`",° E T4 ��' ' �, •'�!� t i�"'�'� 1`� _'_ r. �_�'� ..,F � � _ � � . i , , � ,. � � ` r:- _ „r I �i► t. • . ' ,,._,. . � .� _ '�� '� ��` -`-..w� �� -� �,�. _....: � "� -��i % :� , � � v ... , , ��j m..m: '� � � �- � � � � u . �+��►��:�..,� :�: .� � � _ . � , �� I�� _��I �. l ..�. � i�� .� .. -^- -+_�1��.�'� ��`' _ � "� : .� - ;- � ..��h ,`"`�' ._ ;�y��. =,� � � � � � ± 1 -=�� --��--l—.� � . .=-� -- �I�� 1�1�� '�i ,, � . ; ; . .�. � �: 1� _ ,._ =� `� , - -�---_....� --`-'�---�'� —_.._ -- - - _ -__ -- . _ _ , �: : . , _,,,� _ �� --� . �i�� -�: ._� � � � a ! � i ►:."% .� �. � a : ? , A - . _.. i. _ _ .. .. , _ / _ i ��.,��7� _ �. �_" �--�_�� _.--r",�►� .,�,,-�„��'�� !�J ��'r'�1■� �c�._ '�y_�`'1�i`.:,11■ ��tt��"' , �' � -��€ r �1!►'�`�'%�"' � �:..: * ��., f ' r , �� :, , ,= .. � I ..4� , '^I�r„� ' 1 ' F• ' . � � , _V. .�`t�' . _. � . .5�^ .,.� •-_�F ._f_..-'__' y� y1,�h��e... a ._._.. I �� ` �;. � X�. , � ��. ��+ ��`.- �� .,� ti .�� 1��,�� . '�,i.�� " . „ ,� a�/ � �_..._. � ��^ �� C - � i��r� � I , ,- __ - a��. .. �. . . .�-, �� . .... .':: " ". _� . ��. :, ..... �� ` ► ,A w..T..�' tllf?"+� ._ � . � �'�' ��i° I �I a �� -.� .�y� � • . .,.. ` � Y�� 1 .b.. `:,r, � �!' � Y � _ � /� .. 1 �. � �r�. -- -^a7 L.� � �i� �. �� ,t� `��"�' . �--. � �yl r : � _ t� _ _ �',""'r' i� ►.,� �..�- "--,....��._ '�-:" �'` ;� '�..' m� �� s � � � - i .� ,ti — $ •' � r . , .. _ � r� � � �� , - M , , 1 - x 1 �� .,,.�� !, _ - a,.-.t ., : � . . � - �-''� La,n„ `'�' � , � ,� �.� _, . � �� — „��- �� _ � _.�-�"`. ��. � 1��i; �� -.�. , _ 'F- i' .y�� ' __ / ��• ,� ' - .*:?r.� - - _ _ � � 4Y�•-� �`�� I \ � I�� 4° �.�� ' a� ��,r /� � '`vn.�T�C",�� ...-:r� ��. ,�-��p�r�t k:,�r` . � ' / �, , . � � � / � �r , , , ' I � , , , , _ '., � • . ` • ... . .�,� ..��- �� . ��, --�� ».m -� ° � � E � �t � . , �„__ . � e � � . x � � � � � �.. � ��V , K , rt , � . � . ,� � !t� _ +�' �e � � �� ;� �. an_,s �� - �tr . � �� i � t � �� , . �''�a..�a. �' �v` � � �' � � '�i ,m,p'�-� " + +� ��, .�� .,�� ' � "�� .�`_ �� r �� "1q�: � r"�: �� """R'^ ��.� 11�� a ��. "rt`�: ��' �,� � �� ,� # "� ,�x, �� ., ��g �. � s� � �, � � "�r: � � �� .� � ��. t,�r .. � s,.. � ��q'- ' ,,� � � ,R x �� '��"'s :�'_.�"�--� �"ti�� '` �� r�. "`i "�,�.�"� ��`s � �"��" �r'�"'� � �'..;�'R<S,��'''�'i ,, �,�y�^ � ,��r �„r� �"'�t-`�-�"" � � �u. .t! 'i'" >aP ,..,,»„>_, ,�» , � . �`s,� + � ". A'� „}g �fy' ,. + k < - `y , f�o x, [..�` 4� �#��:�� , R� ..,�y Y �,,r�� '�`� .. _.... �� _ � � � � a� •, �� . ��i '�.: '"' t �� r �x. � �}�. � �. ' $ �� . �� .w .€ �E;.!. - ,�s � �-�j�� x 4� � �.:c��r � � .�. ,. ,^��:..�.�'.�«:: � � .a,"."" '�' ,,. . � .�� 7^`�, � �° , �, . � '" t„�`_.o....-.�.R....�, � �fx X'� {��'(f'� 4��"� r A�`R„Bw:S°"P�}�.:�: AlwyyyF °4� .,�� !'^ ..��$� �„` � �� •i� �� •�x # �` tc� t . �,•1y*r,�> 'l�° t � j� y�.� �. ��. ra .:� € . ��._: ;M1. �'" R �%t F'� � � �` � .+� i}i � ».+�.j ;;;� +v "' + _ . � � � . " � . �-.nr. �� .� � "` � i°.. � '� � �'� � � «. e. �. aF �,�� ,� �� .: ,fi�.*.^w. ,��"�� w ,� . � � ? ` , "._-a . `� .: � ' � —'�+�..,t . . �, z"�S � � '�`�y" �� 'q`� r ^� � �. (r� . ,. � <;.<a�-. .; , . + . p,,,.� , < a �- � 5 .3 m�+t�:.. f ... :h.,a..».�«,M..,�....,a-..�d a!k ks,.arb' � �ti ,.'f„"'wr��,r,,..+id'� .y �� A �„ q 5" �L � ._ 1 �1 f. �. ¢ �n'� . �s: °Yi ��` ¢ # ' �� .i�y�� +�i4'� ,� ,� 3� a� � �� . � . o- >, � ,� � � � '� �� "� �Y � � �t � �� ' +f �� ....."s '*�r,� �wr.. ..w� li�� ' 111� f � � g^ I� �"N' A1.. �-.� � ».i `'� «r'* �!+` a� � d, iV,�� i I ��,. -�'�,'�.'�", �4u.a .,...�.,,,",. _, . # a�� Q �!*#+E4w� .. � �j. ,� '�"� � �Vi��y` ,f. �i + �� .. . �«..:: � ` �� A �� ,�c � ,.��-� , �� '�� 'n"�ki�::,�.� e. �� .�. "�( . . , . , � , _ " _ .. ; .-. , . �'� , � � • � r �} . . �*� .�1�� 3', �A�b�. � � �� . . .. � 7. �z�r �s��111i ; �� it� � ..� �'"!� �,-„ " � !1�` �`.. �`. + �� z �.i..'�•,�el�-,"�s ' ° �.� � F �' '� ;�.� v � �e.x r+ "�� a �' , �� ' » '� %n `? �..�w .. �at N� ��r . � ` �'!�► 'a..�� ? � � ,�' � ' ` ,,,,, �.,� �-,,,r,�; � �_q . , , ' .. �- "E �,� �' � �" a'S-""',,. 4 7 { .. �: � LL�� . ..� r y'Y 'h� ,� '.,�.n4� .e S �y..�,. o- M, �pa E ,�. r :4 ;�YP� 1 �2�� , Mw� !M �,..� � .�*�" �$ a"� � � , "�, ��' �a�� "a �k� "«'� �e�w`�� : . :� ,w� �.. +Me.. -�;k . 7"" �..�., r � 1 .9 �. ' � '� '�� . �� - 4 � �; � �� ¢f r ��" �^� +.^+s«� . }�� "�r � .a ,� � � *+ '��, � p: t �s.�p� ��+b"�,. r.�i � ��V� . .� � � ,. ' � •�� _�� .�� r� -tti �- •_� � . . � `� ��; �' <� �;� `� � ..� �� . ' � � . , � �_ � • � � �,��,., '��''� �-'� `� i` xt�t €�" � 'r� i'E�r �� ! �.:��.� ` i� � t . � _:, .- <� " � � . ..n . , y�_ pf; �. �,.. " ,�.1�� ..� ''�i �:� �`«�',a�li$ g c o.>s t� °° . �.-: e�'^ '� , �� +s *tb ..K,..aq�g�°r � ��"y"�"*� 'a�+�"`��.��' , '�.J� ';. � " � ' �+k� �� b , �� , � `� :`� �� ..� `' � .w' -.. .r ��►�� x � n � �t =. .,� `, ,�, �... .- �. . _,�. - � �. . �-^�,.»,...+rw° � -. -•..W..«W.w'F �..�� >. . �,,.,--,.� t;�� ^ � ��, r �«.,.�...-..�.� � ' � � � � �� ` �a � t � ` � i� �� , *�r►.� "'" �° _� � .,y t w� .,,-v w�......».a . . '��`2,�r- ,.. �� ' ` � �" � � � +«t' � a� �' A4 ".�� ;'R emg� 'q �,�-�,rv.• y.,fr �e� �� r � �y r� �` � � �` � '�' ,e��` �� '"' ,�'��'� � `�� » �^ ��'`'� � , t �, , .- x �. � , z " , � ` :� � � � � r � F _ rk x � � � �� -z � . ��` � � �� - f �� ,��`,�� R� e� �� '�;�► �k`� '� ,�� '��° -0�� .eftt �`��:.'�� `.,� y�� °�� t� � +�,�.��.=�:f�Ot.� �';;�" t{�F �,.fi, �� c� �� ,� �,��s . - ��t�� r��' � �� +� " � :, �r - ; `� �� '��,;4"�� :� .e * i" °h�"-`°'�" �`� �� 't�� ,°� �,�.��;�.+� ,'� ' . . . �� * �, � .. `��*+�`��`r�.�*,�,�,��:.� � °�,�y� �, :�� t �r ��.�� 'n «t ��i�< i" �t " �_ ��.: � �..�.._ °.�� :� � �.,»�. �_ >��.�.�.. �� _,�. . ��[�� ,1�� ': 8 parking spaces avaifable at frenchys � � � seafc�od company �`�� '�� ' 14 parking spaces availabie at frenchys saltwafier project kocation t. . r „ .�s =s�<,, �S a ha � v`,- a } „ : ;�s� � wE+ zg+'""�� a '+@.�i;j � � ! cy�� ' � t '"C ,.��t +� �° .� '- � r.i �:`' .v,-`a"Y�� a- �,9 � � !� �� i �F� i � i. _ �t_ � �b v,- s, �" q s, 'i` I'�°, t �•�., �. F y x. s_ . ,t. i• & �;� �u : -"-, x .1 t ��.1 �� 1. RR. i1 ;,� .,y. ��` .� 1., � $� r'` # . -� `�� wi� _ �'' ,�,� ,� � � � fr -_� .:� i ��"'—� s ., � .r., �:, y a , .p �y _ : � , � : j � y!` � i �\ � ` t, 'F i _Tt M � 'r'�P � � : �. . "tt � IT . �"'�Yi4 �. , l�t} � 9 ,, -, .� . �[ . b�`� �:3r ��,t� ,� q';. . �. °'� y,,},tB L`� '�j � ----- ._-- —-- '----__,/ � �q� l f` f`F-�- .1 .y, �.��.t ,• �. 4 �' M �-y V ..'v Y ., r � � ��.", .i j p �T �S°'Y�..�.i� R'�{"a �k 1 �� w-'�7" ��. "�"` �4�.--n � �� ' �� ' }�y � r k ,, n I r�l � � . . � � t+ ,j��y��+"�'t'd1 ._tt � �.�� . .. � t � � �� i ti��R�,�j�s ��rra�i�yt�.��-p , i .. .. � , ( y r � }�� z '� �J��Ni . :1l rrr�.��J'� t �t,4; 171 ��,,.. N.� y� � f. g ��7i`v..S . . . ➢s r .7n , . . . �,i F 4 � �6I � '... � .'. ^m 1 3 qy, '`X1 � ii?� • � ~ c � �.: � n ' � F�,�"... i� �E `' e : �4 �� , � .. �� e� __ ,� �`�, � �. �.. � ;. �� 'L s �°�� r,> �,�'�i�r � 't��kt i �"� s r, ��r � ,b'�; � ��a`�+��''�°r �i��`��, 1'� s� $ . � � -r�1� � �. �d:`s.�?L� _�� : a . �� r+ � i,. � �� .. _ � r�� :, �.�'♦ ,„�.� '� I O . A . � # p�� ' �� '� f��f#r� �Y�-�'- �_� 'a^#� a � �A ,�•:� � ,P .��I�.�., ,r� .7�'�t�,k �c Ij� s R. k�. �c f %�✓'' �r i u7 +!i 1 ' � � A. : 1 � �.. 4� �� 4 ' f � � k .f� „��'� �� ' �� . 1. '�� i � � t i i� � � � � f :. , � � ; �� M� *; ,i� ';`�`:�a'"��. �t.a.F a� �, , � ` �, • � . � � � � .� f��1 �� ! �{ a �" �� i , � � , ti' . + �.. + y � �'.r 4� � +�� ..r `�" �'s�'3'�`', - �� ' a [.:. � � �� s S�. t,�Y""J .r;� r t�.., �� , s^., �'�� , rf,�i�r'' ��i;. .n ��.,g t. x �F^,',�r' I�+ .e.�:�,« }� ''[� �t ' ! x�Y .'� F .t,R' Y'� �:"�- r �� i �'r � ��Y� � � �'��'� ` ' � � .*'�, �„� �� ,. � ��- , a� �� ` >�: �.�. »�� ,,,�;�.��, � � � I :� '" 1 ai � ��'` �- �, k; �: � �� :-� °�p`� `,�' ,�� r� �,,,��c , �� 'r r'� ,: �1 � � � � , : .:. ' ; � � , y � . � -� �i�- ' , , 1:r"-_1;��. , i � .�� s a ty�F^ '� �'��A,.,�` � �. ; v. 1'�, �", �E*�T�'� �' :� i.. .., � �,' i �'fi... s�...�_ �� , �; 1 '. m � �t y��, `��`l 2�.• � ir ��' � *� '"` �� 1�`.t � � ,�_: t'9}$� , i_ � ��y � t i. : ;� � �� ." R �. ,�.... ;" � �� r. �nt. , �.�� . , . h - ��'+ '1'''� ❑� � '-q�#\�`: . �y�yv,'�s.� �,'�.",1 �. . ;'f R�,�i� r Oa.. � ��''� � ►n� � R,�, ��, « -" �`i �� l'.�"'_ ,� f _�___ e �(�� • y ,� .'�' j ^`�t'� ��.��' �� F 1� "'P:�r'4 + , ,� �;f �`'Ma' i*, y i .,$" / / � .� �. 1� y '{_ ,�� q' "„_k . .,_ i � . " �q i [� � � uu � h � � �� .}„ �L . 1� j3,ly(� I -..:,*`",c'; };�y"-fl��i�{ R+�� 1�! � r1'� � ! �'.�� t��R4', 6 i" 'j ,� r� i � .�:> �.: .... .,.� „ , ., . ��°r �a:'t a� t�u: ' .I� .. ��. r r+�j��,; �'* � �� *'�@'4 r�4d,u,. .,.,,^ . . � i - h V i�*�� r.�.�� 1"L�:� � � . : . P. P � �" lA� ° �.1 ' ..,� 7! tnt� _ �n?X� 1Vw ♦ w�'A }a.rll� �.Y '�'.�*f� � � � . 4 tr"1 . ;fi...� �` ., �'�---••_ � � B{"'6p+ ,� �`�� $k r j ,:_ � ' � S �. , Y`�:J f i�`�� +'��7� ` �', : � }' 4 � j L ' . �, � � �. ,t\ f }� F� t ` f,'�.�lew,.,,_,' �. ,� li.� t i .�A�� . �� i�� `�`*. ``�� "�'. t t�L�riH �7..x _ + "�.+.„M1 �.. .�.. � ��w . ,' �-n,._ T Y"� . :': .;:.`... � ......._, ,1• � >. �A g .:t �,. . 1 '•�,..:' :"a� ��V� j��,�� 1 K i .i� , .... . .�# �'^'�- �-.��. . . r--'�./' .. .�,, -.;�-,-�._,r.� '� Z:t .4\� �,-...;�,.�'`y, ,w. :-s. ,i a_ - �� t 4 Yifa�+ �z . "�-1 _,.Yq. . . , �. �.ca�� r � .,� :.y, i . T �{ � ..„ { �_:_ '+''�, t+ h y. h Y � �i� �.;,�p��,...oiL., � ,I ��h,i:.4 9l�.� ��/� , � e � a�f, � �tr� n.i�t,��: �,� � �� :r: '�0�,�.�] ,� t ' �/ t ..� ,�"��. �: ��:� ��'�.�C��' i},� !a `��ai 4 � ;3:F ...� k ��.� � �R,� �r�n.,: �'�'�+ �''�Y � � '�/-�„a.` � '• a �. � - �' z�. 1 1 .,�1. �.T t." � '��°*..�"- ,�RS �' •c,iF"�,.��x� },'�`�"�',,n� �4 � �i �:y . ' �4./ 1� C +'s �` n , �'� �t� � 1'� °«� �.. +s �' � '� t 1`:,�\, ��'��r"" "��, � � 7�' 'f �l, t�R'a.i ! .r�.�t'�' � �d � � p 1 � R -.s� � r..♦ � \ 5.z� `P'l. • j` t . �'q�y �I� 34v .�^.!'�'� . �'II�I[��"k� � ` 4� ��k �{�' S.. yti 1-"Y. ; 7� �`'�( �''�7�{ �� .-=.,q:r ',yw E ��.��.��"'"'r {�d�F1€6� �` <� � v �' '`•��'�'�.'`\g-.�.�"� �^b�" 4�� ♦:�.LT t,�`..;�F��7y f ta � x �d r��,.,�. . .' ;.�' r , �� ,"" -�` � ,J+i� $., � :;^ � �.� ��r�, �. p�!� . �� r �. .F .- `�" >'+��" . �"w'�' 4 'y,.+ \ � sM� � �i�` �3 .y; .IR� �..� . °��` � . ,.�: , s f � � � �'� �# "� �.� f ,, � nr �t� � , �� x �1�, � 'i� \ �S .+y,�t,\ '�j;kd- � h ( ' s W t r . ,Y s'. k �€.'A � ,:. ., ��'�1 . _ . - . �,�.��q ,� f� � � � �.s� � 'n' : i"' �'- �'�'�. �'°.. � �. �it r�� t� , �;w^�.F��'k,��1"?r�v ra` r� ,w n .'m.` +.a'1" �. — � � ' �a�,,�� ` � �..� ' � � � � va r Cmlf Coest Coneulting.Ina .�=a _ �� e��,m, � �&I�.AR ARCI�rtiL"��,��. PRI�:NC}IY'S 441 GAS7'SHORI:DR �x �,.�.a..,�.,.�� 1 " 2e�r'"9�e"'ax.eo2 AERIAL cham.nr.Ft ssrei �. . . nz»'iea�u�o — --— — i , ,� , _ _ . _ _ � r=w�� - � Sj .., . .....�, . . . . ,. _ °_ -___ -,�LrIY RatES "-T'� � _. .-. s� �;� _ c�r�o�� RoYn� '^�"� t��lly P,�t�s) I ST �OC1P56f ��.�.� ! � K'AY � !��5-s.�i�,t1 ��.�id�'�UR ��"ORT�I HEILWOOU �' � � f-T,��,s;=,�, � EttP6rCEm0rtt �� s � Not to Scale � `�; ��I �I lo�._.___ —� � m '��AftZtdF� i ��AVAL01 I � ¢ � � ~ ��R--°CP€9A +..�,� � " ST g a i a � m � °'� '�a�C.�ut�iv�y�lv,d� fi'�•75 ."�2.4�7 ACTIV'IFLE5 Ir�zrg�� . � WAY A �fRLY�'vCri-�¢7:1 C ST o � ��C�Q ��o�A '��.CyO - BAY E� a ..�`g A��e�ulF�ri�Y�6lv�. ($xL9,Q47j ��12.�t�} 7�m'iarn Ctased �� • �-'�� Spa��s ' \ I a jN. ��2�e�caG4�r(��6t��r 2�75 �Z.7� 7�°t-lasss Closed J � � 4�oA� �2�.�+!5j � �`-��` �i3 �1�F�t�t�Q��r, ��.AA �1,Z.5 5�rrt°12�m Cies�ed � � � �_�% ;;.a ��k"�r��EF��,v�. �i.C� �2.2� 3am-6pm �o � ROCKAWAY�.. I: a� .w'>,�1�F.;`-p " - C�'SdCC,�E? � ST � i i ��`".,, 3� ��7 h4�+��€a ��e KO �y �a.9� �2..�,� t3aRS-f�tt� Chzrge �'� ``� I;�a �IR�C la�� t� �.fiA �1.2� �ae�t-i.aez� CEased � 6AYA90NT/� � ��■ �'��fon-K�?��I) �t r�p �2.2� �ar.t-IQRr� �o � �, ��t�gp��, Charge� ti 3iaon-6pm � Z � F��6f ��(��r��r (M9on-Fri) �'�; MaRCO' � Q �';' �� Qc��tt�n�n�r ��.iY7 �1.25 � �a�rs-Espm fi�� a Spacas ',�1 �g�y,��O��d� (S�t 6p�id�a��s) Charge y I (5r��} v � PAPAYA sr :..... �,��: ��`�� l,� �2.25 8am-I(�pm �° 23 Space�s ��",� �g�� < I Charge 33 Space� " 43 ��r�� i.� #l.�s �am-6prn �a � 34�/i€��t�hor�@r. Charge r o;� ` 53'� 5d��.�9s�r�ffre �1.E�f1 �1.2� �aam_6�m rio `y Z, � �s.�.s�� a2.so, c��-g� Q � � � a3 an�'�re�t��rki�q f o (��5��$� �1.� 31.Y� � '�asie� i �� 41 Spaces y. � �;c�r�:�-'+f'��/J��¢st�rf,asd/.�¢ne�:a�r Er�rsess �;° �� CSN'Y r__ :..� :�Az. .._., ,_..._ `,'_ _'��nra�u 's I�ve. �`a � -� — 1 J �� . k,�.-: '`ly Y 3�1,`. � '� 139 SpaCQS " ��' � �� '*�� -�''��ss�'v�rocC¢asfie k�a�sc4ica� or � , U ,� c,rysa;+rad Spates — � �1.-�Ltl.'�.-ii�, ��s��,r,o� _ ;,,��r;"ts3:a��r�G3�i0CY'�0��;a�y� ■��1 � �/ 17 1 _ '�oe?�� . � I �,J`�� fyo�oaas��} � '� --- oevoH � 348�p�c�ss � 33` � ,j� DR 24 Sp�CES WiAR{Wl�l�1,�`TRVITF��r e-��'�@J�: � '°�— E)MLY (�a--: • �:-�) 0 Gagy��rBc � s p 0 �aa�n06c�e�c�a = r� s Cf��P�PIC@P➢� LO� ■� V � °e�°N __� �rova4e��r9ciroa� fi.m4-O�ae�a to�wPs96c � i IRD t ..__._I �rava4�P�r�can� �'s�r��-Opx�m�o PaaPsO6c � Q ; sr \� � �ve S4r�efi Par9cBn� lV 3 _ ' \ = �v�rseze if�6sies�P��@caw¢� /� , � _ o � ��- Private P�r�;c;-�, f24'-40'ooslY) Ii ;� z o Open to Pub{ec ��ral Parking Information V � o �727) 562-4704 � BRIGH71yq7ER oR„� Parking Syster� Hotline � Fl ST CL E,�R I�:�TE (727) 562-4�9� � � I � C.»L.,E. A..R W N T E H � F L D P 1 0 A � = BAYSIDE �R� lJ�ACH �AL' l� ,}!! � �� o .� � H,� RBOR " � '�� S ° Cle arwater �/�� Z24 �pAC9� ` cG �_"'�,..,�.w` V/ �'F� B� � � .,;-; , .;-- e��O �v� EMGIfV�E6tIf�G DEPARTMENT V ze�ww.my�`learzvater.com f. .� TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR FRENCHY'S RESTAUR.ANT 441 EAST SHORE DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: KLAR&KLAR, INC. PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. APRIL 2012 PROJECT# 12-020 . obert Pergoli ', �CP, PTP AICP #9023, PTP #133 . _ _ �' I. INTRODUCTION The 0.32 acre project site is located along the east side of East Shore Drive immediately south of Papaya Street and currently contains an 18 room motel. (See Figure 1). The site is proposed to be redeveloped as a restaurant project to contain 10,037 square feet. The redevelopment of the property is the subject of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopinent iil the Tourist "T" zoning district. This application requires an � assessment of the traffic impacts of development. Prior to completing this analysis a inethodology was established with.the City of Clearwater sta.ff. II. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The property has frontage on East Shore Drive and Papaya Street and both roadways which are two-lane local roads. Mandalay Avenue is a four-lane divided collector roadway between the roundabout and Baymont Street. Coronado Drive is four lanes between the roundabout and S. Gulfview Boulevard, and Causeway Boulevaxd is a four-lane divided arterial roadway. As agreed to by Clearwater staff, traffic counts that were conducted for the Hooters on Clearwater Beach project were used as a basis for this analysis. These intersection tuining movement counts were conducted between 11 AM- 2 PM and 4 - 6 PM on Friday May 20, 2011 at the following intersections: Causeway Boulevaxd/East Shore Drive Mandalay Avenue/Baymont Street Coronado Drive/S. Gulfview Boulevard In addition, supplemental intersection turning movement counts were conducted on Friday April 13, 2012 between 11 AM — 2 PM and 4-6 PM at the following locations: East Shore Drive/Papaya Street Poinsettia Avenue/Papaya Street All traffic counts were converted to annual average equivalents using FDOT seasonal adjustment factors. E�sting trafFc volumes axe shown in Figure 2. Existing intersections were analyzed using the HCS+ software. The HCS+ printouts are included in Appendix A. At the intersection of Causeway Boulevard / East Shore Drive the primary movements are eastbound-westbound, whereas the southbound approach (East Shore Drive) is stop controlled. The HCS+ analysis shows the southbound stop- controlled movements operate at LOS B during both the midday peak hour and the PM peak hour. 1 . - � � .. � . • . � � :�:• � ��; ' _ _ . : _, s�. : , _ ,. ;�, .,;��, - ., _ _ , ��,� � ; >: , -. , .,::, ,,,:. k.. .-�. , ,; . -,.. ,...:, " ' . .F , _ .. � .., ��:. ,.. � �' . . ._ �y. . ".. . :: �. �:, - y` " . � . �� 9 _ �._'" � ► � : ,�, .. �t, � � '�' �� '�'.�� , � -� c,} ��x.�„� . . ., a 4 Ya 4 i �;�T � �.� . � � F t �y K .j�s� • • � �}� � � yf �. ��. �' � :' `q"`�"� _ � • I � �: � t �tY�' S.. „��ti; � 7 �� P°... z{ (y�.� �a . - E � �,r'ti^+.ti� �n-GI' ��''` 4r , �..� � � �E �«, ��-- ��.�'i"� . �; �:� �� " - _ /� av i !�f€r tf��ix�. � .,,•y�v 6; . y _ _ ��7` _\. �-` Z� '�i I ' � '.: . � ��1 '� �j 4. �f � +�� .� �'�.' V �k�,• � • � �.��`��yqv.+. �;�; �ed'/ �, 4 � � +1. �� tii� �' � ,� } ��,.,��:� � .as� �.. �y , ..:p!,�.0 ��,+�. ��, i. � ,�i- '�'� :'°� • � ''� � ��. ��r}��} � . . � +Y �1 � .. SP�} � ' � ' � R'r � fi r i f�x � x � o.+� �,..r7��-. "f r'aoS' 't !r� ' . "'��.a�flr........_ _d .. � 'i�iP .. �4^.-' q .i��K ' �°4' F' ;M°'�":�_�__ �tl� ' } 1 ` - •�`�- �� p -- �a( ��'� �\". ��.� -e�"`.� —x,`L�d,. , -�::� V . .±e++ri:� �.�" ��]t � 4,' �, a S` �., ��;_�, �r ► . ..}. �•'',r: l� ' . . 'R .... �� ,a, J �_ � _ 7 �� m �� .U � ;�?"�� (� � �� I.`_ � "��-�:� ��—a}�', "�'z-f�' � ..__ . _ s�,, .. 9'� . . ,�r�-t Sr tY � � ';fi �; `��a �s � ��- _.c.-��F , �°*..� �. L.�;� �) _ .+s,.l, a �.! r .r, � � .w.tA bi�s.-?�e a � .. ��t.l '�. t Ri.} ., 4� _ ';��,s! �� s.; �F�s��-+� 0b` e d {�y .,� �- o�yir(� :�y�� ;�� r . � ' �al�h S �. '��t�y�y��. � � _��,_,Z., ��r�'� � .�� :�_ *i ��' Ep '�y�y. ti-�ya `� ��" � c�� ;t+�q's�� " � � '� k �<'e,�``+. � � , ,.��' � �'� � �F � ''"� f .�-�: � - „� �:� p �� .�. � t '� , �'i �,d, ;,_r � � �----...._. � ��! ,� ..�. .��,� ��'`' -� �''�?e.,:` �'�;!�Q�� i9�f-�S i � �> .�. }��,��:t4� `� � �,��`,�.—'�-....�,, `t � ,, �`� i fi - �� i�� .�i �d_� � �%',� l, r�„ "T t�r ,'Ld, ':.� `. �•�"��d.= � � . �► `R��' �3 ��' � � _ ��'� :{� � ��,�. �".l � -� ...�� < ^�`°"� ;��s�- t� r'P - a '~� ��'° j r . 's�+ . na. t' �1 ".i' .�{. �'`�1��.'�S �+Rtaa ��!�.s.-' {. i; .1 ..t� � r.��,,a. ' � 'y +�� ' �. '.� � G� -q � - - .#.s. l, � �.�r �"`� �, � ��r ,. � � �✓. �''t r''f r`--�r ��, �.v�f:'� � 'j � -�,; r � #�5 �' � -�.' ,�av � '� ' . . �' ..a.'�,"�4ir�',� �, ;�$- �,e��y,�t � � k.�,��,�-<; � li� - i�. %� .�11�� ;Y.,� ;t 5 't��:��. ��.` � �"��-�P'r�.; �� s�^� - �., sv : ��i!'� 1 �� la ?�.• � ,,±} �.,.1 Ik,�3cR��i i -��yf( e �`�x •>y`�"• ,y�,�C { �� . i � � j • ' �, � tF �� .� `F c#' .K:I •- ��.^4�^t�, " epl'i'��"c�•r"� ��; rs ;: � Mf . �II�1tJ � i Y l� , :.� .ur3`� J P:" � �j,._ ��` �V - y � 1� .'�,��.. i�. ': :i� ;.'�1�9!�1� f fl f S S K-i�.. J N�.,. � r�' ��'�' �� Y�'�'� ;�1 i � � R A ,. �� ,f.. �� I �'� � -�•� } a�:'��.�t � ��`"� ` ,`k.t��tq��p �}�� .� u _ � �' 1 `�F�.. it�y +�:- mi'' 1-. a'� -�` ��+1�,i� -��,4= -��`�,zti�'ri".5��? ?� • . _ -:i W'��SA-� . �.,,, ' ' �� _ y. � '��t $ ]-�i;; c .;ew�s �_ ..e n.�.� �i�i F � ' 4� .� � . s-4 P! _ � '#'^ti�- _ . ._ �� 4 i r � � _. __ � �� _.°i.ar� : . -..;,�;�y,�,�r ��:�'f�l :.�� . 'g. � �� iob4l�FdiY�9"r,i��'r I �, "y �,,,� � `^ � �' � • � ��,�E�'l:: ! � __ ..s�s''_ � ,— . _ -_ _ � , "._ ,�, .,��, ; � � _ �a� i . --- —� -- ------------------ -- --- t 1 � 4 � � ^N �cv� (179)108 � � � vv �—(5)12 � I � �(19)30 i BAYMONT ST ,z��,� � t r 3(8)-- � o� a' 49(41)� c��v � � � � � N N � i-. N v o � � rn �r� v in rn SAN MARCO ST � � �^u�� ;j (22)24 � �� -- (11)11 q � � 1 � �(12)9 � PAPAYA ST � ,� � t r � � � ,2c,o �IN v4 � 5�9�� Nl M 1 �I� � 8�7�� t � �n � d, N / W � O � � ��2�� A� � � N N � � � �o, � �_�p�p / SAPAYA � j � �(2)0 _ � � � � � � � 6�2, � q`l f (y o 1(6) —� �c�� 17(17) � � rn "' O � m � v �(i»)�3o (a�o) �o � � ---(753)748 878 CAUSEWAY N � BLVD � � w (870) (870) - � � 1106 1106 1 W �6k�,ti 6� �,�8�6 MARINA �o �o A ^ "' O N M] � O� 7 '� °' z �� p (XX) = MID-DAY PEAK HOUR ti 4 � � U XX = PM PEAK HOUR y� � 285(246)J � � ,�� 10(26)� 0 1O � � � � y � � o� �n "� � C7 � � PROJECT NO: EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME (2012) 12-020 DATE: FIGURE: k , ,.. Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. �'r� � ''� '��"�'''' LandDevelopmentConsulting 4�2012 li ,� '�` � �� t, ' DRAWN BY: MKC 1". t, 7 � Presently the signalized intersection at Ma�ldalay Avenue / Baymont Street operates at LOS A with average delay of 7.4 seconds per vehicle during the midday peak hour, and LOS A with average delay of 7,5 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak hour. Presently the signalized 'uitersection at Coronado Drive / S. Gulfview Boulevard Street operates at LOS A with average delay of 9.5 seconds per vehicle duxing the midday peak hour, and LOS A with average delay of 9.7 seconds per vehicle during the PM pea.k hour. At the East Shore Drive / papaya Street intersection all movements operate at LOS A with minimal delay in both the mid-day and PM peak hours. At the Papaya Street / Poinsettia Avenue intersection all movements operate at LOS A with minimal delay during both the mid-day and PM peak hours. Causevvay Boulevard is a four-lane divided arterial roadway and according to FDOT 2009 pLOS Handbook capacity tables has a LOS D capacity of 3,560 vehicles per hour. The segment of Manda.lay Avenue is a four-lane divided collector roadway with a LOS D capacity of 2,900 vehicles per hour, and Coronado Drive between the roundabout and S. Gulfview Boulevaxd is a four- lane d.ivided collector roadway with a LOS D capacity of 2,900 vehicles per hour, and Coronado Drive south of S. Gulfview Boulevard is three lanes with a capacity of 1,550 vehicles per hour. EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS - 2012 Roadwav Seement Midday�eak Middav LOS PM peak PM LOS Causeway Blvd 1740 vph LOS B 1984 vph LOS B Mandalay Ave. 813 vph LOS C 910 vph LOS C Coronado Dr. 1325 vph LOS C 1480 vph LOS C Coronado Dr(S.of Gulfview) 757 vph LOS C 929 vph LOS C East Shore(Cswy—Papaya) 199 vph LOS C 218 vph LOS C As shown above all roadway segments and intersections operate at LOS C or better during both the midday and PM peak hours. III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing traffic was adjusted by a 4% annual growth rate to the expected build-out year of 2013 to account for background traffic from other nearby redevelopment projects. In addition, expected traffic from the approved Hooters on Clearwater Beach development, traffic from the approved#400 East Shore Drive project, and traffic from the approved East Shore Hotel was added as background traffic. 2 r_. � �t F . Using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Tri� Generation 8�' Edition rates,the amount of new trips was calculated and estimates are shown below: TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Land Use ITE LUC Amount Dailv Mid-Dav PM Peak Sit-Down Restaurant 932 10,037 sf 1276 186(100/86) 112(66/46) Based on prior studies of businesses on Clearwater Beach a substantial amount of the customers are expected to be walk-ups from nearby hotels, the beach itself, and condominiums in the area. The data from previous studies indicates 38% of the customers of beach businesses are staying in nearby hotels or used another mode of transportation other than a car such as walking, bikulg, or Jolly.Trolley. The gross vehicle trip generation was reduced by 38%to account for this capture, and as a result it is estimated the actual vehicle trip generation would be 115 midday peak hour trips (62 entering / 53 exiting), and 69 PM peak hour trips (41 entering/28 exiting). The expected distribution of vehicular trips is as follows: 10%to/from the north 30%to/from the south 60%to/from the east PROJECT IMPACT CALCULATIONS (MIDDAY PEAK HOUR) Project Road S L�nent Lanes ProjectTrips Capacitv Percent Causeway Blvd. (Roundabout-Island way) 4LD 69 3560 1.94% Mandalay Ave. (Roundabout—Baymont) 4LD 11 2900 0.38% Coronado Drive(Roundabout—Gulfview) 4LD 35 2900 1.21% Coronado Drive(Hamden.—Gulfview) 2LD 35 1550 2•26% Background traffic and project traffic vehicu.lar traffic were added to determine total traffic for 2013 and the intersections and roadway segments were reanalyzed. The future traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3, and the HCS+ printouts are included in Appendix B. At the intersection of Causeway Boulevaxd / East Shore Drive the HCS+ analysis shows the southbound stop-controlled movements would continue to operate at LOS B during both the midday peak hour and the PM peak hour. Under future coilditions the signalized intersection at Mandalay Avenue / Baymont Street would operate at LOS A with average delay of 7.4 seconds per vehicle duru�g the midday peak hour, and LOS A with average delay of 7.5 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak hour. 3 r, � � N � ^� �ro d. (124)112 � � � �� —(5)12 � I �_ �(20)31 � BAYMONT ST � � tr,zc�>� 3(g)--- ��n v j � � � 51(44)� c:� �v O d. N `- � N N � � � m �l� �.1� � � 0 v N s�MARCO ST � ^�`� � (22)24 � �� f—(16)14 � j � � � �(60)34 Q y� SITE PAPAYA ST �MID-DAY 115(62/53) PM 69(41/28) � � � t r � Q' 12(10 � � 9��5)� u� �.v ,� 8��)� °� `° � F" � /.rn � � '� / � � N N O (0)O / °�v� ---(55)28 � / PAPAYA � � � ��Z�p � � ,� ST — � �' W is(is)� A� � � o 17(31)� cy °' 60� n �n r� 17(17)� �] M � � � w � o N � � �(236)218 (1071) -�� ' --(a35)ao9 1027 CAUSEWAY `l� `� v�N (,oss)_ (,oss>_ BLVD w `� `��1$ 1254 1254 �0 0 ` ,l � � 9�� MARINA � � Q tA N � N a' � N N `° � z �� D � (XX) = MID-DAY PEAK HOUR �j, XX = PM PEAK HOUR � 296(256)J � � ��y' 10(27)� o� � � � � �� t� PROJECT NO: FUTURE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME (2013) 12-020 DATE: FIGIJRE: � Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. ,�i' n� ,��i�'0'��"'"' Land Development Consulting 4�201 2 ��.. �� ., ;i DRAWN BY: MKC , � � r Under future conditions the signalized intersection at Coronado Drive / S. Gulfview Boulevard would operate at LOS A with average delay of 9.6 seconds per vehicle during the midday peak hour, and LOS A with average delay of 9.8 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak hour. At the East Shore Drive / Papaya Street intersection the northbound and southbound left turns would operate at LOS A, and the eastbound/westbound approaches would operate at LOS B. At the Poinsettia Avenue / Papaya Street intersection the northbound and southbound left turns would operate at LOS A, and the eastboundlwestbound approaches would operate at LOS B. FUTURE ROADWAY CONDITIONS - 2013 Roadway Seement Midda�eak Midda�LOS PM peak PM LO5 Causeway Blvd 2130 vph LOS B 2281 vph LOS B Mandalay Ave. 890 vph LOS C 974 vph LOS C Coronado Dr. 1535 vph LOS C 1645 vph LOS C Coronado Dr(S: of GuLfview) 945 vph LOS C 1062 vph LOS C East Shore(Cswy—Papaya) 322 vph LO5 C 306 vph LOS C As shown above all roadway segments and intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better during both the midday and PM pealc hours. IV. CONCLUSION This analysis was conducted in accordance with a specific methodology established with City of Clearwater staf£ This analysis demonstrates traffic operations at nearby intersections and. on adjacent roadways would continue at acceptable levels of service with the Frenchy's restaurant during both midday and PM peak hours. 4 Page 1 of 1 - < < _ ` , Robert Pergolizzi From: Robert Pergolizzi Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 9:45 AM To: 'Himanshu.Patni@MyClearwater.com' Subject: Frenchy's#441 East Shore Drive Himanshu -This is a followup from a phone call we had a few weeks ago confirming methodology for a traffic study for Frenchy's to be located at#441 East Shore Drive (near Papaya St). We wili be able to use trafFic counts from 2011 conducted for other projects. These are Causeway/East Shore, Mandalay/Baymont and Coronado/S. Gulfview. However ,we will be collecting intersection turning movement counts for Papaya/Poinsettia and Papaya/East Shoe to supplement our base data. To be consistent with the other counts we will collect data from 11 AM -2 PM and again at 4-6 PM on a Friday. I will include expected traffic from my previous studies as background trafFic. (ie: Nooter, Walgreens#400 East Shore, and East Shore Hotel}and will then add the project traffic from the proposed Frenchy's restaurant to caiculate total future traffic. A report will be prepared and submitted for review. Robert Pergolizzi, AICP, PTP Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605 Clearwater, Fl 33760 Phone: 727-524-1818 Fax: 727-524-6090 Cellphone: 727-644-2695 email: pergo@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com 4/12/2012 2010 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: ALL Catego=y: 1500 PINELLAS CODNTYWIDE • MOCF: 0.95 Week Dates SF PSCF 1 Ol/01/2010 - O1/02/2010 1.10 1_16 - 2 01/03/2010 - O1/09/2010 1.09 1.14 3 O1/10/2010 - O1/16/2010 1.08 1.13 4 01/17/2010 - O1/23/2010 1.06 1.11 5 O1/24/2010 - O1/30/2010 1.04 1.09 6 01/31/2010 - 02/06/2010 1.03 1.08 7 02/07/2010 - 02/13/2010 1.01 1.06 8 02/14/2010 - 02/20/2010 0.99 1.04 * 9 02/21/2010 - 02/27/2010 0.98 1.03 *10 02/28/2010 - 03/06/2010 0_96 1.01 *11 03/07/2010 - 03/13/2010 0_95 1.00 *12 03/14/2010 - 03/20/2010 0.94 0.99 *13 03/21/2010 - 03/27/2010 0.93 0.98 *14 03/28/2010 - 04/03/2010 0.93 0.98 *15 04/04/2010 - 04/10/2010 0.93 0.98 *16 04/11/2010 = 04/17/2010 0.93 ��0.91 *17 04/1B/2010 - 04/24/2010 0_94 0.99 *18 04/25/2010 - OS/Ol/2010 0_96 1.01 *19 OS/02/2010 - OS/OB/2010 0.97 1.02 *20 OS/09/2010 - OS/15/2010 0.98 1_03 *21 05/16/2010 - O5/22/2010 0.98 1_03 22 OS/23/2010 - O5/29/2010 0.99 1_04 23 O5/30/2010 - 06/OS/2010 0.99 1.04 24 06/06/2010 - 06/12/2010 0.99 1.04 25 06/13/2010 - 06/19/2010 0.99 1.04 26 06/20/2010 - 06/26/2010 1.00 1.05 , 27 D6/27/2010 - 07/03/2010 1.00 1_OS 26 07/04/2010 - 07/10/2010 1.00 1.05 29 07/11/2010 - 07/17/2010 1.01 1.06 30 07/18/2010 - 07/24/2010 1.01 1.06 31 07/25/2010 - 07/31/2010 1.01 1.06 . 32 OS/O1/2010 - 08/07/2010 1.02 1.07 33 OB/OB/2010 - 08/14/2010 1.02 1.07 34 OB/15/2010 - OB/21/2010 1.03 1_08 35 08/22/2010 - OS/28/2010 1.03 1.08 36 OS/29/2010 - 09/04/2010 1.04 1.09 37 09/O5/2010 - 09/11/2010 1.05 1.10 • 38. 09/12/2010 - 09/16/2010 1.05 1.10 39 09/19/2010 - 09/25/2010 1.05 1.10 40 09/26/2010 - 10/02/2010 1.04 1.09 41 10/03/2010 - 10/09/2010 1.03 1.08 42 10/10/2010 - 10/16/2010 1.03 1.08 43 10/17/2010 - 10/23/2010 1.04 1.09 44 10/24/2010 - 10/30/2010 1.04 1.09 45 10/31/2010 - 11/06/2010 1.05 1.10 46 11/07/2010 - 11/13/2010 1.06 1.11 47 11/14/2010 - 11/20/2010 1.07 1.12 48 11/21/2010 - 11/27/2010 1.07 1.12 49 11/28/2010 - 12/04/2010 1.08 1.13 50 12/O5/2010 - 12/11/2010 1.09 1.14 51 12/12/2010 - 12/18/2010 1.10 1.16 52 12/19/2010 - 12/25/2010 1_09 1.14 53 12/26/2010 - 12/31/2010 1.08 1.13 * Peak Season Page 1 of 2 � � � � � � Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peak Method for defermining peak hour:Total Entering Volume L�GA i[QE�: E 5hore Dr--Causeway Blvd C�C JC��: 10618702 G('�YISTAI'E: Clearwater Beach, FL E7ATE: 5l20/2011 za 0.72 121 peak-Eiour: 1:00�M--2:00 PM { 4 0.0 �.� 2a o o Peak 15-Min: 1:45 PM--2:00 PIl9 ��- t � a.o o.o o.o f► i 4 .i f 4 BDD (�0 ,¢ t �21 i.8g7 3.4 1+O.D � �� „ 1.7 f• 3.2 uP`..�S:�T 0.91 897�1 0.97 (+ 776 0.94 4.2 .p �'�"�i�� (. 3.5 s`��'�'''� 897�►0 "i� C 0�► 897 ��'-� h � � _ — 42 �i�.0 °i� ` � 0.0 A 42 h # �' � i � * � �4e[��9�'�' ��i� �� o.o � � 0 0.00 0 -r�ar;�.FC�a'.a;i�.��i :.r�,�,� �.�.�_.��srxa _�r�:�n_=s a.o a.o � 2e � �J .� � 4 � ,.;� 0 J ,s..{ t' 0 i�`� o `)• o ° �r �.^ [� a M�� ,,_ � �` . � � � a � 1` a � h 1' t' � � � o t— � o 0 0 � � � � � 4 !� � .� s a � � � � _..�M. : �' � ,� �� * �.. ;,« �� .. r z ` � � � r � �, � �► � � � R'=RTOR 15-Min Count E Shore Dr E Shore�r Causeway 61vd Causeway Bivd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (V1lestbound) To�� Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Tfiru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R" Totals 11:D0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 2 D 0 0 212 0 0 0 0 210 22 0 0 446 11:15 AM D 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 � 0 203 0 0 0 0 2'11 22 0 0 439 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 183 0 0 0 0 222 26 0 0 436 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 D 0 0 175 0 0 � 0 188 37 0 0 405 1726 12:00 PM 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2D6 0 0 � 0 2D5 23 0 0 436 1716 12:15 PM D 0' 0 0 0 0 D 6 0 0 0 199 0 0 0 0 2D6 31 � 0 446 1723 12:30 PM 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 7 D 0 0 169 0 0 0 D 223 33 0 D 432 1719 12 45 PM 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 D 195 0 0 0 0 210 27 D 0 438 1752 ' �1 DD:PM 0-: D D � �� a 0 r: Or� D � o ...p��' p"a �„'�;�D�2233��X''�Oti� :O r tq�A D �c p ��g��it� 26 0 0 -�y446f'��A1762d. l;�1 1+1� �.PM}' Y:D��, 0 . �-��D' �0�.�'H:i�,�f ? �� -t�� 9,% i��.�.�y �{0��(.�u�40�,t��2'�9il�7�iy�'OZyijfi�.�(^iL�'�r�3(rt; ��+',�i�1�9B�d� 4� ��, 0%� 0 A467�*,;1��IZ63,,�t.� ��titr7.30�'PAfl��. ��.,'0�}i 0 ,�:,0�� r0'�1'ii Dr.�'.;�0��+ Dx.'.�46��4,�'r�0'��4�:1);�lO�L��tf�DL� 2D9r{�,�n d�+xr�s:.0�ia��074=. kOr+'t,�96r�"� 2$,�s� 0 �f�,�r,'Q nd37,•�d%�7689� n4'_�Si,:, �.�':0,�,�a�."�.'0?6F�., D�T,`i�iiS@0' i.��'•01�+1A�:�S&'it„p'��p'.,�'51�:,'F?�fi0�ki'�U�C. ,0",.2�$..� D. •D , .:O ,r.0 0 ''lS1 . E3Nv5t51S�01?fF� `'0' �?469�.�§'6i$� • ?� � rs �.�`� � �!!, �� a � Peak 15-Min Pdorthbound Southbound Eastbound * Westbound * Total Flowrafes Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Tfiru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri ht U R Leit Thru Ri hf U R AIIVehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 964 � 0 D 0 764 1D4 0 0 1872 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 24 8 72 Pedestrians 0 12 0 0 �Z Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 � Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/25l2011 1D:23 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC{http:/lwww.qualifycounts.net) f e � � � t Type of peak hour 6eing reported: Intersection Peak Method for defermining peak hour:Tofal Entering Volume L€�CATPOEV: E Shore Dr--Causeway Blvd �G Jf?B�: 10618701 Gi�"Y/STA'FE: Clearwater Beach FL �ATE: 5/20l2011 a2 0.75 134 Peak-Hour:4:15 PM--5:�5 PM + * a.o o.o az a o Peak 15-fVEin:4:'15 PN[--4:30 F'NI �� t� � o.o o.o o.o +► Y 4 d � 4 813 t�0 � t, 134 f�e 905 2.5 �0.0 �' .yAi, !. 0.0(r 2.2 0.96 1140+ 0.95 (+ 771 �.96 �� 1.8 d� '�r�.;�.�(� 2.fi 1146+0 'L F ��l1140 1.6 .►0.0 'i� �`�:��"��I � t 0.0�k 1.8 � 'h �r r"' h. t- ty 0 0 0 �� "-� � o.o o.o a.o s a � ��:�I� . ��3+C1�t�� r � 0 0.00 0 -r,:�ra.��n-:�-iti�.a ;s;-Y ��ac�.��.��n: -E€��FF��_� a.o o.a � 3a � � o 0 0 � .� tr 4 0 S � t. � .ri�t Z `��. p s w �,�`� F: z :-:,`�• � d � � �' o � � � 4 � (� � p � � � o 0 o I I� � , I � J aA � 4 J a� i 4 ,� � !' � � �1to'y� � S� ' y. F 'k a.e + � �°„ e '�"` 'Y € 7. F '! �` f' `t + A � � � � R`=RTOR 15-Min Count E Shore Dr E Shore Dr Causeway Blvd Causeway Blvd Period (Northbound) (5outhbound) (Eastbound} (Vllesffiound) Total Hourly Beginning At !eft Thru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri ht U R" To4als 4 00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 D 0 0 266 0 0 0 D 182 29 D 0 489 "D rA r�0� 0 ' 33 `�Y� '� •U�tl D 9' , � -� '� b S' t s� , .�z �,'r "/„.:.� {�,ws,:7r� �+�0 'r,�°0`7R ix�po-` 4z��Yh�f"`s0��'r'",Y D�f��D 28� �ry�J� ,f��rt�0��,�y'0��96y�a'}�34?'�,�„� 0��D�� 5�8 ��"�,`��,, :, :yy1lp;�30�;Ph�I�Cf.�u.�3id/f:D �i, Oit^,�+,,Q�� .y,. +G:`f�t �i�.�ti��ik.ult.��u iPi.��s.�'}':F��.. .,��.�r. ra+�'yv``f�1.,✓5,� /'1. �'� �7 5.ta� ' k �' ��,2!"�d ",' } u'i';p� �i p; .; 0 51i� .p, i pu,t�u 0�",r p�1y/y 1��f�0��S�a D'k4{!1 0 f29b ,:i�+'(f�M�S�. ��5;0��O��r�20�H�d ki 29� z�D di�.��,531wn,�w2D�;, ��S 4�,45.hP„�J� .,�(. �tir s� �+��ti It i„r 7 i y, �� .� �+n, � �Y� � �J,�i �'' e- �' '�'' t..��:'ZA rr t� '�i��5.�dD:'$M� :�f±i0� , �r,,... 0 .. :"D..,� D.�c��..cn.s0�:xs"�u7a +.,ii'Dr.�:.,,..D'�;'�0��7�.,��,!�:D�.�S,il, �� .;.�4�..iD,.i177+1r,.,.35.'i 0. .,..:>0,.:,,,490:�k�:2DB7$, 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 11 0 0 � 275 D 0 0 D 214 27 0 0 527 2066 5:30 PM 0 D 0 0 0 0 D 16 0 0 0 268 0 0 0 0 196 33 0 0 515 2D63 5;45 PM 0 D 0 0 0 0 D 14 0 0 0 226 0 0 0 0 214 Z7 0 D 481 2013 ��'Cr•`91 =�C � ,�f.3� �--- �� IqCo Peak15-Min Northbound Southbound East6ound Westbound fotal Fiowrates LefE Thru Ri ht U R` Lett Thru Ri ht U R* LeR Thru Ri ht U R• lefE Thru Ri ht ll R* AlI Vehicles 0 D 0 D D 0 0 66 0 0 0 1192 0 0 0 0 786 144 0 0 2192 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 20 0 36 Pedestrians D 44 0 0 44 6icycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 1 0 0 2 0 3 Railroad Sto ed Buses Commenfs: Report generated on 5/25/2011 10:23 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLG(htfp://v�nnrw,qualitycounts.net) r f� c `� Type of peak hour being reported:Infersection Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total En4ering Volume L�CA'��t�: Mandalay Ave--Baymont St (�C J�B�: 10618704 GET�dl�E�tTE: Clearwater Beach FL �f�l"E: 5/20l2011 414 0.90 481 Peak-Hour: 12:45 PM--1:45 PM - .s.e a.s �3 363 a� ��k�5-Min: 1:15 PM--1:30 PM � * 23.1 5.5 2.fi ,x i- 4 .j i 4 0"0 N 7 � !, 123 fe 147 6.7 (�0.0 ,f �,�?,� '�. 2.4(• 2.7 �;' 4:R' .e�:.... �, o.7e a .► 0.94 f. 5 o.7s o.D + �='�4�� o.o ~,n� 57 •F 42 i i" 19�► 60 3.5 •R 4.8 i i' 5.3�F 1.7 h. f P• h 1' f �48 351 14 �`" 2,1 5.4 0.0 s # � . �LJ�'��'.�..'�' ��'£:i�� a t � 430�.95 413 �nAPd.��pCin7-iTlt;ir! ?3:tT� 5.3 4.B i=G:L4.i:Yt:�ld '_'��F'�I�'�i 0 1 0 I 51 I � I � 1 �J d i 4 �—• I� 0 � �� 2 s�i's 94 ,r� �� 61 I p ,} :..4r r�; �„ 0 � '-""sj,+ � � .C` � o 'Y, ' r o �, r r� � � � o 0 0 � � eo � II � �! � s �. !� �1 .� s 4 L� 1. � � •�. � l�st� �' � f' � T,r:• � ,�, �� Q„ rt j:'� �+ "" �'�,,,!''' � � F 'i u ` �`Y * P � h 4 P � � R"=RTOR 15-Min Count Mandalay Ave Mandalay Ave Baymont St Baymont 54 Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Tp�� Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* LefE Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Totals 11:D0 AM 9 89 6 1 1 7 77 4 0 0 2 2 6 0 12 3 D 15 1 5 24D 11:15 AM 5 73 10 0 0 9 76 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 6 1 19 0 6 217 11:30 AM 2 69 3 1 0 6 65 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 3 2 22 0 0 222 11:45 AM 8 79 3 0 1 7 72 2 � 0 2 0 7 0 10 4 3 23 0 1 222 0�1 12:00 PM 11 71 4 1 D 14 95 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 6 0 22 0 1 239 9�0 12 15 PM B 87 1 2 0 9 75 1 0 D 3 0 8 0 2 3 2 23 0 2 226 909 12 3�PM 6 93 7 1 0 7 71 3 D OM 1� 0 � 2 ` 0 1 }B 4 19 0 2 225 912 ju 12�5'P � i r 9 DO r,i 3 � ;�; i 0� t 15'{ 9�'i' 2" ' s D7 y-inrly, ��3�4 �.`��s��ss`y N0�9�s1 U�:4lL �{��3�,akvh2��ij,27t 1�0!�fx,�5' 42'�„�t��P96?�''' � 1 i oo..�PM�{4 �,1�OLr�7B,:?,+. 4 � 2! � 0 ;i� 4� t96�r° 4 9t'�,�'tt�/0'ti �'�3k,'�r r'3�.�3��s"^�ni�i0'�7�rbW3� '(x' 4�1..�1a t 23i 0 }r 2 248�' ��971j� r 15 93'�+`."r�3'�Ski �::"�3 `0 B �64'�' 3 D 0 6 ` B. 3 +n+ tl �'t e�2.3'v� ti"�fl 9 : a�� 4 i a f r i il��w., �t t 1 �.�G dy$, �� d' .1':3D",P.M�t :i$ . B0.'i;1�4�.;. .3: P.0„ .{1D .;�BB:�.�. 3.,..,. �.. ..�.0.?�i.0,.f ,1. . '�<�l;:..�D, t!�`�r `,�",4:w: 1r,�.r25r,.!. �..�:'D° 1,236:�� T,103.1..' 1:45 PM 4 81 8 0 0 10 104 1 0 1 3 1 3 0 B 10 3 2B 0 0 265 1024 t 3 352- 3� �� = o,S-� �� t�. -� � .��sp �-�---� 4—S �� 14 �� 3`�t? (�r Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound EasEbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Ri fit U R* Le� Thru Ri h4 U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R• All Vehicles 60 372 12 4 0 36 336 12 0 0 4 16 24 0 16 32 4 148 0 16 1522 Heavy Trucks 0 24 0 0 2D 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 368 Pedestrians 1s2 64 �o� �2 Bicycles 0 D 0 0 1 0 0 2 � 0 0 0 3 Railroad Sfo ed Buses Commenfs: Report generated on 5/25I2011 10:23 AM SOURCE:Quafity Counts,LLC(http://www.qualifycounts.net) c . � i Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour:Tofal Entering Volume LQC�T{Qt�: Mandalay Ave--Baymont St �C JQ��: 10618703 GfTYtST�,TE: Clearwater Beach, FL Rfa i E: 5/20/2011 512 0.92 469 Peak-Hour:4:30 PM--5:30 PEUI � z.5 z.s I�' � t Peak 15-MIn:4:45 PM--5:00 PM �- * 16 453 43 D.0 2.6 2.3 J �J i tr J ef � �r 66 E�12 .? t 111 �.154 0.0 k 8.3 ,� ,��,,;: k 3.6 1• 3.9 ,e;b'��w�:,,,. 0.65 3 �4 0.91 (� 12 0.95 0.0 �! ``-.`�,�'4 f. a.0 `�i,<uF�'k�!' 65 �b 50 Z 1' 31�} 60 g,� ,+.Z,p '7, `�� F 6.5�! 1.7 "1 4� f� '�t t` 6� �43 346 14 p. '�°" 0.0 2.0 0.� i 4 � ��:19��:�#6�'� � � t � -r,.^,r•�=�'�r�..�=I u-: :;,-.;la 539 4�92 403 _ 2.8 1.7 i�C:J!L�CT!G?d `_,el�'iK.:°� p 0 1 I 33 I � I � � el C 41�� —�a ,�.� !..— 1 r'�-`+ D � ,7�,_ ` �72� d ��y e �i� � "� 54 d 0 � �,.. � 0 d9� �..,•.�r f 9cT' � � � 0 � S+ 0 �� h �' f � I � � o 0 0 � � �12 I I �► J �t �4 4� �1 .� i 4 � �r r �° �, � '� �s,i�s � �5* -1 � '�6` �. �� « * „� � a �F �zw' � F 7 , � � 4t 1` [� � �'t * A � R`=RTOR 15-Min Count Mandatay Ave Mandalay Ave Baymont St Baymont St Period (Northbound) (5outhbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) To�� Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Ri ht U R* LesE Thru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Totals 4 DO PM 11 69 4 2 0 12 99 2 0 3 4 0 11 0 4 6 1 27 D 0 255 4 15 PM 9 71 6 2 0 15 1D3 4 0 0 0 2 7 0 1 7 5 32 � 0 264 ;�r ?y�� B�_:d3 " D r r 07�..stiw"10�`IOS�%t�` B �4r''�D�r.� .0�`�zi.�.��t�lkan1:v,a�^�h.�6�?w,�:O� vr:U,�.��`J'�iqt�.g�C�mpe lr.Y•?,:1ir-�"'�b',(ns�e�W,�k31i':. h 439PI1��E� % � � 'y '5�, TckkS1�.'��'�`63 3 ck�'�3m.'e" 07�t� r ro �n�144'GA `aa"��t,.r'�'3. t��7°,�'�xyr��4�vr,�g'y'D ql�l�3+ s4X''W6��.�7�'3�."�`30J-?C'r`0 3�`4 3t ��'265%va{12�qi, ��w5 OD PN i a'10k��y'79t 'i�3/� i;1 .r �t �(iEB,tisn129�`��,Lrv�'i'?��w�'Ea�� T ��"imv�r `f�{ES°1'��f6`ero.yy�;�4�in'�r3�}�i.'1O,bih1F7°.i1,Y�.�19,f�'� .0...,.,,:Oti ��7v i'"n1'13�+?;. �rh�6.;'15;P M',_ �.'`t:�'. '.1 DO.�.,'�.5 7,i ,1�;�_,.��D tt :,f::7 3�fi 1.05'�St�k..4.,.:,_,'�,.0,M"��'0.),,�,,,,.2�i..,a...0,t..�,.'�C.9�, .._�0,.{..'�� 5:30 PM 10 77 6 2 1 1D 93 2 0 0 1 B 12 0 5 7 2 21 0 0 257 1130 5:45 PM 10 67 2 0 0 4 95 2 0 0 � 2 6 0 2 7 1 18 0 1 237 1056 �j r�� ,�1,"� I� 43�1 �2 � �k' �e l Z "'� ^�--�a� 3 � �-- �z �k� -°`� �— :a � `� �' �� Peak 15-Min Northbound Sou4hbound East6ound Westbound Total FlowraEes LefE Thru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri hf U R" LeR Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru fti ht U R* All Vehicles 72 332 12 12 0 48 456 4 0 4 20 0 40 0 52 48 10 114 D 4 14g Heavy Trucks 0 2� 0 0 16 0 32g Pedestrians 84 52 136 56 8icycles D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Sto ed Buses Commenfs: Report generated on 5/25/2011 10:23 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http:/(www.qualitycounts.net) � � � . � , Type of peak hour being reported:fnfersection Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Enfering Volume LQ�GA,T[f�[�: Coronado Dr--S Gulfview Blvd �C.ff�g�: 10618706 G[TYfST�,T�: Clearwater Beach, FL �A�'E: 5l20/2011 663 0.93 7D3 Peak-Hour: �`�:'15 PM--1:15 PM 3.5 4.8 �; t I Peak 16-Min: 12:'[5 PM--12:30 PM �� f � aso sos o � z,s a.a o.o ,t �: 4 �- .f i 4 36� i�254� '� 0 4° 0 2.5 M 5.9 f .;� '� 0.0(� 0.0 a.s2 0 � o.s7 s� o o.00 o.o ,� ��. o.o y�Y�a 281 �27 ? t ��► 0 6.� *7.4 "'3� �' t 0.0� 0.0 "i 4 (� ` 't ti r� � 1 449 0 �� 0.0 4.2 0.0 s t � ��9�'�' ��9:�.w'� � �, r � 331 �.93 450 -fAt°d�f�:DR'�,T1c3i�1 ,1=�.'�`A 4.8 4.2 i:O!.!_�.'C i�J?s= �E�i'`�I.C:;S I 0 1 0 I 0 � �__ .f i 4 �- 0 .� ° � -�t x'�5�i,� 4 i O . 0 +► � r Fe 0 �`��'� ' � J � 11 � � � o -� r o � � � � � � o � o I � 45 1 I I � � J at fr t► J � � � � � �� rT � ,r::8'.��4"Rr.� . ; �'�' �r # _ 4� -� ��4 r �` M s ` �t � r � �h 1� c* � � I R*=RTOR 15-Min Count Coronado dr Coronado�r S Gulfview Bivd S Gulfview Bivd Period (Northbound) {Southbound) (Eastbound) (Vlfestbound) jofa� Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Ri ht U R' LefE Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R" Totais 11:D0 AM 0 119 0 0 D 0 B5 77 0 0 72 0 3 D 2 0 D 0 0 0 356 11:15 AM 0 112 0 D 0 0 74 98 0 0 53 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 339 11:30 AM 0 101 0 0 0 0 BB 87 0 D 62 D 4 � 0 D D 0 0 � 342 11:45 AM 0 94 0 0 0 0 56 92 0 0 49 0 4 D 1 0 0 0 0 0 2B8 1337 12:D0 PM D 110 0 D 0 0 78 66 0 0 48 0 4 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 3D8 1267 'r 5 Nl '�. +2d4 ��s°r�'CS� 1�x� tl� ��D S � 9 �0 � � �5 $'°`D �`� � �.3�9� SSD9 a. - ,.-�-., ,.r,yu,.,�x. .1..�� .�..�n.. i. �� g;�,�r�a�trr�1,�-�k.;.hf. . �u.ti_'�✓ytityv..,i�..,s �,'��,°:Oy.7�7E9�.,,.3'yYJ"""`4'4'0 r'�"y�.0�7�;D�'��y.;,�i�')!(/',Oq,r{�r�;�'�c±iu0�4`�'�32��1��u��.29��5!: j"S"�230:P�a��..,:7 Da,��799'.i'/ � ' A f}j � �i�u�Yh�s4;i�i,av 9��i'��,t t��-0 i,+,e�1t�ti0Jr�.� ��.'X�p�i,�.i�z,� � t�yi �f�� ...�.��,fr��! � �fi�v�; �"�35'�"�, r 3� {��° �n �kw �� r /! 3 ��i�i S,r � Rt aW no" 4re � '��T5°�r�rt�4lA��9 r:+��D �� 2��'d Ot u ?0 � � Ok (� �w" 12 45,PM 9 0', '�13�, ;; 0� �,�': 0 i`i 0��ti 79li 4 83 d l �.��r� �t ��'�t N� i�� ,i ��r #r� �' ��r�tit {�c � �,,' !° q� µ`7h' fi i _..T.00'.;PMl., :; 0'. ..'11Z ,, p 0'�•. ,D... :D k.tu.76�^: 69�i,.::.;.0...f.,:0,.'A78,..e1.,;0°:.,.:�6,.. 0.-.�tb......0:: .:0.. . Oit' O,.i.,�.:Or ,r358:��,,c139.4±.; 1:15 PM 0 1D6 D 0 D 0 75 64 0 0 72 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 340 1375 1:30 PM D 107 0 D 0 0 77 76 0 0 65 0 1 � 0 0 0 0 D 0 326 1375 1;45 PM 0 117 0 0 0 0 71 83 D D 74 0 6 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 351 1375 �y�� C-�"'`� ?�� '.�,'�1 �� M.�� f Ca�11 � !{ 1 ° 43� Peak 75-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound ToEal Ffowra4es Left Thru Ri ht U R* Leff Thru Ri ht U R* LefE Thru Ri ht U R* L2ft Thru Ri ht U R* AlI Vehicles 0 460 0 4 0 0 328 368 0 0 206 0 24 0 4 O 0 0 � � �4B6 Heavy Trucks 0 12 0 0 16 B 8 � 4 � 64 pedestrians 60 0 4 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/25/2011 10:23 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(hftp://www.qualitycounts.net) f � � s . r Type of peak hour being reported:Infersectian Peak Method for defermining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LC?C�T�f3�f: Coronado Dr--S Gulfview Blvd �C J��: 10618705 GiTy1STATE: Clearwater Beach, FL �ATE: 5/20/2011 652 0.93 857 Peak-Fiour:4:00 PM--5:00 PM z.e �.e � ; � � Peak'15-Min:4:00 PM--4:95 PNi �� 4 � 265 367 0 32 2.5 0.0 .J f 4 .� f 4 285 i�294.t i 0�' D 3.2 6�2.4 � ��;,,� 't 0.0 4 D.0 O,B5 0 �► 0.93 F 0 O.D� "��,M�� 0.0 �! ��4� �.0 �I`�t;,i..�ii� 3D4 d 90 'i�� * �� 0"1 � 2.6 �i 1�.0� '-'�� OA�# 0.0 �4 1' f � { 563 * � , _ " _ �* 1.4 # � ��:�s�� 377 0.93 563 r W ri��r�ir�-��;h:.+:.,� .l;;n. i�i7L.l�i.i:�:?>: :�Et�.,11r,�.i 2.7 1.4 � o � � z � o � e1 i �. �� F�k � 0 ry, ,,,�,4+�5��\l'� O � � �,� � � n1 �p�r��,� � e� � 1 1 � 0 "3�h �4r �C 0 29 � � 0 9 0 � � � I �J i �. !� � J � i �. � � T T � � -� � � -� ;;��;�i,. � � �. � �` .► :_��,�,.� z r � r � * �► � � �` � � � � `=R OR R T 15-Min Count Coronado Dr Coronado Dr 5 Gulfview Blvd S Gulfview Bivd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Totals D.: 11"°t�1b"9 �^D TA $. 0� SLl ' s � x �r 7j-�'� .It'i�c-.�"' �.t S ; ,� . .,}�< �� . , i+a a` It , a rr0.Y.,°z��r£90�`�f7'�vr��5':pii`r��,0"Y�9e78�,��/ Y�`�D`�' �3''"V',.��tldnpr��"-��7 ic�y0}��O�t��/��u0'y�v�"�03��i�F�fl��39�"a�,��h� . rk i..4 a�5.,;�M�.K.s�i 0�� 52�� . �� +�'}�,�xrKt�.�i��,��q� �t�..�"�-�' r.''� 'z'�`"1. i��±`(,�,' �/'"�' i iR...��n�, i B�S,6=Y OA;�`�JA�Y��'r_p�1 t��/B�1Y p�, ^3501R��'�'�u{!S�.qy: ;�`�%`�4�s0PMa� nj0 � '�3��4r• Q � ,,D, �i,A��+A �y�'8��62��i�.0,{��!v�ys�,�yt6�(�j�ht��,�Oj¢��Zi�Sf��,��l�sr�!�Jt�k �.�H�:}�" ��,r.F �:� },i')�. ) �" :/t':��51�97�; i,r��4345�,PN1��. .'��:0'�`:123,a.,�:,0.` . 2.A:,, ..0� �0,{1��:95aC�.7S.�s:..;0,�,�.��01�%,�7'��,,::�,fpl e��u2�v.!.,F9.��.!r'��.3' rr..p�..�.,,.,04. ,..D.;,.it,.,D,.,.,,,0,. i,S.6�,51 ., S:DO PM 0 145 0 D 0 ' D 92 77 0 0 76 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392 15�4 5:15 PM 0 121 0 0 D D BO B5 1 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D D 360 1469 5:3D PM 0 134 D 0 0 D B1 52 0 0 72 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 349 1468 5:45 PM 0 125 0 0 0 0 92 63 0 0 58 D 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 342 1463 �� " '�.�`� z�� ,�cA � .� �� l0 �X � � b �� Peak 15-Min Northbound 5outhbound Eastbound Westbound Tofal Ffowrates LefE Thru Ri ht U R' LefE Thru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri ht U R' Left Thru Ri h4 U R" All Vehicles 0 604 0 0 0 0 392 308 0 0 320 0 4. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1628 Heavy Trucks 0 4 0 0 6 12 B 0 0 0 0 0 3z Pedestrians e � 4 � 12 Bicycles D 3 0 0 D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Railroad Sto ed 8uses Comm�nts: Report generated on 5/25I2011 10:23 AM SOURCE:Qualify Counts,LLC(http://www.qua(itycounts.ne4) PEAK HOUR/P.H.F.DATA ,. PROJECT: FfeflChyS PROJECT NO: 12-020 ' LOCATION: East Shore Dr(N-S) S� Papaya St(E-W) _ DATE: April 13,2012 LANE TYPE; SPEED LIMIT: SIGNAL TIMING: A G Y R (SECONDS) (Not Applicable) NB 2 Lane NB N/A NB SB 2 Lane SB N/A 56 EB 21ane EB N/A EB WB 21ane WB N/A WB MID-DAY PEAK HOUR COUNTS . TIME NB NB NB SB SB SB EB E8 EB WB WB WB TOTAL HOURLY AM/PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME VOLUMES 11:00-11:15 51 11:15-1130 53 11:30-11:45 43 11:45-12:00 57 204 12:00-12:1 55 208 72:15-12:30 53 208 12:30-12:45 57 222 12:45-1:00 54 219 1:00-1:15 48 420 1:15-1:30 49 476 1:30-1:45 49 422 HOURLY FLOW DIAGRAM 1:45-2:00 43 789 18 739 89 361 15 3 41 18 8 6 45 3 0 3 612 1 } I PEAK HOUR TIME NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 8 9 7 AM/PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME I I I �1 L� 0 57 42 f— 2 � '�— 2 � 4 0 55 6 —► �— 0 0 53 25—► 17 � i— 2 --► 13 0 57 � * � � 34 135 6 1 9 8 2 6 17 2 0 2 222 34 135 6 1 T INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR 11:45-12:45 INTERSECTION PHF 0.97 28 175 f INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 222 �'''y-� f�� C�� PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 175 PHF NB 0.93 Jf��. F� � PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 18 PHF 56 0.64 � '` ' '� � � PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 25 PHF EB 0.63 � J PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 4 PHF WB 0.33 �g �I !� � � � �� 1 �- �-� �-- ?; dl° `C-__ "'- �---- � � s �r Z 5 --� ��' �_7„rf ---� ��j � , .� J�'�i 3ti �QJ �'�'I� Ti°�2 PEAK HOUR/P.H.F.DATA r PROJECT: FRENCHYS PROJECT NO: 12-020 LOCATION: East Shore Dr(NS) � Papaya St(E-W) _ DATE: April 13,2012 LANE TYPE: SPEED LIMIT: 51GNAL TIMING: A G Y R (SECONDS) (not applicableJ NB 2 Lane NB N/A NB SB 2 Lane SB N!A SB EB 2 Lane EB N/A EB WB 2 Lane WB N/A WB PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS TIME NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL HOURLY PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME VOLUMES 4:00-4:15 0 43 4:15-430 52 4:301}:45 63 4:45-5:00 50 208 5:00-5:15 52 217 5:15-5;30 53 218 5:30-5:45 64 219 HOURLY FLOW DIAGRAM 5:45-6:00 63 232 Z6 147 76 274 7 0 43 5 8 1 21 2 0 3 440 1 .} I PEAK HOUR TIME NB NB NB SB 56 SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 2 24 0 PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME � I I � L.. 5:00-5:15 52 42 �— 6 � '� 0 � 0 5:15-5:30 53 1 —� �-- 0 5:30-5:45 64 24—� 17 —� �– 0 —� 2 5:45-6:00 63 � � � 40 141 1 0 24 2 6 1 17 0 0 0 232 40 141 1 1 r INTERSECTION PEAK HOUft 5:00-6:00 INTERSECTION PHF 0.91 J 41 182 � INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 232 2C0 l�-�' PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 182 PHF NB D.86 �� : �g � J � � � / PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 26 PHF SB 0.61 ' Z �� PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 24 PHF E8 0.67 '� � PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 0 PHF WB #DIV/Ol I � t�J f � �` �'"°� (v� �� `� �,/r""�� D�. � 2 'L� �°°-�� 1'l� �� f�� ,��'� PEAK HOUR/P.H.F.DATA : PROJECT: F�enChys PROJECT NO: 12-020 LOCATION: Poinsettia St(N-5) & Papaya Ave(E-W) ,, DATE: April 13,2012 LANE TYPE: SPEED LIMIT: SIGNAL TIMING: A G Y R (SECONDS) (NotApplicable) NB 2 Lane NB N/A NB SB 2 Lane SB N/A SB EB 21ane EB N/A EB WB 21ane WB N/A WB MID-DAY PEAK HOUR COUNTS TIME NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL HOURLY AM/PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME VOLUMES 11:00-11:15` 50 11:15-1130 55 11:30-11:45 44 11:45-12:00 54 203 12:00-12:1 63 216 12:15-12:30 66 227 12:30-12:45 70 253 12:45-1:00 54 253 1:00-1:15 66 472 1:15-1:30 65 482 1:30-1:45 58 496 HOURLY FLOW DIAGRAM 1:45-2:00 65 254 90 96 30 196 44 6 196 2B 35 14 44 29 36 50 710 1 � PEAK HOUR TIME NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 11 77 2 AM/PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME � I I i L� 12:00-12:1: D 63 27 t— 70 � '� 22 a 45 12:75-12:30 66 9 —► t--- 71 12:30-12:45 70 26 --► 7 —� �- 12 —► 34 12:45-1:00 54 � � � 5 64 23 2 77 11 10 9 7 12 11 22 253 5 64 23 _ � I INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR 7200-1:00 INTERSECTION PHF 0.90 ,e' 96 92 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 253 �� ¢�� PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 92 PHF NB 0.82 � J � PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB 90 PHF SB 0.90 ��F-= �, '� v ,f � PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 26 PHF EB 0.72 �� PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 45 PHF WB 0.80 � � J '�� —' E� --��` '��-_, L L ...�. -p �d,� � �---- ��j 2 `�,�----� �J� .�~~ �2. _°�-.°�. r� � � z� °g� 4f � �� F� �.�r �A r1� PEAK HOUR/P.H.F.DATA PROJECT: FRENCHYS PROJECT NO: 12-020 LOCATION: Poinsettia Ave(NS) � Papaya St(E-W) , DATE: April 13,2012 LANE TYPE: SPEED LIMIT: SIGNAL TIMING: A G Y R (SECONDS) (not applicableJ NB 2 Lane NB N/A NB SB 2 Lane 58 N/A SB EB 2 Lane EB N/A EB WB 2 Lane WB N/A WB PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS TIME NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL HOURLY PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME VOLUMES 4:00-4:15 5 0 9 52 4:15-4:30 66 4:3014:45 72 4:45-5:00 70 260 5:00-5:15 56 264 5:15-530 52 250 530-5:45 69 Z47 HOURLY FLOW DIAGRAM 5:45-6:00 84 261 97 117 26 143 23 6 169 12 30 1D 16 19 22 45 521 1 r PEAK HOUR TIME NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 8 87 2 PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME � I I � �_� 4:15-4:30 0 66 2T �-- 12 —� '�— 24 F—44 4:3U-4:45 72 5 —► �-- 11 4:45-5:00 70 25—► 8 —�, .�— 9 —� 16 5:00.5:15 Q D 56 � � � 8 81 9 2 87 S 12 5 8 9 11 24 264 8 81 9 1 T �INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR 4:15-5:15 INTERSECTION PHF 0.92 / 104 98 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 264 � q�, ^(6`� PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB 98 PHF NB 0.74 �� PEAK HOUR VOLUME 5B 97 PHF SB 0.76 / PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB 25 PHF EB 0.63 ��C�'� �• �t �'' f�.� �$`j 2•° PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 44 PHF WB 0.73 � � � � > J Z� � f�2� �Z� � �'3 Zs -----� � � �� ----� o� -- .---�, �. �1 �� Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY � � �,� a ,� ��°�-�� ,�a: t x r °: � � ��, s��.��^� r—� ;`�,', Genera�lnformation�.�.;�. �,��_�;'��, �s� �;�"�{U`v� ��,,�';�5��fo,rmat�on a�� ,�, �., Analyst RP Intersection CAUSEWAY/EAST Agency/Co. GCC SHORE Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Date Performed 4/9/2012 Analysis Year 2012 EXISTING Analysis Time Period MIDDAY PEAK Pro'ect Descri tion East/West Street: CAUSEWAY BLVD North/South Street: EAST SHORE RT ONLY Intersection Orientation: East-Wesf Stud Period hrs : 0.25 i..wT�,�.'Y'�'wa'O��es.and�" .�Ar��1�� 6 �..:F:1�"J 4�F:�.,.xtl�� . .,..,.�Fl�u��,Rr.: ..x� : . ��.1',-u:.�1.: . ..,.'�d .G1�N�P!a:.. � Ma'or Street � Eastbound Westbound Movement � 1 � 2 � 3 � 4 � 5 6 I �- I T I R � L T R Volume veh/h 870 753 117 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, NFR � 896 0 0 776 920 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -' Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes � 0 � 2 � 0 � 2 � Confi uration T T TR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 23 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Nourly Flow Rate, HFR p 0 0 0 0 23 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 � Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes � 0 � 0 � 0 0 0 1 Configuration R .,. �uv �,-a:�r�zzr,u.-`*T-rme,7- -.a.i'�;rr� iT'a r_�-ar,!^�:c�mcqTftiP�, °v,�'�,;'`7�'`'�P:, �-'�.P ;n i';.n�� ;3 ��I:vj-;a�"v;�;�„ ,��F;6' „ '��'i'u^`s�s�fiM1�! , m;:(N^r't+ i ai,�'!�,� l'�. Dela Q�Yeue;�@Il thi�iall�,,,�C��.�e.V,�2!Offi'$@CVICe:��„��lr�r9lr��,�n^'`�!,�4��'��fi4�"� . ;..�i�k�;��tiii;��.,��..,�-�'��uk�,.�,�.��"t,�3,nro�!.;�.:�P��.;�;��1��,.a�4a,.��i,�"y: Approach I Eastbound � Westbound � Northbound Southbound Movement � 1 � 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v(veh/h) 23 C (m) (veh/h) 609 v/c 0.04 95% queue length 0.12 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.1 LOS B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.1 Approach LOS -- -- B Copyright O 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/9/2012 1:16 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings�rpergolizzi.GULFCOAST\Local Settings\Temp1u2k9D.tmp 4/9/2012 Two-�JVay Stop Control Page 1 of 1 � TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY a8�&' ^'5�,* r�'��" S�'�w:,�rrn li F 1 ty „ "K� r'£ 'I; �s� '��ti � � r; � '" �" � neral�,lr��o�mation��;�,��,t}��:;,� ,}�_��h��;��,�r��:R S.tte.�l�nf,orr��atior�� '� ' ;r w�� , ro.,�,.. ..�F, ,�t ix n., t� ).w r� S °�, %:r .lk..�...f t: ,A.AY�.( -�.li Analyst RP Intersection CAUSEWAY/EAST Agency/Co. GCC SHORE Date Performed 4/9/2092 Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year 2012 EXISTING Pro'ect Descri tion East/West Street: CAUSEWAY BLVD North/South Street: EAST SHORE RT ONLY Intersection Orientation: Easf-Wesf Stud Period hrs : 0.25 U��e�Volumes�and Ad us m�`ents_ �.��b�'� ..e, �'1 �J+dnr e�,:�, �:r. �r� �.iu��,n ArY, �,x,u�: �!!t.{ .uE.��; Ma'or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement � 1 � 2 � 3 4 5 6 I � I T I R i � I T I R Volume veh/h 1106 748 130 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR D 1164 0 0 787 136 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Confi uration T T TR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street � Northbound � Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 41 Peak-Nour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 42 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 � Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 � 1 Configuration R -"�"�",� ^m ryn �r^r,umr r^�m:,,w �c.--�—�rnvr—�-:;. a 'r� � . a. , x. ,ti'�u .^r �, �} . � -�i a ♦,�,,, � u . '@TiP rtF9,' `TIY' o m'> �.�rn knn5i�t'X.,:..�. � .:. D.e__la ,fQueue;Len th;tandf.Level,of;Serv�ce;��,��k��N�a� s� , :x��, �'��.d.��,��,sr,:;;��,�,�.t�r'��;��b,i ,;;?r��,.� � � ° � ,�r Approach � Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v(veh/h) I � I I � � � I 42 C(m) (veh/h) 598 v/c � � � � � � � � 0.07 95% queue length 0.23 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 LOS B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.5 __ __- —__ Approach LOS I -- I -- I B Copyright O 2010 Universify of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/9/2012 1:22 PM fi1e://C:\Documents and Settings�rpergolizzi.GULFCOAST�I,ocal Settings\Temp\u2kA2.tmp 4/9/2012 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 , � _ ,, HCS+'�' DETAILED REPORT ��-�N+r�'e �, ,.;.A z �,a � �'� �l�r �,`J� iS,�. a� ur ti�F ' �3m+aer., ��esn .,� .�,�� :x'.A a �'�'+^ g�.� �.•� .4.• �Gen.eral,/nformatront.� . ��.fY..�a,,.;�.< ��> :_�,��`�' .� �,��S�_e,�l�forma�ion : ; �,��,��:�_ .;;�"�„ti��,.,,,,��:r.�s�3 _ , M, Analyst RP Intersection MANDALAY/BAYMONT Agency or Co. GCC Area Type All other areas Date PerFormed 4/9/2092 Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Time Period MIDDAY PEAK Analysis Year 2012 EXiSTING Project ID p,�. z+�"'^"` d&� c:u��nnx ub-r�r� .,,a i� S��r h �' �'r1 �'�!i"ro ��. •'E7� �r r�° "pEq 'j°��y�` � F ��F �,�1 ��S . g, ,D�L►1�12�,af'ldo`.�rm�n ��ll �lJf'�� T".��'S�'t� S�.',��,?�,'�vi@AT��9}i`'�'k:r�P';� � ,ra �.�'��`��°�,".i`��`xi"�l;��`,�'�.'�n�';,4'��''�4'�.��r�a��ii5"+�«.��Qk,xA...t;� ;�:w; e � _ ,.,� .. EB , WB�� NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N� 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume V(vph) � 7 � 8 ( 41 � 19 � 5 � 119 � 47 � 340 � 14 37 352 13 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 1� 2.0 2.0 2•0 � � � 2•0 � � Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type,AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volumes 94 0 15 61 0 11 80 0 0 51 0 D Lane Wdth 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 Min Time for Pedestrians GP � 3 6 � 3.5 � 3.6 � 3.4 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 14.0 G = G= G= G = 38.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T= 0.25 Cycle Length, C= 60.0 , �•ncc:�sr,�+n: �..sacamFS^ -�n t ^rw--n�r-�-�a -m �rtn�•*aG,^.�. ^--v-�r .m-c,.cr��-xw; � ^ + •i � ' Lan�Gro.0 �Ca _,acr ;,C.onfrol De1a �anal LO$�;De e�r,m�nat�on , ��.. . . . ,r �, ... : . . . , .. . EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate,v 44 140 427 427 Lane Group Capacity, c I I 381 I I 372 I 1959 2007 v/c Ratio,X 0.12 0.38 0.22 0.21 Total Green Ratio,g/C 0.23 0.23 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d� 18.1 19.3 4.7 4.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 D.6 0.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 18.3 20.0 4.7 4.7 Lane Group LOS B 8 A A Approach Delay 18.3 20.0 4.7 4.7 Approach LOS B e A A Intersection Delay 7.4 X�=0.26 Intersection LOS A Copyright�2007 University of Fiorida,All Rights Resenred HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 4/9/2012 1:27 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings�rpergolizzi.GULFCOAST�I,ocal Settings\Temp\s2kB4.tmp 4/9/2012 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 << HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT ��r�.t �ar r r= ,. .::-, � _.. s r r�l�.� ln��"�"�r .-�'`"�Tfi b �q r� ,r�,�� u�sanaw�:a.e�r� ° v "7� k*.�� " a � e t i ' �*,.'�.�k�r }�G�a�i'` Ge�er,allnformat�on_.YZ ,,;t ,.0„4,,.: x �„�r..��;� ��e��.,.,..?ti�,�,�,,,,��,sC��`�r�5�fe ln�ormat�on��f��'�u�`��r�..��4..��;',��..��:�,�x. �+ Analyst RP Intersection MANDALAY/BAYMONT Agency or Co. GCC Area Type A!l other areas Date Performed 4/9/12 Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year 20?2 EXISTING Project ID -`sur°�.�.9ra�}r,zx+rcr_' �xv�^�^,� �n ^^..cr ,�.�,{r,�q �e� r �} �5�r'¢ � �, Yro ry,�y� +h g� . Vo/ume,anal,rTrmin �/7 Ut;:"'�.t�.,.�'V:,��,�;�.¢4��}��,��'�e'{'c�''i��.r`.�i�;`�;'t„�'�,'�4 t.�..�� 7�."�s�r.K�?��t�.� Js'S�`)rt��i��1��;.'�t�,�,t,`t��t '�i'�.44Il;�i�n��4f�ia��f 2r� EB WB NB SB LT � TH � RT � LT � TH � RT � LT � TH � RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N� 0 �� 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane Group � �LTR � LTR LTR LTR Volume,V(vph) 12 3 49 30 12 108 42 336 14 42 439 16 % Neavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 � 2 � 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Nour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, I� 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type,AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I � �1.000 � �1.000 � � �1.000 � _�_ �1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb � � 0.0 � � � 0.0 � � 0.0 D.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volumes 172 0 15 54 0 11 112 0 0 33 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 92.0 92.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns D 0 0 D Min.Time for Pedestrians, GP 4.0 3.4 3.7 3.3 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 14.0 G= G= G= G= 38.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T= 0.25 � � Cycle Length, C= 60.0 � �L.a�Groii�'Ca'�ac�,�r�r4G�06l1f10/�MDe/a�";antlr�.OS, mh,.p;n�:,za�um;,:��„1 f ��!> � ,. .: . , .,� < :'r , . �' UM . . .. :. � � r . . i''�4etecmrna�"ion��.��._��'�'�i�� '"R�� ''. , EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate,v 53 153 430 546 Lane Group Capacity, c 364 368 _� 1946 2004 v!c Ratio,X 0.15 0.42 0.22 0.27 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.23 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay,d� 18.3 19.5 4.7 4.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 � 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 18.4 20.3 4.7 4.9 Lane Group LOS I B I I C I A A Approach Delay 98.4 20.3 4.7 4.9 Approach LOS 8 C A A Intersection Delay 7,5 X� = 0.31 Intersection LOS A Copyright O 2007 University of Fiorida,All Rights Reserved HCS+rM Version 5.3 Generated: 4/9/2012 1:31 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings�ergolizzi.GULFCOAST\Local Settings\Temp\s2kC8.tmp 4/9/2012 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS+'� DETAlLED REPORT a �uaa ue�•r s�,:��r aa� .,x��y <c .�,Y a�w,7 i � � te�� 7 in�y �.arcc,b^4'4+s� Z �� f� Ca sn��l'rs �", {� ! �,�. GeR.eralrinformatron� � � 'drr `��, �,q 1 r F � � 5 '��;�* � : p �' �� ? �� '�',,,� .��'��,: � �„ fi�� 'SI e r�ormaf orf �' �. _._--- .. ... �a«.m r��,��'t.,ai.. e�i..r..�:,,. ;.�,.,�.,.i.��,.,�<..�M..F,�'�r5 .. ' _..4 .._..._,�( . lb%�.k,k�. � ,.Y!6. :e� .�."'..hi.P .f `�,hi�.d�,�2�,r,.�. .�k` Analyst RP Intersection CORONADO/GULFVIEW Agency or Co. GCC Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/9/12 Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Time Period MIDDAY PEAK Analysis Year 2012 EXISTING Project ID •�""y�^"M'�s'* r��...� ,^zx°:rv,nn �'�1� e'�17� �i�:k'1 s�' "d X�'+7r aTiq" ) �v'.� '�!�( �"Y( h° t� "�"' r �"` �i�"�t��"yY�.� 5� h�` Volume"�",antl Trm�n M uf; n �e � �;�� a ' �, � �� x� �as� � � � '� �, ��`�. �� ` � �, � � �;. ,. , �__.__ . .__e_ _ . ...,,.��..,Y.�,�..4�`'.t� a,;.�.,�,.�r,,,�k�. .� ..+�.M�..,�r.ila�v ,.,hr�� .�.�'.�:e�.. k .rt?F ,�f.u,�.� . efJ�C�t,Jr.s, f.kl�.�r. ,.,,.�n�r„ .i.R:f.,._,s. �'�;�. EB � WB � NB SB I LT �_ TH � RT � LT � TH � RT � LT � TH � RT � LT TN RT Number of Lanes, N� � 2 � � 0 � � � � 0 � 2 � � � 2 � 2___ Lane Group L LR � � � LT � � � T R Volume,V(vph) � 246 � 26 � � � � 1 � 436 � �___ _ �_294 � 349 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Pretimed (P)or Actuated (A) A � � A � � � � A � A � �� A A Start-up Lost Time, I� 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, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 9.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb � 0.0 � 0.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volumes � 4 � 0 � 0 � 0 � 0 � � 0 � 0 � � 45 � 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 �12.0 � � 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N D N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ne 0 0 0 0 0 Min.Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 OS G= 22.0 G = G= G= G= 30.0 G = G= G = Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Anafysis, T= 0.25 Cycle Length, C= 60.0 �LanewGrou'�Ca a i�;�'Gon��ol%De/a°;antl'LOS`De�er�iiiaf6'on��, .;Fs.. ��?�,�E.t .. � ��.��..� .��'�� EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 254 27 450 3D3 360 Lane Group Capacity, c I 1260 580 I I 1693 �� 1774 1402 v/c Ratio,X 0.20 0.05 0.27 0.17 0.26 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.37 0.37 0.50 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, d� 13.0 12.2 8.6 8.2 8.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 ?.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.91 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I I 0•0 I I I 0.0 0.0 Control Delay I 13.1 12.3 I 8.7 8.2 8.7 Lane Group LOS 8 B A A A Approach Delay 13.0 8.7 8.5 Approach LOS 8 A A Intersection Delay g.5 X�=0.24 Intersection LOS A Copyright O 2007 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved NCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 4/9/2012 1:33 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings�rpergolizzi.GULFCOAST\Local Settings\Temp\s2kEA.t�np 4/9/2012 �etailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT I �r ro�r••�g� d.tw .. �.. � �r..�w } � �a y ,� �...i. n�:a -� �r:a., . �. , � �+°_,�� ` n .� "�.U'��.;t+fr�'tr��- � . . �Ge"'n"�°ral�lnformafr.on�;„�=��.:;°,.,X.� r�', r��.��ry:.�ta��.'�+��;�!�„��.��:��a��'ormat�on r.�,��'i��.�,k�,��.�.� . Analyst RP Intersection CORONADO/GULFVIEW Agency or Co. GCC Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/9/12 Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year 2012 EXIST/NG Project ID •��vC»rfy¢ su.n�.,... .:..�...a: �nu,.,xe*m,x..�.�^r�, r;. r{tr �r.i.�r. t� '^rt'e „r» �, ,�s-i,^�.,..a.., ..,'!�(� ._r 4.�y�` cd:� 'R�"' b�'��'��,� �j 9�S ($��x"e�'y a,: t. �Volumea,nal�;Tiirrrn :ln �i;,?r�� us y�� r,,,,s ��.� � ,��;�� `� ��y..�`�,�?�`'�aa�'�'«.�.��.�,tir.{�"+�� k�,�.�;�;�4. �,��,`�s�`�� _ _. _. __ �..,,�<i�s„�..� , ,�.,.1� .�� m. ,.��r�..-��_ �:�� ,,.�� Wx.: EB ' � WB � NB � SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH � RT Number of Lanes, N� � 2 � � 0 � �_�� 2 2 2 Lane Group L LR LT T R Volume,V(vph) 285 10 0 563 356 276 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A � � � � A � A � � � A A Start-up Lost Time, i� 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, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 9.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volumes 4 D 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N D N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na � 0 0 0 0 0 Min.Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 �8 G= 22.0 G= G= G= G= 30.0 G= G = G = Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= �� ' C cle Len th, C= 60.0 -��,xx�. ��,:,��_-x-,�,�-�ti� -; �-,r �r,m��,��-:,��-�• Y g ;��a��? Duration of Anaf sis T 0.25 �.ane�Gcou .�Ca acr ij CORffOr'Dela;�`anol L'OSF Determrnat�on ,., .,. ��.. EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate,v 306 11 605 383 297 Lane Group Capacity, c 1260 580 � 1774 9774 1402 v/c Ratio,X 0.24 0.02 0.34 0.22 0.21 Total Green Ratio, g/C I0.37 I0.37 I 0.50 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, di 13.2 12.1 9.0 8.4 8.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 I1.000 I 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0 0 I I I I I 0•0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 13.3 12•? I I I I 9•2 8.5 8.5 Lane Group LOS 8 8 A A A Approach Delay 13.3 9.2 8.5 Approach LOS 8 A A Intersection Delay g,7 X�=0.30 intersection LOS A Copyright O 2007 University of Florida,AII Rights Resenred HCS+rM Version 5.3 Generated: 4l912012 1:34 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings�rpergolizzi.GULFCOAST\Local Settings\Temp\s2kFC.tmp 4/9/2012 , Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTE20L SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VT Intersection PAPAYA ST/EAST SHORE A enc /Co. GCC DR Jurisdiction ClTY OF CLEARWATER Date PerFormed 4/16/2012 Anal sis Year EXISTING 2012 Anal sis Time Period M!D DAY PEAK Pro'ect Descri tion FRENCHY'S#441 EAST SHORE DRIVE East/West Street: PAPAYA STREET North/South Street: EAST SHORE DRIVE lntersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Ma'or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 33 132 6 1 9 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 136 6 1 9 8 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- � -- '- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Si nal � � Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 2 6 17 2 0 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Nourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 6 �� 2 p 2 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 � Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes D 1 0 0 1 � Configuration LTR LTR Dela , Queue Len th,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh/h) 34 1 4 25 C(m) (veh/h) 1613 1453 791 903 lc 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 95%queue length 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.09 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.3 7.5 9.6 9.1 LOS A A A A pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 9•6 9•� pproach LOS -- -- A A Copyright OO 2010 University of Florida,Ali Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/16/2012 12:01 PM file:///C:/LTsers/vtoinalAppDatalLocaUTeinp/u2kBE85.tmp 4/16/2012 . Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Anal st VT Intersection �RPAYA ST/EASTSHORE Y A enc /Co. GCC Jurisdiction CITY OF CLEARWATER Date Performed 4/16/2092 Anal sis Year EXISTING 2012 Anal sis Time Period PM PEAK Pro'ect Descri tion FRENCHY'S#441 EAST SHORE DRIVE East/West Street: PAPAYA STREET North/South Street: EAST SHORE DRIVE Intersection Orientation: Norfh-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Ma'or Street Northb�und Southbound Movement � 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 39 138 1 0 24 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 151 1 0 26 2 veh/h Percent Neavy Vehicles 0 -- "' � Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 � � Configuration LTR LTR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 6 1 17 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 T 1 S 0 0 0 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 � � Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 o Configuration LTR LTR Dela ,Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(veh/h) 42 0 0 25 C(m){veh/h) 1599 1441 909 v/c 0.03 0.00 0.03 95% queue length 0.08 0.�0 0.08 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.3 7•5 9-1 LOS A A a pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 9'� pproach LOS -- -- A Copyright02010 University of Fiorida,Ali Rights Reserved HCS+7M Version 5.6 Generated: 4/16(2012 11:59 AM file:/UC:/Users/vtomalAppDatalLocaUTemp/u2kCOFA.hnp 4/16/2012 !� Twe,Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VT Interseetion PAPAYA ST/POINSETTIA VE A enc /Co. GCC Jurisdiction CITY OF CLEARWATER Date Performed 4/16/2012 Anal sis Year EXISTING 2012 Anal sis Time Period MID DAY PEAK Pro'ect Descri tion FRENCHY'S#441 EAST SHORE DRIVE East/West Street: PAPAYA STREET North/South Street: POINSETTIA AVE Intersection Orienfation: Norfh-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Ma'or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume(veh/h 5 63 23 2 75 11 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 70 25 2 83 12 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- � -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 10 9 7 12 11 22 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 10 7 13 12 24 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 D 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 � Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 � Configuration LTR LTR Dela ,Queue Len th,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh/h) 5 2 49 2$ C(m) (veh/h) 1512 1512 835 765 v/c 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.04 95%queue length 0.01 0.00 0.19 0.91 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.4 7.4 9.6 9.9 LOS A A A A pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 9•6 9•9 pproach LOS -- -- A A Copyright�O 2010 University of Fiorida,All Rights Reserved HCS+7M Version 5.6 Generated: 4/16/2012 11:49 AM file:///C:/LTsers/vtoinaJAppData/LocaUTemp/u2k2024.tmp 4/16/2012 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 � . , � TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Informafion Site Information Analyst VT Intersection PAPAYA ST/POINSETTIA VE A enc /Co. GCC Jurisdiction CITYOFCLEARWATER Date PerFormed 4/16/2012 Anal sis Year EXISTING 2012 Anal sis Time Period PM PEAK Pro'ect Descri tion FRENCHY'S#441 EAST SHORE DRIVE East/West Street: PAPAYA STREET North/South Street: POINTSETTIA AVE Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Ma'or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 8 79 9 2 85 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 85 9 2 92 8 (veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 9 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 12 5 8 9 11 24 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR �3 5 8 9 11 26 (veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage D 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dela ,Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(veh/h) 8 2 46 26 C(m) (veh/h) 1505 1513 836 764 lc 0.D 1 0.00 0.06 0.03 95%queue length 0.02 0.00 0.17 0.11 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.4 7.4 9.6 9.9 LOS A A A A pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 9.6 9.9 pproach LOS -- -- A A Copyright O 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/16/2012 11:55 AM file:///C:/Users/vtomalAppData/LocaUTemp/u2k4495.tmp 4/16/2012 � � � i�� Geraeralized �� €��t�P�'��64/�y Volumes for Florida's U�b��i��d Ar�� so/n/so 5'I'A.Ti�+ �YGI�i�,��D r�T�+I2.T_�I,S �+�+�+�VA�'S C1�ss I(>0.00 to 1.99 si�alized intersections per mile) Lanes B C D E Lanes Median B� C D E � 4,000 �,500 6,770 7,300 2 Uiidivided 930 1,500 1„�.� *m� 6 6,000 8,320 10,150 11,290 4 Divided 2,840 3,440 �3,�56,_0� *�* S 8,000 11,050 13,480 15,270 6 Divided 4,37a �,200 �( 5,360 *** l0 10,000 13,960 16,930 19,250 8 Divided 5,900 6,970 r�7,160 TT* 12 13,730 18,600 21,950 23,230 �u��`� Fre�way Adjustauents CI�55 II(2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Auxiliary Ramp Lanes Median B C D E Lanes Metering 2 Undivided Tm 1,020 1,480 1,570 +1,800 +5% 4 Divided T* 2,420 3,220 3,400 6 Divided ** 3,790 4,880 �,I50 �J�]-IlijTE+�RtTPTED�'+LO`TV�IGH��YS Divided ** 5,150 6i530 6,880 '� �.� e�� l v'7 o t�� Lanes Median B C D E ��.� Crs� (,t��t�i--�`�'� �t4�� 2`�0� 2 Undivided 730 1,460 2,080 2,620 Cflass III/I�(more thzu 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Lanes Median B C D E 4 Divided 3,220 4,660 6,040 6,840 2 Undivided ** 500 1,150 1,440 6 Divided 4,840 v',990 9,060 10,280 4 Divided *T 1,220 2,730 3,100 Uninterrupted T�'+lovv Highway Adjustments 6 Divided ** 1,910 4,240 4,680 Lanes Median Exclusive le$lanes Adjustrnent factors 8 Divided T* 2,620 5,770 6,280 2 Divided Yes +5% Multi Undivided Yes -5°/a Multi Undivided No -25% liTO�-S�te Si�a&��d Ro�dva�y Adj�st�en�s BICYCL�+ 1Q'IOD�+Z (Alter corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine iwo-way maximum service volumes.) Major City/County Roadways - 10% Paved 5houlder/Bieycle Lane ---r°u°� Other Signalized Roadways -35% G��s"� eoverage B C D E � 0-49% *� 310 1,180 >1,180 State�No�-St��e Sib a�Hized Ro�dway Ad,�us4zxients 50-84% 240 360 >360 **T (Alter corresponding state volwnes by the indicated percent.) S 5-100% 620 >620 **T T*T I3ividedliJardivided�Turm L��Adjnstffients z Exclusive Exclusive Adjusiment P�+DES'I'ItTAN M�D� Lanes Median Le$Lanes Right I.anes Fac (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by nwnber of directional 2 Divided Yes No -I-S°/ roadway lanes to determine fwo-way maxi.mum service volumes.) ��2 Undivided No No -20% 5idev✓a1k Coverage B C D E Multi Undivided Ye5 NO -5% 0-49°/a "'* �'* 4g0 1�39� Multi Undivided No No -ZS% SD-84% *T Tm 1,100 1,520 - Yes +5% 85-100% �T 1�100 1,820 >1,820 BUS 1VIODE(Scheduled Fi�ed Route)3 OpIl�-vV�y P'��ilIlicy Adjustffieaat (Buses in pealt hour in pealc direetion) Multiply the cosesponding tsNO-directr'�onal volum�e's in thisktable by 0.6, Sidewallc Coverage B C D E �,°°� �° �--= 0-84% �5 �4 �3 �7 �C4.'� �"�.^��'E. (�Cs,�' 4 �.�� `��o soa� 85-100% > >3 >2 >1 I Valnes shown are preserned es hourly two-way vohmmes for levels of service and are for the automo6ile/truck modes vnless specifically stated Altl�ough presented as peak hour two- way volumes,they actually represent peak hour pealc direction conditions vrith an applicable D factor applied.1Svs ffible does not constitute a standmd and should be vsed oaly for general planning applications.The computer models$om which tLis tablo is derived should be Used for more specific planaing applications.The table and deriving computer models should not be used fnt coxridor or intzrsection design,where more refined techniques exist Calctil�ions are based on planning applications of tbe Highway Capacity Manval,Bic}�cle LOS Model,Pedestrian LOS Model and Traasit Capaciiy and Quslity of Service Manuel,respectiz�ely for the automob�le/iruck,6icycle,pedeshian and bus modes. �Level of service for the bicycle avd pedestrian modes in tbis ffible is based on nnmber of motorized velucles,not�mber of 6icyclists or pedestrians using the fac�7ity. 3 Buses per hour shown are only fnr the peaic hols mtbe single d'uection of the highertraffic flow. �OZ1YC2: =•Caanot be aohieved,vsing tabie inpncvalue defa,ilrs. Florida Deparlment of Transportation T**Not applicabla for that level of service letter grade.For the avtmnobile mode,vohmmes greetex than level of sen�ica D Systems Planniv.g Office become F becavsa intEx�ectiori capacities hava been reached.For the bicycle mode,the level of sesvica letter�ade(inclvdia� 60�Suwannee Street,M5 19 F)is not achievable because there is no masamwn velucle volume threshold vsing ffible inpirt value defavlts. 'j'3]�3]1255ee,FL 32399-0450 www dot state fl us/nlannine/svstems/sm/los/default.shtm 2009 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (932) Average Vehicie Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 14 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 7 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting ' Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 127.15 73.51 - 246.00 41.77 Data Plot and Equation 1,500 , , , . , . 1,400 - - - - - - - - -� - - - - - - - - -�, - - -- - - - - -,- - - - - - � - - -�- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - °- - - - - -- -o'-�- -- - - - - - ' : ; ; ; : , X� , 1,300 - � - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - = - -- - - - -,- - -- - - - - - . . . , ,r� . X , , , . . , 1,200 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�� - - -- - - � - - - - - -, - - - - - - - � , , , . , , '� Q" - � - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - --'- - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � -',- - - - - - - - - i � 1,100 , , ; � ; , ; X IU , , , , , . � > 1,000 - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --- � -- - - - ; - - - - - - - - ,- - - - - - - - - ,-- - - - - - - - -, - - -�- - - - � a� : X : ; : ; ; ; Ia) 900 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -X-rX - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - -; - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - ; - - - - - - - - ; -- - - - - - ! ¢II , : , , , , . X I ~ - - - - - - - , - • . . X . . ; . . - - - � - - - - - � - -�- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �- - - - - - - - - -, - - - - - - - 800 , , , ;� , , , , . :X : ; , ; ; : 700 - - - - -X- - � - - - - - - - - - - - • - -, - - - - - - - - ; � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �- - - - - - - - ,- - - - - - - - - X �x ; ; �: ; ; : I600 - - - - , - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -- - ---- - - - - - - - •- - - - - - - - �; X , . . , , „! , , , , . , , ,��. 500 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 X=1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area �� X Actual Data Points -----' Average Rate F{; .n Fitted Curve Equation: Not given �2=*"** i= �'�� ;;�. `° %= Trip Generation,Sth Edition 1795 Institute of Transportation Engineers 's, �'�� I � � I. ` � �� High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant " (932) � �; Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area ! On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of C�enerator i� • Number of Studies: 31 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 5 Directional Distribution: 54% entering, 46% exiting i� Ti rip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 18.49 5.60 - 69.20 13.32 Data Plot and Equatio� ' 2zo , , . , , , , . , 210 - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- -�- - - - - - -°X- - - -; - - � - - � - - - - - -�-- - - - - -,- • - - - - -.- - - - - - -- - - - , , , , , , , � .' 200 - - - - - -- - - - - - ---- - - - - -�- - -- - - -;- - - - - - -; - � - - - ; - - - - - -,- - - - - - -',X- - - - - -,- - - - - � - - - - - ,5 190 - - - - - ' - - - - - - -'- - - - - - --- - - - - - -; - - - - - -: - - - - - . . - - - -'- - - - - � -,- - - - - - -'- - - - -i - - - - - 180 - - - - - - =- - - - - - =-- - - - - -- - - - - - --- - X - -,- -- � - - , - - - � - - '- - - - - - -;- - - - -'- - - - - - -; - - -- - , X , . � - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- 170 ' - � - - ,- - - - - --- - -- - - --- - � - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - , - , , . y160 •- - - , - - - - - -,- - - - - - -;- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - , - - - - - -,- - - - -,- - - - - - ; - - - • - -; - - - - , �j 150 - - - - , X - - - - , - - - - - �- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - � 140 - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - ; - - - - - : - - - � , - - - -; - - - - - ; - - - - - -I - - - - - ; - - - - � 130 - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - �- - - � a�i 120 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -X- -;�(�,y�� : - - -- - , - - - • - .- - -- - - -X - - - - , -X-- - - � . , X . , , � � 110 - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�:5.'-/ - - - : - - - - - - � - - - - - ,- - - - - - �- -- -y,- r -X- - a) 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - - -� --'x,-r - - - ' ; - - - - � � - - - - - . - - - - - : - - - -- . -�- - ; a 90 � - - - - ,' - - - - - - - - - - - -- /�� -; - - - - ; - - - - � - - - - - , - - - - - -�- - � - - - � - - - - --'- - - - - - - ~ gp - -- - � - - - - - � - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - � - � - - - -;- - - ; ; ; - - - 70 XX- - - - � - - - - -�X- 'X/iX- - --- - - - - - = - - - - - � - - - - - ; - - - - - ; - - - - - -; - - - - - -� - - - - - - , , , . X 60 - - - - - ;- - - -X_SC/lX- - � ; -X- -X,- - - - - � ' . - - - - • - - - - - . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . � - - - - - -^ - - -- - 5p - - - - - • - - -� I -X- - - i- - - - - - -i- - - � ' ; : ; . ; ; 40 - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -�- - - - - - -,- - - - - � -- - - - - - - ; - - - - • - -:- • - - - - -,- - - - - - �;- - - � - - -; - - - - - - � gp - - - - ;- - - - - - �-- - - - - -''- - - - - - -� - - - - -' - - - - - � - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - - - -° - - . _ . .. - - - - - 20 j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate � Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2=**** � } i Trip Generation,8th Edition 1799 Institute of Transportation Engineers ,�. ?;�': � M �� ' - ' - Restauranfi H�gh Turnover (Sit Down) �' (932) ; , . � Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area �I On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. 'i � Number of Studies: 46 � Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 6 i Directional Distribution: 59% entering, 41% exiting � � Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation � 11.15 2.80 - 62.00 9•13 Data Plot and Equation � . , i z2o , , . , , . . , ( 270 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;- - - - - ;� - - -�,- - - - - -:- - - - - -;- - - - - -; - - - - ; - - - - : - - - - -� - - - ; - - - zoo -- - - ; - - - - - -, - � - - :- - - - - ;- � - - - ; - - - - ; - - - -: - - - - -;- - - - - -; - - - - ; - - - - - ; - - - - ; -- - - 190 - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - --- - - - -- - - - - --- - - - - -- � - - - , - - - - -; - - - - - ; - -- - : - - - - 180 - - - - - = - - - - = - - - - -=- � � - - - - -' - - - - -'- - - - -�- - - - - -�- - - - - -�- - - - - -�- - - - - - = - - - -- . , , - - - -9C- - - - - ,- , . , , , , I170 - - : - - - - ', - - - - ;- - - - - ;- - - - - -,- � - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - � - - - - - - -- - - - - � - - - - - - - � 160 - - . _ _ . . - - -, - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - , , , X �� 150 - - - - -X- - - - - - - � - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - ---- - - - - = - - -- � -- - - IIa 140 - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - �,- - - - - ;- - - - - -, - - - -;- - - - -�'- - - - - -;- - --- -i - - - -,' - - - - - - - ; - - - - 130 - - - - ' ' ' - - - -'- � - - - -'- � - - - - - - - - - -�- - - - - -'- - - - --'- - - - -` - - -- - • - - - - � � ; - - - - - ; - - - -- '- - - - --,- - ; , : , , � , , � 120 - - - - - ; - -- - - : - - - - - �- - - - - ;. . - - - -;- - - - -.- - - - - -;- - - - - -:- - - - - -,- - - -� -- - - -; - - - - - ; - - - - - � , , , '� , , , . , - - - - - -- - � 110 � - - • - - - - - � • - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - - - - -;- - - - -,- - - - - -,- � - - - - - - - - -� - -X - -: - : � 100 - - - - - = - - - - = - - - - =- - - - - , - - - - -; - - - - ; - - - - -; - - %�� - - • ; - - -- � - -- - ; - - -- - ; - - - - Qgp - - - � - - ; - - - -� - - - - ; - -X- �- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -X- - ;- - -X- -; - - - - -; - - - - ; - - - l �� 80 - - - - , - - - - , - - - ,- - - - - , - - X �X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -X - ; - - - ; - X_ . � ~ 70 - - - - . - - - X; - - - - ;- -X- - ,- - - - - ;��- - - 'X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a gp - - - - - - - - - - - - - � -X-X�- - -�jX -, - � - - ;- - - - - -� - - - - ; - - - - -; - - - ; -X - - - - - - - - - - - - I 50 - - - - -, -- � - - - �- - , - - - - .- - - -X - - - - %C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � , , X , X , , , - - - - I- - - - - �- - - - - , - -• ' - • - '� 40 ' -X- , � - - '��-�� , - - - jjK - - - - ;- - - - -IX- - - - --- - - - - -- . ; : : 30 - -X- , -y�-�,�- - - - - ;- - - .�CX_ - - - � - - , - - - - , - - - - , - - - - -, - - - - -,- -- - - -,- - - - - ; - - - - , , X X, , , , , , 20 -X�; ; - -X- - ;- - - - - �,- - - - X- - - - -�- - - - - --- - - - - -'- - - � - -'- - - - - -�- - - - - -; - - - - -; - - - - - � - - - - 10 � � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 � X=1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actuai Data Points ------ Average Rate `� � Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2=*"x" ;t, �`; ''1 Trip Generation,8th Edition 1797 Institute of Transportation Engineers �;�,�: F�s u (';'l',' � Two-Way Stop Co�ltrol Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Anal st RP Intersection CAUSEWAY/EAST A enc /Co. GCC SHORE Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Date Performed 4/17/2012 Anal sis Year 2013 WITH PROJECT Anal sis Time Period MlDDAYPEAK Pro'ect Descri tion FRENCHY'S#441 EAST SHORE DRIVE East/West Street: CAUSEWAY BLVD North/South Street: EAST SHORE(RT ONL1� Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Ma'or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 1059 835 236 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, NFR 0 1091 0 0 860 243 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T T TR U stream Si nal 0 � Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 114 Peak-Hour Faator, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR � 0 0 0 0 117 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 � RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration R Dela , Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v(veh/h) 117 C(m) (veh/h) 531 v/c 0.22 95%queue length 0.83 Control Delay(slveh) 13.7 LOS 8 pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 13.7 pproach LOS -- -- B Copyright�O 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+rM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/17/2012 11:14 AM file:///C:/Users/vtomalAppDatalLocaUTemp/u2k1E6A.tmp 4/17/2012 � Twa-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 . � i 1"WO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Informati�n Site Information Analyst RP I ntersecti o n CAUSEWAY/EAST A enc /Co. GCC SHORE J urisdiction CLEARWATER Date Performed 4/17/2012 Anal sis Year 2013 WITH PROJECT Anal sis Time Period PM PEAK Pro'ect Descri tion FRENCHY`S#441 EAST SHORE DRIVE East/West Street: CAUSEWAY BLVD North/South Street: EAST SHORE(RT ONLY) Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 1254 809 218 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR � 1320 0 0 851 229 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Rarsed curb RT Channelized 0 D Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 � Configuration T T TR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T F2 olume(veh/h ��9 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR p 0 0 0 0 122 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 D 1 Configuration R Dela , Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v(veh/h) 122 C(m) (veh/h) ' 540 v/c 0.23 95%queue length 0.86 Control Delay(s/veh) 13.6 LOS 8 pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 13.6 pproach LOS -- -- B Copyright O 2010 University of Florida,Ali Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/17/2012 12:51 PM file:///C:/LTsers/vtoinalAppData/Local/Temp/u2k317E.tmp 4/17/2012 L�}etaaled�Report Page 1 of 1 HCS+'n' DETAILED REPORT a 9av �k �x . �.r i,� �-� � ;`y r �- '` 'a��j r�1�°i�c y' r•�,.� m�.�aa .�.r-s 2� b`i�� t z ��`L�t t i�P�•S« � ��s�P i�M 4 :"P�H ��.�tt ,ti.�rcd'�A�� '20$!a/,/I1�0'fll7dtlU/71„� ;s ..��.�, � �.,ii,:.�n_ ,�...:� � ,�x.,t..�t.t... t�$If2{I1fOCl17at10l1�. .#4.�arn�ef�d.,�:.4�4s.�.alhk:at�e�..,_...1..v �,a,�� . ��wt�,� .�.it,.�i:� Analyst RP Intersection MANDALAY/BAYMONT Agency or Co. GCC Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/17/2012 Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Time Period MIDDAY PEAK Analysis Year 2013 WITH PROJECT Project ID "-,�wz�anv,�a:�.ts�i�� .n.:.:�,:..r aw w r;i: ) � ��'� t j7- � s i Y.F v� s ��.a,? 7, f qt+, +�xzr.^wt dPd �. .�. a�' �y�@i?, r tE(`�'f � ! l�.i{�� r�fj i;,��:;. �;VO�[llll2��nd�T!!11/11 ;�R [lts�'�i�Tk;; �!!i,?,t` �i .�i,F�� f�i��y�'�r�}��,t i.�'t��k'j Xr}�i,a'`�� t.rrm��f�,tT��F�;f:7�*,�.,S�.i�� .s� �5,.��;, �_�..t�'�„i..�l,, �.�� .�,.,. .u�,. EB � WB � NB � SB LT � TH � RT � LT TH � RT � LT � TH RT LT TN RT Number of Lanes, N� � � � T � � � � � � � � � � � 2 �0 J � � 2 � � Lane Group � �LTR � � �LTR � LTR LTR Volume V(vph) � 7 � 8 � 44 � 20 � 5 � 124 � 47 � 375 14 38 388 13 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV � 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor PHF �0.94 �0.93 �0.94 �0.94 �0.94 �0.94 �0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed (P)or Actuated (A) � A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, I� 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2•� 2•� 2•� Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 � � �3•0 � 3.0 Fiitering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb � (D.0 � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volumes � 94 0 15 61 0 � 11 � 80 � 0 0 51 0 0 Lane�dth 12.0 12.0 92.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm � � � � � � � � � I I I I Buses Stopping, Na � � � � � Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.4 Phasing � EW Perm � 02 � 03 � 04 � NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 14.0 G= G= G= G= 38.0 G= G= G = Timing y_ 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration o f Analysis T 0 25 Cycle Length, C 60.0 v�v:rsin,<w:r .._mr.r;.,-.. ..�n � � i..r .�.._.;,. �,i..:.:rrik ......�.,u .,.,;.,.r.�rir�...n... �.7:rcr� z� i-:��-.ix'1'� r :��.jtt^• +�i �..F c. .xti�ds7�}af7(^. n u y�j l' �t� ?-.,P�� i Yl.y� s ��a��a'�OU��sd aGl ;�:OC►tCO/�:�2/a ;t�c'tl7d�j.:Q$i:�e{'efl}1ll7dtl�0ll�ta�c.:�,�'.�'ba;t!.��'��C�'�t,it�t�(�`t(�5�y��t��.,�"i�'��R.,�..l:'�utC't"!�.i�t��,�'7�E��r?M�j3t:,�f��.�v��.S?�;,4a,��.��3,"�,'Pm��::l EB � Wg Ng SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate,v I 47 I I 146 I I ( 464 I I I 467 Lane Group Capacity, c I I 380 I I I 371 I I 1960 I I I 2005 v/c Ratio,X I 0.12 0.39 0.24 �0.23 Total Green Ratio, g/C I I0.23 I I ID'23 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d� I I18.2 I 19•4 4•7 4.7 Progression Factor, PF I I1.000 I I I1.000 I I1.000 I 1.000 Delay Calibration, k I 0.11 I IO•11 I I I0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 I 0.1 0.7 I I 0.1 I I 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 I I 0•0 0.0 � 0.0 D.0 Control Delay I 18.3 20.1 4.8 4•8 Lane Group LOS I B I I C A A Approach Delay I 18.3 20.? 4.8 4.8 Approach LOS I B C A A Intersection Delay 7,4 X�= 0.28 Intersection LOS A Copyright O 2007 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 4/17/2012 2:05 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings�rpergolizzi.GULFCOAS'T�Local Settings\Temp\s2k18B.tmp 4/17/2012 Detailed Repoi-t Page 1 of 1 , � � R HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT 4 N..wft�3�le�.5�dm .eu,5 . ..", a� .. 'r d au�E�'' I rrjt L"� �>r � 4r,.. � r'&�.5�.a'�. .u�u l �t ',si yi�t ��;��i ��?4��itr,��l.r�„y��u�(.. �i �:,�(dlytYflF�i{,�;f ��I�'� �.Generalylnforrnafron,.�.' , :�a . ` .�.�� + �„�...ti�;' „, �'e�,.r?�, � �� .. � FSrfe.lnformatro.n:G��.€��,z�. �,.�.,, � , , Analyst RP Intersection MANDALAY/BAYMONT Agency or Co. GCC Area Type All ofher areas Date PerFormed 4/17/12 Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year 2013 W17H PROJECT Project ID p � ;� .;'t a i. ,:.:', r , �;,��.�,t��A�il 1V, �r.fn�,`,�.. ..S:m �.n- . .��Ct'��,',�[`'"1'GP'F4, t��.P;''h6r�.`SI'cs?bi�1�j� i-fy�Ri�� I�:�.i� ,�+}�SB�lt��lk�a..��4� r��`,"� "�".y�,'�4s.. 'N ^^n . SA .4.'-i rrw '�T`� ¢� Cr t � t� 3. v"¢ }R�� s ij ! a�"f�b,. �.Volurile and,�Timrn �:.!» ut�<,� � � � NB EB WB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N� 0 1 � 0 � 0 � 1 0 0 2 0 � 2 � Lane Group � �LTR � � �LTR �� LTR LTR Volume,V(vph) � 12 � 3 � 51 � 31 � 12 � 112 42 � 362 14 44 472 16 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ` -� 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0,91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.99 Pretimed (P)orActuated (A) � A � A� A A A A A A A A A A Start up Lost Time, I� � � 2� � � �2� � � 2•� 2'� Extension of Effective Green e � � 2•D � � � 2� � � 2•� 2.0 Arrival Type AT � 3 � � 3 � � � 3 � � I 3 � Unit Extension, UE 3•� 3 0 � � �3� � � �3•� � � Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand Qb � � 0•� 0.0 � 0•0 � �_� 0.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volumes 172 0 15 54 0 11 112 � 0 � 0 � 33 0 0 Lane Width �2•�� 2� � � ��2� � � �2•� � � Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N D N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 Min.Time for Pedestrians, GP 4.0 3.4 3.7 3.3 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 14.0 G= G= G= G= 38.0 G= G= G= Timing y_ 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y Y Y Duration of Analysis, T= 0.25 Cycle Length C 60 0 nx..._._r ._.,....... �.�-.:�..-.es:.�.,rx�:m,i^.a nl;�,..�� x�..r4��+r'�� rot.��e�.-+,�1 p} �N i��.'r.��raP��IP,yvF'iktT!��'��)��f�Y�+'R�i:lt;;��Y`y.f;�'�i�9Y�']�L*Jf"I�Sf'T��a'��i��ri�o-(��7�°.. ��Lane,Grou <Ca`"� _.� r ,�� ,m��mn�,�,��-�-�:a�,��--�acr ; Controll4ela �,an.d LQS De�e.'rmrna#ron��...��,�,��,�,,,.,t,E,a.�..,�.,��,. ,��.,�s i,.. �,....,�,._ EB WB NB SB LT � TH � RT � LT � TH � RT � LT � TH � RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate,v 56 158 459 585 Lane Group Capacity, c 364 I I I 367 I I I 1946 I I� 1998 v/c Ratio,X 0.15 0.43 D•24 0•29 Total Green Ratio, g/C ( IO•23 I I IO'23 I I 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay d� I I18•3 I I I19•6 I I I 4.7 5.0 Progression Factor, PF I I1.000 I 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k I�0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 I I 0.2 I I 0•8 0.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay I I 18.5 20.4 4.8 � 5.0 Lane Group LOS 8 C a A Approach Delay I 18.5 I 20.4 4.8 5.0 Approach LOS I B I C A A Intersection Delay 7.5 X�=0.33 Intersection LOS a Copyright O 2007 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 4117/2012 2:08 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings�rpergolizzi.GULFCOAST�I,ocal Settings\Temp\s2k19D.tmp 4/17/2012 < L�etat?.ec�Report Page 1 of 1 , HCS+"d DETAILED REPORT �awtm�t'a�.r�si,v a^� �; , ..r- � i � t !'i ixi� e�s �ssaf^ar-^r..es.aa,a :�� t"+ r�t"�w �t � r � 9r� r"�8 a'��S'�s�S i.1,'� � � . y.�' � '' ` t i _, a S . � ' � �'•4 t .e"�'�'4 � ' k k � �.�e N 7 �v; '� 1 �i,1� .. . �, �' 3 .s �.,.� �,.<<...,.,,� Sife lnforma�ron.,a.,,� i�2flef,8t�llfOrf118t10,f]k.C,,,,�. „ ., �:'�_.a,,.rt. �. �„ � ' 1 ��n� �" �..a.,�ui�.�,�*,...,«�$�t..+t4c,i�'�,�r�...r. «i., t.�.4.,. H, , � . .,_ . Fl._ . Analyst RP Intersection CORONRDO/GULFVIEW Agency or Co. GCC Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/17/12 Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Time Period MIDDAY PEAK Analysis Year 2013 WITH PROJECT Project ID �rSY"�F'� iq.-.�,.�a(r• �- r � � { �'�A� i r'� 'i + �'`�'� �:l�?r�W�- ay ��7��F i r ��"�' �Yr�'97��til i H�ti��3��'kYJ rtye>4E��rx�,"�,�n,y�rt�.�. Y 1 .�..��l�tB � .. ..m �Volum�a��d T�mrn �In u�°�� . ��. , , , �:;, , t� . �;,�� .� ��4�� ,�� :��;,,��.�� w,�`�R.��h.t� G,�..�,.�.�.;�,t�.�� ,� ,�� ,�.,a� _ , ,. : , EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH � RT � LT � TH � RT � LT � TH � RT � Number of Lanes, N� 2 0 0 2 2 2 Lane Group � L LR LT T R Volume,V(vph) � 256 � � 27 � 1 535 382 362 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV � 2 � 2 2 2 2 � 2 � Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 �0.97 � � I IO•97 �0•97 � � �0.97 0.97 Pretimed (P)or Actuated (A) � A � � A � � � A A A A Start-up Lost Time, I� �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, I �1.000 �9.000 � � � 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb � 0.0 � 0.0 �� 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volumes 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 Lane�dth 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 Min.Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 Phasing EB Only OZ 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 22.0 G = G= G= G = 30.0 G = G= G = Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T= 0.25 Cycle Length, C= 60.0 .� ��r--^'a;remrnrxv r,uss�nur-" '.;-cr,rsi .�}:_.�,sr r y;-c.r.a. ....-r iu �.••a3ea•:ar.a�u^:�aa `�' �rip�•, ,7T• �"h, '1'" 'aEM�,�'�"?'' t� r � 1 �j7. '�` �La�r�eEGrou �Ga.;ac► , Gontrol.Dela ,,anoI,LOS;?Dete'rm�nafr,on"�3�'��,.'�+��,�,t�,�,�.�;�,�`k�.: . ,�s ��x,k.ti�;'��il,�„�,e��1��,��ir,�'n�'��k�:;�9�"s��..,?�. EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flaw Rate, v I 264 28 I I I I 553 I I 394 373 Lane Group Capacity, c I 1260 580 1693 _J 1774 9402 v/c Ratio,X 0.21 0.05 0.33 0.22 0.27 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.37 0.37 I I 0.50�� 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, d� 13.0 12.3 9.0 8.4 8.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 I 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 I0.11 I I0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 I D.0 0.0 I I I I I 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay I 13.1 I 12.3 I I I I 9.? 8.5 8.8 Lane Group LOS 8 8 A A A Approach Delay 13.0 9.1 8.6 Approach LOS 8 A A Intersection Delay I 9.6 X� = 0•28 Intersection LOS A Copyright O 2007 University of Florida,Ail Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Genereted: 4/17/2012 12:15 PM file://C:�Documents and Settings�rpergolizzi.GULFCOAST\Local Settings\Temp\s2kF3.tmp 4/17/2012 Pet��?�ed Repart Page 1 of 1 � , , � HCS+"� DETAILED REPORT L�++xsflb7e�+ �R5t"�.n.�.t*t..z.�h . :e p 1 � 1 1 � i�� t s Y'wt 1 r :".PY.>��.��T,z�:'�K'�f' i� ., tA!t) �E��e!I� �7��'� �::'q� 1. �d',_ Yil�A ti � t �.,e .e�,�... �'" �` u, 7 �' r 1 + {h : r L 4ki 1 'f fi'�tG't t�j 4 �� k� i� I .�� t .r� �V'EflEI'3/S�OfOf/11a�(011� . „'�h.�; ...,.,,"�eei i�+�,✓;:�r , .��.;��.. ,iif�z"'`;`� 7.,��.5(tQ��IlfOl"lf�dt,l,C)��Th�s'��G.,'�'r��r'I.'•�.� _.,r�.�J��g. '�'�tiv�C� ,...,'.�i._ ,a.,..t�. ,, �..;:.,_.�'� _...___.._ . __ Analyst RP Intersection CORONADO/GULFVIEW Agency or Co. GCC Area Type AII other areas Date PerFormed 4/17/12 Jurisdiction CLEARWAi'ER Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year 2013 W17H PROJECT Project ID :�.^:u^^�:sn'r�m�;r+s�.r� �..�.^�..^r.a�.+ ..��.-.;,: i'� ,r_i`:v?" �e .'�:�" � �"[.��.�' i..?ri..:�u�?^�!.�'.14�..'�� `t�+' ,.�.� �e ��9f x ��i^+�� '� `"+`�"' ij�9ni� �.•I� 5� .t°0Rt �i y. �VO�GIl72�A!]L��Tlf71lFI �fT ,tlt.:��i4.,� �«,'e.° ti�,,.,.)y �.,-��S��Si a;,i..��,nr+ .i��S��S�h�.��u�ltqt`.�"��+� ��i4�a�", "!n; �^r."` .�.h.��i�;3`iii-'�� ,s'�dr��>> �„�$a,af'+�.,f i. � v f�„ ) . .. .. ... .,,. _.._. . , . , � .�i:,. , . .,�:. : tq c �� , �.. << > .. ,a� EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N� 2 _� � � � � � � � 2 � � � 2 � 2 � Lane Group � L �LR � � � � �_� �T ( � � T � R � Volume,V(vph) � 296 � � 10 � � � � 0 � 641 � � � 429 � 287 � % Heavy Vehicles, %HV � 2 � � 2 � � � � 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A � � A A _J A A Start-up Lost Time, I� 2.0 2.o 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 �!� Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering I �1.000 �1.000 � � 1.000 1.000 9.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0,0 � I � � � 0•0 � � 0.0 � 0.0 � Ped/Bike/RTOR Volumes 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 Lane Width �12.0 �12.0 � 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses 5topping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm � 06 � 07 08 G= 22.0 G = G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G = Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0 25 Cycle Length, C 60.0 �� ' h�C . i'z�,. • •�y �ac�.- nrn-cveazts �m^ ih' � .' ��,�,�,j,�_l��S fi��'��1�7�3`y^�i'�14��'�'�i�� ' .,.,...�.��fd 6��+'� �Lane Gro�u �Gau°acr ,. ont�ol`Dela'� antl LQSr,Determmat►on�r��,�.:��,. '�4H��ti, �., ��.,y,f�3�,��.. . 9�,e.. , F�^,�,�a� �. EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate,v 318 11 I I I 689 453 309 Lane Group Capacity, c 1260 580 ��_�� 1774 I 1774 1402 v/c Ratio,X 0.25 0.02 0.39 0.26 0.22 Total Green Ratio, g/C I0.37 0.37 0.50 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay,d� I13.3 92.1 I I I I I I 9•3 8.6 8.4 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, dz 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 _�_J 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 13.4 12.1 9.4 8.7 8.5 Lane Group LOS 8 B A A A Approach Delay 13.3 9.4 8.6 Approach LOS 8 A A Intersection Delay g.g X�=0.33 Intersection LOS A Copyright O 2007 University of Fiorida,All Rights Reserved HCS+T�`� Version 5.3 Generated: 4/17/2012 12:14 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings�rpergolizzi.GULFCOAS'l�Local Settings\Temp\s2kDl.tmp 4/17/2012 , ,'Fwg-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 �. , TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Infrormation Site Information Analyst VT Intersection PAPAYA ST/EAST SHORE A enc /Co. GCC DR Jurisdiction ClTY OF CLEARWATER Date Performed 4/17/2012 Anal sis Year 2013 WITH PROJECT Anal sis Time Period M(D DAY PEAK Pro�ect Description FRENCHY'S#441 EAST SHORE DRIVE East/West Sfreet: PAPAYA STREET North/South Street: EAST SHORE DRIVE Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad'�stments Ma'or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 33 175 43 1 52 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 180 44 1 53 S veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 -- -' Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Si nal 0 � Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 15 31 17 2 55 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR �5 31 17 2 56 0 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 D 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 � Flared Appraach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channe�ized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dela , Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh/h) 34 1 58 63 C (m)(veh/h) 1555 1357 574 634 v/c 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.1 D 95%queue length 0.07 0.00 0.34 0.33 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.4 7.7 12.0 11.3 LOS A A B 8 pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 12•0 ��•3 pproach LOS -- -- B B Copyright OO 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+rM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/17/2012 1125 AM file:///C:/Users/vtoma/AppDatalLocaUTeinp/u21cDDA3.tmp 4/17/2012 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 �� , �. , TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VT Intersection PAPAYA ST/EAST SHORE A enc /Co. GCC DR urisdiction CITY OF CLEARWATER Date Performed 4/17/2012 Anal sis Year 2013 WITH PROJECT Anal sis Time Period PM PEAK Pro'ect Description FRENCHY'S#441 EAST SHORE DRIVE EastM/est Street: PAPAYA STREET North/South Street: EAST SHORE DRIVE Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustmen�s Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h 39 160 26 0 64 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 175 28 0 70 2 veh/h) Percent Neavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes D 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 16 17 17 0 28 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.99 0.91 Nourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 18 18 0 30 0 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 D 0 0 D 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(veh/h) 42 0 30 53 C(m) (veh/h) 1541 1381 563 656 v/c 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.08 95%queue length 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.26 Controi Delay(s/veh) 7.4 7.6 11.8 11.0 LOS A A 8 8 pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 11.8 11.0 pproach LOS -- -- B B Copyright�2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/17/2012 12:45 PM file:///C:/Users/vtoma/A�pData/LocaUTemp/u2k5A43.tmp 4/17/2012 Two-Way Stop Cont�ol Page 1 of 1 ',_ ., � . TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information PAPAYA ST/POINSETTIA nalyst VT Intersection VE A enc /Co. GCC Jurisdiction CITY OF CLEARWATER Date Performed 4/17/2012 Anal sis Year 2013 VVITH PROJECT Anal sis Time Period MID DAY PEAK Pro'ect Description FRENCHY`S#441 EAST SHORE DRIVE East/West Street: PAPAYA STREET North/South Street: POINSETTIA AVE Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 5 63 55 2 �5 1� Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 70 61 2 83 12 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — � 0 — �- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 1 Z L T R L T R olume veh/h 10 15 7 60 16 22 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Nourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 16 7 66 17 24 (veh/h 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage D 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 � Configuration LTR LTR Dela ,Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(veh/h) 5 2 107 34 C (m) (veh/h) 1512 1467 761 726 v/c 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.05 95% queue fength 0.01 0.00 0.49 0.15 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.4 7.5 10.5 10.2 LOS A A 8 B pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 10.5 10.2 pproach LOS -- -- 8 8 Copyright OO 201 o University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 411712012 12:48 PM file:///C:/LTsers/vtomaJAppData/Local/Teinp/u2k16C3.tmp 4/17/2012 Twa-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 � � � . .. .;- . TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nalyst VT intersection PAPAYA ST/POINSETTIA VE encylCo. GCC urisdiction CITY OF CLEARWATER Date PerFormed 4/17/2012 Anal sis Year 2013 WITH PROJECT Anal sis Time Period PM PEAK Pro'ect Description FRENCHY`S#441 EAST SHORE DRIVE East/West Street: PAPAYA STREET North/South Street: POINTSETTIA AVE Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period (hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 8 79 31 2 85 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR $ g5 33 2 92 8 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- � -' -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configurafion LTR LTR U stream Si nal 0 D Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 12 9 8 34 14 24 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourfy Flow Rate, HFR 13 9 g 36 15 26 (veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 � Flared Approach N N Storage 0 D RT Channefized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay,Queue Length,and Levet of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(veh/h) 8 2 77 30 C(m) (veh/h) 1505 1483 773 736 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.04 95%queue length 0.02 0.00 0.33 0.13 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.4 7.4 10.2 10.1 LOS A A B 8 pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 10.2 10.1 pproach LOS -- -- 8 B Copyright OO 2010 Universify of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/17I2012 12:46 PM file:///C:/Users/vtoma/AppData/LocaUTemp/u2kB 186.tmp 4/17/2012 SCALE:,NTS COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) TABLE OF CONTENTS SHEET 1 - EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET 2 - PROPOSED DOCK DIMENSIONS SHEET 2B - PROPOSED BOARDWALK DIMENSIONS SHEET 3 - WATER DEPTHS AT MEAN LOW WATER AND BENTHIC CONDITIONS SHEET 4 - CROSS SECTION (A -A') SHEET 5 - CROSS SECTION (B - B') SHEET 6 - FIXED DOCK APPROACH & BOARDWALK DETAILS SHEET 7 - FIXED DOCK APPROACH & BOARDWALK DETAILS SHEET 8 - RAMP & FLOATING DOCK DETAILS SHEET 9 - RAMP & FLOATING DOCK DETAILS SHEET 10 - PILING WRAP DETAILS SHEET 11 - TURBIDITY DETAILS SHEET 12 - REFLECTIVE TAPE DETAILS SHEET 13 - SIGNAGE SHEET 14 - FIRE AND WATER PLAN SHEET 15 - FIRE DETAILS SHEET 16 - FIRE DETAILS SHEET 17 - ELECTRICAL Wed,13 Jun 20 �}��` p Q ECTS\Frenchy's Motei Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg � �� CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 �. � L S •. . �' a �ss � �.�,�''� WOODS CONSULTING e8 �=� 1714 COUN7Y ROAD 1, SUITE 22 DUNEDIN FL 34698 PH. 727 786-5747 I � = : * =* : F,� ��2�; �es—�4�a F R E N C H Y S _ . . � A � �� TABLE OF CONTENTS . : . .. �� ;�,. . � :� , • 1►;`�1 �• ...!� •' ` •NAL ENG`�� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 �� SCALE: 1" = 50' COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) ¢ .<�. � ��> �.fi�#;u � �� # '�;-��* � � ��i x �.�, �R�` � � �� M I � � to-' c v w '.{. ' �� ,.. ' . .;. . " n 'o- � c4 £ . . . . �� fa.',", tF:.-� ..S. x -d.1�^rd" ,L,� � .Y. ..+� � ,.. .7 � � �441 EAST SHORE DR. PARCEL ID# � � � � �� `�'- �,�'��t� � �08/29/15/02592/003/0010 ` �` � �� '�'SHORELINE = 50.0 LF � � �� '�t a ; � , � �, , � ,.� � � � r ��.m, a� ` �`� � NEW UPLAND RESTAURANT SITE ' t < �� %� �,�, �, � ....��., � � - � � � v , ��.�„ ��.�, ,P .....� r�.� ,b� _`:;. � ;, ;� _ , a, ,,. � ,. . � ��425 EAST SHORE DR. PARCEL ID# ' ��08/29/15/02592/003/0020 �� ,. ��y „SHORELINE = 50.0 LF s� � �� ,rr� �% �, ° � g '.� . � .� ,. R� .0 NEW UPLAND RESTAURANT SITE � "` � � - �* � s �`� 5� ' �' �' _ -.�:`—' � g - ��^�,� �� . �� ; - r ,� � �� , -- � -A 3 a._ , ... , h': ..,;*. , � .. � ` �� 423 EAST SHORE DR. � � � PARCEL ID# f�� 08/29/15/02592/003/0030 ' � SHORELINE = 123.0 LF �� , �, �'�'�Y�1VIIl�° �ASIS MOTEL �� * � NO UPLAND ; r'� , ' CHANGE ,� � �� .*�� ; �:> > >� � �� }�'. ... . � � . ��. �� f �X'..': .Y �^2.�.�. � � e�� R� �'��5�� d� ..., _ , a 7 � . _ , y ,.� .:. �Y. ...,;t. . is't.#'�. ` .� . .. . , er�, � �� ,. � �e ' 413 EAST SHORE DR� �� '�� ' � �' �. �� f�,�, � ��` , PARCEL ID � ��.� .� `, � +�, i�,+�Vr' �E..r fi �� ` ,�:_..._,_-----µ._�_ � � #08/29/15/02592/003/0050 � ° ��.;; "� �a SHORELINE = 77.0 LF � � � � . � � � � T �;, �:R .. � FRENCHY'S SEAFOOD �� ;;� �� '� NO UPLAND ,� � �£w�� CHANGE ��`�� , � ,� � �� ,g � • .� �� : _...n ,w � --� �rt.:;�. � �<-�, �_ . � ,,,�.,. -� �u � , , � - � � � ,; r _ . �,_ " . . . .... _. :.:. .r. i ...�.,..'` :r .� r;JU+T�cm��.aYr, r, �....," _�. h�� K L. � � p� } a,P �. � '. l+pa ""��.t�."�i4'r w7fiY �t'Rif 1 � �r � .�,r.�.r._ ,..�-h� ��da�.S_'i��H.:t�S� `� �_� �� ¢ a��: �� N.�F.� �H�`' .� �"�3''�' � � � a_;yi�*e.. �.++:. . s at� �.�`'6��k:i�t��.� SHORELINE LENGTHS OBTAINED FROM PINELLAS COUNTY G.LS. Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12:4 m F:\PROJECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET � E 0� L CERTIF�CATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 ,�� • •s��.` �I .�' � �kS�;�i�,�'•,� WOODS CONSULTING �� 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 : ,�. �s��e ;�� DUNEDIN � 34698 F R E N C H Y'S • •,w►w PH. (7275 786-5747 i i i � FAX (727) 786—?479 • • �� •* • � • • �, � Q�,:��w'� EXISTING CONDITIONS � �.,�A�1�,.• ��t'�� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 .��pNA;`ENt'��. COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# SCALE: 1�� - 60� (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) SEE SHEET 4 FOR A� NEW COMMERCIAL DOCK: CROSS SECTION A-A' FIXED APPROACH (22 FT X 4 FT)=88 SQ FT � UPPER LANDING (8 FT X 8 FT)=64 SQ FT � k 12.0� � RAMP (32 FT X 5 FT) = 160 SQ FT Z `� J I LOWER LANDING (8 FT X 8 FT)=64 FT � � p } I �C W FLOATING DOCKS: � W E- p Z 2 (254 FT X 12 FT=3,048 SQ FT) =6,096 SQ FT Z W I 55.0 �Z J 1 (79 FT X 12 FT)=948 SQ FT W a I �F � TOTAL NEW COMMERCIAL DOCK AREA=7,420 SQ FT X � � �W w W a I I p •DOCK PROJECT SHORELINE=100.0 LF I * I a •SIDE SETBACKS= 10.0 FT •DOCK WIDTH ALLOWED=75.0 FT I I .DOCK WIDTH PROPOSED=79.0 FT � : � rt� I � I •COMBINED SHORELINE 441,425,423&419 � � "� EAST SHORE='300.0 LF ��"� � ' � •MAX. DOCK LENGTH ALLOWED WITH VARIANCE USING COMBINED I � I •SHORELINE=337.5 FT*WITH BOARDWALK INCENTIVE. I I •DOCK LENGTH PROPOSED=300.0 FT � � 254.0 � �10.0 300.0 10.0� � � �. I I �� I � I � I I � I � `�: � I I i 79.0 I , �� . , � � 12�0 SEE SHEET 2B FOR FIXED DOCK � � BOARDWALK � ' ' APPROACH � DETAILS RAMP � ' A • � � 423 � • � 441 ; 425 �-�_ 419 411 Wed, 13 Jun 201 �'pp�/r1�F� ROJECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CADIFRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 2 � CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 .� �Na••. '• •` l�':�"'�� WOODS CONSULTING NOTES: � O '�� r 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 � �� • � DUNEDIN FL 34698 � ; ��'L PH. (727� �a6-s�a� The proposed boardwalk and commercial dock will � � ,�� .* = Fnx cn�> �ss-�a�s meet ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Recreational �� $T � �� ;�� Facilities (Boating Facilities) per 2010 ADA Standards � .. � �:��w. FRENCHY S for Accessible Design, Department of Justice � •°A �°•�'��'.�`� PROPOSED DOC �September 15, Zo�o�. � .....• ,�NA�EN��.�`` REVISIONS: 06-07-12 s COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# SCALE: 1�� =EO� (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) � � � wl Z � JI � e e � � � �WZ � pp„' � �ZJ Wa � ;. �� F X w a I � I W a NEW BOARDWALK: O 4 4 1 &4 2 5 E A S T S H O R E: 5.0 F T O V E R W A T E R, 1 0.0 F T O V E R L A N D I I a 423 EAST SHORE: 15.0 FT OVER WATER � � 419 EAST SHORE: 15.0 FT OVER WATER I I TOTAL BOARDWALK AREA 4,635 SQ FT(APPROX.309 LINEAR FT) � � ( � � � � � � � � ��° � � ��? � � �,,, � , I �° ; I a��`: � ��J � � � � � ry' � � » � � � , � I � I Bi GATES � ( � • . . 309.0 � ,; LINEqR FEET • • B 423 � . � CONNECT TO 411 441 = 425 L�� EAST SHORE SEE SHEET 5 FOR 4�9 411 "�� CROSS SECTION B-B' Wed, 13 Jun 24i� �pr�j� d�CTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 2B � �i CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 • , �,Q` �6S�a •'�� WOODS CONSULTING � � �"� ��ia courm Roan t, surrE 2z NOTES: � � * �* P UN�ZI75 786-45747 FAX (727) 786-7479 4 F S�� The proposed boardwalk and commercial dock will •� : �w� meet ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Recreational • �tj �� •• q �O h.•��'r FRENCHY�S Facilities (Boating Facilities) per 2010 ADA Standards ��"'�� • PROPOSED DOC g p ' NA�EN�.`�� for Accessible Desi n, De artment of Justice ��i�� (September 15, 2010). REVISIONS: 06-07-12 ' � �� COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# SCALE: 1 = 60 (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) r� � se ��t� � � Z I ��-18 1� Z � J� I 1@ �g� e � e 0 �I � W �b �5 � W p J 15 e W O I 13 I � � ,4 '4 14 �8 W G�.I � W a 13--��-13\ _ �-^� \J � � I O 13� r? 1� � � d �-12 � � 12 � � �� 11� I , : �: � 11 � �: �11 � ��" � r0 �.� �11 � �• � s�� I ��$ I �2 I � I 0� I I I i I '� ,1 � �: � �o I S e ��F4,�� , e e —�� 'o �o ° 4 5 � 7� ��§f�� 8 0 � � • • .� �p � , ;'�. I 0� �:.•.: � • W . . �`�� .�� 2 I 6' � � 10 0\\� 3! s B • � 9 2 � �/ �� 9 �v 6 � � ��'-- 4 8�� A_ � 3 � � � ,,,__,- � .r SEAGRASS `- �""'--' �423 : o '� •c„ �� ---•..�``'., --�"-� � BEOS � ��; ; . � _� . 441 `; 425 L�� ...... SEAGRASS � BEDS 419 411 �u�� Wed, 13 Jun 201 ��1� �I�I�JECTS\Frenchy's Motei Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 3 N � �► CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 - . _` 4:'� �sse�':�� WOODS CONSULTING FRENCHY'S � �,�• 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SURE 22 � �D' * � �j DUNEDIN FL 34698 � PH. (727� 786-5747 � i •� FAX (727) 786-7479 : � c,�:;�t WATER DEPTHS AT . "�'• � �L ENp,'�'�'�� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 M EAN LOW WATE R & ��i��'' BENTHIC CONDITIONS S�CALE:�1" = 10' COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) SEE SHEET 2 FOR CROSS SECTION A-A' LOCATION 5.0 � 42" RAILING �10.0 :� MHW=+0.59 FT __ ' _____'_____________ '_�'____________'_ _ '__"'___'___'_' _________'___ _'_______"_______'______�_'______'_________'_____ _' .:� __ ' _____ __MLW__128 FT_ __ __ __ _ _ _ _' __ .. _____'_____ ____ _ ___'_'_'_____ __ _' _ __ __ _ " _ _ _ __ W " ' " - Z ,✓ J _ U � Q � LANDWARD BOARDWALK ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - w w z z � � _ _ � � OUTERMOST TIE POLES TO BE WRAPPED WITH REFLECTiVE TAPE (SEE SHEET 12) ---- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - --------------------------------- W -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- --- z � _ U a � Wed, 13 Jun 20 ��t�rAf�jPROJECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 4 �. CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 •��'� ;•'�,10E�V'••.t� �i '�' ' `�t�`'.�� WOODS CONSULTING �i'► ; . • � *: � 16�� 1714 COUN7Y ROAD 1, SUITE 22 = ' :�`= H�"�2'�s ;BS 4594 FRENCHY'S � * ;* Fnx (�z�) �as—�a�s w � � ',� , . �°�..;-`�wr CROSS SECTION A — A' . �..�'.�•�� REVISIONS. 06-07-12 � �,i�ti�E�`�, ' � COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# SCALE: 1" = 5� (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) SEE SHEET 2 FOR CROSS SECTION B - B' LOCATION MATCH DECK ELEVATION OF BOARDWALK TO EXISTING DOCK ELEV= +4.10 FT ` .�p e '� MHW ELEV= +0.59 FT . b ' MLW ELEV= -1.28 FT b .D! . � �, .D�, s Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12:53pm F:IPROJECTS\Frenchy's Motei Docks(513-11)1CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET rJ i� 'S SEAL CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 .•`��Q►�GNA' ' �•�'IS�i, WOODS CONSULTING �� i F�'� I �j 1714 COUMY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 `�� .� /`/ d►�� DUNEDIN FL 34698 F R E N C H Y'S i PH. (727� 786-5747 � �• � �i�.r FAX (727) 786-7479 �� t i�� : : s � :,�� CROSS SECTION A - A' � fi �.�� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 ti ..,�� .••'(`�G�►ir '�•.'�� EN��•�' ��r u+�`' . SCALE: NONE COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) NOTE:COMPOSITE DECKING IS SPECIFIED. O.C.STRINGER SPACING TO BE VIA MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS,NOT TO EXCEED 24"O.C. HANDRAIL STANCHIONS PLACED 5.0'O.C. 2"X 10"INTERMEDIATE STRINGER MAX.2.0' 2"X 6"HANDRAILS O.C.CCA OR ACQ.60 RET. DECKING 2"X 4" 42" 2°xs° STANCHIONS COUNTERSINK ALL BOLTS RAILING TO BE FASTENED TO STRINGERS ADJACENT TO BOAT SLIPS. o W/SHORT BOLT,AND FASTENED TO PILE 0 o WITH LONGER BOLT WHEN AVAILABLE ALL BOLTING TO BE 5/8"S/S o a 0 o DOUBLE STRINGER 2"X 10" 22 DEG MIN #2 S4S CCA OR ACQ.60 RET. ° 45 DEG MAX 0 MINIMUM PILE BENT BRACING: ALL PILE BENTS TO BE � ° CROSS BRACED 1MTH ° ° 2"X 10"#2 S4S CCA 2"X 10"#2 S4S CCA 2.5 RET. 2.5 RET.ONE EACH SIDE ONE SIDE ONLY 2"X 10"#2 S4S CCA 2.5 RET. ALL PIIE CAPS&CROSS BRACING& BRACING TO BE DOUBLE BLOCKING BOLTED AS SPECIFIED NOTE: ALL CCA TREATED PILES TO BE VINYL WRAPPED FROM MUD(SILT)LINE TO 2.0' MIN 8"TIP PILING 2.5 C.C.A.RET. ABOVE THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE(MHV� SET BUTT DOWN,MIN 8.0'PENETRATION. W�TH PRIME HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE 030 THICK NOTE: DECK BOARDS TO BE TRIMMED BOTH SIDES. NOTE: ALL INTERMEDIATE STRINGERS TO BE LAP JOINTED AT BENTS 2.0'MIN. FIXED APPROACH AND BOARDWALK DETAILS Wed, 13 Jun 201 �/ ��.Xj1�20JECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 6 1� '� CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 •` �.•'' �N�'•. �. � �' �'F��.'!, WOODS CONSULTING � � i • 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SURE 22 C �� r� , ��w DUNEDIN FL 34698 F R E N C H Y,V � ��• PH. (7275 786-5747 � • �* = FAX (727) 786-7479 • i i ,,�-�• + �...:�,� FIXED APPROACH AND , • „!,,,..•�,�►�,• REVISIONS: 06-07-12 BOARDWALK DETAI LS ., ,q i ENL��.• SCALE: NONE COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) It is the intent of the following construction detaiis to be a reference guide for quality, structural and safety standards. All structures to meet local, and or state guidelines for aquatic and marine construction. GENERAL DOCK NOTES: 1. ALL DECKING TO BE TRIMMED ON BOTH SIDES. 2. ALL PILINGS TO BE SEATED WITH A FREE FALLING HAMMER IF WATER JETTING IS INSTALLATION METHOD. ALL PILES TO BE TRIMMED SAME HEIGHT. 3. PILING CENTER TO CENTER SPACING ON ALL FIXED DOCKS TO BE 10 FT NOMINAL AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 12 FT. 4. DOCK FRAMING AND DECKING TO BE CONSTRUCTED USING STAINLESS STEEL HARDWARE(APPROPRIATE HARDWARE FOR COMPOSITE DECKING AND HANDRAILS WHERE SPECIFIED). 5. WOOD DECK BOARD SPACING AT TIME OF INSTALLATION NOT TO EXCEED 1!8"TO ALLOW FOR CURING, COMPOSITE DECK SPACING NOT TO EXCEED 1/4". DECK SCREW PATTERN 6. ALL DOCK FRAMING OTHER THAN DECKING TO BE MINIMUM GRADE 2 LUMBER. ooue�e sTR�r,ceRS STRINGERS TE 7. RASP OR FEATHER ALL SAWCUTS. 8. ALL CONSTRUCTION TO MEET OR EXCEED COUNTY REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN � � SECTIONS 166-(332, 333 &334) OF THE PINELLAS COUNTY WATER& ° ' NAVIGATION CONTROL AUTHORITY DOCK CODES. ° ° 9. CCA WOOD NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR DECKING OR RAILING MATERIALS.WOOD ° ° TREATMENT,AS FOLLOWS,ARE ACCEPTABLE:ALKALINE COPPER ° ° QUATERNARY(ACQ), IF ACQ TREATMENT IS UTILIZED,THEN THE WOOD � NEEDS TO BE SEALED WITH AN ENGINEER-APPROVED SEALANT. oNE scREwiNroEacH 10. CENTER TO CENTER SPANS OF THE FIXED DOCK SUPPORT PILINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12 FEET. 11. 5/8"GALVANIZED FASTENERS ARE NOT TO BE USED IN WOOD WITH COPPER INTERMEDIATE STRINGER AZOLE TREATMENT. LAP JOINT 12.ALL TREATED TIMBER PILINGS TO BE WRAPPED FROM THE MUD (SILT) LINE TO �� (NTS) Ik�l 2.0'ABOVE THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE (MHWL)WITH PRIME HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (30 MILS OR .030"THICK�. DOUBLE STRINGERSMIN. 4'OVERLAP INTERMEDIATE STRINGER MIN.2'OVERLAP � 12'MAX.O.C. 10'NOMINAL SPACING� Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12: 3qr��F�PROJECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)1CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 7 E CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 �•`�,Q C N'�',�i+��•i� WOODS CONSULTING • i / 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 � � Sa� � �i DUNEDIN FL 34698 F R E N C H Y'S � � i : PH. (727� 786-5747 • • •* FAX (727) 766-7479 . � ?'�. �F�,� FIXED APPROACH AND ,�;• .q.,o.�,a�,�� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 BOARDWALK DETAI LS � , ��NA��Nt.. SCALE: NONE COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) SIDE MOUNTED 'D' WHITE VINYL BUMPER �, POLY FLOAT E-CHANNEL BOX FRAME 'c X 8 PT PINE WOOD FENDER ELEVATION VIEW OF ALUMINUM DECKED PDLY FLOATING DOCK IS�METRIC VIEW OF ALUMINUM DECKED P�LY FLOATING DOCK SCALE� NTS SCALE� NTS LENGTH B 5/8' ALUMINUM DECKING CHANNEL (3/8' GAP SPACING CROSS MEMBER BETWEEN PLANKS) WIDTH — A CHANNEL CROSS MEMBER TUBE STRINGER POLY FLOAT WIDTH � WOOD FENDERE E-CHANNEL BOX FRAME SIDE MOUNTED SIDE M�UNTED TUBE STRINGER �A POLY FLOAT �D' WHITE VINYL BUMPER 'D' WHITE VINYL BUMPER SECURE WITH ALUMINUM SECTION A-A RO�FING NAILS A � NTS PLAN VIEW OF ALUMINUM DECKED POLY FLOATING D�CK SCALE� NTS Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12��11R�� JECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET $ E R �i CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 �� •�'�C�Ng�.��.�,,�� WOODS CONSULTING � �' 0 �� 1714 COUNT`f ROAD 1, SUITE 22 ' ♦ � DUN�DIN� FL 34696 F R E N C H Y S : •t PH, 727 766-5747 ; * i FAX (727) 786-7479 � • � • : � /��' oF .;�+�� FLOATING DOCK 7, 0 ,p�'•• ��'',. S+j'••R•�•'�� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 DETAILS �i,��NA��E�,•� SCALE: NONE COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) LENGTH E-CHAMIEL BOX FRANE TREAD PLATE PIPE RAILING A — T:lxVl' I RIBBED HINGE ASSENBLY VlDTH TOP DECKING CHANNEL A RAIL POCKET� 12'x 36'WEAR CROSS MEMBERS PLATE(2 REfYD) AND STRINGERS PLAN VIEW OF DR2 T�P DECKED ALUMIMIN GANGWAY SCALE�NTS ISONETRIC VIEV OF DR2 TOP 11ECKED ALUMINUN GANGWAY SCALE�NTS T�TAL WIDTH PIPE RAILING � GRAH RAIL PIPE RAIUNG RAB RAIL 1'-6'� CLEAR VIDTH 3'-6'2'-10' TOE RAIL 1 7/8' TUP 11ECKING ��9� MAX GAP TREAD PLATE TOE RAIL TOP DECKING E-CBHOAXJFR F�RMIE RAIL POCKET LENGTN T x T x 1/P 12'x 36'VEAR RIBBED HINGE ASSEMBLY PLATE(2 REQ'D) RAIL POCKET CHANNEL LROSS MEMBERS AND STRINGERS PLAN VIEV�F DR2 TOP DECKED ALUMINUM GANGWAY SCALE NTS SECTIRI A-A SCALEi NTS Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12 m F:\PROJECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 9 � CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 ,.`�'�', .•••......�.. �i �. ��:' ��3'�.�I�� WOODS CONSULTING ; e; N �65�a •�� 1714 COUNTY ROAD ,, SUITE 22 F R E N C H Y'S DUNEDIN FL 34698 � �' �r S PH. (727� 786-5747 � •*� FAX (727) 786-7479 • = �; �p ;�r RAMP AND FLOATING -. < � .'�``:� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 DOCK DETAI LS .•�� ,�. .A �O. t� .,��.�'�A;'E,N►,t��• SCALE: NONE COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) NOTE: ALL CCA TREATED PILES TO BE VINYL WRAPPED FROM MUD (SILT) LINE TO 2.0'ABOVE THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE (MH1l�WITH PRIME HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE 30 MILS OR .030"THICK NOTE: TOP ELEVATION CANNOT BE GREATER PLASTIC CAPS ON ALL THAN 10'ABOVE MEAN EXPOSED PILE TIPS, FASTEN WITH HIGH WATER S.S. NAILS (TYP.), CAPS SHOULD ELEVATION BE NO MORE THAN 1/4" LARGER THAN TRIMMED PILE DIMENSION. � 2.0 FT 0 ° MHW LINE 0 MIN 8" TIP PILING 2.5 C.C.A. RET. � SET BUTT DOWN, MIN 8.0' PENETRATION. � ° VINYL WRAPPING ° FROM MUD LINE ° TO 2.0'ABOVE MHW 0 0 MUD LINE (Bottom) Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12:54pm F:\PROJECTS1Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET �� CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 •• Q► ••••. +� ��G� �� N�`��•��►�•., WOODS CONSULTING � � � 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 � �,5Se8 �i r DUNEDIN FL 34698 F R E N C H Y S � •�!j PH. (727� 786-5747 1 i i; FAX (727) 766-7479 � * i :� ' E o .�� PILING WRAP DETAIL S � '• • � �' � ..,�R�Q.•�' t�� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 i�+Niiiii�N�'�,, SCALE: 1" = 80' COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) N�1 R a WATER LEVEL CONNECTING RODS Z � FLOAT � a c� � — � ° LAMINATED , VINYL-POLYESTER SEA FLOOR � �12" MIN FABRIC CHAIN WEIGHTED ��TYPICAL FLOATING TURBIDITY CURTAINS (DESIGN BY AER-FLO INC.) NTS FLOATING TURBIDITY CURTAINS (USE SMALLEST AREA PRACTICABLE) �$N �� .. � . • � � � ///�''�� f I . // 423 ' J� 441 ' 425 L� � � 419 411 409 � 405 � � r:EAST SHORE �EAST SHORE > € Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12:54pm F:\PROJECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 11 8 EAL CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 .` P �. .�'��G�'''r� N •��E`�'�. WOODS CONSULTING � �;� s�i�'�' 1714 COUNiY ROAD t, SUITE 22 DUNEDIN FL 34698 : * - � � 5 :��= PH, (727� �es-5�4� F R E N C H Y'S � �.r� FAX (727) 786-7479 � • n .� � . i R _ � �. � �,4 TURBIDITY DETAILS � REVISIONS: 06-07-12 �� • 1 D�"••'t1►�i4i' .•.�••`4` t�� ''�•��i Eii t`�• SCALE� NONE COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) All pilings identified shall be painted with a durable white coating on the upper four (4) feet °o thereof and wrapped with white reflective tape of °o at least two (2) inches in width and one foot from o° the top so that the same shall be visible for three o� hundred sixty (360) degrees. °e eo MHW LINE WHITE COATING FOR TOP 4 FT AND REFLECTIVE TAPE 1 FT FROM THE TOP PILING MUD LINE NOT TO SCALE �BOtt0111� OUTERMOST TIE POLES TO BE WRAPPED WITH REFLECTIVE TAPE Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12: F:\PROJECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET �2 E CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 ,�� .�..y....� i ��`�G:'�4�C�NSF•��•��. WOODS CONSULTING � Q:• •;�`: 1714 COUNTY ROAD t, S�RE 22 F R E N C H Y'S rJJr88 •'/�•+ DUNEDIN FL 34698 � * �� PH. (727� 786-5747 � ' �* � FAX (727) 786-7479 � • * • � r � � ; �: ��; REFLECTIVE TAPE s �' DETAILS �'� . .�I.��.*�G�� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 � ��iii��`�`,• SCALE: 1" = 60' COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) E4 � 1 . 1 : 1 . � a Z � � � � "BE A BETTER BOATER"- REPLACES MANATEE BASICS SIGN �, `� �� CAUTION SEAGRASS CAUTION • � • MANATEES , � g � • � , � • LANDWA�D FACIN "BE A B�TTER ' BOATER:SIGN" 423 � � 441 N 425 L�� Wed, 13 Jun 2012-1 '�prD1 Fy:}PROJECTS1Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)1CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 13 ��i CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 �,,(f •'•••� � tS''•• �.,: :.`Q� •" N E' •:�+ WOODSTM CONSUi E ziNG . • ` • : 588 �,�. � DUNEDIN FL 34698 . . .* = PH. (727 5 �86_5�4� F R E N C H Y'S : : � vnx (n�) �ss-�a�s 'O. • �' � � � • � �� SIGNAGE • �� , � �j.� .�. �Q�!''.•0�� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 ��jl yA;�N�� SCALE: 1" — 60' COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) � � a I Z � � � LEGEND � � � I I Q FIRE HOSE STATION:SPACING 100 I TO 150 FT APART MAX. I EX FIRE EXTINGUISHERS(4ACOBC)IN I I FIBERGLASS CABINET SPACING 70 FT TO 75 FT APART MAX. I I FIRE MAIN - - POTABLE WATER I HDPE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE 6 TOTAL I (HEAT FUMED)PER ASTM F-714 ZZ��FIRE HOSE CONNECTIO I FDC FIRE DEPARTMENTCONNECTION (WET STANDPIPES) F I I I I � '; � ex I � FIRE I �� °; EXTINGUISHERS FIRE LINE � � � � 8 TOTAL I �� : £� i � '`` 2" PVC (POTABLE) � �� WATER LINES � ; � � � � � � ' . � § � , , . � � � ' � s . 6"DRC FIFiE LINE • UNDER GROUND� MIN. 30" BURIAL . ; 423 � e � 441 � 425 L�� 3 ¢ Q DOCK FDC 419 � a ¢ a � � Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12:56pm F:\PROJECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 14 EN f? CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 .�`��Z`�4'� ��SF'�.�'Si'�. WOODS CONSULTING NOTES: : � ��'+i 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 . 55 ;� � DUNEDIN FL 34698 PH. (727� 786-5747 • �* a F�vc ��z�� as-�a�s Docks to meet the requirements of NFPA 303 Fire � . . � ' '�� Protection Standards for Marinas and Boatyards - . . • . . •'p� f _'�y�Z FRENCHY�S 2006 Edition including; 6.4 Fire Standpipe Systems, ��' ' "9�'��``'� FIRE DETAILS NFPA 14, s.3.3. Combustible Piers and �� ..�q;.••�C?�� Substructures, and 6.2 Portable Fire Extinguishers. ��,tIION�,�ti�� REVISIONS: 06-07-12 �CALE' NONE COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) 2-1/2"HOSE VALVE� 6"DIA STAINLESS I STEELTUBE 2"SDR II HDPE I I PIPE WALER(TYP.)l ^ �LD TO STAINLESS FLOATING DOCK ` � STEEL PLATE STAINLESS STREEL 3"SDR II HDPE PIPE(FIRE)W/14 STRUT(2)REQUIRED G/A/S/S/STRAP&5/16"X2"S.S. 0 LAG SCREWS 4'O.C. WATER LINE DISTANCE VARIES DEPENDING ON WHALER WIDTH AND DOCK FREEBOARD SINGLE CANTILEVER(CL) FLOATING DOCK HOSE VALVE 2-1/2"FIRE DEPARTMENT (NTS) CONNECTION 0 6"WHITE SCHD 40 PVC PIPE a � FILL WITH CONCRETE 3"BRASS ADAPTER SIGN TO READ"DRY FIRE STANDPIPE DOCKS" GRADELEVEL ' CONCRETE ,�•° � .p' �`. . ••f•. 4 3"SDR II HDPE PIPE 36"MIN BURIAL FIRE DEPT CONNECTION (NTS) Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12:56 \PROJECTSiFrenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 15 EN R I�►� CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 .` !` .,•.,...... �' �i •`�G'�'� ks��•��'�'� WOODS CONSULTING NOTES: . . : �' •.s : � Q+` �5 5 e� i�� 1714 D N D NRO�34698�E 22 � ; � PH. (727� �ee-s�a� Docks to meet the requirements of NFPA 303 Fire . : ;# � Fax (�2�> 786-7479 protection Standards for Marinas and Boatyards ��: ��f�'� 2006 Edition including; 6.4 Fire Standpipe Systems, � � ��1�� FRENCHY�S NFPA 14, 6.3.3. Combustible Piers and p'"• �'• Substructures and 6.2 Portabie Fire Extin uishers. • .,a;..••'G�,•` FIRE DETAILS � g ,;ON�;1�N.��. REVISIONS: 06-07-12 SCALE:� NONE COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) STAINLESS STEEL 3-1/2"X 3-1l2"X 1/4" STAINLESSSTEELTHROUG OLT 3/8"X 3-1/2"HEX CAP � AND FLAT WASHER � 316 STAINLESS S EL BARB � ADAPTER C � TRIPLE BAND WITH 316 � STAINLESS STEEL BANDING i i i � � i i i STAINLESS STEEL i ADAPTER � i 1-1/2"WIFE 14 GA 316 STAINLESS 316SS STRAP STEEL GROVED COUPLING TYPICAL RAMP ANCHOi2 DETAIL (NTS) GA AY RAMP GANG WAY RAMP FLOATING DOCK -------------- --- -----------------� WATERLINE 3"DIA TEXCEL FLO-3 HD-FIRE OR EQUIVALENT STAINLESS STEEL WITH S.S.ADAPTERS HANGER(TYP.) WITH 4"DISCHARGE HOSE FOR CHAFE ATTACH WITH 1/4" PROTECTION-TEX-POLY B-40 TYPICAL(2) STAINLESS BOLT AS ENDS NEEDED FLEX DETAIL (NTS) Wed, 13 Jun 2012-12:56pm F:\PROJECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)\CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 16 E d CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 •`�,�`�r`'�� •.�-,A��'. WOODS CONSULTING NOTES: �,�.` �'y- �� 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 ��' N �� '�� DUNEDIN FL 34698 .. PH. (�2�y �e6-s�a� Docks to meet the re uirements of NFPA 303 Fire � i'� _► FAX (727) 786-7479 q � • : Protection Standards for Marinas and Boatyards � : :�' 2006 Edition including; 6.4 Fire Standpipe Systems, �O'� �•�,s F R E N C HY�S NFPA 14, 6.3.3. Combustible Piers and • • �• Substructures and 6.2 Portable Fire Extin uishers. '• • „ ,.°•�;c,�,•` F I RE D ETAI LS ° g .� `.E,,�� a�` REVISIONS: 06-07-12 v SCALE: 1" = 60' COMMERCIAL DOCK Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) � � � �1 � I � " � � Z � I � � I � I � I � UTILITY CONDUIT FOR FUTURE ELECTRIC (IF DESIRED) � � � � � � � ` ; � � � � ° � � 'a �. � � ��` � � �� , � � ` � I j � , I I E� � I I � � I ,�� I � 'i I I ' ' : . � . I � . I � � ' I • ; � • � . � 423 � fi I 441 € 425 L�� Q 419 � ¢ � a � � � Wed, 13 Jun 201 ��:��P F:\PROJECTS\Frenchy's Motel Docks(513-11)1CAD\FRENCHYS MASTER 2012 CDB.dwg SHEET 17 ��•' � '� CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 27664 �G;•'�,�C�iyB.,E`''''. , : t�`��'�� WOODS CONSULTING :�:� �� 1714 COUNN ROAD 1, SUITE 22 •� �$ :: �� DUNEDIN FL 34698 . _ PH• (727� �86-5�4� F R E N C H Y S v:'V� S tR L' Fnx (�2�) �ea—�a�s � : : � � ;� Z��r REVISIONS ;� . .�`.,,a��,�,,• ELECTRICAL , A4 E�1.��,. �• ��t�R��` REVISIONS: 06-07-12