The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2014-05013Clearwater To: Community Development Board Members From: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III Date: July 10, 2014 RE: FLD2014 -05013 — 483 Mandalay Avenue The day staff reports were due, staff received information from the applicant that there was an existing Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) associated with the subject property. The applicant submitted a warranty deed recorded in 2005 between the then owner of the subject property and the owner of the property described as Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, Block A, Bayside Subdivision, No. 5. The deed transferred the development rights for four (4) dwelling units to the subject property. However, Staff could not find any City records indicating the TDR was approved by the CDB; for this reason, staff determined that the deed could not be recognized as having transferred any development rights to the subject property, and this was the information presented in the staff report. Subsequently, staff determined that the TDR was, in fact, approved as a part of FLD2004 -09072 and that the four (4) dwellings units were transferred from the property located at 656 Bayway Boulevard. While the FLD application has expired, the dwelling units transferred via the TDR run with the land irrespective of the status of any associated site plan approvals and remain with the subject property. However, as there is no residential component as a part of the subject development proposal, the transferred development rights have no bearing on the calculations associated with the proposal, such as Floor Area Ratio (FAR). � C ea��t�r � MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT July 15, 2014 H.2. FLD2014-05013 Flexible Development application to permit a parking garage with 642 parking spaces (including 11,482 square feet of retail sales and service space) in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 73,363 square feet, a lot width of 350 feet, a front (east) setback of zero feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to concrete walkway) and 5.2 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to concrete walkway) and 5.2 feet (to building), a building height of 64.3 feet (from BFE) to top of flat roof and 85.11 feet (to elevator and other mechanical equipment from BFE), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2-803.D.; and a reduction to the foundation landscape buffer from five feet wide to zero feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of 3-1202.G. GENERAL DATA: Agent ..... ... .. . . . . ... .. ... . ... . Gregory Roth, PE, Thomas Engineering Group App/icant / Owner . ............ Pelican Walk Plaza Investors, LLC LoCation .......................... 483 Mandalay Avenue; the property is located on the west side of Poinsettia Avenue approximately 65 feet south of the Baymont Street and Poinsettia Avenue intersection. Property Size .................... 1.68 acres Future Land Use Plan...... Resort Facilities High (RFH) Zoning . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Tourist (T) District Specia/ Area Plan .............. Beach by Design (Restaurant/Retail D1StPICi� Adjacent Zoning.... North: Tourist (T) District South: Tourist (T) District East: Tourist (T) District West: Tourist (T) District Existing Land Use ............. Surface parking lot, retail sales and services, and restaurants Proposed Land Use......... Parking garage, retail sales and services, and restaurant. � ' � ; �,, � - 4r �� X� ' - .1��,�� r° � , ' ...; � q, � w 1- z ��+ , .� � .� �a �-�� " � � g-- ' � �' , � ,+ri�� '�'jf ��II �4 �;f4 �� "1�wl ^�� . i` �� f -:J � _ 'Vr� ` .. --r— * �' -�� i . . . .: _ �j q � � . a"1 ..� ��t .�r . . � ', ��+ �q. � � � e � _�� k,,} ni ` �w • tt �� p I r � �. � #. .1 �+ �{.,, � � � 7 � �� N t+.� r. . ' 1' . .� AERIAL MAP ' vi�.t�i nRLel Level II Flexible Development Application Review U . ... ..'�;k. ANALYSIS: Location and Ezisting Conditions: The 1.68-acre subject property is located on the west side of Poinsettia Avenue approximately 65 feet south of the Baymont Street and Poinsettia Avenue intersection with 350 feet of frontage along Poinsettia Avenue (east). The property also has approximately 300 linear feet of frontage on Mandalay Avenue (west). The property is zoned Tourist (T) District and it is also located within the Restaurant/Retail District of Beach by Design. This district encompasses the area bounded by Memorial Causeway, Mandalay Avenue, Baymont Street, and Poinsettia Avenue. The proposal consists of two parcels of land which have an overall acreage of 1.68 acres (the parcels are not tied together and an approval will require a Unity of Title). One parcel is 0.74 acres and consists of the Pelican Walk shopping center. The shopping center has two-levels of commercial space for a total of 39,580 square feet of commercial space. The other parcel is 0.94 acres and consists of a surface parking lot that supports the shopping center. The immediate area is characterized by a variety of uses including retail sales and services, restaurants, overnight accommodation, and attached dwelling uses. The subject parcel is used as a surface parking lot for the Pelican Walk shopping center. It has 94 parking spaces. The property also has loading zones and solid waste enclosures that support the various uses within the shopping center. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Development Proposal: The proposal is to construct a multi-level parking garage (7 levels) on 0.94 acres to support the existing Pelican Walk shopping center as well as v ( � � � O ' a V � ! ._.___ _ _ ...... .. ROCKAWAY ST �� I _ � PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION PROJECT S/TE - ---� - , �-- ,� __1 �J° � I � 0 � �'1 Q , W _ _ 1s L __I 1� W [__ p PAPAYA ST 1� � a � _ � jr ��i�i( LOCATION MAP .T. O � � W � W V sso �s Attached s� dwellings ---- � Attached earMONrsr �et _ N.T.S ` Dwelling� IDD J7r' dT ae .__ '�"�'"'�"'-� Overni ht Retail' : ; � g Sales and � 483 :� accommod Service, ; „=�! ations Restaurant ; :4 475 �! d75 Overnight � ' � iu r. � : 4T3- accommod ,187 `.+.■.i 4B$Q 48D ations �ex W 4� � !63 464 � 467 d�'� ..w v +� �D EXI5TING SURROUNDING USES MAP 5 �' �`S HD .T.3 soo / a�vurwr cT 42$Tral (/R.^ 499 �y!Q�Q ed •��i,' 490, lii��MSU�f��tl '-488; 4yz � • i 487 • q84 - : � � 48g5 � 490 � �483 i� 477,� 48Q a�8 � • . � ` • 490* 3j 480� . 474-' Q� � 1 �� 475 � 'd72, J ± 4�p: � 470: � ��f� i ~ �M�COST � 4�* a73 a72Qy h��* Y� " 46g 467 � 46fi1y . �4 4)0, 492 4B '/BO 480 458 -A5T� � 433- 454 45s 4S3 9??. _462 ?:? 45f 430 Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page l �ONING MAP 483 479 475 4�3 471 469 465 4k3_ _ � : Clearwater ��► ti �� ment lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT roP APP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u .ei&D:17f'°� x.�v,,.a:� . .. the businesses within the overall retail and restaurant district in Beach by Design. To support a strong and vital retail and restaurant district, Beach by Design recommends such a parking garage on the subject property. The desired result is commercial developments on Poinsettia Avenue and Mandalay Avenue that eliminate surface parking lots in favor of wide landscaped sidewalks with a vibrant street-life. Vehicle access to the parking garage will be from Poinsettia Avenue. There will be one entrance/exit driveway at the north end of the building and an exit only driveway on the south end of the building. Interior and exterior walkways will be provided that will connect with existing breezeways in the shopping center to allow access to and from Mandalay Avenue. This garage will be seven levels with a building height of 64.3 feet (from Base Flood Elevation to top wall of 7th level parking deck) and 85.11 feet (from Base Flood Elevation to top of elevator room shaft/stairway towers). There will be a total of 642 parking spaces. It is proposed that the first 89 parking spaces will be for the Pelican Walk shopping center, the next 450 spaces will be the public parking spaces, and the remaining 101 parking spaces will be available for private use of surrounding businesses. The first level also consists of 11,482 square feet of commercial space divided into six units to be used for retail sales and service and restaurant uses or any allowable use permitted in a Retail Plaza. It is anticipated that a few of these commercial units will consist of restaurants that may take advantage of the seventeen foot wide sidewalk provided along Poinsettia Avenue for outdoor cafes. The additional 11,482 square feet of commercial space added to the existing 39,580 square feet of commercial space in the Pelican Walk shopping center will bring the total square footage to 51, 062 square feet. The proposed parking garage does not exceed 100 feet in height (all heights are measured from BFE). Since no portion of the building exceeds 100 feet in height separation requirements from other buildings greater than 100 feet in height as otherwise required by Beach by Design do not apply. The materials and colors of the garage will support the Coastal Contemporary style of Pelican Walk shopping center. The parking garage structure will be painted various shades of pink and white that reflect the colors used on the shopping center. The roof tiles used on towers will also be the same materials used on the shopping center roof. The east, north, and south facades will consist of ornamental vertical mesh panels etched with "sea grass" pattern, etched cornice frieze with "sea grass" pattern, ornamental louvers, three-colored awnings, and sloped tile roofs. The proposed parking garage design is compatible with the surrounding uses and complements the existing shopping center. The project is being reviewed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project because the requested height of the structure exceeds the maximum height of 50 feet for a parking garage as a Flexible Standard Development project, and the requested reduction to each side setback is less than the minimum standard of 10 feet to structure to be reviewed as a Flexible Standard Development project. There are no development standards for parking garage as a Flexible Development application; therefore, as a permitted use in the district the proposal may be reviewed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project. Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 2 o (' 'r n+ r PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT � i� �f�i �NL�A Level ii Flexible DevelopmeM Applicdtion Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION ; �zs�na<.�, e . . , . Special Area Plan: Beach bv Design: Retail/Restaurant District The City has demonstrated through the creation of Beach by Design and subsequent amendments to this plan that it recognizes the need for pedestrian-friendly development in order to create a vibrant active resort and waterfront destination 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. Beach by Design recognizes that this district is vital to a successful resort destination. The document acknowledges a key element to the success of the Retail and Restaurant District is the construction of a parking garage that will provide convenient parking to the District. Specifically, Beach by Design contemplates the construction of a parking garage behind the Pelican Walk shopping center to provide additional convenient and secure parking for North Mandalay and the Retail and Restaurant District and to compensate for the possible loss of on- street parking as a part of the improvement of North Mandalay. Beach by Design: Section VII. Desi�n Guidelines: Beach by Design provides that the implementation of the document involves more than community redevelopment initiatives, it also involves private development and redevelopment that conforms to design objectives and principles established in Beach by Design. These objectives and principles will help the City promote safety, encourage cleanliness, and provide a comfortable environment. It should be noted that any issue not addressed in the Design Guidelines shall be governed by the requirements of the CDC. Furthermore, the Design Guidelines are intended to be administered in a flexible manner to achieve the highest quality built environment for Clearwater Beach. Section B specifically addresses height. As there is no specific height requirement in the Retail/Restaurant District. The height of the structure is governed by CDC Table 2-803. Section B.3 provides that the floorplate of any portion of a building that exceeds 45 feet in height is limited as follows: a) Between 45 feet and 100 feet the floorplate will be no greater than 25,000 square feet except for parking structures open to the public; and b) Between 100 feet and 150 feet, the floorplate will be no greater than 10,000 square feet; and c) Deviations to the above floorplate requirements may be approved provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above 45 feet as described in Section C. 1.4 of the Design Guidelines. The proposed floorplates between level4 and 7 is 31,272 square feet which is allowable because the parking garage will be open to the public. Therefore, this section is supported by the proposal. Section C addresses issues relating to design, scale and building mass. These topics are quantified in six parts as follows: Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 3 ° (' �t� + 4+ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT : v �7 �lei Levef II Flexibte devetopment Application Review DEVELOPMENT REV�W DIVISION u 4�"Nk?" � � . . � Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 squaxe feet or a single dimension greater than 100 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 greater than 5,000 square feet. The structure as a length of 322 feet, a depth of 110 feet, and a building height of 64.3 feet (from BFE to top of wall) and 85.11 feet to top of towers. Therefore, this provision is supported by the proposal. Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. This guideline will be met on the north and east fa�ade but not on the east fa�ade. An interior offset of 5 feet on along the east facade will reduce the number of desired parking spaces. To provide an offset that will project over the public right-of-way is not an allowable encroachment as set forth in CDC Section 3-908. To compensate for not meeting this guideline on the east facade, three artistic panels have been added that that will be 36 feet wide. Each panel will be recessed 12 inches so the east fa�ade length has number of offsets rather than one offset. The panels will consist of colorful artwork and each panel will be lighted-up at night. Since the guidelines are not intended to serve as regulations, no relief is required from this guideline. 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. Exhibit B in the Beach by Design narrative states that the structure has 26,872 square feet of surface area at that 17, 702 square feet of this surface area will consist of embellishments resulting in a decoration percentage of 65.88. It is not clear if this percentage is for the entire structure or just the east facade; however, prior to building permit the applicant shall submit a revised E�ibit B that shows the north, west, and south sides of the structure meeting this guideline. Section C.4 provides that no more than 60 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above 45 feet will be occupied by a building. Exhibit A of the Beach by Design narrative shows that only 34 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelope between 45 feet and 100 feet for the entire building will be occupied. Section C.5 requires that the height and mass of buildings will be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. The adjacent Poinsettia right-of-way is 60 feet in width. The building is proposed to be built to the property line with a 2.8 foot stepback at the ground level which will allow for a 14 foot wide sidewalk with a 3 foot wide landscape strip; providing a 17 foot wide public realm. The total of the street width and public realm is 77 feet. The building height to top tallest elevated deck is 64.3 feet (from BFE) or 753 feet (from grade). For this reason, the height and mass of the building correlate to adjacent street and sidewalks. Therefore, this guideline is met. Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 4 a (' p�� f� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT : ti a.Ri ��et Lev�12I Ffe�rible DevetopmenC Rppticatlon Review nEV�.orMErrr xev�w D�visiox � sv1��s�t,n;� . Section C.6 permits buildings to be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permitted uses. The proposal is for a parking garage with ground level commercial space - retail and restaurant uses. Therefore, this guideline is met. Section D addresses the issues of sidewalk widths, setbacks and stepbacks. These topics are quantified in three parts as follows: Section D.1 provides that the distances from structures to the edge of the right-of-way should be 15 feet along arterials, and 12 feet along local streets. However, Beach by Design allows for no front setback if it is deemed that the public realm is sufficiently wide. The sidewalk along Poinsettia Avenue will be seventeen feet wide. Staff determined that this sidewalk width provides a sufficiently wide public realm. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section D.Z provides that the side and rear setbacks for this project are governed by the Tourist District because there is no standard side or rear setback in the Retail/Restaurant District. The proposal includes side (north) setback of 5.2 feet (to walkway) and a side (south) setback of 5.2 feet (to walkway). There are no side setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, CDC Table 2-802 requires a minimum side setback of 10 feet. In order to create a code compliant parking garage in regards to drive aisle widths, slope of ramp, placement of support columns, and parking space dimensions as set forth in CDC Section 3-1402.I, the side setback reductions are necessary. The two parcels of land create a double frontage lot which has no rear setback, only two fronts and two sides. Section D.3 addresses setbacks and stepbacks along Coronado Drive. The proposal is not located along Coronado Drive. Therefore this guideline is not applicable to the proposal. Section E addresses issues of street-level facades and the incorporation of human-scale features into the facades of buildings in three parts. Section E.1 requires that at least 60 percent of the street level facades (the portion of the building within 12 feet of grade) of buildings used for nonresidential purposes which abut a public street or pedestrian access way, will include windows or doors that allow pedestrians to see into the building, or landscaped or hardscaped courtyard or plazas, where street level facades are set back at least 15 feet from the edge of the sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the facade is a landscaped or hardscaped courtyard or plaza. In addition parking structures should utilize architectural details and design elements such a false recessed windows, arches, planter boxes, metal grillwork, etc. instead of transparent alternatives. Exhibit C of the Beach by Design na.rrative shows that 61 percent of the pedestrian level farade along poinsettia will consist of 216 linear feet of transparent glazing and storefront doors between grade and 12 feet in height. Therefore, this guideline is met by proposal. Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 5 '. ��L�i �� tevei if Flexibie 6evetopmettt Apphcation Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ° . . 5N"d4iB� 7� � � . _ . . . Section E.2 provides that window coverings, and other opaque materials may cover no more than 10 percent of the area of any street-level window in a nonresidential building that fronts on a public right-of-way. The proposed canopies and elongated slope fabric windows will not affect the area of the pedestrian level windows. This provision will be met on the Poinsettia frontage. Section E.3 requires that building entrances should be aesthetically inviting and easily identified. The use of canopies and awnings clearly identify the entrances to the parking garage and shops at ground level. The mix of canopies and colored awnings make an attractive and appealing street frontage that will invite attention to the proposed commercial spaces. Therefore, this guideline is met by proposal. Section F addresses issues related to parking areas. The street-level farade will consist of 216 linear feet of commercial shops with transparent windows. It is also anticipated that there will be restaurants with outdoor seating along this frontage. Pedestrians will be able to walk under canopies that extend six feet over the public right-of-way. Except for walking past the entrances and exits at the south and north ends of the building the building will not appear to be a parking garage as people walk along the shops. The building will most likely appear to be a commercial building with available parking garage above the shops. Therefore, this guideline is met by this proposal. Section G addresses issues related to signage. A sign package has not been included with the submittal. Any proposed signage will be required to meet the requirements of this section of Beach by Design and any applicable portions of the Community Development Code. Section H addresses issues related to sidewalks (also addressed in part by Section D, above) and provides that all sidewalks along arterials and retail streets should be at least 10 feet in width. The project proposes a 14 foot wide sidewalk with a 3 foot wide landscape strip for an overall sidewalk width of 17 feet along Poinsettia Avenue. Therefore, this guideline is met by this proposal. Section I addresses issues related to street furniture and bicycle racks. No street furniture is proposed at this time. Therefore, this Guideline is not applicable by this proposal. Section J addresses issues related to street lighting. Street lighting is not proposed with this development. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section K addresses issues related to fountains. A fountain is not proposed with this development. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section L addresses issues related to materials and colors. As stated earlier, the parking garage will match the colors of the shopping center and the towers will include tiled roofs that match the shopping center as well as the Belle Harbor development to the north. Architectural decorations such as louvers, brackets, and reed inlay pattern have been added to the structure that mimic similar features on the Sand Pearl development. Therefore, this guideline is met by this proposal. Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 6 � ti��W�LeI� Levet n Flexib�e Develo ment rLnr�rruvc � nEVECOrME.xT p Ptpptication Rev�ew DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION :,w��, � ; ., . � Community Development Code ➢ Purpose, Intent and Basic Planning Objectives The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: 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 developed with a myriad of uses representative of a vibrant tourist destination including overnight accommodations, retail sales and services, bars, nightclubs, restaurants and attached dwellings. The parking garage will provide 642 parking spaces where parking is needed to support the various uses in the North Mandalay business corridor. The parking garage will alleviate concerns of property owners not in the Retail/Restaurant District, where parking is not required to be provided, who may not have developed their property or changed the properties use due to the inability of providing adequate parking on-site. For this reason, the location of the garage will increase the development potential of surrounding properties. In addition, the surrounding properties will be enhanced through the addition of a use which will contribute to an active and vibrant street life. Therefore, the proposal supports this CDC Section. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The parking garage will stabilize existing uses where long term occupation is desired but may not be achievable because of customer's frustrations in finding nearby parking spaces. It will also encourage future businesses to locate in an area where parking is no longer a primary concern to the success of a business. Such security will maintain existing jobs and create new jobs positively contributing to the City's economy and its tax base. Therefore, the proposal supports this CDC Section. Section 2-401.1 Intent of the T District and RFHFLUP classification The CDC provides that it is the intent of the T District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as required by state law. The uses and development potential of a parcel of land within the T District shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, including any acreage or floor area restrictions set forth in the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended from time to time. For those parcels within the T District that have an area within the boundaries of and governed by a special area plan approved by the city council and the countywide planning authority, maximum development potential shall be as set forth for each classification of use and location in the approved plan. Section 2.3.3.4.6 of the Countywide Land Use Rules provides that the purpose of the RFH FLUP classification is to depict those areas of the County that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, with high density residential and resort, tourist facility uses, and to recognize such areas as well-suited for the combination of residential and temporary lodging use consistent with their location, surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 7 ' Vi�.uA T, al�ei Level II Fle�bte Develo mertt A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � �us��:.xx r, � The site has been developed with a surface parking lot that supports the retail center which is a use permitted by the RFH FLUP classification. ➢ Development Parameters Floor Area Ratio (FAR�: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 1.0. The subject property will be required to execute a Unity of Title with the adjacent property where the Pelican Walk shopping center is located. The FAR for the overall project which includes the proposed commercial space in the parking garage and existing shopping center is 0.70 which is well below the maximum FAR. Parking garage area is not included in gross floor area. The only square footage of area added to the existing gross floor area is the 11,482 square feet of commercial space. In 2004, a warranty deed was recorded between the then owner of the subject property and the owner of the property described as Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, Block A, Bayside Subdivision, No. 5. The warranty deed was intended to transfer the development rights for four (4) dwelling units to the subject property; however the deed was not processed according to the requirements of the CDC and is not recognized as having transferred any development rights to the subject property. With regard to the subject development proposal, as there is no residential component the transferred development rights would have no impact. Further, the FAR would also not be affected by this transfer. ImpeYVious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The overall proposed ISR is 0.93, which is consistent with the Plan and this Code provision. 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, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area and width requirements for parking garage are 20,000 square feet and 100 feet, respectively. The subject property has a lot area of 73,363 square feet (1.68 acres) and lot width of 350 feet along Poinsettia Avenue. The proposal is consistent with these criteria. Minimum Setbacks: See Section D in Beach by Design Section of Staff Report. Maximum Buildin� Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum height for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment projects. The proposed height for the parking garage is 64.3 feet (from BFE) to tallest elevated deck and 85.11 feet (from BFE) to decorative roof of elevator and stairway towers. For comparative purposes, the maximum height allowed in the T District is 100 feet. The overall proposed building height is less than 100 feet. There are a number of surrounding Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 8 ° j' �t�i�, + 4� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT : v etu� n aLei LeveF II Ftexibte Developmertt Applicatfon Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION n .'Y:e�S f 'i .. � . . buildings on Mandalay Avenue (Sand Pearl Resort) and Baymont Street (Belle Harbor Towers) that are a maximum of 100 feet in height. There are also a number of buildings along the east side of Mandalay and east side of Poinsettia Avenue that are one to two-story buildings. There are various building heights within the immediate area. Therefore, the proposed height is consistent the character of the area and with this CDC section. Beach by Design discusses the size of the anticipated parking garage on the subject property. It states that the size and the timing of the Pelican Walk garage will be dictated by the ability of the garage to pay for itself and the extent to which individual property owners are willing to participate in some sort of public/private partnership. The height of the project has been determined by the City and property owner, a multi-level parking garage with 642 spaces is a feasible investment at this time to support the strategy for this district in Beach by Design. The goal is to establish a successful resort destination with a strong retail and restaurant district. Beach by Design wants the land area between North Mandalay and Poinsettia Avenue to be a retail and restaurant district rather than North Mandalay becoming just a retail street. A key element of the Retail and Restaurant District strategy is to construction a parking garage that will provide convenient parking to the District. For this reason, Staff supports the proposed height of the building. Minimum Off-street ParkinQ: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum off-street parking requirement is determined by the community development coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE manual standards. For comparative purposes, according to CDC Table 2-802 there is no minimum off-street parking requirement for parking garages. Nevertheless, as set forth in CDC Section 2-802, properties located within the Retail/Restaurant District no off-street parking is required. Therefore, there are no parking spaces required for the commercial units. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Sections 3-201.D.1 and 3-903.I, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The location of any mechanical equipment is not shown on the plans. The screening any mechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of the building permit submission. S�ht Visibili Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the intersection of streets and/or driveways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The site plan shows that the north and south driveway entrances will be to the property line. This results in the building being located in the sight visibility triangle; however, it has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. 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. There are existing overhead utility lines, serving this development, within the Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 9 '. Ll�.tii n aLe� Level II Ftexibte Develo ment lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P aPP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION n . .4J:�'a 9 r � ��, ,. .. �. rights-of-way along the west side of Poinsettia Avenue. All utilities that will serve the site will be required to be placed underground. LandscapinQ: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the T District for this site. However, this proposal is required a minimum five-foot wide foundation planting along the east side of the building. It should be noted that plantings are not possible along the east fa�ade due to building entrances. The proposal includes a north and south perimeter landscape buffer between zero feet and 12.5 feet along the walkways as well as a"rear" greenspace area on the southwest corner of the property that is between three feet to six feet. These greenspaces are added to provide some landscaping to make-up for the inability to provide foundation landscaping. The landscape plan shows that shrubs groundcovers, and sod will be planted in the greenspace as well as accent trees (dahoon holly). The type of shrub, groundcover and sod has not been identified on the plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted for review that identifies the shrubs, groundcover, and sod to be used in greenspace. In addition, the owner proposes to provide a three feet wide landscape strip along Poinsettia Avenue that will include sod and six shade street trees (medjool date palms). The owner will also provide trees within the public right-of-way although there is no required landscape credit given to the plantings in the public right-of-way. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3-1202.G: Consistent � Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme. a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned ofF when the business is closed. 3. Communiry character. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Properry values. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan. T'he landscape treatment proposed in the X comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the narcel nronosed for develonment is located. Community Development Board — July I 5, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 10 ��S�t+t►1 ��l�l Levet Ii Flexibte Developmertt Rpplicatiort Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVffiW DIVISION � . .�s5.i� rt7c.4r�.��.:� . � . Solid Waste: The proposal will include a trash collection facility within the parking garage along the north end of the building that can be easily access by service vehicles. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. Si�nage: A sign package has not been included with the submittal. Any proposed signage will be required to meet the requirements of this section of Beach by Design and any applicable portions of the Community Development Code. 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 Floor Area Ratio 1.0 0.70 (39,580 square feet existing XI plus the new 11,480 square feet equals 51,062 square feet) Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.93 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 73,363 sq.ft. X Minimum Lot Width N/A 350 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A West: zero feet (to pavement) Xl 23 feet (to building Side: N/A South: zero feet (to walkway) Xl 5.2 feet to building) North: Zero feet (to walkway) X' 5.2 feet (to building) Maximum Height N/A 64.3 feet (from BFE to top of 7�' Xl level parking deck wali) and 85.11 feet (from BFE to top of tower) Minimum N/A 642 spaces Xl Off-Street Parking No parking is required for retail sales and service or restaurants uses in the RetaiURestaurant District � See analysis in Staff Report. Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 11 ' vibRl �f ttl�t Level II Ftexb�e Development AppHcatlon Review , C�T.�1YSba x�!� .. . . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIF.W DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2- 803.D. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standazds set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. 'The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similaz development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and apnropriate distances between buildines. Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 12 Consistent Inconsistent X X X X X �`/ 9��c1� ►►Rl��i Level II Flexible Development ApplicaUon Review u. . _ . . � riw�. . . .. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 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: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent pro ep rties• Consistent Inconsistent X X X X X X COMPLIANCE WITH BEACHBYDESIGNDESIGN GUIDELINES 1. Section A: Density. 2. Section B: Height. 3. Section C: Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings. 4. Section D: Setbacks. 5. Section: Street-Level Fa�ades. 6. Section F: Parking Areas. 7 8. Section G: Signage. Section H: Sidewalks. 9. Section I: Street Furniture and Bicycle Racks. 10. Section J: Street Lighting. 11. Section K: Fountains. 12. Section L: Materials and Colors. 1 See analysrs in Staff Report. Consistent � � Inconsistent N/A X' X' X� X' X� N/A' X1 X' N/A1 N/A1 X� SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 5, 2014, 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 overall site is 1.68 acres located on the west side of Poinsettia Avenue approximately 65 feet south of the Baymont Street and Poinsettia Avenue intersection; Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 13 � ti��c#� n�L4r Level II Ftexib�e Development Kpplication Review PLaxxu�rc & nEVeLOrMENr DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u ": l�`ki .. . .. . . . 2. That the subject property is located in the RetaiURestaurant District of Beach by Design; 3. Commercial uses, including retail sales, restaurants and overnight accommodation uses, dominate this tourist area along the east and west sides of Mandalay Avenue, from Baymont Street in the north to the Memorial Causeway to the south; 4. The project consists of two parcels ID# 08-29-15-16434-001-0020 and ID# 08-29-15-16416- 002-0320; 5. The existing Pelican Walk shopping center is located on parcel ID#08-29-15-16416-002- 0320; 6. The parcel proposed for development currently consists of a surface parking lot with 95 parking spaces; 7. The parking garage will be built on parcel ID#08-29-15-16434-002-0020; 8. The two parcels are not tied together with a Unity of Title at this time; 9. The parking garage will have a total of 642 parking spaces within the structure; 10. The ground level will consist of six commercial units with a total of 11,482 square feet of commercial space; 11. The Pelican Walk shopping center has 39, 580 square feet of commercial space on two levels; 12. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for all interior spaces in the shopping center and garage will be 0.70; 13. The Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) for the shopping center and garage is 0.93; 14. Both parcels combined have an overall lot area of 73,363 square feet; 15. Parcel ID#08-29-15-16434-002-0020 which will consist of the parking garage has a lot width of 350 feet along Poinsettia Avenue; 16. The proposed project will have a front (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 2.3 feet (to building); 17. The proposed project will have a side (north) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 5.2 feet (to building); 18. The proposed project will have a side (south) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 5.2 feet (to building); 19. The parking garage will have a building height of 64.3 feet (from Base Flood Elevation to 7�' level parking deck) and 85.11 feet (from Base Flood Elevation to top of tower); 20. The applicant will construct a 14 foot wide sidewalk along Poinsettia Avenue with a three foot wide greenspace strip; 21. A total of nine medjul date palms will be planted in the public right-of-way; 22. That the proposal is otherwise consistent with applicable portions of the Beach by Design guidelines; 23. The proposal provides excess parking available to the general public, which will be convenient to patrons of the Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design; 24. While reductions to setbacks to building and pavement are requested, these reductions are consistent with existing setbacks to building and pavement for the existing shopping center and of the surrounding axea; 25. Flexibility in regard to required setbacks are justified as a function of the location of the existing shopping center building and compliance with the standards for parking garage design; and, 26. There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 14 ' C�� n�`�l Levef II FTex�te Deveto ment PLANNING & DEVEIAPMENT p Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � . Y�5'i'R$. _ . . 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.D of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development is consistent with Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; 4. That the development is consistent with the General Purposes of the Community Development Code; 5. That the development is consistent with applicable components of the City's Comprehensive Plan; 6. That the development is consistent with the Retail/Restaurant District of Beach by Design; and, 7. That the development proposal is generally consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development approval to permit a paxking garage with 642 parking spaces (including 11,482 squaxe feet of retail sales and service space) in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 73,363 square feet, a lot width of 350 feet, a front (east) setback of zero feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to concrete walkway) and 5.2 feet (to building), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to concrete walkway) and 5.2 feet (to building), a building height of 64.3 feet (from BFE) to top of flat roof and 85.11 feet (to elevator and other mechanical equipment from BFE), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2-803.D.; and a reduction to the foundation landscape buffer from five feet wide to zero feet as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of 3-1202.G.subject to the following conditions: Conditions of An roval: 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, that a Unity of Title for parcels ID# 08-29- 15-16434-001-0020 and ID# 08-29-15-16416-002-032 be recorded and submitted to staff; 2. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than July 15, 2015, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 3. That prior to Certificate of Occupancy, that an easement be granted for the portion of the sidewalk along Poinsettia Avenue which extends onto the subject site; 4. That prior to building permit the applicant sha11 submit a revised Exhibit B that shows the north and south sides of the structure consist of 60 percent architectural decorations; 5. That the architectural building elevations (Sheet A4.1) shall be revised to match the request heights on the colored building elevation renderings; 6. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted for review that identifies the shrubs, groundcover, and sod to be used in greenspace; 7. That the final design and color of the building be generally consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 15 9�+�� n��`i Cevei II Rexbfe Develo ment 1'LANNIIVG & DEVELOPMENT p Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION � sr.�^�r .�rr�„rr av� . 8. That the fit, finish, materials and installation methodology of the sidewalk and any associated sidewalk amenities (such as benches, trash receptacles, trees, lighting), as the case may be, be coordinated with and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 9. 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; 10. That all irrigation systems be connected to the City reclaimed water system where available per Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Article IX., Reclaimed Water System, Section 32.376. Reclaimed water lines are available in the Poinsettia Avenue right-of-way; 11. That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commenceme�t of the development; 12. That prior to the issuance of building permits, sea-turtle friendly light fixtures be employed with the site design, with compliance demonstrated on plans acceptable to the Environmental Engineering Division; 13. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, 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 any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order 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; 15. That prior to the issuance of any permits, all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be shown on plans to be improved to meet the requirement of Local, State and/or Federal standards including A.D.A. requirements (truncated domes per FDOT Index #304); 16. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all requirements of the General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed; 17. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; 18. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all applicable Parks and Recreation fees be paid; 19. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all landscaping shall be installed as approved by the CDB; 20. That any future signage shall meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff; and, 21. 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 west side of Poinsettia Avenue, as applicable, must be installed underground unless undergrounding is not practicable. Community Development Board — July 15, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 16 � (� t�, /� 4. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ; V � n�lel Levet tI Flexible Deve�opment Appliqtton Review DEVELOPMENT REVIBW DIVISION � �ara�xa.��vt�a:,��,�,,,,:.,. �:- A Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staf£ Kevin . urnberger, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs Community Development Board — July I5, 2014 FLD2014-05013 — Page 17 Kevin W. Nurnberger 100 S Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 727-562-4567ext2502 kevin.nurnber er o,myclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Planner III March 2011 to present Planner II October 2010 to March 2011 City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida Duties include performing the technical review and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees. Planner County of York, Yorktown, Virginia 2007 to 2009 Reviewed residential, commercial and mixed use development site plans to ensure compliance with planning, zoning, subdivision, historic preservation, and environmental standards as well as design criteria, specifications, regulations, codes and ordinances. Led pre-application meetings with residents, neighborhood organizations, contractors, and developers regarding future projects which included state and local government agencies. Site Assistant Gahan and Long Ltd, Belfast, Northern Ireland 2006 to 2007 Enforced Article 3 of the Planning Order (NI) with land owners, developers and district councils on procedures relating to azchaeological and built heritage remains on proposed development sites. On site assistant to project manager during the archeological process throughout the pre-development stage. Development Planner Versar Inc, Fort Story/Fort Eustis, Virginia 2005 to 2006 Developed survey strategies for the Cultural Resource Manager by reviewing local and state planning documents, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Planning on Federal installations, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Virginia Department of Transportation plan, and Virginia Power's public utility plan in the predevelopment stages of new development and building expansion projects to ensure protection of historic properties. City Planner City Planning Commission, New Orleans, Louisiana 2000 to 2005 Primary subdivision planner assisting applicants throughout the subdivision process in accordance with the zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of New Orleans. Reviewed various zoning and conditional use applications. Prepared and presented staff reports to the City Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustments. EDUCATION University of New Orleans, LA MA Urban and Regional Planning (2004) State University of New York at Buffalo, NY BA Anthropology (1999) Looking west from subject property from Poinsettia Ave Looking southwest at subject property along Poinsettia Ave � .,. ..� -�—�.�-. �� MA4';'S 2ii ' Looking north from south side of subject properiy .� � ,;:� /� � �i ,� .�:: . . , . ( td�r 5 � n � �-�+� -. _ ..... _ - ,-...��.�..� � .�..., - .._: y� Looking north from south property line. r� �� Looking east at Pelican Walk Shopping Center from west side of Mandalay Ave. Looking east at Pelican Walk Shopping center form west side of Mandalay Ave. 483 Mandalay Avenue FLD2014-05013 Looking southeast at Pelican Walk shupping center. Luokin� south wc,l at }�ropertics on �vest side oi Mandalay t��r Looking west from Pelican Walk Shopping Center. Looking west from Poinsettia and Baymont Street intersection. -,, :� � � ��•�,,;�>;. ��.�� :..� � . Looking south along Poinsettia Ave. Subject property to the right. Looking south from Poinsettia and Baymont intersection at west side of Poinsettia Ave. 483 Mandalay Avenue FLD2014-05013 LL ° C earwater U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application 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: $ZOO APPLICATION fEE: $1,205 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): Pelican Walk Plaza Investors, LLC MAILING ADDRESS: � 99�J RICI9@ ROaCI, Largo FL 33778 PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Gregory Roth', PE nnaiuN� a��RESS: Thomas Engineering Group, 4950 W Kenned Blvd, Ste 600, Tampa, FL 33609 PHONE NUMBER: ($� 3) 3]9-4�QQ EnnAi�: groth@_thomaseg.com A��RESS oF sus�ECr PROPER�rv: SW Corner of Poinsettia Ave & Baymont Street PaRCE� NunnaER(s): 08-29-15-16434-001-0020 08-29-15-16416-002-0320 �E�A� �ESCRiPrioN: See enclosed survey '�'� � - ... -. - - �• -•- , � .. ; �ESCRiPTioN oF REQuEST: Please Refer to Enclosed Narrative Specificolly identify the request (include all requested code flexibility,• e.g., reduction in required number of parking spaces, height setbacks, !ot size, fot width, specific use, etc.J: Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727•562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01N2 LL ° C earwater U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application 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 APPUCATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: Tourist District (T) FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: R@SOC't FBCIIItI@S HIgII �RFH� EXISTING USE (currently existing on site): SUC'faC@ PB�iClllg �Ot PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, �f to rema��: Parking Garage w/ Retail on 1 st Level SITE AREA: 73,363 sq. ft. GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: 39,580 sq. ft. Proposed: 1 �,482 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: 73,363 sq. ft. 1.68 acres GRO55 FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): First use: 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: �.27 Proposed: �.7� Maximum Allowable: 1.0� BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (15S floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 19,790 sq. ft. ( 26.98 / of site) Proposed: 31,272 sq. ft. ( 42.63 / of site) Maximum Permitted: sq. ft. ( % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: 9,996 sq. ft. ( 13.63 / of site) Proposed: �J,361 sq. ft. ( 7.31 9� of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: 43,577 sq. ft. ( 59.40 � of site) Proposed: 36,730 sq. ft. ( 50.06 / of site) Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater; FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: Proposed: Maximum Permitted: 86% 93% 95% DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): Existing: � Proposed: Q Maximum Permitted: � OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: Proposed: Minimum Required: .� .�Ll� BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: 3]-4" Proposed: 96'-11" (to rOOfl Maximum Permitted: � QQ' WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ 18, 500, 000. 00 ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: Nor�n: Tourist District (T) soutn: Tourist District (T) East: ROW - Poinsettia Ave west: Tourist District (T) STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELIAS I, the undersigned, acknow�edge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this �� day of representations made in this application are true and /�v� accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize �-L�'' / --`�O /� • to me and/or by City representatives to visit and photograph the �'/) Q! who is personally known has prope escribed in ' cation. roduced � p as identification. � property owne�or representative , ' / ��/h, Notary public, My commission expires: ,,�ti�' �;; M. LYNN HUNTER :°+; ,r MY COMNIISSION N DD 981523 ��Pi„tc.�'` BondedTMuENotaryPubNc�Undeiwriters Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Rev,ised 01/12 � Planning & Development Department � C �arwater Flexible Development Application � 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: 0 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. N/A❑ 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. N/A❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other similar 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: O Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. ❑ North arrow, scale, locafion map and date prepared. N/A ❑ Idenfification 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 construcfion permit. ❑ Location of so�id 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 bui�ding materials. Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727•562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 01J12 _ -_ ❑ Typical floor plans, inciuding floor pians for each floor of any parking garage. ❑ Demolition plan. ❑ Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. N/A ❑ If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than S0� (excluding those standards where the differen.ce 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. N/A ❑ 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 lendscape 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 valuafion of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an exisfing 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, including 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, F� 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/12 �l � C earwater � Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application 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 PER THtS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 1. The proposed development of the �and will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. See Attached Narrative 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. See Attached Narrative 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. See Attached Narrative 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See Attached Narrative 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Attached Narrative 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. See Attached Narrative Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle qvenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727•562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12 � � Planning & Development Department � � earwater Flexible Development Application U Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(5) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(5) 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). 1. See Attached Narrative z. 3. 5. 6. 8. Planning 8 Development Department, 700 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727•562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01/12 �l � C earwater Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application � Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all properry owners on deed — PRINT full names: Pelican Walk Plaza Investors, LLC 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: Parcel ID Numbers 08-29-15-16434-001-0020 and 08-29-15-16416-002-0320 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request): See application 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: Gregory Roth, PE as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. Tha e), e ned authority, hereb certi ,that the foregoing is true and correct. ! P perty Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Property Owner BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON THIS j O� DAY OF ,��I � , PERSONALLY APPEARED � i` ia ��a h WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AF IDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. .�-. „—" •,• M. LYNN HINQiER ��Y� �.� ,: .,: MY COMMISSION N DD 981523 z�s� : EXPiRES: Juy 11, 2014 '+.?p��,� BondedThruNotayPuDRcUnderva�ten tary Public Signature Notary Seai/Stamp My Commission Expires: Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727.562-4865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01112 �, � ,;; : E t� G t h! � E R I N� G R+C� U P June 13, 2014 City of Clearwater Planning & Development Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: Pelican Walk Parking Garage Flexible Development Application 483 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater Beach FLD2014-05013 Description of Request �3 t�rr%:�� Et�c�€ra��Rtt�c� �r�ou� 4 c,,,.a �<,:,i 't�r' .('C E ta t�9 �:�7`% �' t tir t3 ,� CJ i T E C C_? 7 i �1f�P�,, F� 33�CC�9 �' : 8 I 3-3 7:�-4� i 00 �'+1V V�j .�! t-! C i�: �,. 5�. hi C p tai � E Ft ��4 G��' f5 i.1 P.� C7 M The subject property currently exists as surface parking serving Pelican Walk, the two-story retail building which.fronts Mandalay Avenue, south of Baymont Street. The parking lot is accessed by two driveways on Poinsettia Avenue, which is a City maintained ROW. The Applicant requests Flexible Development (FLD) Site Plan Approval to convert the existing surface parking lot to a proposed multi-level parking garage structure, with first floor retail space. The parking garage will continue to serve the existing retail building on Mandalay Ave., as well as the proposed retail within the structure. In addition, the garage will also provide public parking spaces to be utilized by the City of Clearwater. The subject property which will be used for the proposed parking structure is +/_0.94 acres (41,119 square feet) and is bounded by Poinsettia Ave to the east, two-story retail to the west, the Frenchy's Cafe restaurant to the north, and parking for CVS pharmacy to the south. The site is located within the Tourist (T) Disri-ict and has a Future Land Use of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The site is located within an area designated by Beach by Design as "Retail / Restaurant". Beach by Design identifies this land area between North Mandalay and Poinsettia as becoming "a retail/restaurant district in contrast to North Mandalay becoming a great retail street. Several uses including Pelican Walk, Heilemans and Eckerds front on both North Mandalay and Poinsettia, providing for an efficient and functional land use pattern. A key element of the Retail and Restaurant District strategy is the construction of a parking garage which will provide convenient parking to the District. " Specifically, the Applicant requests FLD Site Plan Approval in the T District to permit conversion of an existing surface parking lot to a multi-story parking garage with first floor retail., including: a. Lot Area of .0.94 acres (41,119 square feet); b. Maximum Building Height 75'-3" to tallest elevated deck (64'-3" above BFE) 96'-11" to decorative roof of elevator shafts / stairways (85'-11" above BFE) Front (East) Setback along Poinsettia: 0' to the building; c. Side (North) Interior Setback: 5' to the building; d. Side (South) Interior Setback: 5' to the building; e. Rear (West) Interior Setback: 0' to the building fVIL hlGii+�EEFcS - fyRC�4ECT' hlANAGEh� - �.AtVq PIANNING - I...ANDSCAFE r�iRCNl7ECTS ° , �� a� � r .. - �,� � � =a.. � �- ' + ` f « " .� . . sr. �... rb�r os. , ..�� . ,,. . . .. �+` +. � .�� . . . . . . ... _. . . . . . . . .. .� „�. . � �.�� .. ,.44.a.:�va,� ..f.,s.. . ,�� ,�� ..��,,,��i � " * ` ,i� ... ,. ., �� .x ak-,; . . � . ., tA, . ... � �� . � � E hF G I k E C R 1 h G ei h t,�' {} p General Applicabilitv Criteria 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 specific request is in harmony with the approved scale, bulk, coverage, density or character of the adjacent development. This request is to redevelop an existing, surface parking lot into a multi story parking garage with retail uses on the first floor. The parkiag garage will not only provide parking required by code for the existing and proposed retail uses, but will also provide public parking to be purchased by the City of Clearwater. The adjacent properties are of varying scale, bulk, coverage and density. The property north of the site is the Frenchy's Cafe restaurant. The property to the south of the site consists of a CVS Pharmacy along Mandalay Ave with a parking lot just east of the building. To the west of the proposed parking garage is a two story retail building fronting Mandalay Ave. Please refer to enclosed Beach by Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional input. 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. This proposed project will not discourage appropriate development and use of the adjacent land and buildings, because the area is already densely developed and the value of adjacent and surrounding properties will not be compromised. Rather, it fulfills the long range plan for this area of the Beach as a key element of the Retail and Restaurant District strategy is the construction of a parking garage which will provide convenient parking to the District, as stated within Beach by Design. The proposed parking garage further enhances this area of the Beach in a number of ways, including: • Providing ample parking for local businesses within the Marina and Retail / Restaurant Districts • Providing replacement parking for surface parking lots that have been redeveloped or have plans to redevelop • Promoting and encouraging development of the Marina Disri-ict by fulfilling a great need for parking. Many lots within this district are small in nature, and cannot provide the effcient design of a parking garage as the subject site can provide. 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 structure does not impact health and safety of persons nearby and the redevelopment of the site will comply, as required, with all applicable codes including the Florida Building Code, the Life Safety Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposed parking structure will minimize traffic congestion in other areas of the Beach by providing a large number of public parking spaces in a single location. Beach visitors and tourists will now know where ample parking will be available so that they can drive straight to this r �� _ � � ��' ��„��`��.�t � ,� r�s��„ �..� s �� . `� . . ,€r�.�,. �,:�v;k`�. �:.> �`�:��,4�. . ,��,� 4�'� ?�;,'�-��° ,�.m f. *.r � 4 .. k�' .:a.aa � � u , � s ,. 9 & r . ,,, . _ k,,;. . . . _ _ ,3i � r _ � �o<.ar.`"-, ir _ m. _... ,. . �'�' . ... ... . . a.°. � � �� E!� G i n' c��i t N G G R q U� parking garage. This will reduce traffic congestion as it will reduce the number of cars circulating streets in search of parking. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed parking garage is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity comprised of hotels, restaurants, and retail uses. The design of the proposed structure is consistent with the surrounding and nearby uses and the character of the community, providing an appropriately scaled development for the Retail / Restaurant District of Clearwater Beach. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The proposed development has been designed in order to complement the adjacent properties, while meeting the intent of the Retail / Restaurant District. Please refer to enclosed Beach by Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional input. 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. Certain deviations from Code are required to accomplish the design criteria and standards associated with Beach by Design and to maximize the use of the existing building. Please refer to enclosed Beach by Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional input. In addition, please also refer to the DRC Comment response letter dated June 13, 2014. 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 proposed parking garage meets the General Purposes of the Community Development Code (Section 1-103) for many reasons. This project fulfills objectives in the City's Beach by Design Plan by providing parking in the Restaurant/Retail District as contemplated in the plan. We believe that this project is a catalyst for the redevelopment of the Retail/Restaurant and Marina Districts in Beach By Design because it will relieve the parking issue that currently exists within each of the districts. Once the parking issue is resolved innovative and creative development will occur which will strengthen the City's economy and increase its tax base as a whole. The proposed redevelopment will provide a highly desired use which contributes to the city economy; parking garage and retail uses are allowed in the "Resort Facilities High" land use category and are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Beach by Design. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals/Policies/Objectives include but are not limited to: A.6.6 Objective - Tourism is a substantial element of the City's economic base and as such the City shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important economic sector. ��+�� r�� ''�'��T�'� d � �`; c � , ;� `* 'u �*�k -�.r�tit ��s��,']�'�� ' � � � � `�' � . . .._ ..�� . . . � . . �� , 1�'.�,.i . . _ . _ z.,��cv` .. , � � ''.� �.N., r;k, x � , .'�t -� �,'� . . . . .. . .w��-,� . �g.�. �'''t. _ �' �� ,��. � s+ G E r� �� ra � r,[ G C� s: e:t F Beach by Design identifies this land area between North Mandalay and Poinsettia as becoming "a retail/restaurant district in contrast to North Mandalay becoming a great retail street. Several uses including Pelican Walk, Heilemans and Eckerds front on both North Mandalay and Poinsettia, providing for an efficient and functional land use pattern. A kev element of the Retail and Restaurant District strate�-v is the construction o�parkinQ arage which will provide convenient parkinQ to the District. " The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The proposed re-development is compatible with the neighborhood, and will not impede other development. The proposed redevelopment project will benefit the community as a whole and this district. Providing a parking garage at the Pelican Walk site will not impede normal and orderly development. We believe this garage will be the catalyst for special development projects in the Restaurant/Retail and Marina Districts. The uncertainty of available parking in these districts has always been a concern for redevelopment. This project will alleviate those concerns by providing a dedicated location for public parking. Businesses will be able to inform their customers of where they can conveniently park without having to search for a space. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of this proposal. The proposed parking garage and retail uses are allowable uses within the District, and the need for a parking garage is specifically called for within Beach by Design. We believe surrounding properties will not be damaged or suffer loss of business. In fact, we believe that by providing a public parking garage in the Restaurant/Retail district, local businesses will have access to convenient abundant parking for their employees and customers. This is something that is not provided in either of these districts currently. Patrons of businesses usually circle the beach hying to find parking. Through the proposed improvements, together with the new retail it is anticipated the proposed development will have a positive effect on the surrounding land values, tax base and tourism. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in 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�°f%�`�. R,� �x t ��. �� a�'�,�� " � "� � �� ,v�'�-.� . . . ,� e �, a . � � - t } � € a,�. �.� s si :^� '�. �. `� � . . . , . , .. v�'?� . « � �'��. K� kT�' ��'-� �� u� �r�. �.��?- � �� e�! G 1 N E��. �� N G' G F Ct � U a The "Resort Facility High" land use category and the "Tourist" zoning district both permit uses proposed by this development; the district allows parking garage and retail uses as a minimum standard and flexible standard use. The proposed parking garage fills the need for more parking spaces that have been lost or will be lost die to redevelopment in the Marina District. This project will help encourage redevelopment of the Retail / Restaurant District and the surrounding area by providing public parking for future uses. In addition the proposed parking garage will boost beach visitor and tourist base by providing signifcant increase in public parking in a single location. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height, and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; Parking garage and retail uses are permitted in the Tourist (T) zoning district without special approval. As the surrounding properties are made up of restaurants, retail, high rise condominiums and hotels the proposed uses will not impede normal and orderly development and improvements of the surrounding properties. Providing a parking garage at the Pelican Walk site will not impede normal and orderly development. We believe this garage will be the catalyst for special development projects in the Restaurant/Retail and Marina Districts. The uncertainty of available parking in these districts has always been a concern for redevelopment. This project will alleviate those concerns by providing a dedicated location for public parking. Businesses will be able to inform their customers of where they can conveniently park without having to search for a space. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; Through appropriate site and architectural design the proposed re-development complies with the design guidelines contained within Beach by Design as described below. c. The design, scale, and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; We believe the scale and intensity of the parking garage represent the scale of the beach redevelopment in the three Beach by Design districts surrounding the parking garage. The size of the parking garage was developed by the parking demand of the local business and beach traffic. The garage will have approximately 650 parking spaces of which 450 will be owned by the City in the future and operated as public parking. The remaining 200 spaces will serve as parking for the existing and proposed retail at Pelican Walk as well as long term parking for local businesses. Please refer to enclosed Beach by Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional input. � �� . �� .. , �x�c,a� �� g� � �''� � . �� : >, � �� `��.. � � 4 � �,� e �� x � �, , � � s,-� s.. � , � � �'.ki ,�� , " t '� P «�=3� . � �'�`�:-v°�`''. �� r�. �` . ^qy�"�,a� �.�asa� .,.g.r, ,. � �� :eR.� � �.� �'� � �.�:� S ��: E N� E R E E R 1 N G G fs" C 1� !s d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: • Changes in horizontal building planes • Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc. • Variety of materials and colors • Distinctive fenestration patterns • Building stepbacks; and • Distinctive roof forms 4. 6. In order to complement the architectural style of the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center and the adjacent Sand Pearl Resort and Belle Harbor residential buildings, the proposed Parking Structure has been designed utilizing a"Costal Contemporary" design vocabulary. Materials, details, colors and textures found on the adjacent buildings have been incorporated within this project's material palette with an emphasis on this project's relationship with the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center. The following are examples of elements incorporated: The various shades of pink and white color palette from the Pelican Walk retail center has been used and expanded upon (meeting the Beach-By-Design example). Roof tiles from Pelican Walk and Belle Harbor have been incorporated, Louvers, brackets, and the reed inlay pattern have been incorporated from the Sand Pearl Resort. Cast "Coral Texture" feature panels have been added at the base of the proposed building to emulate the coral detailing within the Pelican Walk Retail Center. The glazing and window frame system match the Pelican Walk Retail Center, And the proposed "Beach Shell" white concrete at the pedestrian sidewalk match that at North Mandalay. Please refer to enclosed Beach by Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional input. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhances landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposed buffers and setbacks provide appropriate buffering and distances between buildings, similar to adjacent and surrounding developments. The landscape buffer requirements between non-residential uses is a minimum 5' wide, which is accommodated in the proposed design along the north and south property lines. The proposed buffers are consistent with existing development throughout the "Retail / RestauranY' district of the beach, in fact there are several instances of existing properties that provide less than 5' separation between buildings. Beach bv Desi�n The design is respectful of the architectural vocabulary within Beach by Design and the community character; the building is in scale to its height and length and offers the desired elements of step-backs, balconies, changes in plane, massing and floor plates. Please see enclosed Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional illustrative evidence of compliance with the Design Guidelines contained within Beach by Design. t � � tt ��"" �� Sb�� '�� : ,,`,�+..r p � s� a,w �, . ; , . , , _� . � '�" n .`' r �iw . � � _ � . � ° . __ .�` `�� a '�. �� .aar -��r" �" . � �._ . a. s _ , 4: - � � k •x� a LE �` �c� �''° ., _ , ty, '� ._, � ?. � .<°�" ��" . �� V V �� J"1�:1.1C �.��\ \\�.�� 1.l� l".�� l"l� 1\C� C�.�� 1!'.��C� l�: VICINITY \ AERIAL MAP � _�>� �-�� V�� V V ��Y`�p �� .I'�I'��/ Y SEqCTI�I�T �, TO�l�TSHiP 29 N�RTH, IZAI�T�GE fl5 EI��T LOCATION bfAP SHEET INDEX �•.;o� PROJECT CONTACTS wES ��e A�aao . � «< (%�Trn�naeoq r��aes �rznuia�x'r�»>w �w. KBinE^v &�w.GSUrE eo0 . ir.�c (etal3�Batrrr�EP.E �ei3�s5a��a2ovEUHo I�d '' ' �SITE W � .. .-. $ ...� . �- -, ��. ,� �' w � ro �}, PREPARED B�' �HOMA� >xq[rr�urvncens n.fmmew. mrneei,p�xrtern �950 W. I(ENNEDV BLVD.. SUTE 6pp� �Y pH: (et�) l]SIl W TAMGA, �OPoDR 33809 F%: (81�) 319-100p w.�w.rn�mase,�m.,nyc,o�>.com COVERSHEET PH.\SE I SOIL EROSIOti WNTROL & DE)IOL1T10,�' PLA1V liTILi7Y DE�IOUTIOr PL,4N PtIdS'E II SOIL EROSION CONTROL PL� SITE LAYOtiT PLd.0 PAVING, GRADING AND DR4INAGE PLAN L'TILITI' PL4N TREEREMOV.4LPL4\ LANDSC.qpE PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION ...,�`�.�,��,; .M,�,��..� �, ��„,� �,� ....,......w�•:�..... a..� . � ' � � � �� kEVI5ION5 �A,�,,,,��ry_. �_d�, C' BEFORE \'OU D�G G2 C-2] C-3 PFRMI75ET C-4 � C-5 C�6 TR-1 wE�. L-1 PELICAN WALK PARIaNG CARAGE �it PARADISE 0.Fw0.w'nnrw. R ]Viin �'_ " . .Ilwviu�Enw^krhW�4.�aw COVERSHEET ~EC-1 DE�IOLITIO\ 1'OTES: � J� ��a '� � ?s`. �� $ I BAYMONTSTREET �_'_____'_ I ��. � �... �"`a... -i_._.__ _ _ . _ ._. _. _.. �_._.._ �� o�,��w. u, � _ ' 4, ,� ,F, _ - - � � „f �,� � F .n �,.,., �., � �°,b A �:.� � w_ .� I � ' 'q� � rotrr.use�mc �� f ' L ' �� .�,..,u�s,� -�- �1 I� � �I -' - �1 � ��r.�.�_K�. � ' 'Y I � � �` ` I � e � 1. m-,.� � � � �.,, a - ' —� � I�- � .,.,o _ _ -_ �6 .-c, .ak t� .�.o,.....a.o.< . �_ '-I ` j �. . "`"° ^�, - I m �� . - I I I —'_� �., � ��, ��.�.� r. , �, �� .. , � � _ �� o.�a.w W.�« i� . '— g ; I � _ iF-a��l � �,�� .�,.,a " �� i ��e V!_' �� .�.�.F°�\�'.�_._. _ y �I � 4"_' �.F»,�o "4 II '_ '�' J�� ,�II !�' _---'� �! �o.� . � � II �o b �!i�d�Aja` I'I I, �` a' �, ---- � i ; � �"�rt �..�� ,�� ;' �_��.�� . � �;� y� � �L� � ��W.�> - _ �� i i i �r��l i i �� i � i I i ' ��..� - . i i �I JQl �i i � .� -�.� � .�e.._;I i- � .�� - °i II ..�J � '�E,� �flm�.xe 'r m,.sr.... .r � Y � � � � a h y g � W ,� LEGE\ D: �a d ` K , �..,t.tu.,�ma�. w«..... �� ..�,k„»..,..aR...�a�.,o � -a�rac x�tr,ireeu..c � ' �...wrvE.�m�,..�.�,.,ae�,�.r. f � �L�vlYSnPSBELOW �A«��, AEFORE 1'^ U- IG PF.RMIT SET � EROSIO\ COVTROL NOTE: PELICAN WALK iEOr� T PARIQNGG.4MGE ��q `.::°:'��oA`�µ`�E°.`�:.'TME�E�.o.�E _ .vvaov.�oF.�eu�oae�ouacEVCnNr. "oAES«�cE � PA`Dis[ �H�Mfie� ,o �a =:; °°° �---- — .o. a� �.��::;�.� -- ;" �,o».oEro.EW. :;��*':"�;°�: �^ ��,°.�a�E� :�s...�� .�� UTILITYCONTACTS: '"' sl�pL�`�" ��rzucMrux¢.vueucuwx � K �nacn pNASE I SOIL EROSION u s. n. �anr� mi w�'.+x+Ta¢o' u.ss CONTROL 6 v� ��swzs�i'�p� � �x� DEMOLITIOIY PLAIV mVni[R �is�i[u no. eE�xuue[^ _� � ��,.� , n„�„ C r— a�-- DEMOLITION NOTES: fEpEWI EIMAONM[N Al RFGIMpOryS. IHYiAII CONiFMIk1Ni5 SHLLL BEµ�E � �3 ��i a� e= Zk� �s F BAYM!/NT STREET ___'__' - � _�' �_ _'—"— I nc sro...� J I I I�� t h•�". „ i � , �,. , o, + � , .�. . —:� _, - . E:"+� . i f-,.�u;,h� - � � Ers >xw�� _" _" __ � i �� i �->, J 'f v eM.�e �. � �! ; i �� `-- __ � � S�_ ' ~ ' IY � I � � I I ' � . �' ti i+ I� � � �'' - n {{ � f j I'I1 � I i �b� �, �� ` �.�. � �i� f i � ' f--- -�_# � I ti� i' .c.w�,om� 1;' I' i � Y I e;\I 1 � Y 'I 5 �# f m,,, I f; I "' � �,�,,., f F � , ,., ��I f l �� -�..� �� .u,�.,,.�en«,�� I t� r �� o .. ' .�.��' i�11 �F� �-.-_��'�. ..T ..-�----• �.�� —�' ,� ��n-� � .�_,,, .� .� � . . .. � —__� I� � _ ,; .,,, ..@..., �4lK� ��,�� ' x=--- � � ~ '"� ,e � .�F,.re, I �.�..o ��+i�- ;�� ,��4.r�� .�w � . ��. ��.�. �I Fm �� K�M+:.�� I }I FI�� a� ° �� I . I a � I J 6 � y ; � ' ---=�,:� r � I' � ' . ,.�ii� f Y a �E� „ �� .�. � ;��, .�aE�.� I �' ��. � ' � w�.�, � � ff�� i ea� u-��i/ (f' ;\ � �^� °'��.. I _ rmwcxw..vFCI , _ - I �� `ti,l"` �--,.�` — I I I �A3rcn2r.ire � . w ,�> LEtUEND: rw'.�'E _ e��_ �s.�.�.,.M.::-�t � /.�,xa ,��¢�,.-.. �` \ � � � � � ' � cLOw vccA e`ww e ^ortF �'ou` �c rt. � , , 5��..c .�..r. I` PERh9TSEi' PBLICAN WALK PARqNG GARAGE PAR�ADISE ■ �"� i�i (`%) �iJ � ARw;v0.��Feoe ....iMm�EnYn«r�NO�u9.�wr liTILITY CONTACTS: R � �,��."",,�:,�; "„"^'"� .we.rumKV.ox `ik�°,xiVOFaewvn,EG �E..mv.. .�..,,R�. �1�dr�rv�ns n�� »>m �77��,�7yDEMOLITION on��suzsi vru PLAN ,,,,,M,.� ,,,,�rEM „z,,,�,. "° EE..�C-2.1 a��, ��a `�V��' � E_a � �-;..; CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTI(NJ DETPIL 1—/��— � .�� . <YMiLE1E0 lKEI CURB INLET PqOIECiqN DETAIL � — —_ T� �- ...� t � � �.` �o. --� SOIL TRACqNG PREVENTqN MAT DEfAIL sreei�vuvR..w. .«sr.o.o..ncu Y „ 1 J� �� yd �' F SIL7 �NC�DETNL Qk Q �� 3 MAINTENANCE NOTES „ g � � ' �_ _ . _� �°�.� � BAYMONTSTREET ---�--, -�--- �-�:a.. 1- � �r.`_ _.F «�,.,,,,.� <E � `. �p �c.. A� ' . .� '_ , I -__� ��_______ p � ; ,� � �� ' h �`. �� ,,.�, � I � ` � � � �: �� , �.,,, � e � � �6 � � ',� p ' �, . � J�R uYRVmnnrr - � T � � t �.--.!� - � � �� t �}� ` m�„� �l rr�" _ F� m'+ f � t � �.� =EE�,w�,�� "�'_ � I I I � �� _ � ,o � ;' �, T��- ,— i�' �-- —� — �r �g, _ �`� , , � �. , �3. � � -� - �"' � ; 1 _ �. � -'. �;`� �� ~ � � ,� ,��,,.,o�,W t �I��l� � ,»+r:. � 'ih�--'VlF lp�l�. „F� o,�,o. ` _':� �� q�i ��';; 1 r , � ' �'.t I� a r � p� � —i W � � �; _ � f ',., �� F CIR 11_ t j'� � s e''ir' g b t „ , �, "� I' r � I�� Fi �y '� � � t K�$ ll-�l i _' S2��\ // t ��„ �. �� .li -� � ` i i � �. � .. F,.z:.om...�..« �y � � . m� ��{�� T(�. Y Ke i �! t� �*'l .p'• �.. if ' . � .' �4 �� , r �' � ; , j �� I r �� s �w i, ' '+ � � - � - - 3� � �, ; � � � ,� �,�, n ��os�M.,��.E � � � , .� �-�� :, � �' � -' `, _ ' � �' � `� � ��;�i J"+ _ �� jII ��_ 'r �t�_-- na,Flr.+w�„r, I T w .� LFGEND: R4 ,c e ' —OO'. „E,,.� _ F�,,.", — m — �.s. �. s �.� q�.4_ � �_ [�,N�.. 0 {�...�,E�,K„ �� ...,�,. � ,,.�,. POLLU'I��v �RtEG�'V NOTES• �cmnncsnrrxe>xwecrHECesuxrroEwuaecoxxu�E� � "E �a»� E u�;; TM„':.� �. �� oRO.�E�.„a� �,.�. � � _, �C 3 = � �: � , _ � _ Bu��OrtEYOU`IC PI FRMIT iET I%ma-,„-- PEUCANWALK PARIQNG�GAMGE P z�uis[ '�� N C:; ^�; A„ � �� ,�� ' �R ��"� "� .. � PHASE II SOIL EROSION �EACONTROLPLAN w G3 --_ ��, SITE DATA: ��E,.�, �„M>sf.�o,.KaE�, �;�,��,E� P:�E � Es� ��s�w SITE NO�ESo».E��.oa,�.a��ae. �E�o.�Ew�E ADA .1CCF.SSIRII.ITY NOTES: a a �< j�qd �yC o ��z� �� a a+tarorvrsrireer � io ;�_ W��a , � � � � � , � _ _ _� _.�. � -- - ��;� � � �, �� V �. ,� ��_ �e i !',''��'��'�'�►► -:�11 - j -1' �\ �4� .� i �,RE �,.� � ` z ' �� :� % %�J �-� � ��. ..,�Y ; i ; r� �� " �- -°�° ,�; '; � � ; oH�r �� rt� � i� �� ,� t �� t �� ,, .� , � i '. ��a�., ; ; j : i - �, , �. �� .j. �,� , , � �� ; � �,p � � '. � �; gp r, I�O _ _f �I .. . � � „'"""�u 1" �� .. ».�� P � � f �,.awm� ,��Y t � �Is; _ I �� i � � s r_`" \ I � � `'� R . o, - -�' ,^ `��/> �� . 3 r � �v � x i, ' I P , � a � I +J -+� j O'm./ o � ___. y . �\ '� 1. ��'' ;' , �" � S _ �.. j� � ;>� - '� �..,,� ' _f � ��_ ' �l� �-m...,.�, �': i�,��, ��. a�, w � � � w ; . �� : �. ��I �� I' Q � , <., o � f' � � d � � � � _ _ ea ya a°a V / w � � � � �.,, � . — m� � sa �� °a°a �e ° °e°a■-aii o °aa=e ea-e saae -- � 8�1 ,- • � - - ... >�• •� � � PELICAN WALK PARKING GAMGF PA�rnsE _._ ...,..., . `F10 tv1 AS ��"�� ,a � rv�� ; , " 4 sroreano�nn = — o�— $ , �= .,.r..o-,.,,.. /� .EO.k.o.w,o ;�S�;onraeF;. «s, ,o„�� CN /� D � �°�� E..�E E ... � . � � �� , """""n �� SITE LAVOUT PLANy �rzirrrtns /- .eoe.u.«wxo enxu `--'" � C-4 iVPICALSTOP$�GNDETNLIA1.11 TYPIGILDONOTENTEfl51GNDETAIlIPS11 oF �� _. �rvr.a� rom.c� /��' YAVIu G!1ND GR� DItiG cnTEo *p�*op�'op q g�.YIA �IAP�INFOR�IATIONL�pW^hq �p 3 n` J� ��; Z�� $ BAYMONTSTREET �_'__'__'_ � ; �,�,.W��:�.� i� � _, ..'i 6 �� , �� . �� :_ A., _ � � �----.__ . � . ,.' ',,; '� � Ip � .. � 4�� 'r I � � I � � � q I fi � �� I � � �.�e, � fr P {� pb � _ .�� Y_ __ . __ _ �� • •. rw»r . � �" _ �S� r �–�-�- � rv� .�. - � � �� I' � . .,, L� : � „ — �..— n_ �, I�.... .,..,..».,, �.� 'L I , i I I I -�-----------� � .�a �� r� � � �� .w �r �i � __. _ ��i� :�. _ __ T i .�, , �� - ,� �>� � ;1 a_"`�.- ,�„t � � u c� i.- r �-- .6� oa� _ �l �. �� m K� "o.r..�. rc'a �...�� { KI¢ ,. _ C� ��--'. i � �� ' 'I� 7 'i �I � � j � - � & e ea � 5 k _�"' '' � „ � 1'�+II � .� � ; , w ,� � � � � z � LECEND: xev�s�c - � � - �K.�.f,��...,., �o �r�w.a..,,,��.,. . � o . ��.�., a�. - .. .. -.= a�eE�:..en � �'�w.wn Bh-O - _ ' �c .< � C L �'14n."q.� 8 R£Y UDI F...,.�aKm.. � E.I� e ERM[T SF,T .��KE�. � � `s�.�uP �a.c..�, PELICAN WALK PARIQNG G.4MGE �� o �.,.m � �-- ' - PARAUISE �'— wm �.�. � _.� •� �u.�r.i�.. cLE�Fwrvo �vE - PIr�AUSCO�m - ,� o�� ,o�A� .m �..�.�,.�,�w�..,,� � PAVING, GMDING AND DRAINAGE PWN �E�.�.,EC-5 WA1'ER DISTRIBUTION NOTES• <ussi.�.anv�kEVSe. . 'Q 3A\ITARY 3F,WER tiOTES: ,EO�E,n,.w..,,s,a�..un�'o'A�°aen� `e;,°°�r,'�°si.°ui"oen°" . W S�NiMVSEWEqµ�HiO NSUPEIqpP50R0EfliI5N11MWlpE. Y j� ��§e �' 8 2 � F� $ BAri.lONT3TREET � I � i . f�1�-:, � m.av � i �� _..'...: . . .. .. �c �P _ T Y �� ' I � ¢ —c —�o � a� _ ... ;�' �� ..� � I 1 � � � I � � flr w.��. '�� ,,t I �� ;I �,� ' P • 1'r � � � ,� .,� 6 � �� —,�._�^^-�.�� ,�'�� i _"� �� 9 � p� . w � a a� � 3 � �.m � � � _ LEtUENU= ,cT.e..F.'VE.F. ,'� . r, ��,5�f., �,.,. �� ` °�ev...u. —_� �o.mme��.�e., ,E,� ... ,■ '�. ryTr�„�.� L,� f1RE OUDIG ,� � PF,INqT SET PEWCAN WALK PARqNG GAR4G8 Pnz'�is[ �"-? r ) !v! :'i.�. . .,� �uh,� ,...,�..��'��.,.«. � UTILITY PLAN .�E�,��,EC-6 — EXIS7ING 7AEE FiEMOVAL L.IS'T — cd,.,a,�, �,u sen,.�.,� eyW�..rco s.wc.u� s.nnv+�.vo s+env.�„ �� ,..,..�...� s�� RM s��.�e ��.� �� a�gM d� �� a �� .� ��M w�,e� s.d�a�, �+� s,.mv,n, e.� oa..� �� d� �� S�R� .. w w".m �� aea �r,,.m sm.in+�.m s.mr�M s.e,i� \_ _w..Umar a�mMe aa�.mm. eeua o. naa_•v.wx�ew. —�� Tree Replaeertbnt Teble a�d 0 � „g�.�.aew.n, nae a.m.m,,. «aa.>,aw..e �..n... ��..a�,,,,�� .M,o.��,.,�.,,,m i:m�.�Pa,,.- . `=y�a� , e' �T fh...,.. e.�., wn ro wun io.wm aekq � JY ��i �' � Za� F: � s BAYMON7STREET �__________ --T-r-�---------� i i , � �: �o:,�.«�".n.r�.. a. ' I I i }'�-,"i� 4 I, • • , �� : ;i I �— � �. G[J - a, i� I i ��•m. � r 9 � '�� _,� � o«a a�,a f � �.� � � I a�«r �b ' � I 1 I �. �� ,v . . _ .� _ i � , � ��' ?,a �_� 4 ;_� i . � n�"°wnr.., � � � � �-� i �; � � . �a p �1� �I �, ��j � -a--�� ' j �'�j �� h ' I � �� r I I I i Z� �_ -�F �, � ' J � � � �� I � I �I j b I a 1 I I o 3 6 � '_ , �' a - I p7 �� m..,, ,�I I { m ¢1�' II I '� � � `� 1�� Io �..�f.� ... ��^�ir._�._. -"I I I � _ ..��-e� � �� „. i I I J � ..r a: ,� . �� '"_ - - , -. J + )' I � raw. nwvwv . vwr I I �i I � �i q,; id j I f _ �i w. �„ �d Q� I I I j f �+ I w � S � � � LEGE;�D: E.�M.��,.as,�,..� � .�,.:,x.�,..,,�.....E �'_ TREE LEGEND: � o� «� t a.�„� .,, �� .P Root Prutinp Notes ..�,o-M��do, �.�.,o��..n,,.,m.,.�m ,.�.��..�MO, �._ ��„� ;�.�. ��,� .,�m.�a.;�w�.�.� 6�,a, ��..��.:.�,�_e �..�.�,�a� a�.�y�: � ,a�n ��.�.�.�� +,�., �.��:�aa�.� bn � �e+m�ry uriaeropn m� ew wwaw ev� w 51aMUm Irnl�ewl w n c.awrm rP tly �mr'an wmrd NN59.4]OJRUx ��wem� �a Genxd No�tes e� / ��w�s.naE�w �.«�� Bi^F4RE VOM1 DIG PFRMIT SET PB WCAN WALK PARqNG GARAG! Pnrs�ois� `HC.�MAS .... rnom..E�Mi..mpuA.v..� TREEREMOVALPLAN � � TR-1 ��, � �� - �� / ��f�17�� ► �//. � � GENERM wOIE£ +> inc c�cv�nw ec�ow e�u naco c�v�nw row n�e aeauuo ic�ci n�xKiwc oecK is uce�n� s'-r•. 3) T�E WNUWM [tE�R NpGNT 1HRWpIWT TI[ 6�� ENi�iCE[iAIKMINMCMS fO�R v��ACLES9BlL � �rcco v.as i�a wc wwcss ua crnw omve uacs m incg sr�ies i k Z � i.e�, .:r,.:,.ae��,.a1s+l�e�6 -!ii:�i:'�I.�:i�iiGL�fi i�� ----�� ;'�`,g�!�l�►` 'el�� I11�1►i�� r�r�� e �� .�:e:- �- :` aa. �� ?�_ . �� i,.- � �� ..► ��'. �II � i � + �J� -�� Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail 1.8275f�F 1.9075FH- y 7.907SFH. 1.907 5F s/- 1,907 SF �h 1.927 5F H- A r�" � _ . __ ,_� �� - � � RETAIL PIAN 8 GROUND LEVEL PARKNG PLAN 1/16' � I'-p' � ( ' �� I �� aa��i� ��_'� �g9�� b6�� y�e I t�5�e�ffiQ Eio64id � �j „, � 9 tF � �s � � � �� g � a �8 eix uya nwxa ,w m� �aww� i� vwu sm u�u wmcw: n� m�u iciw¢ : xuset vKa n u�u waart ii� swa .iwwm z�eu vrs¢ x�wu��u� nm��asYnw�icx� �� LLKL WIAM 10 m/L6 iQIOY. i N.YSBt 9V4S m*M- � ut swca � n.v�m�ec tnca M MailA T 9WE OE1 LL`IR MS�.06 M xwc M LL�II Rw. A .. W W � W � +� � ` a ^ < O S � LL .,. � �� < :�F i9 < � m as3 �W ..°�'"`� �! s F i 3 ._, .�.� � W g � At1 � � � � � �� , �' _ � � � NOIES f) THE ELEVA1pH ABO�E BASE ROOD ELEV�Tpi i'qV ME LLKl aNE PuIXMO Mpc �5 t�'-i'. . �� AGE 91NL BE KN�iER ilFO WWESEN�O �� eE ��T �T � �� ZLEVEL ONE PARKING PLAN �N«.� �.�s .�a�� „ w,o ,�� o ,� a.�. ESS Axp ECAFSS 0 K NYES l0 MESE 2) AE LE�LL gN VUN idi 1191CAL IURWNG RAqUS sv�CEi 1/I6' = I'-p' � � � � �, �' �o�s v �1)EM Et£VA1qN M1BM4 BnyL fLOW ELEV�MIN fpq �� WRA �uUM GfPAR MEiGr��T TINS 2W�2IX''-10".ME GE SnALL BE SEVEN fFFi 2ER0 iNCHES Aw0 � ENTIi fEET T.q y1pfE5 fIXt vu! � LEVEL TWO PARKNIG PLAN M�5A CfSSi&E MAw � CES x�0.UpuG I) R E LEYEL A%!Ofl Tfi^Gl AUTO lUltx�NC �xD ECRE55 �E �5LE5 ttt 1ryEA DNYS �pp[p 10 t/ts'. �•_p � �I � �� ' _ „ ., � �� wo�s t) TK ElEV�n011 /90�E Bi.g fLOW E1fv�PON Gqf ' 1MC Lf�EL MqEE PMKp1G p[Ck IS N'-e'. 3) ME Ym� UM pE.Uf wOW1 TwF0u4Nqi1 �N[ wa. �SMALL BE SEKN fEET 2[RO iNCH(5 LuD ��VEL THREE PARKNG PLAN Sn�ll flWll RR iuU65 fqt V�x µ as� H,woKnrrco�m;ccs ivauwxc �� anau vei sz ran .m� w.o nxuwc ai "xo cracss mcs ro r�ss , us .com ro x�r�'i � V�c. �.,o. � � � � �, �' GEIKR�L NO1E5: V V 1) iHE ELEY�MIN A9p�E g�5[ M1ppp EIEVAMYI fOp � TIE LEYEL iOUR PMMWG DEIX i5 �B'-}'. - 2) TIE wN�uW 4E�F nF1GNl »wOUWWI TNE CAR�CE SHALL BC yyEN {LE} ZERO MCX[S ANO ��LEVEL FOUR PARKYJG PLAN 5M41 BF EX'.Ni fEEi 1W0 CKS fOx v�w W� S4BtE XANqC,VPm Sp�CES IxCl11pNG �) 4F IEKt 9M fOR Mifly AUTO lUqNiwG m� /J10 Ep1E5i qUK ,y51E5 lO M[y I/16' = 1'-U' RAOWSES /i00E0 TO RAN � � � � �� , �' - � w CExER�L HOIEY 1) iXE EIEVAIIp! �BOVE BASE GLPq^ ELEyAilpl fpt 1ME lE'2l Fl�E PAqIOME �Cq( IS Sl'-10'. 3) �W WW GFM nFlCryi 1nXWflpUt 1HE �'�� SH/1l B[ 4Kx rtEi IERO wC�[5 �HO �` `�"• "" ,"° """" `°` """ � LEVEL FIVE PARKING PLAN „ .�,o ,� w.�,�� ,�� .o P,�„ � � �� 59�CE5 I/16' = I'-p' � � � � �� ' � LEVEL SIX PARKING PLAW �ns•. �._o. � � � < D � b �_ N � � m C � g� L d 6 �.�.�:��.. - �.�-....�� .; � �' � �,� i��l� w tn' ,,,;� � �i r� � ` ~ _ � �' '� � �1- `s r �� l �`T�� , � ��' � : � C „�"��I , ��>, � �''�ta�i ., sa '�.+.+.�+ ��: jy f, � � r r. M :'i1 � l. .5;.._ _?t • _t "� � ,. � � +� �� rs. �.u:i.�,��j,.�y�nl.i ��.^ • i!1 ts��I„ t '� I � ��,N,.��1i11I�'w�' �� . �• � � ' �' r k'` ' � � � '" . ��/�� - � � — �1° , ii'•i��R.�:�� . • .�� ,� i�i: � ir '1 • __ p �. �� a �r . ,. . �•:a. . �y � - , - .� ;. ; _ ,rWi� ' x � Y :. c. R' - . _ �. ..: 3 �.., . , a , �' � -:-. 5. � ; ..: "r��.r ` ' � x ... .§' . r r , ': � _�n . � - �.. . . Yf�' "sm� ,.�.. � ��'.��.z,�"'�-+'. . - n 1 iD t . �� ,�' 4 ,� �E� ��1-a� . ��■ i = I�'� ;� ,r� � � � - i� �, : ' �M�- ��:� �� . �'�Xk�i.it.�"4"�f-�=_.r�ti ii�i ,� �°..'�.m � �, i � .,� , ��. - �' "�� .s`•Y+i��. � , � .�'�N�i�n.,i - � � � , ��}Y1 „� 1 � ��'��fr • r'1'�1� � �'` , �— r . + � :..� c ¢,+. �, %� � � � i�-� � d3 � 4�� .� � _ �,�.,,.. ; � : � ��: .� °` � ,,�; � �j i , i�p/ " ° Y y �. �`�H.i�S � . i /�j�� $t .�dRd`�` . . [. .. . �/i • �i�" � �V' �y � . a. � - . . IT� , + - ' '1 � ... i . " ' i "�� l r, t. ��, v .�� — _' y .._.. ."' ; . . ,f; � ..:. ,u, ....--N. . �-... �� ..: . . ,. ' .... _..- ._ -:a.. �i • "' �"]}. �t}.� � '�c _ •� �� PARADISE VENTURES . _ ,�� ,S r _ , �a �� =_ �.. 1 � � `� `r � cL= ifi!'-Y A i �6m lf A �� 1"" ' � .v—r. �- - - � - � - - ��-��----- - �'_... ' j �%: �; i ' r �', ct� .w t ii � �m IE�EL � i� � � —r � _ _ — ".— `-.'7 � j a,- 'r � ' ...__ . �-._. _..'� .. . �. __. __ r.— -- ,,.. r ,r_ ,.. (SOUTH% ELEVATION � ` AE_• �]5•_7• ' �in IE��ii — : E'�= a63• 1• 6lh IE�-- �E�� 151'-il' 51� iE4Q i�a�_3. in tLtCt `t 7�a�� L. �i6'-I z�,e �u�, . . �':��L;��1� -�"� ✓��'�'�' � ,. �� =� i�'.��r'i1�i;r=, ' r ��;;1 r17f��J - - -- � - -- _ - ___ - _ . _'_ __'_—____ � �\ — �-i t I ' � ��_ , � — — - _ -_— cT' BAYMONT (NORTH) ELEVATION _� r� � �r� r� r� r�; r� �; �—�!—r-i�_- �� ,� r�� r r• r,� �,. �, R, � ��..A�.��_J-...1�:..% ��x� � � � � -- - _ __ _ -- z �, � -,�� - ;-�,��-- -�r,y ), �' l � F I � � I '' ,'.� I�Y��TF�� ^'r''C�(_` fi' I f I _ "' `�' �,'x�'�Y .'3�� r s V`�, I � - ._—i;., L� �_ ''��+ - - . << � ` — — `� ��---- ._..__ �_.......... � � � � �� ' � �� r,�,-z ��,,,, �,�1�-� ,��1�� _�� ; : � �- ----- ; , __-,-------- � -�--r--- . _ � �� :,, - \\ ,': � i ` I} � �. - ' '__ : \f'__ - __ ' 1� ir� � ._� .__ - -� '---I. __ _; 1 ' I TI �J:-1i-�1�1!�.1��;� MANDALAY (WEST) ELEVATION ,- - - _ - _ - j -- - _ '�'�,TI`�' - - - — ��'f��r'{�. � .1" ? �±�_��..� __. ._ __ __ i 1'... I' f � r '�.�-;y •- �,'V- i ��c�� i_��-i _ _ t s,�� ,� -i --�a �� T ' �:��,-.� 1- ' _ __ _i `� --- �:�� ; l�� :1�11 I�..� �l��l ��.��.-�---�1�=1�-��i� I ��i �l 1.,� --: _ � . ,l�l i � �''i: )n/ 1 � ^, � I � . . PARADISE -�� _�'.�� %�� '`�� - \1 G N T II O[ c •—'�•'� .�_::.�rJ�.l':%� J:::'�ii� , i��JJ_��J ° Clearwater L' Planning & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPrIVE, INLOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVAUDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPUCATIONS ARE TO BE FILLEO OUT tOMPtETELY ANO CORRECTLY, AND SU8MIT7ED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DENELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OP 11 COMPLETE SETS Of PLANS AND APPUCATION MATERtALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE T� BE SUBMIITED fOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL fOR THE COMMUNI7Y DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IF NECESSARY, WILL REQUIRE 15 �OMPLETE SETS OF PU1NS AND APALIG1iiON MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE [OLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED ' INTO SE75. THE APVLICANT, BY FIUNG THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH All APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT CODE. PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED�: P8IIC811 WBIIC PI8Z8 I11V6StOfS, ��C MAILING AODRESS: � 99S RIf�Cj� R08C1, Largo FL 33778 � i� PHONE NUMBER: �_._�TM.__ _._..�..._,..a.,_.�. __...__ _ _�__._._e� .._____ EMAII: AGENT OR NEPRESENTATIVE: Gr@g01')/ ROtI1, PE _____.._. _ �_ � MAIL4PIG AODRE55: TI1011183 Ef191118@n�9 GfOU�, 4950 W Kenn� Blvd, Ste 600, Tampa, FL 33609 PHONE NUMBER: $13 379-41 OO �+ ^ � . _ � _._ _.- -_ _____ _.__ _ _ __ ._ _. _ _ _.�__ EnnAi�: grothQthomaseg.com - A�oRess oF suB�ECr aRflPERrv: SW Comer of Poinsettia Ave 8� Baymont Street DESCRIPTION OFREQUEST: PI88Sg R@f@� t0 EIICIOS@d EXhlblt'�A�� SpecJfically fdentlfy the request (indude a!1 requested code flexl6Uity,• - - � - - -- -- - " " e.g., reduction in required number of - ---. . -.-- ----- - parking spoces, heiphf, seibacks, Jot __, - - _..._ ___ .�._ __ _____—_ - ----- _ _ __._. �.. _ . slze lot width, specificuse, etc.J: �- —!- --__ . ____ _ _. .. _ _ _. _.._ �______--. ----_ _____ __._._ _- - . I STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this �X1C. __ � representations made in this application are true and �.� accurate to the best of my knowledge and authortze -- !�_ �.___.__.�...._.. _. • �.� _ . to me a City representatives to visit and photograph the .�'rQQr� �d't�!'�_ , who is personally kr property described fn h' application. roduced J, P __ _____�.._ _ as ident __`_'�c—�.��Y_ _. _ __ C� ___ r f rop ty owner or reprefentative Nc�t • blic.. •.. '-. . .• '•.,.•�- My:torAtrias�on x 'iies► p . a Tr � � - --�_ � �"'�.R _ �' ',.��_ _. _ .. _ _ _ �.° r i ` a � $� � ---- -- -- -_--- - • r.A w ' � _'_._.__..__. . . - __.. Planninq 6 D�velopment Deparanent, 100 8. Myrd� AvenUe, Cloarwat�r, FL 33�S8:Yd: 7�2�-682�507; Faa: 7271i62�EE3 Paga 1 of 2 � ,-'^ �;, Revitsd 01NZ .' .,�y . •,Z`_,� ' •. iI ;- '" �-� �.'' ��'-�.�errN''6� LL Planning & Development Department ° C earwater Com rehensive Landsca in A ' ' p p g pplication � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE (� FLIXIBILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPIIED WITH PER THIS COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING PROPOSAL. 1. Architectural Theme: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping program shail be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the devetopment. Please Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" OR __ b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be demonstrably more attractive than iandscaping othe►wise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. Please Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" 3. Community tharacter. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community charader of the City of Clearwater. Please Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" 4. Properiy Values. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program will have a benefitial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Please Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" 5. Specia/ Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Please Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" Planning � Devslopment Departrnent, 100 3. MyrUe Avenue, Clearwater, FL 3S7S8, Tal: 727•582-4387; Fax: 727-;fd2-4863 Psge 2 of 2 Redsed 01N2 Exhibit "A" to Comprehensive Landscaping Application for Flexible Development Application #FLD2014-05013 Pelican Walk Parking Garage, 483 Mandalay Avenue The landscaping is designed as part of the architectural theme as it emphasizes the embellishments of the parking garage. The structure is proposed with a 0' setback from the ROW line of Poinsettia .Avenue, and includes canopies / overhangs that project out from the face of the building. Thus the Applicant requests the approval of the Comprehensive Landscape Program (CLP) to allow relief from the foundation landscaping requirement in front of the building along Poinsettia Avenue. The structure will have ground level retail with entrances leading out to a sidewalk that will be expanded to 14' wide with a 3' wide green space between the walkway and curb line of Poinsettia Avenue. In addition, streetscape trees are being proposed along Poinsettia Ave., which will be enhanced specimen palms. 2. Any proposed landscape lighting will be on an automatic timer that turns off when the proposed retail uses are closed. The landscape lighting will also comply with any. requirements of turtle-safe lighting. 3. The landscape treatment proposed in the CLP will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater, and additionally meet the intent of Beach by Design by providing pedestrian friendly street-level facades with a widened sidewalk and green space. The wide sidewalk lined with specimen palms will promote pedestrian safety while providing enhanced trees to emphasis the building architecture. 4. The landscape treatment proposed in the CLP together with the new parking garage will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity. Currently, Poinsettia Ave has valley curb and cars Parallel Park within the grassed ROW, effectively killing the grass within this green space. The proposed pla� provides for a raised curb, a 3' wide strip of landscaped green space with specimen palm trees, then a 14' wide sidewalk, that can be used for patio seating. The proposed development is located within the "Retail / Restaurant" district of Beach by Design. It is not within any Scenic Corridor Plan area. 3 � J7 ��gl �' d !3` 2�� s � BAYMON7STREET �____'____'_" I -� _. . _ —sv+r.�P'..N , r�f � �� i �_� a � �� _ : -�- � � i-- � ' i �� ' �. a� � � � �'= — I � � —� � ' ' ' , "I I d � ; � ' � � ; C i �' � ° � ! � b�\ -� ' ' 6 � '� i ' i I� � I �; y � 6 a r «� ,e, '� �' � ' � p I� pb � �� '� i' � i �!--.-� �,�.� ' '� ��--��- �- _� �--. � ; � � __'_� II � � —. P�I i �• LEGEID: Jf„ � � ^�. �...,,.,. W,. �— m �o.�.�.,T.�..E.,., � ..g om� .. .� E,,,, � . . � ��' o v��o �� 5 � ;g j '__ � � � r3 � g � 8 P � xevis�ovs .�w:�,na�aw s�,«d�� e^F��,o�_�� _ �.�..—_^ PERhIITSE7 PELICAN WALK PARKING GAMGE PA�DISE �r, ��.� WNDSCAPE PWN �E.,��..EL-1 PEh51oN o s Memorandum Date: 1 u ly 9, 2014 To: Kevin Nurnberger, Planner III, City of Clearwater From: Traffic Engineering �j`j �� Subject: Pelican Walk Garage Traffic Impact Study Conclusions (FLS2014-05013) The Traffic Irnpact Analysis (TIA) was prepared to support the site plan approval for FLS2014-05013 for the new parking garage and retail development that is proposed to be located directly adjacent to 483 Mandalay Avenue on the west side of Poinsettia Avenue, south of Baymont Street. This site currently provides paved surface parking for 80 vehicles. The proposed development will have a total of 642 parking spaces and 11,482 SF of ground floor retail space. Under normal conditions only the retail portion of this development would generate new traffic on the roadway areas. However, this study included the trips generated from the parking spaces (parking garages are not a trip generator). A formal methodology letter for the TIA was submitted and accepted by the City of Clearwater's Traffic Engineering staff on June 9, 2014. Below is the study boundary and the level of service (existing and future 2015). INTERSECTIONS 1. Poinsettia Avenue at Baymont Street 2. North Site Access Driveway on Poinsettia Avenue 3. South Site Access Driveway on Poinsettia Avenue 4. Baymont & Mandalay (signalized) S. Papaya & Mandalay (2-way stop) 6. Papaya & Poinsettia (2-way stop) 7. Papaya & Eastshore (2-way stop) Level of Service (LOS) EXISTING LOS FUTURE 2015 LOS A B _ g - A B B B B A B A A � ROADWAY LINKS 1. Poinsettia Avenue (between Baymont Street and Papaya Street) 2. Papaya Street (between Mandalay Avenue and Eastshore Drive) 3. Mandalay Avenue (between Papaya Street and Baymont Street) 4. Baymont Street (Mandalay Avenue Poinsettia Avenue) C B C D D B C D The study also analyzed if a turn lane is needed at the projecYs driveway entrance on Poinsettia Avenue. The conclusion of the report [sic] is stated below and acceptable to the Traffic Engineering Department. CONCLUSIONS The existing and future level of servicefor the intersedions analyxes inthistraffic report is LOS "C" or better. The existing and future level of seroice for the roadVvay segrnents within the projectstudy areais LOS "�" or better. The proposed ground floor retail portion of this developmerit is anticipated to generate 102 two�ay trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed public parking spaces portion of this developrnerrt is arrticip�ted to divert 252 two-way trips to Poinsettia Avenue during the PM peak hour. The additional traffic expected ta be gener�ted and diverted by the proposed developmerrt parking garages deweloprnerrt will nat hare a negative irnpact on the leuel af service at the stud� intersoections or on the roadway segrnents. Upon completions of this development all study irrtersections and roadw� segrnerrts wiil comply with the City of Clearwater's adopted Levei of Seruice standards. The results of Harrnelink left turn lane evaluation fnr the parking garage driveway on Poinsettia Avenue indicate thaR an exclusive left turn lane is not warranted; therefore no mitigation measuresare required on Poinse�ttiaAvenue. r TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Pelican Walk Garage Poinsettia Avenue Clearwater Beach, Florida Prepared for: Paradise Ventures, Inc. Prepared By: TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC Submitted To: City of Clearwater July 1, 2014 3 1��,��' `��\1111II11//��, 1` \�```\ : �.��N+!'•.�,'��'i � ' , No. 116 �` Z _ * � �S� — • gTATE OF % ly � . �`. ; � � ��j� � ••�COR10;:•'�j�:�� 1��ONA;1��\� Jane A. Caldera, P.E. P.E. # 53116 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1- PROIECTION LOCATION/DESCRIPTION Chapter 2- PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Chapter 3- EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Chapter 4- FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Chapter 5 - CONCLUSIONS List of Fi�ures Figure 1- SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 2- SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Figure 3- SITE ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN Figure 4- SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Figure 5- YEAR 2014 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 6- YEAR 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC PROIECTIONS List of Tables Table 1- PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES 2 4 9 12 15 3 6 7 8 10 13 4 Table 2- EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - Unsignalized 9 Table 3- EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - Signalized 9 Table 4- EXISTING ROADWAY ANALYSIS RESULTS 11 Table 5- FUTURE INTERSECTION ANALY515 RESULTS - Unsignalized 12 Table 6- FUTURE ROADWAY ANALYSIS RESULTS - Signalized 12 Table 7- FUTURE ROADWAY ANALYSIS RESULTS 14 Table 8- SITE DRIVEWAY INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS 14 List of Appendices APPENDIX A - METHODOLOGY LETTER APPENDIX B- DETAILED INTERSECTION SPREADSHEETS APPENDIX C— TMC SUMMARY REPORTS/FDOT PEAK SEASON TABLE/EXISTING HCS REPORTS APPENDIX D- YEAR 2015 FUTURE CONDITIONS HCS REPORTS/HAMRELINK WARRANT Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 1 July 1, 2014 C r �. 1. PROJECT LOCATION/DESCRIPTION This Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared to support the site plan approval for the proposed for the new parking garage and retail development that is proposed to be located on the west side of Poinsettia Avenue, south of Baymont Street. This site currently provides surface paved parking for 80 vehicles. The proposed development will have a total of 642 parking spaces and 11,482 SF of ground floor retail space. The retail portion of this development would be the only part that generates new traffic on the area roadways. The new 642 parking spaces will divert existing traffic to Poinsettia Avenue to and from the garage. Figure 1 displays the site location and the area roadway system. The proposed build-out year for this project is 2015. A formal Methodology Letter was submitted to the City of Clearwater Engineering Department staff on June 9, 2014. The purpose of the methodology letter was to establish the trip generation characteristics, study area, growth rates and other technical factors/procedures. A copy of the methodology letter and the email comments from the City are contained in Appendix A. Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 2 July 1, 2014 2. PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Trip Generation: The PM peak-hour trip generation estimates for the retail development will be based on the trip rates contained in the 9th Edition of the Institute of Transportation of Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The trip generation calculations for the proposed retai) development are shown in the table below. TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES ITE (1)ITE �ach �Z� pass-By Walk Up / Foot / Tenarrt ITE Land-Use Land-Use Indep Rate or Total Bike Trip Bike Capture PASS-BY TRIPS NET-NEW TRIPS No. Cat o Code Var E uation Size Tri s Discourd Traffic Rate 2-WAY IN OUT 2-WAY IN OUT PROPOSED LAND-US@$ :: A-2,A-3, Specialty Retail 826 SF 2.71 7,628 21 25% 6 25% 4 2 2 11 5 6 A-4, A-5 ITE /R A-6 High Turraver Sit 932 SF 9.58 1,927 19 25 % 5 30% 5 3 2 9 5 4 Down Restaurant ITE /R A� Bread/BagelShop 939 SF 28.00 1,927 54 25% 14 30% 12 6 6 28 14 14 w/o Drive Thru ITE /R TOTAL 11,482 94 25 21 11 10 48 25 23 (1) The Tip Generation Rates were obtained from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. (2) The Pass-By Capture Rates per ITE Trip Generation Hardbook, 2nd Ed'Rion; and adjusted dowrnvard per recommendation from the City Traffic Engineering Dept. to reflect beach area characteristics. To evaluate the traffic impacts associated with existing traffic that will divert to Poinsettia Avenue to get into and out of the new parking garage, a traffic diversions assignment will be prepared for the PM peak hour. Parking garages do not actually generate new vehicle trip(s), the best way to estimate the use of a parking garage is to estimate the trips associated with the land-uses for which the parking garage will be servicing (i.e. public beach parking, entertainment parking, retail, restaurant, etc.). Depending on how "mixed use" the development served by the garage is, the number of trips should be reduced to account for people who park once and use multiple facilities. A commonly accepted rule of thumb, used to estimate the trip associated with a commercial parking facilities during the peak hour is 0.5 trips per parking space. The trip generation calculations for the proposed 642 space garage are shown below: Parking Space Breakdown 58 - spaces to be utilized by new Pelican Walk ground floor retail (11.482 * 5 spaces / 1,000 sf) 134 - spaces reserved for Pelican Plaza (existing plaza along Mandalay) (192 — 58 PWalk retail) 450 - spaces available for public parking 642 - total spaces in new garage - 80 ext spaces - 58 new retail spaces = 504 new public spaces PM Peak Hour Trip �eneration Estimate for new Public Parking Spaces 504 spaces x 0.5 trips per space = 252 vph (126 in, 126 out) Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 4 July 1, 2014 0 Site Traffic Distribution: The new net site traffic distribution for the retail development was based on the areas residential population, existing travel patterns, and the area roadway network. The site traffic distribution for the PM peak-hour is shown on Figure 2. Site Access Plan and Internal Traffic Circulation Plan: The site current has two driveways on Poinsettia Avenue. These two driveways will be improved to meet current design standards. The two driveways for the new parking garage will be located in the same general location as the two existing driveways to this site. The southern site driveway will be an exit only driveway. Figure 3 displays the location of the site access driveways on Poinsettia Avenue and the internal site circulation system for the ground floor retail parking and access to and from the garage ramp system. As you will see on Figure 3, the proposed on-site traffic circulation plan allow inbound traffic to free flow in to the parking garage, the first decision point for motorists will be located approximately 120 feet into the site. The site traffic assignment for the PM peak hour is shown graphically on Figure 4. Appendix B contains the detailed spreadsheets that show the existing traffic volumes and the site traffic assignment for the study intersections. Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 5 July 1, 2014 _ U Q W m � W Q> > � Q W J U 2 H � O Z Site Traffic Distribution North O (NTS) O �� FIGURE 2 - Stop Controlled Intersection - Signalized Intersection - % of Site Traffic Q � � w Q � J H � Q � U Q � H Z � J � (� Pelican Walk Garage — TIS TRUCKIN , TRAFFIC, ��c � �D n � 7 G � � �ii � � (G �D I � � � � � � � Z � � n � � A r r n Pelican Clearwaier TOTAL Ground 29 0 29 lst 60 0 60 2nd 0 92 92 3rd 0 114 114 4th 0 114 114 5th o 114 114 6th 103 16 119 TOT/LL 192 450 642 a o�mwit� Pelican Walk Parkinq Spaces City of Clearwater Park'�nq SPace �-0 a�mmc euuc v u5nc sanc T—u[ ar �nC u[ v[anc F cm�nxc �; I ue a aeM —� a�wc nmrm[ - �- ---- .J � "✓ ,. ` _� . _ . . . _ i � `., ' —�-,, . .n}., . — :'T- « � !r 1 �.' � __ "_...__ .' � ` � � � ■ ■ ' ; � �o j� � � � � � I � � � � � �� ` �� : `� — I I� y' � �.-o� Retail Ret I E p ' 1927 SF .i- 1.907 ! I i �-� C �' AVA ` /(�c I � �} � � � �,�,k i __�� - --..-..-:: _� _ - __�-- ' �� 19' !' 1� L� lf C' 1{ � YI C � rn W —uc v casnc m wna ieo� I sau'c ranc � euuc av � _ . . �. .' � � \ %� / ' � Y":.. ° \•"r�-- - ��-=r`-- - , �� v ^ � � � � � � � � �%A�� t _ ��_ _ �'.uES � . \ � . . � . t°"' +_ . r �� \\ u � � \� � � —. . . � � ��. . � ! � j� � �.,� r, ar.r � � a[ r. nwrc � . . . .. �i : � ; teE�.. � o�. ' • �n:w: 4 �n� . _ ��_ 1 _�--T-� -_„__� r _ � � � Q l • �� no v iw�c � '' ' '� I� '1 J ` ' /��h �a ao � y l i I �il \ V - S� ; 1 � �� = I �'�. r�..n.: � . 1-4 � nuuw � T �� - ' • � ' ." � — '-- . . i . -- ,,_i = i R,, � �, �..; . . . • ,I �� ^ - - . �'- t �I I `J i Ai �. Retail Retail Retail Retail � � '''°' � � "� _ � C7 i y� 1.907 SF .�- �.907 SF �r. 7.907 SF �r. 1.9T) SF .�- • . �� `f� ! i �� e : � _..I /;: • � ��. 9�i:Wf. � � tiz i � �I �. �,. �, i t : �- .�,. � r= �� _ �---..__ T,____- - - �- - - ° � �� - _. . ._ --- - _. . .__ �_. : ._. . � - _ _ � , . . � .� _ .. _ . __ � '- �can �, . _ . ms� _- � - � � 1f 0' !S J' _ a...^ YL� Iti ?.. . . b:' .t ti - C POINSETTIA STREET �� RETAL PLAN 8� GROlN�O LEVEL PARKNG PLAN _ �: _ _ I6M IE�Q pMOi ��, �tES �IOL ] KR15Rl �/Qs SM if1Q FM114 � 4'�CfS K1lOMt 1 IQE55H[ iP�Q�. �TM � v«nuc ,. �+as .au.c � rccssnt a.a, � �!) lMl IM�hL �`I •PI[75 K11bIL 7�SC155d7 SPk7� �. ' M ll�Q P4�ML 9l '3`KIS N[LWMG 7�CC6SQf SWLCS � Sl iMl PMl�6. !0 Sa[6 MC1tpL 7 C[[SLH! SiC[; � 1piK N7 4'IQS NCl1O1L t] .1CRI�f SRCF=. _ Q W m W Q � Q W J U 2 F— � Z North (NTS) O � M � 0 M � � SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT PM Peak-Hour L 3(13)[0] j'� 3 (13) [0] Baymont [�l (25) � i � ree r �� N O�lj~ M �..-..-••� u� v Nort� Dw � � t o [6]�(19)5 [16] I (50) 13 � N N ' I � � 0 � M � i� � N Qo South DW M � � �.._.._: i [2l (6) 2 � � [16] (50) 13 —1 00 � � N � � � a� � o Q O � O �y •� u M' N M M M � �o � c 00 � � O d � r 8 c32> �� '� 1 l► L g�32) ��l 1 r [�] (32) 9 � � v rn � M N � � � � M O O `--' � � O a� > L � � 0 � � ui ��l �32) 9 � � w N � O Q � W Q> > 'H^ V/ O U Q � � J � � Legend O- Stop Controlled Intersection O- Signalized Intersection L xx �xx> �xx� - New Retail (Diverted Public) [Existing Parking Lot] FIGURE 4 Pelican Walk Garage — TIS TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC 3. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The City of Clearwater provided recent PM peak-hour intersection turning movement counts (TMC) for the following study intersections: • Mandalay Avenue at Baymont Street • Poinsettia Avenue at Papaya Street • E. Shore Drive at Papaya Street New PM peak-hour intersection TMC's were performed during the 3�d week in June 2014 for the following study intersections: • Poinsettia Avenue at Baymont Street • Mandalay Avenue at Papaya Street The above TMC's were utilized to evaluate the study intersections and roadway segments. The TMC's were adjusted to adjust to peak season conditions. The peak season factor was obtained from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Peak Season Factor Reports for Pinellas County. Figure 5 displays the 2014 PM Peak-Hour, Peak-Season Traffic Volumes. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used to determine the existing Level of Service (LOS). The results of the intersection capacity analyses are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 below. TABLE 2- EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - Unsignalized Major Street Major Street Minor Street Minor Street Delay Delay App. Delay (in App. Delay (in (in secs.) (in secs.) secs.) secs.) /(�OS) Intersection /(LOS) /(LOS) /(LOS) Baymont at 7.4 --- 9.8 --- Poinsettia /(A) /(A) Mandalay at 8.5 8.2 10.6 15.6 Papaya /(A) /(A) /(B) /(C) Poinsettia at 7.4 7.4 9.7 10.0 Papaya /�A) /�A) /�A) /�B) East Shore at 7.3 7.5 --- 9.1 Papaya /(A) /(A) /(A) Table 3- EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - Signalized Average Delay Intersection (secs./veh.) Level of Service Mandalay Ave. at Baymont St. 15.6 B The new PM peak-hour, peak season adjusted TMC's were also utilized to evaluate the study roadway segments. The directional PM peak-hour traffic volumes were compared against the maximum directional services volumes (MSV) thresholds at Level of Services "D". Please see the footnotes under this table for an explanation of how the MSV's were derived. The roadway link analysis results are displayed in Table 4. Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 9 July 1, 2014 _ Q w m w Q � w � U � � 0 z North (NTS) EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES PM Peak-Hour rn � � � L 118 �l� �13 r 33 13��ir 3 53� �� M � � � 1 a� � _ N Q � �� c� � �� ""� 181 74�17 � 57 � i.—.._..� � � i� � I j SITE I i � � � � 110 r � � �r ti � 1 � � N � c m Q � � � � .o �. nt > � � 0 � � w `°� � L so °°� N L NN ° L o � � � ~2 ~33 � � � a"'12 � � � ~0 r � Papaya r 10 r' 0 Street 12� � i r 13� 15...► � 1� 6�"� � 1� 15� N°rn 8'� �coo 18� �rn� M 00 � � FIGURE 5 Q � w Q � J H Q 0 � � Z � J � Legend O- Stop Controlled Intersection O- Signalized Intersection L XX- Existing Traffic, Peak Season Pelican Walk Garage — TIS TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC TABLE 4- EXISITNG ROADWAY ANALY515 RESULTS (PM PEAK-HOUR, Peak Direction) MSV d a � (1) Pk-Hr u� Ext. Pk- o Existing Road LOS Dir. , v>i y Hr. Dir �'• V/C Road Name Limits Fac. Type Type Std. Cap. � Vol. Pk Dir > Ratio Poinsettia Avenue Baymont to Papaya local 2LU D 286 2 76 NB 4 0.27 Baymont Street Mandalay to Poinsettia local 2LU D 286 2 181 WB 4 0.63 Mandalay Avenue Baymont to Papaya city 4D D 1,304 3 485 SB 4 0.37 col lector Papaya Street Mandalay to East Shore local 2LU D 286 2 33 WB 4 0.12 (1) Source: City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element - Objective B.1.5 (2) Pinellas County MPO 2012 Level of Service Report, Adopted Sept. 12, 2012, reduced by 50'� for local road. (3) 2012 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Table 7; reduced by lOfor non state roadway, and 10'� for collector. (4) 2014 New Turning Movement Counts - PM Peak Hour Pk-Hr Pk-Dir Service Volume at LOS D 572 lowest Pinellas MPO value for 2LU collector road 286 reduce by 50 %for local road 286 adjusted MSV at LOS D for local city streets 1,630 FDOT table 4 Class 2 under 35 mph signal arterial 163 reduce by 10% for non state road 163 reduce by 10% for collector road 1,304 adjusted MSV at LOS D for Mandalay As shown in Table 4, the volume to capacity (V/C) ratios for study segments are well below 1.0; therefore the study segments currently operates above the City's LOS "D" threshold. Appendix C contains the TMC Summary Reports, FDOT 2013 Peak Season Factor Report and the detailed HCS reports. Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 11 July 1, 2014 4. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The Year 2015 future traffic projections were developed adding the new retail site traffic and the diverted traffic expected as a result of the new public parking spaces to the Year 2015 background traffic projections. The background traffic projections for the buildout year (Year 2015) were derived based on the application of an annual growth rate, of two percent. The four percent annual growth rate was based on the recent traffic trends in the area. The detailed spreadsheets in Appendix B also show resulting Year 2015 future traffic projections. Figure 5 displays the Year 2015 PM peak-hour, peak season, traffic projections at the study intersections. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used to determine the Year 2015 LOS at the study intersections. The future conditions capacity analyses for the study intersections were based on the existing geometry and signal phasing/timing plan. The results of the intersection capacity analyses are summari2ed in Tables 5 and 6 below. TABLE 5— FUTURE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - Unsignalized Major Street Major Street Minor Street Minor Street Delay Delay App. Delay (in App. Delay (in (in secs.) (in secs.) secs.) secs.) /(�OS) Intersection /(LOS) /(LOS) /(LOS) Baymont at 7.4 --- 10.3 --- Poinsettia /(A) /(B) Mandalay at 8.6 8.4 17.6 16.7 Papaya /(A) /(A) /(C) /(C) Poinsettia at 7.7 7.6 10.6 14.3 Papaya /1A) /�A) /1B) /lg) East Shore at 7.4 7.6 --- 9.1 Papaya /(A) /(A) /(A) Table 6— FUTURE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - Signalized Average Delay Intersection (secs./veh.) Level of Service Mandalay Ave. at Baymont St. 16.0 B Appendix D contains the detailed HCS printouts for the Year 2015. Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 12 July 1, 2014 0 2 a w m W Q � w J 2 H � O Z North (NTS) YEAR 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES PM Peak-Hour � � � � L 139 �� 14 i 1� 50 14��ir 3 56 � � .- c� � M M � � C N Q � � � � c N � �� 115 r � 91 � ~� r _.._.. �i � o � I � Nor1h DW �� ; 3ou`lj i 80� °° .o � rn i �� l � sou�n �w � � .._,o � i Q 80 � N � � � c 'o a ~�`� Ls2 «� 1 �.► �— 2 r 42 Pa '2��ir S' 15 � � � � N p� � v �� «� j �► L s� �12 r �o 54 � i r 6� 9� �coo M � � FIGURE 6 ont > .� 0 � 0 � � LLI M T � � � �� N N � L «�l�► �o ro ��ir 59� ��n� ll') � Q � W Q � J H � 0 Q � Z � J � c� Legend O- Stop Controlled Intersection O- Signalized Intersection L XX- Future Traffic, Peak Season Pelican Walk Garage — TIS TRUCKIN . TRAFFIC, LLC The Year 2015 AM Peak Hour directional traffic projections were compared against the maximum services volumes (MSV) thresholds at Level of Services (LOS) "D". TABLE 7- FU7URE ROADWAY ANALYSIS RESULTS (PM PEAK-HOUR, Peak Direction) MSV a � (5) 2015 (1) Pk-Hr, '�$ '+ Ezt. Pk- o Exfsting 2015 Pk DIr Future 2015 Road LOS Dir. v>i ,o Hr. Dir � V/C Bkgd. %Site SRe Total Future Road Name Limks Fac. Type Type Std. Cap. �� Vol. Pk Dir > Ratlo Vol. Traffic Traffic Vol. V/C Ratio Poinsettia Avenue Baymont to Papaya local 2LU D 286 2 76 NB 4 0.27 79 100% 161 240 0.84 Baymont Street Mandalay to Poinsettia �ocal 2LU D 286 2 181 WB 4 0.63 188 20% 32 220 0.77 Mandalay Avenue Baymont to Papaya ��tY 4D D 1,304 3 485 SB 4 0.37 504 10% 16 520 0.40 collxtor Papaya Street Mandalay to East Shore local 2LU D 286 2 33 WB 4 0.12 34 25% 40 74 0.26 (1) Source: Ciry of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element- Objective B.1.5 (2) Pinellas County MPO 2012 Level of Service Report, Adopted Sept. 12, 2012, reduced by 50%for local road. (3) 2012 FDOTquality/Level of Service Handbook, 7able 7; reduced by 30for non state roadway, and 109G forcollector. (4) 2014 New Turni ng Nbvement Counts - PM Peak Hour (5) Represents one year of growth at 4 perce nt. As shown in Table 7, the Year 2015 V/C Ratios for all study segment(s) are well below 1.0; therefore all study segment(s) are projected to operate above the City's LOS "D" threshold. Evaluation of Site Drivewav: The Year 2015 traffic projections at the site access driveway were developed for the full build- out condition of the parking garage. The PM peak-hour traffic projections for the site access driveway are shown on Figure 6. A future year 2015 capacity analyses for the site driveway was performed based on the existing geometry. The result of the intersection capacity analysis is summarized in Tables 8 below. TABLE 8— SITE DRIVEWAY INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - U Major Street App. NB Major Street SB Delay (in secs.) App. Delay (in Intersection /(�OS) secs.) /(�OS) North Site Driveway at 7.7 --- Poinsettia Ave. /(A) South Site Driveway at --- --- Poinsettia Ave. Minor Street App. Delay (in secs.) 10.8 /�B) 9.8 The Harmelink left turn lane warrants were reviewed to determine if a left turn lane is warranted at the site driveway. Based on the number of left turns, the opposing volume and the advancing volume; a left turn lane is not warranted for this driveway. Appendix D contains the relevant Harmelink warrant form. Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 14 luly 1, 2014 5. CONCLUSIONS The existing and future level of service for the intersections analyzes in this traffic report is LOS "C" or better. The existing and future level of service for the roadway segments within the project study area is LOS "D" or better. The proposed ground floor retail portion of this development is anticipated to generate 102 two-way trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed public parking spaces portion of this development is anticipated to divert 252 two-way trips to Poinsettia Avenue during the PM peak hour. The additional traffic expected to be generated and diverted by the proposed development parking garages development will not have a negative impact on the level of service at the study intersections or on the roadway segments. Upon completions of this development all study intersections and roadway segments will comply with the City of Clearwater's adopted Level of Service standards. The results of Harmelink left turn lane evaluation for the parking garage driveway on Poinsettia Avenue indicate that an exclusive left turn lane is not warranted; therefore no mitigation measures are required on Poinsettia Avenue. Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 15 July 1, 2014 APPENDICES Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 16 July 1, 2014 APPENDICES Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS 16 July 1, 2014 TRUCKIN �TRAFFIC, LLC V APPENDIX A Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS luly 1, 2014 APPENDIX A Page 1 of 10 TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC T T 721 Gulf Boulevard, Suite 200 Indian Rocks Beach, Florida 33785 (727) 647-8196 June 9, 2014 Bennett Elbo Traffic Operations City of Clearwater - Engineering Department PO Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 Reference: Pelican Walk Garage Poinsettia Avenue Traffic Impact Study Methodology Letter Dear Bennett, The purpose of this letter is to document the assumptions and procedures that will be utilized to prepare the requested Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the new parking garage and retail development that is proposed to be located on the west side of Poinsettia Avenue, south of Baymont Street. This site is currently provides surface paved parking for 80 vehicles. The proposed development will have a total of 642 parking spaces and 11,482 SF of ground floor retail space. The retail portion of this development would be the only part that generates new traffic on the area roadways. The new 642 parking spaces will divert existing traffic to Poinsettia Avenue to get to and from the garage. The tenants for the ground floor retail space are not known at this time. The trip generation estimates for the 11,482 SF of retail space will be based on the follow assumed land-uses: Description Local Retail Shops Sub Shop/Deli Bagel Shop ITE Land-Use Shopping Center High Turnover Sit- Down Restaurant Bread/Bagel Shop w/o Drive Thru ITE Code 820 932 936 Size � 7,628 1,927 1,927 11,482 ANALYSIS PERIOD/BUILDOUT YEAR: The analysis period for the TIS will be the PM peak-hour (5-6 PM). A one year buildout is proposed for this development project; therefore the buildout year will be Year 2015. TRUCKIN �TRAFFIC, LLC TRIP GENERATION: The PM peak-hour trip generation rates contained in the 9th Edition Generation Manual. The trip ge shown in the table below. TABLE 1 APPENDIX A Page Cof 10 June 9, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Pelican Walk Garage — TIS Methodology Letter estimates for the retail development will be based on the trip of the Institute of Transportation of Engineers (ITE) T� neration calculations for the proposed retail development are PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES ITE (1) ITE Beach �2� pass-By Walk Up / Foot I Tenard ITE Land-Use Land-Use Indep Rate or Total Bike Trip Bike Capture PASS-BY TRIPS NET-NEW TRIPS No. Cate o Code Var E uation Size Tri s Discount Traffic Rate 2-WAY IN OUT 2-WAY IN OUT PROPOSED LAND-U$ES A-2'A-3' SFapping Center 820 SF 3.71 7,628 29 25% 8 34% 8 4 4 13 6 7 A-4, A-5 ITE IE A 6 High Turnover Sit 932 SF 9.58 1,927 19 25% 5 43% 7 4 3 7 4 3 Down Restaurant ITE /R A � Bread/Bagel Shop 939 SF 28.00 1,927 54 25% 14 50% 20 10 10 20 10 10 w/o Drive TMu ITE IR TOTAL 17,482 102 27 35 18 17 40 20 20 (1) The Tip Generation Rates were obtained from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. (2) The Pass-By Capture Rate was based on the recommended rates from the ITE Trip Generation Flandbook, 2nd Edition. To evaluate the traffic impacts associated with existing traffic that will divert to Poinsettia Avenue to get into and out of the new parking garage, a traffic diversions assignment will be prepared for the PM peak hour. Parking garages do not actually generate trip, the best way to estimate the use of a parking garage is to estimate the trips associated with the land-uses for which the parking garage will be servicing (i.e. public beach parking, entertainment parking, retail, restaurant, etc.). Depending on how "mixed use" the development served by the garage is, the number of trips should be reduced to account for people who park once and use multiple facilities. A commonly accepted rule of thumb, used to estimate the trip parking facilities during the peak hour is 0.5 trips per parking calculations for the proposed 642 space garage are shown below: Parking Space Breakdown associated with a commercial space. The trip generation 58 - spaces to be utilized by new Pelican Walk ground floor retail (11.482 " 5 spaces / 1,000 sf) 134 - spaces reserved for Pelican Plaza (existing plaza along Mandalay) (192 - 58 PWalk retail) 450 - spaces available for public parking 642 - total spaces in new garage PM Peak Hour Trip generation Estimate 642 spaces x 0.5 trips per space = 321 vph (160 in, 161 out) TRUCKIN �TRAFFIC, LLC APPENDIX A Page u of 10 June 9, 2014 Page 3 of 5 Pelican Walk Garage — TIS Methodology Letter PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION: The new net site traffic distribution for the retail development will be based on the areas residential population, existing travel patterns, and the area roadway network. The site traffic _ U Q W m � W Q � Q W J U 2 H � O Z North (NTS) distribution for the PM peak-hour is shown below: O- Stop Controlled Intersecdon O- Signalized Intersection � - % of Site Traffic ¢ � W Q � H � O U Q � � Z TRUCKIN � TRAFFIC, LLC APPENDIX A Page o of 10 June 9, 2014 Page 4 of 5 Pelican Walk Garage - TIS Methodology Letter STUDY AREA: The study area will include the following intersections and roadway segments: INTERSECTIONS 1. Poinsettia Avenue at Baymont Street 2. North Site Access Driveway on Poinsettia Avenue 3. South Site Access Driveway on Poinsettia Avenue ROADWAY LINKS 1. Poinsettia Avenue (between Baymont Street and Papaya Street) TRUCKIN �TRAFFIC, LLC APPENDIX A Page C of 10 June 9, 2014 Page 5 of 5 Pelican Walk Garage — TIS Methodology Letter The LOS standards and maximum service volumes for each road segment will be obtained for the latest version of the Pinellas County MPO Level of Service Report and/or FDOT sources. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS: The PM peak-hour existing traffic conditions will be based the traffic from other traffic studies prepared for this area. (recent traffic studies to be supplied by the City of Clearwater). As necessary the traffic data contained in the latest version of the Pinellas County MPO Level of Service Report and/or FDOT sources will also be utilized. BACKGROUND (NON-PROJECT) TRAFFIC: An annual growth rate will be applied to the study intersections and roadway links. Based on the recent traffic trends in the area, a two percent annual growth will be utilized. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS: The buildout year traffic projections will include the background traffic, the diverted traffic and the new traffic that is expected as a result of the proposed development. If required the peak season factor per the latest FDOT factors will be applied. The truck percent use for this analysis wilt be two percent. Please contact me if you have questions or comments regarding this letter. Sincerely, TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC ��--_ J e A. Caldera, P.E. rincipal Traffic Engineer CC: Chris Logan, P.E. - Paradise Ventures Greg Roth, P.E. - Thomas Engineering Group Himanshu Patni - City of Clearwater Dave Larremore.- City of Clearwater TRU�KIN �TRAFFK, LLC Jane Caldera From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Flag Status: APPENDIX A Page � of 10 Bennett.Elbo@myClearwater.com Friday, June 13, 2014 12:27 PM janecaldera07@gmail.com Himanshu.Patni@MyClearwater.com; Paul.Bertels@myClearwater.com; Dave.Larremore@ myClearwater.com RE: TIS for Parking Structure/Retail at Pelican Walk Plaza - SWC Poinsettia Ave & Baymont St. pelican walk.pdf Flagged Hi Jane- please see attached. After reviewing your methodology statement, please add the following intersections and roadway segments (see attached, hi -lighted areas) INTERSECTIONS: Baymont & Mandalay (signalized) Papaya & Mandalay (2-way stop) Papaya & Poinsettia (2-way stop) Papaya & Eastshore (2-way stop) SEGEMENTS: Baymont St (Mandalay — Poinsettia) Mandalay Av (Baymont-Papaya) Papaya St (Mandalay — East Shore) Also the supplied raw traffic counts need to be adjusted because they were conducted on May 2011, please use 4% per year growth rate to bring it to current year 2014 so (3 years x 4%). Please use 4% for growth rate instead of 2% as mentioned in your methodology statement. For the new uses, just use ITE#826 (Specialty Retail Center) for everything. Also there are retail & restaurants near your site that do not have parking, perhaps you can include those trips as well, just the employees and not the customers because they mostly are walk up customers. If you have questions please call me. Sincerely, ❑e �❑e � �IDo ❑[�ff � E ❑g m�ee �g ❑�of ❑[�a�a��❑❑ (727)562-4775 Phone (727)562-4755 Fax Bennett.Elbo@myclearwater.com From: Jane Caldera [mailto:janecaldera07@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:43 PM To: Elbo, Bennett; Patni, Himanshu; Larremore, Dave M. Cc: Gregory Roth; Chris Logan Subject: RE: TIS for Parking Structure/Retail at Pelican Walk Plaza - SWC Poinsettia Ave & Baymont St. APPENDIX A Gentlemen, Page r� of 10 Attached please find my proposed methodology statement for the Traffic Impact Study that you have requested for the proposed parking structure/retail development called Pelican Walk Garage. I have also attached a copy of the architects plan for the retail and ground level (Sheet A1.1) for your use. Please email me any traffic studies and/or traffic count data that I can use to assist me in preparing the TIS. I await your approval of the attached TIS methodology statement and look forward to working with you on this project. If necessary I am available to meet with you tomorrow Thursday, 6/12 to finalize the TIS methodology statement. Regards, Jane A. Caldera, P.E. TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning 721 Guif Boulevard, Suite 200 Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785 (727) 647-8196 Janecaldera07@�mail.com From: Bennett.Elbo(a�myClearwater.com [mailto:Bennett.Elbo(a�myClearwater.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 3:45 PM To: ianecaldera07(a�gmail.com Cc: Himanshu.PatniCa�MyClearwater.com; Dave.LarremoreCa�myClearwater.com Subject: RE: TIS for Parking Structure/Retail at Pelican Walk Plaza - SWC Poinsettia Ave & Baymont St. We need a full TIS because my supervisor sees a need for it. He is interested in the LOS on Poinsettia Ave and the nearby intersections if it will degrade or not from the expected new vehicular trips by the proposed retail plus the vehicle(s) that are circulating at north beach looking for a parking space. The City's Flexible Development Application allows the Traffic Operation's Manager or designee require such an assessment in the plan review process. Please schedule a scoping meeting with us to determine the methodology. I will be on vacation on June 4`h, Wed and will return August 9th, Monday, so please coordinate with Himanshu Patni or Dave Larremore. Thanks ❑e ❑❑e �E �b ❑C�ff � E ❑g �]]ee �g ❑�of ❑�a�a[��❑❑ (727)562-4775 Phone (727)562-4755 Fax Bennett.Elbo@mvclearwater.com From: Jane Caldera [mailto:janecaldera07Ca>gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 1:56 PM To: Elbo, Bennett Cc: Chris Logan Subject: RE: TIS for Parking Structure/Retail at Pelican Walk Plaza - SWC Poinsettia Ave & Baymont St. Hello Bennett, APPENDIX A This email is a follow up to the voice message that I left for you this afternoon. Page � of 10 When we discussed this project back in April you told me that a traffic study would not be required. (please see your email from 4/22/14 below). Per my review of the current site plan the project is still +/-14,000 SF for ground floor retail, which does not trigger the trip threshold for a traffic study; therefore what is the purpose of the traffic study? Can I do a Technical Memorandum Report that provides the City with the trip generation estimates and a site traffic assignment for the 14,000 SF of new retail? Please let me know what your thoughts on this matter. Regards, Jane A. Caldera, P.E. TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning 721 Gulf Boulevard, Suite 200 Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785 (727) 647-8196 Janecaldera07@�mail.com From: Bennett.ElboCa�myClearwater.com [mailto:Bennett.Elbo(a�myClearwater.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:15 AM To: janecaldera07Ca>gmail.com Cc: Himanshu.PatniCa�MyClearwater.com; Dave.LarremoreCa�myClearwater.com Subject: RE: TIS for Parking Structure/Retail at Pelican Walk Plaza - SWC Poinsettia Ave & Baymont St. Hi Jane- sorry for my delayed response to your e-mail. After talking with my supervisor, the project is not required to do a TIS because the new vehicular trips from the retail portion of this project do not generate 100 vph in the p.m. peak or 1,000 vpd daily trips. We have not required a TIS for a parking garage because it is not a vehicle trip attractor. A parking garage will actually help visitors and employees from nearby businesses who are driving around looking for parking on the north section of the beach. If the applicant feels that a TIS will help support their project, then they can submit one if they wish. If you have questions please let me know. Thanks Ben ❑e ❑❑e �E �o ❑C�ff�E❑gm]ee�g ❑�of o�a�aC��❑❑ (727)562-4775 Phone (727)562-4755 Fax Bennett.Elbo@mvclearwater.com From: Jane Caldera [mailto janecaldera07(c�gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:29 PM To: Elbo, Bennett Subject: TIS for Parking Structure/Retail at Pelican Walk Plaza - SWC Poinsettia Ave & Baymont St. Bennett, APPENDIXA Page �of 10 , The developer (PV-PELICAN WALK, LLC) for this proposed Parking Structure with Ground Floor Retail has asked me to prepare a TIS for this project. The parking structure will be 7 stories and have a total of 653 spaces, including 17 accessible spaces. The ground floor retail will consist of 11,023 sf that will be broken up into +/- 6 tenant spaces. The developer would like the ability of have restaurants in this space, however the restaurant user will be limited to a user that does not require a ventilation hoods (i.e. a coffee/ice cream shop or a sandwich shop). I believe the developer and their civil engineer (Thomas Engineering) have a BPRC meeting on this project scheduled for April 23�d. Can you please give me a call or email me back to with your thoughts on the scope/methodology for the TIS? I have attached the preliminary ground floor plan for your reference. The Parcel ID number is 08-29-15-16434-001-0020. Thanks,Jane Regards, Jane A. Caldera, P.E. TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC Traffic Engineering / Transportation Planning 721 Gulf Boulevard, Suite 200 Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785 (727) 647-8196 Janecaldera07@�mail.com 4 TRUCKIN �TRAFFIC. LLC APPENDIX B Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS July 1, 2014 ❑1 Mandala Ave at Ba mont St - PM PEAK HOUR Mandalay Ave Baymont St Mandalay Ave Baymont St Movement SB Rt SB Th SB Lt SB Tot. WB Rt WB Th WB Lt WB Tot. NB Rt NB Th NB Lt NB Tot. EB Rt EB Th EB Lt EB Tot. Int. Total 2011 PM PK raw data) 16 439 42 497 108 12 30 150 14 336 42 392 49 3 12 64 7,103 Peak Seaso� Factor 0.97 2011 Peak Season Traffic Volume 16 426 41 482 105 12 29 146 14 326 41 380 48 3 12 62 1,070 2014 Bkd 3 Years of Grow[h at 4% 17 479 46 542 118 13 33 164 15 367 46 428 53 3 13 70 1,204 2015 Bkdg 4 Years of Grow[h at 4% 18 498 48 564 123 14 34 170 16 381 48 445 56 3 14 73 1,252 Site TraffC Disi 0% 0% 10% in 10% out 0°/a 10% out 10% in 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% New Retail Project Trips 0 0 4 3 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 Divert Trips for new 504 public space 0 0 13 13 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 2015 Future Traffic 18 498 64 580 139 14 50 202 32 381 48 461 56 3 14 73 1,316 Trios PM IN �M OU' TOT New Retail 35 34 69 New 504 public spaces 726 126 252 Ext 80 s aces 40 40 80 EB Baymont St Mandalay Ave 17 479 46 � � � 13 � � 118 3 � � 13 53 --�� I � 33 �l � � � 46 367 15 Mandalay Ave Existing Peak Season Volumes WB EB Baymont St Baymont S Mandalay Ave 18 498 64 � � � 14� 3� 56 � � � � 48 381 32 Mandalay Ave � 139 WB 4`� 14 Baymont St i"� 50 1f� Year 2015 Traffic Projections TRUCKIN TRAFFIQ LLC Manda at bay D � � m Z v X W v v � m 0 V B1 Poinsetta Ave at Ba mont St - PM PEAK HOUR Mandalay Ave Papaya St Mandalay Ave Papaya St Movement SB Rt SB Th SB Lt SB Tot WB Rt WB Th WB Lt WB Tot. NB Rt NB Th NB Lt NB Tot EB Rt EB Th EB Lt EB Tot IM. Total 2014 PM PK (raw data) 0 0 0 0 0 105 7 106 5 0 68 73 54 16 0 70 249 Peak Season Factor 1.05 2014 Peak Season Traffic Volume 0 0 0 0 0 110 1 111 5 0 71 77 57 17 0 74 261 2015 Bkd 1 Year of Growth at 4% 0 0 0 0 0 115 1 116 5 0 74 80 59 17 0 76 272 Site TraffiC Dist 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% out 20% in 0% 0% New Retail Project Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 Divert Trips for new 504 public space 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 0 0 2015 Future Traffic 0 0 0 0 0 115 1 116 5 0 106 172 91 17 0 109 336 D TrIpS PM IN �M OU' TOT � New Retail 35 34 69 Z v New 504 public spaces 126 126 252 X Ext 80 spaces 40 40 SO 0° EB Papaya St Mandalay Ave 0 0 0 � � � 0� 17 b 57 �I 1y � � � 71 0 5 Mandalay Ave � 0 WB � 110 Papaya St C'� Existing Peak Season Volumes Mandalay Ave 0 0 0 � � � 0� EB Papaya St 17 b 1 91 � � � � 106 0 5 Mandalay Ave � 0 � 115 � � Year 2015 Traffic Projections WB Papaya St TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC bay at poins �o m � m N O � B1 Mandala Ave at Pa a a St - PM PEAK HOUR Mandalay Ave Papaya St Mandalay Ave Papaya St Movement SB Rt SB Th SB Lt SB Tot. WB Rt WB Th WB Lt WB Tot. NB Rt NB Th NB Lt NB Tot. EB Rt EB Th EB Lt EB Tot. Int. Total 2014 PM PK raw data) 6 442 14 462 29 2 1 32 9 352 24 385 74 2 16 32 911 Peak Season Factor 1.05 2014 Peak Season Traffic Volume 6 464 15 485 30 2 1 34 9 370 25 404 15 2 17 34 957 2015 Bkd 1 Years of Growth at 4% 7 483 15 505 32 2 1 35 10 384 26 420 15 2 17 35 995 Site T�affIC Dist 0% 10% out 0% 0% 0% 25% out 25% in 10% in 0% 0% 0% 0% New Retail Project Trips 0 3 0 0 0 8 9 4 0 0 0 0 Divert Trips for new 504 public space 0 13 0 0 0 32 32 13 0 0 0 0 2015 Future Tra�c 7 499 15 520 32 2 41 75 50 401 26 477 15 2 17 35 1,107 TrIPS PM IN �M OU' TOT New Retail 35 34 69 New 504 public spaces 126 126 252 Ext 80 spaces 40 40 80 EB Papaya St TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC Mandalay Ave 6 464 15 � � � 17 � � 30 2 �� 2 15 �"I j� 1 1Y �f � � � 25 370 9 Mandalay Ave Existing Peak Season Volumes WB EB Papaya St Papaya St Mandalay Ave 7 499 15 � � � 17 � � 32 WB 2 � � 2 Papaya St 15 �j I� 41 yY yY � � � 26 401 50 Mandalay Ave Year 2075 Traffic Projections Manda at papaya 0 D � '� m z � X � � v � m w 0 V 61 Poinsetta Ave at Pa a a St - PM PEAK HOUR Poinsetta Ave Papaya St Poinsetta Ave Papaya St Movement SB Rt SB Th SB Lt SB Tot WB Rt WB Th WB Lt WB Tot. NB Rt NB Th NB Lt NB To4 EB Rt EB Th EB Lt EB Tot Int. ToWI 2012 PM PK raw data) 8 87 2 97 24 11 9 44 9 81 8 98 8 5 12 25 264 Peak Season Factor 0.98 2012 Peak Season Traffic Volume 8 85 2 95 24 11 9 43 9 79 8 96 8 5 12 25 259 2014 Bkd 2 Years of Growth at 4% 8 92 2 703 25 12 10 47 10 86 8 104 8 5 13 26 280 2015 Bkd 3 Years of Growth at 4% 9 96 2 107 26 12 10 49 10 89 9 108 9 6 13 28 291 Site Traffic Dist 25% out 30% out 25% out 25% in 0% 0% 0% 30% in 0% 0% 0% 25% in New Retail Project Trips 8 10 8 9 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 9 Divert Trips for new 504 public space 32 38 32 32 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 32 2015 Future Traffic 49 144 42 235 67 12 10 89 10 138 9 156 9 6 54 68 548 D � � TrIDS PM IN �M OU' TOT Z New Retail 35 34 69 � X New 504 public spaces 126 126 252 W Ext 80 spaces 40 40 80 EB Papaya St Poinsetta Ave 8 92 2 � � � 13 � � 5� 8 �I �f � � � 8 86 10 Poinsetta Ave �� Existing Peak Season Volumes 25 WB EB 12 Papaya St Papaya St 10 Poinsetta Ave 49 144 42 � � � 54 � 6� 9� � � � 9 138 10 Poinsetta Ave � 67 WB 4� 12 Papaya St I� 10 1f Year 2075 Traffic Projections TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC Poins at papaya � d co m A O V 61 E. Shore Ave. at Pa a a St - PM PEAK HOUR Poi�setta Ave Papaya St Poinsetta Ave Papaya St Movement SB Rt SB Th SB Lt SB Tot. WB Rt WB Th WB Lt WB Tot. NB Rt NB Th NB Lt NB Tot. EB Rt EB Th EB Lt EB Tot. IM. Total 2012 PM PK raw data) 2 24 0 26 0 0 0 0 7 141 40 782 17 1 6 24 232 Peak Season Factor 0.98 2012 Peak Season Traffic Volume 2 24 0 25 0 0 0 0 1 138 39 178 17 1 6 24 227 2014 Bkd 2 Years of Growth at 4% 2 25 0 28 0 0 0 0 1 149 42 193 18 1 6 25 246 2015 Bkd 3 Years of Growth at 4% 2 26 0 29 0 0 0 0 1 155 44 201 19 1 7 26 256 Siie Tra�C Dist 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% in 25% out 0% 0% New Retail Project Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 0 0 Divert Trips for new 504 public space 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 0 0 2015 Future Tra�c 2 26 0 29 0 0 0 0 1 155 84 241 59 1 7 66 336 TrIDS PM IN �M OU' TOT New Retail 35 34 69 New 504 public spaces 126 126 252 Ext 80 spaces 40 40 SO EB Papaya St Poinsetta Ave 2 25 0 � � � 6 � � 1 �J C—� 18 �i � �Y � � � 42 149 1 Poinsetta Ave Existing Peak Season Volumes 0 0 0 WB EB Papaya St Papaya St Poinsetta Ave 2 26 0 � � � � � � 1 r�"% � 59 --�—�1 � 1j � � � sa �55 � Poinsetta Ave Year 2015 Traffic Projections 0 WB 0 Papaya St 0 TRUCKIN?RAFFIC. LLC shore at papaya D U U 'll Z D X � v d � m � 0 V Poinsetta Ave at North �W - PM PEAK HOUR B 1 Poinsetta Ave North �W Poinsetta Ave North .�W Movement SB Rt SB Th SB Lt SB Tot. WB Rt WB Th WB Lt WB Tot. NB Rt NB Th NB Lt NB Tot. EB Rt EB Th EB Lt EB Tot Int. Total 2014 PM PK (raw data) 0 55 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 73 0 0 0 0 128 Peak Season Factor 1.05 2014 Peak Season Traffic Volume 0 58 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 77 0 0 0 0 134 2015 Bkd 1 ear of Growth at 4% 0 60 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 80 0 0 0 0 140 Site Traffic Dist 20% in 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% out 80% in 40% out 0% 15% oUt New Retail Project Trips 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 28 13 0 5 Divert Trips for new 504 public space 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 101 50 0 19 Ext 80 spaces 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 32 16 0 6 2075 Future Traffic 40 60 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 90 161 251 80 0 30 110 461 Trios PM IN �M OU' TOT New Retail 35 34 69 New 504 public spaces 126 126 252 Ext 80 spaces 40 40 80 D � � m z 0 X W EB North iW TRUCKIN TRAFFIC, LLC Poinsetta Ave 0 58 0 � � � 0 � � 0 �� 0 �1 I� yY �lf � � � 0 77 0 Poinsetta Ave Existing Peak Season Volumes 0 WB 0 North OW 0 EB North C�W Poinsetta Ave 40 60 0 � � � 30 � � 0 b � 80 -r� I � yY � � � 161 90 0 Poinsetta Ave Year 2015 Traffic Projections 0 0 0 WB North �W Poins at north D v v � m rn 0 V B1 Poinsetta Ave at South C7W - PM PEAK HOUR Poinsetta Ave South Exit Only �W Poinsetta Ave South Exit Only nW Movement SB Rt SB Th SB Lt SB Tot. WB Rt WB Th WB Lt WB Tot. NB Rt NB Th NB Lt NB Tot. EB Rt EB Th EB Lt EB Tot. Int. Total 2014 PM PK raw data 0 55 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 73 0 0 0 0 128 Peak Season Factor 1.05 2014 Peak Season Traffic Volume 0 58 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 77 0 0 0 0 134 2015 Bkd 1 ear of Growth at 4% 0 60 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 80 0 0 0 0 140 Site T�affiC Dist 0% 40% oUt 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 80% in 0% 40% out 0°/a 5% oUt New Retail Project Trips 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 13 0 2 Divert Trips for new 504 public space 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 50 0 6 Ext 80 spaces 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 16 0 2 2075 Future Traffic 0 140 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 241 0 241 80 0 10 90 471 TrIpS PM IN �M OU' TOT New Retail 35 34 69 New 504 public spaces 126 126 252 Ext 80 spaces 40 40 80 EB South Exit Only oW Poinsetta Ave 0 58 0 � � � 0 � � 0 `J 4`� 0 �1 fr= lY �Y � � � 0 77 0 Poinsetta Ave Existing Peak Season Volumes 0 0 0 WB EB South Exit Only [ South Exit Poinsetta Ave 0 140 0 � � � 10 � � 0 �J �•, 80 � rr—� �f � � � 0 241 0 Poinsetta Ave Year 2015 Traffic Projections 0 WB 0 South Exit Onty r 0 TRUCKIN TRAFFIQ LlC Poins at south D�- D U D m Z D X � v n, � m � 0 � TRUCKIN ,f�J TRAFFIC, LLC APPENDIX C Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS July 1, 2014 ZXZ"NOSK�Sxd OOST L QdIIO£8 T£�9��80 bZOZ-g�3-8i NOSK�S x��d � 80'Z EO't £ZOZ/T£/Zi - ETOZ/6Z/ZT £S 60'T �0'T £TOZ/SZ/ZT - £TOZ/ZZ/ZT ZS zz•z so•z �zoz/iz/zz - �toz/sz/zt ts ti�t 50'T �toz/�t/zz - �toz/so/zz os ZT'T 90'T £ZOZ/LO/ZZ - £ZOZ/TO/ZZ 6fi ZT'T 90'T £ZOZ/0£/iT - £TOZ/6Z/TT 8� ZT'Z 90'T £i0Z/£Z/Ti - EiOZ/LT/TT Gfi TZ't SO'Z £ZOZ/9Z/Ti - EiOZ/OT/TT 96 60't �0'T £TOZ/60/TT - £TOZ/£0/TT S� 6o•t �o�z £i0Z/ZO/ZT - £TOZ/LZ/OZ �� so•t �o•t £TOZ/9Z/OT - £TOZ/OZ/OT �� LO'T ZO't £LOZ/6t/OT - £ZOZ/£T/OT Zb ao•z �o•z ETOZ/ZT/OT - £TOZ/90/OZ z� 60'Z �0'Z £TOZ/50/OT - £TOZ/6Z/60 Ob ZL'i SO'T £TOZ/8Z/60 - £ZOZ/ZZ/60 6£ ZT'T 90'T ETOZ/TZ/60 - £ZOZ/ST/60 8£ ZZ'T 90'T £TOZ/�T/60 - £TOZ/80/60 L� TZ'T SO'T £i0Z/LO/60 - £TOZ/ZO/60 9£ 60'T �0'Z £TOZ/T£/80 - £TOZ/SZ/80 S£ eo•z �o•t £TOZ/�Z/80 - £TOZ/81/80 �� 80'Z £0'T ETOZ/LT/80 - £TOZ/TT/80 ££ LO'Z ZO'T £TOZ/OT/80 - £TOZ/b0/80 Z£ co•z zo�z £i0Z/EO/80 - £ZOZ/8Z/LO z� LO'T ZO'T £TOZ/LZ/LO - £ZOZ/TZ/LO 0£ LO'T ZO'T £i0Z/OZ/LO - £TOZ/�T/LO 6Z 90'Z ZO't ETOZ/ET/LO - £ZOZ/LO/LO 8Z 90"T ZO'T £ZOZ/90/LO - £TOZ/OE/90 LZ SO'T 00'T £TOZ/6Z/90 - EZOZ/£Z/90 9Z SO'T 00'T £TOZ/ZZ/90 - ETOZ/9T/90 SZ 50'Z 00'T EZOZ/5t/90 - £TOZ/60/90 �Z �0'i 66'0 £TOZ/80/90 - £TOZ/ZO/90 �Z �0'T 66'0 £TOZ/ZO/90 - £ZOZ/9Z/SO ZZ �0'Z 66'0 £TOZ/SZ/SO - £TOZ/6T/SO TZ �o•z 86'0 �TOZ/st/so - Etoz/zz/so oz ZO'T L6'0 £TOZ/ZT/50 - £TOZ/50/SO 6T� TO'i 96'0 £TOZ/�0/SO - £ZOZ/8Z/�0 ST� TO'T 96'0 £i0Z/LZ/b0 - £ZOZ/ZZ/�0 LT� 00'L S6'0 �TOZ/OZ/b0 - £TOZ/�Z/�0 9T+ 66'0 �6'0 EZOZ/£T/�0 - £TOZ/LO/�0 ST+ 86'0 E6'0 £TOZ/90/�0 - £ZOZ/Z£/£0 �T+ s6�o �6•0 �TOZ/oE/�o - �toz/�z/�o �z� L6'0 Z6'0 £TOZ/£Z/£0 - EiOZ/GT/£0 ZT� 86'0 £6'0 £TOZ/9Z/£0 - £TOZ/OI/£0 TT+ 66'0 66'0 £TOZ/60/£0 - £ZOZ/£0/EO OZ+ oo•z s6•o Ezoz/zo/�o - �zoz/�z/zo 6 � TO'T 96'0 £TOZ/£Z/ZO - £ZOZ/Li/ZO 8 + ZO't L6'0 £TOZ/9T/ZO - £TOZ/OT/ZO G � �0'T 66'0 £ZOZ/60/ZO - £ZOZ/£0/ZO 9 50'T 00'T ETOZ/ZO/ZO - £ZOZ/LZ/TO S LO'T ZO"T £ZOZ/9Z/TO - £ZOZ/OZ/TO � 80'Z £0'T £TOZ/6T/ZO - £i0Z/£T/i0 £ 6o•z �o•t Etoz/zt/to - �toz/ao/to z Ti'T SO'T £TOZ/SO/TO - £TOZ/ZO/TO Z 3�Sd 3S S�ZKQ x��M 56'0 �3�OW �QIM�ZNf10� SK`IZ�NId OOSZ ��O��Z�� 'IZii ��d1�,L sxoa�x - sxoa�x 1�2iO��,LK� 2IO,L�K3 N�S�$�6��d £ZOZ 6E bo � a6ed � XIQN3dd`d ZXZ'NOSK�Sxd LZST L QdRO£8 Z£�9b�80 �TOZ-H�3-8T 6£ lo Z a6ed 80'T 90'Z 60'Z SO'T SO'T 90'T 90'i 90'I 90'T SO'T 50'T 50'T 90'T �0 ZO 00 ZO i0 ZO ZO ZO ZO ZO ZO TO ZO T £ZOZ/Z£/ZT Z £TOZ/8Z/ZT Z £ZOZ/ZZ/ZZ i £ZOZ/�i/ZT i £ZOZ/LO/ZT T £TOZ/0£/TZ T £TOZ/£Z/TT T EiOZ/9T/Zi T EiOZ/60/TT T £TOZ/ZO/TT Z EZOZ/9Z/OZ T ETOZ/6T/OT T £TOZ/ZT/OT NOS��S xK�d � £TOZ/6Z/ZZ £TOZ/ZZ/ZZ £ZOZ/Si/ZZ £i0Z/80/ZT EiOZ/i0/ZZ EZOZ/�Z/TZ £ZOZ/LZ/ZZ £TOZ/OT/Ti £ZOZ/£0/TT ETOZ/LZ/OT £ZOZ/OZ/OT £TOZ/£Z/OT £TOZ/90/OZ £S ZS ZS OS 6b 8� L� 9b S� 66 E� Z� Z� 80'T 60'T £ZOZ/50/OT - £TOZ/6Z/60 0� 60'T SO'T £TOZ/8Z/60 - £ZOZ/ZZ/60 6£ ZT'T GO'T £TOZ/TZ/60 - £ZOZ/SZ/60 8£ OT'T 90'i £TOZ/�T/60 - £TOZ/80/60 L£ 60'T 50'i £ZOZ/LO/60 - £ZOZ/ZO/60 9£ so•T �o•z �zoz/z�/$o - �zoz/sz/ao s� LO'i £0'i EiOZ/�Z/80 - £TOZ/8T/80 �£ LO'T £0'i £i0Z/LZ/80 - £TOZ/iT/80 �£ LO'T �o•t etoz/oz/so - Etoz/�o/so z� LO'T £0't £TOZ/�0/80 - £i0Z/8Z/LO T£ 80'T �0'T £i0Z/LZ/LO - £TOZ/TZ/LO 0£ 80'Z fi0'T ETOZ/OZ/LO - £TOZ/bT/LO 6Z LO'i £0'Z ETOZ/�T/LO - EiOZ/LO/LO 8Z LO'T £0'I £TOZ/90/LO - �LOZ/OE/90 LZ 90'T ZO'T £TOZ/6Z/90 - £ZOZ/£Z/90 9Z SO'T ZO'T £ZOZ/ZZ/90 - �TOZ/9Z/90 SZ SO'T ZO'Z £TOZ/SZ/90 - £ZOZ/60/90 �Z �o•t oo•z EZOZ/80/90 - ETOZ/ZO/90 �z �0'T 00'T EZOZ/ZO/90 - £ZOZ/9Z/50 ZZ �0'T 00'T ETOZ/5Z/50 - £ZOZ/6T/SO TZ fi0'T 00'T £TOZ/8T/50 - EZOZ/ZZ/50 OZ £0'T 66'0 £TOZ/Ti/50 - £ZOZ/SO/50 6t� ZO'Z 86'0 £TOZ/b0/50 - £TOZ/8Z/b0 8T+ ZO'T L6'0 ETOZ/LZ/�0 - £TOZ/TZ/�0 LT� 00'T 96'0 £i0Z/OZ/60 - £TOZ/�Z/�0 9T� 66'0 56'0 £IOZ/£T/60 - ETOZ/LO/�0 5Z� 86'0 �6'0 EiOZ/90/�0 - £TOZ/iE/£0 6T� L6'0 £6'0 £i0Z/0£/£0 - £TOZ/�Z/EO ET� L6'0 £6'0 ETOZ/£Z/£0 - �ZOZ/LT/£0 ZT� 86'0 �6'0 £ZOZ/9T/£0 - £TOZ/OT/£0 TT+ 66'0 56'0 ETOZ/60/£0 - EZOZ/£0/£0 OT� 00'T 96'0 EZOZ/ZO/£0 - £TOZ/�Z/ZO 6 � TO'Z L6'0 EZOZ/£Z/ZO - £TOZ/LT/ZO 8 * ZO'i 86'0 £TOZ/9T/ZO - £TOZ/OZ/ZO L � 60'T 00'T ETOZ/60/ZO - £TOZ/£0/ZO 9 so�z to•t ETOZ/ZO/ZO - £TOZ/LZ/ZO s co•t �o�t £ZOZ/9Z/TO - £TOZ/OZ/ZO � 80't �0'T £TOZ/6T/i0 - £TOZ/�T/ZO £ 90"T ZO'T £TOZ/ZT/ZO - £TOZ/90/TO Z b0'T 00'L £TOZ/SO/TO - £ZOZ/TO/TO Z 3�Sd 3S 96'0 �3�OW S�ZKQ x��M SLZI SKZZ�NId LZST ��O��Z�J ZZK ��d�s sxoa�� - sxoa�� O��ZK� �OZJ�3 NQ��d��6�I�d £i0Z � XI4N3ddb' P ECT: LOCATION: DATE: LANE TYPE: NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR / P.H.F. DATA PELICAN WALK GARAGE - TIS PROJECT NO: Mandalay Ave (N-S) 8� Papaya St (E-1A� June 17, 2014 SPEED LIMIT: SIGNAL TIMING: A � Y R (SECONDS) (NOT APPLICABLE) 4 Lane Div NB 25 NB 4 Lane Div gg p5 gg 2 Lane EB 25 Eg 2 Lane yyg �T5 yyg TRUCKS TIME NB NB NB (included i� grid) PM L T R NB•T SB-T — ------ --..__ _____ 0 1 4:00-4:15 3 63 B 1 1 4:15�:30 4 90 Z 0 1 4:30-4:45 2 86 4 1 0 4:45-5:00 4 86 S 1 2 5:00-5:15 6 82 3 0 0 5:15-5:30 6 71 4 0 0 5:30-5:45 6 96 1 0 0 5:45-6:00 7 104 7 37 895 26 PEAK HOUR TIME NB NB NB PM L T R 5:00-5:15 6 82 3 5:15-5:30 b 77 4 5:30-5:45 6 96 1 5:45-B:DO 7 104 1 24 352 8 PM PEAK HOUR COUNT3 8B SB $B E8 EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL HOURLY L T R L T R L T R VOLUME VOLUMES 2 116 1 1 � ---, — � - ---' - — O — -- 6 - - �2 ---- 1 126 2 2 1 4 1 0 6 237 0 108 1 1 1 4 2 0 2 211 7 104 7 2 0 4 0 0 3 207 877 7 119 7 � 0 3 0 0 73 232 887 6 101 1 6 1 2 0 1 8 202 862 7 118 2 4 1 3 1 1 3 239 880 HOURLY FLOW DIAGRAM 1 707 2 2 0 8 0 0 7 237 910 --- ---- -- --- ---- --- ---- — --- -- 462 396 18 898 11 21 5 27 5 2 44 1,787 1 � SB SB 8B EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 6 442 14 L T R L T R L T R VOLUME � � f L.� 1 718 1 4 0 3 0 0 13 232 S2 t— 16 � � 29 �-- 32 6 101 1 6 1 2 0 7 6 202 2 —� f— y 7 176 2 4 'I 3 1 1 3 239 31 --► 14 —� � 1 —� y6 - 1-- - 707 2 2 0_ 6— 0 —0 7 237 r-� � � I 14 442 6 15 2 14 1 2 29 970 24 362 9 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR INTER3ECTION PEAK HOUR YOIUME PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 5:00.6:00 INTERSECTION PHF 910 385 PHF NB 462 PHF SB 31 PHF E8 32 PHF WB 0.95 0,86 0.93 o.s� 0.62 1 1 467 386 r• 9 � PRWECT: LOCATION: DATE: LANE TYPE: NB SB EB we PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR / P.H.F. DATA PELICAN WALK GARAGE - TIS PROJECT NO: Poinsettia Ave (NB) 8 Baymont St (E•VI� June 18, 2014 SPEED LIMiT: SIGNAL TIMING: 9 � i � (SECONDS) (NOT APPLICABLE) 2 Lane NB 25 NB N/A SB N/A $B 2 Lane EB 25 EB 2 Lane NB 25 � 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 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 3 28 0 56 4:15-4:30 16 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 9 3 22 � `.�4 4:30-0:45 14 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 13 1 27 0 64 4:45-5:00 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 S 7 1 36 0 65 238 5:00-5:15 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 72 0 26 0 53 236 5:15-5:30 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 B 0 33 0 62 244 5:30-5:45 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 1 27 0 66 248 HWRLY FLOW DIAGRAM 5:45-6:00 19 0 3 0 0 0 0 8 17 0 19 0 66 249 ------ -- --- ----- --- --- ------ ---- --- 0 D ^ 128 0 Y14 �0 0 0 0 25 95 11 215 0 488 1 1 TIME NB N8 NB 3B SB 3B EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 0 0 0 PM L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME � � j �► 5:00-5:15 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 26 0 53 173 t— 0 � t— 0 �--106 5:15-5:30 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 33 0 62 18 —► +-- 706 5:30-5:45 21 0 D 0 0 0 0 2 17 1 27 0 68 70 —► 64 —� � � —' 21 5:45-8:00 19 0 3 0-- O --- a--- o --8-- -, 7-- O -' 9— -- o-- ss – � r I � 68 0 5 0 0 0 0 16 54 1 105 0 249 68 0 6 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB PEAK HOUR VO�UME EB PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 5:00-6:00 INTERSECTION PHF 0.92 249 73 PHF NB 0.83 0 PHF SB 70 PHF EB 0.70 106 PHF WB 0.80 1 1 66 73 � d �� Page 5 of 39 T�dPe �f �eok t-��r ��in_ -�_,oR�i. rter��: �n P�ak LOCAT'ON: ��landalay Ave — Baymont St C1TYlSTATE: C�a:v��a'er 3each. FL e,i o a2 ae9 + -- f a 453 43 .r i �. 56 �+2 1 t 7• 1 N+:a cas! 3 ♦ i D.97 � �� .� ss ♦ so '► r S� • x � • r G3 349 4 �a—'♦ � - �7 a':t � � l� f�� 'iZ�"�_� � 51 �� JJ i Lt� J � L 1 �� ti t r� APPENDIX C Page 5 of 39 .: b:hod f;,r .ietorT n Rg pearc hc.. . � ctal ��t°„g •, I..r� �c �oa �: ,os�e�c:� � nnr�� :,r�n»n1� Peak-Hour: 4:30 PM — b:30 PM Peak 15-Min: 4:45 PM — 6:00 PM �� C�U3�it'jl COUi1tS -nc•itrr.a->ci0^: ;a.-,. -.-J_L`_�''u� :I.y':.'3 � � ,4 � � �s �e �J + f � 0o ze 2a .! i �. :? MB+J j �? t 98�'d i �.a ♦ �� • o: 31 • Z: 1 - P S6i► �.' �j 1 f P Ia �e �• � Z8 '7 J � J • l. I p J �` t 1� J ♦ � • ] � L— , , � ,•�► '� �> > >� � '+ � �J ., . � l� ♦ �� A 1 � �1 t I'� � a• • �r�a 6-Min Count �Manddsy Av� i M�nd�lay Av BaymorN 8t Baymot�t St PO�od N�thbounJ) �;Southhound) � (Ea�tbou (Weatboun __� j�� Houriy 3eglnn�At �� Thru Rl�ht J R' Leit Th'a Rl�ht J • ThtL R ' Thru U��?�sln a^.,`� t± � t'F s 5 i e � z 4'c-+d 2 7• +6 2 �' 15 'OS 4 0 0 I 0 2 T _ • i' • �p 0 9 �?64 --=— - - - - • , 4:3�t'Td &1.. $ J 7' 1] 4 � D I ' " 5 ? t'' S '9 � ��.� �. r a, 5�4 � 5...,,:�eek, es��.'�,'t� ra��1�"" i 119'�_.:r i�' y�'o[�-x�l i� 5�l�•`�,i� g!? .'W�r t �2i'�'f� "�fll: �'� _� - — --- 1�+1s",�24$� 'S(�DFhS i•� " 3 1 0 ? _.: 2 J 0 3 1 < � 3 � 3 3] 3 -a � 1`21 �'1�PIJ1 �,5 �:� 5 1 0-.j._ }''103: �.._I: :. �.��.. C'1'r:2 � s0: -.. f1.+.��,0.' 3 1+1J-ti:..�. . lir � 0'''T77_� 1�:4 5 3C PM •.. ;-- 8 2 ? .� 9� 2 0 D 1 0 12 0 S 7 2 21 0 D 257 7'�0 5:a5 ?�I 10 �7 2 7 7 I 1 9� 2 0 D � � 2 � 0 2� 7 1 •.E D i' 237 �+056 I I 3F= o.g� � � � 'y�`Z � � � J � � �L. � � i L L`_�� I ' �,� F—�zj i i ''� I i y; 30 � I � � h �. f' i � �� I �Z �� 3�� ' ; Flowratsa Laft Thru R1 ht U ft i'hru I' • Icies--''f :� '� d54 4 HeavyrTrucks J :D � 0 id ] ?edestna�s Bt , 52 9icy:les 0 0 : 0 0 0 4aLr�� I Sb�oed duseal �am,wenrs: Re�o.^, gene-zt=d �^ ` 25'?.�'' 1�'23 A',� ' 0 � �38 � 7 9 Tobl I 4s ,z ..� a s i1� � � a! 58 �� ' J 9 0 � SOCRCE Q�aIL•y Co�rts '_LC 'ht'� '��nwv a�a1i!yc� �^is na?) PR ; LOCA710N: Q�: �t1E TYF'E; N8 SB EB WB t'tAK MWR PF♦K ►{QUR! P.H.F. DATA FRENCHYS PROJECT NO: 12-020 East Shore Or {NS) a Papaya St (E-W) Apri 13. 7U 1 Z ,4PF�FD UMIT: (SECANOS�� apP��able) � � � 7 I ane NB N�A � � � l.ane SB 1 � �'� SB ' EB N1A � j Z Lano wB � � i s.w WB N!� PM P£AK HOUR COUNTS TIME NB NB N8 SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB YYH TOTAL nUURLY p�p � T R L T N L T R L T R VOLUME VOLUTAtS - -- — — — - — - - - _..�.� �_ -- - ----• �3 a oo� i5 ,_.. y. __._�a_v.. __� --__ : a..-- "p u 1 ❑ t J p p" 0 1 o u o 52 4 1 S�t 50 10 35 1 � � � U 1 83 13044� tU 32S i 0 i D�� .. G 3 aassoo � ac � c a + u o a o o � 50 20! h 00 5 1 S 11 � 27 U D 6 7 0 0 6 U 0 U 52 217 5 t 5 5 10 5 '.7 0 U .. 1 1 1 1 u 0 U 5� 216 ��Y FIOW D1AStBP_M �,�', 1 U L 0 3 U 6 0 0 0 61 z�9 � ;1(> 5 45 11 u � 0 (� D BJ � S.1`r6 00 1; 4: � G 5 U . yg 147 __ - --- __ -- -- -- -- - 1 . 76 271 / 0 13 5 B f 21 2 0 3 µ0 y 2� o TiME NB IIB NF3 SB SB SB E8 � RB � WB � ypLUYE 1 PY L T R L T R L r L-' _. � ' 0 • - 0 _____ ._ T�,.- - - 42 �— 6 b:tXY5.i5 � ^1:.�17 _ .. , u. .___u : _.� ___"i _.p.__ ..- u S 0 U .. D S2 � 1 3 0 U 0 S7 1 —' 0 S 1}y_30 5 J7 0 U 5 t i 24 ► 17 � �� Z 1 p 6 0 0 0 � i � 5 3D-S 15 79 35 1 0 8 0 • ► p � p ., U 0 0 83 � � � 5 45-8 00 � 11 42 0 0 � _.. 17 0 U 0 Z32 _._ ,_ -- - - — — - — iN 1 10 �U 141 1 0 74 1 6 1 , INTERSECTION PEAK NWR INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOIUME PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB PEAK HWR VOLiIME SB PEAK HOUR VOIUME E9 PEAK HOUR VOIUME WH S-pag pp INTERSECTIOfI P►If 2�2 182 PNF NB � PHF SB 24 PHf EB il PHF WB ♦ t 0 91 f �t 162 ,� '��p , �- � oa �SC� �ug� 1 `� � � � 0.87 2� �, j flNVro� � lr.� 1 �. J_____� �r__._�. � ��-------� J �� .�— — lp Q � ' _7 . ' �� _ � � `i -- - °> , � �: �- - --'! �.� _ � � ((� � r� � ..j�G, IJV ' � � �v '� � w � N rn 0 w cfl D v � m Z � X n � m � m rn 0 w cfl ECT: LOCATION: QATL: �edF TM�: NB S Ki EB WB pEAK HOUR I P.H.F. DATA FRENCNYS p�iO.fECT NO: 12-020 Polnsettiq Aw (N$) � Papaya St �E-Vln Apr/ 13, 2012 SPEED LIM1T; SIGNAL TIYING: � � Y R (sECOt�ws) (not appiu��/ 2 Leno 1� WA NB ? I :�n? SFi WA SB ? l ane EB W/1 EB 2 Lane WB WA WB PM PEAK HOUR COUNtB TYAE NB NB NB SB SB SH EB EB EB PMI L T R L T R L T R - - -- — - -- - _..__._ _ __.._..,. ._.__� __._ __ . _. 4:OW.15 ^ 16 U u 19 U v fi � 4:15-4 3C U 14 2 U 78 1 4 7 4 4��A5 3 :5 � 5 i� 21 3� . t 't 4:15-5 OU 5 :J 9 0 Z8 4 1 0 1 5.00-5 1 E 0 9 T 1 19 {7 5 3 2 5:1S53C 5 11 2 2 ?4 � 1 . 4 5�345 d5 4 :U T 0 19 1 d 1 U 5 45 8 00 4 1 G , � 2S l 11 1 .. WB WB WB L T R � G� - 3 - 2 5 5 1 3 5 � 2 0 4 1 7U _ 1 2 t ,. 6 S 1 8 7� 143 ZJ 6 169 12 30 10 18 19 22 45 ��$ T1YE NB NB NB S8 SB SB EB EB E8 WB WB WB PM � T R L T R l T R L T R .._..-' ----•-- -- •—�-..�� ___.... 4.-15-4:30 U' � 24�- - _ -� --°0 - --1Z�� 1 �3 1 » 2 5 �g'�:�.•. � 30��45 3 25 S 1 22 .. 1 1 1 1 . 3 5 <<S-5 0[ S 23 0 0 ZB 4 1 0 1 2 2 4 S:OaS:�r u � � � 1y u ,, _ � a t 1u 8 81 9 2 B7 8 1T s e 9 17 24 WTERSECTION PEAK HOl1R 4 15-5 15 MITERSECTION PNF MiTERSECTION PEAK MOUR WLUNE 2Be PEAK HOUR VOIUME NB 9B PHF NB PEAK F10UR V�OIUME SB 97 PNF 38 PEAIC HOUR YOLUME EB 25 PMF EB PEAK HOUR YOIUME WB M PHF NB a ez 0 74 0.78 0.6J 0.7J TOTAL HOURLY VOLUNE VOIUYES 57 66 /2 10 2!0 56 261 52 2511 89 247 f40URLV FLOW DIAGRAM &t 261 87 177 szi ! . TOTAL 8 a7 2 VOLUYE I 1 I �-� . 88 Z7 • 12 —! �_. 21 � M /Z 6 • r- 11 10 25 -� S � � 9 —► 16 58 � f � • 261 8 81 9 1 t � qS �1t7 �5�; �. 5► �; � � Ja y � f � � � J J' `- Z� n2 — — �---- 24 �--- � � �r 1 ' --� F---1 � � 2� �, �,� y� c� j----� ��o y ,/ i I 1; � � q .:' `f "IIOJ � n� � m v 0 w � D � � m Z � X n � � � � � 0 W � Page 9 of 39 PhOne: E-Mdil: APPENDIX C EXT Bay at Poin.txt Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: ]AC agency/CO.: oate Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR intersection: Baymont at Poinsettia 7urisdiction: clearwater Units: U. 5. Customary AI1d1 y5i 5 Yedl' : EXT TI'dffi C Project ID: EXT Traffic on exsitng condtions East/West Street: Baymont Street North/SOUth Street: Poinsettia Ave. Intersection orientation: Ew 5tudy period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and adjustments_ Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 L T R L T volume 17 57 0 110 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Peak-15 Minute volume 5 15 0 30 HOUrIy FIOw Rdte, HFR 18 61 0 119 Percent Heavy vehicles -- -- 1 -- -- Median Type/storage undivided / RT Channelized? �anes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 l T R L T R volume 71 0 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Peak-15 Minute volume 19 0 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 77 0 5 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 1 1 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach: Exists?/storage No / / rtT channelized? �anes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Pedestrian volumes and adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 �ane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 walking 5peed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 S2 S5 Lett-Turn Through Left-TUrn Through upstream Signal Data Prog. sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. �istance Flow Flow Type Time �ength Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet worksheet 3-�ata for computing Effect of oelay to Major Street vehicles Page 2 Page 9 of 39 APPENDIX C Page 10 of 39 Page 10 of 39 EXT Bdy dt POin.tXt Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared ln volume, ma�or th vehicles: 119 Shared ln volume, ma�or rt vehicles: 0 sat flow rate, ma�or th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, ma�or rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 L L t(c,base) t(c,hv) P(hv) t(c,g) Grade/100 t(3,1t) t(c,T): t(c) 4.1 1.00 1.00 1 0.00 1-stage 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1-stage 4.1 2-stage 7 L 7.1 1.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.70 0.00 1.00 6.4 8 9 10 11 12 T R L T R 6.5 1.00 1 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.5 6.2 1.00 1 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Follow-up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 1 2 1 1 t(f) 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 worksheet 5-Effect of upstream signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) v prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s(vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle �ength, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 9Cq1) 9Cq2) 9CQ) Computation 2-Proportion of 1wSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, v(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) �uration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p computation 3-Platoon Event Periods p 0.000 Result 0.000 Page 3 � �� APPENDIX C Page 11 of 39 Page 11 of 39 EXT Bdy dt POin.txt p(5) 0.000 p(dom) p(subo) constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single-stage Two-Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I stage II p(1) p(4) pC7) pC8) PC9) p(10) p(11) pC12) Computation 4 and 5 single-stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R v c,x 79 167 167 48 s Px V C�U,X C r,X C plat,x Two-Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel stage2 stagel Stage2 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 v(c,x) s 1500 1500 P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations step 1: rtT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 48 Potential Capacity 1024 Pedestrian rmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1024 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 2: �T from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 79 Potential Capacity 1526 Pedestrian lmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1526 Probability of Queue free st. 1.00 1.00 Maj �-shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 167 Potential Capacity 728 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Page 4 Page 12 of 39 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Step 4: �T from Minor 5t. conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. �, Min T rmpedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity APPENDIX C EXT Bay at Poin.txt 728 1.00 7 167 823 1.00 1.00 823 1.00 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 worksheet 7-computation of the Effect of Two-stage �ap ,4cceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - second 5tage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian rmpedance Factor cap. ,adj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 167 Potential Capacity 728 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 728 Result for 2 stage process: a Y C t Probability of Queue free st. Step 4: �T from Minor st. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. adj. factor due to impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian rmpedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma7. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. cap. Adj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 728 1.00 7 167 823 1.00 1.00 823 Page 5 1.00 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Page 12 of 39 APPENDIX C Page 13 of 39 Page 13 of 39 Results for Two-stage process: a Y C t EXT Bay at Poin.txt 823 worksheet 8-Shared �ane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R volume (vph) 77 0 5 Movement Capacity (vph) 823 728 1024 Shared �ane Capacity (vph) 833 worksheet 9-computation of Effect of Flared Minor street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 823 728 1024 Volume 77 0 5 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 833 SuM C sep n c act worksheet 10-�elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 �ane config LT LTR v <vph) 0 82 c(m) (vph) 1526 833 v/c 0.00 0.10 95% queue length 0.00 0.33 Control �elay 7.4 ' 9.8 LOS A q Approach Delay g,g ApproaCh LOS q worksheet 11-Shared Major �T Impedance and �elay Movement 2 v(�lj, volume for stream 2 or 5 1.00 v(i2), volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P*(o]) d(M,�T), �elay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) �elay for stream 2 or 5 Page 6 11 12 Movement 1.00 119 0 1700 1700 1.00 7.4 1 0.0 Page 14 of 39 APPENDIX C EXT manda dt Papaya.txt HCS+: Unsignalized rntersections Release 5.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: JAC agency/CO.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: Mandalay at Papaya 7urisdiction: Clearwater Units: U. 5. Customary analysis Year: ExT Traffic Project ID: ExT Traffic on exsitng condtions East/west Street: Papya Street North/South Street: Mandalay Ave Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 I 4 5 6 L T R � L T R volume Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy vehicles Median Type/5torage rtT channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Movement 25 370 0.95 0.95 26 389 2 -- undivided 0 2 0 LT TR NO westbound 7 8 L T volume 1 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes � Configuration 9 15 464 6 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 9 15 488 6 -- 2 -- -- / 9 R 2 30 0.95 0.95 2 31 2 2 0 NO 1 0 LTR 0 2 0 LT TR NO Eastbound � 10 11 12 � L T R 17 2 15 0.95 0.95 0.95 17 2 15 2 2 2 0 / No / 0 1 0 LTR �elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of Service Approach Ne sg westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 � 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LT � LTR � LTR v(vph) 26 15 34 34 C(m) (vph) 1066 1157 681 373 v/c 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.09 95% queue length 0.07 0.04 0.16 0.30 Control �elay 8.5 8.2 10.6 15.6 LOS A A B C approach Delay 10.6 15.6 Approach �OS B � HCS+: unsignalized rntersections rtelease 5.2 Page 1 Page 14 of 39 Page 15 of 39 Phone: E-Mdil: APPENDIX C EXT manda dt Papaya.txt Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: ]AC Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: Mandalay at Papaya 7urisdiction: clearwater Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: EXT Traffic Project ID: EXT Traffic on exsitng condtions East/West Street: Papya Street North/5outh Street: Mandalay ave zntersection orientation: NS study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and Adjustrr�nts Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume 25 370 9 15 464 6 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak-15 Minute volume 7 97 2 4 122 2 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 389 9 15 488 6 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R volume 1 2 30 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak-15 Minute volume 0 1 8 HOUrIy FIOW Rdte, HFR 1 2 31 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Movements Flow (ped/hr) Lane width (ft) walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage Prog Flow vph S2 Left-Turn Through 55 �eft-Turn Through 17 2 0.95 0.95 4 1 17 2 2 2 0 / 0 1 0 LTR estrian volumes and adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 0 15 0.95 4 15 2 NO / _upstream Signal Data Sat ,4rrival Green Cycle Prog. �istance Flow Type Time �ength Speed to signal vph sec sec mph feet worksheet 3-�ata for computing Effect of �elay to Major Street vehicles Page 2 Page 15 of 39 APPENDIX C Page 16 of 39 EXT manda at Papaya.txt Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared ln volume, ma�or th vehicles: 0 0 Shared ln volume, ma�or rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 2 2 worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation critical Gap calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 4.1 t(c,hv) 2.00 2.00 P(hv) 2 2 t(c,g) Grade/100 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 4.1 2-stage Follow-Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 L L 7.5 2.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.5 6.5 2.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.5 7 8 L T t(f,base) 2.20 2.20 3.50 4.00 t(f,HV) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(HV) 2 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 6.9 2.00 2 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.9 7.5 2.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.5 6.5 2.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.5 6.9 2.00 2 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.9 9 10 11 12 R L T R 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 2 2 2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 worksheet 5-Effect of upstream signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) V(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) v prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s(vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle �ength, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 9CG1) 9Cqz) 9Cq) Computation 2-Proportion of 1wSC �ntersection Time blocked Movement 2 v(t) v(l,prot) aipna beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, v(c,max) Min platooned flow, v(c,min) �uration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods pC2) 0.000 Result 0.000 Page 3 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) 0.000 Page 16 of 39 , APPENDIX C Page 17 of 39 Page 17 of 39 p(5) p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor single-stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p(4) pC7) PCs) pC9) p(10) p(11) pC1z) Computation 4 and 5 single-Stage Process Movement 1 4 EXT manda at Papaya.txt 0.000 CZ) C3) Two-Stage Process Stage r stage Ir 7 8 9 10 L T R L 11 12 T R v c,x 494 398 721 970 199 768 971 247 s Px V C,U�X C 1' , X C p�dt,X Two-Stage Process 7 8 10 11 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 v(c,x) s 3000 3000 3000 3000 P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) �(plat,x) worksheet 6-zmpedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. Step 2: LT from Major St. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj �-shared Prob Q free st. Step 3: TH from Minor st. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to �mpeding mvmnt 9 199 809 1.00 809 0.96 4 398 1157 1.00 1157 0.99 0.99 8 970 252 1.00 0.96 Page 4 12 247 753 1.00 753 0.98 494 1066 1.00 1066 0.98 0.98 11 971 251 1.00 0.96 Page 18 of 39 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. Step 4: LT from Minor St. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma�. L, Min T Ad�. Imp Factor. cap. adj. factor due to �mpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity I_177��1�1/:(N EXT manda at Papaya.txt 243 0.99 7 721 315 1.00 0.96 0.97 0.95 298 242 0.99 worksheet 7-computation of the Effect of Two-stage �ap acceptance step 3: TH from Minor 5t. 8 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian rmpedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. Part 2 - Second 5tage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian zmpedance Factor Cap. adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 970 Potential capacity 252 Pedestrian zmpedance Factor 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 Movement Capacity 243 Result for 2 stage process: a y 243 C t Probability of Queue free st. 0.99 Step 4: LT from Minor St. � Part 1 - Fi1'St stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian rmpedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - single stage Conflicting Flows �Z1 Potential Capacity 315 Pedestrian rmpedance Factor 1.00 Md�. L, Min T zmpedance factor 0.96 Ma�. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 Cap. Ad�. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 Movement capacity 298 Page 5 768 291 1.00 0.96 0.97 0.93 270 11 971 251 1.00 0.96 242 242 0.99 10 768 291 1.00 0.96 0.97 0.93 270 Page 18 of 39 Page 19 of 39 rtesults tor Two-stage process: a Y ct APPENDIX C EXT manda at Papaya.txt 298 2�0 worksheet 8-Shared �ane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T volume (vph) 1 2 31 17 2 Movement Capacity (vph) 298 243 809 270 242 shared �ane Capacity (vph) 681 373 worksheet 9-computation of Effect of Flared Minor street ,4pproaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T C sep 298 243 809 270 242 volume 1 2 31 17 2 �elay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +l) n max C sh 681 SUM C sep n C act worksheet 10-�elay, Queue Length, and �evel of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 Lane Config LT LT LTR v (vph) 26 15 34 C(m) (vph) 1066 1157 681 v/c 0.02 0.01 0.05 95% queue length 0.07 0.04 0.16 Control Delay 8.5 8.2 10.6 LOS A A B approach �elay 10.6 Approach �OS B worksheet 11-shared Major LT rmpedance and �elay Movement 2 p(�l), volume for stream 2 or 5 0 98 v(i2), volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*Co]) 0.98 d(M,�T), �elay for stream 1 or 4 8.5 N, Number of major street through lanes 2 d(rank,l) �elay for stream 2 or 5 Page 6 373 11 12 LTR 373 0.09 0.30 15.6 C 15.6 C Movement 0.99 0 0 1700 1700 0.99 8.2 2 12 R 15 753 R 753 15 Page 19 of 39 Page 20 of 39 APPENDIX C EXT pi Oi I15 dt Papaya. tXt HCS+: Unsignalized �ntersections Release 5.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: JAC Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 AI1d1y5i5 Time Pet'iOd: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: Poinsettia at Papaya 7urisdiction: Clearwater Units: u. 5. Customary Analysis Year: EXT Traffic Project ID: EXT Traffic on exsitng condtions East/west Street: Papya 5treet North/SOUth Street: Pinsettia Ave �ntersection orientation: Ns study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and ,4djustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 I 4 5 6 L T R I L T R volume 8 86 10 2 92 8 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 93 10 2 99 8 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R � L T R volume 10 12 25 13 5 8 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 13 27 14 5 8 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR �elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of Service Approach NB ss westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 � 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR � LTR � LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach Lo5 8 2 50 1484 1489 811 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.20 7.4 7.4 9.7 A A A 9.7 A HCS+: unsignalized rntersections rtelease 5.2 Page 1 27 740 0.04 0.11 10.0+ B 10.0+ B Page 20 of 39 Page 21 of 39 Phone: E-Mail: APPENDIX C EXT pioins at Papaya.txt Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: 7AC ,4gency/Co.: �ate Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: Poinsettia dt Papaya 7urisdiction: Clearwater Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: EXT Traffic Project ID: EXT Traffic on exsitng condtions East/west Street: Papya Street North/South Street: Pinsettia Ave zntersection Orientation: NS study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and ,4djustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume 8 86 10 2 92 8 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Peak-15 Minute volume 2 23 3 1 25 2 HOUrIy FIOW Rdte, HFR 8 93 10 2 99 8 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR Upstream Signal? No Mi 1101' Street Movements 7 8 L T volume 10 12 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Peak-15 Minute volume 3 3 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 13 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR 0 0 1 0 LTR NO 9 R 25 0.92 7 27 2 NO 10 11 12 L T R 13 5 8 0.92 0.92 0.92 4 1 2 14 5 8 2 2 2 0 / 0 0 1 0 LTR Pedestrian volumes and ,4djustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 �ane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 52 Left-Turn Through S5 Left-TUrn Through NO / Upstream Signal �ata Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time �ength speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet worksheet 3-�ata for Computing Effect of oelay to Major Street vehicles Page 2 Page 21 of 39 APPENDIX C Page 22 of 39 EXT pioins at Papaya.txt Movement 2 Movement 5 shared ln volume, ma�or th vehicles: 93 99 Shared ln volume, ma�or rt vehicles: 10 8 Sat flow rate, ma�or th vehicles: 1700 1700 sat flow rate, ma7or rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 4.1 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 t<c,g) Grade/100 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 4.1 2-stage Follow-Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 L L t(f,base) 2.20 2.20 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 tCf) 2.2 2.2 7.1 1.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.1 7 L 3.50 0.90 2 3.5 6.5 6.z 7.1 b.5 6.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 2 2 2 2 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 8 9 10 11 12 T R L T R 4.00 3.3U j.SU 4.UU j.jU 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 2 2 2 2 2 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 worksheet 5-Effect of upstream 5ignals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) v prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s(vph) ,arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle �ength, C (sec) ttp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 9CQ1) 9CQ2) 9 CQ) Computation 2-Proportion of 7w5C zntersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, v(c,max) Min platooned flow, v(c,min) �urat�on of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p computation 3-Platoon Event Periods pC2) 0.000 Result 0.000 Page 3 � �� Page 22 of 39 0 APPENDIX C Page 23 of 39 Page 23 of 39 p(5) p(dom) p(subo) constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single-stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p(4) PC7) pC8) pC9) p(10) p(11) pC12) Computation 4 and 5 single-stage Process Movement 1 4 L L EXT pioins at Papaya.txt 0.000 CZ) C3) Two-Stage Process stage I stage rr 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R v c,x 107 103 228 225 98 241 226 103 s PX V C,U,X � �'�X C p�dt,X Tw0-Stdge PI'OCE?55 � 8 1� IZ Stagel stage2 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 v(c,x) - s 1500 1500 1500 1500 P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) worksheet 6-rmpedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. g 12 Conflicting Flows 98 103 Potential Capacity 958 952 Pedestrian impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 958 952 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 0.99 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 103 107 Potential capacity 1489 1484 Pedestrian rmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1489 1484 Probability of Queue free st. 1.00 0.99 Maj �-shared Prob Q free st. 1.00 0.99 Step 3: TH from Minor st. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor cap. Adj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt 8 225 674 1.00 0.99 Page 4 226 673 1.00 0.99 Page 24 of 39 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. APPENDIX C EXT pioins at Papaya.txt 669 0.98 Step 4: LT from Minor St. conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian zmpedance Factor Md�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma]. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. cap. ad�. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 7 228 727 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.98 713 668 0.99 10 713 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.95 679 worksheet 7-computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap ,4cceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. Part 2 - Second 5tage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 225 226 Potential Capacity 674 673 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity 669 668 Result for 2 stage process: a Y C t Probability of Queue free st. Step 4: LT from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - 5econd 5tage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian �mpedance Factor cap. ,4dj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - single stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma�. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. cap. ,4d�. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 669 0.98 7 228 727 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.98 713 Page 5 668 0.99 10 241 713 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.95 679 Page 24 of 39 APPENDIX C Page 25 of 39 Page 25 of 39 Results for Two-stage process: a Y C t EXT pioins at Papaya.txt 713 679 worksheet 8-shared �ane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 10 13 27 14 5 8 Movement Capacity (vph) 713 669 958 679 668 952 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 811 740 worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor street ,4pproaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 713 669 958 679 668 952 Volume 10 13 27 14 5 8 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 811 740 SUM C sep n C act worksheet 10-oelay, Queue �ength, and �evel of service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 Lane Config LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 8 2 50 C(m) (vph) 1484 1489 811 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.06 95% queue length 0.02 0.00 0.20 Control Delay 7.4 7.4 9.7 LOS A A A approach oelay g.7 Approach LOS q worksheet 11-Shared Major LT zmpedance and Delay p(a�7') __ v(il), volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P*(o]) d(M,LT), �elay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) �elay for stream 2 or 5 12 LTR 740 0.04 0.11 10.0+ B 10.0+ B Movement 2 Movement 5 u.yy 93 10 1700 1700 0.99 7.4 1 0.0 Page 6 1.00 99 8 1700 1700 1.00 7.4 1 0.0 Page 26 of 39 APPENDIX C EXT east shore at Papaya.txt HCS+: unsignalized Intersections Release 5.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: 7AC Agency/CO.: �ate Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: East Shore at Papaya 7urisdiction: Clearwater units: u. 5. Customary ,4nalysis Year: Exiisitng Traffic Project r�: Exisitng Traffic on exsitng condtions East/west Street: Papaya Street North/south Street: East shore a,ve Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and Adjustments Major Street: approach Northbound 5outhbound Movement 1 2 3 I 4 5 6 L T R � L T R volume 42 149 1 0 25 2 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 46 163 1 0 27 2 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor street: Approach westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R � L T R volume 0 0 0 6 1 18 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 6 1 19 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes � Configuration Approach Movement �ane Config v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay ,4pproach �OS 0 NO 1 0 LTR 0 / No / 0 1 0 LTR lay, Queue �ength, and �evel of Service ►vs sg westbound Eastbound 1 4 � 7 8 9 I 10 11 LTR LTR � LTR � LTR 46 0 0 26 1584 1414 896 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.00 0.09 7.3 7.5 9.1 A A A 9.1 A HCS+: unsignalized rntersections rtelease 5.2 Page 1 12 Page 26 of 39 • APPENDIX C Page 27 of 39 Page 27 of 39 Phone: E-Mail: EXT east Sh01'2 dt Pdpdyd.tXt Fdx: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYS25 Analyst: JAC ,4gency/CO.: �ate Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: East Shore at Papaya 7urisdiction: clearwater units: u. 5. Customary Analysis Year: Exiisitng Traffic Project r�: Exisitng 7raffic on exsitng condtions East/west Street: Papaya Street North/South Street: East Shore Ave Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 42 149 1 0 25 2 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Peak-15 Minute volume 12 41 0 0 7 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 46 163 1 0 27 2 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R volume 0 0 0 6 1 18 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Peak-15 Minute volume 0 0 0 2 0 5 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 6 1 19 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / RT Channelized? �anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Pedestrian volumes and Adjustmen Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 �ane width <ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 walking 5peed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent elockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow rype Time �ength speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left-TUrn Through 55 Left-TUrn Through worksheet 3-�ata for computing Effect of oelay to naajor street vehicles Page 2 APPENDIX C Page 28 of 39 EXT 2d5t Shol"e dt Pdpdyd.txt Movement 2 Movement S Shared ln volume, ma�or th vehicles: 163 27 shared ln volume, ma�or rt vehicles: 1 2 Sat flow rate, ma�or th vehicles: 1700 1700 sat flow rate, ma�or rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 worksheet 4-critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical �ap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.1 7.1 b.5 6.1 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hV) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 2-stage Follow-Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t<f,base) 2.20 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 worksheet 5-Effect of upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) v prog Total Saturation Flow rtate, s(vph) Arrival Type Effective �reen, g (sec) Cycle �ength, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 9CQ1) 9Cq2) 9 Cq) Computation 2-Proportion of TwSC zntersection Time blocked Movement 2 v(t) v(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, v(c,max) Min platooned flow, v(c,min) ouration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p computation 3-Platoon Event Periods pC2) 0.000 Result 0.000 Page 3 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) 0.000 Page 28 of 39 APPENDIX C Page 29 of 39 Page 29 of 39 p(5) p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single-stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p(4) pC7) pC8) pC9) p(10) p(11) pC12) Computation 4 and 5 5ingle-Stage Process Movement 1 4 L L EXT east shore at Papaya.txt 0.000 C2) C3) Two-Stage Process Stage i Stage II 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R V c,x 29 164 294 285 164 284 284 28 s PX V C�U�X C t' , X C plat,x Two-Stage Process 7 8 10 11 stagel Stage2 stagel stage2 Stagel stage2 Stagel stage2 v(c,x) s 1500 1500 1500 1500 P(x) V(c,u,x) c(r,x) C(plat,x) worksheet 6-�mpedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 164 2g Potential Capacity 881 1047 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 881 1047 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.98 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 164 29 Potential Capacity 1414 1584 Pedestrian tmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1414 1584 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.97 Maj �-shared Prob Q free st. 1,00 p,g7 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 285 284 Potential Capacity 624 625 Pedestrian zmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Page 4 APPENDIX C Page 30 of 39 EXT east shore at Papaya.txt Movement Capacity 604 605 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: �T from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor MdJ. L, Min T Adj. Imp FdCtOr. Cap. Ad7. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 294 284 658 668 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.98 629 652 worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap ,4cceptance Step 3: TH from Minor 5t. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor cap. ,adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian zmpedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a Y C t Probability of Queue free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian zmpedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian zmpedance Factor Md�. L, Min T �mpedance factor Ma]. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Ad7. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 285 624 1.00 0.97 604 604 1.00 7 294 658 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.96 629 Page 5 284 625 1.00 0.97 605 605 1.00 284 668 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.98 652 Page 30 of 39 APPENDIX C Page 31 of 39 Page 31 of 39 EXT east ShOt'2 dt Pdpdyd.tXt ttesuits tor Two-stage process: a Y C t worksheet 8-shared �ane Calculations Movement 7 L 629 8 9 10 T R L 652 11 12 T R volume (vph) 0 0 0 6 1 Movement Capacity (vph) 629 604 881 652 605 shared �ane Capacity (vph) g96 worksheet 9-computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T C sep 629 604 881 652 605 volume 0 0 0 6 1 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SuM C sep n c act 896 worksheet 10-�elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 46 0 0 26 C(m) (vph) 1584 1414 g9g v/c 0.03 0.00 0.03 95% queue length 0.09 0.00 0.09 control �elay 7.3 7.5 g.l LOS A A q Approach Delay g,l Approach �OS q 1047 12 R 1047 19 worksheet 11-Shared Major �T Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oJ ) v(il), volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), 5aturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P*(o]) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 _ _ __ 0.97 163 1 1700 1700 0.97 7.3 1 0.2 Page 6 1.00 27 2 1700 1700 1.00 7.5 1 0.0 Page 32 of 39 ExT manda at bay.txt HCS+: Signalized rntersections rtelease 5.2 Analyst: ]AC Inter.: Mandalay Ave. at Baymont St Agency: Pelican walk Garage TIS Area Type: all other areas Date: 6/27/14 7urisd: Clearwater Period: PM PK-HR (PEAK-SEASON) Year : 2014 Ext Project ID: EXISTING CONDITIONS E/W St: Baymont St N/S St: Mandalay Ave SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY � Eastbound I westbound I Northbound I southbound � L T R � L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes � 0 1 0 � 0 1 0 � 0 2 0 � 0 2 0 LGCOnfig � LTR � LTR � LTR � LTR volume 113 3 53 133 13 118 146 367 15 146 479 17 �ane width � 12.0 I 12.0 I 12.0 � 12.0 RTOR VO1 I 0 I 0 I 0 � 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: ,411 other areas Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 � 5 6 7 8 EB �eft A � NB �eft A Thru A � Thru A Right A � Right A Peds I Peds we �eft a I 5g �eft a Thru A � Thru A Right A I Right A Peds I Peds tv6 Right � EB Right 5g Ri ght I w6 rti ght �reen 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 Yellow 3.5 3.5 all Red 3.3 3.0 Cycle Length: 73.3 secs �ntersection Performance Summary ,4ppr/ �ane ,4dj Sat rtatios �ane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LTR 641 1567 westbound LTR 643 Northbound LTR 1198 5outhbound LTR Phone: E-Mdil: 1571 2928 0.12 0.41 13.5 B 13.5 B 0.28 0.41 14.7 B 14.7 B 0.39 0.41 15.4 B 15.4 B 1254 3065 0.48 0.41 16.2 B 16.2 B Intersection Delay = 15.6 (sec/veh) rntersection �OS = B Hcs+: signalized zntersections Release 5.2 Fax: Page 1 Page 33 of 39 EXT manda at bay.txt OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Analyst: JAC Agency/Co.: Pelican Walk Garage Tzs Date Performed: 6/27/14 A►1d1y5i5 Time P21"iOCI: PM PK-HR (PEAK-SEASON) Intersection: Mandalay Ave. at Baymont St Area Type: All other areas 7urisdiction: clearwater Analysis Year: 2014 Ext Project ID: EXISTING CONDITIONS E/W St : Bdym011t St N/5 St : Mdllddl dy AV2 volume % Heavy veh PHF PK 15 vol Hi Ln Vol % Grade �deal sat ParkExist NumPark Eastbound L T R 13 3 53 2 2 2 0.91 0.91 0.91 4 1 15 0 1900 VOLUME DATA westbound � Northbound � Southbound L T R � L T R � L T R 33 13 118 146 367 15 146 479 17 2 2 2 �2 2 2 �2 2 2 0.91 0.91 0.91 �0.91 0.91 0.91 �0.91 0.91 0.91 9 4 32 �13 101 4 �13 132 5 I I 0 � 0 I 0 1900 I 1900 I 1900 No. Lanes � 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 � 0 2 0 � 0 2 0 � LGCOnfig � LTR � LTR � LTR � LTR � Lane Width � 12.0 � 12.0 I 12.0 � 12.0 � RTOR VO1 � O I O � O � O I Adj Flow � 75 � 180 � 470 � 596 I %rnshared�nl I I I I Prop �TS � 0.187 � 0.200 � 0.109 � 0.086 I Prop rtTS � 0.773 � 0.722 I 0.034 � 0.032 � Peds Bikes� 0 � 0 I 0 I 0 I Buses I 0 I 0 � 0 I 0 I %InProtPhase I I I I �uration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas OPERATING PARAMETERS � Eastbound I westbound � Northbound I Southbound � � L T R � L T R � L T R � L T R � � � � � � lnit unmet I 0.0 � 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 � Arriv. Type� 3 � 3 � 3 � 3 � unit Ext. � 3.0 � 3.0 I 3.0 � 3.0 I 2 Factor � 1.000 � 1.000 � 1.000 � 1.000 I Lost Time � 2.0 � 2.0 � 2.0 I Z•� I Ext of g � 2.0 I z•0 � 2.0 I 2.� I Ped Min g � 3.2 � 3.2 I 3.2 � 3.2 I Phase Combination 1 EB �eft a Thru A rti ght A Peds WB Left A Thru A Right A Peds NB Rlyht SB Right PHASE DATA 2 3 4 � 5 6 7 8 I NB �eft ,4 � Thru A I rti ght A � Peds � SB Left A � Thru A I Right A � Peds � EB Right I � WB Right Page 2 Page 34 of 39 Green Yellow All Red volume Adju� Volume, v PHF Adj flow No. Lanes �ane group Adj flow Prop LTs Prop RTs ExT manda at bay.txt I I 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.0 VOLUME ADJI ;tment Eastbound L T R 13 3 53 0.91 0.91 0.91 14 3 58 0 1 0 LTR 75 0.187 0.773 ISTMENT AND SATUF westbound I L T R I 33 13 118 I 0.91 0.91 0.91 I, 36 14 130 ! 0 1 0 ' LTR 180 0.200 0.722 Cycle �ength: 73.3 secs ;ATION FLOW WORK! Northbound L T R 46 367 15 0.91 0.91 0.91 51 403 16 0 2 0 LTR 470 0.109 0.034 �HEET Southbound L T R 46 479 17 0.91 0.91 0.91 51 526 19 0 2 0 LTR 596 0.086 0.032 Saturation Flow Rate (see Exhibit 16-7 to determine the adjustment factors) Eastbound westbound Northbound Southbound LG LTR LTR LTR LTR So 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 fw 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 f� 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fP 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 f6g 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 f,4 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 f�U 1.000 1.000 0.952 0.952 fRT 0.896 0.902 0.995 0.995 f�T 0.939 0.935 0.830 0.868 sec. f�pb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fRpb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5 1567 1571 2928 3065 Sec. CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET Capacity Analysis and �ane Group Capacity Adj Adj Sat Flow Green --�ane Group-- Appr/ Lane Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Ratio Capacity v/c Mvmt �roup (v) (s) <v/s) (g/c) <c) rtatio Eastbound Prot Perm �eft Prot Perm Th r u tti ght westbound Prot Perm �eft Prot Perm Thru Ri ght Northbound Prot Perm �eft Prot Perm Thru LTR 75 1567 0.05 0.41 641 0.12 LTR LTR 180 1571 # 0.11 0.41 643 0.28 470 2928 0.16 0.41 1198 0.39 Page 3 0 Page 35 of 39 EXT manda at bay.txt Ri ght southbound Prot Perm �eft Prot Perm Thru LTR 596 3065 # 0.19 0.41 1254 0.48 Right Sum of flow ratios for critical lane groups, Yc = sum (v/s) = 0.31 Total lost time per cycle, �= 13.30 sec critical flow rate to capacity ratio, xc =(YC)(c)/(c-�) = 0.38 Control �elay and �OS Determination Appr/ Ratios Unf Prog �ane Incremental Res �ane Group Approach Lane Del Adj Grp Factor Del Del Grp v/c g/c dl Fact Cap k d2 d3 �elay �os �elay �os Eastbound LTR 0.12 0.41 13.4 1.000 641 0.11 0.1 0.0 13.5 B 13.5 B Westbound �TR 0.28 0.41 14.4 1.000 643 0.11 0.2 0.0 14.7 B 14.7 B Northbound LTR 0.39 0.41 15.2 1.000 1198 0.11 0.2 0.0 15.4 B 15.4 B Southbound LTR 0.48 0.41 15.9 1.000 1254 0.11 0.3 0.0 16.2 B 16.2 B intersection delay = 15.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LoS = B SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET for exclusive lefts Input EB WB NB SB opposed by Single(S) or Multiple(M) lane approach Cycle length, C 73.3 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G(s) Effective permitted green time for LT lane group, g<s) Opposing effective green time, go (s) Number of lanes in LT lane group, N Number of lanes in opposing approach, No ,4djusted �T flow rate, vLT (veh/h) Proportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTO adjusted opposing flow rate, vo (veh/h) �ost time for LT lane group, t� Computation �7 volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 opposing lane util. factor, f�Uo 1.000 1.000 0.952 0.952 opposing flow, volc=voC/[3600(NO)f�Uo] (veh/ln/cyc) gf=G[exp(- a * (LTC ** b))]-tl, gf<=g opposing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) opposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max[1-Rpo(go/C),0] gq, (see Exhibit C16-4,5,6,7,8) gu=g-gq if q>=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf n=Max(gq-gf�/2,0) PTH0=1-PLTO PL*=PLT[1+(N-1)g/(gf+gU/EL1+4.24)] E�1 (refer to Exhibit c16-3) EL2=Max((1-Ptho**n)/Plto, 1.0) Page 4 Page 36 of 39 EXT manda at bay.txt fmin=2(l+P�)/g or fmin=2(l+Pl)/g gdiff=max( q-gf,0) fm=[gf/ ]+�gu/ ]/[1+PL(EL1-1)], (min=fmin;max=1.00) flt=fm=�gf/ ]+�gu/g]/[1+PL(EL1-1)]+[gdiff/g]/[1+PL(EL2-1)],(fmin<=fm<=1.00) or flt=[fm+�.91(N-1)]/N** �eft-turn adjustment, fLT For special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text. * �f P1>=1 for shared left-turn lanes with N>1, then assume de-facto left-turn lane and redo calculations. ** For permitted left-turns with multiple exclusive left-turn lanes, flt=fm. For special case of multilane approach opposed by single-lane approach or when gf>gq, see text. SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET_ for shared lefts Input EB opposed by Single(S) or Multiple(M) lane approach S Cycle length, C 73.3 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G(s) 30.0 Effective permitted green time for LT lane group, g(s) 30.0 Opposing effective green time, go (s) 30.0 Number of lanes in LT lane group, N 1 Number of lanes in opposing approach, No 1 Adjusted LT flow rate, VLT (veh/h) 14 Proportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT 0.187 Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTO 0.20 Adjusted opposing flow rate, vo (veh/h) 180 �ost time for LT lane group, t� 6.80 Computation WB 5 30.0 30.0 30.0 1 1 36 0.200 0.19 75 6.80 NB M 30.0 30.0 30.0 2 2 51 0.109 0.09 596 6.50 LT volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 0.29 0.73 1.04 opposing lane util. factor, f�uo 1.000 1.000 0.952 opposing flow, volc=voC/[3600(NO)f�uo] (veh/ln/cyc) 3.67 1.53 6.37 gf=G[exp(- a*(�TC ** b))]-tl, gf<=g 13.5 8.0 5.6 opposing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) 1.00 1.00 1.00 opposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max[1-Rpo(go/C),0] 0.59 0.59 0.59 gq, (see Exhibit C16-4,5,6,7,8) 0.81 0.00 2.62 gu=9-9Q iffgq2,pj' or = 9-gf if gq<gf 0600� 0?001 04008 n=Max(gq-g )/ PTH0=1-PLTO 0.80 0.81 0.91 PL*=PLT[1+(N-1)g/(gf+gU/EL1+4.24)] 0.19 0.20 0.28 E�1 (refer to Exhibit C16-3) 1.66 1.49 2.60 EL2=Max((1-Ptho**n)/Plto, 1.0) 1.00 1.00 1.00 fmin=2(1+P�)/g or fmin=2(1+P1)/g 0.08 0.08 0.09 gdiff=max( q-gf,0) 0.00 0.00 0.00 fm=[gf/ ]+�gu/ ]/[1+PL(EL1-1)], (min=fmin;max=1.00) 0.94 0.93 0.75 flt=fm=� f/g]+�gu/g]/[1+PL(EL1-1)]+[gdiff/g]/[1+PL(EL2-1)],(fmin<=fm<=1. Se M 30.0 30.0 30.0 2 2 51 0.086 0.11 470 6.50 1.04 0.952 5.03 5.6 1.00 0.59 0.38 24.38 0.00 0.89 0.21 2.29 1.00 0.08 0.00 0.83 00) or flt=[fm+0.91(N-1)]/N** �eft-turn adjustment, fLT 0.939 0.935 0.830 0.868 For special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text. * �f P1>=1 for shared left-turn lanes with N>1, then assume de-facto left-turn lane and redo calculations. ** For permitted left-turns with multiple exclusive left-turn lanes, flt=fm. For special case of multilane approach opposed by single-lane approach or when gf>gq, see text. SUPPLEMENTAL PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE EFFECTS WORKSHEET. Permitted Left Turns EB WB NB SB Effective pedestrian green time, gp (s) conflicting pedestrian volume, vped (p/h) Pedestrian flow rate, vpedg (p/h) OCCpedg Opposing queue clearing green, gq (s) Eff. ped. green consumed by opp. veh. queue, gq/gp oCCpedu Page 5 Page 37 of 39 EXT manda at bay.txt opposing flow rate, vo (veh/h) OCCr Number of cross-street receiving lanes, Nrec Number of turning lanes, Nturn ApbT Proportion of left turns, PLT Proportion of left turns using protected phase �eft-turn adjustment, f�pb Permitted Ri ght Turns Effective pedestrian green time, gp (s) Conflicting pedestrian volume, vped (p/h) conflicting bicycle volume, vbic (bicycles/h) vpedg oCCped� Effective green, g (s) vbic� occb�cg occr Number of cross-street receiving lanes, Nrec Number of turning lanes, Nturn ,4pbT Proportion right-turns, PRT Proportion ri�ht-turns using protected phase, Right turn ad7ustment, fRpb PLTA PRTA PPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET. EBLT WBLT NBLT SBLT cycle length, C 73.3 sec Ad]. LT vol from vol ,4djustment worksheet, v v/c ratio from Capacity worksheet, X Protected phase effective green interval, g(s) opposing queue effective green interval, gq unopposed green interval, gu rted time r=(C-g-gq-gu) ,4rrival rate, qa=v/(3600(max[x,1.0])) Protected ph. departure rate, sp=s/3600 Permitted ph. departure rate, Ss=s(gq+gu)/(gu*3600) XPerm XProt Case Queue at beginning of green arrow, Qa Queue at beginning of unsaturated green, Qu ttesidual queue, Qr Uniform �elay, dl DELAY/LOS WORKSHEET WITH INITIAL QUEUE rnitial Dur. uniform oelay lnitial Final Initial �ane Appr/ unmet Unmet Queue Unmet Queue Group �ane Demand �emand Unadj. Adj. Param. �emand Delay �elay Group Q veh t hrs. ds dl sec u Q veh d3 sec d sec Eastbound 0.0 LTR O.O 0.0 westbound 0.0 LTR 0.0 0.0 Northbound 0.0 LTR O.O 0.0 Southbound 0.0 0.00 21.7 0.00 21.7 13.4 0.00 14.4 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 21.7 15.2 0.00 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 Page 6 Page 38 of 39 EXT manda at bay.txt LTR 0.0 0.00 21.7 15.9 0.00 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 intersection Delay 15.6 sec/veh Intersection �os B Eastbound LaneGroup � LTR Init Queue � 0.0 Flow Rate � 75 So I 1900 No.Lanes �0 1 0 5L � 1567 �nCapacity � 641 FIOW RdtiO � O.O v/c rtatio � 0.12 Grn Ratio � 0.41 I Factor � 1.000 AT or PVG � 3 Pltn Ratio � 1.00 PF2 � 1.00 Q1 � 0.9 kB I 0.5 Q2 I 0.1 Q a,verage � 1.0 Q Spacing � 25.0 Q Stora�e � 0 Q s rtat, o I 70th Percentile output: fg� I 1.2 eoQ I 1.2 Qsrtati o I 85th Percentile output: fe% ( 1.6 BoQ � 1.6 QSRatio � 90th Percentile output: fg% � 1.8 BOQ � 1.8 QsRatio I 95th Percentile output: f6% � 2.1 BoQ � 2.1 QSRatio � 98th Percentile output: fg% I 2.6 soQ I 2.6 Qsrtati o I No errors to report. OF QUEUE WOf westbound LTR 0.0 180 1900 1 0 1571 643 0.1 0.28 0.41 1.000 3 1.00 1.00 2.4 0.5 0.2 2.6 25.0 0 1.2 3.1 1.6 4.1 1.8 4.6 2.0 5.3 2.5 6.6 ;KSHEET n►orthbound LTR 0.0 246 1900 0 2 0 1537 629 0.2 0.39 0.41 1.000 3 1.00 1.00 3.5 0.5 0.3 3.8 25.0 0 RROR MESSAGES 1.2 4.5 1.6 6.0 1.7 6.6 2.0 7.6 2.4 9.3 Page 7 southbound LTR 0.0 313 1900 2 0 1609 658 0.2 0.48 0.41 1.000 3 1.00 1.00 4.7 0.5 0.4 5.1 25.0 0 1.2 6.1 1.6 7.9 1.7 8.7 2.0 10.0 2.4 12.1 TRUCKIN �TRAFFIC, LLC APPENDIX D Pelican Walk Parking Garage - TIS luly 1, 2014 APPENDIX D 2015 manda at bay.txt HCS+: Signalized Intersections Release 5.2 Analyst: JAC Inter.: Mandalay Ave. at Baymont St Agency: Pelican walk Garage TIS Area Type: All other areas Date: 6/27/14 7urisd: Clearwater Period: PM PK-HR (PEAK-SEASON) Year : 2015 Future Project ID: 2015 Future Projections on EXISTING CONDITIONS E/W St: Baymont St N/5 St: Mandalay Ave SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound � westbound � Northbound � Southbound � � L T R � L T R � L T R � L T R � NO. Ld1125 � 0 1 0 � 0 1 0 � 0 2 0 � 0 2 0 � LGCOnfig � LTR � LTR � LTR � LTR � volume �14 3 56 �50 14 139 �48 381 32 �64 498 18 � �ane width � 12.0 � 12.0 � 12.0 � 12.0 � RTOR VO1 I O � O � O I O I �uration 0.25 area Type: ,411 other areas signal operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 � 5 6 7 8 EB �eft A � NB �eft A Thru A � Thru A Right A ( Right A Peds � Peds WB Left A � 5B Left A Tht'U A � Thl'U A Right A � Right A Peds � Peds NB Right � EB Right 56 rti ght � wg Ri ght Green 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 Yellow 3.5 3.5 ,411 Red 3.3 3.0 Cycle �ength: 73.3 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ �ane Adj sat Ratios �ane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp CdpdCity (5) V/C g/C Deldy LOS Deldy LOS Eastbound LTR 636 1554 0.13 0.41 13.6 B 13.6 B westbound LTR 629 1537 0.35 0.41 15.3 B 15.3 B Northbound LTR 1184 2892 0.43 0.41 15.8 B 15.8 B Southbound LTR 1197 2925 0.53 0.41 16.8 B 16.8 B rntersection �elay = 16.0 (sec/veh) zntersection �os = a Hcs+: signalized �ntersections Release 5.2 Phone: E-Mdil: Fdx: Page 1 Page 1 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 manda at bay.txt OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Analyst: 7AC Agency/Co.: Pelican walk Garage T25 �ate Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PK-HR (PEAK-SEASON) Intersection: Mandalay Ave. at Baymont St area Type: All other areas 7urisdiction: clearwater Analysis Year: 2015 Future Project ID: 2015 Future Projections on EXISTING CONDITIONS E/W St: Baymont St N/S St: Mandalay Ave VOLUME DAT� � Eastbound � westbound � Northbound � southbound � � L T R � L T R � L T R � L T R � volume �14 3 56 150 14 139 148 381 32 j64 498 18 j % Heavy Vehl2 2 2 Iz 2 2 Iz Z 2 Iz z 2 I PHF 10.91 0.91 0.91 �0.91 0.91 0.91 �0.91 0.91 0.91 �0.91 0.91 0.91 � PK 15 vol �4 1 15 �14 4 38 113 105 9 118 137 5 I Hi Ln VO1 � � � � � % �rade I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I Ideal sat I 1900 I 1900 I 1900 I 1900 � ParkExist NumPark No. Lanes �GConfig Lane Width RTOR VO1 Adj FIOw %InSharedLn Prop LTs Prop RTs Peds Bikes Buses %InProtPhas� Duration Init Unmet Arriv. Type Unit Ext. I Factor Lost Time Ext of g Ped Min g I I I I 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 j 0 2 0 j 0 2 0 j LTR � LTR � LTR � LTR � 12.0 O i 12.0 0 i 12.0 O i 12.0 O I 80 I zZ3 I 507 � 637 I 0.188 I 0.247 j 0.105 I 0.110 I 0.775 I 0.686 I 0.069 I 0.031 � � 0 � � 0 � � 0 � � 0 � I I I I Area Type: All other areas OPERATING PARAMETERS Eastbound I westbound � Northbound I southbound I L T R � L T R � L T R I L T R � �0.25 0.0 3 3.0 1.00 2.0 2.0 3.2 Phase Combination 1 EB Left A Thru A Right A Peds WB Left A Thru A Right A Peds NB Right Se rti ght � 0.0 � 0.0 � 0.0 � � 3 I 3 I 3 I � 3.0 I 3.0 I 3.0 I 0 I 1.000 I 1.000 I 1.000 � � 2.0 � 2.0 I 2.0 I � 2.0 � 2.0 � 2.0 � � 3.2 � 3.2 � 3.2 I PHASE DATA 2 3 4 � 5 6 7 8 � NB Left A � Thru A � rti ght ,4 � Peds � 56 Left A � Thru A � Right A � Peds � EB Right I � WB Right Page 2 Page 2 of 45 Green Yellow All Red Volume Adju� volume, v PHF Adj flow No. �anes �ane group adj flow Prop LTs Prop RTs r_»»�.�►�. 2015 manda at bay.txt I I 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.0 VOLUME ADJI >tment Eastbound L T R 14 3 56 0.91 0.91 0.91 15 3 62 0 1 0 j LTR I 80.188 II 0.775 I ISTMENT AND SATUI westbound L T R 50 14 139 0.91 0.91 0.91 55 15 153 0 1 0 LTR 223 0.247 0.686 Cycle �ength: 73.3 tAT20N FLOW WORK: Northbound L T R 48 381 32 0.91 0.91 0.91 53 419 35 0 2 0 LTR 507 0.105 0.069 iHEET Southbound L T R 64 498 18 0.91 0.91 0.91 70 547 20 0 2 0 LTR 637 0.110 0.031 secs Saturation Flow rtate (see Exhibit 16-7 to determine the adjustment factors) Eastbound westbound Northbound southbound LG LTR LTR LTR LTR So 1900 1900 1900 1900 �anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 fw 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 fG 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fP 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 feg 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fA 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 f�U 1.000 1.000 0.952 0.952 fttT 0.895 0.907 0.990 0.995 f�T 0.932 0.909 0.824 0.828 Sec. fLpb 1.000 1.000 fRpb 1.000 1.000 5 1554 1537 sec. CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSH Capacity analysis and �ane Group Capacity ,adj adj sat Flow Appr/ �ane Flow Rate Flow Rate rtatio Mvmt Group (v) (s) (v/s) Eastbound Prot Perm �eft Prot Perm ThrU Right Westbound Prot Perm �eft Prot Perm Thru Ri ght Northbound Prot Perm Left Prot P2 f'�l Thru LTR 80 1554 0.05 LTR LTR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 2892 2925 Green --Lane Group-- Ratio Capacity v/c (g/C) (c) Ratio 0.41 636 0.13 223 1537 # 0.15 0.41 629 0.35 507 2892 0.18 0.41 1184 0.43 Page 3 Page 3 of 45 APPENDIX D Page 4 of 45 - 2015 manda at bay.txt Ri ght 5outhbound Prot Perm �eft Prot Perm Thru LTR 637 2925 # 0.22 0.41 1197 0.53 Right Sum of flow ratios for critical lane groups, Yc = sum (v/s) = 0.36 Total lost time per cycle, �= 13.30 sec Critical flow rate to capacity ratio, xc =(YC)(C)/(C-�) = 0.44 Control �elay and �os Determination appr/ Ratios unf Prog �ane rncremental Res �ane Group Approach �ane �el adj �rp Factor oel �el Grp v/c g/C dl Fact cap k d2 d3 �elay �os �elay �os Eastbound LTR 0.13 0.41 13.5 1.000 636 0.11 0.1 0.0 13.6 B 13.6 B westbound LTR 0.35 0.41 15.0 1.000 629 0.11 0.3 0.0 15.3 s 15.3 B Northbound LTR 0.43 0.41 15.5 1.000 1184 0.11 0.3 0.0 15.8 B 15.8 B Southbound LTR 0.53 0.41 16.4 1.000 1197 0.14 0.5 0.0 16.8 B 16.8 B �ntersection delay = 16.0 (sec/veh) �ntersection �os = e SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET for exclusive lefts Input EB WB NB SB opposed by 5ingle(5) or Multiple(M) lane approach cycle length, C 73.3 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G(s) Effective perm�tted green time for LT lane group, g(s) opposing effective green time, go (s) Number of lanes in LT lane group, N Number of lanes in opposing approach, No a,djusted �T flow rate, v�T (veh/h) Proportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT Proportion of �T in opposing flow, PLTO ,4djusted opposing flow rate, vo (veh/h) �ost time for LT lane group, t� Computation �T volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 opposing lane util. factor, f�uo 1.000 1.000 0.952 0.952 Opposing flow, volc=voC/[3600(NO)f�Uo] (veh/ln/cyc) gf=G[exp(- a * (�TC *� b))]-tl, gf<=g Opposing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) Opposing Queue rtatio, qro=Max[1-ttpo(go/C),0] gq, (see Exhibit C16-4,5,6,7,8) gu=g-gq if gq>=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf n=Max(gq-gf)/2,0) PTH0=1-PLTO PL*=PLT[1+(N-1)g/(gf+gu/EL1+4.24)] E�1 (refer to Exhibit C16-3) EL2=Max((1-Ptho**n)/Plto, 1.0) Page 4 APPENDIX D 2015 manda at bay.txt fmin=2(1+P�)/g or fmin=2(1+P1)/g gdiff=max(gq-gf,0) fm=[gf/ ]+�gu/ ]/[1+PL(EL1-1)], (min=fmin;max=1.00) flt=fm=�gf/g]+�gu/g]/[1+PL(ELl-1)]+[gdiff/g]/[1+PL(EL2-1)],(fmin<=fm<=1.00) or flt=[fm+0.91(N-1)]/N** Left-turn adjustment, fLT For special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text. * �f P1>=1 for shared left-turn lanes with N>1, then assume de-facto left-turn lane and redo calculations. ** For permitted left-turns with multiple exclusive left-turn lanes, flt=fm. For special case of multilane approach opposed by single-lane approach or when gf>gq, see text. SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET. for shared lefts Input EB WB NB opposed by Single(S) or Multiple(M) lane approach 5 5 M Cycle length, C 73.3 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G(s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective permitted green time for LT lane group, g(s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 opposing effective green time, go (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 Number of lanes in LT lane group, N 1 1 2 Number of lanes in opposing approach, No 1 1 2 Adjusted LT flow rate, v�T (veh/h) 15 55 53 Proportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT 0.188 0.247 0.105 Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTO 0.25 0.19 0.11 Adjusted opposing flow rate, vo (veh/h) 223 80 637 �ost time for LT lane group, t� 6.80 6.80 6.50 Computation �T volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 0.31 1.12 1.08 opposing lane util. factor, f�uo 1.000 1.000 0.95 Opposing flow, volc=voC/[3600(NO)f�uo] (veh/ln/cyc) 4.54 1.63 6.81 gf=G[exp(- a*(�TC ** b))]-tl, gf<=g 13.2 5.1 5.3 Opposing platoon ratio, rzpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) 1.00 1.00 1.00 opposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max[1-Rpo(go/C),0] 0.59 0.59 0.59 gq, (see Exhibit c16-4,5,6,7,8) 2.16 0.00 3.39 gu=g-gq if >=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf 16.85 24.89 24.6 n=Max(gq-gf}�%2,0) 0.00 0.00 0.00 PTHO=1-PLTO 0.75 0.81 0.89 PL*=PLT[1+(N-1)g/(gf+gU/EL1+4.24)] 0.19 0.25 0.27 E�1 (refer to Exhibit C16-3) 1.74 1.50 2.71 EL2=Max((1-Ptho**n)/Plto, 1.0) 1.00 1.00 1.00 fmin=2(l+P�)/g or fmin=2(l+Pl)/g 0.08 0.08 0.08 gdiff=max( q-gf,0) 0.00 0.00 0.00 fm=[gf/ ]+�gu/ ]/[1+PL(EL1-1)], (min=fmin;max=1.00) 0.93 0.91 0.74 flt=fm=�gf/g]+� u/g]/[1+PL(EL1-1)]+[gCliff/g]/[1+PL(EL2-1)],(fmin<=fm<=1. or flt=[fm+0.91(N-1)]/N** �eft-turn adjustment, fLT 0.932 0.909 0.824 56 M 30.0 30.0 30.0 2 2 70 0.110 0.10 507 6.50 1.43 2 0.952 5.42 3.1 1.00 0.59 1.02 8 26.88 0.00 0.90 0.29 2.37 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.75 00) 828 For special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text. * 1f P1>=1 for shared left-turn lanes with N>1, then assume de-facto left-turn lane and redo calculations. ** For permitted left-turns with multiple exclusive left-turn lanes, flt=fm. For special case of multilane approach opposed by single-lane approach or when gf>gq, see text. SUPPLEMENTAL PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE EFFECTS WORKSHEET. Permitted Left Turns EB WB NB SB Effective pedestrian green time, gp (s) Conflicting pedestrian volume, vped (p/h) Pedestrian flow rate, vpedg (p/h) OCCpedg Opposing queue clearing green, gq (s) Eff. ped. green consumed by opp. veh. queue, gq/gp oCCpedu Page 5 Page 5 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 manda at bay.txt opposing flow rate, vo (veh/h) oCCr n►umber of cross-street receiving lanes, Nrec Number of turning lanes, Nturn ApbT Proportion of left turns, PLT Proportion of left turns using protected phase, PLTA �eft-turn adjustment, f�pb Permitted Right Turns Effective pedestrian green time, gp (s) Conflicting pedestrian volume, vped (p/h) conflicting bicycle volume, vbic <bicycles/h) vpedg oCCped� Effective green, g (s) vbic� oCCbicg OCCr Number of cross-street receiving lanes, Nrec Number of turning lanes, Nturn apb7 Proportion right-turns, PRT Proportion ri�ht-turns using protected phase, PRTA rtight turn ad�ustment, fRpb SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET. EBLT WBLT NBLT SBLT Cycle length, C 73.3 sec Adj. LT vol from vol ,4djustment worksheet, v v/c ratio from capacity worksheet, x Protected phase effective green interval, g(s) Opposing queue effective green interval, gq unopposed green interval, gu rted time r=(C-g-gq-gu) Arrival rate, qa=v/(3600(max[x,1.0])) Protected ph. departure rate, Sp=s/3600 Permitted ph. departure rate, Ss=s(gq+gu)/(gu*3600) XPerm XProt Case Queue at beginning of green arrow, Qa Queue at beginning of unsaturated green, Qu Residual queue, Qr Uniform �elay, dl DELAY/LOS WORKSHEET WITH INITIAL znitial Dur. Uniform �elay rnitial Final rnitial �ane Appr/ unmet Unmet Queue unmet Queue Group Lane Demand Demand Unadj. Adj. Param. Demand Delay Delay Group Q veh t hrs. ds dl sec u Q veh d3 sec d sec Eastbound 0.0 LTR O.O 0.0 westbound 0.0 LTR O.0 0.0 ►vorthbound 0.0 LTR O.O 0.0 southbound 0.0 0.00 21.7 13.5 0.00 0.0 0.00 21.7 15.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 21.7 15.5 0.00 0.0 Page 6 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 Page 6 of 45 0 LTR O.O 0.00 21.7 0.0 intersection Delay I Eastbound �aneGroup � LTR init Queue I 0.0 Flow Rate I 80 So � 1900 No.Lanes �0 1 0 5L � 1554 �nCapacity � 636 Flow Ratio � 0.1 v/c rtatio � 0.13 Grn Ratio � 0.41 I Factor � 1.000 AT or PVG � 3 Pltn Ratio � 1.00 PF2 � 1.00 Q1 � 1.0 k6 I 0.5 Q2 I 0.1 , Q average � 1.1 I Q Spacing � 25.0 I Q Stora�e � 0 I Q S Ratio � I 70th Percentile output: fB% � 1.2 � BoQ � 1.3 � QsRatio I I 85th Percentile output: fs% � 1.6 � BoQ � 1.7 � QsRatio � I 90th Percentile output: fg% � 1.8 � BOQ � 1.9 � QsRatio � I 95th Percentile output: fg% � 2.1 � soQ I 2.2 � Qsrtati o I I 98th Percentile output: fg% � 2.6 � BoQ I 2.8 � Qsrtati o I I No errors to report. APPENDIX D 2015 manda at bay.txt 16.4 0.00 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 .0 sec/veh rntersection �os B 3ACK OF QUEUE W01 westbound LTR 0.0 223 1900 0 1 0 1537 629 0.1 0.35 0.41 1.000 3 1.00 1.00 3.1 0.5 0.3 3.4 25.0 0 I 1.2 4.0 1.6 5.3 1.7 5.9 2.0 6.8 2.5 8.4 ERROR MESSAG tKSHEET Northbound I LTR 0.0 2 66 1900 0 2 0 1518 621 0.2 0.43 0.41 1.000 3 1.00 1.00 3.9 ; 0.5 I 0.3 I 4.2 � 25.0 � 0 I 1.2 5.0 1.6 6.6 1.7 7.3 2.0 8.3 2.4 10.2 Page 7 southbound LTR 0.0 334 1900 0 2 0 1536 628 0.2 0.53 0.41 1.000 3 1.00 1.00 5.1 0.5 0.5 5.7 25.0 0 1.2 6.7 1.5 8.8 1.7 9.6 1.9 11.0 2.3 13.3 I I I I Page 7 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 manda at bay.txt Page 8 Page 8 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 Bay at Poin.txt HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Af1d1 y5t : JAC Agency/CO.: oate Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: Baymont at Poinsettia ]urisdiction: Clearwater Units: U. 5. Customary And1y5i5 Yedr: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC Project ID: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC on exsitng condtions East/west Street: Baymont 5treet North/South Street: Poinsettia Ave. rntersection orientation: Ew Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and adjustments Major street: approach Eastbound westbound Movement 1 2 3 � 4 5 6 L T R � L T R volume 17 91 0 115 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 18 98 0 124 Percent Heavy vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/5torage undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: approach Northbound 5outhbound Movement 7 8 9 � 10 11 12 L T R � L T R volume 106 0 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 115 0 5 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/storage No / / Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR �elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of service approach EB w6 Northbound southbound Movement 1 4 � 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LT � LTR � v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach �elay Approach �OS 0 120 1473 805 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.52 7.4 10.3 A B 10.3 B HCS+: unsignalized Intersections Release 5.2 Page 1 Page 9 of 45 Phone: E-Mdil: I_1�1�►1�]Eii] 2015 Bay at Poin.txt Fdx: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYS Analyst: 7AC Agency/CO.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 Alldl ySi 5 Ti me Pe I"i Od : PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: Baymont at Poinsettia 7urisdiction: Clearwater Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC PrOjeCt ID: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC On ex5itng COndtiOnS East/West Street: Baymont Street North/SOUth Street: Poinsettia Ave. rntersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and adjustments Major street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume 17 91 0 115 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Peak-15 Minute volume 5 25 0 31 HOUrIy FIOW Rdte, HFR 18 98 0 124 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage undivided / rtT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal? No Minor Street Movements 7 8 L T volume 106 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 Peak-15 Minute volume 29 HOUrIy FIOW Rdte, HFR 115 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT channelized? �anes 0 configuration 0 0.92 0 0 2 0 TR LT NO 9 10 11 12 R L T R 5 0.92 1 5 2 0 No / / 1 0 LTR Pedestrian volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 �ane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 walking 5peed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent elockage 0 0 0 0 upstream signal Da Prog. Sat Arrival Green Flow Flow Type Time vph vph sec s2 �eft-TUrn Through S5 Left-TUrn Through cycle Prog. �istance �ength Speed to Signal sec mph feet worksheet 3-�ata for Computing Effect of �elay to r�►ajor Street vehicles Page 2 Page 10 of 45 0 c APPENDIX D 2015 Bay at Poin.txt Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared ln volume, ma�or th vehicles: 124 shared ln volume, ma�or rt vehicles: 0 sat flow rate, ma�or th vehicles: 1700 sat flow rate, ma�or rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 L L L T R L T t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.2 2-stage 12 R 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Follow-up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 worksheet 5-Effect of upstream signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) V(t) v(l,prot) V prog Total saturation Flow Rate, s(vph) arrival Type Effective �reen, g (sec) Cycle �ength, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 9(ql) 9CQZ) 9Cq) Computation 2-Proportion of 1w5C zntersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, v(c,max) Min platooned flow, v(c,min) �uration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result pC2) 0.000 Page 3 Page 11 of 45 p(5) p(dom) p(subo) constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single-stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p(4) pC7) pC8) pC9) p(10) p(11) pC12) Computation 4 and S 5ingle-Stage Process ��„�\��f.7�� 2015 Bay at Poin.txt 0.000 C2) C3) Two-Stage Process Stage I Stage II Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R v c,x 116 191 191 67 s PX V C,U�X C f;X C plat,x Two-Stage Process 7 8 10 11 5tagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel 5tage2 Stagel 5tage2 v(c,x) P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) 1500 1500 worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 12 conflicting Flows 67 Potential Capacity 997 Pedestrian rmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 997 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 1.00 step 2: �T from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 116 Potential Capacity 1473 Pedestrian �mpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1473 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Maj �-Shared Prob Q free st. 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 conflicting Flows 191 Potential Capacity 704 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 cap. ,adj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Page 4 Page 12 of 45 0 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 5tep 4: LT from Minor St. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian �mpedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma). L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. cap. ,4d7. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity APPENDIX D 2015 Bay at Poin.txt 704 1.00 7 191 798 1.00 1.00 798 worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Tuvo-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian rmpedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 8 191 704 1.00 1.00 704 1.00 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 11 1.00 1.00 Result for 2 stage process: a Y C t 704 Probability of Queue free st. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance FdCtOP Cap. Adj. factor due to �mpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor cap. adj. factor due to �mpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma�. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Ad�. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 191 798 1.00 1.00 798 Page 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Page 13 of 45 rtesults for 7wo-stage process: a Y C t worksheet 8-shared �ane Calculations APPENDIX D 2015 Bay at Poin.txt 798 Page 14 of 45 Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R volume (vph) 115 0 5 Movement Capacity.(vph) 798 704 997 shared �ane Capacity (vph) 805 worksheet 9-computation of Effect of Flared Minor street ,4pproaches Movement C sep volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n c act 7 8 9 L T R 798 704 997 115 0 5 805 Worksheet 10-�elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of Service 0 11 12 L T R Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LTR C(m)p(vph) �473 80� v/c 0.00 0.15 95% queue length 0.00 0.52 Control �elay 7.4 10.3 LOS A B approach Delay 10.3 Approach �OS B worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 pCo�7 ) 1.00 v(il), volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P*(o]) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 Page 6 Movement 5 1.00 124 0 1700 1700 1.00 7.4 1 0.0 APPENDIX D 2015 manda at Papaya.txt Hcs+: unsignalized zntersections Release 5.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: JAC ,4gency/Co.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 And1y5i5 Time PeriOd: PM PEAK HOUR intersection: Mandalay at Papaya 7urisdiction: clearwater Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: 2015 TRAFFIC Project ID: 2015 TRAFFIC on exsitng condtions East/West Street: Papya Street North/south Street: Mandalay ave Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and ,4djustments Major street: Approach Northbound 5outhbound Movement 1 2 3 � 4 5 6 L T R � L T R volume 25 401 51 15 499 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 422 53 15 525 6 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- 2 __ __ Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR upstream Signal? No No Minor street: ,approach westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 � 10 11 12 L T R � L T R volume 42 2 32 17 2 15 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 2 33 17 2 15 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) p p Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR �elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of Service approach NB sB westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 I 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LT � LTR � LTR v �vpn) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach �OS 26 15 1033 1083 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.04 8.6 8.4 A A /7 359 0.22 0.83 17.8 C 17.8 C Hcs+: unsignalized �ntersections rtelease 5.2 Page 1 34 342 0.10 0.33 16.7 C 16.7 C Page 15 of 45 Phone: E-Mdil: APPENDIX D 2015 manda at Papaya.txt Fdx: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSI Analyst: )AC Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: Mandalay at Papaya 7urisdiction: Clearwater Units: U. S. Customary At1d1y5i5 Year: 2015 TRAFFIC Project ID: 2015 TRAFFIC on exsitng condtions East/West Street: Papya Street North/South 5treet: Mandalay ave �ntersection orientation: Ns study period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street Movements volume Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Neavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? �anes Configuration upstream signal? Minor Street Movements icle volumes and Adjustments 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 25 401 51 15 499 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 7 106 13 4 131 2 26 422 53 15 525 6 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Undivided / 0 2 0 0 2 0 LT TR LT TR Np No 7 8 9 L T R Volume 4Z Z Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak-15 Minute volume 11 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 2 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 configuration LTR 0.95 8 33 2 � 10 11 12 L T R 17 2 15 0.95 0.95 0.95 4 1 4 17 2 15 2 2 2 0 / No / 0 1 0 LTR Pedestrian volumes and ,4djustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 �ane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent alockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream 5ignal �a Prog. Sat Arrival Green Flow Flow Type Time vph vph sec 52 �eft-TUrn Through 55 �eft-TUrn Through Cycle Prog. �istance �ength Speed to Signal sec mph feet worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street vehicles Page 2 Page 16 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 manda at Papaya.txt Movement 2 Movement 5 shared ln volume, ma�or th vehicles: 0 0 5hared ln volume, ma�or rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, ma�or th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, ma�or rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 2 2 worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 L L L T R L t(c,base) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 t(c,hv) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 2-stage 11 12 T R 6.5 6.9 2.00 2.00 2 2 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 6.5 6.9 Follow-up Time calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30 t(f,HV) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(HV) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at upstream Signal Movement 2 v(t) V(l,prot) Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) v prog Total Saturation Flow rtate, s(vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle �ength, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 9CQ1) 9C4Z) 9Cq) computation 2-Proportion of lwsc �ntersection 7ime blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, v(c,max) Min platooned flow, v(c,min) �uration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3-Platoon Event Pe pC2) 0.000 Result 0.000 Page 3 0.000 Page 17 of 45 p(5) p(dom) p(subo) constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) APPENDIX D 2015 manda at Papaya.txt 0.000 C1) CZ) C3) single-stage Two-stage Process Process stage I Stage II p�t) p(4) pC7) pC8) pC9) p(10) p(11) pC12) Computation 4 and 5 single-Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R v c,x 531 475 793 1061 238 822 1085 266 s PX V C�U,X C t' , X C plat,x Two-Stage Process 7 $ 10 11 Stagel stage2 stagel Stage2 stagel stage2 Stagel stage2 v(c,x) s P(x) V(C,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) 3000 3000 3000 3000 worksheet 6-zmpedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 238 266 Potential Capacity 763 732 Pedestrian rmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 763 732 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 0.98 Step 2: �T from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 475 531 Potential Capacity 1083 1033 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1083 1033 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 0.97 Maj �-Shared Prob Q free st. 0.99 0.97 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 1061 1085 Potential Capacity 222 215 Pedestrian rmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Page 4 Page 18 of 45 . APPENDIX D Page 19 of 45 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. step 4: �T from Minor St. 2015 manda at Papaya.txt 213 0.99 7 207 0.99 10 Conflicting Flows 793 822 Potential capacity 279 266 Pedestrian �mpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Md�. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 0.95 Ma�. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 0.96 Cap. ,4d7. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.94 0.92 Movement Capacity 263 245 worksheet 7-computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 -•First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. Part 2 - Second Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor cap. Adj. factor due to impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian �mpedance Factor cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a Y C t Probability of Queue free st. Step 4: �T from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian impedance Factor Cap. adj. factor due to impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma�. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Ad�. factor due to impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 8 1061 222 1.00 0.96 213 213 0.99 793 279 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.94 263 Page 5 11 1085 215 1.00 0.96 207 207 0.99 10 822 266 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.92 245 APPENDIX D Page 20 of 45 . 2015 manda at Papaya.txt Results for Two-stage process: a Y C t worksheet 8-shared �ane Calculations Movement 7 L 263 8 9 T R 245 10 11 12 L T R volume (vph) 44 2 33 17 2 15 Movement Capacity (vph) 263 213 763 245 207 732 shared �ane Capacity (vph) 359 342 worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor street ,4pproaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 263 213 763 245 207 732 volume 44 2 33 17 2 15 �elay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 359 SuM C sep n C act worksheet 10-�elay, Queue Length, and �evel of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 Ld112 confi g LT LT LTR v (vph) 26 15 79 C(m) (vph) 1033 1083 359 v/c 0.03 0.01 0.22 95% queue length 0.08 0.04 0.83 Control �elay 8.6 8.4 17.8 LOS A A C approach �elay 17.8 approach LOS C worksheet 11-Shared Major �T Impedance and Delay Movement 2 pCo�) v(i ), volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P�Co]) d(M,LT), �elay for stream 1 or 4 N, tvumber of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.97 0 0 1700 1700 0.97 8.6 2 Page 6 342 11 12 LTR 34 342 0.10 0.33 16.7 c 16.7 C Movement 5 0.99 0 0 1700 1700 0.99 8.4 2 APPENDIX D 2015 pioins at Papaya.txt HCS+: unsignalized intersections Release 5.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: JAC agency/Co.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR intersection: Poinsettia at Papaya 7urisdiction: Clearwater units: u. 5. customary analysis Year: 2015 Future Project ID: 2015 Projections with exsitng condtions East/West Street: Papya Street North/South Street: Poinsettia Ave Intersection Orientation: N5 Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and ,4djustments Major street: ,approach Northbound southbound Movement 1 2 3 � 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 9 138 10 42 144 49 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 149 10 45 156 53 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/5torage undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR upstream Signal? No No Minor street: Approach westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 � 10 11 12 L T R I L T R volume 10 12 67 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 13 72 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR 54 6 9 0.92 0.92 0.92 58 6 9 2 2 2 0 NO / 0 1 0 LTR �elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of service Approach Na sg westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 I 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR � LTR � LTR v �vpn) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach �elay ,4pproach �OS 9 45 1362 1420 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.10 7.7 7.6 A A 95 738 0.13 0.44 10.6 B 10.6 B HCS+: unsignalized Intersections rtelease 5.2 Page 1 73 461 0.16 0.56 14.3 B 14.3 B Page 21 of 45 Phone: E-Mdil: APPENDIX D 2015 pioins at Papaya.txt Fdx: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALY52 Analyst: JAC agency/Co.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR intersection: Poinsettia at Papaya 7urisdiction: clearwater units: u. 5. customary Analysis Year: 2015 Future Project ID: 2015 Projections with exsitng condtions East/West Street: Papya Street North/South Street: Poinsettia Ave intersection orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and ,4djustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume 9 138 10 42 144 49 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Peak-15 Minute volume 2 38 3 11 39 13 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 149 10 45 156 53 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/storage undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR upstream signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R volume 10 1Z 67 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Peak-15 Minute volume 3 3 18 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 13 72 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? �anes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR 54 6 9 0.92 0.92 0.92 15 2 2 58 6 9 2 2 2 0 / No / 0 1 0 LTR Pedestrian volumes and ,4djustment Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 �ane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 upstream signal �ata Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to 5ignal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left-TUrn Through 55 Left-TUrn Through worksheet 3-�ata for computing Effe�t of �elay to ►Hajor Street vehicles Page 2 Page 22 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 pioins at Papaya.txt Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared ln volume, ma�or th vehicles: 149 156 5hared ln volume, ma�or rt vehicles: 10 53 sat flow rate, ma�or th vehicles: 1700 1700 sat flow rate, ma7or rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time calculation critical �ap calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 4.1 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 t(c,g) Grade/100 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 4.1 2-stage Follow-up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 L L t(f,base) 2.20 2.20 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 tCf) 2.2 2.2 7.1 1.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.1 7 L 3.50 0.90 2 3.5 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 2 2 2 2 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 8 9 10 11 12 T R L T R 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 2 2 2 2 2 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 worksheet 5-Effect of upstream 5ignals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at upstream signal Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) v prog Total Saturation Flow rtate, s(vph) Arrival Type Effective �reen, g (sec) Cycle �ength, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) aroportion vehicles arriving on green P 9Cq1) 9CGZ) 9 CQ) Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC rntersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, v(c,max) Min platooned flow, v(c,min) �uration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods pCz) 0.000 ReSUIt o.000 Page 3 0.000 Page 23 of 45 p(5) p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single-stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p(4) pC7) pC8) pC9) p(10) p(11) pC12) Computation 4 and S Single-stage Process Movement 1 L APPENDIX D 2015 pioins at Papaya.txt 0.000 C2) (3) Two-Stage Process stage r stage II 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L T R L T R V c,x 209 159 452 471 154 486 449 182 s PX V C,U,X C I",X C plat,x Two-Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel stage2 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 v(c,x) s 1500 1500 P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) worksheet 6-rmpedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor st. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. Step 2: LT from Major St. conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj �-Shared Prob Q free st. Step 3: TH from Minor St. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 9 154 892 1.00 892 0.92 4 1420 1.00 1420 0.97 0.96 8 491 1.00 0.96 Page 4 1500 1500 182 861 1.00 861 0.99 1 209 1362 1.00 1362 0.99 0.99 11 449 505 1.00 0.96 Page 24 of 45 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. APPENDIX D 2015 pioins at Papaya.txt 470 483 0.97 0.99 Step 4: �T from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 452 486 Potential Capacity 518 492 Pedestrian �mpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Md�. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.94 0.93 Ma7. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 0.95 Cap. ad�. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt 0.95 0.87 Movement Capacity 491 428 worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of 7wo-stage Gap acceptance 5tep 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian zmpedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian impedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 8 471 449 491 505 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 470 483 Result for 2 stage process: a Y C t 470 483 Probability of Queue free st. 0.97 0.99 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor cap. adj. factor due to �mpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian rmpedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor MdJ. L, Min T adj. rmp Factor. Cap. adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 452 518 1.00 0.94 0.96 0.95 491 Page 5 486 492 1.00 0.93 0.95 0.87 428 Page 25 of 45 Results for Two-stage process: a Y C t worksheet 8-Shared �ane Calculations APPENDIX D Page 26 of 45 . 2015 pioins at Papaya.txt 491 428 Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R volume (vph) 10 13 72 58 6 9 Movement Capacity.(vph) 491 470 892 428 483 861 Shared �ane Capacity (vph) 738 461 worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor street approaches Movement C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max c sh SuM C sep n c act 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 491 470 892 10 13 72 738 worksheet 10-Delay, Queue �ength, and �evel of service 428 483 861 58 6 9 461 Movement 1 4 � 8 9 10 11 12 Lane config LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 9 45 95 73 C(m) (vph) 1362 1420 738 461 v/c 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.16 95% queue length 0.02 0.10 0.44 0.56 Control Delay 7.7 7.6 10.6 14.3 LOS A A B B approach Delay 10.6 14.3 Approach LOS B B worksheet 11-Shared Major LT zmpedance and oelay pCo ]�) v(il), volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P*Co]) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) �elay for stream 2 or 5 Movement 0.99 149 10 1700 1700 0.99 7.7 1 0.1 Page 6 Movement 5 0.97 156 53 1700 1700 0.96 7.6 1 0.3 APPENDIX D 2015 east shore at Papaya.txt HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: JAC Agency/CO.: �ate Performed: 6/27/14 A11d1y5i5 Time Pel'iOCI: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: East Shore at Papaya �urisdiction: Clearwater units: u. s. customary Analysis Year: 2015 Future Traffic Project ID: 2015 Future Projections on exsitng condtions East/West Street: Papaya Street North/SOUth Street: East Shore Ave Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and ,4djustments Major Street: ,4pproach Northbound southbound Movement 1 2 3 � 4 5 6 L T R � L T R volume 84 155 1 0 26 2 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 HOUrIy FIOW Rdte, HFR 92 170 1 0 28 2 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- z -- -- Median Type/storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor street: ,4pproach westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T volume 0 0 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR 9 R 0.91 0 2 �� I 10 11 12 � L T R 7 1 59 0.91 0.91 0.91 7 1 64 2 2 2 0 / No / 0 1 0 LTR �elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of Service ,approach NB s6 westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 I 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR � LTR � LTR v(vph) 92 0 0 72 c(m) (vph) 1583 1406 948 v/c 0.06 0.00 0.08 95% queue length 0.18 0.00 0.25 Control �elay 7.4 7.6 g,l LOS A A A Approach Delay g,l Approach �OS q Hcs+: unsignalized �ntersections rtelease 5.2 Page 1 Page 27 of 45 Phone: E-Mdil: APPENDIX D 2015 east shore at Papaya.txt FdX: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSI Analyst: �AC ,4gency/Co.: �ate Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR intersection: East Shore at Papaya 7urisdiction: clearwater Units: U. S. Customary analysis Year: 2015 Future Traffic Project I�: 2015 Future Projections on exsitng condtions East/West Street: Papaya Street NOf'th/SOUth Stre2t: EdSt Sh01'2 AV2 intersection orientation: N5 study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and ,4djustments Major street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume 84 155 1 0 26 2 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Peak-15 Minute volume 23 43 0 0 7 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 92 170 1 0 28 2 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage undivided / rtT channelized? �anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 configuration LTR LTR upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 Peak-15 Minute volume 0 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? �anes 0 Configuration Movements Flow (ped/hr) �ane width (ft) walking 5peed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage S2 Left-TUrn Through S5 �eft-TUrn Through 0 0 0.91 0.91 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 NO 1 0 LTR 7 1 59 0.91 0.91 0.91 2 0 16 7 1 64 2 2 2 0 � 0 1 0 LTR estrian volumes and ,4djustment 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 0 upstream Signal oa Prog. Sat Arrival Green Flow Flow Type Time vph vph sec NO / Cycle Prog. �istance �ength Speed to Signal sec mph feet worksheet 3-�ata for Computing Effect of �elay to ►wajor Street vehicles Page 2 Page 28 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 east shore at Papaya.txt Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared ln volume, ma�or th vehicles: 170 28 shared ln volume, ma7or rt vehicles: 1 2 Sat flow rate, ma�or th vehicles: 1700 1700 sat flow rate, ma�or rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 worksheet 4-critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 L L L T R L T t(c,base) 4.1 4.1 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 t(c,g) Grade/100 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 4.1 2-stage Follow-up Time calculations Movement 1 4 L L 7.1 1.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.1 6.5 1.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.5 6.2 1.00 2 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.2 7.1 1.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.1 6.5 1.00 2 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.5 12 R 6.2 1.00 2 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.2 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 worksheet 5-Effect of upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) V(t) v(l,prot) V prog - Total saturation Flow rtate, s(vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle �ength, C (sec) ttp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 9 CQ1) 9CqZ) 9 Cq) computation 2-Proportion of lwsc intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) v(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, v(c,max) Min platooned flow, v(c,min) �uration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods pCZ) _ __ Result 0.000 Page 3 0.000 Page 29 of 45 p(5) p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single-stage movements, p(x) Process pCl) p(4) pC7) pC8) pC9) p(10) p(11) pC12) Computation 4 and 5 Single-stage Process Movement 1 L APPENDIX D Page 30 of 45 . 2015 east shore at Papaya.txt 0.000 C2) C3) Two-stage Process stage r Stage Iz 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L T R L T R v c,x 30 171 416 384 170 383 384 29 s Px V C�U,X C r,x C plat,x Two-Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel stage2 stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel stage2 v(c,x) S 1500 1500 1500 1500 P(x) V(c,u,x) c(r,x) c(plat,x) worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 170 29 Potential Capacity 874 1046 Pedestrian zmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 874 1046 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.94 Step 2: �T from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 171 30 Potential Capacity 1406 1583 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1406 1583 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.94 Maj �-shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 0.94 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 384 384 Potential capacity 550 550 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to impeding mvmnt 0.94 0.94 Page 4 __ _ APPENDIX D 2015 east shore at Papaya.txt Movement Capacity 514 514 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: �T from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 416 383 Potential Capacity 547 575 Pedestrian rmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Md�. L, Min T �mpedance factor 0.93 0.94 Ma�. L, Min T Adj. Imp FaCtor. 0.95 0.95 cap. ad�. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt 0.89 0.95 Movement Capacity 487 547 worksheet 7-computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap ,4cceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian �mpedance Factor Cap. adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian �mpedance Factor Cap. ,4dj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian impedance Factor Cap. adj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a Y C t Probability of Queue free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to �mpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - second stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor cap. ,4dj. factor due to �mpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma�. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. ,4dj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 8 384 550 1.00 0.94 514 514 1.00 7 416 547 1.00 0.93 0.95 0.89 487 Page 5 11 384 550 1.00 0.94 514 514 1.00 10 383 575 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.95 547 Page 31 of 45 APPENDIX D Page 32 of 45 • 2015 east shore at Papaya.txt Results for Two-stage process: a C t 487 547 worksheet 8-Shared �ane calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T volume (vph) 0 0 0 7 1 Movement Capacity (vph) 487 514 874 547 514 shared �ane Capacity (vph) 948 worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T C sep 487 514 874 547 514 volume 0 0 0 7 1 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n c act worksheet 10-�elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 Lane Config LTR LTR LTR c(m)p(vph) 1583 �406 � v/c 0.06 0.00 95% queue length 0.18 0.00 Control Delay 7.4 7.6 LOS A A approach Delay Approach �OS worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement p�o7� 0.94 v(il), volume for stream 2 or 5 170 v(i2), volume for stream 3 or 6 1 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 p*Co]) 0.94 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 7.4 ►v, ►vumber of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) oelay for stream 2 or 5 0.5 Page 6 948 11 LTR 72 948 0.08 0.25 9.1 A 9.1 A 12 R 64 1046 R 1046 64 Movement 5 1.00 28 2 1700 1700 1.00 7.6 1 0.0 APPENDIX D 2015 North DW at Poin.txt Hcs+: unsignalized Intersections rtelease 5.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: 7AC Agency/CO.: �ate Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: North Site DWt at Poinsettia �urisdiction: clearwater units: u. s. customary AlldlySiS Year: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC Project ID: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC on exsitng condtions EdSt/W25t Street: North DW NOrth/SOUth Stl'e2t: POi115ettid AVe. zntersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and ,4djustments Major Street: approach Northbound southbound Movement 1 2 3 � 4 5 6 L T R � L T R volume 161 90 60 40 Pedk-HOUr FdCtOr, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 174 97 65 43 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- -- -- Median Type/storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor street: approach westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 � 10 11 12 L T R � L T R volume 30 0 80 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 32 0 86 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach: Exists?/storage / No / �anes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR �elay, Queue �ength, and �evel of service ,approach ►vg SB westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 I 7 8 9 � 10 11 12 Lane Config LT � I LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 174 1483 0.12 0.40 7.7 A HCS+: unsignalized Intersections rtelease 5.2 Page 1 118 739 0.16 0.57 10.8 B 10.8 B Page 33 of 45 Phone: E-Mdil: /_\»�►1�]L'1�� 2015 North DW at Poin.txt Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSI Analyst: ]AC Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: North Sit2 DWt dt POi1152ttid 7urisdiction: Clearwater Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC Project ID: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC on exsitng condtions Edst/WeSt Street: NOI'th DW North/SOUth Street: Poinsettia Ave. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and adjustments Major street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume 161 90 60 40 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Peak-15 Minute volume 44 24 16 11 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 174 97 65 43 Percent Heavy vehicles 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration upstream signal? Minor Street Movements 0 1 LT NO 7 8 L T volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute volume HOUf'ly FIOW Rdt2, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 9 10 R L 30 0.92 8 32 Z � 1 0 TR NO 11 12 T R 0 80 0.92 0.92 0 22 0 86 2 2 0 NO / 0 1 0 LTR Pedestrian volumes and ,4djustment Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 �ane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 walking 5peed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 upstream Signal �ata Prog. sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. �istance Flow Flow Type Time �ength speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet 52 �eft-TUrn Through 55 Left-TUrn Through worksheet 3-�ata for Computing Effect of �elay to ►�tajor street vehicles Page 2 Page 34 of 45 • APPENDIX D Page 35 of 45 2015 North DW at Poin.txt Movement 2 Movement 5 5hared ln volume, ma�or th vehicles: 97 5hared ln volume, ma7or rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, ma�or th vehicles: 1700 sat flow rate, ma�or rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 worksheet 4-critical Gap and Follow-up Time calculation critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) t(c,hv) P(hv) t(c,g) Grade/100 4.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.1 6.5 6.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 2 2 0.20 0.20 0.10 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.2 2-stage Follow-up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 t(f) 2.2 worksheet 5-Effect of upstream signals 3.50 4.00 3.30 0.90 0.90 0.90 2 2 2 3.5 4.0 3.3 Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at upstream signal Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) V(t) v(l,prot) v prog Total Saturation Flow rtate, s(vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle �ength, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 9Cq1) 9Cqz) 9 Cq) Computation 2-Proportion of Twsc rntersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) alpna beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing FaCtor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, v(c,max) Min platooned flow, v(c,min) �uration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods pCz) 0.000 Result 0.000 Page 3 0.000 APPENDIX D 2015 NOrth DW dt POin.tXt p�5� 0.000 p(dom) p(subo). Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor single-stage Two-stage Process movements, p(x) Process stage i Stage II pCl) p(4) pC7) pC8) pC9) p(10) p(11) pClZ) Computation 4 and 5 single-Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R v c,x 108 531 531 86 s PX V C�U�X C f�X C plat,x Two-Stage Process 7 g 10 11 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 stagel stage2 v<c,x) S 1500 1500 P<x) V(C,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) worksheet 6-impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian zmpedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Step 2: LT from Major St. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian zmpedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. Maj �-Shared Prob Q free 5t. step 3: TH from Minor St. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt 9 1.00 1.00 4 1.00 1.00 8 1.00 0.88 Page 4 12 86 973 1.00 973 0.91 108 1483 1.00 1483 0.88 0.88 11 531 454 1.00 0.88 Page 36 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 North DW at Poin.txt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T impedance factor Ma�. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Ad7. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.88 0.90 0.82 398 1.00 10 531 509 1.00 0.88 449 worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Tuuo-stage �ap ,acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor cap. adj. factor due to �mpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian rmpedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian zmpedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity rtesult for 2 stage process: a Y C t Probability of Queue free st. Step 4: �T from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian �mpedance FdCt01' cap. ,adj. factor due to �mpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian rmpedance Factor Cap. adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - single stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma]. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Ad�. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement �apacity 1.00 0.88 �� 1.00 0.88 0.90 0.82 Page 5 531 454 1.00 0.88 398 398 1.00 10 531 509 1.00 0.88 449 Page 37 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 North DW at Poin.txt Results for Two-stage process: a Y C t 449 worksheet 8-shared �ane calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R volume (vph) 32 0 86 Movement capacity (vph) 449 398 973 Shared �ane capacity (vph) 739 worksheet 9-computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street ,approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R c sep 449 398 973 volume 32 0 86 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act worksheet 10-Delay, Queue �ength, and �evel of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 Ldlle Confi g LT v (vph) 174 c(m) (vph) 1483 v/c 0.12 95% queue length 0.40 Control Delay 7.7 LOS A approach �elay Approach �OS worksheet 11-Shared Major �T Impedance and Delay Movement 2 pCa J v(i ), volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P*(o]) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 ►v, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.88 97 0 1700 1700 0.88 7.7 1 1.0 Page 6 739 12 LTR 118 739 0.16 0.57 10.8 B 10.8 e Movement 5 1.UU Page 38 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 south DW at Poin.txt HCS+: unsignalized intersections Release 5.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY. Analyst: 7AC Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: South Sit2 DWt dt POin52ttid 7urisdiction: Clearwater Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC Project ID: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC on exsitng condtions East/West Street: South DW Exit Only NOrth/SOUth Stl'2et: POi1152ttid Av2. Intersection orientation: NS study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and Adjustments Major street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 � 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 241 140 Pedk-HOUf FdCtOt', PHF 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 261 152 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- -- -- Median 7ype/storage undivided / RT Channelized? �anes 1 1 Configuration T T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R vo�ume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared ,approach: Exists?/Storage �anes Configuration Approach Movement �ane Config v (vpn) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control oelay LOS Approach Delay Approach �OS lay, Queue �ength, and �evel NB 56 westbound 1 4 I 7 8 10 0 0.92 0.92 10 0 2 2 0 / 0 1 LTR 80 0.92 86 2 NO / 0 of Service Eastbound � 10 11 12 I LTR HCS+: unsignalized zntersections Release 5.2 Page 1 850 0.11 0.38 9.8 A 9.8 A Page 39 of 45 Phone: E-Mail: APPENDIX D 2015 south DW at Poin.txt Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: 7AC Agency/CO.: Date Performed: 6/27/14 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR �ntersection: South Sit2 DWt dt POit152ttid 7urisdiction: Clearwater Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC Project ID: 2015 FUTURE TRAFFIC on exsitng condtions East/West Street: South DW Exit Only North/South Street: Poinsettia Ave. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle volumes and ,4djustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume 241 140 Peak-HOUr Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Peak-15 Minute volume 65 38 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 261 152 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- Median Type/storage undivided / rtT channelized? Lanes 1 1 Configuration T T upstream signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 L T volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute volume Hourly FIOW Rdte, HFR Percent Heavy vehicles Percent Grade (9�) 0 Flared approach: Exists?/storage RT Channelized? �anes Configuration 9 10 11 12 R L T R 10 0 80 0.92 0.92 0.92 3 0 22 10 0 86 2 2 2 0 / No / 0 1 0 LTR Pedestrian volumes and ,4djustmen Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 �ane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 upstream signal �ata Prog. sat Arrival Green cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time �ength speed to signal vph vph sec sec mph feet 52 Left-Turn Through 55 �eft-Turn Through worksheet 3-�ata for Computing Effect of �elay to n4ajor street vehicles Page 2 Page 40 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 south DW at Poin.txt Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared ln volume, ma�or th vehicles: Shared ln volume, ma�or rt vehicles: sat flow rate, ma�or th vehicles: Sat flow rate, ma�or rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 7.1 6.5 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) Z 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,1t) 0.70 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 6.4 6.5 6.2 2-stage Follow-up Time calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f, bas t(f,HV) P(HV) t(fl 3.50 4.00 3.30 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 2 2 2 3.5 4.0 3.3 worksheet 5-Effect of upstream signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at upstream 5ignal Movement 2 Movement S v(t) V(l,prot) v(t) V(l,prot) v prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s(vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle �ength, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 9 Cq1) 9Cq2) 9CQ) Computation 2-Proportion of Twsc �ntersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 v(t) v(l,prot) v(t) v(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, v(c,max) Min platooned flow, v(c,min) �uration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p computation 3-Platoon Event Periods PC2) 0.000 Result 0.000 Page 3 0.000 Page 41 of 45 p(5) p(dom) p(subo). Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single-stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p(4) pC7) pC8) pC9) p(10) p(11) pC12) Computation 4 and 5 single-stage Process Movement 1 4 L L APPENDIX D 2015 south DW at Poin.txt 0.000 C2) (3) Two-stage Process Stage I Stage II 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R v c,x 413 413 152 s Px V C,u,x C r,x C plat,x Two-Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel stage2 Stagel stage2 stagel stage2 stagel Stage2 v�c,x) s P(x) V(C,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) 1500 1500 Worksheet 6-rmpedance and Capacity Equations 5tep 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 152 Potential Capacity 894 Pedestrian rmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 894 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.90 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free st. 1.00 1.00 Maj �-shared Prob Q free st. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 conflicting Flows 413 Potential Capacity 529 Pedestrian rmpedance Factor 1.00 1.00 cap. Adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Page 4 Page 42 of 45 /_1»��I�7►7� 2015 south ow at Poin.txt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free 5t. Step 4: LT from Minor St. conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma�. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. ad7. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 529 1.00 10 413 595 1.00 1.00 595 worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian zmpedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian �mpedance Factor cap. ,4dj. factor due to zmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a Y C t Probability of Queue free St. step 4: �T from Minor st. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian �mpedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - 5econd Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor cap. adj. factor due to rmpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - single stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Ma�. L, Min T Impedance factor Ma�. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. ad�. factor due to �mpeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 Page 5 413 529 1.00 1.00 529 529 1.00 10 413 595 1.00 1.00 595 Page 43 of 45 APPENDIX D 2015 south Dw at Poin.txt Results for Two-stage process: a C t 595 worksheet 8-Shared �ane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T volume (vph) 10 0 Movement Capacity (vph) 595 529 shared �ane Capacity (vph) 850 worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street ,4pproaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T C sep 595 529 volume 10 0 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act worksheet 10-oelay, Queue �ength, and �evel of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 �ane Config v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS ,approach �elay Approach �OS worksheet 11-shared Major LT rmpedance and �elay Movement 2 p(oJ ) 1.00 v(il), volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P�Co]) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, n►umber of major street through lanes d(rank,l) �elay for stream 2 or 5 Page 6 850 11 12 LTR 96 850 0.11 0.38 9.8 A 9.8 A 12 R 86 894 12 R 894 86 Movement 5 1.00 Page 44 of 45 APPENDIIX D PELICAN ❑ ALK PARKING GARAGE Harmelink �1Uarrant F or�n s US Customa Opposing Advancing volume veh/h volume 5% 10% 20% 30% veh/h left turns left turns left tums left tums 40-m h o eratin s eed 800 330 240 18U 160 600 410 305 225 200 400 510 380 275 245 200 640 470 350 305 100 720 515 390 340 50-m h o eratin s eed aoa 2ao 2�0 �ss �� 600 350 260 195 170 40Q 430 320 240 210 200 550 400 300 270 100 615 445 335 295 60-m h o eratin s d 8�0 230 170 125 115 600 290 210 160 140 400 365 270 200 175 200 450 330 250 215 100 505 370 275 240 6 > �, � � o� u z 0 a �°° > �� •, P�INSETTIAAVE AT NC'RT�� SITE DRIVEC AY V(1) 161 vph V(a) �-, 90 vph V(o) ' 100 vph � � � � V,� AOVANCING VOIUME (VPMI � u .. : : � � � � � A tT O A � � � _ _ � June 13, 2014 Mr. Kevin Nurnberger City of Clearwater Planning & Development 100 S Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Project Name: Appiication No.: Dear Kevin, 483 Mandalay Ave FLD2014-05013 '� �i '� M+ � = _ "�± G ' 'y <;. � � ' t�d �a '� '� .^,� ' � ° 4��'.�,�i �I�f ��'?ti!v�uuY �i'v'Ct. �..?TE �ta''� ��r�A �L. 33�s � P �3�3-379-4�a;.�:; Vt!'�1`N,TH�MAS� �I:s�!V�E�di�t::��%.:r°�.�OM We have received your comment letter dated lune 2, 2014 and have revised the construction plans accordingly. In addition, we have provided the following responses to your comments. ENGINEERING REVIEW: Prior to Communitv Development Board: 1. As per City Development Code Section 3-806 — Easements and rights-of-way, the City has the right to remove, without cost or obligation to replace or restore, any features as may be necessary to maintain the utilities located in the easement. There are parking spaces and wheel stops in the easement. Please acknowledge this in writing prior to Community Development eoard. RESPONSE: It is acknowledged that the City has the right to remove any features as may be necessary to maintain the utilities within the Utility Easement. Prior to euildinp Permit: 1. As per City Construction Standard Index No. 109 for Sidewalks, Applicant shall bring al! sub- standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. standards (raised detectable tactile surfaces or truncated domes per most recent FDOT Indexes #304 and 310J. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 2. The reclaimed wafer meter size and connection shall be shown on the civil site plans as well as the landscape plans. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. •r..�✓:Y �\i�s*r��RS - �R�aEv�' �'/�ANAc��Rs - 9 AN� Pd_A^iN�*,I=� ° ? AN�aCAP� i�r'�it+#-ti��;:T� • - s s � , �� E M G? N E E i� ! N.Ca G R C} t1 P 3. If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. Please note that the existing sanitary sewer line in the utility easement is VCP and may need to be replaced with a material approved by the Utility Department. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 4. The potable water and fire lines shall be separate taps on the water main. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 5. All sanitary sewer, potable water, fire lines, and reclaimed water details and devices shall be shown on the plans. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 6. Any connections/changes to the existing qas line shall be coordinated with the City of Clearwater Gas System. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 7. When the project comes in for building permit, the parking garage and six retail offices shall have seven different addresses on Poinsettia Avenue. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 8. Please coordinate with Nicole Allen in the Engineering Department for Beach by Design standards for sidewalk in the right of way. She can be contacted at 727-562-4747. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. Genera/ Notes: 1. Only Sheets C3-C6 of the site plans, the landscape architecture sheet, and architectural elevations were reviewed for General Engineering criteria. The additional details provided in the plan set may have been necessary for other departmental reviews to provide flexible development approvaL Construction plans shall be reviewed in more detail prior to recerpt of the buildinq permit. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 2. Any work in the Poinsettia Street right of way will require a city right of way use permit which is permitted through the Engineerinq Department. Right of way permits can be found online at http://m yc/earwater. com/gov/depts/pwa/eng/FormsApplications. asp. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 1NUliW.�HOMASEMGkNEEIRFWGGR<}U P.GO M �� e n� G� n� E E�t ! N G G R O u v ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Prior to issuance of Buildinp Permit: Provide stormwater vault specifications showing the vault provides water quality benefits and provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been signed and accepted by the owner. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 2. Continue to provide erosion control measures on plans sheet and provide notes detailing erosion control methods. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 3. If the upper floors of the parking garage will be visible from the beach, then "turtle friendly" lighting will be required. If the upper floors of the parking garage will be blocked by existing buildings, then the "turtle friendly" lighting will not be required. RESPONSE: General Note(s): 2 Comment Noted. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. Offsite discharge of produced groundwater from dewatering shall comply with dewatering guidelines from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEPJ, F.A.C. 62-621(2). RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 3. Additional permits from State agencies, such as the Southwest Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, may be required. Approval does not relieve the applicant from the requirements to obtain all other required permits and authorizations. RESPONSE: FIRE REVIEW: 2 Comment Noted. Plan shows dumpster location. Must meet the requirements of NFPA 12009 edition (FloridaJ chapter 19.2.1.4 Rubbish within Dumpsters. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Items to be addressed at building stage: Separate plans and permits for Fire Alarm, Fire Sprinkler, Fire Line Underground. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. WYrtW.TF#OMAS�AtGINEERthtGGR4UP.00 M IH�MA� £!vl Ca 3 M E E R 1 N G fi� i7 ia U P RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 3. Sheet C-6 shows proposed fire hydrant to be used for firefighting use. An additional supporting fire hydrant is required to supply the FDC. This fire hydrant shall be located within 25-50 feet, as measured along a normal access route, of the fire department connection. FDC shall be a minimum of 15' from building. Fire Department Connection shall be a 21/2 inch Siamese connection listed for such use. ACKNOWLEDGE PRlOR TO CDB. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 4. FDC shall be identified by a sign that stares "No Parking, Fire Department Connection" and shall be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage and be maintained with a clearance of 71/2 feet in front of and to the sides of appliance as per Florida Fire Prevention Code 2010 edition. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDe. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 5. Must meet requirements of NFPA 88A 2007 edition chapter 6.4 Standpipes. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 6. All underground fire lines and hydrants must be installed by a contractor with a class 1,11 or V license. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. LAND RESOURCE REVIEW: The tree removal sheet shows 50 palms being removed. The two unknown trees are invasive trees and there is no deficit for their removal. The tree removal deficit is 50 inches. The tota! deficit cannot be calculated until the proposed tree replacement is clarified. RESPONSE: The tree replacement table on the Tree Removal Plan (TR-1) has been updated. The landscape plan, sheet L1, shows 10 palms while sheet A1.1 shows 13 palms. Clarify. RESPONSE: Please note that Sheet A1.1 shows trees for reference only. Please refer to the Landscape Plan (sheet L-1), for the proposed landscaping material. Trees or palms planted in the public right-of-way may or may not count towards replacement and tree deficit. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. We understand that the palms within the Public ROW will likely not count towards replacement. WV1lYV.TFfQMASENGIMgERfNGGROk1P.GOM � � �� N L�i � N E E R i N i'.s Ca R Q l: P DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, prior to issuance of a building permit any and all performance based erosion and sedimentation control measures must be approved by Environmental and or5tormwater Engineering, be installed properly, and inspected. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. At time of building permit a tree removal permit will be required. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. PARKS AND RECREATION REVIEW: Open space impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permit or final plat (if applicableJ whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727-562-4818 to calculate the assessment. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. STORMWATER REVIEW: Prior to Buildinq Permit: 1. label and identify roof drain size, inverr, and material on paving, grading, and drainage plans. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 2. Ponds or underground storage vault/chambers are required to have 6" freeboard and 6" from SHWT. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 3. Provide cross section of underground vault. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 4. Specify and show roof drain for the proposed building/garage. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 5. Provide detail section for vault details, control structure, underdrain, etc. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 6. Provide cross section at entrance and property lines. �� E nf G+ N E E R 9 M G G R O U P RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 7. Please show existing sheet flow pattern on plans. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. Prior to Certificate of Occupancv: 1. A copy of the approved SWFWMD permit shall be provided. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 2. Prior to scheduling the final Stormwater Inspection, the Contractor shall submit a signed and sealed as-builts certifying that the stormwater system was built per design and meets all regulations. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 3. Please provide drainage easements /or connection agreement for the adjoining neighbor. To start the easement dedication process, please contact Chuck Lane at 727-562-4754 for assistance. Please show easement on plans. RESPONSE: General Comments: Comment Noted. 1. Please cloud any/al! changes on the plans before returning them for re-review. 2 3. RESPONSE: Plan revisions have been clouded on the enclosed drawings. All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how each department condition has been met. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a euilding Permit Application. RESPONSE: TRAFFIC ENG REVIEW: Comment Noted. Prior to Communitv Development Board: 1. The applicant shall furnish a traffic impact study. Prior to conducting the TIS please schedule a scoping meeting with the City's Traffic Engineering Division at (727)562-4775 for the TIS methodology. (City's Community Development Code Section 4-801 J 1AiVf�IAt.THC�MASERlGt1�iEERi1+1GGRG3f:l6�.�OM! �H�N1A� E N G i N E E R i N G G R O U P RESPONSE: Comment Noted. A TIS Methodology Letter has been submitted to the Traffic Engineering Division, and we are coordinating with staff to define the scope of the TIS. 2. On the architectural plans for all levels of the parking garage, provide turning template for a scaled passenger vehicle circulating the garage in a forward direction without encroaching onto opposing lane and/or hitting objects. (City's Community Development Code Section 3-1401) RESPONSE: The requested auto-turn passenger vehicle turning movements have been illustrated on each level of the garage. 3. On both the architectural and civil plans make a note that: the minimum clear height throughout the garage shall be seven feet zero inches and shall be eight feet tow inches for van- accessible handicapped parking spaces including ingress and egress drive aisles to these spaces. (City's Community Development Code Section 3-1402) Q 5. RESPONSE: The requested general note stating "the minimum clear height throughout the garage shall be seven feet zero inches and si►all be eight feet two inches for van-accessible handicapped parking spaces including ingress and egress drive aisles to these spaces" has been added to each Architectural Floor Plan Sheet, as well as the Site Layout Plan (sheet C-4). Applicant shall build structure on site without road closure of Poinsettia Avenue. RESPONSE: Road closures will be limited to the extent possible, but it will be necessary to close at least one lane of the road for periods of time to complete the construction of the structure. The majority of the precast erection will be completed on site. We will coordinate with the City to derive a plan for MOT to ensure that public safety is maintained throughout the duration of construction. Please explain where the existing customers and employees will park while the new building is being erected. RESPONSE: Offsite parking for construction workers, existing retail employees and customers will be negotiated prior to the commencement of construction of the parking structu re. 6. Show 20' x 20'sight visibility triangles at all driveway connections to Poinsettia Avenue. There shall be no objects in the sight triangle which do not meet the City's acceptable vertical height criteria at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade. (City's Community 7 Q Development Code, Section 3-904) RESPONSE: The requested 20' x 20' sight visibility triangles has been added to Sheet A1.1 at driveway connections to Poinsettia Avenue. Change the road designation of Poinsettia from "Street" to "Avenue". RESPONSE: Road designation has been revised on all applicable plan sheets. Show the slope (�J of the ramps, maximum speed ramp slope shall not exceed 12 percent. A ten foot long transition ramp with a s/ope equal to one-half of the change in slopes shall be 1AfW1lk.TFFE3MASrENGtAlEEIRlM.f3GR'OUP.C�M � � � � � � �?`� �"s i N£ E R i N G fi+ 7i LS Li P provided at the bottom and top of all speed ramps with a slope of ten percent or greater. (City's Community Development Codes Section 3-1402) RESPONSE: The slope of the speed ramp is 9.54% therefore the ten foot long transition ramp are not required. If parking spaces are provided on a ramp, then the slope shall be less than 6-percent. (City's Community Development Code Section 3-1402J RESPONSE: The maximum slope of the ramps with parking spaces is less than 6%. The ramps slopes have been depicted on each Architectural Floor Plan. 10. The accessible parking spaces near the elevator shall be to Ciry standard. 12' wide parking stall with 5' wide accessible aisle. (Part C Section 100, Index No. 118J http://www. m yclearwater. com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/publications/stddet/index. asp RESPONSE: Prior to Buildinq Permit: Comment Noted. Pedestrian – vehicular conflicts shall be avoided whenever possible. Where unavoidable, active warning devises such as traffic signals or flashing warning signs/devices and/or physical barriers such as vehicular actuated gates shall be provided to warn the pedestrian and slow vehicular traffic. (Community Development Code Section 3-1402.I.Z—Design standards for parking lots and parking garagesJ RESPONSE: Active pedestrian warning devices will be proposed where necessary. 2. Lighting levels in parking garages having public access shall meet or exceed the current minimum l/luminating Engineering Society (tES) standards. (Community Development Code Section 3- 1402.1.3—Design standards for parking lots and parking gprages) RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 3. All e/ectrical conduits, pipes, downspouts, columns or other features that could be subject to impact from vehicular traffic shall be protected from impact damage with pipe guards or similar measures. Measures used for protection shall not encroach into any parking space. (Community Development Code Section 3-1402.1.12—Design standards for parking lots and parking garagesJ RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 4. Provide convex mirrors where necessary to assist parked motorist's vision in blind areas such as a wall or other structures. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 5. Provide double yellow center /ane markings for two-way driveway along Poinsettia Avenue. (City's Community Development Code Section 3-1410) WWW.TMONfASENGINEERiNG�ROWP.GQM Q 7. � H O I`�1 A� E N Ca '�. I�i E E R 9 N G G R O L3 P RESPONSE: Comment Noted. Provide accessible parking stall and sign details complaint with City standards. (City's Community Development Code Section 3-1409J RESPONSE: Comment Noted. The contractor shall supply to the City of Clearwater a right-of-way permit with Maintenance of Traffic Plan for their review and approval. RESPONSE: General Note(s): Comment Noted. 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O. J. The TIF for the retail portion is $38,992.87 and no TIF for the parking garage. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submitral of a Building PermitApplication. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. PLANNING DRC COMMENTS: 1. Provide all property lines on each architectural sheet 2 3. � RESPONSE: Property lines have been depicted on each architectural Floor Plan and Elevation. Provide a detail view of the roof eaves/overhangs and provide a dimension from each eav%verhang to the property line to ensure encroachment into setbacks are permitted RESPONSE: Dimensions of roof eaves/overhangs and canopies have been depicted on the Architectural black & white building elevations. A portion of the walkway a/ong the north side of the building encroaches onto adjacent property. Revise RESPONSE: The sidewalk has been revised so as not to encroach into adjacent property. Please refer to sheet C-4. The walkway berween the shopping center and garage shows parking spaces encroaching into the walkway. Need to show a safe unobstructed width of 4 feet for ADA compliance. Clarify and Revise �� E� G�� E��t t!v G G R� tt P RESPONSE: The walkway in question provides for minimum width of 4', and additional dimensions and call-outs have been added to sheet C-4. 5. Sheet A1.1 shows a covered structure in the northwest side of the ground level with structures in a handicapped parking space and blocking travel aisle. Clarify and Revise RESPONSE: The existing tower features at the rear of Pelican Walk are to be removed. These towers have been removed from the floor plan for clarity because they will not be in place once construction commences. 6. Sheet A1.1 also shows structures encroaching in the handicapped travel aisle on the southwest side of the ground level. Clarify and revise RESPONSE: The existing tower features at the rear of Pelican Walk are to be removed. These towers have been removed from the floor plan for clarity because they will not be in place once construction commences. 7. No structures can encroach into required parking area CDC 3-1402.1.4 RESPONSE: Comment Noted. The existing tower features at the rear of Pelican Walk are to be removed. These towers have been removed from the floor plan for clarity because they will not be in place once construction commences. 8. That a Unity of Title will be required or provide recorded Unity of Title. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. The subject properties will be unified appropriately. 9. That an easement be granted for the portion of the sidewalk along Poinsettia Ave. which extends onto the subject site. RESPONSE: An easement is now being proposed over the area of sidewalk that extends onto the site. Please refer to sheet C-4. 10. Submit a Comprehensive Landscape Plan application requesting a reduction of the foundation landscape from five feet to zero feet. RESPONSE: Please find enclosed the Comprehensive Landscape Plan Application. 11. Provide a statement how landscape material provided has been added because no foundation landscape is provided. RESPONSE: Landscape material is being proposed to the north and south of the structure in the open green space areas. 12. Remove note on landscape plan and add a table that provides the actual number of species, type, name, size, and height as well as the actual square footage of greenspace area on the property. v�rwvrr.Trto�aasEn►�rn��Ertr�►�G�aouP.cona 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 �H{�MA� E N G+ f� E E i2 � N G G R 4 U P RESPONSE: Please refer to Landscape plan (sheet L-1), where a plant material list is now being provided. Recommend the use of palm trees that qualify as shade trees in public right-of-way as detailed in 3-1202.8. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. Specimen Palms are now being proposed within the ROW. Please refer to sheet L-1. Revise on all applicable Sheets Poinsettia Street to Poinsettia Avenue. RESPONSE: The plans have been updated accordingly. Show sight visibility triangles at driveway entrances and exits on site plan. RESPONSE: The requested 20' x 20' sight visibility triangles has been added to Sheet A1.1 and C-4 at driveway connections to Poinsettia Avenue. How will people pay to park? Where are locations of pay stations? Any security gates at entrance and/or exit? Potential issues with stacking of vehicles? RESPONSE: The operational details of the parking structure are currently being reviewed and negotiated. Please note that no gates are proposed on the first floor, so as not to create vehicle stacking conflicts. That site plan (Sheet C-4J proposed building area does not match proposed building area on Sheet C-3. Underground foundation support? Clarify. RESPONSE: Please note that on sheet C-3 the underground footers are shown for reference, while on sheet C-4 they are not depicted for clarity. The building area is the same on both sheets, but sheet C-4 shows the site layout at grade. A note has been added to the legend on sheet C-3 delineating the footers. 18. Sheet G4 of civil plans does not match the building footprint on Sheet A1.1. The offset on the northeast corner is shown on Sheet A1.1 but not C-4. There is proposed landscaping within the offset (SheetAl.1J but this landscaping is not shown on landscape plan (Sheet L-1J. Clarify and Revise. RESPONSE: Sheet C-4 has been updated in order to match the building footprint. 19. Sheets C-4 and L-1 show that a three foot wide green space is proposed along the street curb of Poinsettia Ave. This greenspace reduces the proposed sidewalk width from 17 feet to 14 feet. This greenspace is not shown on Sheet A1.1. Clarify on a/l applicable sheets the width of sidewa/k and revise width in narrative, if necessary. RESPONSE: The three foot wide green space buffer has been added to the Architectural Ai.l Floor Plan. �HC��'1AS E N ta � N E£ R! N i6 G R C9 U P 20. Need to ensure than civil plans match architectural plans and that building elevations match both civil plans and architectural plans as well as landscape plan. RESPONSE: All pians now match one another. 21. The west building elevation shows some arched windows/openings on Leve17 that appear to be on the east fa�ade yet no openings are shown on the east buildinq fa�ade. Clarify. RESPONSE: The west building elevation has been modified to reflect the currently proposed conditions. The majority of the west elevation (that which is 2 feet from the existing Pelican Walk retail center) is a solid Fire Wall required by FBC. The area set back towards the east has horizontal openings. 22. Show Base Flood Elevation (BFE) on al! applicable architectural plan sheets and revise building heights to reflect height taken from BFE since it is being called out in narrative (this includes on application and in narrativeJ. RESPONSE: The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) has been referenced on applicable exterior building elevations. 23. The building elevation plan show a height of 75.3 feet to parking deck but does not take the height to top of parking level wall. Clarify and Revise. RESPONSE: The height to the top of highest parking level wall has been added to the black and white building elevations. 24. The narrative states the height of the structure to be 75.3 feet in height and 64.3 feet in height from BFE. It also shows a height of 96.11 feet and 85.11 feet from BFE. Clarify. RESPONSE: The building heights depicted on the building elevations have been revised to better illustrate the building heights as referenced to the BFE. 25. The balance of the building looks awkward with the location of the elevator/stairwell towers especial/y from the east fa�ade. Possible to provide an additional tower on northeast fa�ade of buildinq? RESPONSE: The Architectural Elevations have been revised. 26. Sheet A1.1 shows the central tower to project six feet into right-of-way where Sheet A1.2 shows a projection of eight feet. This tower encroachment is not a permitted encroachment (CDC Section 3-908J. The tower encroachment needs to be scaled back to 2.3 feet to be on subject property. Revise. RESPONSE: The Architectural Elevations have been revised. Other that the roof overhangs, eaves, canopies, and awnings (all affixed to the building and not to the ground) permitted within city ordinance #8371-13 Section 3-908; All building elements are located WITHIN the site property lines. �� , ns � � � a � �G � � � u t� 27. That all utilities along Poinsettia Ave. including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable (CDC Section 3-912J. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. Coordination has commenced with all utility providers that have services along Poinsettia Ave. and we will work to provide a design that is feasible and acceptable to each of the service providers. 28. Why is no architectural mesh being provided in the garage window openinqs on the Poinsettia Avenue side? RESPONSE: Architectural mesh is being utilized within the three "artistic feature panels" towers on the east elevation and the two "artistic feature panels" on the west elevation. There is no architectural mesh proposed within the openings on the east (Poinsettia Avenue) elevation. 29. Provide a detail of proposed architectural mesh for the window openings. RESPONSE: There is no architectural mesh proposed within the window openings. 30. Provide a statement on how service yard area will be accessed by shop workers in Pelican Walk Garage and shopping center. It does not appear that there is a safe internal or clear external passage to the service yard. Clarify. RESPONSE: The service yard area has a gated entry that is accessed internal to the garage. The entry point is located so that it can be easily accessed by the proposed retail, as well as the existing Pelican Walk shopping center via the walkway along the rear of the existing building. 31. What design or type of garage door is proposed for service yard? Provide a detail. RESPONSE: The Service door proposed at the east wall of the trash compactor area is to be a solid roll down overhead door with electric operator. The door will meet the required product approvals for the site's wind and flood zone. 32. The north building elevation shows that the building length will have a large opening with clear site of service yard. Clarify. RESPONSE: The previous opening has been eliminated. The service area is now fully enclosed. 33. The service yard shall be screened from public right-of-way and adjacent property as required in CDCSection 3-201.D. RESPONSE: The previous openings on the north and south walls of the service area have been enclosed. The service area is now fully enctosed. 34. The location and visibility of electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and metersJ be shown and reviewed and, if located exterior to the burlding where visible from any street frontage, be painted the same color as the portion of the building to which such features are attached. � W1AFiAt.THfiMASEF+fGFIklEERkPiGGROtlR.CO M 35. �� : kVl v'" ! N£ E fi i N G Ca �� l5 &� RESPONSE: The final location of the electric panels, boxes and meters has not been estabtished yet and remain an ongoing conversation with Duke Energy. It is anticipated that all electric equipment will be internal and not visible from the exterior of the project. The design and finish of sidewalk and proposed street trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. RESPONSE: Comment Noted. BEACH BY DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS: Section C— Desipn Mass and Scale: C.3. No plane of a building may continue uninterrupted for greater than one hundred linear feet (100'J. For the purpose of this standard, interrupted means an offset of greater than five feet (5'). The plans show that the east building fa�ade will not comply with the above guideline. The architectural tower featur%lements that project into the public riqht-of-way are not permitted encroachments as set forth in CDC Section 3-908. It is understood that an offset may result in the loss of necessary parking spaces. Nevertheless, the elements need to be scaled back to be within the property. These architectural tower features should also be widened to increase screening of parking garage. This change will still provide three offsets of 2.3 feet rather than a minimum of two 5 foot wide offsets. The increased width of panel features will provide greater screening of the upper levels from Poinsettia Avenue. The panels on the west fa�ade should also be widened to further screen the garaqe. RESPONSE: Because the proposed east building fa�ade of the garage has a horizontal mass greater than 100' in width three thirty-four foot wide "artistic feature panels" have been recessed 12" from the surface of the structure. The intent of these features constructed of white perforated metal panels is to separate the mass of the building into components considerably smaller than the 100' maximum required by the Beach-By-Design criteria. These panels will serve as a base for colorful wispy "art" features during the day and a screen for up- lit LED lighting at night. The proposed LED lighting will be programmed with features that can vary the color, intensity and duration of the lighting display. In addition to the three "artistic feature panels" tower element have been added to each corner of the building elevation adding contrasting colors, scale, mass, and design elements. To further reduce the overall scale at the pedestrian level both colorful sloped fabric awnings and solid (building supported) cantilevered canopies have been added between the second elevated parking deck and the retail shop / restaurant storefront glazing. It is the design intent that this articulation of "artistic feature panels" with LED lighting display, corner towers, sloped fabric awnings, cantilevered canopies, cast inlay features, cast "Coral Texture" panels, and continual glazing at the pedestrian level will serve to diminish the overall mass of the structure meeting the "uninterrupted mass" concern within the development code. Although a parking garage; 65.9% of the buildings surface area has been embellished to reducing the overall perceived scale of the structure while still providing building code mandated ventilation requirements. �vv�r.��tt�nrasE��rr�E��a�r��G�rou�.ca�n �HC�M�S �N:,, H��r��vc GROUa C.3. At least sixty percent (60%) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. For the purpose of this standard, an elevation is that portion of a buildinq that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for development. Provide the actual architectural decoration percentages for each fa�ade because each is visible from ouiside the parcel. RESPONSE: The proposed design exceeds the requirements of the Beach-By-Design standard with 65.88% of "Embellished" area. Please see the attached Exhibit "B". Staff prefers that rather than use the multiple one single shutter decoration shown on the panels on the west and east facades that are approximately 50 feet in length that these shutters be designed to reflect the shutter style shown on the north and south fa�ade. The use of multiple single window style shutters will be more consistent with the design of surrounding buildings. RESPONSE: The shutters originally proposed have been eliminated. Please refer to the revised building design addressing the City Staff s concerns. Staff also prefers that architectural design elements on the Pelican Walk shopping center be added to fa�ade design. Such elements include arched windows, railings, quoin, and a colonnade. To remain consistent with the design objectives in Beach by Design the use of arched windows, railings, and a colonnade will ensure garage is consistent with the existing Pelican Walk building, appear as on structure with pelican Walk, be properly screened, and in-keeping with the character of the area. RESPONSE: Please refer to the revised building design addressing the City Staff's concerns. C.4. No more than sixty percent (60%J of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above forty five feet (45'J will be occupied by a building. Provide a calculation or detailed statement on how this guide/ine is being met. In discussions with staff it is understood that this may only be met if Pelican Walk shopping center and garage are attached. Provide the actual percentage. RESPONSE: The proposed design exceeds the requirements of the Beach-By-Design standard by utilizing only 34°Y of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above forty-five feet (45'). As discussed these calculations take into account the fact that this project is part of a unified site combining both the Pelican Walk retail project and this parking garage phase. Please see the attached Exhibit "A". C.S. The height and mass of buildings will be correlated to: (1J the dimensiona/ aspects of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. This guideline applies to this project. No response was provided. Provide a response on how the dimensional aspects of the building correlate to adjacent public space (street and sidewalk). RESPONSE: The setback along the primary facade of the project (North Mandalay) is existing and the parking structure is located 95+ feet from the west property line. f WVIfW.TFtf}MASEPlG11�1EERIMGGRC�UP.GOM ! �HCJMAS £ N G� N E E R s N G G R O U P Along the 60 foot wide right-of-way of Poinsettia Ave the setback is Zero Feet (0'). Taking into account the overall width of the right-of-way and the articulation of the street-lined landscape buffer and 14 foot wide pedestrian path adjacent to the building the building mass steps up in the vertical direction. To assist with this transition the elongated sloped fabric awnings, cantilevered canopies, and continual glazing at the pedestrian level serve to diminish the overall mass of the structure not only in the horizontal direction as described above but also in the vertical direction, addressing the intent of the Beach-By-Design development code. Please see the attached Exhibit "D" addressing the dimensional aspects of the proposed for development as it relates to the adjacent public street. Section D. Setbacks and Stepbacks: 1. Public right-of-way — required setback is 15 feet on Poinsettia; however, will provide a 17 foot wide sidewalk along Poinsettia. Sufficiently wide public realm to not provide a setback. In addition you need to clarify if the width of sidewalk is to be 14 feet wide with landscaping or 17 feet wide. As previously noted submitted plans conflict and differ in design of sidewalk. RESPONSE: The width of the proposed sidewalk along Poinsettia Ave. is 14', with a 3' wide landscape strip (for a total building setback of 17' from Poinsettia Ave). This is consistent with Beach by Design, as the public realm is sufficiently wide, and the distance from the proposed structure to Poinsettia exceeds the minimum required distance of 15'. E. Street-Level Facades: 1. Provide the actual percentage of transparency between grade and 12 feet along the Poinsettia Ave frontage. RESPONSE: The proposed design meets the requirements of the Beach-By-Design standard with 61°� of glazing below 12 feet. Please see the attached Exhibit "C". F. Parkinq Areas: When a parking garage abuts a pub/ic road or other public place, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not readily apparent except at points of ingress and egress. It is noted that the structure is a parking garage. This guideline is addressing the structure/building and not just at the street-level. As discussed in an earlier comment, this parking garage should mimic the Pelican Walk shopping center and appear one structure. Architectural elements such as arched windows, railings, quoin, and a co/onnade shou/d be added to make the garage more compatible with the design of surrounding high-rise overnight accommodation and condominium buildings. RESPONSE: The exterior of the structure has been redesigned to further articulate the proposed building elements diminishing the overall visual mass of the building. The three "artistic feature panels" located in the body of the elevation have been reinterpreted with a flowing, vibrant vocabulary plus two "corner" tower features have been added to camouflage the intent of the primary structure. Furthermore the use of elongated sloped fabric awnings, cantilevered canopies, cast inlay features, cast "Coral Texture" panels, and continual glazing at the pedestrian level are articulated such that the overall function of the building is not readily IHC�NIAYaS C �'i y � � � � � i ]� ril ri � V U P apparent except at points of ingress and egress. As stated above, 65.9% of the building's surface area has been embellished to reduce the overall perceived scale of the structure while still providing building code mandated ventilation requirements. G. Siqnaqe: Not a part of this proposal. Any future signage must comply with the requirements of the CDC. RESPONSE: H. Sidewalks: Comment Noted. Propose 17 foot wide or 14 foot wide sidewalk. Clarify. RESPONSE: The sidewalk in front of the structure will be 14' wide, with a 3' wide green space along the back of curb. l. Street Liqhtinq: None proposed on street. RESPONSE: L. Materials and Colors: There is no additional Street Lighting proposed at this time. Narrative states that the building design incorporates surrounding building colors, textures and architectura! elements. Provide a detailed response on what architectural elements, colors, and textures have been added to the porking garage from the surrounding buildings and Pelican Walk retail center. RESPONSE: In order to complement the architectural style of the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center and the adjacent Sand Pearl Resort and Belle Harbor residential buildings, the proposed Parking Structure has been designed utilizing a"Costal Contemporary" design vocabulary. Materials, details, colors and textures found on the adjacent buildings have been incorporated within this projects material palette with an emphasis of this projects relationship with the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center. The following are examples of elements incorporated: 1. The various shades of pink and white color palette from the Pelican Walk retail center has been used and expanded upon (meeting the Beach-By-Design example). 2. Roof tiles from Pelican Walk and Belle Harbor have been incorporated, 3. Louvers, brackets, and the reed inlay pattern have been incorporated from the Sand Pearl Resort. 4. Cast "Coral Texture" feature panels have been added at the base of the proposed building to emulate the coral detailing within the Pelican Walk Retail Center. 5. The glazing and window frame system match the Pelican Walk Retail Center, 6. And the proposed "Beach Shell" white concrete at the pedestrian sidewalk match that at North Mandalay. �H S tvl G� a.f E REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FLEXIBLE CRITERIA: 2 t� M A;� C R I N G G R O U P The project seeks flexibility from height requirements, front setback, and side setbacks. Provide a detailed response that discusses how the needed deviations will result in a building that improves the internal functioning of parking qarage to comply with code. RESPONSE: We are not seeking flexibility from any height or setback requirements in the Restaurant/Retail Character District as contemplated in Beach by Design. By right we are allowed a maximum building height of 100' for a parking structure that is open to the public. This district also allows for zero setbacks from both the front and sides of the property. The floor plate that has been designed is the most efficient use of the property and if we are to change this design several parking spaces will be lost in the parking garage. The current design allows for 24' drive aisles and 9' x 18' parking spaces that meet the City of Clearwater's code. We have also created a welcoming pedestrian area along Poinsettia with a 14' wide sidewalk that meets the setback requirement from the edge of pavement as required on page 69 of Beach by Design. Provide a response that states the proposed development project is consistent with the general purposes of the code in CDC Section 1-103. RESPONSE: The proposed parking garage meets the General Purposes of the Community Development Code for many reasons. This project fulfills objectives in the City's Beach by Design Plan by providing parking in the Restaurant/Retail District as contemplated in the plan. We believe that this project is a catalyst for the redevelopment of the Retail/Restaurant and Marina Districts in Beach By Design because it will relieve the parking issue that currently exists within each of the districts. Once the parking issue is resolved innovative and creative development will occur which will strengthen the City's economy and increase its tax base as a whole. 3. Need to provide a response that details how the parking garage at this location will not impede normal and orderly development of surrounding properties not just repeat words back saying that it will not impede. How will it not impede? RESPONSE: Providing a parking garage at the Pelican Walk site will not impede normal and orderly development. We believe this garage will be the catalyst for special development projects in the Restaurant/Retail and Marina Districts. The uncertainty of available parking in these districts has always been a concern for redevelopment. This project will alleviate those concerns by providing a dedicated location for public parking. Businesses will be able to inform their customers of where they can conveniently park without having to search for a space. 4. Provide a statement how surrounding properties will not be damaged or suffer a loss of business on prospective buyers if parking garage is built. RESPONSE: We believe surrounding properties will not be damaged or suffer loss of business. In fact, we believe that by providing a public parking garage in the Restaurant/Retail district, local businesses will have access to convenient abundant parking for their employees 1 H C� N! AS �� v�£�� ac ��aau a and customers. This is something that is not provided in either of these districts currently. Patrons of businesses usually circle the beach trying to find parking. 6. a. As discussed above, the garage will not impede the orderly and normal operations of adjacent properties because... RESPONSE: Providing a parking garage at the Pelican Walk site will not impede normal and orderly operations for adjacent properties. We believe this garage will be the catalyst for special development projects in the Restaurant/Retail and Marina Districts. The uncertainty of available parking in these districts has always been a concern for redevelopment. This project will alleviate those concerns by providing a dedicated location for public parking. Businesses will be able to inform their customers of where they can conveniently park without having to search for a space. c. Provide a response that discusses the scale and intensity of the building. eeach by Design contemplates a four level parking garage at Pelican Waik; however, it also allows for a larger structure based on the ability to pay for itself and the level of involvement of public/private partnership. How has the public/private partnership and timing allowed for a proposed seven level garage? How many spaces set aside for the general public/City use? RESPONSE: We believe the scale and intensity of the parking garage represent the scale of the beach redevelopment in the three Beach by Design districts surrounding the parking garage. The size of the parking garage was developed by the parking demand of the local business and beach traffic. The garage will have approximately 650 parking spaces of which 450 will be owned by the City in the future and operated as public parking. The remaining 200 spaces will serve as parking for the existing and proposed retail at Pelican Walk as well as long term parking for local businesses. d. Provide a response that states how the design of the building utilizes the recommended design elements. See comment for Beach by Design guideline C.2. RESPONSE: In order to complement the architectural style of the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center and the adjacent Sand Pearl Resort and Belle Harbor residential buildings, the proposed Parking Structure has been designed utilizing a"Costal Contemporary" design vocabulary. Materials, details, colors and textures found on the adjacent buildings have been incorporated within this project's material palette with an emphasis on this project's relationship with the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center. The following are examples of elements incorporated: 1. The various shades of pink and white color palette from the Pelican Walk retail center has been used and expanded upon (meeting the Beach-By-Design example). 2. Roof tiles from Pelican Walk and Belle Harbor have been incorporated, 3. louvers, brackets, and the reed inlay pattern have been incorporated from the Sand Pearf Resort. 4. Cast "Coral Texture" feature panels have been added at the base of the proposed building to emulate the coral detailing within the Pelican Walk Retail Center. 5. The glazing and window frame system match the Pelican Walk Retail Center, 6. And the proposed "Beach Shell" white concrete at the pedestrian sidewalk match that at North Mandalay. � wwvr.T�+cs�a,asEr��r►EE�r�u��r�our�.con� t �� e�a G!�� R+ r, G G R O u a e. Expand response. What buffers? How do the five foot setbacks provide appropriate distance between buildinqs similar to other buildings? Provide example. RESPONSE: The landscape buffer requirements between non-residential uses is a minimum 5' wide, which is accommodated in the proposed design along the north and south property lines. The proposed buffers are consistent with existing development throughout the "Retail / Restaurant" district of the beach, in fact there are several instances of existing properties that provide less than 5' separation between buildings. General Applicability Criteria: Need to specifically call out how the size and scale of the garage is consistent with scale and size of surrounding buildings rather than simply state they vary. Provide examples of height of surrounding/adjacent buildings, setbacks, and lot coverage of structures. A parking garage supports a retai! and restaurant districts, therefore, is it a typical characteristic of such areas. Is this parking garage designed to support the entire retail/restaurant district as well as the marina district to the east and various uses along the west side of Mandalay Avenue. !s the size of garage and number of parking spaces taking this into account? RESPONSE: The parking garage is consistent with surrounding structures in regards to scale, height and architectural design. In the Resort district to the west along the coast you have existing hotels and condominium projects approaching 150' in height. To the north there is an existing project 130' in height and to the east there is a proposed hotel project along the intercoastal water way that is 85' in height. The architecture has been developed to include some features from the Pelican Walk retail center as well as features from surrounding hotels and condominiums. We used a color palette similar to the Pelican Walk Retail and we used some of the reed like grass features from the Sand Pearl Hotel and Residences. As far as who and what the project is designed to accommodate as it relates to the Public parking aspect, that is a question for the City Staff to answer. They City will own and operate the 450 public parking spaces and if they want to allocate them to long term parking for businesses that will be their decision. We cannot speak to how the City will designate the parking spaces they will own. 5. Expand response that possibly discusses the need for the parking garage to support future and existing business. Call out again how parking garaqe design is consistent with surrounding buildings. RESPONSE: We believe surrounding properties will not be damaged or suffer loss of business. In fact, we believe that by providing a public parking garage in the Restaurant/Retail district, local businesses will have access to convenient abundant parking for their employees and customers. This is something that is not provided in either of these districts currently. Patrons of businesses usually circle the beach trying to find parking. 6. Provide a detailed response how acoustics/noise, fumes, and lighting, potential adverse affects, have been minimized. What design elements have been added to minimize above affects, if any? It is not asking if the desiqn complements existrng buildings. In regards to proposed lighting especially on /evel 7, lighting should be designed so that no light fixtures cast light directly on w�+tu�r.Tt�►c�n�asEr��rr►EE�rrn��Gr�ou�.conn �� N G i M E E R 3 N Cs G R f� U P adjacent or surrounding properties. Provide type of lighting fixture to be used and height of lamp posts. RESPONSE: The parking garage design is a precast structure. The garage will have a solid wall on the west elevation to prohibit noise and light pollution toward the existing hotels and residences. Along the north and south walls there will be a majority of solid wall due to the type of design, this will also minimize any light or noise pollution to the neighboring properties. The north and south walls are the major structural walls of the garage and are required to be mostly solid for various structural reasons. Along the eastern fa�ade a majority of the garage will be open air to provide meet the requirements of an open air garage as well as provide relief from the look of a solid wall. This fa�ade incorporates the use of solid concrete spandrel walls that will minimize vehicular light and noise pollution. On the 6`h elevated deck use of LED lighting with cutoff shields will be implemented to reduce light pollution toward adjacent properties. This can easily be achieved with today's modern technology in lighting. Lamp post heights will be determined when a complete analysis of the light photometrics design is completed. We believe the above responses and corresponding plan changes have adequately satisfied the comments. Should you have any questions or would like to discuss the project at any time during your review, please contact us at (813) 379-4100. Sincerely, THOMAS ENGINEE�ING GROUP Nro � cc: � Rbth, P.E., LEED AP Manager File � � � �� $ � - - . � June 13, 2014 City of Clearwater Planning & Development Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: Pelican Walk Parking Garage Flexible Development Application 483 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater Beach FLD2014-05013 Description of Request T�o�as E�v��n��v� ��c�u� 4�5{� W, KEPVNELih° BL1fC>. �UITE �C}C � � ,E� � � � . > - The subject property currently exists as surface parking serving Pelican Walk, the two-story retail building which fronts Mandalay Avenue, south of Baymont Street. The parking lot is accessed by two driveways on Poinsettia Avenue, which is a City maintained ROW. The Applicant requests Flexible Development (FLD) Site Plan Approval to convert the existing surface parking lot to a proposed multi-level parking garage structure, with first floor retail space. The parking garage will continue to serve the existing retail building on Mandalay Ave., as well as the proposed retail within the structure. In addition, the garage will also provide public parking spaces to be utilized by the City of Clearwater. The subject property which will be used for the proposed parking structure is +/-0.94 acres (41,119 square feet) and is bounded by Poinsettia Ave to the east, two-story retail to the west, the Frenchy's Cafe restaurant to the north, and parking for CVS pharmacy to the south. The site is located within the Tourist (T) District and has a Future Land Use of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The site is located within an area designated by Beach by Design as "Retail / Restaurant". Beach by Design identifies this land area between North Mandalay and Poinsettia as becoming "a retail/restaurant district in contrast to North Mandalay becoming a great retail street. Several uses including Pelican Walk, Heilemans and Eckerds front on both North Mandalay and Poinsettia, providing for an efficient and functional land use pattern. A key element of the Retail and Restaurant District strategy is the construction of a parking garage which will provide convenient parking to the District. " Specifically, the Applicant requests FLD Site Plan Approval in the T District to permit conversion of an existing surface parking lot to a multi-story parking garage with first floor retail., including: a. Lot Area of .0.94 acres (41,119 square feet); b. Maximum Building Height 75'-3" to tallest elevated deck (64'-3" above BFE) 96'-11" to decorative roof of elevator shafts / stairways (85'-11" above BFE) Front (East) Setback along Poinsettia: 0' to the building; c. Side (North) Interior Setback: 5' to the building; d. Side (South) Interior Setback: 5' to the building; e. Rear (West) Interior Setback: 0' to the building CIVi�. ENGiP'��RS - PR4JECT MANAGERS - LAND PLAtVh11NG - L.ANDSCAPE RRCHITECTa _" � 1 ,, �� , General Apnlicability Criteria 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 specific request is in harmony with the approved scale, bulk, coverage, density or character of the adjacent development. This request is to redevelop an existing, surface parking lot into a multi story parking garage with retail uses on the first floor. The parking garage will not only provide parking required by code for the existing and proposed retail uses, but will also provide public parking to be purchased by the City of Clearwater. The adjacent properties are of varying scale, bulk, coverage and density. The property north of the site is the Frenchy's Cafe restaurant. The property to the south of the site consists of a CVS Pharmacy along Mandalay Ave with a parking lot just east of the building. To the west of the proposed parking garage is a two story retail building fronting Mandalay Ave. Please refer to enclosed Beach by Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional input. 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. This proposed project will not discourage appropriate development and use of the adjacent land and buildings, because the area is already densely developed and the value of adjacent and surrounding properties will not be compromised. Rather, it fulfills the long range plan for this area of the Beach as a key element of the Retail and Restaurant District strategy is the construction of a parking garage which will provide convenient parking to the District, as stated within Beach by Design. The proposed parking garage further enhances this area of the Beach in a number of ways, including: • Providing ample parking for local businesses within the Marina and Retail / Restaurant Districts Providing replacement parking for surface parking lots that have been redeveloped or have plans to redevelop Promoting and encouraging development of the Marina District by fulfilling a great need for parking. Many lots within this district are small in nature, and cannot provide the efficient design of a parking garage as the subject site can provide. 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 structure does not impact health and safety of persons nearby and the redevelopment of the site will comply, as required, with all applicable codes including the Florida Building Code, the Life Safety Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposed parking structure will minimize traffic congestion in other areas of the Beach by providing a large number of public parking spaces in a single location. Beach visitors and tourists will now know where ample parking will be available so that they can drive straight to this � � 1 . parking garage. This will reduce traffic congestion as it will reduce the number of cars circulating streets in search of parking. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed parking garage is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity comprised of hotels, restaurants, and retail uses. The design of the proposed structure is consistent with the surrounding and nearby uses and the character of the community, providing an appropriately scaled development for the Retail / Restaurant District of Clearwater Beach. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The proposed development has been designed in order to complement the adjacent properties, while meeting the intent of the Retail / Restaurant District. Please refer to enclosed Beach by Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional input. 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. Certain deviations from Code are required to accomplish the design criteria and standards associated with Beach by Design and to maximize the use of the existing building. Please refer to enclosed Beach by Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional input. In addition, please also refer to the DRC Comment response letter dated June 13, 2014. 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 proposed parking garage meets the General Purposes of the Community Development Code (Section 1-103) far many reasons. This project fulfills objectives in the City's Beach by Design Plan by providing parking in the Restaurant/Retail District as contemplated in the plan. We believe that this project is a catalyst for the redevelopment of the RetaiURestaurant and Marina Districts in Beach By Design because it will relieve the parking issue that currently exists within each of the districts. Once the parking issue is resolved innovative and creative development will occur which will strengthen the City's economy and increase its tax base as a whole. The proposed redevelopment will provide a highly desired use which contributes to the city economy; parking garage and retail uses are allowed in the "Resort Facilities High" land use category and are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Beach by Design. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals/Policies/Objectives include but are not limited to: A.6.6 Objective - Tourism is a substantial element of the City's economic base and as such the City shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important economic sector. y� � l xYF ` *' _ Beach by Design identifies this land area between North Mandalay and Poinsettia as becoming "a retail/restaurant district in contrast to North Mandalay becoming a great retail street. Several uses including Pelican Walk, Heilemans and Eckerds .f-ont on both North Mandalay and Poinsettia, providing for an efficient and functional land use pattern. A kev element of the Retail and Restaurant District strate,�y is the construction of a parkin��ge which will provide convenient parking to the District. " 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The proposed re-development is compatible with the neighborhood, and will not impede other development. The proposed redevelopment project will benefit the community as a whole and this district. Providing a parking garage at the Pelican Walk site will not impede normal and orderly development. We believe this garage will be the catalyst for special development projects in the Restaurant/Retail and Marina Districts. The uncertainty of available parking in these districts has always been a concern for redevelopment. This project will alleviate those concerns by providing a dedicated location for public parking. Businesses will be able to inform their customers of where they can conveniently park without having to search for a space. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of this proposal. The proposed parking garage and retail uses are allowable uses within the District, and the need for a parking garage is specifically called for within Beach by Design. We believe surrounding properties will not be damaged or suffer loss of business. In fact, we believe that by providing a public parking garage in the Restaurant/Retail district, local businesses will have access to convenient abundant parking for their employees and customers. This is something that is not provided in either of these districts currently. Patrons of businesses usually circle the beach trying to iind parking. Through the proposed improvements, together with the new retail it is anticipated the proposed development will have a positive effect on the surrounding land values, tax base and tourism. 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 fotlowing 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 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 0 � � -. The "Resort Facility High" land use category and the "Tourist" zoning district both permit uses proposed by this development; the district allows parking garage and retail uses as a minimum standard and flexible standard use. The proposed parking garage fills the need for more parking spaces that have been lost or will be lost die to redevelopment in the Marina District. This project will help encourage redevelopment of the Retail / Restaurant District and the surrounding area by providing public parking for future uses. In addition the proposed parking garage will boost beach visitor and tourist base by providing significant increase in public parking in a single location. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height, and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; Parking garage and retail uses are permitted in the Tourist (T) zoning district without special approval. As the surrounding properties are made up of restaurants, retail, high rise condominiums and hotels the proposed uses will not impede normal and orderly development and improvements of the surrounding properties. Providing a parking garage at the Pelican Walk site will not impede normal and orderly development. We believe this garage will be the catalyst for special development projects in the Restaurant/Retail and Marina Districts. The uncertainty of available parking in these districts has always been a concern for redevelopment. This project will alleviate those concerns by providing a dedicated location for public parking. Businesses will be able to inform their customers of where they can conveniently park without having to search for a space. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; Through appropriate site and architectural design the proposed re-development complies with the design guidelines contained within Beach by Design as described below. c. The design, scale, and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; We believe the scale and intensity of the parking garage represent the scale of the beach redevelopment in the three Beach by Design districts surrounding the parking garage. The size of the parking garage was developed by the parking demand of the local business and beach traffic. The garage will have approximately 650 parking spaces of which 450 will be owned by the City in the future and operated as public parking. The remaining 200 spaces will serve as parking for the existing and proposed retail at Pelican Walk as well as long term parking for local businesses. Please refer to enclosed Beach by Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional input. ,; � � ' �rr d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: • Changes in horizontal building planes • Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc. • Variety of materials and colors • Distinctive fenestration patterns • Building stepbacks; and • Distinctive roof forms In order to complement the architectural style of the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center and the adjacent Sand Pearl Resort and Belle Harbor residential buildings, the proposed Parking Structure has been designed utilizing a"Costal Contemporary" design vocabulary. Materials, details, colors and textures found on the adjacent buildings have been incorporated within this project's material palette with an emphasis on this project's relationship with the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center. The following are examples of elements incorporated: 1. The various shades of pink and white color palette from the Pelican Walk retail center has been used and expanded upon (meeting the Beach-By-Design example). 2. Roof tiles from Pelican Walk and Belle Harbor have been incorporated, 3. Louvers, brackets, and the reed inlay pattern have been incorporated from the Sand Pearl Resort. 4. Cast "Coral Texture" feature panels have been added at the base of the proposed building to emulate the coral detailing within the Pelican Walk Retail Center. 5. The glazing and window frame system match the Pelican Walk Retail Center, 6. And the proposed "Beach Shell" white concrete at the pedestrian sidewalk match that at North Mandalay. Please refer to enclosed Beach by Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional input. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhances landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposed buffers and setbacks provide appropriate buffering and distances between buildings, similar to adjacent and surrounding developments. The landscape buffer requirements between non-residential uses is a minimum 5' wide, which is accommodated in the proposed design along the north and south property lines. The proposed buffers are consistent with existing development throughout the "Retail / Restaurant" district of the beach, in fact there are several instances of existing properties that provide less than 5' separation between buildings. Beach bv Design The design is respectful of the architectural vocabulary within Beach by Design and the community character; the building is in scale to its height and length and offers the desired elements of step-backs, balconies, changes in plane, massing and floor plates. Please see enclosed Design Narrative prepared by Fisher and Associates, LLC for additional illustrative evidence of compliance with the Design Guidelines contained within Beach by Design. WWW.THC}MASEAIGINEERINGGt2dUP.C4M ,t �T _�� I� _'� .�.� �'�..r�� '�� _ ■ ■ _�`"►+. e ican a ar i n ru Clearwater "Beach by Design" Design Narrative (Revised 6/13/14) ' I '] "Beach by Design" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Design Narrative Design Guideline Requirements C. t3esign, Scale ar�d Mass of Buildings No particular architectural style is prescribed. However, good architecture, from a community character perspective, comes in all shapes and styles. There is, however, in every community an established vocabulary of the "good," the °bad,° and the "ugty: ` New buildings should respect this vocabu(ary and enhance the communify character wherever possible. The more daring the design, the more sensitive the particular architecture is to failure. Quantifiable aspects of the architectural vocabulary are: 1. Buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet or a single dimension of greater than one hundred (100) feet will be constructed so that no more than two (2) of the three (3) building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. ....... 2. No plane of a building may continue uninterrupted for greater than one hundred linear feet (100'). For the purpose of this standard, interrupted means an offset of greater than five feet (5'). �'�� °�F1sh�r and Associates, L�c '' �/ Architects ( Planners �[nterior Designers � LEED Professionals 1 `�:,f� .AA26001 �38 Proposed Solution Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings In order to complement the architectural style of the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center, the adjacent Sandpearl Resort, and Belle Harbor residential buildings; the proposed Parking Structure has been designed utilizing a"Costal Contemporary" design vocabulary. Following Urban Planning Best Practices the garage has been placed behind the two-story Pelican Walk Retail Center; similar to the Mizner Park development in Boca Raton (an example used within the development guidelines) allowing the existing two-story retail arcade to serve as a buffer between the pedestrian way along the project's primary facade at North Mandalay Boulevard, to reduce the perceived scale of the project. Pedestrian access to the parking garage along the primary North Mandalay facade is gained through two existing portals that lead directly to the parking structure on the first and second levels. Vehicular access to the parking structure is gained from Poinsettia Avenue via two entry drives positioned on each side of street level retail shops. The placement of the vehicular entries at Poinsettia Ave allows ALL traffic leading to and traveling from the parking structure to travel directly to the Beach Roundabout via Poinsettia Avenue and away for the heavily traveled North Mandalay Boulevard. Addressing the "Quantifiable Aspects" of the architectural vocabulary (Section C of the Development Guidelines) 1. The proposed garage has a footprint greater than 5,000 sf therefor no more than two (2) of the three (3) building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The width along North Mandalay and Poinsettia is 322 feet, the depth in the east/west direction is 110 feet and, the height to the tallest elevated deck is 75 feet 3 inches. (See exhibit on next page). 2. Because the proposed east building fa�ade of the garage has a horizontal dimension greater than 100' in width, three (3) thirty- four foot wide "artistic feature panels" have been recessed 12" from the surface of the structure. The intent of these perforated metal panel structures is to separate the mass of the building into components considerably smaller than the 100' maximum required by the Beach-By-Design criteria. These panels serve as a base for colorful "art" wave features during the day and a screen for up-lit LED lighting at night. The proposed LED lighting is programed vary the color, intensity and duration of the lighting display. This kinetic art adds a significant impact to the structure's fa�ade. In addition to the three "artistic feature panels", a tower element has been added to each corner of the east building elevation (Poinsettia Ave) adding contrasting colors, scale, mass, and design elements. To further reduce the overall scale at the pedestrian level: both colorful sloped fabric awnings and solid (building supported) cantilevered canopies have been added between the second elevated parking deck and the retail shop / restaurant storefront glazing. The design intent is that through incorporating of "artistic feature panels" with LED lighting display, corner towers, sloped fabric awnings, cantilevered canopies, cast decorative "sea grass" pattern inlay features, cast "Coral Texture" panels, and continual glazing at the pedestrian level diminishes the overatl mass of the structure meeting the "uninterrupted mass" concern stated within the development code. Although a parking garage; 65.9% of the buildings surface area has been embellished to reduce the perceived scale of the structure, while still providing Florida Building Code mandated ventilation requirements (See exhibit on next page). Page 2 of 16 � '. ; "Beach by Design" - Pelican Walk Parkin Structure Design Narrative Massing Study from Northeast (looking southwest) Illustrating design elements greater than 15' in width have been incorporated to the design so that no plane of the building has an uninterrupted surface greater than 100 linear feet. , � �`; Fisher and Assaciates, L�,c �; Architects � Planners � Interior Designers � LEED Professionals 1l _., i' AA26lIGIl38 I Massing Study from Northwest (looking southeast) Illustrating design elements greater than 15' in width have been incorporated to the design so that no plane of the building has an uninterrupted surface greater than 100 linear feet. Page 3 of 16 �[ r, "Beach by Design" - Pelican Walk Parkin Design Guideline Requirements C. Desigr�, Sca1e and Mass of Buildings (Continued from previous page) 3. At least sixty percent (60%) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. 4. No more than sixty percent (60%) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above forty-five feet (45') will be occupied by a building. ... ...... 5. The height and mass of buildings will be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacentpublic spaces such as streets and parks. 6. Buildings may be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permitted uses. , � �'� Fisher and Associates, LLc ,�,, Arch�tects � Plann�rs � Interior Desi�ners ( LEED Professionats �.., �-� AA2bD01738 11r Proposed Solution Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings Structure Design Narrative 3. The proposed design exceeds the requirements of the Beach-By-Design standard with 65.88% of "Embellished" area. Please see the attached Exhibit "B". To meet the requirement of a minimum of at least sixty percent (60%) of any elevation be covered with windows or architectural decoration the following embellishments have been incorporated within the design of the exterior of the building: A. (Three) thirty-four foot wide "artistic feature panels" with lighting have been incorporated on the east elevation and two thirty- four foot wide "artistic feature panels" without lighting have been integrated within the west elevation. B. Architectural towers have been added to the north, east, south and west elevations. C. Glazing currently exists within the Pelican Walk Retail Center at the first two levels meeting the glazing requirements along Mandalay. D. Glazing has been added at the first floor adjacent to Poinsettia within the first floor retail liner shops and restaurants. E. "Sea Grass" pattern accent features have been inlayed into the precast concrete panels. These areas will receive accent F G W painting. Cast "Coral Texture" feature panels have been added at the base of the proposed building to emulate the coral detailing within the Pelican Walk Retail Center. The stair towers have been embellished and additional louvers and architectural features have been incorporated within the design on the north and south (side) elevations. Colorful sloped fabric awnings and solid (building supported) cantilevered canopies have been added between the second elevated parking deck and the retail shop / restaurant storefront glazing along the Poinsettia Ave (east) promenade. 4. The 75 foot 3 inch tall structure as measured from finished grade to the top of the tallest parking deck surface (69'-6" above BFE) represents 34% of theoretical maximum building envelope as required by Section C.4. See attached Exhibit "A" and the end of this narrative. 5. The setback along the primary facade of the project (North Mandalay) is existing and the parking structure is located 95+ feet from the west property line. Along the 60 foot wide right-of-way of Poinsettia Ave the setback is zero feet (0'). Taking into account the overall width of the right-of-way, the articulation of the street-lined landscape buffer, and 14 foot wide pedestrian path adjacent to the building the building mass steps up in the vertical direction. To assist with this transition, elongated sloped fabric awnings, cantilevered canopies, and continual glazing at the pedestrian level serve to diminish the overall mass of the structure, not only in the horizontal direction as described above, but also in the vertical direction. This addresses the intent of the Beach-By-Design development code. Please see the attached Exhibit "D" addressing the dimensional aspects of the proposed for development, as it relates to the adjacent public street. 6. The building as proposed has been designed with a vertical mix of permitted uses with retail shops, restaurants, and support services on the ground floor and parking on the elevated decks. Page 4 of 16 . '� "Beach by Design" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Design Narrative Street Perspective from Southwest on Mandalay Ave. (looking northeast) Street Perspective from Northwest on Mandalay Ave. (looking southeast) -.� 4`a Fisher and Associates, LLc � Architects � Planners � Interior Designers � LEED Professionals _ -;%'� AA26(i01738 11� .___ —..-- ,,,,,.�_ � - °,� '�.-. �c--....i- -- :�_ -__ -''''�► y-�---- �---- �.,._- P--- '�' ��'� __.----- �/ . �' -~-----_.__ �e 5 of 16 - - Dp�ic . ��.��-.� .� � l i �' � �� I ^ � � � .. . • °i�I'�j I 1�1� ' 'I�,�. �.,, ... �. r,aa n■ �. , ,�i - k+��_ � ,, �,,y�� '+ ....«� < :��— 11��►/1!f��i�► ,� ,,,.:� �� ,,��,.��;�._ �� i��rri � � u�+�a �i� � I p f11111i1Itll� I �11�1��II'��,t; • �' : r. � r,�. i, �„�E,e �� H'� �11i�i' , , , � �I _ f �;;,■ ��i� ' � ' � ��. "Beach bv Desiqn" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Design Narrative . -' �-� �� Fisher and Assoclates, LLc �`��, �!'� ;' Architects � Planners � Interior Designers � LEED Professionals 11' �._ r� AA361101738 Street View Perspective of Poinsettia Ave and South Elevation View from southeast (looking northwest) Page 7 of 16 "Beach by Design" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Design Narrative Design Guideline Requirements D, Se#backs and Step-backs 1. Rights-of-way. The area between the building and the edge of the pavement as existing and planned should be sufficiently wide to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. The distances from structures to the edge of the right-of-way should be: a. Fifteen feet (15') along arterials b. Twelve feet (12') along local streets. A ten foot (10') pedestrian path is key to establishing a pedestrian-friendly place in the non-residential environment. Accordingly, arcades may be'constructed in the public space, but may not narrow the pedestrian path to less than ten feet (10'). Decorative awnings and arcades and public balconies may extend into the public space, and even into ,the right-of-way (provided they do not obstruct vehicular traffic). Outdoor cafe tables are also permitted in the public space, subject to #he requirements in Section H, Sidewalks. 2. Side and Rear Setbacks Side and rear setbacks shall be governed by the; provisions of the Tourist District of the Community Development Code untess otherwise prescribed in the applicable Character District provisions contained in Section II., Future Land Use. '- `,Fisher and Associates, LLc ,� i' Architects ( Planners � Interior Designers � LEED Professionals 11 � __ �; .aA2�o»3� Proposed Solution Setbacks and Step-backs D.1 The setback along the primary facade of the project (North Mandalay) is existing and the parking structure is located 95+ feet from the west property line. As elaborated upon within C.5 above, the proposed setback along the 60 foot wide Poinsettia Ave right- of-way is zero feet (0'). To foster a"Pedestrian Friendly" building edge along Poinsettia, a street- lined landscape buffer and partially covered 14 foot wide pedestrian path has been planned adjacent to the building. To assist with the vertical transition of the pedestrian space, elongated sloped fabric awnings, cantilevered canopies, and continual glazing at the pedestrian level have been incorporated to diminish the perceived overall mass of the structure. Please see the street section to the right addressing the dimensional aspects of the proposed streetscape for development as it relates to the adjacent public street. D.2 There is no rear setback for this project; only a separation between two adjoining buildings with common ownership. The side setbacks are a minimum of five (5) feet and increase as the property lines angle away from the building. Street Section at Poinsettia Ave Right-of-Way �E ,�T�c .�� casT Page 9 of 17 "Beach by Design" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Design Narrative Design Guideline Requirements E. Street-Level Facades The hurnan scale and aesthetic appeal of street-level facades, and their relationship to the sidewalk, are essential to a pedestrian-friendly environment. Accordingly: 1. At least sixty percent (60%) of the street level facades of buildings used for nonresidential purposes which abut a public street or pedestrian access way, wil! be transparent. For the purpose of this standard: a) Street level facade means that portion of a building facade from ground level to a height of twelve feet (12') b) Transparent means windows or doors that allow pedestrians to see into: i. the building, or ii. landscaped or hardscaped courtyard or plazas, where street ievel facades are set back at least fifteen feet (15`) from the edge of the sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the facade is a landscaped or hardscaped courtyard or plaza c) Parking structures should utilize architectural details and design elements such a false recessed windows, arches, planter boxes, metal grillwark, etc. instead of transparent alternatives. Wheri a parking garage abuts a public road or otherpublic place, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not`readily apparent ex�ept at points of;ingress and egress. _ ,'��,,�, ``�,Fisher and Associates, LLc �`' Arcnitects � Planners �[nterior Desi�ners � LEED Professionals 1 li �\ _ � ' AA�boa»3s Proposed Solution Pedestrian-friendly environment: E.1 North Mandalay Ave Street Level Facades To foster a"pedestrian-friendly environment", along the projects primary elevation the parking structure has been positioned behind the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center and away from North Mandalay Ave. The west elevation (Mandalay) of the existing retail center is lined with storefront glazing and pedestrian promenades. Access to the garage from North Mandalay Ave will be through two existing portals that lead directly to the parking structure on the first and second levels. Although outside of the view of most pedestrians walking along Mandalay, the west surface of the parking structure above the existing Mandalay Pelican Walk retail building features two (2) vertical "artistic feature panels" surFace mounted to the meeting. E.1 Poinsettia Ave Street Level Facades The Street level along Poinsettia Ave features 216 lineal feet of transparent glazing and storefront doors leading to the first floor retail shops facing Poinsettia representing more than sixty percent (61 %) of the street level faCade (See Exhibit "C"). In addition to partially conceal the parking garage as required within Section E.1.0 of the Development Code the following features have been incorporated within the design of the Poinsettia facade: A. Three types of architectural tower features have been added and incorporate the following features: The three primary (center) "artistic feature panels" recessed 12" from the surface of the structure serve as a base for colorful "art" wave features during the day and a screen for up-lit LED lighting at night. The proposed LED lighting is programed vary the color, intensity and duration of the lighting display. This kinetic art adds a significant impact to the structure's fa�ade. Page 9 of 16 "Beach b Desi n" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Desi y g 2. The two Stair Towers feature vertical reveal panels with an etched decorative "sea grass" pattern, an etched cornice frieze, ornamental louvers at the top, aluminum support brackets at the eave, and a sloped tile roof. 3. The secondary tower added to the northeast corner features vertical "punched" openings with metal frames, etched decorative "sea grass" reveals at the cornice frieze, and capped by an ornamental cornice (crown molding). B. Accent features have been inlayed into the precast concrete panels. These areas have been highlighted with accent painting. C. Glazing exists within the Pelican Walk Retail Center at the first two levels meeting the glazing requirements along D E. F. G Mandalay. Glazing has been added at the first floor adjacent to Poinsettia within the first floor retail liner shops. Accent features have been inlayed into the precast concrete panels. These areas will receive accent painting. Cast "Coral Texture" feature panels have been added at the base of the proposed building to emulate the coral detailing found on the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center. Colorful sloped fabric awnings and solid (building supported) cantilevered canopies have been added between the second elevated parking deck and the retail shop / restaurant storefront glazing along the Poinsettia Ave (east) promenade. � '� Fisher and Associates, LLc �. � Architects � Planners � lnterior Designers � LEED Professionals � � .9AIb01/1738 Stair Tower n Narrative Secondary Tower (North side of the east elevation) Page 10 of 16 "Beach b Desi n" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Design Narrative Y J Design Guideline Requirements E. Street-Level Facades (Continued from previous page) 1. Window coverings, and other opaque materials may cover ' no more than 10% of the area of any street-level window in a nonresidential building that fronts on a public right-of-way. 2. Building entrances should be aesthetically inviting and easily identified. Goods for sale will not be displayed ' outside of a building, except as a permitted temporary use. This standard does not apply to outdoor food service establishments. 3. Awnings and other structures that offer pedestrians cover from the elements are recommended. Awnings help define ' entryways and provide storefront identity to both pedestrians and drivers. Proposed Solution Pedestrian-friendly environment: (Continued from previous page) H. The stair towers have be embellished and additional louvers and architectural features have been incorporated within these tower elements. ' I. A six foot (6') wide canopy and colorful elongated sloped fabric awnings has been extended out above the sidewalk to provide shading for the storefront windows, provide relief and cover from the weather, and break up the overall scale of the ' structure from the pedestrian point of view. ' \�` Fisher and Associates, LLc _ � � � Architects � Planners � Interior Designers ( LEED Professionals 1 � ' a.a �6�0� �3x • "Artistic feature panels" with LED lighting display. • Decorative "sea grass" pattern inlayed in precast panels with accent paint color. • Colorful elongated sloped fabric awnings. • 6' wide canopy above sidewalk. • 60% of the street level facade has glazing. • Streetscape plantings. � Detail of Poinsettia Ave Street Level Pedestrian Facades Page 11 of 16 "Beach b Desi n" - Pelican Walk Parkin Structure Design Narrative Y J g S n� � �� { i;t... '�-$ . � � `Fisher and Associates, LLc �r, � Architects � Planners � Interior Designers � LEED Professionals 11 , ` a.a ��o»�x f � Street View Perspective at Poinsettia Ave Pedestrian Way ��I�•. 4 ,y »�iii� ..d . ":.0 :''�«. . � � .+i«..3..,� �ii $ C" 14�r � v.� .wL.r� 3 ,. � %r .....ri�w� � °St �< . ;+,: ,Y' lM ` . �.. #��x , t . � '•�` �` s'`', . � , ^ry , { q �,`;x, ;ri � 1 � �` � i� �,1 �;;� h�E � �,3� . ' a� w '`.., �f `� �:�d ., / -��.,��,4 � ,'. ;,"'.,k �,� � � z:. , °�' K �•p �. �� ':` a� �z �~-i. Page 12 of 16 "Beach by Design" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Design Narrative Desiqn Guideline Reauirements F. Parking Areas To create a well-defined and aesthetically appealing street boundary, all parking areas wi[I be separated from public rights ofi way by a landscaped decorative wall, fenr�: or oi�er opaque landsc,ape trea#ment of not less than three #eet (3'j aRd no# m�re than three and one-haif feet (3'!') in height. Surface parking areas tl�at are visibl� #rom public streets or o#her public pta�es wiH be landscaped such that the park'rng areas ere defined more by their landscaping materials than thei� p�ved areas wvh�:n viewed ftom adjacent property. The use of s�de tress is encouraged in parking lots. Hc�wever, care should be taken to choc�s� trees that do not drop e�rcessive amounts of leaves, flowers, cu seeds on ihe vehicles belornr. Entrances #o parking ar�as should be clearly mark+ed ir� order to avoid confusion and minimize automobile-pedesirian conflic#s. Attrac#ive signage and changes to the #exture of #he road (such as pavers) are recommendeci When a parking garage abuts a pubtic road or other pUbiic place, it witi be designed such that the function of the building is not readily apparent excep# at points of ingress and egress. G. Signage Signage is an 'rmportant cflntribut�r #o the averati character c►f a piace. How�v�, :fe�r general tul�s apply to signag�. G�n�raNy, signage sh<na�d be creat�r�a, ur�iquc, s�mpie, and discrete. Blade signs, ban�ers aryd sa�dwich b��td� sh�u}� not be discvuraged, but signs p1aced on the sidevualk shc�uld n4t obst�rc# pedes#rian t�affic. H. Sidewalks Side�rai�s along artsrials and retail streets shs�uld be at lea�t ten #e�t (i �') in width. RII sidewaNcs along arterials and retaii streets vv�ll be landscap�d �rit�h palm tree�, spaced to a rn�ac�mum o# th�r-five feet (35') t�n cen#�s, wi#h "ctear gr�y" crf not less th� aig�t feet �8'). Acceptabie pa#m trees incl�de sabal p�alt�s {s�ir�# ��trne#to), t�edjool palms iF�#toenix dactyti#e�a `�ned�'), a� canar�r isl�nd da� palrns (Pht�enix can�risnsis). Sidewalks aiong side s�rr:ets wi11 be I�r�dscaped wi�h palms (�lear trunk o# nfl# less than eight feet ($'i) or s�ad� #re�s, space�i �# rna�murn intervals b# thirty-�ve feet (35`) s� cer�#�ers. Pt�rt+or�s tr# requ�red sidewaf�CS may be improved #vr noit-ped�stria�n pu�ses iruc�udirrg t�td�ar diraing and i�ndsca�e materiai, �rovidect t�at: t. m��rr�+�ni �# �redestrians als�r�g #h� s�dev�+aik �s rrcrt ctibstrra�d; �nd 2. Non-�redesbiar� irr�pravemen#s �nd us�s are #flcated c�n t�e st�+e�t sid� c� th� �i�ewatk. t3istincti�e paving patt�rras shot�ld be used to separats �rermanettt �d+�nralk c� im��er�#s frvm fihe ped�strian space t>ra the sideva��k, Tt� er�#a�r�c+e p�stri� safe#y and ca�m traffic, distinctive paving shc�wl�l aisd � us� fi� rn�rk �ros�wa�ks. ' � `� Fisher and Assaciates, L�,c �. �' Architects � Planners � Int�rior Designers ( LEEQ Professionals 1 :%'� AA264p7738 1: Proposed Solution F. Parking Areas All parking areas are internal to the project and hidden by retail shops on the east and west right-of-ways. 2 The entry drives along Poinsettia Ave are to be clearly delineated with color concrete drive surfaces to avoid confusion and minimize conflicts between automobiles and pedestrians. The texture of the concrete drive will be broom finish concrete, which contrasts the "Beach Shell" concrete finish at the pedestrian sidewalk. 3 To conceal the use of the garage from North Mandalay and Poinsettia Avenue, retail shops have been located adjacent to the property-line between parking spaces and pedestrian circulation on the public rights of way. Upper floors of the structure have been articulated to incorporate those screening techniques recommended within the "Beach by Design" guidelines. G. Signage Signage is not included as part of this submittal. H. Sidewalks The existing sidewalks along North Mandalay are 13'-7"+ in width, tree lined with palm trees, and textured meeting the "Beach by Design" guidelines. The proposed sidewalk at Poinsettia Ave is 14 feet wide with an additional three foot landscape buffer with "Street Trees" along the street edge in accordance with the requirements of the "Beach by Design" guidelines. 2 It is anticipated that a portion of the retail area facing Poinsettia Ave will be occupied by restaurants. Once established, it is expected that these restaurants will incorporate outdoor "sidewalk" dining and landscape material, with the knowledge that these areas not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along the sidewalk and that these improvements and uses will be located on the street side of the sidewalk. 3 As stated within the F.2 narrative above the two entry drives along Poinsettia Ave will be clearly delineated with color concrete drive surfaces to avoid confusion and minimize conflicts bstween automobiles and pedestrians. The texture of the concrete drive will be broom finish concrete with a color complementary to the esthetics of the building, which contrasts the "Beach Shell" white concrete finish at the pedestrian sidewalk. Page 13 of 16 "Beach by Design" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Design Narrative Design Guideline Requirements I. Street Furniture and Bicycfe Racks Stree# furniture, including benc�es and trash receptacles sMould be liberally placed along the sidewalks, a# intervals no greater thar� thirty linear #eet (30') ofi sidewalk. Bicycle racks shou�d also be provided, especially near papular destina#ions, to prarno#e .iransporta�ior� alt�rnatives. Gtxr►plicated bicycle rack systems shauld be avoided. The placement of street furnituce and bicycle racks should not interrt�pt pedestrian traffic on tMe s�dewalk. J. Street Lighting Stres# light'rng should respc�nd to #he pedestrian-oriented nature of a tourist destination. in this conte�, � sMould balance the ftrnc#iona! with the aftractive - providing adequate light to,vehicular traffic, while simultaneQUSly creating infima#e spaces along the sidewakks. Clearwater's historic lighfing is an attractnre, single-globi� fixture atop a cast-iron paie. K. Fountains (Not Applicable at this project) L. Materials and Colors 1. F�cades Finish mat�ls and buildir�g colors witl reflect Florida or Coastal vemacu��r themes. A1i awnings sht�uld contain at least three (3) distinct cob�s. Br'tghi culors wi[I be limit�d to trirras and oth�r accents. �Class curtain walls �re ptc�hibit�d. 2. Sicleuvatks Side�nralks will be construc�ed o#: a. Pavers; b. Patterr�d, tiist�essed, or special aggregate ctmcrete; or c. t)tt��r finist�esi #rea�en# thai disting�ri�Mes tit� �id�nr�kks from iypicai suburb�r� t�r�crete sid�n+�a�ks. Materiats stacufld be c�tflsen tt� minimize the c:�st and camplexi#y of mainten�nc;e. 3. Stteet Furnit�re Stree# �umi#�re wili be cc�nstructed of low-mainier�an�e materials, an�l wiiJ b� irt a r.�i�r that is cc�mpa#ible varith its su��und�n�s. 4. Colc�r Pa#et� A r`�+arr�r��c�d p�lef�e fiar buikiir�� coiors is presented on tfie t�liowirrg p�9�� ;'��Fisher and Associates, LLc ,� Architects � Planners � Interior Designers � LEED Professionals 1 � "� AA2b001 l3& Proposed Solution I. Street Furniture and Bicycle Racks There is no additional street furniture proposed within the development at this time. Once the location of the anticipated restaurants have been identified they will incorporate appropriate outdoor street furniture which would include: waist receptacles, benches, and bistro tables with umbrellas on the sidewalk adjacent to the restaurant spaces. J. Street Lighting There is no new "street lighting" proposed within this development. Lighting to illuminate the pedestrian sidewalk will be provided utilizing wall mounted light fixtures mounted on the proposed building. K. Fountains There are no fountains proposed within this development. L. Materials and Colors 1. Facades In order to complement the architectural style of the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center and the adjacent Sandpearl Resort and Belle Harbor residential buildings, the proposed Parking Structure has been designed utilizing a"Costal Contemporary" design vocabulary. Materials, details, colors and textures found on the adjacent buildings have been incorporated within this project's material palette with an emphasis on the relationship with the existing Pelican Walk Retail Center. The following are examples of elements incorporated: 1. The various shades of pink and white in the color palette from the Pelican Walk Retail Center have been used and expanded upon (meeting the Beach-By-Design example). 2. Roof tiles from Pelican Walk and Belle Harbor have been incorporated. 3. Louvers, brackets, and the reed inlay pattern have been incorporated from the Sandpearl Resort. 4. Cast "Coral Texture" feature panels have been added at the base of the proposed building to emulate the coral detailing found within the Pelican Walk Retail Center. 5. The glazing and window frame system match the Pelican Walk Retail Center. 6. The proposed "Beach Shell" white concrete at the pedestrian sidewalk match that at North Mandalay. There is no glass curtain wall utilized within the projects design other than the transparent retail storefront on the first floor at Poinsettia Ave. Page 14 of 16 "Beach by Design" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Design Narrative Design Guideline Requirements L. Materials and Colors 2. S+dewaiks Sidew�iics will be consteuct�.t� ofi: a. Pavers; b. Pa#terned, distressed, or speciai aggregate concrete; or c. Other fi�ished treatrnet�t that distinguishes the sidewalks from typical suburban concrete sidewalks, Materials should be chosen to minimize the cost and complexity of maintenance. 3. Str�et furniture Street fumiture wiN be canstructed of low-maintenance materials, and will be in a color that is cornpatible wi#h its surroundings. 4. Color P�lette A reeommended palette for build'rng cabrs is presented on the foitowing R�9e• � � ��;Fisher and Assaciates, LLc ��; Arch�tects � Planners ( Interior Desi�ners � LEED Professionals 1 � `� _, r�%� AA26U017i8 Proposed Solution 2. Sidewalks Special "Beach Shell" white concrete is proposed at the pedestrian sidewalk and contrasting color broom finish concrete is proposed at the driveway entries. The materials have been chosen to minimize the cost and complexity of maintenance and to complement the overall esthetics of the project. 3. Street Furniture Street furniture once incorporated will be constructed of low-maintenance materials and will be in a color that is compatible with its surroundings. 4. Color Palette The colors proposed have been taken from the recommended "Beach by Design" color palette in a manner intended to complement the various shades of pink and white color palette from the Pelican Walk Retail Center. Page 15 of 16 "Beach by Design" - Pelican Walk Parking Structure Design Narrative 3:"� ;� � � � � �� b�.. � .;� _° ,.�, . � w � r �„ . � - �E ___ .. _` (' _ . � � � :'' �,� -1� ( �i ��' �� . � ��' �� ,e�,"�.< ��? �� _� ,; . ; �' _ � `��7 � � §� ,:�. `p.a . ... � �� , � !_. � _ I � _ Pc>ir.i=r�iii,� (C.45I) C�t-�n� �.>r.: \ ♦ � '�� , � , ��,�, � �� h � � ��W�{ ` �+, � � _ ,.,�_ �. . � �;: ; �' � `�"� � . � � �.,�._ � �� . MANpAI.AV (WEST) ELEVATIQN � '� ' Fisher and Associates, LLC '�,' � Arehitects ( Planners � Interior Desi�ners � LEED Professionals 11 ,,�,�,,,,,..,x :� �_ � ,,. � 4' 3M'. &. at k�.. � .: . . . , a�i_i� �1�� ;li� i�.-- �..,� Page 16 of 16 100 Foot Maximum Building Height � � � Y � � � � � � � � — � _ � _ � � � _� �� —� � — � � _ � � _ _ � � � � � � �`��E�°��`w� Percentage of Allowable Area Not Used = 66% I � �� W �. ow � z � � 7YPE I�, STMmPIPES, UNPRDIEC7ED SECTION 106.7.5 Exhibit "A" Total S.F between property lines @ 45' - 100' = 12,376sf Building S.F between property lines @ 45' - 100' = 4,177sf Percentage of Building = 34% nt �} w � �w z a �, ��_�_- �� - ��-- - �3 ��o- �o ��o =� �_- ��o�QO� W�� WILLIAN JOE FfSHER, JR. AR 0010829 U � J J � � � a � �� Q �W � a�� o � Z Q � � � � � o � � � _ . J�Q a �� H- Z Q a X �� W �� BID PERMfT CONSTR. Revisions: A Date: 06-03-14 Comm. 214012 � � � c�oo ��a� � -- � mc � � � � o c� � � w N �/ � � � � � �n' � i � �• � � N � � � O � Q � �� II =. II � Q N � _. p� � � 00 �� o �� y � � � V � O N N � rn � � �' � � � V � °' ;� � EXHIBIT "B" ' AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. i: � _` .,_ PELICAN WALK GARAGE �-�.` PRAN ERSTS POINSETTA AVENUE '� � �, INTERIOR DESI(iNERS '' CLEARWATER BEACH FLORIDA 33767 � AA2800i�as 1 iS �t �e.3W�,E 'ilr�: �n3.�.. , , u, � % )N�. P4) h� JF SHE1 A A A, G. ql�.� - NOi Tp BF .6PIF1 OR USFD IN M WfT WI HO.ri 'Hf � EXPFESS WRIiiEA CONSENi GF F4NER �NC 45SOGA�ES IIE avo uasr a a�r�rsaeo urou R_au[sr mis �w�anNr. � hJ- F"�R GENEIUI USE OA PUBUGTION A1 xIG�('S - R�SERJF,O. 10 INE BESi OF I,fY KWWLEDGF.. 1HE SPE.IF�pi10N5 AND _ CANS SHpWN HEfiEIN 6NPLY WI��M iY.t APPLICP9LE NNNI.M '� � .�JI,J.lC ';ODE� ! E E..� p '�S fINE. ��rn � x � � � � � _ _ _. � � N � � � _ � � � � o � n O �' � " � � � G� N � _ . N, 3 0, V � V � �� N Q - _. � O � � �� N �� N - �� N 0 Q V � � N. N 11 � � II �. � � O tA � � � O � 'n � � ,� ,. � _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ , ... rM15 DNnWING nM1D n�.L �NfGFMn N )h v:li '!l� ,, • ��«� �' EXHIBIT '�C� ' AND ASSOCIATES, LLC � ;�'N�;,uPF��ppF�a �sEO�,'„`;„r"wpy`Wro,;;,„v � _ — - � _ PELICAN WALK GARAGE ARCHITECTS E"�E>SWPonE^;°NSE�«"HFR��S�"'ES `.' nv� uusi ec eo�au[o uaon R ouc�r nns aanw�xc s � � � -� — PLANNERS R� � cEU�rsi use oe ausutanoN. eu eic+s I II F: INTERIOR DESIONERS � POINSETTA AVENUE o�� e�� F � N�ow�o�F �E �P�.�F��r�ons A�� ' � � ' AA28001738 Ftau, sernvN Hcarir+ couP�r w�. r�� cvr,icaeiE uaiu�u , �� CLEARWATER BEACH� FLORIDA 33767 �a u-� �� i�� u ��iF� ,� �� << �.i�io��ic cnoe N F=��s_ nr ��<<�4�� ., i x � , , _ _ _ _ _ . �.-� � h -� � � : �,�� , �,,�„�� ,..;�,, °� �r�'af ; � �- ' �� f"�� .'<.„ . �. �` � a a 't�' ��hrl,,,n,; �� N�:� � ,. « � a . . ,� ..�=`� �,,ro ..¢ ;'�r',� � �� — '�, x _ _ ^'j � — .._ ° � �` . �� - _ . . � �j �`x1 I // j � � �. � V ��t'-'—� �� s. ��,�y.s¢�„'�. .'��! ' P � �� ' M �,,� '.�t,"��IIN►' . � . .� �. _, : "'•.; _ — ""wi ) . l�',� � . � � � ,��. �..µ. { Y�" � . �e ;, ��y� _ , � = ', rt�,� ., �,.�N_. ;.�., y,, s� � ss `w;i 1; �. � , , ,;�. 'a r TM yr � �,.. ,� � � � � •� _�� , ��. � ��■�� .'��' . � �,�� '" � � ��r F �) " r � � � �� t �.E.,. " 'iYd,.�'r i" S � �� 6 A w�� ! Y t� � t � ,�.�' �� ' �� y.. diwi � � '�,f =� � f p �� f f`u' ; �� i� L �" � � : +' � ��. + ;� , �� +` �/,' �,�!�. �hJ � � � � :�. r � y �rf�� ;� , ,� � � � � " � � . '"" �;� � � ' ,�� 8 i s ? ` Efi `� � � � �t �; "�. � � � y � t , Yi� �_, � e � i •t �� ,. � _. �- 4i � � ��.��r�� :�� }E�.� .�+,�g �� ?"' �o C� '� r �x � �.s ii„�x� ,�r � . r :�„ � � Y� �` , ,,,s: •:'. . s�»� � `�r�A r��" i t.< � ��'� � � t i�� I�1�� t5 ��w �i i }�fi��i �+yt i��' . � -- �� 11111 � �� 1� 1� I i,_F I �� -� �� _.___._ ..........._ � I �' � � I �� 11 t111 �� y } s e; �. � ��" � �� ,.«., ; . �ta b .'1G, ,; ., .� „ ' . _ _ '—"' _ — _.. � � ; � ��, ,�� __ _.. .. _ . � � ; '. � � � � �... � � � �� . . ' ._. `.'�.� � �s�.,'4 � �` * � �� .� �� .... : . �': :�- ��, « .. _. . .� ��_ k I —' � /� I / n � I / ��-- �m( � :/ / � . I V � �� 1'��.�� I� -� `,�`V �� I�I'�� 1��rll��J�J��:l�,r��r��l.i PARADiSE -�� ENTURES �� v ��arwat�r Planning & Development Department Cvmprehensive Landscaping Application IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPtICANT TD SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIUE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPIICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED DUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DfUVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY IVOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL Of il COMPIEfE SETS OF PLANS AND APPUtAT10N MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUfRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITiAI FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOAR�, IF NECESSARY, WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS Of PU1N5 AND APPUCATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES), PLANS AND APPLICATtONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED �NTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH All APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF TNE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROPERTY oWNER (PER DEED): P9IICaiI WaIIC PIaZa II1V8St01"S, L�C MAIUNG ADDRESS: ��g�J RI{�g2 R08CJ, Largo FL 33778 � ��v PNONE NUM6ER: � �� A��_�� EMAIL: mm�� _ AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Gt'@g01'Y ROth, PE nna,iuN� AooRESS: Thomas Engineering Group, 4950 W Kennedy Blvd, Ste 600, Tampa,FL 33609 PHONE NUMBER: �S� 3Z37�-4") OO ----- __ __.. �___. _._ _.__.___ ...____ .. .,,_ . _..--------- Enna��: groth@thomaseg.com ___ __ _��_ � �__ _ � aaoRESS oF sua�ECr PROPERrr: SW Corner of Poinsettia Ave & Baymont Street DESCRIPTIQN OF REQUEST: SpecificaUy identify *he request (incfude atl requesYed cade flexib�lity; e.g., reduciion in required number of parking spoces, height, setbacks, tot srze, �oi width, specific use, etc/: Please Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" , STATE OF FtORiDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS I, the undersigned, acknowiedge that all Swor� to and subscribed before me this _.,�W_-- representations made in this application are true and �'?� ; accurate to the best of my knawledge and authorize --��-----------" -` -�� _�__ to me a City representatives to visit and phoiograph the _,��{,,� ��___, Who is personaliy kr , property descri6ed in h" appiicat�on. —` ; produced ------ -- --_,_�___..._._ as ident / �L t./._ I _ _ t�._ ~`� Si�L�f �6rop�Fty owner or repre�entative lUota biic .. _,. `�. `�-T+� � l '" � � • Q` �.�` • u � � r7 {.�-�`_` \� `vi . 57� My eorttmr�s�on x ii�F Se � -� . __. --- -- �y r ------- -- - - __ _ __ __.. ----__ __ __ _ - ---. . ----- _ � . __ __, _u,._. ,_..._�. _.....__ -- __ __ �A Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenus, C19arwater, FL 33756; Tel: �2�7-562�1567; Fax: 727-562-48fi5 Page 1 of 2 Revised 011�2 +�. L ^.`i• �ree!e94z� 0 ` r � � �� l�arwater �J Planning & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE (5) FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAII, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING PROPOSAL. 1. Architectural Theme: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. Piease Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" OR b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program shali be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. l.ighfing. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. Please Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" 3. Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. Please Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" 4. Property Values. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Please Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Please Refer to Enclosed Exhibit "A" Pla�ning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 2 Revised 01/12 Exhibit "A" to Comprehensive Landscaping Application for Flexible Development Application #FLD2014-05013 Pelican Walk Parking Garage, 483 Mandalay Avenue 1. The landscaping is designed as part of the architectural theme as it emphasizes the embellishments of the parking garage. The structure is proposed with a 0' setback from the ROW line of Poinsettia Avenue, and includes canopies / overhangs that project out from the face of the building. Thus the Applicant requests the approval of the Comprehensive Landscape Program (CLP) to allow relief from the foundation landscaping requirement in front of the building along Poinsettia Avenue. The structure will have ground level retail with entrances leading out to a sidewalk that will be expanded to 14' wide with a 3' wide green space between the walkway and curb line of Poinsettia Avenue. In addition, streetscape trees are being proposed along Poinsettia Ave., which will be enhanced specimen palms. 2. Any proposed landscape lighting will be on an automatic timer that turns off when the proposed retail uses are closed. The landscape lighting will also comply with any requirements of turtle-safe lighting. 3. The landscape treatment proposed in the CLP will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater, and additionally meet the intent of Beach by Design by providing pedestrian friendly street-level facades with a widened sidewalk and green space. The wide sidewalk lined with specimen palms will promote pedestrian safety while providing enhanced trees to emphasis the building architecture. 4. The landscape treatment proposed in the CLP together with the new parking garage will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity. Currently, Poinsettia Ave has valley curb and cars Parallel Park within the grassed ROW, effectively killing the grass within this geen space. The proposed plan provides for a raised curb, a 3' wide strip of landscaped green space with specimen palm trees, then a 14' wide sidewalk, that can be used for patio seating. 5. The proposed development is located within the "Retail /Restaurant" district of Beach by Design. It is not within any Scenic Corridor Plan area.