FLD2015-06025Letter received via email.
Case: FLD2015-06025 706 Bayway Blvd
Case Planner: Mark Parry, Senior Planner
Mark T. Parry
AICP, Senior Planner
City of Clearwater, Florida
RE: 706 Bayway Blvd
Parcei No. 17-29-15-06286-000-0001; 17-29-15-06286-000-0010
FLD2015-06025
Dear Mr. Parry and Committee Members of the Clearwater Planning Board,
I have lived on Clearwater Beach for the last 20 years and have seen a lot of new
development in the area. This particular construction is concerning me since it will
change the appearance of the beach drastically. According to your notice, Bayway
Hotel Holdings, LLC has asked the committee for approval to build "a building height of
75 feet and 90 feet to highest architectural features". I think that this building height
exceeding 3-4 stories will deface the beauty of the intracoastal. It will look absolutely
ridiculous to have all low rise buildings along Clearwater Beach's intracoastal and then
have a tall skinny building rise up right in the middle. If the building was on the Gulf, this
would not be a problem, but to have it rise on the water in the middle of low rise
buildings it would be an eye sore for everyone to see. I strongly recommend if they
want to build, they should not exceed 4 stories.
Below are some photos of the area I'm concerned about and I highly suggest that if you
haven't seen this part of Clearwater Beach, before you vote yes and approve this
building height, you should take a look. It would be an absolute pity to put up a skinny
building/hotel in a highly residential area that sits amongst beautiful low-rise intracoastal
housing.
Low rise buildings on the intracoastal going North on Bayview
{ ��
a.;�
�,��§K :..:.�' 7
i�. \ . 3 ^'
..� � .'. �<,Y'k.
x ��� .•�#:
e� �
�� � ; € ;
3� . ' .
� _�; . : ' x�' � ��.
� . }ya '
�" ti�
�;,�"'� "
�� -a•
� ., . ;!
i+-. ^ - « t� s x y�., ;'
� f 4- �•,4 . 4�. . y� r
�J>�"��ii w�•�� � � ,
� ,�rf�.� a,� ���..F���
t rx*�� , ,��y .�. £;
� � a�' , r4
\t �,K .+'.�L • ^€',.'�: �'
��1��, �
"� � ".-� ' '21'.
.d . � k '���" .
16 , sri : �e'�A�j"1. S.'.,4-
it�j
p'�� �� i "�"+�. �� .
� � �t".
�'. �x
�ar s�'w„�k�,z 2 '
. � r - d� �-�:�
;i s �- �d i ,�
� � � '� � S"�� � � ;
j ;•�'«rc.�'/,.. �� � �g't'" �
d!� .,
c `b'� �' �' :i ��.�'�� "";* � �.;.
���r���yx...�'���r�":�.srlR £ �� � �f�
3"���'.r`}4 ". ��f
��
� "�. " a, �. .. . .
� � ;y1 � • ti�'.. �
+aij-=:_. .e6� <r � •` �' � . .
o��. -a '� ..
F�� :� �
� -,..».ww�...�. �
� , a� . ' �^ x� � .�'�'
� �," r.+�' ; j , t. � ,
i � •.���
`,r,. _. .. .. ..K.:.
},.. ,
3: �� .
_ , A�S�! �y� . . .
. .. , �! _' ". �: � R . � .
� ��, + � �? � �s �3�' ���;
�� ��,&�,��s� � ��� �� �
��
� � ��
_ ��� �� � % ��}�
. ��
*" v .
`.�?,' �
...z:.y- L' ��i
..:t. e';' i
a,.J�,*� J,,. � .a.- P�--=
� . . ^6''^ �r.�:. . .
Y.� 9.r .arra: �" �rr +�. :�.sk.� : , �_ L,� � „� •: :�
'Ik '�t b� -`�i. ��.�5'N. \: � � � f�y.k�.9
... �.:-� � ��a �6 t 1 sxa+�,i..� �° S `..w
. '' ,
;� �"`�-,�,,, + � ; .:. � i � i- � � � "' ,� ,�li,
.+.•1� 1 4 :: �. ��i_aa� >"'.� ��y� ' • d
�� t �S C�' .. .. "' .,.
'�cmJ � :{ �r��. �40�t�.
{
t ^
( i
�
x
s �°
t � ? .
x
� �� � , e _ � , ,. .�. �,_.., w,.. . , �..,
�
;' � �j,�. ;,,. xi,.�_,.�.,..�,1,',�.�`"�`��—�1 �."� �;� ' —
.:;.._
�':�"s'�'�'�'�7�i'.^#iriru�:wv,.. _..,.... _ _ .,.,_.. � . _
"1��?.�1 �� "''�
� �'w +.�f�� y .�!
�
!�
�--� ,e �
�3 7.a,:t, ` M � � ir1�11:L' ��?�c.._..
' '.y+�,�.�"�`'�.rt..� ° •_�i i�.L,,,,'
sq
� � �'.. � �� } � �
`"z i ���
a
: � � f
.; f�� %' � '� ti ��
af ' � "
<1 �
2 5 ��� t i % {<
f �� F �
5
� `� t'�[Fe� k e"�� { .
� . �f . � � „ `� �'� �� � �s ! . t .
., � ,,. , , , ,
���.�, (..., ,...�„».�H�.<a, n., . ,. �� _.
i��l� t t,.� ��"'a��yn ` � .'� � ... �
' ", r � .i� '. ,..sz1U, °� � �' �..i
� f F '�� 11� 1 , -.
� � •'~����\ �� ,�. ; ��� �� .
k � � �.
Sr • _'�,i� �� i�i� ����1 :.:" �i
� � Y� � .1 � i v-�ry�5, _ ,�•
7
w�°� 4 i � � � �' ..� �: '�.� � �W::
��� � b,�i_ . � .�J� �� ..� „....:,"b��" .-�' � i �
e " �{.y��ry"e� 311
9+etn�` � , f ; '
� �
�t?�.,
�!. �
�.:�� ' � �.�
� �
a S,w E � �'�� r
� �
;— �g; -�� �L: ��
�~ �+y��`., ����j � ..
y" p.�y��.+� � •t� a.Ag[{ Yp ��mahi�'k. � � .. ��` j� y� �(y.�
4 �€laa. Lwp X�''�.''�i; �"'�'��� '.J �� '�'D+�
�
�� .. 0�L`��'' � �►„?�j�'�7 x , �
�;, v«r.' °���"'' � .,.,.x-R^� ���+Y " . �
�wra� �1 '�f`�",A�. ��gE+?+p'��*p \_ .
` � �.'..�r �' � �� �s�� � , �j • �..
Y � .{ '�
� � 1_ � �{ � ���w��A . �t!
}' , �. �� l rF „! ��,t .,�� � �y�
2 l�`i 'aj�� `� i
.�. �► ' � e
j ���`,r . _� i ! �+�> � f�, 't a
; �~m �� �
���� �'�`� � " +°- �„ :r - � # � �
� � .i j��t'�
f;g g;�.. �t tr y��
s : r �' u x �__f :.
.. �' .Y� f r �
'�.'!+� "".� �
{Y ,,� .-r �f � '�/�
E ,, ,. �, � ..fi+c';
s :.rt :,, :,:. : . -,, = ; _.
�i'��t
r .�
� � ,�,� �
i1
. !".y �� �:� , ;.
� -.,
�4� ! � � � -�:
J #�" 2. �4
�I � Y 'fif�? ", ,
ar..���('yr Ff'� ��, �y `
{ , ! �;'
��y+Y�,�f��ts{ � .'.i__
� `�°i r4 . nr. � "� y u
�kz i� a ) Ff �
t � 5i t
�, . i:',
"R� �..�y i*. �
ur x �r
-r. .��, +��l�j1 ry �' '; aw!
—"�rnt't �` �+�
� z r "Y' �'�+s�''�.�."��
..�,�€��"t��'`� �` � � -�'S�
�u a�, �
� ���a� � � �
�� � »� � r �� � �.
`t
L�� ;,
� � ���
W
I�tCfr�wa - � .
If1��� � �. �
,���+E..r ' `
�- . , rz-+- i L
1��
`��
�'
Proposed building structure (8-9 stories) would lay here — It would be a very tail skinny
building to fit the space.
A buitding this tall and skinny would look really ugly and it would destroy the manicured
look of our intracoastal area! Please limit all future construction around the intracoastal
waters to not more than 4 stories. New construction should blend in to existing low rise
buildings.
Thanks in advance for your understanding... If you need to reach me, please do not
hestitate.
Loretta Mirelli
osolem io(a�verizon. net
727-446-1197
�
� � ���������
a � ;--;�" ;._. ��� �-
_�_ »:---�,-�-�,_,�--e;:�„�.�
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
CASE:
REQUEST:
GENERAL DATA:
Agent... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Applicant/ Owner... .........
Location ... ... ... . . . . . . .. .. .. . ... .
Property Size ...............
Future Land Use Plan.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
September 15, 2015
E1.
FLD2015-06025
Flexible Development approval to permit a 32-room overnight accommodation
use in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 15,264 square feet, a lot width of
135 feet, a front (south) setback of 35 feet (to building) and eight feet (to
pavement/ramp), a side (west) setback of six feet (to building) and one foot (to
pavement), a side (east) setback of 30 feet (to building) and three feet (to paving)
and six feet (to garage ramp) and a rear (north) setback of six feet (to building)
and zero feet (to pavement); and a building height of 75 feet and 90 feet to
highest architectural feature; and a minimum of 38 parking spaces at 1.2 parking
spaces per hotel room, under the provisions of CDC Section 2-803.K;
elimination of the required foundation landscaping and interior landscape
requirement as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
CDC Section 3-1202.G; and to permit an existing 1,783 square foot, five-slip
dock to remain with a length of 55 feet, width of 96 feet, west setback of 12 feet
and an east setback of nine feet under the provisions of CDC Section 3-601; and
a two-year Development Order under the provisions of CDC Section 4-407.
Katherine E. Cole; Hill Ward Henderson
Bayway Hotel Holdings, LLC
706 Bayway Boulevard; north side of Bayway Boulevard generally at the
northern terminus of Parkway Drive
0.35 acres
.. Resort Facilities High (RFH)
Zoning ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... Tourist (T) District
Special Area Plan .............. Beach by Design (South Beach/Clearwater Pass District)
Adjacent Zoning.... North: Preservation (P) District
South: Tourist (T) District
East: Tourist (T) District � ' "
West: Tourist (T) District , ;,.
Existing Land Use ............. Vacant
Proposed Land Use ... ... .
Overnight Accommodations
(32 units) with associated
accessory uses including a
dining room, pool/patio,
meeting space and an
exercise room.
,��.�r �-�
i - . �-_ �.. � � i.r.� �. ., r �. . � a
� " � �p �,.-:
���,, � � �'���� �� �.�,
',� r `�=� � � °
�, ^,:� _��'a� /'"�!!.�fi �" �,.
,� � �,�� �4 , -�� ' r�— w
' �' �,�„ -y'� , �:�:-�
,, ` "ity, '�, _ � _. i
� f �~ J'�J�%I i/Jf�.(,:�°;
�„ _
> ;�.
�� � ��
,,:. ��° :�:
AERIAL MAP
,
° Clea�rwater Level II Flexible Development Application Review
u.�..�,.�'�../�_i�..i.�,,. . . , . . .. ... _ �� _? � �:. . � .
ANALYSIS:
Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.35-acre subject property is located on the
north side of Bayway Boulevard generally at the
northern terminus of Parkway Drive. The subject
property is comprised of one parcel with a
frontage of approximately 135 feet along
Bayway Boulevard and 120 feet of frontage
along the water. The property is within the
Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) Future Land Use Plan (FLUP)
classification. The subject property is also
located within the South Beach/Clearwater Pass
District of Beach by Design.
The site is vacant except for an existing dock.
The property, as of the writing of this report, is
being used as a temporary unimproved parking
facility for construction workers working on
other projects in the area.
The immediate area is characterized by a variety
of uses including overnight accommodation,
retail sales and services, outdoor recreation and
entertainment, restaurant and attached dwelling
uses with heights ranging from one to 15 stories.
The City's Beach Walk project has been
constructed transforming South Gulfview
Boulevard adjacent to the west of this site into a
winding beachside promenade with lush
landscaping, artistic touches and clear views to
Clearwater's award-winning beach and the water
beyond.
Site History:
On November 20, 2014, the City Council
approved the allocation of up to 15 units from the
Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design
(Case No. HDA2014-08006) and adopted a
resolution to the same effect (Res. No. 14-35).
The owners proposed to develop the site with a
32-unit overnight accommodations building with
associated accessory/amenity uses including a
small meeting space/business center, exercise
room and kitchen.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
� '�Yg�O —
CLF�R jY �. ,�� °
N9Rg �'It PROJECT r
9T
� �R S/TE . �
s���—`�'� ,
\
�F����e � y' �- �
. �� 1 \ec� � _ _._-
�� �, �` � °
. !l_� LL �
�
'� - -,. �
� -� -_ �
cLE-9Rly,�1.�,� p , I �
�s ����-- -
LOCATION MAP
C�q�BOR �R �
�
���� m�
,�
'�' i
Bqy�Ay e� o�: �r,��
,�� B�V� ^j��M�n�.w'��`,a',v
0
��
� � r�. h V r�
01 �� ^^^n ���^�� �q^
� �
e �,� �r5„p
QQ6p),^a O Q p
�
N ppp
SGV��/�a.�e�VQ ^ O ni�M
.�
ZONING MAP
_ cN9�p�OJp�'tP
�
N.T.S
�
�
�
N.T.S
"`�f; cov'tl .i..i.�+�a
eq Use � .
�y �� M Attached Dwellin
�-
* A}e��� ^: � g
...�� �
Overnight
Accommodations �^ ��,� w y
�� �� ^^^ ^ ^�� ° �°^ c
`° � Q��� Retail Plaza �
o m
„ �� o�o � g
Sr,U� '�` I: �r�' � dS
�v'�wecvQ
� �
EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP
Community Development Board – September 15, 2015
FLD20l 5-06025 – Page 1
Y C�l.�ti ►'1'al�l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
�, ��w�� °�� �
The submitted application is consistent with the conceptual site plans and elevations included
with HDA2014-08006.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to redevelop the site with a 32-unit overnight accommodation use (92 rooms per
acre, including the allocation of 15 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve). The proposal will
also include a few accessory uses/amenities including a pool/patio, rooftop terrace, small
meeting space/business center, exercise room and kitchen and dining room. The existing dock
will be preserved with the proposal and is a part of this development application. The
application includes a height of 75 feet, setback reductions for pavement along the south, west
and east sides of the site, and a minimum of 3 8 off-street parking spaces (1.2 spaces per room).
The applicant anticipates the proposal will create approximately 12 to 15 new jobs.
The proposal includes a Mediterranean Revival-style architecture which is consistent with and
complements the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design.
The first two floors of the building are dedicated to, in addition to parking spaces, assorted
service/mechanical equipment uses. The third floor includes the lobby, a small dining area,
office and meeting space and two hotel units. The remaining floors are dedicated to hotel rooms.
An outdoor pool and patio area is located at grade at the northeast corner of the site.
As noted, the proposal includes a certain amount of interior accessory space which amounts to
approximately 1,150 square feet constituting approximately four percent of the gross floor area
of the hotel building. All of this space is for use by guests of the hotel and is not available to the
public at-large.
A solid waste component will be located within the southeast corner of the building. The
dumpster will be rolled out to a staging area along Bayway Boulevard for servicing.
The applicant is requesting a two-year development order due to market conditions. Section 4-
407 specifies that an application for a building permit must be submitted within one year of the
date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise specified under this approval.
Special Area Plan:
Beach bv Design: South Beach/Clearwater Pass District:
The vision of the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District of Beach by Design recognizes that this
district is a distinctive area of mixed use, high-rise condominiums, low- to mid-rise hotels,
outdoor recreation and tourist- and neighborhood-serving retail uses. The document
acknowledges that development within the District may be inhibited by though the lack of
availability of off-street parking. This development would further the trend of quality
redevelopment and/or improvements of properties along South Gulfview Boulevard within the
District including the Harborview Grande, the Entrada and Shephard's.
Community Development Board — September 15, 20l 5
FLD2015-06025 — Page 2
° Clearwater Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
P pP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION
- ���, �� ~ :��^:�� a =� .:
Beach b Design: Section VII. Design 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 A specifically addresses the issue of density. In short, Beach by Design supports an
increase in density through Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and/or allocation of units
from the Hotel Density Reserve. The proposal includes 32 overnight accommodation units
including 15 units allocated from the Reserve. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this
provision.
Section B specifically addresses height and floorplate size. Only subsection B.3.a is applicable to
the proposal. This states that:
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;
The plate above 45 feet is approximately 5,600 square feet which is less than the
prescribed maaLimum 25,000 square feet. Therefore, this section is supported by the
proposal.
Section C addresses issues relating to design, scale and building mass. These topics are
quantified as follows:
Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square 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 approximately 6,300 square feet. The applicant has provided that not
more than two building dimensions are equal in length (Sheet A-2). 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. No portion of any building fa�ade continues for
more than 100 feet in length with the single longest fa�ade extending 85 feet (Sheet A-2).
Therefore, this provision is supported by the proposal.
Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation (with elevation being defined as that
portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for
development) to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The application
indicates compliance with this requirement using windows, balconies and architectural
details including decorative grilles, stucco reveals and similar detailing on all facades.
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 3
� C�e��RLl.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELAPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
... . .. .��^�',e , ... . . . . �
Coverage is between 35 and 95 percent of any given farade (Sheets A-7 through 10). It
should be reiterated that the Design Guidelines are intended to be administered in a flexible
manner to achieve the highest quality built environment for Clearwater Beach. The proposal
provides the highest level of architectural detail along the most visible facades of the
building; the north (rear facing the water) and south (front facing Bayway Boulevard). The
side (east and west) elevations include fewer windows, balconies and architectural detail
because they are less visible from offsite and, specific to the case of fewer windows and
balconies, the privacy of adjacent properties was taken into account. The front (south) fa�ade
provides for an architectural detailing of 52.8 percent which is approximately seven percent
less than the otherwise specified minimum. Staff believes that the level of detailing proposed
for this fa�ade is attractive, appropriate to the architectural style and meets the intent of this
guideline. Therefore, this provision is supported by the proposal.
Section C.4 provides that no more than 60 percent of the theoretical m�imum building
envelope located above 45 feet will be occupied by a building. The applicant has
demonstrated that the overall building mass between 45 and 100 feet (the theoretical
maximum permitted height) constitutes approximately 32 percent of the theoretical
maximum building envelope (Sheet A-12). Therefore, this provision is supported by the
proposal.
Section C.S 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 right-of-way is 60 feet in width. The building
located is 35 feet from front (south) property and nearly 50 feet from the edge of the
roadway. Therefore, this provision is supported by the proposal.
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. While the prescribed distances are
optimal, a 10 foot pedestrian path is seen as key to establishing a pedestrian-friendly place in
the nonresidential environment. As such, building setbacks less than that as suggested are
contemplated in that arcades may be constructed in the public space, but may not narrow the
pedestrian path to less than 10 feet. In addition, 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 the requirements in Section H, Sidewalks. The proposal provides a building
setback of 35 feet along Bayway Boulevard. The site is designed to be pedestrian-friendly
with the provision of a sidewalk five feet wide along Bayway Boulevard which will match
the sidewalk which continues to the east and west of the site. Sidewalks will be repaired and
replaced as needed and will tie into and match the existing sidewalks adjacent to the site with
regard to size, fit, finish and materials. The five foot sidewalk width is acceptable because
this area is a transitional area between the more residential uses to the east and nonresidential
uses to the west. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal.
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 4
° Clearwater Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
� ��:,, .�
Section D.2 provides that except for the side and rear setbacks set forth elsewhere in Beach
by Design, no side or rear setback lines are recommended, except as may be required to
comply with the City's Fire Code. The proposal includes a side (west) setback of six feet (to
building) and one foot (to pavement) and a side (east) setback of 30 feet (to building) and
three feet (to pavement). Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this Guideline.
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 as false
recessed windows, arches, planter boxes, metal grillwork, etc. instead of transparent
alternatives. When a parking garage abuts a public 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.
The proposed building is setback 35 feet along Bayway Boulevard. A landscape buffer
between eight and ten feet in width is provided along the street. The proposal includes a
Mediterranean-style building design with an extensive use of windows and architectural
ornamentation which in concert with the increase setback of the building and landscape
buffers mitigates the bulk of the building. The parking structure component of the hotel
building will largely serve as the visual base of the building includes faux and real windows
which continue the window pattern on the rest of the fa�ade up to the top floor and will be
well-landscaped with perimeter landscaping. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this
proposal.
Section E.3 requires that building entrances should be aesthetically inviting and easily
identified. The pedestrian entrance to the building is located at the southwest corner of the
building and is identified with a pergola over a walkway which connects the entrance with
the sidewalk along Bayway Boulevard. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal.
Section E.4 recommends the use of awnings and other structures that offer pedestrians cover
from the elements especially at entryways. The proposal does not include cantilevered
awnings and canopies because the architect did not feel there were appropriate for the
building's architectural style. However, a series of pergolas are included which will clearly
delineate and define the pedestrian entrance at the southwest corner of the building.
Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal.
Section F addresses issues related to parking areas. Parking is addressed via structured parking
located on the first two floors of the proposed building and the entrances will be well-delineated.
The hotel parking garage structure is integrated into the design of the building and serves
visually as the base of the building. In addition, the fa�ade of the building is setback 35 feet
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 5
° Clearwater Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review FLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
p PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION
" �:: ��� �
from the south (front) property line along Bayway Boulevard. Therefore, this Guideline is met
by this proposal.
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 proposal includes a sidewalk five feet in width along Bayway Boulevard which will match
the existing sidewalks adjacent to the site to the east and west. It should be noted that Bayway
Boulevard is not considered an arterial or retail street. The sidewalk will tie into existing
sidewalks matching the existing sidewalks with regard to fit, finish and materials. Therefore,
this Guideline is met by this proposal.
Section I addresses issues related to street furniture and bicycle racks. Although no street
furnishings are proposed at this time, the applicant is proposing accommodations for a bike rack
on the site near the western stairwell. The applicant will coordinate with City Staff with regard
to the placement and installation methodology for any street furniture which may be proposed at
time of permit submittal. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal.
Section L addresses issues related to materials and colors. Finish materials and building colors
are required to reflect Florida or coastal vernacular themes. The proposed hotel building has a
Mediterranean-style architecture that will make it an attractive landmark at this location. The
primary building color will be Summer White with accent colors including Dusty Aprieot and
August Moon finished with Colonial Red for the roof. While the applicant may adjust the color
scheme any such adjustment would require Staff review and approval and must meet the
requirements of this portion of the Design Guidelines. The proposed color scheme and material
schedule as submitted meets the requirements of this section.
Comprehensive Plan:
The proposal is supported by applicable various Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan as follows:
Future Land Use Plan Element:
Policy A.1.2.1 - The Ciry shall require new or redeveloped overnight accommodations uses
located within the City's coastal storm area to have a hurricane evacuation plan, approved by
the City, for all guests. This plan shall require the commencement of evacuation of hotel guests
as soon as a hurricane watch is posted for the Ciry.
Policy A.3.2.1 - All new development or redevelopment of property within the Ciry of Clearwater
shall meet all landscape requirements of the Communiry Development Code.
Objective A.S.S - Promote high quality design standards that support Clea�vater's image and
contribute to its identiry.
Policy A. S. S.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or
envisioned character of the neighborhood.
Policy A.6.1.2 - Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through the
establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the establishment of a limited density
pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified geographic areas of Clearwater Beach,
enhancement of public rights-of-way, the vacation of public rights-of-way when appropriate,
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 6
° Clearwater Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PL`�rrrrING � DEV�LOpMErrr
p pp DEVELOPMENT REV�W DIVISION
� ,���..�-.; � . . . �
transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-beach transit, transfer of development rights
and the use of design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
Objective A.6.6 - 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.
Policy A.6.6.1 - The Ciry supports and encourages the continued development and
redevelopment of overnight accommodation uses.
Policy A.6.8.3 - Where appropriate, development shall provide a sense of pedestrian scale on
streets through minimal front setbacks, similar building heights, street trees and proportionality
of building heights to street widths.
In adopting Beach by Design the City recognized that large portions of the Beach could be
classified as blighted, substandard and suffered from "obsolescence and age." One of the goals
of Beach by Design is to reverse this trend of disinvestment. This goal is well on the way to
being met (perhaps even exceeded) in many areas of the Beach. The South Beach/Clearwater
Pass District is one area that has not seen as much redevelopment activity although that trend
appears to be changing. The proposed hotel will serve tourists and locals alike contributing to a
vibrant successful resort destination. The proposal includes a new overnight accommodation use
with an overall height of 75 feet (90 feet to highest architectural feature). However, this height is
mitigated through a combination of building setbacks and lush landscaping. The overall effect of
the proposal will be an attractive, pedestrian-scaled development consistent with the goals and
vision of Beach by Design and the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District and one more step in
the revitalization of the Beach.
Therefore, the proposal supports these applicable components of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Community Development Code:
The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this
Code as follows:
Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through
innovative and creative redevelopment.
Section 1-103.8.2. 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.
Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole.
Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of
the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and futuYe uses and structures
in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law.
Section 1-103. E. S. Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the community for
both the resident and tourist population consistent with the city's economic underpinnings.
Community Development Board — September I 5, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 7
� C1L���lill.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
_ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
. . ����.x.�.,��� . . .
The property owner proposal to redevelop the property with a new attractive building, a vibrant
use (overnight accommodations with limited accessory amenities) in one of the more valuable
areas of the City vis-a-vis tourism with a hotel. The new hotel is expected to create
approximately 12 to 15 new jobs and will positively contribute to the City's economy and its tax
base. The project includes a building with a Mediterranean -style of architecture. The landscape
design incorporates plant material that is native and/or naturalized and salt tolerant, while
providing visual interest. The larger sunounding area is generally developed with a myriad of
uses indicative of a tourist destination including overnight accommodations, retail sales and
services, bars, nightclubs, outdoor recreation and entertainment, restaurants and attached
dwellings. The immediate area is characterized by smaller hotels, commercial and governmental
uses and attached dwelling uses. The proposed 32-room hotel will constitute an appropriate use
for the neighborhood supporting both resident and tourist populations. The proposal is consistent
with the desired form and function of the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District of Beach by
Design and meets the Design Guidelines of that document and is a targeted desired use within
the District. 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 Plan 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.
The site is proposed to be developed with a hotel which is a use permitted by the RFH FLUP
classification.
Development Parameters:
Densitv:
Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum density for
properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 50 overnight accommodation units per
acre or 30 dwelling units per acre. The otherwise permitted density of 50 hotel units per acre
yields 17 units.
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 8
a�learwater Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLAr�t�rINGa� °EV�LOPMENT
� ... . . . .. .w�.. .. . . .
DEVELOPMENT REViRW DIVISION
On June 19, 2014, the City Council approved the allocation of up to 15 units from the Hotel
Density Reserve under Beach by Design (Case No. HDA2014-08006) and adopted a resolution
to the same effect (Res. No. 14-35). The proposal includes 32 hotel rooms and is consistent with
the Development Agreement associated with HDA2014-08006 and Resolution No. 14-35.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR�
Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.76, which is consistent with the Plan and this Code provision.
Minimum Lot Area and Width:
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum required lot area and width for Overnight
Accommodations is between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet and between 100 and 150 feet,
respectively. The subject property is 15,264 square feet in area and approximately 135 feet wide.
The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions.
Minimum Setbacks:
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum required setbacks may be reduced to zero feet. The
proposal includes a front (south) setback of 35 feet (to building) and eight feet (to pavement), a
side (west) setback of six feet (to building) and one foot (to pavement), a side (east) setback of
30 feet (to building) and three feet (to paving) , and a rear (north) setback of six feet (to building)
and zero feet (to pavement). The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions.
Maximum Buildin�Hei�
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the maximum permitted height for Overnight Accommodations is
100 feet. Please note that height is measured from the point from which minimum floor
elevations in flood prone areas have been established by law to the highest finished roof surface
in the case of a building with a flat roof. The proposed building height of 75 feet and 90 feet to
highest architectural feature is consistent with this CDC section and the Development Agreement
approved by City Council as part of HDA2014-08006. It should be noted that the architectural
features mentioned include roof structures associated with elevator shafts and/or stairwells which
are otherwise permitted to rise an additional 16 feet above the otherwise permitted height and
parapet walls which extend 51 inches above the flat roof height of 75 feet. Parapet walls are
otherwise permitted to rise an additional 42 inches above the otherwise permitted height. The
architectural features also include assorted railings and round cap tops and other features which
generally extend an additional 12 feet above the roof slab.
Minimum Off-street Parkin�:
Pursuant to Table 2-803 parking for Overnight Accommodations is 1.2 spaces per unit with the
proposed 32-room hotel requiring a minimum of 38 spaces where at least 38 spaces are provided
with 33 spaces located on the subject site. An additional five parking spaces are located at 678
South Gulfview Boulevard (donor site) approximately 120 feet to the southwest of the subject
site. Pursuant to CDC section 3-1404 all required off-street parking spaces shall be located
within 600 feet of the principal and accessory uses they serve. The donor site is developed with
42 hotel units requiring 50 parking spaces. The applicant has submitted site plans which show
that a total of 56 code-compliant parking spaces exist on the donor site, that none of these spaces
are otherwise dedicated for any other uses or properties and that there is an excess of six Code-
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 9
° Clearwater Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION
.. > . , 5... . SS�-� , . .
compliant parking spaces available where four are to be dedicated for use by the subject
property.
Mechanical Equinment:
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. Mechanical
equipment will generally be located on top of and within the building. The equipment on the
roof area will be adequately screened from view from adjacent properties and rights-of-way by
solid screening. Pool equipment will be located outside the building at grade but will be
screened from view from adjacent properties by fencing and landscaping. The mechanical
equipment screening will also be reviewed at time of the building permit submission.
Sight Visibilit,�an�l, es:
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. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and
been found to be acceptable. Landscaping located within the sight visibility triangles will need
to be maintained to meet the Code requirements.
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 overhead utility lines along the south side of the site along Bayway
Boulevard. However, the applicant has provided that placing just the utilities adjacent to the
subject site underground is impracticable.
Landsca�in�
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District
for this site. The proposal includes perimeter landscape buffers along all sides of the site. The
landscape design incorporates plant material that is native and/or naturalized and salt tolerant,
while providing visual interest. The pedestrian scale along Bayway Boulevard will be enhanced
with palms, accent shrubs and dense groundcover beds.
The applicant has opted to utilize the Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to CDC
Section 3-1202.G and as permitted pursuant to CDC Section 6-109.C.4. The criteria for a
Comprehensive Landscape Program are provided below:
1. Architectural theme.
a. The landscapin� in a comprehensive landscape pr�am shall be designed as a ap rt of
the architectural theme o the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel
proposed or development; or
b. The desiQn, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in
the comprehensive landscape �rogram shall be demonstrablv more attractive than
landscapin� otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed or development under the
minimum landscape standards.
Community Development Board — September t 5, 2015
FLD20l 5-06025 — Page 10
� Cle�i ►'Ialel Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMEN7'
-
P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
w .� , . � ��a��w �
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist
District. Beach by Design does provide that landscape buffers three feet in width area
required where parking spaces abut rights-of-way. This site does not meet the required
minimum five-foot wide foundation planting along the south side of the building. In
addition, the site does not provide the required amount of interior landscaping based on the
amount of vehicular use area. The site contains 4,078 square feet of vehicular use area
which requires 41 square feet of interior green space where zero square feet is provided. It
should be noted that vehicular use areas less than 4,000 square feet in area are exempted
from providing interior landscape area. The site does include perimeter landscape buffers
along all sides of the site. A landscape buffer is provided along the south side of the site
along Bayway Boulevard between eight and 10 feet in width. Perimeter buffers generally
six feet in width are along provided along the east and west sides of the site. The proposal,
as submitted includes a moderate amount of landscaping along a11 sides of site through the
provision of a variety of plant material including date and Montgomery palms, silver
buttonwood, brush cherry, oleander and jasmine. Staff believes that improvements to the
landscape plan are required to fully meet the intent of Beach by Design. However, Staff
also believes that the details of a final landscape plan can be addressed through the building
permit process and a condition of approval to this effect is included as part of the Staff
recommendation.
While the site is deficient with regard to interior and foundation landscaping it exceeds the
requirements of the CDC with the provision of perimeter landscaping along all sides of the
site.
2. Li�h, ting. Anv lighting proposed as a part o a comprehensive landscape program is
automatically controlled so that the li�hting, is turned o�fwhen the business is closed.
This criterion is not applicable to the subject site because the hotel does not close. However,
the applicant will ensure that all lighting meets the requirements of CDC Article 3 Division
13. Outdoor Lighting.
3. Community character. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape
program will enhance the community character o the Citv of Clearwater.
The site is currently vacant. The proposed landscape plan, through the use of
native/naturalized plantings will make the property more attractive thereby enhancing the
community character.
4. Propertv values. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of propertv in the immediate vicinitv o�'
the.parcel �roposed or development.
Landscaping, generally in excess of that as otherwise required by the CDC, will improve the
aesthetics of the site and should have a beneficial impact on surrounding properties.
S. Special area or scenic corridor plan. The landsca�e treatment pro.posed in the
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with an�special area or scenic corridor
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 11
'�le�l r1'(�il��l Level II Flexible Develo ment A plication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
P P DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
- _ ,����:� a � �
plan which the Cit�,of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the ap rcel
proposed or development is located.
Perimeters buffers, as previously mentioned, are not required by the CDC in the T District
except as otherwise required by Beach by Design. The site does include a perimeter buffer
along Bayway Boulevard between eight and 10 feet in width which meets the requirement of
Beach by Design.
Solid Waste:
A solid waste component will be located within the loading area within the southwest corner of
the building. The dumpster will be rolled out to a staging area along Bayway Boulevard for
servicing. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department.
Docks:
CDC Section 3-601.C.3 provides development criteria and standards for commercial docks (the
definition of which includes any dock, pier, or wharf, including boatlifts, that is used in
connection with a hotel, motel or restaurant where the slips are not rented, leased or sold). While
this section of the Code pertains to new docks the CDC typically examines the required
dimensional criteria for existing structures serving new uses. In this case, the previous approved
use for the site was attached dwellings which qualified the existing dock as a multi-use dock.
The change in use of the site to overnight accommodations changes the classification of the dock
to a commercial dock. Technically, the dock, which exceeds 500 square feet in area, would have
been treated as a commercial dock pursuant to Section 3-601.C.3 regardless as to whether it
serves an attached dwelling or overnight accommodations use. The proposal includes
maintaining an existing 1,783 square foot, five-slip dock with a length of 55 feet, width of 96
feet, west setback of 12 feet and an east setback of nine feet. The dock will be for the sole use of
guests of the hotel with no portion rented or leased to non-residents.
The dimensional standards criteria set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h differentiate between
commercial/multi-use docks adjacent to single- and two-family dwellings, such docks located on
non-residentially zoned property adjacent to residentially zoned property and all other
circumstances. The proposed dock is on non-residentially zoned property adjacent to a non-
residentially used property to the west (a police substation) and attached dwellings to the east
(more than two units). In addition, both adjacent properties are non-residentially zoned (Tourist
District) As such, the required side setback shall be 10 percent of the width of the waterfront
property line. The width of the waterfront property line on the subject property is 120 feet;
therefore the proposed dock must be set back from the east and west extended property lines 12
feet. The existing dock is nine feet from the extended east side property line and 12 feet from the
extended west property line.
With regard to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or
seawall of the subject property more than 75 percent of the width of the subject property as
measured along the waterfront property line up to 250 feet; thus the length of the dock is limited
to 90 feet. The existing dock is 55 feet in length which is consistent with this provision. The
width of a dock is limited to 75 percent of the width of the property along the water. Therefore
the width of the dock should not exceed 90 feet. The total existing width of the dock is 96 feet
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page l2
t C�l.���ll.l level II Flexible Development Application Review FLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
u :.`,"-�•, :;. � a���"z�ti�'��a,.'a�. r.�..;�. � .. �
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
which is inconsistent with this provision. In short, a deviation of three feet is requested for the
east setback and of six feet with regard to the width of the existing dock.
The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the general criteria for
commercial docks pursuant to CDC Section 3-601.C.3.a-g. Specific responses to each of these
criteria have been provided by the applicant and are included with their application. In short, the
existing dock is intended to serve as an accessory use to the hotel proposed for the site. The size,
scale and scope of the existing dock is consistent with (if not proportionally smaller than) other
docks in the area. The width of the waterway to the north is approximately 675 feet. The
existing dock occupies about seven percent of the waterway. Given the length of the existing
dock and the nearest dock to the north there will be approximately 600 feet of navigable
waterway available. The applicant has asserted that maintaining the location and dimensional
aspects of the existing dock will have no impact on existing water recreation activities or on
navigation. The applicant has also asserted that the proposal will also have no negative impacts
on the marine environment or on water quality or natural resources. Please note that the Harbor
Master has reviewed the submittal and has found the proposal to be acceptable.
Compliance with General Applicability Standards:
The proposal supports the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows:
Section 3-914.A.1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
Section 3-914.A.2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and
use of adjacent land and buildings or signifrcantly impair the value thereof.
Section 3-914.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
Section 3-914.A.4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
Section 3-914.A. S. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity.
Section 3-914.A.6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
The proposal includes a 32-unit hotel within an eight-story building. The proposed building
includes a Mediterranean-style architecture that will make it an attractive addition to the
neighborhood. The subject site is surrounded by a myriad of uses indicative of a tourist
destination including overnight accommodations, retail sales and services, restaurants and
attached dwellings. The proposed hotel development will constitute an appropriate use for the
neighborhood and is a targeted desired use within the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District of
Beach by Design. The proposal includes lush landscaping which exceeds the intent of the CDC
and will complement and enhance surrounding properties. The immediate vicinity is typified by
buildings between one and six floors. The proposal will likely have no effect, negative or
otherwise, on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The
proposal has been designed to have a minimal effect on traffic congestion. Naturally, the
Community Development Board — September I 5, 2015
FLD20l 5-06025 — Page 13
� C�l.(al 1'��L41 Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
P pP DEVELOPMENT REV�W DIVISION
���s ��- o.
development of a modest 32-unit hotel will increase the amount of traffic in the area. However,
this expected increase in traffic has been mitigated with ample space for vehicle stacking on site
and adequate access into the parking garage component of the development. The design of the
proposed development minimizes adverse visual and acoustic impacts on adjacent properties.
This is accomplished by locating solid waste facilities within the building and by providing
fencing to screen the outdoor pool and patio on the east side of the building. Therefore, the
proposal supports this Code section.
Compliance with Specific Use Flexibility Criteria:
The proposal supports the specific Overnight Accommodation criteria pursuant to CDC Section
2-803.K as follows:
1. With the exception of those properties located on Clearwater Beach, the parcel proposed for
development shall front on but shall not involve direct access to a major arterial street unless
no other means of access would be possible.
The parcel proposed for development is located on Clearwater Beach therefore; this criterion
is not strictly applicable to the application.
2. Height.• The increased height results in an improved site plan and/or improved design and
appearance.
The site is the recipient of 15 units from the Reserve. It is generally understood, as outlined
in Beach by Design, that a viable overnight accommodation project on the Beach requires
additional density and, in turn certain amounts of flexibility with regard to setbacks, height
and other development parameters. In fact, one of the strategies of Beach by Design is to
"optimize project densities" on the Beach. The requested increase in height to 75 feet (90
feet to highest architectural feature) is mitigated by locating the building 35 feet from the
front property line and is anticipated in this area of Beach by Design for buildings which
meet the requirements of the Design Guidelines (which this project has been adjudged to
have met as explored in detail elsewhere in this report) and which have acquired additional
density through mechanisms such as the Reserve. In short, the number of units directly
affects the form of the building vis-a-vis height. In order to create a viable hotel with the
number of proposed units the requested level of flexibility is needed. As such, the proposal
is a reasonably expected design solution consistent with established and approved uses on
adjacent properties and all applicable Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Therefore, the
proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
3. Signs: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more than
six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for development
unless such signage is a part of an approved comprehensive sign program.
A sign package has not been submitted yet although the applicant has committed to meeting
the requirements of the CDC with regard to signage.
4. Front setback:
a. The reduced setback shall contribute to a more active and dynamic street life;
b. The reduced setback shall result in an improved site plan through the provision of a more
efficient o, f'f-street parking area, andlor improved building design and appearance; and
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 14
° Clearwater Level II Flexible Development Apptication Review PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT
. . . ..��"i�7�3� '.>e,. - . ... .
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas being
diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other areas through a
Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
The proposed front setbacks of 35 feet to building are consistent with those as otherwise
required as part of a Level I Flexible Standard Development review. The front setback
reduction is limited only to eight feet for pavement which will accommodate a driveway
providing access to the parking garage component of the proposal. While perimeter
landscaping is not required a landscape buffer between eight and 10 feet in width along
the front property line is provided. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC
Section.
S. Side and rear setbacks:
a. The reduced setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency
vehicles and/or personnel;
b. The reduced setback results in an improved site plan through the provision of a more
efficient off-street parking area, and/or improved building design and appearance; and
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas being
diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other areas through a
Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
As noted elsewhere in this report, Beach by Design does not prescribe side or rear
setbacks. The provided side setbacks of six feet to building and between one and three
feet to pavement allows for a greater front setback and additional landscaping along
Bayway Boulevard. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
6. Off-street parking.•
a. The proposed development contains no more than 130 rooms; and
b. The proposed development is within 1, 000 feet of an existing public parking garage with
documented available capaciry.
The proposed 32-room hotel requires 38 parking spaces at 1.2 spaces per room where a
minimum of 38 spaces are proposed with 33 spaces provided on site and five additional
spaces provided at 678 South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 120 feet to the south.
Staff has determined that the 42-unit hotel located on the donor site requires 50 parking
spaces where 56 code-compliant parking spaces exist. Therefore, the donor site does
have the five spaces in excess of the minimum required for use by the subject property.
As such no request for a reduction in parking is included with the proposal. Therefore,
this criterion is not strictly applicable to the application.
7. The design of all buildings shall comply with the Tourist District site and architectural
design guidelines in Section 3-501, as applicable.
As discussed in detail in this document, the proposal is fully compliant with all applicable
portions of the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Therefore, the proposal is consistent
with this CDC Section.
8. Lot area and/or width: The reduction shall not result in a building which is out of scale with
existing buildings in the immediate vicinity.
The subject property is 15,264 square feet in area and approximately 135 feet wide which is
comparable to many of the surrounding properties including 600, 676, 692, 700-704, 716-
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page I S
a l�learwater Level II Flexible Develo ment A plication Review FLANNING& DEVELOPMENT
P p DEVELOPMENT REV�W DMSION
� � ������_. �.� �
716, 724-728, 800 and 850-858 Bayway Boulevard. The proposal is consistent with these
Code provisions. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
9. The parcel proposed for development shall, if located within the Coastal Storm Area, have a
hurricane evacuation plan requiring the use close when a hurricane watch is posted; and
The provision of a hurricane evacuation plan has been made a condition of approval of this
application. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
10. A development agreement must be approved by the city council pursuant to F.S ��
163.3221-163.3243 and Communiry Development Code Section 4-606 if the development
proposal exceeds the base density andlor base F.A.R. established for the underlying Future
Land Use designation. The development agreement shall:
a. Comply with all applicable requirements of the "Rules Concerning the Administration of
the Countywide Future Land Use Plan" as they pertain to alternative density/intensity,
and as amended from time to time;
b. Be recorded wzth the clerk of the circuit court pursuant to F. S. � 163.3239, with a copy
frled with the property appraiser's office, and a copy submitted to the PPC and CPA for
receipt and filing within 14 days after recording; and
c. Have its development limitations memorialized in a deed restriction, which shall be
recorded in the Official Records of Pinellas County prior to the issuance of any building
permit for the overnight accommodations use.
On November 20, 2014, the City Council approved the allocation of up to 15 units from
the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design (Case No. HDA2014-08006) and
adopted a resolution to the same effect (Res. No. 14-35) which included the approval of a
development agreement. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
11. Accessory Uses:
a. Accessory uses must be incidental, subordinate, and customarily accessory to overnight
accommodations.
b. The following shall apply to required parking for accessory uses:
i. Accessory uses located within the building interior may occupy between 15
percent and 20 percent of the gross floor area of the development, but only
when additional parking is provided for that portion of the accessory uses
which exceeds 15 percent. The required amount of parking shall be calculated
by using the minimum off-street parking development standard for the most
intensive accessory use(s). Where there is a range of parking standards, the
lowest number of spaces allowed shall be used to calculate the additional
amount of off-street parking required for the project. In projects where the
interior accessory uses exceed 20 percent of the building gross floor area, all
interior accessory uses shall be considered additional primary uses for
purposes of calculating development potential and parking requirements.
ii. Regardless of the gross floor area percentage, overnight accommodations with
fewer than SO rooms that have a full service restaurant shall comply with the
parking standards for the restaurant use as contained in Table 2-803. The
lowest number of spaces allowed shall be used to calculate the additional
amount of off-street parking required for the restaurant.
Community Development Board — September I5, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 16
� lilL�l 1'1[il�� Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT
P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
- ���;��: ,. . � �
c. In addition to the requirements above, for those projects that request additional rooms
from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design and whose interior
accessory uses are between ten percent and IS percent of the gross floor area of the
proposed building, density shall be calculated as follows:
i. Calculate the maximum number of units allowed by the base density;
ii. Calculate the maximum number of units that may be allocated from the Hotel
Density Reserve established in Beach by Design;
iii. Add the figures determined in i. and ii. to determine the total number of units
allowed for the site;
iv. Divide the total number of units allowed, as calculated in iii., by the total land
area to determine the resulting units per acre for the project site;
v. Determine the total floor area of all interior accessory uses exceeding ten
percent of the gross floor area of the proposed building;
vi. Subtract the figure determined in v. from the total land area, and divide this
difference by 43, 560 to determine the net acreage;
vii. Multiply the net acreage derived in vi. by the applicable resulting units per
acre figure determined in iv. The resulting product is the mczximum number of
rooms allowable for the project.
viii. The final allocation of rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve shall be
determined by multiplying the net acreage determined in vi. by the base density
and subtracting this product from the maximum number of rooms allowable for
the project as determined in vii.
d. Signage for any accessory use shall be subordinate to and incorporated into the primary
freestanding signage for the overnight accommodation use. In no case shall more than 25
percent of the sign area be dedicated to the accessory uses.
e. Those developments that have obtained additional density from the Destination Resort
Density Pool established in Beach by Design are not subject to the requirements set forth
in Sections 2-803.I.11. a—d.
Proposed accessory uses, constituting approximately four percent of the gross floor area
of the hotel, are limited to a small dining area, a small exercise room, rooftop patio and a
pool and outdoor patio all of which are considered subordinate to and customary for
accessory overnight accommodations. None of this space is accessible by the public at-
large and is intended only for guests of the hotel. It should be noted that the hotel has
less than 50 rooms and does not include a full-service restaurant. In addition, the
proposal includes units obtained through the Hotel Density Reserve not the Destination
Resort Density Pool. A sign package has not been submitted yet although the applicant
has committed to meeting the requirements of the CDC with regard to signage.
Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 17
° Clearwater Level II Flexible Develo ment A plication Review PLAMQING & DEVELOPMENT
��,��,v P P DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
.. ... . .r ..,�.>�'�:s3�^ ^ . .
Compliance with Dock Deviations Flexibility Criteria:
The proposal supports the specific deviations to the dimensional standards for docks criteria
pursuant to CDC Section 3-601.C.3.i as follows:
1. A dock of lesser length poses a threat to the marine environment, natural resources, wetlands
habitats or water qualiry.
An increase in the permitted dock length is not requested. Therefore, this criterion is not
strictly applicable to the application.
2. The proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to minimize impacts relating to criteria set
forth in Sections 3-601. C. 3. b.—g.
The dock exists so technically this criterion is not applicable since it references proposed
docks. However, the applicant has shown that the dock has not negatively affected nor is
anticipated to negatively affect any aspect relating to Sections 3-601.C.3.b through g and
these criteria have been explored in detail elsewhere in this report. Therefore, the proposal is
consistent with this CDC Section.
3. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would result in extreme hardship due to
the unique nature of the project and the applicant's property.
A literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would require the demolition of at least
a portion of and/or a significant structural reconstruction the existing dock. Such action
would be to simply accommodate a three foot encroachment in the setback on the east and an
excess of six feet in the width of an existing dock. Staff believes that a literal enforcement of
this provision would result in an extreme hardship because it would require a significant
structural alteration of a structurally sound dock. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with
this CDC Section.
4. The deviation sought to be granted is the minimum deviation that will make possible the
reasonable use of the applicant's property. However, where an applicant demonstrates
riparian or littoral rights which will affect the location of the dock, the minimum further
deviation to provide for exercise of such rights shall be allowed.
The proposed deviations would allow the existing dock to remain. It is also generally
acknowledged that reasonable use of waterfront property in the City includes such features as
docks, slips and boatlifts. Allowing the existing dock to remain will enhance and enable full
and reasonable use of the . property. As mentioned, the deviations are only for a three foot
encroachment into the east setback and an increase in six feet to the otherwise permitted
width of the dock. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
S. The granting of the requested deviation will be in harmony with the general intent and
purpose of this section and will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental
or of adverse effect to the public interest and welfare.
The general intent on purpose of this section is to ensure that proposed docks are in keeping
with the character of the area, will not result in environmental degradation, adversely impact
navigability of adjacent waterways or the health, safety and welfare of others in the area. As
noted in detail elsewhere in this report, maintaining the existing dock is anticipated to have
no negative impacts. Therefore, this criterion is not strictly applicable to the application.
Community Development Board — September I5, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 18
� Cl�.te� �TL�I�I Level II Flexible Development A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
pP DEVELOPIvIENT REVIEW DIVISION
. . . . .. . ..� .... $>En.: �i .
6. No dock shall be allowed to deviate from the length requirements specified in Section 3-
601. C.3. h. by more than an additional SO percent of the allowable length or to project into
the navigable portion of the waterway by more than 25 percent of such waterway, whichever
length is less, except for those docks located on the east side of Clearwater Harbor adjacent
to the mainland, which shall be allowed to deviate up to a maximum length equal to 25
percent of the navigable portion of the waterway.
A request for additional length is not a part of the proposal. Therefore, this criterion is not
strictly applicable to the application.
Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by
substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested.
The applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent
evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4-
206.D.4.
Compliance with Standards and Criteria Overnight Accommodations:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as
per CDC Tables 2-8011 and 2-803:
Standard Proposed Consistent' Inconsistent
Density 50 overnight 32 overnight accommodation X
accommodation units per units
acre (17 units) plus 15
units from the Reserve
(32 units total)
Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.76 X
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 to 20,000 sf 15,264 sf X
Minimum Lot Width 100 - 150 feet 130 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: 0- 15 feet South: 35 feet (to building) X
8 feet (to pa�ing)
Side: 0-10 feet East: 30 feet (to building) X
3 feet (to paving)
6 feet (to building)
West: 1 feet (to paving) X
Rear: 0-20 feet North: 6 feet (to building) X
0 feet (to pavement
Maximum Height 35 - 100 feet 75 feet (90 feet to highest X
architectural feature)
Minimum 1- 1.2 spaces per unit 38 spaces X
Off-Street Parkin 32 - 38 s aces 1.2 s aces er unit
� See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page l9
� C�L(al ��Ll.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
u �. . .. . ._��;' .< .
Compliance with Standards and Criteria Commercial Dock Dimensional Parameters:
The following table depicts the development proposals consistency with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h:
Standard Existing Consistentl Inconsistent�
Dock Setbacks 10% of the width of the subject West: 12 feet X
(Minimum) property (12 feet)
10% of the width of the subject East: 9 feet X
property (12 feet)
Dock Length 75% of the width of the subject 52 feet X
(Maximum) property (90 feet)
Dock Width 75% of the width of the subject 96 feet (maximum length) X
(Maximum) property (90 feet)
� See analysis rn Sta,�'Report
Compliance with Standards and Criteria Commercial Dock Specific Use Criteria:
The individual criteria for commercial docks pursuant to Section 3-601.C.3.a-g are set forth in
the following table:
Consistentl Inconsistent �'
a. Use and compatibility. X
i) The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort, convenience
or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the property.
ii) T'he proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent
properties and the neighborhood in general.
iii) The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general vicinity.
b. Impacts on existing water recreation activities. The proposed dock/tie poles or use X
thereof, shall not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently
using the adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, the
dock shall not preclude the existing uses of the adjacent waterway. Such uses include but
are not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats.
c. Impacts on navigation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a X
detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation,
recreational or other public conveniences.
d. Impacts on marine environment. X
i) Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to mazine grassbeds
or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas.
ii)Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass flats
suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine soil suitable for
producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life;
manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such artificial reef which has developed an
associated flora and fauna which have been determined to be approaching a typical
natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity; oyster beds; clam beds; known
sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries or shell fisheries areas; and habitats
desirable as juvenile fish habitat.
Community Development Board — September 15, 20l 5
FLD20l 5-06025 — Page 20
° Clearwater Level II Flexible Development Application Review
e. Impacts on water quality.
i) All tuming basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area associated
with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to ensure that a
minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest member of a vessel
(e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the waterbody at mean or ordinary low water
(-0.95 NGVD datum).
ii) The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage, shoaling of
channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the azea or limit
progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in the area in which the
dock is proposed to be located.
f. Impacts on natural resources.
i) The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of wildlife,
marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so as to be
contrary to the public interest.
ii) The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative, terrestrial,
or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one or more of the
requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or feeding grounds;
habitats which display biological or physical attributes which would serve to make them
rare within the confines of the city; designated preservation azeas such as those identified
in the comprehensive land use plan, national wildlife refuges, Florida outstanding waters
or other designated preservation areas, and bird sanctuaries.
g. Impacts on wetlands habitat/uplands. T'he dock shall not have a material adverse affect
upon the uplands surrounding.
� See analysis provided by the applicant in the application submittal
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Consistent� Inconsistent
X
X
X
Compliance with General Applicability Standards:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level One and Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate
vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual,
acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adiacent nronerties.
i
See analysis in staff report.
Consistent' Inconsistent
X
X
X
X
X
X
Compliance with Overnight Accommodations Flexibility Criteria:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.K (Overnight Accommodations):
With the exception of those properties located on Clearwater Beach, the parcel
proposed for development shall front on but shall not involve direct access to a major
arterial street unless no other means of access would be possible.
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 21
Consistent' � Inconsistent
N/A
' l.�iLal ��t�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review
. . . ,�.+ r""';".� . . . . �
2. Height: The increased height results in an improved site plan and/or improved design
and appearance.
3. Signs: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more
than six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for
development unless such signage is a part of an approved comprehensive sign program.
4. Front setback:
a. The reduced setback shall contribute to a more active and dynamic street life;
b. The reduced setback shall result in an improved site plan through the provision
of a more efficient off-street parking area, and/or improved building design and
appearance;and
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
being diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other
areas through a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
5. Side and rear setbacks:
a. The reduced setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by
emergency vehicles and/or personnel;
b. The reduced setback results in an improved site plan through the provision of
a more efficient off-street parking area, and/or improved building design and
appearance; and
a The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
being diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other
areas through a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
6. Off-street pazking:
a. The proposed development contains no more than 130 rooms;
b. The proposed development is within 1,000 feet of an existing public parking
garage with documented available capacity.
7. The design of all buildings shall comply with the Tourist District site and architectural
design guidelines in Section 3-501, as applicable.
8. Lot area and/or width: The reduction shall not result in a building which is out of scale
with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity.
9. The parcel proposed for development shall, if located within the Coastal Storm Area,
have a hurricane evacuation plan requiring the use close when a hurricane watch is
posted.
10. A development agreement must be approved by the city council pursuant to F.S. §§
163.3221-163.3243 and Community Development Code Section 4-606 if the
development proposal exceeds the base density and/or base F.A.R. established for the
underlying Future Land Use designation. The development agreement shall:
a. Comply with all applicable requirements of the "Rules Concerning the
Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan" as they pertain to
alternative density/intensity, and as amended from time to time;
b. Be recorded with the clerk of the circuit court pursuant to F.S. § 163.3239,
with a copy filed with the property appraiser's office, and a copy submitted to
the PPC and CPA for receipt and filing within 14 days after recording; and
c. Have its development limitations memorialized in a deed restriction, which
shall be recorded in the Official Records of Pinellas County prior to the
issuance of any building permit for the overnight accommodations use.
i l. Accessory Uses:
a Accessory uses must be incidental, subordinate, and customarily accessory to
overnight accommodations;
b. T'he following shall apply to required parking for accessory uses:
❑ Accessory uses located within the building interior may occupy between 15
percent and 20 percent of the gross floor azea of the development, but only
when additional parking is provided for that portion of the accessory uses
which exceeds 15 percent. The required amount of pazking shall be
calculated by using the minimum off-street parking development standard
for the most intensive accessory use(s). Where there is a range of pazking
standards, the lowest number of spaces allowed shall be used to calculate
Community Development Board – September I 5, 2015
FLD2015-06025 – Page 22
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION
Consistentl Inconsistent
X
N/A
X
N/A
N/A
X
X
X
X
�:i
�
' LiL��t�lt.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review
. . .... . .." ���^.,,�;`� . .. reti .. _��
c.
J
e.
the additional amount of off-street parking required for the project. In
projects where the interior accessory uses exceed 20 percent of the building
gross floor area, all interior accessory uses shall be considered additional
primary uses for purposes of calculating development potential and pazking
requirements.
❑ Regardless of the gross floor area percentage, overnight accommodations
with fewer than 50 rooms that have a full service restaurant shall comply
with the pazking standards for the restaurant use as contained in Table 2-
803. The lowest number of spaces allowed shall be used to calculate the
additional amount of off-street parking required for the restaurant.
In addition to the requirements above, for those projects that request additional
rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design and
whose interior accessory uses are between ten percent and 15 percent of the
gross floor area of the proposed building, density shall be calculated as
follows:
❑ Calculate the maximum number of units allowed by the base density;
❑ Calculate the maximum number of units that may be allocated from the
Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design;
❑ Add the figures determined in i. and ii. to determine the total number of
units allowed for the site;
❑ Divide the totai number of units allowed, as calculated in iii., by the total
land area to determine the resulting units per acre for the project site;
❑ Determine the total floor area of all interior accessory uses exceeding ten
percent of the gross floor area of the proposed building
❑ Subtract the figure determined in v. from the total land area, and divide this
difference by 43,560 to determine the net acreage;
❑ Multiply the net acreage derived in vi. by the applicable resulting units per
acre figure determined in iv. The resulting product is the maximum number
of rooms allowable for the project; and
❑ The final allocation of rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve shall be
determined by multiplying the net acreage determined in vi. by the base
density and subtracting this product from the maximum number of rooms
allowable for the project as determined in vii.
Signage for any accessory use shall be subordinate to and incorporated into the
primary freestanding signage for the overnight accommodation use. In no case
shall more than 25 percent of the sign area be dedicated to the accessory uses.
Those developments that have obtained additional density from the Destination
Resort Density Pool established in Beach by Design are not subject to the
requirements set forth in Sections 2-803.I.1 l.a—d:
� See analysis in Sta,�'f'Report.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Consistentl � Inconsistent
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Compliance with Dock Deviations Flexibility Criteria:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.i:
l. A dock of lesser length poses a threat to the mazine environment, natural resources,
wetlands habitats or water quality.
2. The proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to minimize impacts relating to criteria
set forth in Sections 3-601.C.3.b.—g.
3. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would result in extreme hardship
due to the unique nature of the project and the applicant's property.
4. The deviation sought to be granted is the minimum deviation that will make possible
the reasonable use of the applicant's property. However, where an applicant
demonstrates riparian or littoral rights which will affect the location of the dock, the
minimum further deviation to provide for exercise of such rights shall be allowed.
Community Development Board – September 15, 20l 5
FLD2015-06025 – Page 23
Consistent� Inconsistent
X
�1
X
X
• � Clearwater Level II Flexible Development Application Review
� . . .:.�^�` '. . �
5. The granting of the requested deviation will be in harmony with the general intent and
purpose of this section and will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise
detrimental or of adverse effect to the public interest and welfare.
6. No dock shall be allowed to deviate from the length requirements specified in Section
3-601.C.3.h. by more than an additiona150 percent of the allowable length or to project
into the navigable portion of the waterway by more than 25 percent of such waterway,
whichever length is less, except for those docks located on the east side of Clearwater
Harbor adjacent to the mainland, which shall be allowed to deviate up to a maximum
length equal to 25 percent of the navigable vortion of the waterwav.
1 See analysis in staff report.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
�
�
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:
[l
2.
3.
4.
5.
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, chazacter, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
amactive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards
Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is
closed.
Community character. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
Property values. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
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 develonment is located.
� See analysis in Sta„�'Report
Compliance with Beach by Design Design Guidelines:
1. Section A: Density.
2. Section B: Height.
3. Section C: Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings.
4. Section D: Setbacks.
5. Section E: Street-Level Fa�ades.
6. Section F: Parking Areas.
7. Section G: Signage.
8. Section H: Sidewalks.
9. Section I: Street Furniture and Bicycle Racks.
10. Section J: Street Lighting.
11. Section K: Fountains.
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 24
Consistent' Inconsistent
X
X
X
X
X
Consistent�
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
N/A
N/A
Inconsistent
° Clearwater Level II Flexible Development Application Review
. . ..... .�,ek�,e'�. +: . ..
12. Section L: Materials and
� See analysis in Staff'Report.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Consistent� � Inconsistent
ly
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of July 2, 2015, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to
move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings
of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact:
The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the
applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial
competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1. The 0.35-acre site is located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard generally at the
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
northern terminus of Parkway Drive;
On November 20, 2014, the City Council approved the allocation of up to 15 units from the
Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design (Case No. HDA2014-08006) and adopted a
resolution to the same effect (Res. No. 14-35);
The property is currently vacant with the exception of a seven-slip dock;
That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category;
The subject property is located in the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District of Beach by
Design;
The subject property is comprised of one parcel with approximately 135 feet of frontage
along Bayway Boulevard and 120 feet of frontage along the water;
The proposal is to construct a new hotel building on the property consisting of 32 overnight
accommodation units;
The proposal includes maintaining an existing 1,783 square foot, five-slip dock to remain
with a length of 55 feet, width of 96 feet, west setback of 12 feet and an east setback of nine
feet under the provisions of CDC Section 3-601;
The proposal includes a minimum of 38 parking spaces where 38 spaces are required
including five spaces located at 678 South Gulfview Boulevard;
The proposed hotel height is 75 feet (90 feet to highest architectural feature);
The proposal includes a front (south) setback of 35 feet (to building) and eight feet (to
pavement), a side (west) setback of six feet (to building) and one foot (to pavement), a side
(east) setback of 30 feet (to building) and three feet (to paving) and six feet (to garage ramp)
and a rear (north) setback of six feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement);
That the proposal is fully in compliance with all applicable portions of the Beach by Design
guidelines; and,
13. There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property.
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 25
� CleNd ►'��Lel Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLAN�'ING&DEVELOPMENT
° �..���_i��-�.f�: �:. �. . .. .. . . . e,..� , _. .
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
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 pursuant to CDC Tables 2-
801.1 and 2-803;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria pursuant to CDC
Section 2-803.K;
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria pursuant to CDC
Section 3-601.C.3;
4. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One and
Two Approvals pursuant to CDC Section 3-914.A;
5. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive
Landscape Program pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G;
6. That the development is consistent with the General Purposes of the CDC pursuant to CDC
Section 1-103;
7. That the development is consistent with applicable components of the City's Comprehensive
Plan;
8. That the application is consistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial
competent evidence pursuant to CDC Section 4-206.D.4;
9. That the development is consistent with the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District of Beach
by Design; and,
10. That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
the Flexible Development application to permit a 32-room overnight accommodation use in the
Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 15,264 square feet, a lot width of 135 feet, a front (south)
setback of 35 feet (to building) and eight feet (to pavement/ramp), a side (west) setback of six
feet (to building) and one foot (to pavement), a side (east) setback of 30 feet (to building) and
three feet (to paving) and six feet (to garage ramp) and a rear (north) setback of six feet (to
building) and zero feet (to pavement); and a building height of 75 feet and 90 feet to highest
architectural feature; and a minimum of 38 parking spaces at 1.2 parking spaces per hotel room,
under the provisions of CDC Section 2-803.K; elimination of the required foundation
landscaping and interior landscape requirement as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under
the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G; and to permit an existing 1,783 square foot, five-slip
dock to remain with a length of 55 feet, width of 96 feet, west setback of 12 feet and an east
setback of nine feet under the provisions of CDC Section 3-601; and a two-year Development
Order under the provisions of CDC Section 4-407 subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
General/Miscellaneous Conditions
l. That any future freestanding sign(s) be a monument-style sign and that all signs be designed
to match the exterior materials and color of the building;
2. 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 Bayway Boulevard right-of-way;
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD20l 5-06025 — Page 26
' C��ui 1'1'al�t,� Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
� �./�..iv�/ti/�..� ,� „ . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
3. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than August 18, 2017, unless
time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407;
Timin� Conditions - Prior to Issuance of Permit
4. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a deed restriction which provides that five spaces
located at 678 Gulfview Boulevard shall be reserved for the exclusive use of patrons of the
subject site and that such a deed restriction will include a site plan indicating the exact
parking spaces and that those parking spaces are shown to be within 600 feet of the subject
site be submitted to and approved by Staff.
5. That, prior to the issuance of any permits for construction except for clearing and grubbing,
demolition, site work or the provision of fill, architectural plans are submitted to and
approved by staff which show that all parking spaces within the garage include wheel stops;
6. That, prior to the issuance of any buildings except for clearing and grubbing, demolition or
the provision of fill, a site plan which indicates that where sidewalks cross driveways
treatments such as pavers or textured paving are used and that the details of that treatment
including but not limited to pattern, type and installation methodology be approved by Staff;
7. That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, except for clearing and grubbing,
demolition or the provision of fill, a final landscape plan be submitted to and approved by
Staff;
8. That, prior to the issuance of any permits for construction, except for clearing and grubbing,
demolition or the provision of fill, 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;
9. That, prior to the issuance of any permits for construction, except for clearing and grubbing,
demolition or the provision of fill, 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;
10. That, prior to the issuance of any permits for construction, except for cleaxing and grubbing,
demolition or the provision of fill, 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);
11. That, prior to the issuance of any permits for construction, except for clearing and grubbing,
demolition or the provision of fill, a site plan, accompanied by a stormwater vault
maintenance schedule, signed and accepted by the owner, which provides stormwater vault
specifications indicating that the vault provides water quality benefits is submitted to and
approved by City Staff;
12. That prior to the issuance of any permits for construction, a grading and drainage plan is
submitted to City staff which provides acceptable levels of stormwater attenuation and meets
water quality standards;
13. That prior to the issuance of any permits for construction a Hurricane Evacuation Plan be
submitted to and approved by the City;
Community Development Board — September 15, 2015
FLD2015-06025 — Page 27
° ClearwaterLevel II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANHING&DEVELOPMENT
p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIRW DIVISION
- ���:��; ��
14. That, prior to the issuance of any permits for construction, except for clearing and grubbing,
demolition or the provision of fill, provide evidence to Staff that a 19 foot long passenger
vehicle can maneuver around bends in a forward direction without encroaching onto
opposing lanes inside the parking garage through the use of a turning template or auto turn
program;
15. That, prior to the issuance of any permits for construction, except for clearing and grubbing,
demolition or the provision of fill, the fit, finish, materials, the installation methodology of
the sidewalks 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;
Timing Conditions - Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
16. That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the sidewalks and any associated
sidewalk amenities be installed to the satisfaction of City Staff along any street frontages;
17. That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, reflective material, white or yellow
in color, be installed above the mean high water line on all tie poles extending past the end of
the dock so as to alert boaters of the tie pole location; and
18. That, prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all service lines onto the property
shall be installed underground unless undergrounding is shown to be impracticable pursuant
to CDC Section 3-912. � ;1
�- ,
,1�-, '� __
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff {,/�`°�---�-"""`� ?
Mark T. Parry, AICP, SeniorPlanner
Community Development Board — September l 5, 20l 5
FLD2015-06025 — Page 28
0
�D
u�
v
:
TOP OF MATLSARD
atv..,e�-a� nFF.
TOP GF ROOF 5L.A8
� -,, �
-- --
AR Sh t�
Y liYEl 8 F�I! FI.oR. ( bn� I�v6. uv�NS)
Q `_' c �'— — ---
o --a � ��.,, v�
RFV. � 58'-8' A.FF.
LFVH. "1 FlN. FLR. ( STH LEYH. LIVINfs)
4 -� � ? � -----
o � �-�, � �r, v�
�
$ -
4
� °
�
4
0
0
4
�
�.�va e Fnr. R.R. ( an� �va. �mr�)
�= i°�
-a � rti i*+s
fIFV. + 38'-8' AF.F.
1FVEL 5 FIN FLR ( 3RD LEV� LNIN6)
� ��°� � ' `- -
- -
_'A k A�_ I`4.''�-
Q.EV. � 28'-8' AFF.
LEV� 4 FIN. FLR ( 2P0 LEVH. LIVIN6)
�-; .?-- __
� :� � ��ti�,�y�
Y �,EVEI. 3 FIN. FLR ( 157 LEVH. LMN67
4 � -_ , � �.;� "
O -A R �h� I`�,��
Y 6ARh6E LEVEL 2 FIN. FtR
J� B.EY. + II DO BFE.
+ O'-0'
��lf�l
'►���hl!l!I!!!�±hl!
■ ii;
���
■ �',■
■ �I i
■ i■
.�■�
� �j�,
��,�'I■
■ j%■
�"�
''i
■�:■
■!��I
■II�I
■I
I!�■
- i
I.
��
i
; 'I j I
� , �
i i I
i i �
i
i !
� ; �
--
�j ;j
, �li
- -;.- � - --
; �
� '
�
�
�—
■ , '
— ❑
�
� ��i
_,_ �i�i!iyi�i!i = = =
�',I�
.� i■
■i',■
.�'■
��'�
■�'■
���■
■I;�
■i�,■
�w'�
�i',:■
; ��'��
�
.lil■
■I �■
�
■_,�
_ a :�
SfAlOIN6 SFAY YEfN ROOf 67
61RFCOM14f SIRfLY. LOIDIMI I�D
wr�caac sr �n� w�wdc �
ALCENf LQOR R 8l00 p1S7Y MI�M
r
° 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 COMPIETE 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 COMMI7TEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITf'Al FOR THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL
AND 14 COPIES�. PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS.
THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200
APPLICATION FEE: $1,205
PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): gayway Hotel Holdings LLC
MAILING ADDRESS: 20001 Gulf Boulevard, Indian Shores, FL 33785
PHONE NUMBER: 727-804-9726
EMAIL: stevepage@tampabay.rr.com
AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Housh Ghovaee
MAILING ADDRESS: 300 S. Belcher Rd., Clearwater, FL 33765
PHONE NUMBER: �27-443'2869
EMAI�: housh@northsideengineering.net
ADDRESS OF SUBIECT PROPERTY: 706 Bayway Blvd.
PaRCEL NUnnaER(s): 17-29-15-06286-000-0001 and 17-29-15-06286-000-0010
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Sheet C1.1
PROPOSED USE(S): Overnight Accommodation Use (Hotel with a total of 32 rooms)
DESCRIPTfON OF REQUEST: See Narrative
Specifically identify the request
(indude all requested code flexibility;
e.g., reduction in required number of
parking spaces, height setbacks, lot
size, !ot 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 7 of 8 Revised 01/12
r t
° �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
APPLICATION CYCLE.
20NING DISTRICT:
Tourist (T)
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: Resort Facility High (RFH)
EXISTING USE (currently existing on site): VBCant
PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain):_ Overnight Accommodation Use (Hotel)
SITE AREA: 15,264 sq. ft.
0.35 acres
GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings):
Existing: p sq. ft.
Proposed: 27 360* SG• ft• *Accessory use: 1,144 square feet (4% of GFA)
Maximum Allowable: sq. ft.
GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses):
First use: 27,180 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: 0.0
Proposed:
Maximum Allowable: __
BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (151 floor square footage of all buildings):
Existing: 0 sq. ft. ( 0 � of site)
Proposed: 6,261 sq. ft. ( 41 % of site)
Maximum Permitted: 14,500 sq. ft. ( 95 � of site)
GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer):
Existing: 0 sq. ft. ( p % of site)
Proposed: p sq. ft. ( p % of site)
VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area):
Existing: p sq. ft. ( p % of site)
Proposed: 4 078 SG• ft• ( 0.27 % of site)
Planning & 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: 0
Proposed: 0.76
Maximum Permitted: 0.95
DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): BUILDING HEIGHT:
Existing: p Existing: 0
Proposed: 92 rooms/acre Proposed: 74.5 feet above BFE
Maximum Permitted: 92 rooms/acre Maximum Permitted: 100 feet above BFE
OFF-STREET PARKING:
Existing: p
Proposed: 38 �3 S�ces on-site and 5 spaces located at 678 S. Gulfview Blvd. within 200 feet)
Minimum Required: 38
WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPQN COMPLETION? $ 7,000,000
ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY:
North: Preservation (P)
south: Tourist (T)
East: Tourist (T)
West: ourist
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS /,
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this ��'�'t�"�— day of
representations made in this application are true and ��,,
accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize ,/ ���`{'/l�� �• to me and/or by
City representatives to visit and photograph the `7 1G�`�i.Q�11�� �.�? ��. , who is personally known has
property described in this application. produced as identification.
0
re of property owner or representative Notary pubd�c, ����
My commission expires: ,,��j���;; ROBYNtiMOEHRING
\N /�AlItI1L�L�IN1 Y CL Mf
Bonded Th�u Nolary PubNc Undernriters
Planning & Development Departrnent, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 3 of 8 Revised 01/12
LETfER OF AUTHORtZATIOr'�I
This letter will serve as authorization for Housh Ghovaee or Kather�ne E. Cole
(ac�ent Name)
to act as an agent for
Bavwav Hotel Hoidinqs, LLC.
(Property Owner's Name}
And to execute any and al{ documents related to securing permits and
approvals for the construction on the property generally located at
706 Bayway Blvd., Clearwater, FL
(Property Location)
Pinellas Countv, State of FLORIDA.
�_ ._.. _..__
_ -.�� _.�_.._.:,r����
Signature of Property Owner
�t�:.�1 � v 1 � �l� S� i �: �
Address of Property O nw er
��1 i ���� �)�r�, I �L 3 � ��5
City/State/Zip Co e
.�� ic'vG _��._j�_�___
Print Name of Pi�aperty Owner
Title� �
"7�17 � 5�> � - �l�L "7
Telephone Number
State af �� ` ,,C_..� The foregoing insirument was acknawledge before me this �°�� �] day
Caunty of ��.�.�..c,v of _�:.,�:�, 20 : -> , by -�-�`i _ i_� �� �.._ , as �I � L
� 'r
v�+ho�rsanallv_ktlOwl� to �r who has pr f uced
as idenliTication and wt�o did (d�d not) take a� oath.
wy JANET L. KRUEBEA
ys Nobry PubNC • 8t�t ol Fbtid� �,...� ,.! .,. �
�� My Canm. Expna J� 29. 4018
� Comndss�+I Ef t76963 � ' :� -L-` IVOt�ry PubliC
''��' B� � � �xfr�a. lSignat re) �"
�
Commission # � '�'-- / � � �/��s J
(SEAL ABOVE) C� ct. t 1��> >�t r���z°�c��{�filame of Noiary Typed, Pnnted ar Stamped)
o Planning & Development Departxnent
�� earwater Flexible Develo ment A lication
P PP
� Site Plan Submittal Package Check list
IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE
PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS:
Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the
subject property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide
these responses.
�Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application
General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses.
❑ A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property,
dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including
official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site.
If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mabile home park as
provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5.
❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other si milar
marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional
engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair
or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on
private and commercial docks.
�A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals
50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information:
❑ Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon.
❑ North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared.
❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases.
�❑
�■
�❑
Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard
Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable.
Location, footprint and size of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site.
Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points
of access.
Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and
seawalls and any proposed utility easements.
Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed
stormwater control plan including calcu�ations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of
Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit.
Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection.
Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406.
All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections
and bus shelters.
�Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building
separations.
❑\Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height and building materials.
Planning S Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 4 of 8 Revised 01/12
❑ Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each fioor of any parking garage.
❑ Demolition plan.
D Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally
sensitive areas.
-r(�( If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% (excluding those standards where the
rI(" difference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study will need to be
provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are
approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information.
� A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying
those trees proposed to be removed, if any.
A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and
condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff. Check with staff.
A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more
of the following conditions:
■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour (directional trips, inbound or outbound on the
abutting streets) and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day; or
■ Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to
unacceptable levels; or
■ The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve
month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided
by the City of Clearwater Police Department; or
■ The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review
process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments
with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors.
A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved
or remodeled in a value of 25% or mare of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's
current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional
landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if
not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval:
�Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including
botanical and common names.
Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, including drip line.
Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square
feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and
vehicular use areas.
Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, 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.
❑ elineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any.
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 5 of 8 Revised 01H2
° learwater
��
Planning & Development Department
Flexible Development Application
� General Applicability Criteria
PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAII, THE
CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent
properties in which it is located.
See 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 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 Narrative
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
See Narrative
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development.
See 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 Narrative
Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562�d865
Page 6 of 8 Revised 07H2
LL
o Planning & Development Department
} ear�vater Flexible Develo ment A lication
� P PP
° Flexibility Criteria
PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(S) BEING REQUESTED AS SET
FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(5) IN WHICH THE SUBIECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAIL, EACH CRITERION
IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY).
�. See Narrative
�
3.
G�I
6.
8.
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearvvater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 7 of 8 Revised 01/12
° 1 rwater
�Cea
� Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative
Planning & Development Department
Flexible Development Application
1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT fuli names:
Bayway Hotel Holdings LLC
2. That (i am/we are) the owner(s) and record titie holder(s) of the foliowing described property:
706 Bayway Blvd. (17-29-15-06286-000-0001)
3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request):
Flexible Development approval to permit an Overnight Accommodation Use (Hotel)
4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint:
Katherine E Cole/Hill Ward Henderson
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. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Property Owner
Property Owner
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Property Owner
Property Owner
BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON
THIS DAY OF , , PERSONALLY APPEARED
WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN
DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED.
see attached.
Notary Seal/Stamp
Notary Public Signature
My Commission Expires:
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 8 of 8 Revised 01N2
Narrative
Coconut Cove Suites Waterside
706 Bayway Boulevard
Request
The Applicant requests Flexible Development approval to permit a 32-room overnight
accommodation use (17 units from base density and 15 units obtained from the Hotel Density
Reserve under HDA2014-08006) in the Tourist (T) District:
a. Minimum lot area from 20,000 square feet to 15,264 square feet;
b. A reduction to the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 134 feet
c. Front setback (south along Bayway Boulevard) from 15 feet to eight feet (to
pavement-retaining wall) where 0-15 ft. are permitted;
d. Side setback (east) from 10 feet to six feet (to building) and three feet (to pool), zero
feet to pergola, where 0-10 ft. are permitted;
e. Side setback (west) from 10 feet to six feet (to building) and one foot (to sidewalk)
where 0-10 ft. are permitted;
f. Rear setback (north) from 20 feet to 6.3 feet (to parking levels of building), 1 ft. to
pool deck; and 15 feet (to hotel levels of building) where 0-20 ft. are permitted;
g. Building height of 74.5 feet (to top of roof slab from Base Flood Elevation), 82.5 ft. to
top of roof under the provisions of CDC Section 2-803.K where 35-100 ft. is
permitted;
h. Elimination of the required foundation plantings width along the front (south)
fa�ade of the building and the elimination of required interior landscape area as part
of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of CDC Section 3-
1202.G;
i. Approval of a 1,7$3 square-foot commercial dock with five existing slips, with a
deviation to dock setbacks from 12 feet to eight feet (existing on west side) and a
deviation to increase the dock width from 90 feet maximum to 95 feet (existing),
under the provisions of CDC Section 3-601.C.3; and,
j. a two year Development Order, under the provisions of CDC Section 4-407.
Proposal
The applicant proposed to redevelop the site at 706 Bayway Boulevard with a 32-room
overnight accommodation use (hotelj. The maximum base density allowable provides for 17
units for this property. The proposal includes 15 units from the Hotel Density Reserve,
approved by City Council under Case Number HDA2014-08006. The upland portion of the
property is presently vacant. There exists a dock with seven slips on leased, submerged land
that is proposed to be retained as an accessory use to the hotel and its guests. The proposed
hotel will offer a Mediterranean Revival architectural design for travelers looking for a mid-
priced hotel with limited services. The design provides an eight-story hotel with six levels of
hotel rooms over two levels of parking. Accessory uses, including a small exercise room and a
1
conference room that doubles as the breakfast area, are located on Level 3 where the hotel
lobby is located and totals four percent of the gross floor area of the hotel. An existing dock
with five slips will be used as an accessory use to the hotel and hotel guests. A total of 38
parking spaces (33 on site and 5 off site at 678 South Gulfview Boulevard (southwest of the
subject property within 200 feet, which is under the same ownership)) are proposed. This
proposed hotel is expected to generate approximately 12 —15 new jobs, both full time and part
time.
The site is located within the area designated by Beach by Design as the South
Beach/Clearwater Pass District. Beach by Design identifies this area as an area of strategic
revitalization and renovation in response to improving conditions on the balance of Clearwater
Beach. Beach by Design strongly encourages and supports redevelopment of the area to include
hotels, restaurants, commercial uses, mixed uses and attached dwellings. It is understood that
this broad range of uses contribute to the creation of the unique character and atmosphere
that is Clearwater Beach. The proposed hotel will fit well into this vision of this District.
Site Location and Existing Conditions
The subject site has a total lot area of 0.35 acre and is Iocated approximately at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Bayway Boulevard and Parkway Drive. The site has
approximately 134 feet of frontage on Bayway Boulevard. The site is bounded by Bayway
Boulevard to the south, Clearwater Bay to the north, the Clearwater Police Substation to the
west and attached dwellings to the east. The site is currently vacant, except a dock with five
slips located on leased, submerged land. The site was previously developed with 16 attached
dwellings, demolished in 2005. The subject property is zoned Tourist (T) District with a Future
Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH) and is located in the South
Beach/Clearwater Pass District of8each by Design.
Compliance with the Flexible Development Standards of Table 2-803 and other CDC
Requirements
Minimum Lot Area and Width — The minimum lot area for an overnight accommodation use is
between 10,000 — 20,000 square feet, pursuant to Table 2-803. The subject site area is 15,264
square feet, which is consistent with smaller developed lots within the vicinity and is, therefore,
in compliance with this lot area range of this standard. The minimum lot width for an overnight
accommodation use is between 100 — 150 feet, pursuant to Table 2-803. The subject site has a
(ot width of approximately 134 feet along Bayway Boulevard, which is consistent with smaller
developed lots within the vicinity and is, therefore, in compliance with this lot width range of
this standard.
Minimum Setbacks — For an overnight accommodation use, the minimum front setback is
between 0-15 feet, the minimum side setback is between 0— 10 feet and the minimum rear
setback is between 0— 20 feet, pursuant to Table 2-803. The proposed building complies with
all of the ranges provided in the Code. The proposal includes a reduction to the front setback
�
(south) from 15 feet to 10 feet to pavement for surface-level handicap parking and eight feet
for the ramp to the second level of parking. The proposal includes a reduction to the side (east)
setback from 10 feet to six feet to the building, which is actually the ramp to the second level of
parking. The hotel building will be located more than 30 feet from the east property line. The
proposed pool deck is designed to be located within three feet of the east property line. The
proposal includes reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to six feet for the building
and to one foot for required sidewalk access from a building stairwell. The proposal includes
rear (north) setback reductions from 20 feet to 15 feet for the hotel building Levels 3— 8 and to
6.5 feet to parking Levels 1— 2. A pergola providing a pedestrian entrance is (ocated zero feet
from the side setback. There is no rear setback reduction required for the pool deck, as such is
permitted to be zero feet per Table 2-803. The justification of these requested reductions to
setbacks is addressed in the responses to the Flexibility Criteria of Section 2-803.K below.
Maximum Hei�ht — For an overnight accommodation use, the maximum building height is
between 35 — 100 feet, pursuant to Table 2-803. The proposal includes a building height
increase from 35 to 73.67 feet to the top of the roof slab of Level 9, in compliance with the
standard range. Stair/elevator towers are an additional 16 feet in height (from top of the roof
slab), in compliance with Code provisions. The justification to the building height increase is
addressed in the response to the Flexibility Criteria of Section 2-803.K below.
Minimum Off-Street Parkin� — For an overnight accommodation use, required parking is
between 1.0 — 1.2 parking spaces per room. The proposal meets the required parking standard
of 1.2 spaces per room. There are a total of 32 rooms proposed, with a requirement of 38
parking spaces. The proposal includes 33 parking spaces in two levels of parking and exterior
parking spaces (total of 33 spaces). Five parking spaces will be located at 678 South Gulfview
Boulevard (southwest of the subject property within 200 feet and under the same ownership),
and will be provided through a parking agreement/easement that will be recorded prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. CDC Section 3-1404.A requires all parking serving the
principal and accessory uses to be located within 600 feet of the site, where this proposal
complies with this provision. The hotel at 678 South Gulfview Boulevard presently is developed
with 42 rooms and the applicant has already constructed 57 Code compliance parking spaces.
The site was developed and approved with a 1:1 parking ration and therefore has an additional
17 spaces; if reconstructed today, the Code would require 50 spaces, still allowing for extra
parking. No loading/delivery spaces are required in the T District. Deliveries will occur in the
right-of-way, similar to other businesses on the beach.
Mechanical Equipment — Mechanical equipment will be located on the roof of Level 9 and will
be adequately screened from view from adjacent properties and rights-of-way by solid
screening. The screening of inechanical equipment will be more completely reviewed at time of
the building permit submission.
Si�ht Visibilitv Trian�les — CDC Section 3-904.A restricts structures and landscaping which will
obstruct views at a level of 30 inches and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles along rights-of-way. There is a driveway proposed on Bayway Boulevard. There are no
�
structures that will restrict views and planted landscaping will be maintained to meet this
requirement. To enhance views of the water from waterfront property, CDC Section 3-904.6
does not permit any structure or landscaping to be installed, other than a fence around a
swimming pool or any non-opaque fences not exceeding 48 inches, within 20-foot waterfront
sight visibility triangles. The building has been designed such that the structured parking on
Levels 1 and 2 does not encroach into the waterfront sight visibility triangle at the northeast
corner of the property. The pool deck has also been designed not to encroach into the
waterfront visibility triangle at the southeast corner of the property. Fencing will comply with
this requirement and there is no landscaping other than sod and sand within the waterfront
sight visibility triangles, in compliance with this restriction.
Utilities — For development that does not involve a subdivision, CDC Section 3-912 requires all
utilities including individual distribution lines to be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. There are overhead utility lines serving this site and all
praperties located on Bayway Boulevard along the street frontage of this parcel. All utilities that
serve the site from the main lines will be placed underground. Undergrounding of the overhead
utilities along the site frontage is impracticable for this site and should rather be part of an
overall, coordinated undergrounding of overhead utilities project for all affected properties
along Bayway Boulevard, where property owners would be assessed the cost of such
undergrounding. Due to economies of scale, such coordinated undergrounding would be less
expensive on an overall basis rather than property owners bearing the full cost of piecemeal
undergrounding on an individual basis. The visual effect of piecemeal undergrounding would
also be unappealing. No other property redeveloped under the provisions of the CDC along the
north side of Bayway Boulevard, neither any property redeveloped under the provisions of the
CDC along Brightwater Drive, nor any small, individual property in the entire City has been
required to underground similar overhead utilities for their parcel. A coordinated approach
deals with all affected properties on an "equal" basis and improves the visual appeal of the
entire area for the general welfare of the public. A coordinated approach has been utilized on
other areas of the beach, such as South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive.
Landscapin� — There are no perimeter buffers required in the T District for this site, pursuant to
CDC Section 3-1202.D. The proposal does not meet the required minimum five-foot wide
foundation planting along the south (Bayway Boulevard) side of the building. Pursuant to CDC
Section 3-1202.E, there is a requirement for 10% of the vehicular use area greater than 4,000
square feet to be planted as interior landscape area. The vehicular use area outside of the
structured parking is 4,078 square feet, consisting of the driveway, drive aisle to the first floor
structured parking, ramp to the second floor parking and two handicap parking spaces. The
proposal includes the elimination of the foundation landscaping and interior landscaping
requirements. Section F, Parking Areas, of the8each by Design Design Guidelines, requires a
three-foot landscape area between parking and the front property line. There is a 10-foot
landscape area along the west side and eight feet along the east side of Bayway Boulevard that
will be planted with a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcovers to enhance the visual appeal of
the site and building, facilitating a larger landscaping area to include the relocated foundation
and interior landscaping planting areas. Landscape areas along the east and west sides of the
4
site ranging in width between one and six feet will be planted with trees, shrubs and
groundcovers that will complement the site and adjacent properties. A Comprehensive
Landscape Program has been submitted to address any deficiencies of CDC requirements and is
discussed later in this Narrative.
Solid Waste —The proposal includes a trash collection facility within the building adjacent to the
eastern stairwell and a roll-out dumpster that will be moved outside to the street, similar to
other uses within the surrounding area, and returned to the enclosed dumpster room on
collection days by hotel staff. The trash collection facility will have an overhead door to conceal
the roll-out dumpster.
Si�na�e — A sign package is not included with this submittal. All proposed signage will meet all
applicable requirements of the CDC and Beach hy Design. If necessary, a Comprehensive Sign
Program will be submitted prior to signage permits.
Compliance with Expiration of a Level Two Approval of CDC Section 4-407
Under the provisions of CDC Section 4-407, unless otherwise specified in the approval by the
Community Development Board (CDB), an application for a building permit shall be made
within one year of the date of the Level Two approval. The proposal includes a request to
extend the timeframe to submit for a building permit from one to two years. This requested
two year timeframe is due to necessary approval processes of hotel chains, the need to line up
financial terms and obtaining necessary permits through local, state and federal governmental
agencies prior to the submission for building permits. It is noted that numerous ather
development approvals granted by the CDB for projects on Clearwater Beach have included a
similar two year timeframe.
Compliance with Flexibility Criteria for Overnight Accommodation Uses of Section 2-803.K
1. With the exception of those properties located on Clearwater Beach, the parcel
proposed for development shall front on but shall not involve direct access to a major
arterial street unless no other means of access would be possible;
Response: The proposal is located on Clearwater Beach and fronts on the north side of
Bayway Boulevard, a local street which provides its only access. The driveway provides
vehicular access to two levels of structured parking within the building and to two at-
grade handicap parking spaces outside of the building. The proposal has been reviewed
by the Traffic Division and been found acceptable, as also supported by a Traffic Impact
Study for this project. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion.
2. Height: The increased height results in an improved site plan and/or improved design
and appearance;
5
Response: The proposal includes a height of 73.67 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
to the top of roof slab of Level 9. The actual building is located 35 feet from the front
property line and over 30 feet from the east property line. This building location allows
for surface parking, ramp access to the second level of parking and an eight- to 10-foot
landscape area adjacent to Bayway Boulevard. This landscape area exceeds that
provided by other redeveloped properties along Bayway Boulevard. The building has
been located toward the west side of the site, adjacent to the nonresidential use of the
City Police Substation, allowing for an over 30-foot separation to an existing one-story
attached dwellings to the east, providing for greater compatibility of adjacent uses. The
proposed height provides a building in scale with other existing or approved buildings
within the vicinity of this site. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion.
3. Signs: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more
than six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for
development unless such signage is a part of an approved Comprehensive Sign Program;
Response: A sign package is not included with this submittal. All proposed signage will
meet all applicable requirements of the CDC and Beach by Design. If necessary, a
Comprehensive Sign Program will be submitted prior to signage permits. Therefore,
while this criterion is applicable to the proposal, it will be applied when a sign package is
submitted to the City for review.
4. Front setback:
a. The reduced setback shall contribute to a more active and dynamic street life;
b. The reduced setback shall result in an improved site plan through the provision
of a more efficient off-street parking area, and/or improved building design and
appearance; and
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
being diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other
areas through a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
Response: The proposal includes reductions to the front setback along Bayway
Boulevard from 15 feet to eight feet (to pavement). The actual building is located 35
feet from the front property line, meeting the required front setback of 15 feet from
Bayway Boulevard (which is a local street). A pergola directing pedestrians to the
pedestrian entrance is located at ten feet from the front property line. The proposal
also exceeds compliance with Section D of the Design Guidelines of8each by Design,
where building setbacks should be 12 feet from local streets. South Gulfview Boulevard
is an arterial street and, through design, is the area of the South Beach/Clearwater Pass
District to have an active and dynamic street life. Bayway Boulevard has a diminished
role of activity within this District. Parking will be primarily within structured parking
within the building but will have two at-grade handicap parking spaces on the west side
of the driveway. While there are no perimeter buffers required in the T District for this
site, pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there is an eight- to 10-foot landscape area
6
along Bayway Boulevard that will be planted with a variety of trees, shrubs and
groundcovers to enhance the visual appeal of the site and building, facilitating a larger
landscaping area to include the relocated foundation and interior tandscaping planting
areas. This landscape area exceeds that provided by other redeveloped properties along
Bayway Boulevard. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
5. Side and rear setbacks:
a. The reduced setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by
emergency vehicles and/or personnel;
b. The reduced setback results in an improved site plan through the provision of a
more efficient off-street parking area, and/or improved building design and
appearance; and
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
being diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other
areas through a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
Response: The proposal includes a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to
six feet to the building, which is actually the ramp to the second level of parking. The
hotel building will be located more than 30 feet from the east property line. Parking
pavement for the first level of parking under the building is proposed at a setback of 30
feet to the east property line. The proposed pool deck is to be located within three feet
of the east property line. The proposal includes reductions to the side (west) setback
from 10 feet to six feet for the building and to one foot for required sidewalk access
from a building stairwell. These reduced setbacks do not prevent emergency personnel
access to the rear of the building. The sidewalks to/from the western stairwell actually
provide required access to emergency personnel. Parking will be primarily within
structured parking within the building but will have two at-grade handicap parking
spaces on the west side of the driveway. While there are no perimeter buffers required
in the T District for this site, pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there is an eight- to 10-
foot landscape area along Bayway Boulevard that will be planted with a variety of trees,
shrubs and groundcovers to enhance the visual appeal of the site and building,
facilitating a larger landscaping area to include the relocated foundation and interior
landscaping planting areas. This landscape area exceeds that provided by other
redeveloped properties along Bayway Boulevard. The proposal includes rear (north)
setback reductions from 20 feet to 15 feet for Hotel Levels 3— 8 and to 6.5 feet to
parking Levels 1— 2. The building, surface parking and ramp to the second level of
parking have been designed toward the rear of the property in order to provide the
eight- to 10-foot wide landscape area along Bayway Boulevard to enhance the visual
appeal of the site. There is no rear setback reduction required for the pool deck, as such
is permitted to be zero feet per Table 2-803. A Comprehensive Landscape Program is
submitted with this application dealing with the elimination of interior landscaping and
foundation landscape area, which is compensated by the eight- to 10-foot wide
landscape area along Bayway Boulevard. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with
this criterion.
7
6. Off-street parking:
a. The proposed development contains no more than 130 rooms; and
b. The proposed development is within 1,000 feet of an existing public parking
garage with documented available capacity.
Response: The propased 32-room hotel requires 38 parking spaces to meet the code's
minimum standard, with 33 spaces being provided on-site and five spaces on property
under the same ownership at 678 South Gulfview Boutevard. The 42-room hotel
property at 678 South Gulfview Boulevard was approved with a 1:1 parking ratio
requiring 42 parking spaces; it is currently developed with 57 parking spaces. Therefore,
there is ample additional parking to provide the five spaces needed for the applicant's
current project. There is a cross-parking agreement encumbering 678 S. Gulfview that
provides for two spaces to be used by the adjacent property while granting the rights to
two spaces on the adjacent owner's property — thereby not impacting the available
parking. This off-site parking will be provided through a parking agreement/easement
that will be recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, no
reduction is being requested. As such, the proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
7. The design of all buildings shall comply with the Tourist District site and architectural
design guidelines in Section 3-501, as applicable;
Response: The proposed building has been designed to comply with the requirements of
the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. The hotel building is designed in a
Mediterranean Revival architectural style with the six levels of hotel rooms situated
atop two levels of parking. Accessory uses, including a small exercise room and a
conference room that doubles as the breakfast area, are located on Level 3, which is
where the hotel lobby is located, and total four 10 percent of the gross floor area. The
proposal includes a total of 38 parking spaces, located in two levels of structured
parking and at-grade handicap parking totaling 33 parking spaces and five parking
spaces on a property within 200 feet at 678 South Gulfview Boulevard under the same
ownership, that will be provided through a parking agreement/easement recorded prior
to the issuance of any permits, which complies with the required rate of 1.2 parking
spaces per room.
Conformance with the Design Guidelines, intended to be administered in a flexible
manner to achieve the highest quality built environment for Clearwater Beach, is
discussed further:
Section A specifically addresses the issue of density. Based on the site area of 0.35
acre, the base density allows for 17 units. Under the Hotel Density Reserve, City Council
has approved under Case Number HDA2014-08007 the addition af 15 rooms, at a
density of 92 rooms per acre.
�
Section 8 specifically addresses height and is delineated in three subsections.
Section 8.1 provides that a height up to 150 feet may be permitted where additional
density is allocated to the development either by TDRs, or via the Destination Resort
Density Pool, or via the Hotel Density Reserve with location standards. This proposal
provides for a building height of 74.5 feet to the roof deck of Level 9 from Base Flood
Elevation, where this Section is not applicable.
Section B.2 requires that portions of any structures which exceed 100 feet in height are
spaced at least 100 feet apart and also provides for overall separation requirements for
all buildings which exceed 100 feet in height. This proposal provides for a building height
of 74.5 feet to the roof deck from Base Flood Elevation, where this Section is not
applicable.
Section 8.3 requires the floorplate of any building exceeding 45 feet in height, with the
exception of parking levels, be no greater than 25,000 square feet and also requires
reduced floorplates exceeding 100 feet in height. The largest floorplate above 45 feet is
5,638 square feet and there is no portion of the building above 100 feet above BFE.
Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal.
Section C addresses issues relating to design, scale and building mass. These are
addressed in six parts.
Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet or a
single dimension greater than 100 feet be constructed so that no more than the two of
the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length.
The proposed building footprint is 6,261 square feet. While the footprint is rectangular,
there is an entry on the south elevation, ramp area on the east and south and balconies
on the rear elevation, all which break the horizontal planes. The proposed building is
84.5 feet in the east/west dimension and 74 feet in the north/south dimension for
Parking Levels 1— 2 and 66.33 feet for Hotel Levels 3— 8. The building height is 73.67
feet to the rooftop from Base Flood Elevation. Therefore, the proposal has been
designed utilizing multiple dimensions to ensure that no more than two of the three
building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. Therefore,
this provision is supported by this proposal.
Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than
100 feet without an offset of more than 100 feet. The maximum building length is 84.5
feet in the east/west dimension and a maximum of 74 feet in the north/south
dimension, less than the maximum of 100 feet before an offset is required. Therefore,
this provision is supported by this proposal.
Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or
architectural decoration. Elevation coverage of windows, balconies and architectural
details is 49 percent for the south elevation, 35 percent for the east elevation, 95
9
percent for the north elevation and 35 percent for the west elevation, in compliance
with this requirement. It is noted that the Design Guidelines are not intended to serve
as regulations requiring specific relief, except with regard to building height and spacing
between buildings exceeding 100 feet in height. While the percentages are less than
that set forth in this Section, this provision is a guideline and does not require specific
relief from the Design Guidelines. Therefore, this provision is supported by this
proposal.
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. The overall building mass
above 45 feet is SO percent of the theoretical maximum building envelope. It is noted
that the Design Guidelines are not intended to serve as regulations requiring specific
relief, except with regard to building height and spacing between buildings exceeding
100 feet in height. While the building mass is greater than that stated in the Design
Guidelines, this provision is a guideline and does not require specific relief from the
Design Guidelines. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal as shown on
the exhibit included in the architectural plans.
Section C.5 requires that the height and mass of buildings be correlated to: (1) the
dimensional aspects of the parcel and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and
parks. The parcel is approximately 134 feet in width along Bayway Boulevard, where the
right-of-way width is 60 feet. The closest point of the building to the south property line
is 35 feet. The proposal includes an entry to the parking area from the front with a ramp
that wraps around the east side of the building. It is similar in size and scope to other
buildings Iocated on the north side of Bayway Boulevard. Therefore, this provision is
supported by this proposal.
Section C.6 permits buildings to be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permitted
uses. The proposal is for a single use: overnight accommodations. Therefare, this
provision is supported by this proposal.
Section D addresses the issues of sidewalk widths, setbacks and stepbacks. These are
addressed in three parts.
Section D.1 provides for the distances from structures to the edge of the right-of-way
should be 12 feet along local streets. The closest point of the building to the south
property line is 35 feet. Parking will be primarily structured parking within the building
but will have two at-grade handicap parking spaces on the west side of the driveway.
While there are no perimeter buffers required in the T District for this site, pursuant to
CDC Section 3-1202.D, there is an eight- to 10-foot landscape area proposed along
Bayway Boulevard that will be planted with a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcovers
to enhance the visual appeal of the site and building. This landscape area exceeds that
provided by other redeveloped properties along Bayway Boulevard. Therefore, this
provision is supported by this proposal.
10
Section D.2 provides that, except for the side and rear setbacks set forth elsewhere in
Beach by Design, no side or rear setback lines are recommended, except as may be
required to comply with the City's Fire Code. The proposal includes a reduction to the
side (east) setback from 10 feet to six feet to the building, which is actually the ramp to
the second level of parking. The hotel building will be located more than 30 feet from
the east property line. Parking pavement for the first level of parking under the building
is proposed at a setback of 30 feet to the east property line. The proposed pool deck is
to be located within three feet of the east property line. The proposal includes
reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to six feet for the building and to one
foot for required sidewalk access from a building stairwell. These reduced setbacks do
not prevent emergency personnel access to the rear of the building. The sidewalks
to/from the western stairwell actually provide required access to emergency personnel.
Parking will be primarily within structured parking within the building but will have two
at-grade handicap parking spaces on the west side of the driveway. While there are no
perimeter buffers required in the T District for this site, pursuant to CDC Section 3-
1202.D, there is an eight- to 10-foot landscape area along Bayway Boulevard that will be
planted with a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcovers to enhance the visual appeal of
the site and building. This landscape area exceeds that provided by other redeveloped
properties along Bayway Boulevard. The proposal includes rear (north) setback
reductions from 20 feet to 15 feet for Hotel Levels 3— 8 and to 6.5 feet to Parking Levels
1— 2. The building, surface parking and ramp to the second level of parking have been
designed toward the rear of the property in order to provide the eight- to 10-foot wide
landscape area along Bayway Boulevard to enhance the visual appeal of the site. There
is no rear setback reduction required for the pool deck, as such is permitted to be zero
feet per Table 2-803. A Comprehensive Landscaping Program is submitted with this
application dealing with the elimination of interior landscape area and foundation
landscape area, which is compensated by the eight- to 10-foot wide landscape area
along Bayway Boulevard. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal.
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 fagade of buildings in three parts.
Section E.1 requires at least 60 percent of the street level facades 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 courtyards or plazas. In addition, parking structures should utilize
architectural details and design elements, such as false recessed windows, arches,
planter boxes, metal grillwork, etc. instead of transparent alternatives. When a parking
garage abuts a public road, it will be designed such that the function of the building is
11
not readily apparent except at points of ingress and egress. The building design provides
vehicular access to the ground level of parking approximately in the center of the
building, with stairwells, elevator and mechanical towers obscuring views from Bayway
Boulevard of the parking area. Exterior finishes for Parking Levels 1 and 2 will be similar
to the rest of the hotel building. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal.
Section E.2 provides that window coverings or other opaque materials may cover no
more than 10 percent of the area of any street-level window that fronts on a public
right-of-way. There are no windows facing Bayway Boulevard for Parking Leve) 1.
Therefore, this provision is not applicable.
Section E.3 requires that building entrances should be aesthetically inviting and easily
identified. The building entrance to the parking garage has a clearly defined opening.
Additionally, the design provides for a pedestrian walkway to the pedestrian entrance
on the east side of the building. This walkway is covered by a pergola that begins at the
front parking area and intermittently provides cover to the doorway. The hotel lobby is
located on Level 3. A sidewalk is provided from the public sidewalk within Bayway
Boulevard to the parking garage, elevator and stairwells. Signage within the parking
levels will direct guests to the hotel lobby on Level 3. Therefore, this provision is
supported by this proposal.
Section E.4 deals with awnings providing protection from the elements. Awnings are
recommended but are not required. No awnings are proposed. This proposal is for a
hotel with no retail or other commercial uses attempting to draw the public into the
hotel, where such awnings would help define these uses. Therefore, this provision is
supported by this proposal.
Section F addresses issues related to parking areas. Parking is provide via structured
parking and two at-grade parking spaces outside of the building and two floors of
structured parking with 31 parking spaces completely integrated in to the design of the
building. A landscaped area 10 feet in depth has been provided to screen these two
exteriar, handicap spaces. Structured parking within Levels 1 and 2 are screened by
building elements. The entrance to the parking garage is well defined. Pavers are
provided at the driveway entrance. Therefore, this provision is supported by this
proposal.
Section G addresses issues related to signage A sign package is not included with this
submittal. All proposed signage will meet all applicable requirements of the CDC and
Beach by Design. If necessary, a Comprehensive Sign Program will be submitted prior to
signage permits.
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 proposal is not located along a retail or arterial street. There
12
exists a five-foot wide sidewalk along the site frontage of Bayway Boulevard, which wilt
be maintained. Any repairs to the sidewalk necessitated by construction will tie into the
existing sidewalk to the west and east sides of the site with regard to fit, finish and
materials. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal.
Section 1 addresses issues related to street furniture and bicycle racks.The proposal
will provide a bicycle rack on the northwest corner of Parking Level 1 to promote a
transportation alternative for hotel guests. This location provides a covered and secure
area for the bicycles. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal.
Section J addresses issues related to street lighting. No additional street lighting is
p�oposed with this application. Therefore, thisSection is not applicable to the proposal.
Section K addresses issues related to fountains. No fountains are proposed with this
development. Therefore, thisSection is not applicable to the proposal.
Section L addresses issues related to materials and color.The proposed hotel building
utilizes Mediterranean Revival architectural design that will make it an attractive
landmark at this location. The building facades are broken up with a variety of offsets,
windows, balconies and rooflines. Finish materials and building colors will support a
Floridian theme. The style of the building design will use materials and colors to blend in
and match its surrounding neighborhood. Colors include summer white for the main
building color, dusty apricot for the accent color at the base, august moon for the accent
color at the top of the stair towers and colonial red for the roof color. Therefore, this
provision is supported by this proposal.
8. Lot area and/or width: The reduction shall not result in a building which is out of scale
with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity;
Response: The site is 15,264 square feet in area (0.35 acre) and is within the minimum
range requirement of the CDC of between 10,000 — 20,000 square feet. The proposal is
consistent with smaller developed lots within the vicinity, in compliance with this
criterion_ The subject site has a lot width of approximately 134 feet along Bayway
Boulevard, which is consistent with smaller developed lots within the vicinity and in
compliance with this criterion of a minimum lot width requirement of between 100 —
150 feet. The proposed building is not out of scale with other existing or proposed
buildings in the vicinity. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
9. The parcel proposed for development shall, if located within the Coastal Storm Area,
have a hurricane evacuation plan requiring the use close when a hurricane watch is
posted; and
Response: The site is located within the Coastal Storm Area and a hurricane evacuation
plan is required by the Hotel Density Agreement approved by City Council under Case
13
Number HDA2014-08006. Submission of this hurricane evacuation plan will be
submitted prior to the issuance of any building permit.
10. A development agreement must be approved by the city council pursuant to F.S. §§
163.3221-163.3243 and Community Development Code Section 4-606 if the
development proposal exceeds the base density and/or base F.A.R. established for the
underlying Future Land Use designation. The development agreement shall:
a. Comply with all applicable requirements of the "Rules Concerning the
Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan" as they pertain to
alternative density/intensity, and as amended from time to time;
b. Be recorded with the clerk of the circuit court pursuant to F.S. § 163.3239, with a
copy filed with the property appraiser's office, and a copy submitted to the PPC
and CPA for receipt and filing within 14 days after recording; and
c. Have its development limitations memorialized in a deed restriction, which shall
be recorded in the Official Records of Pinellas County prior to the issuance of any
building permit for the overnight accommodations use.
Response: A development agreement has been approved by City Counci) under Case
Number HDA2014-08006, which allocated 15 hotel units from the Hotel Density
Reserve. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
11. Accessory Uses:
a. Accessory uses must be incidental, subordinate, and customarily accessory to
overnight accommodations;
b. The following shall apply to required parking for accessory uses:
i. Accessory uses located within the building interior may occupy between
15 percent and 20 percent of the gross floor area of the development,
but only when additional parking is provided for that portion of the
accessory uses which exceeds 15 percent. The required amount of
parking shall be calculated by using the minimum off-street parking
development standard for the most intensive accessory use(s). Where
there is a range of parking standards, the lowest number of spaces
allowed shall be used to calculate the additional amount of off-street
parking required for the project. In projects where the interior accessory
uses exceed 20 percent of the building gross floor area, all interior
accessory uses shall be considered additional primary uses for purposes
of calculating development potential and parking requirements.
ii. Regardless of the gross floor area percentage, overnight accommodations
with fewer than 50 rooms that have a full service restaurant shall comply
with the parking standards for the restaurant use as contained in Table 2-
803. The lowest number of spaces allowed shall be used to calculate the
additional amount of off-street parking required for the restaurant;
c. In addition to the requirements above, for those projects that request additional
rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design and whose
14
0
e
interior accessory uses are between ten percent and 15 percent of the gross
floor area of the proposed building, density shall be calculated as follows:
i. Calculate the maximum number of units allowed by the base density;
ii. Calculate the maximum number of units that may be allocated from the
Hotel Density Reserve established in Beach by Design;
iii. Add the figures determined in i. and ii. to determine the total number of
units allowed for the site;
iv. Divide the total number of units allowed, as calculated in iii., by the total
land area to determine the resulting units per acre for the project site;
v. Determine the total floor area of all interior accessory uses exceeding ten
percent of the gross floor area of the proposed building;
vi. Subtract the figure determined in v. from the total land area, and divide
this difference by 43,560 to determine the net acreage;
vii. Multiply the net acreage derived in vi. by the applicable resulting units
per acre figure determined in iv. The resulting product is the maximum
number of rooms allowable for the project.
viii. The final allocation of rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve shall be
determined by multiplying the net acreage determined in vi. by the base
density and subtracting this product from the maximum number of
rooms allowable for the project as determined in vii.
Signage for any accessory use shall be subordinate to and incorporated into the
primary freestanding signage for the overnight accommodation use. In no case
shall more than 25 percent of the sign area be dedicated to the accessory uses;
Those developments that have obtained additional density from the Destination
Resort Density Pool established in Beach by Design are not subject to the
requirements set forth in Sections 2-803.1.11.a—d.
Response: Accessory uses, including a small exercise room and a conference room that
doubles as the breakfast area, are located on Level 3, which is where the hotel lobby is
located and totals 1,144 square feet, representing four percent of the gross floor area of
the hotel. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
Compliance with General Applicability Criteria of Section 3-914.A
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
Response: The proposal includes a 32-unit hotel with two levels of parking. Accessory
uses, including a small exercise room and a conference room that doubles as the
breakfast area, are located on Level 3, which is where the hotel lobby is located and
totals four percent of the gross floor area of the hotel. The proposed building will be
Mediterranean Revival architecture. The subject site is surrounded by a myriad of uses
indicative of a tourist destinatian including overnight accommodations, retail sales and
services, bars and nightclubs, restaurants and attached dwellings. The proposed hotel
15
will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, density and character of other new hotels
constructed, under construction or approved for construction in the South
Beach/Clearwater Pass District. The proposed hotel will constitute an appropriate use
for the neighborhood and is a targeted desired use with the South Beach/Clearwater
Pass District of Beach by Design. Landscaping proposed will complement and enhance
surrounding properties. The proposal supports this criterion.
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.
Response: The proposal is consistent with the character of adjacent properties and with
the intent and vision of eeach by Design, the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District and
the Design Guidelines. The proposal is anticipated to increase the value of property
within the surrounding area, not diminish their value. The proposal is similar in nature
vis-a-vis to the form and function of adjacent and nearby properties and with the other
new hotels constructed, under construction or approved for construction in the South
Beach/Clearwater Pass District. As mentioned, the subject site is surrounded by a
myriad of uses indicative of a tourist destination including overnight accommodations,
retail sales and services, bars and nightclubs, restaurants and attached dwellings.
Approval and construction of this hotel may spur other additional redevelopment
projects within the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this
criterion.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
Response: The proposal includes an ingress/egress driveway on Bayway Boulevard. The
proposal will increase traffic in the area, but not below acceptable levels of service.
Hotel guests will most likely walk or ride bikes to other areas of the beach, minimizing
vehicular issues. This proposal will provide a Code compliant development that does not
decrease the health and safety of those living in this area. This proposal has been
designed to ensure the safety of persons within this area. Therefore, the proposal is
consistent with this criterion.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
Response: The proposal includes an ingress/egress driveway on Bayway Boulevard. The
addition of a 32-unit hotel will increase the amount of traffic in the area, however, not
below acceptable Level of Service of the surrounding roadways, as evidenced by a
Traffic Impact Study conducted for this proposal. The expected increase in traffic has
been mitigated with on-site vehicular stacking. Therefore, the proposal is consistent
with this criterion.
16
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
�
Response: The proposal is consistent with the character of adjacent properties and with
the intent and vision of Beach by Design, the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District and
the Design Guidelines. The proposal is similar in nature vis-a-vis to the form and
function of adjacent and nearby properties and with the other new hotels constructed,
under construction or approved for construction in the South Beach/Clearwater Pass
District. As mentioned, the subject site is surrounded by a myriad of uses indicative of a
tourist destination including overnight accommodations, retail sales and services, bars
and nightclubs, restaurants and attached dwellings. Approval and construction of this
hotel may spur other additional redevelopment projects within the surrounding area.
Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual,
acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties.
Response: The proposal minimizes adverse visual and acoustic impacts on adjacent
properties. There should be no olfactory impacts of any kind. Accessory uses, including a
small exercise room and a conference room that doubles as the breakfast area, are
located on Level 3, which is where the hotel lobby is located. Parking will be buffered
from view by the building and landscaping on the ground level and by a screening wall
on level 2. A dumpster will be located within an enclosed dumpster room adjacent to
the eastern stair tower and will be moved to the street on trash days, similar to other
uses within this area of the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District. Therefore, the
proposal is consistent with this criterion.
Compliance with Comprehensive Landscape Program Criteria of Section 3-1202.G
The proposal does not meet the required minimum five-foot wide foundation planting along
the south (Bayway Boulevard) side of the building. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E, there is a
requirement for 10% of the vehicular use area greater than 4,000 square feet to be planted as
interior landscape area, which cannot be met. The vehicular use area outside of the structured
parking is 4,078 square feet, consisting of the driveway, drive aisle to the structured parking,
ramp to the second floar parking and two handicap parking spaces. There is an eight- to 10-foot
landscape area proposed along Bayway Boulevard that will be planted with a variety of trees,
shrubs and groundcovers to enhance the visual appeal of the site and building and facilitate the
foundation and interior landscaping requirements.
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
17
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment 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.
Response: The proposed landscaping meets the requirements of the CDC and8each by
Design with regard to landscaping. The site was purposely designed to provide the eight-
to 10-foot landscape area along Bayway Boulevard, pushing the parking and building
backward on the parcel. The proposed landscape plan complements and supports the
Mediterranean Revival style of the proposed building and enhances the visual appeal of
the site, in compliance with this criterion.
2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
Response: This criterion is not applicable to the subject site because the hotel does not
close. However, the proposal will comply with the requirements of CDC Article 3 Division
13, Outdoor Lighting.
3. Community character. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
Response: The property is presently vacant. There are no perimeter buffers required in
the T District for this site, pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D. The proposal does not
meet the required minimum five-foot wide foundation planting requirement. All parking
is provided within structured parking, with the exception of two at-grade handicap
spaces located on the north side of the driveway. There is also a requirement of 10% of
the vehicular use area to be planted as interior landscape area, which cannot be met.
There is an eight- to 10-foot landscape area proposed along Bayway Boulevard that will
be planted with a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcovers to enhance the visual
appeal of the site and building, compensating for the deficiencies of required
foundation and interior landscaping areas. Landscaping along Bayway Boulevard will be
landscaped with palms and understory trees due to overhead utility lines within the
right-of-way, along with shrubs and groundcover. Landscape areas along the east and
west sides of the site ranging in width between one and six feet will be planted with
trees, shrubs and groundcovers that will complement the site and adjacent properties.
The proposed landscaping will make the property more attractive thereby enhancing
the surrounding community character. The proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
4. Property values. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development.
18
Response: The landscaping provided is consistent with the requirements of8each by
Design and other developments approved by the City in the surrounding area. The
proposal will improve the aesthetics of the site and should have a beneficial impact on
surrounding areas, in compliance with this criterion.
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.
Response: The subject property is located within theBeach by Design special area plan.
Perimeter buffers are not required by the Community Development Code in the T
District except as otherwise required byBeach by Design. Parking areas are required by
Section F of the Design Guidelines within Beach by Design to be buffered from public
rights-of-way by a landscape buffer wall, fence or other opaque material at least three
feet in width and 3.5 feet in height. Two at-grade handicap parking spaces are provided
adjacent to Bayway Boulevard, which is buffered by a landscape area eight- to 10 feet in
width. Parking on Level 2 will be buffered by a wall to prevent views of parking within
the parking garage. The proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
Compliance with Commercial Dock Criteria of Section 3-601.C.3
The subject property was previously developed with attached dwellings, which were
demolished in 2005. There exist a 1,783 square-foot dock on leased, submerged land with five
slips on the property, previously for use of the attached dwellings, which were classified as a
Multi-Use Dock, per CDC Section 3-601.C.2. The applicant desires to re-use this existing dock,
now as accessory to the proposed overnight accommodation use for use by the hotel and its
guests. As such, this existing dock will now constitute a Commercial Dock and its continued use
is requested as part of this proposal.
1. Use and compatibility.
A. The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort,
convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use
of the property.
B. The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of
adjacent properties and the neighborhood in general.
C. The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general
vicinity.
Response: This dock is intended to be re-used as an accessory use to the proposed
hotel for the use of the hotel and its guests. This existing dock is in scale and
character with docks on adjacent properties and in the vicinity. Docks to the east for
the yacht club extend approximately 150 feet from the seawall, closer to the channel
19
between Bayside Drive to the north and Bayway Boulevard. These existing docks are
compatible with the existing dock patterns along Bayway Boulevard. Therefore, this
proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
2. Impacts on existing water recreation activities. The proposed dock/tie poles or use
thereof, shall not adversely impact the health, safety or wellbeing of persons
currently using the adjacent waterways fo� recreational and/or commercial uses.
Furthermore, the dock shall not preclude the existing uses of the adjacent waterway.
Such uses include but are not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats.
Response: This existing dock is at a location along Bayway Boulevard where the
waterway width between Bayway Boulevard and Bayside Drive is approximately 680
feet. Docks cannot extend greater than 25 percent of the waterway width, or 170
feet. The existing dock and tie poles extend 55 feet from the seawall, representing
only eight percent of the waterway width. The applicant is not proposing any changes
to the dock or tie poles. Recreational and commercial use of this waterway will not be
affected by re-using this existing dock. Continued use of this dock will not preclude or
affect docks on the adjacent properties, nor preclude new docks on adjacent
properties or in the vicinity. As such, its continued use will not adversely affect the
health, safety ar well-being of persons currently using the adjacent waterway.
Therefore, this proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
3. Impacts on navigation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a
detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation,
recreational or other public conveniences.
Response: This existing dock is at a location along Bayway Boulevard where the
waterway width between Bayway Boulevard and Bayside Drive is approximately 680
feet. Docks cannot extend greater than 25 percent of the waterway width, or 170
feet. The existing dock and tie poles extend 55 feet from the seawall, representing
only eight percent of the waterway width. The applicant is not proposing any changes
to the dock or tie poles. Recreational and commercial use of this waterway will not be
affected by re-using this existing dock Docks to the east for the yacht club extend
approximately 150 feet from the seawall, closer to the channel between Bayside
Drive to the north and Bayway Boulevard. Therefore, this proposal is in compliance
with this criterion.
4. Impacts on marine environment.
A. Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine
grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas.
B. Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass
flats suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine
soil suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding
20
grounds for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such
artificial reef which has developed an associated flora and fauna which have
been determined to be approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in
both density and diversity; oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting
site; commercial or sport fisheries or shell fisheries areas; and habitats
desirable as juvenile fish habitat.
Response: This dock currently exists and has a water depth at mean low water of 3.5
feet to 8.5 feet, similar to adjacent properties. This existing dock will continue to not
have any adverse effect on grassbeds, natural marine habitats or marine sanctuaries.
Therefore, this proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
5. Impacts on water quality.
A. All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area
associated with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water
depths to ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between
the lowest member of a vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of
the waterbody at mean or ordinary low water (-0.95 NGVD datum).
B. The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage,
shoaling of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in
the area or limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water
quality in the area in which the dock is proposed to be located.
Response: This dock currently exists and has a water depth at mean low water of 3.5
feet to 8.5 feet, similar to adjacent properties. This existing dock will continue to not
have any adverse effect on water quality. Therefore, this proposal is in compliance
with this criterion.
6. Impacts on natural resaurces.
A. The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of
wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and
shores, so as to be contrary to the public interest.
B. The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative,
terrestrial, or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing
one or more of the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range,
nesting or feeding grounds; habitats which display biological or physical
attributes which would serve to make them rare within the confines of the
city; designated preservation areas such as those identified in the
comprehensive land use plan, national wildlife refuges, Florida outstanding
waters or other designated preservation areas, and bird sanctuaries.
21
Response: There are no wetlands on the upland portion of this site. The subject parcel
has been previously developed, surrounding properties are fully developed and
neither the subject property nor surrounding properties contain any wetlands. This
parcel does not contain any beach that supports any wildlife nor is any portion of the
upland designated Preservation. This dock will continue to not have any adverse
impact on the surrounding uplands. Therefore, this proposal is in compliance with this
criterion.
7. Impacts on wetlands habitat/up/ands. The dock shall not have a material adverse
affect upon the uplands surrounding.
Response: There are no wetlands on the upland portion of this site. The subject parcel
has been previously developed, surrounding properties are fully developed and
neither the subject property nor surrounding properties contain any wetlands. This
dock will continue to not have any adverse impact on the surrounding uplands.
Therefore, this proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
8. Dimensional standards.
A. Setbacks for commercial and/or multi-use docks shall be as follows:
1. If the commercial or multi-use dock is located adjacent to a waterfront
property occupied by a detached dwelling or two-unit attached dwelling
use and the use of said property conforms to the zoning district, the
setback adjacent to the residential property line as extended into the
water shall be a minimum of one-third of the applicant's waterfront
property width measured from the side property lines;
2. If a commercial or multi-use dock located on non-residentially zoned
property is adjacent to any waterfront residentially zoned property, the
setback adjacent to the residentially zoned property line as extended into
the water shall be a minimum of 20 percent of the applicant's waterfront
property width measured from the side property lines;
3. In all other circumstances, commercial and multi-use docks shall be
located so that the setback from any property line as extended into the
water shall be a minimum of ten percent of the applicant's waterfront
property width measured from the side property lines.
Response: This dock is not located adjacent to a detached dwelling, a two-unit
attached dwelling use or residentially zoned property. Adjacent properties are zoned
T District. This existing dock is desired to be re-used as is by the applicant for use by
the hotel and its guests. With a lot width of 120 feet, the dock setback is 12 feet (10%
of the lot width). The existing dock is setback 17 feet from the east property line and
eight feet from the west property line. The dock meets the required setback on the
22
east, but does not on the west. A deviation to the required west setback is requested
(see below).
B. Length. The length of commercial and multi-use docks shall not extend from
the mean high water line or seawall of the applicant's property more than 75
percent of the width of the applicant's property measured at the waterfront
property line, up to a maximum of 250 feet. Tie poles may extend beyond the
dock provided such poles do not project into the navigable portion of the
waterway by more than an additional 50 feet or 25 percent of such waterway,
whichever is less, and do not constitute a navigational hazard.
Response: With a lot width of 120 feet, the dock length cannot extend more than 90
feet (75% of the lot width). The existing dock length is 53 feet from the seawall, with
the tie poles at a distance of 55 feet from the seawall. Therefore, this proposal is in
compliance with this criterion.
C. Width. The width of commercial and multi-use docking facilities shall not
exceed 75 percent of the width of the applicant's property measured at the
waterfront property line.
Response: With a lot width of 120 feet, the dock width cannot exceed 90 feet (75% of
the lot width). The existing dock width is 95 feet, which exceeds the width
requirement. A deviation is requested (see below).
9. Deviations. Applications for deviations to the dimensional standards set forth in
Section 3-601.C.3.h. may be approved by the Community Development Board
through a Level Two (flexible development) approval process based on the following:
The proposal requests a deviation to the dock setback of 12 feet to allow the existing
dock to remain at an eight-foot setback from the west property line. Additionally, the
proposal requests a deviation to the maximum dock width of 90 feet to allow the
existing width of 95 feet to remain.
A. A dock of lesser length poses a threat to the marine environment, natural
resources, wetlands habitats or water quality; and
Response: The proposal is to re-use the existing dock as an accessory use for
the hotel. The existing dock length is less than the allowable dock length and
no deviation is requested for dock length.
B. The proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to minimize impacts relating
to criteria set forth in Sections 3-601.C.3.b.—g.; and
23
Response: The existing dock does not need to be adjusted to meet the
standards of Criteria 2— 7 above.
C. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would result in extreme
hardship due to the unique nature of the project and the applicant's property;
and
Response: This dock with its five slips exists and is requested to be re-used in
its existing location and construction. The applicant is requesting to deviate
from the setback and width requirements in order to retain this existing dock.
This is not a proposed dock, where the applicant is requesting more than the
Code permits. Reducing the existing dock to meet the required setback of 12
feet could impact the marine environment and water quality through
demolition, including tie poles, and reduce the number of slips. The deviations
are not a result of the dock needing to meet the Criteria 2— 7 above.
Requiring the applicant to remove portions of the existing dock to meet the
setback and width requirements would result in an extreme hardship due to a
change of use of the uplands (formerly attached uses to overnight
accommodations).
D. The deviation sought to be granted is the minimum deviation that will make
possible the reasonable use of the applicant's property. However, where an
applicant demonstrates riparian or littoral rights which will affect the location
of the dock, the minimum further deviation to provide for exercise of such
rights shall be allowed; and
Response: This dock with its five slips exists and is requested to be re-used in
its existing location and construction. The deviations requested to setbacks
and width is the minimum necessary to allow the applicant to re-use the
existing docks in their present configuration.
E. The granting of the requested deviation will be in harmony with the generat
intent and purpose of this section and will not be injurious to the area
involved or otherwise detrimental or of adverse effect to the public interest
and welfare; and
Response: Granting the deviation will be in harmony with the intent of these
dock regulations and will not have any adverse effect to the public interest or
welfare or on surrounding properties.
24
F. No dock shall be allowed to deviate from the length requirements specified in
Section 3-601.C.3.h. by more than an additional 50 percent of the allowable
length or to project into the navigable portion of the waterway by more than
25 percent of such waterway, whichever length is less, except for those docks
located on the east side of Clearwater Harbor adjacent to the mainland, which
shall be allowed to deviate up to a maximum length equal to 25 percent of the
navigable portion of the waterway.
Response: The proposal does not request to increase the allowable length of
the dock and does not pose a navigational issue.
10. Covered boatlifts. Covered boatlifts are permitted provided a permanent and solid
roof deck is constructed with material such as asphalt shingles, metal, tile or wood.
Canvas and canvas like roof materials are prohibited. Vertical sidewalls are prohibited
on any boatlift or dock.
Response: This dock exists and no changes are proposed, such as covering the boat
slips. Therefore, this proposal is in compliance with this criterion.
11. Publicly owned facilities. Roof structures shall be permitted on publicly owned
boardwalks, observation platforms, elevated nature trails and other such structures
not intended for use as a dock facility, however, vertical walls shall be prohibited.
Response: This is a privately owned dock and is therefore this criterion is not
applicable.
25
6899011v1
aa, sn us ;is: t�s r.aa s�,n a��a ir:f� __ ,�.iwi�xs tx•t�_ �_ +�uu:
g,�t„z� to:l
Prepar�c2 by: �onns� W�C�
Lawyeza T:tle 24H 2�:3CDale M�Tr,�1HMry Ste l�ii
T��, FL 336'..8
87.3-064-5306
Ca&e �o.: 041{7a64 ph�
I2�7iVIDLTAL mA� DE�
�':?is 6iar�nEy Deec1 made or 3une 27, Za05
getween Scctt P.. Warrser and 1�atricia A. Kellaas, husband and wife
whose maili�g address ia: ?oE �ayaay
Clearrater, PL 33"6,
hexeinafLe�r called t�e Gzantor, and
13arYrarside Caadam3nivma, LLC. a?lorada i,iu�:ted Liabi'_i:.y CanpauY
ahc>se mailing address xs: 706 HayKay
Clearwater, FL
hereinaftnr cal�ed the GranCee,
wlTt+�SSL*�Fi. that the 3ranLar, Eoz and in can�id�ration af the su�n of Ten
D�zlars ($�p} and other valuable considezations the receipz +ahcrcot is
he:eby acknawlsdged hae gz'mnted, bar9ais�+et9, and sold unto the Graa�tee, anct
Grantee�s succeasors, and aasign� €orrver, a11 chac ctrt�in Parcel of la�x�d
in tne county of Pinellas , StaLs of Florida to xit:
Unit 17, af HE� CREST Ca23D0�7�TT�� 8ccardir.g to the Decl�'atio� of
�ondominium z.herecf recarded in Of�icial �ecorda aook 6319, Page Z114, of
the publ�.0 reeords a! Hinellas County, Floride; togetrier wiLh a.'zy and all
Amendtnents thertto, as Lrom time ta tic�e �ay t�e liled of reCard; and
according to the Condominiw�a Ylat thezeof recorded in Cozxlaniniutn P�at Baok
92, Page 70, of the p�blic recarda afozesaiQ; together wi�b an euadivided
share or interest in the ca�c.m Eletpents appsirtenant tricreto_
TAX POI.:�O Ni]MBER: 1�2415062@6U040170
arsd Grantor dc7es her�hy tully warrawt Citles to said land and will c9efend
the samc again�t tbe Ia�orfui claims aL al� pereane wh�aever, excspt taac�s
for the year 2005 artd suk�aequent years, aad re�trictia�ns, limit�+tfans,
c�renant9, and easeatents ot secord, iE a�ay. t'Grantar and �zsatee" are
ssed herein Lcr singular oz piurai, thc singulaz shall inalude plural, and
ar.y gender �hall include ail genders, as �csn�c�ct re$uirea. i
Sigss�d, S$ ed, anfl Delfv�xed i.n aur sen
.n,
",Wit . } a'tCtC l..X.��� ��.�i..�� ! 5E?�.L','
A . t�dzAei
{tri�t i l.14 tSEAL}
m Pat.ic a A. Kell
{Wit.} ;SSAL)
twic.t
t s�.!
State of Plarida
Caunty of I�illsborough
TtLe Loregaiag instru�ent is aek: arrledgeeg bafore rae, an June �'7 , aflas bv
Scotc A. �tarner and Patricia m. lte2lan, bu�baa9 and �vite
�ha i� p�ersa�nally i�own ta cae or �aho l:aslisavo produceC a driver• s
l�.ce:�se tsi as it3entlficati.pn an� �id take aa �atb •
i�itne s my signatuxr and c!*icia: sea.l :.n ~he afuresaid
staG an�i crv.nty •
t�ty cara�•issiou expire
Iao a_--y P�,iblic � {Affi�c 3vetar}� Seal? �,�
. ar� f��
��� ���
��-, �- �Y - �UU_t`_ 1 �_� : 1 : : !�v . ;�,,,� ; t. s - � . - - p . _ _ _ : :
�� 2b•o5 1�7:10 F.�.I b13 8U9 1:53� L�wY�RS 7'I'PL�
Prer�ared byiReturn tc:
�2�� Con;.i� wick
iaw�•�rs Tit1e InsurancH CorZaer��con
14802 t3 9ale Ma1�=Y �'Y
Tamoa, �'L 33&18
CasB Na.: 0410960
SPECIAI. WARR�NTY D�ED
T:�is Special warra.�ty Deed �de on O6/Z7/05 betw�en
wax�er HoSpi.tality. �LC, a F1oriCa Lisni�ed Liaoility Campany
whose mailinq address is, 706 Baywa�+ �
�lea;uvater, ti'L 33757
hereinafter Cailed the Grantor, and
Harborside Condominiums. LLC, a Flori6a Limited LiabiliLy C�npar_y
whose mail-;r:g addre�s 1s: 9390 N. Glor'_a Ave. Ste. 104
Tampa, pL 33612
�au�
hereinafter called the Grantee,
wi'iT7$SSETH, that thc Gzantor, for �nd i.a consideration or the sum of Ten
Dollars ($30.00? and othar valuabl� cnnsiderations the receipt whereof is
hereby acknawledged, dces grant, bargain. sell and convey un�o the Grantee
and their heirs and assign� torever, the lollowing descxib�d parcel o!
land in the caun�.y o! Pinellas and 8tate of F�.orida to wit:
Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 2�Yid 16, Cf SEL CREST
CoN'DOM22JIVM, accardir.g to the DeclaraCion cf Condominiun� thereof recordcd
in offiaial Recozds Baok 5319, Page �114, oi the gublic recorc3s of Pinellas
County, �'lorida; togetnex with any and al= Amendments taereta, as lrom time
to time may be �iled of record; and according to the Condominium Plat
thereoi recarcZdd in Condaninium Piat So4k 9z, pege 70, oP the gublic
S CQL4TINOIID Ol� pCI+t.CwxllG pAO�)
TAX FO:+IQ NUMSER: � BGtaCYiec9 Page ior a list of folio n�eta
and Grantor does hereby �ully warranC ti�le ta s�►id land at3d.4wzli 3afenc3
the sante against thc lnxfu2 clainss of �1� pe�sons mhCm►soevaT, C.�.aimitsg or
*o claim the same, by, through and under Graatar hereir., except taxes Por
the year 2005 and subsequent years, and restxiciions, li►aitac.ions,
covenant9, and easemcnts of record, i�' any. iC�rantvr and Grantee are used
herein fox singular or plura'�, the singu�ar shail include pluraZ, and
any gender shall �ncludc all genders, as ccntext requires.?
FN w3TNESS wxExE:OF, the grantor has hereunto set its hand e�nd corporate
seal, the day and y�ar first above written.
warn r Bospita2icy :�LG
tWiC . ; by : iSEAI.i
� scott A, warner
t�nages
(wit.
County of iiial�norougn
The €oregcing instzumt�t fs ac:cncmledged beiore me cm o6/27/O5, by
Saott A. Warner ' , Manager �=
warrez� Hospitality Li�c a?lorida limited
liability compd,rsy. Hc/Sb,e is personally knorn to me oz has produced
a driver's license as identit�cation.
a�itness my signatu^e and o£iiGi81 seal ;n trie aioresaid
state d county.
t�ty c�anission expiras
Notary PubliC (APfix NotBSy Seal)
4swdaed.�ic 12i�4;
eJb-cfi-c'r�!%1`. ]G1: ic F�LIf2F"�^�AT:: ��FF i�,.._ . _ _ _ - ".- _
__ _..
` '� Uti-_?8 t15 1��_10 F3S 81a 9U8 17J? � LiHYEKS Tt'1'1.� _____ . I@U04
( �'Oli1'Sl�U$f] �
rec:ords a£oresaid; tagethe_ wi�h ar: u=:d:.�ided share or interest
:n cne ca�non �.lemen't� aapurte~ant the�et�•
F[J[.ZO Di[I+L9ERS:
17/29115/06286/000/0�14 - .
I7!29115/06286/OOU/0020 .
17/29/15/06296/000/0030
17/29/15/06Z85/000/D090
17/29I1510fi286/000/0050
i t/�/�.5/oea�l000/ooso
I7/29/15/06286/U00/0070
17/39/15/06296/400/D080
1712g/15/06296/000/0090
17�29/1Sf06286l000/0100
17,(29/15/06Z86/U0�/�J11C
17/29/15/06286/DO()/01,20
l���ns��000rolqo
i��z9ns/o62s6/000/o�o
17/29/15/Q6296l000/0160
:_!f_—�'—.:L'tt�. "'i': ;,_ _'_.,,�'.st-1-+�': !_;� -T._-� —° �—fi —'_'. :.-i+,y�=!
Case number: FLD2015-06025 -- 706 BAYWAY BLVD
Bayway Hotel Holdings Llc 20001 Guld Bivd Indian Shores, FL 33785-5000
PHONE: 7278049726, Fax: No fax, Email: No email
Engineering Prior to Community Development Board
Review The narrative has formatting issues that make it very challenging to read. Please provide
a readable copy of the document. "*SEE PAGE 2 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Revised narrative submitted.
Engineering General Conditions:
Review If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy the 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.
The site plan was 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 details shall be reviewed more
thoroughly prior to receipt of the building permit.
DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit review. Additional comments may be
forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application.
Please apply for a right-of-way permit for any work on City Right of Way. The form can
be found online at:
<http://myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/FormsApplications.asp>. *"`SEE PAGE
51 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Engineering Prior to Community Development Board
Review The landscaping plan shows Monterey Bay Brush Cherry trees of 72" height along the
western property boundary. No structures, landscaping, or non-opaque fences
exceeding 48-inches may be installed within twenty-feet of the property line. Please
have a landscaping plan that does not block the site visibility triangle (See Section 3-
904B, Community Development Code). "*SEE PAGE 54 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Landscaping plan revised appropriately.
Engineering Prior to Building Permit:
Review Please provide information on the staging area and route for the construction materials
and equipment. **SEE PAGE 54 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Engineering Prior to Building Permit:
Review As per City of Clearwater Reclaimed Water System Ordinances, 32.351, and 32.376,
use of potable water for irrigation is prohibited; the irrigation system shall be hooked up
to the reclaimed water system that is available to this site. *"SEE PAGE 54 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Engineering Prior to Building Permit:
Review The restoration of City roadways and sidewalks shall be approved by City staff and meet
City standards. *"SEE PAGE 54 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Environmental Prior to issuance of building permit:
Review Continue to provide erosion control measures on plan sheets, and provide notes
detailing erosion control methods. ""SEE PAGE 53 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Environmental Prior to issuance of Building Permit:
Review 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. **SEE PAGE 55 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Fire Review Tamper switches are required to be installed on the fire supply DDCV and must be
connected to the FACP.
ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. **SEE PAGE 56 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Fire Review Shall meet the requirements of NFPA 1 2012 edition chapter 16 sections 16.3.4.5 Stairs
and 16.3.5 Standpipes, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. "*SEE PAGE 56 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Fire Review Shall meet the requirements of NFPA 1 2012 edition (Florida) chapter 192.1.4 Rubbish
within Dumpsters. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB **SEE PAGE 56 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Fire Review All underground fire lines must be installed by a contractor with a class I, II or V license
with separate plans and permit. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. "*SEE PAGE 56 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Fire Review FDC shall be identified by a sign that states "No Parking, Fire Department Connection"
and shall be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation
standards for information signage and be maintained with a clearance of 7 1/2 feet in
front of and to the sides of appliance as per Florida Fire Prevention Code 5th
edition. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. **SEE PAGE 56 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Land Prior to issuance of a Building Permit:
Resource DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, prior to issuance of a building
Review permit any and all performance based erosion and sedimentation control measures must
be approved by Environmental and or Stormwater Engineering, be installed properly,
and inspected. **SEE PAGE 58 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Planning Application page 2 of 8: Clarify that the footprint is only 4,930 sq.ft. On page seven of the
Review narrative (addressing BBD Design Guidelines C, the footprint is listed as 6,200 square
feet. On Sheet A-2 the dimension of 85 feet by 74 feet equal 6,290 square feet which is
at least pretty close to the 6,200 square feet listed in the BBD narrative but more like
6,300 square feet than 6,200 square feet - if we are rounding, that is. I need this clarified
and corrected. **SEE PAGE 2 ON DOCUMENT.
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Response: Footprint square footage has been clarified and reflected in the narrative.
Application page 2 of 8: Please provide the green space within vehicular use area
figures. "''SEE PAGE 2 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Application revised.
Application page 2 of 8: Clarify the amount of accessory use area proposed. **SEE
PAGE 2 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: While there is no area on Page 2 to state the square footage of accessory
uses proposed, a note has been added to this Page 2.
General: Clarify that existing overhead utilities adjacent to the site will be removed
and/or placed underground. You will need to provide evidence that undergrounding the
existing lines adjacent to the site is impracticable. **SEE PAGE 3 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Undergrounding the overhead utilities within the right-of-way is impracticable.
See revised discussion in the narrative.
General: Clarify if valet parking will be provided for any component of the project. **SEE
PAGE 3 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: No valet parking will be provided.
General: Clarify how mechanical equipment will be located and screened from view. I
understand that some equipment will be on the roof level but where will the pool
equipment go? "*SEE PAGE 3 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Most mechanical equipment will be located on the roof. The pool equipment
has been shown on Sheet C3.1 between the ramp and building and such will be
screened by the ramp, building and landscaping.
General: Do you have an estimate on how many new jobs may be created with the
proposal? **SEE PAGE 3 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Approximately 12 —15 jobs (see revised Narrative under "Proposal" on Page
1.
Application page 3 of 8: The proposed number of parking spaces is listed as 38 where I
count 36 on site. The City Council signed a development agreement with the following
provisions:
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to develop the Property to construct 32 overnight
accommodation units, minimal meeting space for guest use, pool, lobby and parking with
38 parking spaces, generally conforming to the architectural elevation dimensions shown
in composite Exhibit "B" (collectively, the improvements are the "Project"); and
Section 4.2 The Project shall include a minimum of 38 parking spaces, as defined in the
Code.
If you are providing something less than 38 parking spaces we will need to amend the
Development Agreement and that will need to happen prior to going to CDB. If you are
providing finro spaces on a nearby site (as noted in the application) then we need a site
plan submitted for that site which clearly shows all parking spaces (all spaces need to be
code-compliant), a map showing the proximity between the two sites (with dimensions
showing distance) and the intensity of use of the donor site; we need to see if the donor
site has finro code-compliant parking spaces in excess of what is required. We will also
need a deed restriction and cross parking agreement as you note in your narrative. I see
a BTR for 42 hotel units (BTR-0030060) which require 50 parking spaces. This site
needs to have at least 52 code-compliant parking spaces. A site plan which
demonstrates that there are two Code-compliant parking spaces in excess of the
minimum required must be presented to staff. In addition evidence must be furnished to
staff which demonstrates that either no other spaces have been dedicated to any other
uses or properties or, in the event such spaces have been dedicated, that two additional,
code-compliant spaces exist for use by the subject property. In plain English, you need
to show that adequate parking is on the donor site to serve that side and that there are
at least two spaces in excess.
Response: The proposed development is owned by the common owner of the property
at 678 S. Gulfiriew Blvd. ("Coconut Cove"). The Coconut Cove has 42 rooms, which,
under current City Code, requires 50 parking spaces and which exist on the site;
however, the Coconut Cove was approved with a 1:1 parking ratio requiring 42 spaces.
The applicant proposes to construct an additional seven spaces at the Coconut Cove as
shown on sheet C3.2 and grant a parking license for the use of the Coconut Cove
Waterside guests. Therefore, the subject property will meet the required parking
because of the 33 spaces on-site and five of the spaces at 678 S Gulfview Blvd will be
used by this proposed hotel. A site plan has been included in the application package
showing these parking spaces on 678 S. Gulfview Blvd.
Planning Application page 3 of 8: Please provide the estimated total value of the project upon
Review completion. **SEE PAGE 3 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: See revised application.
Planning Sheet A-4: Please label the various components on this floor such as the lobby, office
Review space, meeting rooms, dining areas, etc. I also want to clarify the total accessory floor
area. **SEE PAGE 39 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: All areas are labeled and accessory use area tabulation is on Sheet A-4.
Planning Sheet A-5: This sheet includes the title "residential levels" when I think it should probably
Review be "hotel room levels" or something like that. Also include the number of levels. For
example floors four through seven. **SEE PAGE 40 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Sheet A-5 has been revised.
�
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Sheet A-6: This sheet includes the title "residential unit floor plan" when I think it should
probably be "hotel room floor plan" or something like that. **SEE PAGE 41 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: Sheet A-6 has been revised.
Sheet C3.1: Please provide a different paving material or pattern where driveways cross
sidewalks. **SEE PAGE 52 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Sheet C3.1 has been revised.
Planning Sheet C3.1: Clarify if one or both of the handicap spaces are covered? If not you may be
Review required to cover at least one of them to comply with Fair Housing requirements (ANSI
A117.1.4.6). Please confer with the Building Official to find out if they need to be covered
or not. If they do then we need to include in your application. *"`SEE PAGE 52 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: As this is a transient accommodation, such covering is not required per the
building code; however, the parking has been reconfigured to allow for one handicapped
parking space within the garage and one in front of the building to provide for the
covered space.
Planning Sheet C3.1: Clarify how deliveries will be handled. "`*SEE PAGE 52 ON DOCUMENT.
Review
Response: No loading spaces are required by Code in the T District. Deliveries will
occur in the right-of-way, similar to other businesses on the beach. See revised
"Minimum Off-Street Parking" on Page 3 of the narrative for discussion of deliveries.
Planning Sheet C3.1: Section 3-904 provides that to enhance views of the water from waterfront
Review property, no structure or landscaping may be installed, other than a fence around a
swimming pool or any non-opaque fences not exceeding 48 inches, within the sight
visibility triangle. Patios are structures. The patio area within the sight visibility triangle
needs to be removed from the sight visibility triangle. In addition, it appears that the
building is within the northwest triangle. We do not have an option to request any
flexibility from this code provision. "`*SEE PAGE 52 ON DOCUMENT.
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Response: Sheet C3.1 has been revised and the building redesigned to provide for an
angle at the northwest corner of the building. The architectural elevation cannot clearly
show this but it is apparent from the site plan and floor plans. The parking space in this
Iocation was also removed.
Sheet C3.1: Clarify how solid waste will be handled. Clarify where the staging area will
be. **SEE PAGE 52 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: The dumpster will be placed in a staging area (see Sheet C3.1).
Sheet C3.1: I need extended property lines and dimensions from the dock to those
property lines. Generally speaking, I need the dock fully dimensioned to include
setbacks, length, width, areas, etc. "*SEE PAGE 52 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Sheet C3.1 has been revised to show the extended property lines and
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
setbacks to those lines.
SPU Criteria 1 through 5: No comments. "*SEE PAGE 16 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: None needed.
BBD General Comment: For ease of reading, please add a line between subsections.
"`*SEE PAGE 18 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
SPU Criteria 7 through 10: No comments. "*SEE PAGE 18 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: None needed.
SPU Criterion 6: We will need some evidence which shows the proximity of the donor
site to the subject site, the intensity of use of the donor site and the number of code-
compliant parking spaces on the donor site. **SEE PAGE 18 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: A survey/site plan of 678 S Gulfview Blvd has been submitted showing the
parking on this site. See response to comment above.
BBD B.3: Provide the floorplate area of the building befinreen 45 and 100 feet. **SEE
PAGE 19 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: See revised BBD B.3.
Planning SPU Criterion 11: The response includes that this criterion was addressed as part of the
Review HDA submission. I am not sure if that is factually accurate since this criterion would not
have been required or accepted as part of that application. I need to have the amount of
accessory area provide as square footage and as a percentage of the GFA as defined
by the CDC. Please be aware and acknowledge that no component of any rooftop
activity or structure may exceed the approved height of the proposal. **SEE PAGE 22
ON DOCUMENT.
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Response: The response to this criterion has been revised.
Gen. App. Criteria 1 through 6: No comments. �"*SEE PAGE 23 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: None needed.
CLP Criteria 4: No comments. **SEE PAGE 25 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: None needed.
Planning CLP Criteria 3: The response includes reference accommodating the proposed
Review landscape material to the overhead utility line which run along the south side of the site.
These utility lines are technically supposed to be located underground unless
impracticable. It has not been shown that undergrounding these lines is impracticable.
**SEE PAGE 25 ON DOCUMENT.
0
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Response: Undergrounding the overhead utilities within the right-of-way is impracticable.
See revised discussion in the narrative.
CLP Criteria 1 through 2: No comments. **SEE PAGE 25 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: None needed.
DC Criterion 3: Again, a comparison befinreen the length of the dock and the adjacent
waterway would probably be helpful. You can also mention the relative size of the
existing dock with surrounding docks. **SEE PAGE 26 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: See revised criterion discussion.
DC Criterion 2: You may want to compare the length of the existing dock with the width
of the adjacent waterway to better illustrate compliance with this criterion. **SEE PAGE
26 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: See revised criterion discussion.
DC Criterion 1: clarify how the existing dock is compatible with the surrounding area.
You may want to compare the scale and scope of the existing dock with surrounding
docks. **SEE PAGE 26 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: See revised criterion discussion.
CLP Criteria 5: There is not a scenic corridor plan fo� Bayway Boulevard. I think you
probably want to reference meeting the requirements of Beach by Design. *"SEE PAGE
26 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: The discussion of this criterion does not mention any scenic corridor plan for
Bayway Blvd, but discusses compliance with BBD.
DC Criterion 7: You could probably discuss how all upland properties are or have been
developed so that are not existing wetland habitats and the like. "*SEE PAGE 27 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: See revised discussion on this criterion.
DC Criterion 6: You can probably include some of your discussion in the previous criteria
to address this one. **SEE PAGE 27 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: See revised discussion on this criterion.
DC Criterion 5: You can probably include some of your discussion in the previous
criterion to address this one. **SEE PAGE 27 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: See revised discussion on this criterion.
DC Criterion 4: Clarify exactly how the existing dock has no adverse impact on the
marine environment. If the water depth adequate to prevent prop dredging? Are sea
grasses in the area (or not)? *"SEE PAGE 27 ON DOCUMENT.
7
Response: See revised discussion on this criterion.
Planning DC Criteria: Generally speaking, simply providing a response along the lines that the
Review dock exists and will continue is probably inadequate. There could be the possibility that
the existing dock is causing problems and needs to be removed or rebuilt in a different
configuration. I do not think that is the case. You are trying to argue that the existing
dock is fine as is and should remain. In addition, I measure the width of the property at
the waterfront at 120 feet. Please clarify this as it has a direct impact on the required
setbacks, dock length and width. You also mention that the dock exceeds 100 feet in
width where Sheet 3-C3.1 dimensions the dock out at around 96 feet. We usually get
some sort of expert testimony, usually from a professional dock installer. Please correct
as necessary. **SEE PAGE 28 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: See revised discussion on these criteria.
Planning DC Criterion 8: Double check the width of the property along the water. I come up with
Review 120 feet which yields a 12 foot side setback and 90 foot length and width limits. You
need to provide dimensions for the side setbacks to the dock and well as for the length. I
also need the area of the dock. **SEE PAGE 28 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Sheet C3.1 has provided dimensions and the request has been revised
appropriately.
Planning DDC Criteria 1 through 6: These criteria are not really addressed. Please address each
Review criterion. **SEE PAGE 29 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Responses to the dock deviation criteria have been provided.
Planning Sheet LS1-1: Generally speaking, it is customary to portray plants are around 2/3 their
Review mature size on landscape plans. You are showing, for example, buttonwoods are around
four feet in width and about four feet on center. This is not factually accurate as
buttonwoods will get about 15 feet in width. I think you need to revisit your planting
design. For example I'm not sure that royal palms will fit in the six feet afforded them on
the sides of the site - they will end up rubbing against the building. I suggest using the
services of a landscape architect or designer. *"`SEE PAGE 56 ON DOCUMENT.
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Planning
Review
Response: Sheet LS1-1 has been revised.
Sheet LS1-1: Please provide landscape buffer widths. *"SEE PAGE 56 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: There are no landscape buffers required in the T District. The dimension of
setbacks/landscape areas is indicated on Sheet C3.1.
BBD C.4: Please provide a sheet in the architectural set which shows this. **SEE PAGE
19 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: See architectural sheets.
BBD C.3: Provide the percentages of window/architectural decoration coverage per
facade. **SEE PAGE 19 ON DOCUMENT.
E3
Response: These are now provided.
Planning BBD E.4: This was not addressed at all. ""SEE PAGE 20 ON DOCUMENT.
Review
Response: This has been added.
Planning BBD E.3: It is not entirely clear that this criterion is met by the proposal. It may be
Review worthwhile to include some perspectives. Based on the elevations I am not sure where
people are supposed to enter the building. I can see where vehicles are supposed to
enter, though. **SEE PAGE 20 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: The hotel lobby is on Level 3. There is a sidewalk from the public sidewalk in
Bayway Blvd to the parking garage, elevator and stairwells which is covered by a
pergola with signage directing pedestrians to the entrance on the east side of the
building. See revised discussion on BBD E.3.
Planning BBD E.1: It is not entirely clear that this criterion is met by the proposal. It may be
Review worthwhile to include some perspectives. We need to make sure that the parking garage
component is finished to match the rest of the building. **SEE PAGE 20 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: Perspectives are on Sheet A-11. Exterior finishes for Parking Levels 1 and 2
are similar to the rest of the hotel as the hotel and parking area is constructed and
designed as a common building.
Planning BBD L: I did not see a color palette included with the submittal. Please clarify what
Review colors/materials are proposed. *"SEE PAGE 21 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: A color palate is provided.
Planning BBD F: The response to this criterion goes into detail regarding accessory uses and the
Review like for some reason. This criterion does not get into the number of parking spaces
required but, rather, design consideration. Please revise the response accordingly.
"*SEE PAGE 21 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Section F has been revised.
Planning Please carefully review the listed request. It is ultimately the responsibly of the applicant
Review to ensure that the request reflects what is wanted.
In order to be reviewed by the CDB on August 18, 2015 15 sets (revised as needed)
must be submitted no later than noon July 10, 2015. Please note that late, incomplete,
uncollated or insufficient submittals will not be placed on the August 18, 2015 CDB
agenda. ""SEE PAGE 88 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: The request has been clarified. Timing is noted.
Planning Sheets A-7 through 1 and A1.1 and 1.2: Clarify what there are six sheets and finro
Review separate and complete sets of elevations. We can probably limit the number to one set
of four-sided elevations. "`*SEE PAGE 42 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: This has been clarified.
Planning Sheet C3.1: There appears to be a discrepancy befinreen this sheet and the elevations
Review sheet. Clarify exactly how the parking spaces on the ground floor along the north side of
the site will work. The elevations appears to show a wall straight down to the ground so
either there is a wall proposed through the parking spaces or the foot print of the building
on this sheet should be farther to the north than shown. ""SEE PAGE 52 ON
DOCUMENT.
Solid Waste
Review
Solid Waste
Review
Stormwater
Review
Stormwater
Review
Stormwater
Review
Stormwater
Review
Response: The elevations have been revised but the angle is difficult to show on a 2-D
elevation. The parking spaces on the northwest corners will not be used as is shown on
the floor plans.
Please give me exact measurements of the interior of the room and the opening with the
roll-up door. Also room must have fire sprinklers.
Response: See revised Sheet A-2. The dimensions are 9'-10" x 7'-4" with a 6'-0"
opening.
Please give me exact measurements of the interior of the room and the opening with the
roll-up door. "*SEE PAGE 39 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: see above
Prior to Building Permit
Please provide cross section view of stormwater vault system. **SEE PAGE 55 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Prior to Building Permit
Please provide drawing detail of control structure. **SEE PAGE 55 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
General Comments
DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review. Additional comments may be
forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. **SEE PAGE 55 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Prior to Building Permit
Please submit drainage report including water quality and quantity calculations for site
as well as soils information including Seasonal High Water Table associated with
stormwater management system. **SEE PAGE 55 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Traffic Prior to a building permit:
Engineering Strategically install convex mirrors to aid motorist(s) who are backing out of a parking
Review space with their sight visibility blocked by a wall or structure. "*SEE PAGE 54 ON
10
DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Traffic Prior to a building permit:
Engineering Pedestrian - vehicular conflicts shall be avoided whenever possible. Where unavoidable,
Review active warning devices 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.)
"'*SEE PAGE 54 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Traffic Prior to a building permit:
Engineering All electrical conduits, pipes, downspouts, columns or other features that could be
Review 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.) "*SEE PAGE 54 ON
DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
Traffic Prior to CDB:
Engineering Provide the slope of the ramp in (%). Maximum speed ramp slope shall not exceed 12
Review percent. A ten-foot long transition ramp with a slope equal to one-half of the change in
slopes shall be provided at the bottom and top of all speed ramps with a slope of ten
percent or greater. (Community Development Code Section, 3-1402.) **SEE PAGE 54
ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Ramp slopes have been clarified.
Traffic Prior to CDB:
Engineering Wheel stops shall not be used in parking garages. (Community Development Code,
Review Section 3-1402.) **SEE PAGE 54 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Removed.
Traffic Prior to CDB:
Engineering The minimum clear height throughout the garage shall be seven feet zero inches and
Review shall be eight feet two inches for van-accessible handicapped parking spaces including
ingress and egress drive aisles to these spaces. (Community Development Code,
Section 3-1402.) **SEE PAGE 54 ON DOCUMENT.
Response: Acknowledged.
11
6899014v2
� u:�o-�rw�a�u+ooacKnr ro.n�x-ra.�oncw�o.
•,• -asrwouwo.u» rac,a-�,uoc�ame�p.vn�
Q� �►LAT 7.CJ4 �!l70pR11/IfIqNIMYMI lD.M�0.•1A�ONALLlC4K
� ��D lD1L �10UD�OIIMOD LM. • �!N(7�MIIX
lD.Ol. �1'OINDOd01rlL LRb.lA1YY�11A0tWVA710N
(y �I.BGAL �D11. •7011NDrrIMIR� OALA.Y. �O�IlrtOtAAORlIJVATIDN
M) �MOAtf�t� NM �MMOl1�flR CL..QMlIIJIRAMCf
(� �D�DID lNM �YOAY�WMfR1iIa M1. ��'OODrWL7
(Q ^CAI.CIAATED l01 �y11NqlJ Y.►. � VMYI.lOIO
RA1.) �/O�AfI'ON4RB ll �f011ilOL� r[J1 � RANIa
cau� -cawwa�vn�n �r -uosr�ou cw.. cwao
caxc. -mraun rrr . mx�u
o -aawmaw� rr .rrm
lLOOD ZONi: "AS" (l.I.E.�lI9. ACCORDING TO R.I.R�M. t1TI0301IMCw
SBC. 17, TWT 29 S., RGE 14 E.
B�ARINGS BASSD
ON RBCORDFD PLAT
ADDRESS
VACANf LOT BAYWAY BOZILBVARD
ct,EnRw��, x�.oxm�
UM7'3 !-tt AND 1417, OP �L CR&Sl' CONDOMUNIUMI, A ODTmO)f(NIUM AOCORDZMO TO THE DHCLARA7'ION OF OONDOImMIad AS
R�CORpBD 1N OPPIQAL �8f.'ORD BOOK 6319. PAaffi 2114 AND ALL 87Qi181'I'3 M1D M�.NDJffiM'S THBRBOF. A1VD RBCORDPD M�IDOA�Q�I[JMt
PUT HOO[ 92. lAdB 70. AIL OR Ti� RJBI.IC REOORDB OF PQiP.LLAS COUN!'Y� F7ARIDA. TWEIiiBR WITH AN UNDIVIDBD SHARB OR �JLHtES7
IN 7'NB OOMO[ON 8LBlIEtiTS APrS1A7ENA1�1' liiFJt81'O.
AL90IWOOVN AS:
LOTS 25 AND 2f. BIAf.R A. BAYS[DB SUBDIViS[ON NO. 3. AOCORDMO TO T!� MAP OR PLAT THBREOF AS RBCORDED W P[AT BOOK 78.
BASIS OF FIELA BF.ARINGS:
NORTH RICiHT-0E-WAY LINE
BAYWAY BOULBVARD
BEQJC3: 4 76°46'S8" E
S
wr za �'
BLOCK A rs�
BAYSIDE o
3UBDMSION ="
1V0. 5 �
OC�CUPlED �
anoo �
RADJUd �J1JCN.OL1CM�u1
cMOJtD -a�.�v
CJI.RL � N)il077•E
$��
raz �
odc �wc ' - _
^�i \"��_
�
�� �
CLRARWATBR AARBOR
RADIUS � 1000.�0'
ARC -120.00'
CHORD � 1Y9.93'
CH.BR - S 78°30'06" L�
r
i
s�. cusr qormormvivM
!
I
LOT 23, BLOCK A �
BAYSIDB SUBDMSION
No. s i �or zb, eLOac �
j BAYSIED SUBDN[SION
v.�r,e yr r rrr �- s
'l�OTALACR�AGE 13261 sq. R.
.� ��6•��f8�
— � ��� 33� ;
�
�
A I
a
�roaac. OBIGRVA�L
�� �0'
xr
„
CLEARWAT&R
POWT'FOWN
H�U.�
P.B. 69, PG. 50
OCCUPlFs'D
. �� `t� `'1 ~ �~~~
� �
�`` � = `f --�� � �. � _
� ovriw�o ��ib�. .�
\ _ Madm'n J �..:'�—�� � `` oir.�r
`� B.lSlSOFFIELD �� '��'�'ND1
C�'F Ay ��r""�w+r BE�4RJNGS p
�'A g��,�,�-V` _ RADIUS = ll?A.�O' � � ' ''"
Bq
6o�,p �G�'"`'� ,��� ,N,�.(p��— _� �C •� 134.4u* � �
�'OF/�,lp-"'t�`) CHORD�37,'�
CH.BR. � 1178°30'1 TM �
�.u�rrm+�s+�ra.m�.e��a�+rrouc,rnoovo�s,rruar,uu�uc�wmuasu.Neaoaaeu,r.ra,sno.: se„►eiawscc,n�Twrar�am,.
sma�wacrra
u.
ia
�x
nor� rar �rracT raoseRrr
�. nae►ar�rrBCrrrtrtonan
nf6 rnae rssf. errec.�ta ru+rse r�o�n
or�
TYPE OF SURVEY: _�p OR BOrlNDAFY USE: PURCBA,SB � JOB NO. 2014-0263
ERTIFY TO: BAYWAY HOTSL HOLDiNGS, LLC / PA7'RIOT BANK / SMAL.L BUSINY38 ADIYIDVISTRATlON ! FLORIDA `
USIIVBS3 DBVYI.OPl1lSI�T CORPORA770N / MICNABL J. HEA7'H, r.A. / FIR$T MgRiCAN 171ZB QVSURANCE COMPANY
i �ou�maa�owratwtnsaaw�or�snswna�wcs�oczvr�twono
i wwnu�nsauowiswrs�nusa�nawnaw�r.��ooaar�a�.�an�»n�m,rw�varosmav.�swreo�wnacaowa
� mfanrswrus�aatrt40�uYVtwN:o�weor*�Rnw�raorNl��pt u�rnrtorrwnun_w�rwrrtwaa0uooltetpus.
! �flRHPOYUOMAI�O�MRwRllt! Y17W.IOlA!lil00G�N WYi�!,�IDO►4LR1KL17Y�.
/�y�. ! L.x. rsr�v�i �d ��oc.���es, nv�. I
$IGNATURS: � � �� � lM3! 102nd AVENUY NORTH
LAURSN ll: PENNY R #�931 !� ��o�. �.ox�nA 3.m8
PAON6: (727) 398-436�
DA'!8: ON262014 Nor v�uc �rq.ess FA7[: (727) 719-6�51
DRAWN BY: LP/HW srara�n a sa�t� BUSINBSS E.tCE�S6 R6s3f
° learwater
��
U
Planning & Development Department
Comprehensive Landscaping Application
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, IF NECESSARY, Wlll REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION
MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS 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.
PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): Bayway Hotel Holdings LLC
MAiLING ADDRESS: 20001 Gulf Blvd., Indian Shores, FL 33785
PHONE NUMBER: 727-804-9726
EMAIL: s evepage mpa y.rr.com
AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Housh Ghovaee
MA��ING ADDRESS: 300 S. Belcher Rd., Clearwater, FL 33765
PHONE NUMBER: 72�-4'43-2869
EMAIL: ous no si eengineenng.ne
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 706 Bayway Blvd.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See Narrative
Speci�ically identify the request
(Include all requested code fiexibility;
e.g., reduction in required number of
parking spaces, height setbacks, lot
size, lot width, specific use, etc.):
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS �L.
1, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of
representations made in this application are true and �,,_
accurat� to the best of my knowledge and authorize � - ���—. to me and/or by
City r�p esentatives to visit and photograph the ' Gc-r�c a �GC who is personally known has
pro rty described in this application. pr duced �L1� L- lr ���j'�'-C�%�-��'� as identification.
.
� � `
-
` .r� ��e.. E• cc.c� !�, ... ,.-/ ,�{- �'"�...-� ..-,
of property owner or representative
Planning & Development Department,100 S. Myrde
Page 1 of 2
Notary public, r-----_ �`
My commission expires: �Gc-•cc�.-- �� C� Z��
�"
��
rr, FL 3�€�T�'�a�2-4b6 ax: 727-562-4865
Notary Public • St�te of Florida Revised 01112
My Comrn Ezpiroa Jun 26, 20t7
Gommtss�an A� fF 031156
o �� � �arwat�r Planning & Development Department
Comprehensive Landscaping Application
U
Flexibility Criteria
PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE (� FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, 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.
See Narrative
OR
b. The design, character, location and/or materiais of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping
program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
See Narrative
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.
See Narrative
3. Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive landscape Program will enhance the
community character of the City of Clearwater.
See Narrative
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.
See Narrative
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 parcei proposed for development is located.
See Narrative
Planning 8 Development Department, 100 3. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33766, Tel: 727-b62-4567; Fax: 727-b62-48gg
Page 2 of 2
Revised 01/12
Gu1f C�.��t Consulting, Inc.
Land Development Consvlting
Engineering. Planning . Transportation . Pernutting
ICOT Center
93825 ICOT Bouievard, Suite 605
Clearwater, FL 3376U
Phone:(72� 524-i818
Fax: (727} 524-6090
August b, 2014
Mr. Housh Ghovaee, CEO
Noi�thside Engineering Services, Inc.
300 S. Belcher Road
Clearwater, FL 33765
Re: Bayway Hotel #706. Bayway Blvd. — Traffic Tmpact Study
Dear �-Ioush:
Please find ei�closed twelve (12} signed copies oFthe Traffic Impact Study for the above-
referenced property. Tl�.is study concludes the sui7ounding roadways and intersections
presently operate at acceptable levels of service and would continue to do so with the
proposed redevelopment. Please submit eleven (11) copies with youz application/plans
package to the City of Clea�-water.
Sincerely,
��� G�G6'
Robert Pergolizzi, AICPIPTP
Principal
Cc: 14-0�0
\
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FOR
BAYWAY HOTEL
706 BAYWAY BLVD.
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
PREPARED FOR:
BAYWAY HOTEL HOLDINGS, LLC
PREPARED BY:
GULFCOAST CONSULTING, INC.
AUGUST 2014
PRJECT # 14-040
�
Robert Pergolizzi, AICP / PTP
AICP #9023 / PTP #133
�
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing to develop their property on Clearwater Beach into a
32 room hotel. This new hotel will be constructed on vacant property that
currently exists at 706 Bayway Boulevard. This new hotel will be located along
the north side of Bayway Boulevard between Parkway Drive and the Clearwater
Pass Bridge. (See Figure 1) The development of the property is the subject of a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment in the Tourist "T" zoning district. This
application requires an assessment of the traffic impacts of development. A
methodology was established with Clearwater traffic Engineering staff prior to
completing this report.
II. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The site has frontage on Bayway Boulevard immediately east of the intersection
of Bayway Boulevard/Parkway Drive on south Clearwater Beach. Bayway
Boulevard is a two-lane local roadway. South Gulfview Boulevard is a two-lane
collector roadway with on-street parking running along Clearwater Beach.
Coronado Drive is a three-lane collector roadway with on-street parking except
for a short segment between Devon Drive and S. Gulfview Boulevard which is 4-
lanes undivided. Hamden Drive intersects with S. Gulfview Boulevard at a
signalized intersection. The segment of S. Gulfview Boulevaxd between Hamden
Drive and the Clearwater Pass bridge is three lanes with a small portion being 4-
lanes between Hamden Drive and Bayway Boulevard. Per the approved
methodology traffic counts that were conducted on June 21, 2012 at the following
intersections during the weekday PM peak period of 4-6 PM were used as a basis
for this study.
S. Gulfview Blvd. / Hamden Drive (signal)
S. Gulfview Blvd. / Coronado Drive (signal)
Coronado Drive / Hamden Drive
These counts were supplemented by an intersection turning movement count at
Bayway Boulevard/Parkway Drive in August 2014. All traffic counts were
converted to annual average equivalents using FDOT seasonal adjustment factors.
Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. Existing intersections were
analyzed using the HCS+ and SYNCHRO software. The count data, HCS+ and
SYNCHRO printouts are included in Appendix A.
Presently the signalized intersection at S. Gulfview Boulevard / Coronado Drive
operates at LOS A with average delay being 6.6 seconds per vehicle and an
intersection capacity utilization (ICU) of 42.5%.
1
0
0
�
W
O
�
wl
�
�
• = TRAFFIC SIGNAL
co/
/n I
/ /
n°j
N M
N a
M �
_ 322 J +
289 -- "l'
278—} on
11�
�
9s� vP� rwo-wnY DEVON DR.
(513 N8, 454 SB)
2ND ST.
3RD ST.
sTx
�
Ca
O
A
Q
z
a
0
�
Q
ST.
N
BRIGHTWATER DR
w
x �
O �s \�',q� x
� `MI N
\ V �
4
349 �
� 226 o M � � �
N M �
N
?s� ` }
� ` 311
� 2os
39 J � S7;
228 � 563 `
L4
000 —29
J�L. �°
6.J `1 f (�"
�a— �o�
o —+ �
BAYSIDE DR
PROJECT
LOCATION
732 VPH TWO–WAY
(355 NB, 377 SB)
��� p,�j BLVD
gP
8
��
— 432
446 ,-
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
DATE:
'rr� �"„. � " GliLf C08St CO]1Slllf.lrig, I11C.
I.and Developmc+nt Consultiag $/ 2 �"� t�.
&NGIlVEERING TEANSM)FTATi�i PLAI�iG P&�IITfAIG
_ +„ :. '� 13825 ICOT BLVD., SUtTE 605
wa
Cleanvater, Florida 33760 DRAWN BY:
Phone: (72� 524-1818 Fax: (727) 524-6090
.�.��o�o��,���.�m G J S
PROJECT NO:
14-040
FIGURE:
�
Presently the signalized intersection at S. Gulfview Boulevard / Hamden Drive
operates at LOS A with average delay being 5.7 seconds per vehicle with ICU of
41.8%.
At the intersection of Hamden Drive / Coronado Drive the primary movements
are eastbound-to-southbound and northbound-to-westbound, whereas the
southbound approach (Hamden Drive) is stop controlled. The HCS+ analysis
shows the primary movements operate at LOS A with delay of 8.2 seconds per
vehicle and the southbound stop-controlled movements operate at LOS C with
delay of 16.6 seconds per vehicle.
At the Bayway Boulevard/ Parkway Drive intersection all movements operate at
LOS A with minimal delay.
South Gulfview Boulevard functions as collector roadway and according to
FDOT 2009 QLOS Handbook capacity tables has a LOS D capacity of 1,440
vehicles per hour on the undivided segment. The segment of Gulfview Boulevard
east of Hamden Drive and Coronado Drive are both three-lane collector roads
with a LOS D capacity of 1,520 vehicles per hour and 2,175 vehicles per hour on
the 4-lane portions. Hamden Drive north of the Y-intersection with Coronado
Drive is a two-lane city roadway with an estimated LOS D capacity of 1,040
vehicles per hour. The existing PM peak hour LOS for areas roadway segments is
shown below:
EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS (2014)
PM Peak LOS D
RoadwaX Seg;ment Lanes Volume Canacitv LOS
S. Gulfview (E. of Bayway) 3-lanes 878 1520 B
S. Gulfview (Bywy-Hmdn) 4-lanes 1080 2175 C
S. Gulview (Hamden -5�') 2LU 493 1440 B
S. Gulfview (Sth — Coronado)2LU 611 1440 B
Coronado (Hamden — 5`h) 2LD 650 1520 B
Coronado (Devon Dr - S. Gulfview) 4LU 967 2175 C
Coronado (Gulfview to Roundabout) 4LD 1556 2900 C
Hamden (S. Gulfview-Coronado) 2LD 732 1520 B
Bayway Blvd. (E. of Parkway Dr) 2LU 115 1040 B
Bayway Blvd (W. of Parkway Dr.) 2LU 131 1040 B
Presently all roadway segments operate at LOS C or better which indicates
acceptable levels of service and traffic operations.
III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Existing traffic was adjusted by a 2% annual growth rate to the expected build-out
year of 2017 to account for background traffic from other nearby redevelopment
�
0
projects. In addition, traffc from several approved developments was added as
background traffic; these include the proposed Hampton Inn #655 S. Gulfview,
the proposed Clearwater Beach Resort at the corner of S. Gulfview and
Coronado, the Sea Captain redevelopment at #40 Devon Drive, the Gulfview
Hotel at #625 S. Gulfview, the Entrada Hotel at #521 S. Gulfview ,Marquesas
at #715 S. Gulfview, Mainsteam Hotel "A", Hotel "B", and Hotel "C", and the
redevelopment for a hotel at 401-421 S. Gulfview Boulevaxd. Background traffic
volumes are shown in Figure 3.
The site will be developed as a 32 room hotel and will not contain any on-site
restaurants or amenities. Using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trin
Generation, 9th Edition rates, the amount of new trips was calculated and
estimates are shown below:
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Land Use Amount Dail ��Trips PM Peak Trip
Hotel 32 Rooms 261 19 (10/9)
The hotel will generate 261 daily trips and have 19 PM peak hour trips. The
vehicular access will be taken from Bayway Boulevard via two separate
driveways. The expected distribution is shown in Figure 4 and is as follows:
60% to / from the west and north (11 PM peak hour trips)
40% to / from the east and south (8 PM peak hour trips)
The projects impacts to the surrounding roadway system is shown below:
PROJECT IMPACT CALCULATIONS
Proj ect
Road Seement Lanes Project Trips Capacitv Percent
S. Gulfview (E. of Bayway) 3-lanes 0 1520 0.00%
S. Gulfview (Bywy-Hmdn) 4-lanes 11 2175 0.51%
S. Gulfview (Hamden-5`") 2LU 5 1440 0.35%
S. Gulfview (5`�-Coronado) 2LU 5 1440 035%
Coronado (Hamden — Devon) 2LD 6 1520 0.39%
Coronado (Devon - S. Gulfview) 4LU 6 2175 0.27%
Coronado (Gulfview — Roundabout) 4LD 11 2900 038%
Hamden (Gulfview — Coronado) 2LD 6 1520 039%
Project traffic impacts will be primarily to Bayway Boulevard and South
Gulfview Boulevard. Project traffic was added to accumulated background tr�c
for a build-out of 2017. All intersections, roadway segments and project
driveways were analyzed for future conditions. Future traffic volumes are shown
in Figure 5, and the SYNCHRO and HCS+ printouts are included in Appendix B.
�
�
0
�
�
�
0
0
"<
R
�
�
k
�
g
�
S
�
T
�
�
G
�
w
z
i�
`lf
oa
N
� DEVON DR.
�
W
�
�
BAYSIDE Dlt.
• = TRAFFIC SIGNAL
BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
DATE:
'� � � `�°` Gu1f Coast Consulting, Inc.
�� I.and vovelopmeat Consulting 8/ 2 01 4
&NG�tINC TBANSPOBTATlON PLAHIiQVG PSBDIITIING
_ c' 13825 ICOT BLVD., SUTfE 605
Clearwater, Florida 33760 DRAWN BY:
Phone: (72'n 524-1818 Fax: (727) 524•6090
w�'a'.sulf�oastconsultiasin�.com G J S
N
PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT NO:
14-040
FIGURE:
�1
>
a
�
3
w
�
�
w
a
�
C7
va
�
�
N
PROJECT TRAFF'IC DISTRIBUTION
DATE:
-' ° �'� Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc.
r.�a n�io��nt co��
,. 6NCIIV&EBiNG TRAI�POATAITUN PLAND@iG PERSIITfING
;:c t„,� �, re' 13825 ICOT BLVD., SUITE 605
`��' � Clearwater, Florida 33760
Phone: (727) 521-1818 F�: �n�7 sza-�o90
www.gutfcoastconsuttinginc.com
8/2014
DRAWN BY:
GJS
PROJECT NO:
14-040
FIGURE:
,
�
d
+
rW�
V
A
�M
W
�
�
Q
�
The signalized intersection at S. Gulfview Boulevard / Coronado Drive would
continue to operate at LOS A with average delay of 7.3 seconds per vehicle and
an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) of 55.0%.
The signalized intersection at S. Gulfview Boulevard / Hamden Drive would
operate at LOS B with average delay being 12.1 seconds per vehicle with ICU of
56.0%. Traffic from the Entrada Hotel at #521 S. Gulfview requires split-phase
operation of this traffic signal.
At the intersection of Hamden Drive / Coronado Drive, the HCS+ analysis shows
the primary movements operate at LOS A with delay of 8.7 seconds per vehicle
and the southbound stop-controlled movements operate at LOS D with delay of
30.1 seconds per vehicle.
At the Bayway Boulevard/ Parkway Drive intersection all movements would
continue to operate at LOS A with minimal delay. At the Bayway
Boulevard/Drive A intersection all movements would operate at LOS A with
minimal delay.
Expected roadway conditions with the project in impacts are shown below:
FUTURE ROADWAY CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT (2017)
PM Peak LOS D
Roadwav Se�ment Lanes Volume Capacitv LOS
S. Gulfview (E of Bayway) 3-lanes 1262 1520 C
S. Gulfview (Bywy-Hmdn) 4-lanes 1480 2175 C
S. Gulview (Hamden -Sth) 2LU 611 1440 B
S. Gulfview (Sth — Coronado)2LU 742 1440 B
Coronado (Hamden — 5�') 2LD 891 1520 B
Coronado (Devon. - Gulfview) 4LU 1522 2175 C
Coronado (Gulfview to Roundabout) 4LD 2242 2900 D
Hamden (S. Gulfview-Coronado) 2LD 1066 1520 C
Bayway Blvd. (E. of Parkway Dr.) 2LU 126 1040 B
Bayway Blvd. (W. of Parkway Dr.) 2LU 150 1040 B
All roadway segments would continue to operate at LOS D or better.
IV. CONCLUSION
This analysis was conducted in accordance with a methodology established with
City of Clearwater staff. The proposed hotel would generate 261 daily trips of
which 19 would occur during the PM peak hour. This analysis demonstrates
traffic operations at nearby intersections and on adjacent roadways would
continue at acceptable levels of service with or without the project impacts.
=�
A�PENDIX A
---_i
�-_
2013 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: ALL
Category: 1500 PINELLAS COUNTYWIDE
MOCF: 0.95
Week Dates SF PSCF
__________________________________________________________________________
1 O1/O1/2013 - O1/05/2013 1.05 1.11
2 O1/06/2013 - O1/12/2013 1.04 1.09
3 O1/13/2013 - O1/19/2013 1.03 1.08
4 O1/20/2013 - 01/26/2013 1.02 1.07
5 01/27/2013 - 02/02/2013 1.00 1.05
6 02/03/2013 - 02/09/2013 0.99 1.04
* 7 02/10/2013 - 02/16/2013 0.97 1.02
* 8 02/17/2013 - 02/23/2013 0.96 1.01
* 9 02/24/2013 - 03/02/2013 0.95 1.00
*10 03/03/2013 - 03/09/2013 0.94 0.99
*11 03/10/2013 - 03/16/2013 0.93 0.98
*12 03/17/2013 - 03/23/2013 0.92 0.97
*13 03/24/2013 - 03/30/2013 0.93 0.98
*14 03/31/2013 - 04/06/2013 0.93 0.98
*15 04/07/2013 - 04/13/2013 0.94 0.99
*16 04/14/2013 - 04/20/2013 0.95 1.00
*17 04/21/2013 - 04/27/2013 0.96 1.01
*18 04/28/2013 - 05/04/2013 0.96 1.01
*19 05/05/2013 - 05/11/2013 0.97 1.02
20 05/12/2013 - 05/1B/2013 0.98 1.03
21 05/19/2013 - 05/25/2013 0.99 1.04
22 05/26/2013 - 06/01/2013 0.99 1.04
23 06/02/2013 - 06/08/2013 0.99 1.04 �
24 06/09/2013 - 06/15/2013 1.00 1.05
25 06/16/2013 - 06/22/2013 1.00 1.05
26 06/23/2013 - 06/29/2013 1.00 1.05
27 06/30/2013 - 07/06/2013 1.01 1.06
28 07/07/2013 - 07/13/2013 1.01 1.06
29 07/14/2013 - 07/20/2013 1.02 1.07
30 07/21/2013 - 07/27/2013 1.02 1.07
31 07/28/2013 - 08/03/2013 1 1.07
32 08/04/2013 - 08/10/2013 1.02 1.07
33 08/11/2013 - 08/17/2013 1.03 1.08
34 08/18/2013 - O8/24/2013 1.03 1.08
35 08/25/2013 - 08/31/2013 1.04 1.09
36 09/O1/2013 - Q9/07/2013 1.05 1.11
37 09/08/2013 - 09/14/2013 1.06 1.12
38 09/15/2013 - 09/21/2013 1.06 1.12
39 09/22/2013 - 09/28/2013 1.05 1.11
40 09/29/2013 - 10/05/2013 1.04 1.09
41 10/06/2013 - 10/12/2013 1.03 1.08
42 10/13/2013 - 10/19/2013 1.02 1.07
43 10/20/2013 - 10/26/2013 1.03 1.08
44 10/27/2013 - 11/02/2013 1.04 1.09
45 11/03/2013 - 11/09/2013 1.04 1.09
46 11/10/2013 - 11/16/2013 1.05 1.11
47 11/17/2013 - 11/23/2013 1.06 1.12
48 11/24/2013 - 11/30/2013 1.06 1.12
49 12/O1/2013 - 12/07/2013 1.06 1.12
50 12/08/2013 - 12/14/2013 1.05 1.11
51 12/15/2013 - 12/21/2013 1.05 1.11
52 12/22/2013 - 12/28/2013 1.04 1.09
53 12/29/2013 - 12/31/2013 1.03 1.08
* Peak Season
Page 10 of 11
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
LANE TYPE:
NB
SB
EB
WB
P�, KA HOUR
PEAK HOUR / P.H.F. DATA
BAYWAY HOTEL PROJECT NO: 14-040
Parkway Dr (NB) & Bayview Blvd (E-1N)
August 4, 2014
SPEED LIMIT: SIGNAL TIMING: A G Y R
(SECONDSJ (NOT APPLICABLE)
2 Lane Div NB 25 NB
N/A SB NIA SB
2 Lane EB 25 EB
2 Lane WB 25 WB .
TIME
PM
4:00-4:15
4:15-4:30
4:30-4:45
4:45-5:00
5:00-5:15
5:15-5:30
5:30-5:45
5:45-6:00
TIME
PM
5:00-5:15
5:15-5:30
5:30-5:45
5:45-6:00
PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS
NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAI HOURLY
L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME VOLUMES
44
36
27
23 130
36 122
40 126
25 124 HOURLY FLOW DIAGRAM
35 736
0 10
33 0 7 0� 0 0 71 146 0 0 62 7 266 � �
NB NB NB SB SB SB EB EB EB WB WB WB TOTAL 0 0 0
L T R L T R L T R L T R VOLUME � � �
36 46 �-- 6 —� 'L_ 4 �-- 32
40 76 —� �— 28
25 82 —r 0 —� i— 0 —► 80
_ _ 35 � � �
18 0 4 0 0 0 6 76 0 0 28 4 136 18 0
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME
PEAK HOUR VOLUME NB
PEAK HOUR VOLUME SB
PEAK HOUR VOLUME EB
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB
5:00-6:00 INTERSECTION PHF
136
22 PHF NB
� PHF SB
B2 PHF EB
32 PHF WB
0.85
0.61
#DN/01
0.82
0.73
4
1 t
0 ZZ
G1. �.�-
� � - � f.� °�.
�
.� �l
�4
�,�. --__�►
�*r. _..-�
� gl � **
� � �.
� � �
t
� Q3 � {�
�'-*" �
� ��
��
e�-�*... �:• �
_ .�
��
y i
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
' 3� 8/1/2014
-' � � t 1 �
EBL . N'EBR ` NBL - NBT
Lane Configurations 'i'�' .��F �� �+
Volume {vph) 278 11 0 513 443 322
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Stotage Length (ft) 500 500 500 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 �
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Uti►. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.97 0.95
Frt 0.994 0.850
Flt Protected 0.954
Satd. Flow (prot) 3427 0 0 3539 3539 1583
Fit Permitted 0.954
Satd. Flow (perm) 3322 0 0 3539 3539 1502
Right Turn on Red No Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 354
Link Speed (mph) 20 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 331 260 350
Travel Time (s) 11.3 7,1 9.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 17 33 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 305 12 0 564 487 354
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 317 0 0 564 487 354
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 g
Number of Detectors 1 1 2 2 1
Detector Template Left Left Thru Thru Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 100 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Positivn(ft) 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 6 6 20
Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex
Detector 2 Channei
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type NA Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 g
Gulfview Coronado Existing 2014 2/14/2014 EXISTING - PM PEAK HOUR Synchro 8 Report
RP
Page 1
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
- 3:
8/1/2014
�'' 'i `� t l �
_. � . -
s �
Permitted Phases 2 " -6 _
Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 25.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 41.7% 58.3% 58.3% 58.3% 58.3%
Maximum Green (s) 21.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0
Yeilow Time (s} 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Max Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 9.9 32.6 32.6 32.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.65 0.65 0.65
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.25 0.21 0.32
Control Delay 20.0 4.4 4.3 1.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.0 4.4 4.3 1.5
LOS B A A A
Approach Delay 20.0 4.4 3.1
Approach LOS B A A
- , n,= . � ..
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 50.5
Naturai Cycle: 40
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
Maximum v/c Ratio. 0.4 '� '`,� LL��. .5.��,�
Intersection Si nal Del : 6.6 4,�---., ' ;�
9 Intersectior{,LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utiliza ioj� 42.5% 4 ICU Level of Servic�"A 4
Analysis Period (min)15 . _..
Gulfview Coronado Existing 2014 2/14/2014 EXfSTING - PM PEAK HOUR Synchro 8 Report
RP
Page 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
* 3• 8/1/2014
� -. � �. ti r
�.aneGrouP., �� � EBL iEBT �=WBT ������WBR� `°�+ SBL ��SBR �� ��'� ' � � >'� ��' �"�"� ����
Lane Configurations �'� � �+ �►�
Volume (vph) 39 228 206 311 335 20
Ideai Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95
Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.80 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.992
Fit Protected 0.993 0.955
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3514 1863 1583 3415 0
Flt Permitted 0.897 0.955
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3129 1863 1273 3415 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 331 86
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 300 500 300
Travel Time (s) 8.2 13.6 8.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 82 g2 � �
Peak Nour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 41 243 219 331 356 21
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 284 219 331 377 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 24
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 2 1 1
Detector Template Left Thru Thru Right Left
Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 100 20 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 6 20 20
Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex
Detector 2 Channe►
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 4 g
Detector Phase 7 4 8 8 6
Switch Phase
Gulfview Hamden Existing 2014 2/14/2014 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR Synchro 8 Report
RP
Page 1
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3• 8/1/2014
� -+ '� '4.. � .r�
., _ � s �
. � � �" . �
Minimum Initial (s) 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 8.5 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (sj 15.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 21.4% 50.0% 28.6% 28.6% 50.0%
Maximum Green (s) 10.5 31.0 16.0 16.0 31.0
Yeilow Time (s) 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Min Min Min None
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 10.4 10.4 10.4 7.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.30
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.30 0.47 0.35
Control Delay 6.0 6.9 3.4 6.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.0 6.9 3,4 6.8
LOS A A A A
Approach Delay 6.0 4.8 6.8
Approach LOS A A A
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 26.4
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
Maximum v/c Ratio: Q.�� - - �- ._
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.7�.. Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utiliza ion 41.8% , ICU Level ofi-�er�ie�A-----�
Analysis Period (min)15 `
and Phases: 3:
Gulfview Hamden Existing 2014 2/14/2014 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR Synchro 8 Report
RP
Page 2
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
file:/UC:/Users/rper�olizzi/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kD4B5.tmp R�� ���� �
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
�.opyngnt v zuui universiry ot r�onda, All Rlghts Reserved HCS+T�''� Version 5.3 Generated: 8/5/2014 8:18 AM
file:///C:/LJsers/rner�olizzi/AnnData/Local/Temp/u2kD 1 C2.tmp R/S��n i a
.
�'
�.A� �E � Generalized Pealc htour ?wo-W�y Volumes for Florida's
Urbanized Areas SD/4/10
ST�iTE SIGNALIZEI) AR�'ERIA.LS FREEWAYS
C1ass I(>0.00 to 1.99 signalized i.�ersections per mile) Lenes $ C D E
Lanes Median B c D E 4 4,000 5,500� 6,770 7,300
2 Undivided 930 1,500 1,600 *** 6 �6,000 8,320 10,150 11,290
4 Divided , 2,840 3,440 3,560 *** 8 8,000 11,050 13,480 15,270
6 Divided 4,370 5,200 5,360 �** 10 10,000 13,960 16,930 19,250
8 Divided 5,90D� 6,970 7,160 �** 12 13,730 18,600 21,950 23,230
�'� �t„l? Cn�1P�t E� ��"7� 1�.�e�} � ��..�''�� Freev�ayAdjustments
�� Z. �� Class II(2.0o m 4�o signalized�int�rsectio�s�er mile) Amrili�, g�P
yr'7;enes Mediea B C D• E Lenes Metering
2 Undivided *�' � 1,020' 1,480 1,570 _ +1,800 +5%
4 Divided *� 2,420 3 2.(A 3,400 �
6 Divided ** 3,790 4,880 5,150 TJNIlVTERRUPTED FLOW ffiGHWAYS
8 Divided „ *� 5�150 b�530 6,880
�:i.�7�orunuity�,C9,dtD� Zii� ,� Isnes Median B C D $
Zq �� 2 Undivided 730 1 460 2 080 2 620
,�� C1a55 III/IV (more than 4.50 si mter gc �e mile) > > >
�es Median B �� �gf "��r E 4 Divided 3,220 4,660 6,040 6,840
2• Undivided ** 500 1,150 1�440 6 Divided 4,840 6�990 9,060 10,280
4 Divided ** 1,220 2,730 3,100 Uninierru ted Flow Hi wa Ad nstments
6 Divided �** � 1,910 4,240 4,680 �� Med'ian Exclusivel�eftlanes ,Adjustmentfactors
8 Divided ** 2,620 5,770 6,280 2 Divided Yes +5%
1Vlulti Undivided Yes -5%
Guro^+ � d�,t� �{���.v, c�p, ����°j`wi,,,-( L�, Multi Uadivided No -25%
Non-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments BICYCLE MODEz
(Alter corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent.) � (Multiply motorized vehicla nol�es shown belaw by number of directional
�y`� k� roadway lanes to detecmine two-way m�dmum service volumes.)
• Major City/CountyRoadways - 10% PavedShouider/BicycleLane
Other Signalized RDadway - 3 `�"a �° y Coverage B C D E
,C�S �\cr- ��. Go� c'i�S �04'� 0-49% "•`* 310 1,180 >1,180
State &�on-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments 50-84/0 240 360 >360 *'�*
(Alter correspondipg state volvmes by the indicated percent.) 85-100% 620 >620 *�`* �`* �
DividedliJndivided & Tuxn Lane Adjustments
Exclusive ExcIusive Adjustrnent PEDESTRIAN MODEZ
Lanes Median Left Lanes Right Lanes F• (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shovm below by mimber of directional
2 Divided Yes No -I-So • madway lanes to determina iwo-way maximtffi servica volumes,)
� Undivided No No -20% Sidewalk Coverage B C D E
Multi Undivided Yes No -5% 0-49% ** �* 480 1,390
• Multi Unclivided No No' -25% so-s4% ` ** �'* 1,100 1,820
- - - Yes +5% s5-l00% �� 1,100 1,820 >1,820
One-Way FaciIity A.djusiment BUS MOD� (Scheduled Figed Route)3
(Buses ia peak hour in peak direction)
Multiply the coaesponding two-directional volumes in this table by 0.6. 5idewelk Coverage B C D E
o-s4/ >5 • >4 >3 >2
s5-i00% >4 >3 >2 >1
•� yalues ahown are prase,uted ea honrly two-avay volumes far levels of aervice and ara for the automobile/truck modas vnless spacifically stated Althougfi praseuted as peek hma two-
way volumes, thcy actually represent peak hour peek direction coaditions with aa applicable D factor applied This ffihle doas not cbaslitute a stend9rd and ahould be vsed only fnr
general planaing applications. The computer models &om which this tahle is derived shauld be used for more specific plaaning applications. '17�a table and deriying camputer models
shonld not ba used for comdor or inteiaection design, where more mfined techmques e�dst Calculations ara based on plctaniag applications of tha iiighway Capacity a*+�,°� gicycle.
LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model anil Trensit Cepaaity and Quslity of Servica Manuel, respectively fior the automob�afhuck, bieycle, pedeshian end bus mades.
1 Level of servica for the bicycIe end pedashriaa modea in this tahle is basad on m3mber of motoxized vehiclea, not number of
bicyclists or pedestrians vsing the fac�lity.
3Suseaperho�shownareonly�rthepeakhourmfl»smgladi=ectionof�ahigherfra$'ictlow. • SouTCe:
** caffiot bB �v�a us�ng taula iuPurvaiue ��nl�. F'lorida Department of Transportation
*'M Not applicahle for that le,v,el of setvice letter grade. For the suWmobile mada, vol�es greafmr tiian levcl of servica D 5pstems Planning Office
become F becanse iutersection capacitias have bean reacLed For tha bicycle mode, the level of sorvice letter grade (iucluding 605 Suwannee 5tree� MS 19
F) is not acirievable becansa there is no maximum vo]ucla vol�a threshold vsing table input yalue defaults, 'rgjjgj18S508� FZ 32399-0450
www.dot.state.fl.us/plannine/scstemsk�illo�'�°fa,�tt�-�� 2J�� ; �OTQU-.! [�Y/LELtELO=SERV;C� HANDBO�K
C
�
Hotel
(310)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 10
Average Number of Rooms: 476
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Room
f,.�uer.age Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
�,,
� 8.17,� __ '� 3.47 - 9.58 �_�R
Data Plot and Epuation
�
�'6
c
W
a
H
N
U
t
�
a�
�
>
Q
II
H
18,00(
17,OOC
i 6,00C
15,00a
14,000
13,000
12,000
11,000
70,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
; ; : ; ; ; ; ; : ; ; ; ; ; : ; : x
; ; : ; ; ; ; ; ; : •,-•--'-•--;-•--;-••-;•• - •-�, -
' ' ;' ' ' ' . . • - . ' . . ' ' ' , . . ' ' ' ; ' ' ; ' ' ; ' ' ; • • . ji/ ;' ' ' � • ' ; ' ' ; - •
'" ; "" ; .' ; '_ ; _' ; .. ; -• ; •• ; •- ; -- ; -- : - - �� : ...: .. : .. : .. : ..
...'.--•,--•;-•-•I--..;....1--••;•--•;..-•;••-•• .{, ••'--._;._..,--••;•-•-,-••-,---
-• ; •• : ---; -• ; •- , •- , •- � ��/-• ; .. , -- ; .. ;--- ; •- ; -- ; -• , -- ; --
� X, : : � ; ; ; - ; -• ;---; -- '-•• ;•-• ; -• ;•-•-' •• ; •-
��'/ --•X-• : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. . .- ; -- , •• ; •- ; •• ; •• ; .. 1 .. , ._ ; _.
100 200 300 400
%< Actual Data Points
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
X = Number of Rooms
Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T= 8.95(X) - 373.16
R2 = 0.98
Trip Generation, 9th Edition s Institute of Transportation Engineers 693
0
.
Hotel
(310)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies: 33
Average Nurnber of Rooms: 200
Directional Distribution: 51 % entering, 49% exiting
Trip Generation per Room
ag,e r�ate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
0.60 ��i 0.21 - 1.06 n_�1
Trip Gsneration, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 695
n
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
' 3 • 8/4/2014
� � `� T � �
_ --- -- _ - --__ _ . ___ _ . __ ...._.. ___ _.
_ _ - - -- - _.. . - - _ _ r._ ._.,-- - _ .. _..
LaneGroup EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR '��' �-�
� �
Lane Configurations '�'Y' �� �� �+
Volume (vph) 347 11 0 827 684 384
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 500 500 500 p
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 �
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.97 0.95
F� 0.995 0.850
Flt Protected 0.954
Satd, Flow (prot) 3430 0 0 3539 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.954
Satd. Flow (perm) 3324 0 0 3539 3539 1502
Right Turn on Red No Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 422
Link Speed (mph) 20 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 331 260 350
Travel Time (s) 11.3 7.1 9.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 17 33 � 7
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 381 12 0 909 752 422
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 393 0 0 909 752 422
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 g
Number of Detectors 1 1 2 2 1
Detector Template Left Left Thru Thru Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 100 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 6 6 20
Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6
Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex �
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0
Turn Type NA Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 g
Gulfview Coronado Future With Bayway Hotel 8/4/2014 Future with Bayway Hotel Synchro 8 Report
RP
Page 1
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3' 8/4/2014
-' '� `� 1 j .�
,��►i� i � -_�, � g�`��m��B�°��=''�NBL � �1SI�� Ss• �R- ri-�
Permitted Phases 2 6
Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 25.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Totai Split (%) 41.7% 58.3% 58.3% 58.3% 58.3%
Maximum Green (s) 21.0 31.0 31.0 31,0 31.0
Yeilow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Max Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 10.9 31.6 31.6 31.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.63 0.63 0.63
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.41 0.34 0.38
Control Delay 20.1 5.8 5.4 1.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.1 5.8 5.4 1.8
LOS C A A A
Approach Delay 20.1 5.8 4.1
Approach LOS C A A
,.,��� , <
e�„sP� � tiR : � � , t,,, �: � �,�, ;� �r , +_ � , � =��°- _ �.� , r-
�-� ��.� �:� i �� �� _.
Area Type: Other � �
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 50.5
Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
Maximum v/c Ratio��.53
Intersection Signal belay: 7:3` Inte►�c'on LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utiliza`ti n 55.0% � ICU Level ofSe"��ce� �-��,-_�
Analysis Period (min)15 � ._.�
Gulfview Coronado Future With Bayway Hotel 8/4/2014 Future with Bayway Hotel Synchro 8 Report
RP
Page 2
n
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
• 3:
8/4/2014
� -► �i ir ~ � �1 t !�' `► � �
ane Group � � ��EBL '�EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL f NBT NBR 3SBL°� y SBT '"`SRR
Lane Configurations �"� � �+ �, r� �
Volume (vph) 43 278 0 0 249 457 19 14 0 496 11 22
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.80 1.00
Frt 0.850 0.988
Flt Protected 0.993 0.972 0.950 0.958
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3514 0 0 1863 1583 0 1811 0 1681 1669 0
Flt Permitted 0.889 0.972 0.950 0.958
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3110 0 0 1863 1273 0 1811 0 1681 1669 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 4gg 6
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 30 25
Link Distance (ft) 300 500 415 300
Travel Time (s) 8,2 13.6 9,4 8,2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 82 82 11
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 46 296 0 0 265 486 20 15 0 528 12 23
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 46%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 342 0 0 265 486 0 35 0 285 278 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 g
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 � 2
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru
Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size{ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ftj 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Split NA Spiit NA
Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2 6 6
Permitted Phases 4 g 8
Detector Phase 7 4 8 8 8 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Gulfview Hamden Future 8/4/2014 FUTURE WITH Bayway Hotel Synchro 8 Report
RP
Page 1
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
� 3:
8/4/2014
_ � _ � -► `�' '(' '�' � "� t /� �► � ► f
�., •�:;�. .. �- �,�;.a> � �- ; .���-�-�,. .�,�:.�.,.m_�...___ _
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split (sj
Total Split (s)
Total Split (%)
Maximum Green (s)
Yeilow Time (s)
All-Red Time (s)
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (sj
Lead/Lag
lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s)
Recail Mode
Walk Time (s)
Flash Dont Walk (s)
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr)
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Contro( Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
4.0
8.5
15.0
21.4%
10.5
3.5
1.0
Lead
Yes
3.0
None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 37.7
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Dela : 12.1 '
Intersection Capacity Utiliza n 56.0%`�a
Analysis Period (min)15 �4„,_�.. :�,.,,s`
4.0
20.0
35.0
50.0%
31.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
3.0
Min
5.0
11.0
0
12.6
0.33
0.33
12.0
0.0
12.0
B
12.0
B
4.0
20.0
20.0
28.6%
16.0
3.0
1.0
Lag
Yes
3.0
Min
5.0
11.0
0
4.0
20.0
20.0
28.6%
16.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
Lag
Yes
3.0
Min
5.0
11.0
0
12.6
0.33
0.42
14.2
0.0
14.2
B
9.3
A
4.0
20.0
20.0
28.6%
16.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
Lag
Yes
3.0
Min
5.0
11.0
0
12.6
0.33
0.65
6.6
0.0
6.6
A
u�
Interse on� LOS: B �';
ICU Lev�o� Ser�ice� �
4.0
10.0
15.0
21.4%
11.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
None
5.0
11.0
0
4.0
10.0
15.0
21.4%
11.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
3.0
None
5.0
11.0
0
6.9
0.18
0.11
18.5
0.0
18.5
B
18.5
B
4.0
20.0
20.0
28.6%
16.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
3.0
None
5.0
11.0
0
12.9
0.34
0.50
15.6
0.0
15.6
B
4.0
20.0
20.0
28.6%
16.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
3.0
None
5.0
11.0
0
12.9
0.34
0.49
152
0.0
15.2
B
15.4
B
Gulfview Hamden Future 8/4/2014 FUTURE WITH Bayway Hotei
RP
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
file:///C:/Users/rber�olizzi/AbbData/Local/Temp/u2k9217.tmp R/Q��n � a
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
���T � �-• version 5.s
file:///C:/Users/rpergolizzi/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kF8 C4.tmp
Generated: 8/5/2014 10:40 AM
R/S��nia
� Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
.
,,..�= vrision o.s
file:///C:/LTsers/roer�olizzi/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kEC4.tmp
�eneratea: 8i5/2014 10:55 AM
R/5��nia
„ NO TREE VERIFICATION
,�I, . oR
� NO TREE REMQVAL PERMIT REQUIRED VERIFICATION STATEMENT
�'` � CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
(727) 562-4741
-v
m
�
° HOt�� Nnlriinnc � � � Phone 3
Owner �Y�C�Y - - -=i
Email stevepaQeCc�tampabav rr com Cell Phone 72�-804-9726
Owner's Representative Housh Ghovaee Phone 727-`143-2869
Emai) housh northsideenqineerinq.net Cel) Phone
Address of Applicant 300 S. Belcher Rd
City Clearwate� $tate FL Zjp 3�755
Address of Proposed Construction �06 Bayway Blvd.
Clearwater, Florida
I hereby certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate and that I am the legal owner of the
subject property or have legal authority to execute this form on behalf of the property owner. I am aware that
any deviation from the information submitted with this form shall be considered a violation of the Community
Development Code. In accordance with Section 4-1205, Community Development Code, I request a release from
the provisions of the tree removal permit section to allow the issuance of a building permit at the above location
because one of the following conditions exists:
❑ PROTECTED TREES EXIST ON THE SITE as defined in Section 8-102 (non-prohibited species greater than four
inches at 4.5 feet above grade), but ARE NOT REQUIREDTO BE REMOVED FOR CONSTRUCTION purposes,
thus no tree removal permit is required. I further understand that these TREES MUST BE PROTECTED FROM
DAMAGE BOTH BEFORE AND DURING ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON THIS SITE as provided in Section
3-1205 of the City Code of Ordinances (A site plan is submitted with this request).
� NO PROTECTED TREES EXIST ANYWHERE ON THE SITE of the proposed construction as defined in Section
8-102 (non-prohibited species greater than four inches at 4.5 feet above grade).
PRINTED NAME
SIGNED
White-Rlan�ung Yelbw-ApplfcaM 10�10