Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
FLD2009-03013
°Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727 -562 -4567 Fax: 727 -562 -4865 ❑ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ❑ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets ❑ SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00 ❑ SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: 06 0111 nF CLE'1�'M`fV %iTlr * NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (Revised 07/11/2008) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT— A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) APPLICANT NAME: Decade Companies Income Properties MAILING ADDRESS: 13555 Bishops Court, Ste 345, Brookfield, WI 53005 PHONE NUMBER: 262 - 797 -9215 FAX NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER(S): Decade Companies Income Properties List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: Keith Zayac, PE, RLA, LEED AP; Keith Zayac & Associates; Inc. MAILING ADDRESS: 701 Enterprise Road East, Ste 404, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 PHONE NUMBER: 727- 793 -9888 FAX NUMBER: 727 -793 -9$55 CELL NUMBER: EMAIL: keith kelthza aC.Com B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) PROJECT NAME: Holiday Inn Express PROJECT VALUATION: $12.0 Million STREET ADDRESS 101 & 105 Coronado Drive ` PARCEL NUMBER(S): 08/29/15/15606/000 /0141; 08/29_ /15/00000/320 /0200; 08/29/1.5/17550 /002_ /0012 PARCEL SIZE (acres): 032 PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 3 1,418 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attachment A PROPOSED USE(S): 108 limited service overnight accommodations DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See Attachment B Specifically identify the request .(include number of units or square footage of non - residential use and all requested code deviations; e.g- reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) !:\Holiday Inn Express Clearwater BeachlPennits \City of Cleanvater%Flexible Development (FLD) 2008 07 -11 doc DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO x (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5) SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 7) D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA — Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: I 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 Attachment C 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 Attachment C — ---- -------- 3.1 The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. See Attachment C 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See Attachment C AY 2009 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Attachment C 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. See Attachment C hHoliday Inn Express Clearwater Beach\Permits\City of Clearwater\Flexible Development (FLD) 2008 07-11 -doc WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Flexibility Criteria) - Provide complete responses to the applicable flexibility criteria for the specific Use as listed in each Zoning District to which the waiver is requested (use separate sheets as necessary) — Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4- 202.A.21) j� A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance � with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage_ Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an =Pi�lHLhis requirement. ❑ If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. RECEIVED. ❑ At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following; t ,, { 1 05 2009 ❑ Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; 13 Proposed ' Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; w �N N ❑ All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; CRY OF CLEARWATE,,V ❑ Proposed stormwater detention /retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ❑ A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. ❑ Proposed stormwater detention /retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ❑ Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. O COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMI L (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable `fl ACK WLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following): ll __ Stormwater plan as noted above is included Storrnwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562 -4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4- 202.A) -i ' SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) — One original and 14 copies; x TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) — please design around the existing trees; ❑ TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist ", of all trees 4" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees;. LOCATIOWMAP OF THE PROPERTY; ❑ PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; GRADING PLAN, as applicable; t ❑ PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ❑ COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; I: \Holiday Inn Express Clearwater Beach \Permits \City of Clearwater%Flexible Development (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 202.A) SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36 "): _ Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; North arrow; ORIC71NAL Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; RECEIVED All dimensions; i`'.A 052009 _ Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; PWNING WAUMMT Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; CRY OF CLEARWATR A _ All required setbacks; All existing and proposed points of access; — All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; Location of all street rights -of -way within and adjacent to the site; Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines; All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening ^ (per Section 3- 201(D)(i) and Index #701); Location of all landscape material; Location of all onsite and offsite storm -water management facilities; - __ Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks; and Floor plan typicals of buildings for all Level Two approvals. A floor plan of each floor is required for any parking garage requiring a Level Two approval. SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written /tabular form: PROPOSED EXISTING Land area in square feet and acres; 31,418/0.72 Number of EXISTING dwelling units; 53 _ Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; Gross floor area devoted to each use; 108 Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the 29,847 number of required spaces; Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, J_ _ expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; 17,381 Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility _ easement; Building and structure heights; Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and 0.90 Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. 0.70 REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'% X 11); REQUIRED PROPOSED 20,000/0.46 31,418/0.72 36 - 36 - _ -- - -- 108 � - - -- - - 69,208 a/c sp. 108 112 29,847 5,935 J* 0.95 _ 1.0 0 FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: One -foot contours or spot elevations on site; Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; All open space areas; Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); Streets and drives (dimensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); ___ Structural overhangs; IAHoliday Inn Express Clearwater Beach \Permits \City of Clearwater \Flexible Development (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc Page 4 of 7 tts 0.60 2.2 H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 1102.A) LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36 "): _ All existing and proposed structures; ORIC71NAL Names of abutting streets; RECEIVED Drainage, and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; {�,W 05 2009 Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; 1�yy�t Sight visibility triangles; �� "�P�t�t� �L����� Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Existing trees on -site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and protective measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched and /or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); Irrigation notes. REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 %X 11); ❑ COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. I. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 202.A.23) BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS – with the following information; !!! — All sides of all buildings; _ Dimensioned; Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); Materials; REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS – same as above to scale on 8 % X 11. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3 -1806) It)It L, rL,5t */Nrr25 7 A7 4M?- 4 V mo& . ❑ All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed oeto remain. ❑ All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) ❑ Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required) ❑ Reduced signage proposal (8 %X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application hHoliday Inn Express Clearwater BeachWennitslCity of Clearwater%Flexible Development (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4- 202.A.13 and 4- 801.C) RECENEDI Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development: 05 1009 yT �' • Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING I��' C« OF CLEARWQr • Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and /or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. • Will affect a nearby roadway segment and /or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727 - 562 -4750) Refer to Sectipn 4 -801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. Acknowle ement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post - development levels of service for all roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. Traffic Impact Study is not required. CAUTION — IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562- 4750. L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY: Provide Fire Flow Ca ulations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are r uired by the developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpip and /or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with the 2004 Florida re Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required. A .0 Acknowl gement of fire flow calculationstwater study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. CAUTION — IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562 -4334. M. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this app' ation are true and accurate to the best of my knowledgp an authorize City representatives to visit and photogra , h the roperty described in this application. a Signature lof prgiperty owner or representative l�i5censin wakkcsl,�, STATE OFfLGt&IOA, COUNTY OF S rn to and subscribed before me this fhday of —b/'u4 r A.D. 20 U or by r U^ ,who is p� �i{ as produced e ti ica ' n. �---� BF TTY Notary lic, 6 ACKERMAN My com ission expires: L,r ��MiJV C: \DOCUME- 1\ADMINI -1 \LOCALS -1 \Temp \Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc Page 7 of 8 ..C• N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: RirWp 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names: i9IA, 0 J 2009 p�� *y�J Decade Companies Income Properties PLANNING _ _ -�^ -�� he r` EARMT 2. That (I am /we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 101 & 105 Coronado Blvd. 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) 108 overnight accommodations. See Attachment B for complete list t 4. That the undersigned (has /have) appointed and (does /do) appoint: Keith E. Zayac, PE, RLA, LEED AP 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 representativ visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That (Itwe), he un ersi ed authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. / n Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF+tAR• ", COUNTY OF PINELIA �JG u Ct olcC�_ l.�lpC•B�to.viv I I _ Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by� the of the State of WoFidi, on this 16 �n day of �laws personally appeared Je TI -fl KCI a I'C6(r' who having be i Deposes and says that he /she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he /she signed. e IN, SEM �} ZVI ACKERMAN Notary Public Signat Notary Seal /Stamp My Commission Expires: �r<' �' U7 I III 4`dIS� r� C: \DOCUME-1\ADMINI-1 \LOCALS-1 \Temp \Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07- 11.doc Page 8 of 8 ORIGINAL RECEMD ATTACHMENT A i:,,A1 05 20Q9 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTIONNING IDs' MM T CRY OF CLEARtl6iAnTEr NORTH PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Begin at the Southwest corner of Water Lot 1, CITY PARK SUBDIVISION, according to map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 37, of the Public Records of Pinellas CITY, Florida; run thence West along the East -West Center Line of Section 8, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, 15 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 5 °32'30" West along East right -of -way line of Coronado Drive 16.26 feet; thence South 84 °27'30" East, 100 feet; thence North 5 °32'30" East, 78.06 feet; thence Northwesterly along existing concrete seawall 113.38 feet, more or less; thence South 6° 10'00" West, 82.63 feet; thence South 4 °25'11 " East, 25.74 feet to the Point of Beginning. AND: Begin at the Southwest corner of Water Lot 1 of CITY PARK SUBDIVISION, as recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 37, Public Records of Pinellas CITY, Florida; and run thence West along the East and West Center Line of Section 8, Township 29 South, Range 15 East; 15 feet to the Easterly line of Coronado Drive; thence South 5 °32'30" West, 16.26 feet, for the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue South 5 °32'30" West, 100 feet to the Northerly line of First Avenue; thence South 84 °27'30" East, 100 feet along the Northerly line of First Avenue; thence North 5 °32'30" East, 100 feet; thence North 84 °27'30" West, 100 feet to the Point of Beginning. SOUTH PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The North 100 feet of the West 110 feet of Lot 1, Block B COLUMBIA SUBDIVISION according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 60 Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Attachment B Description of Requests ORIGIN. - RECEIVED F' Af 05 2009 C OF CLEARWAIM (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 108 -room overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to lot width along Devon Drive/First Street from 150 to 100 feet (north side) and from 150 to 110 feet (south side), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to 1.15 feet (to proposed pavement), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 to eight feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 to 2.52 feet (to proposed building) and 7.22 feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 to five feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), and an increase to the building height from 35 to 89 feet (to top of roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2- 803.I. (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 72 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. (Related to DVA2009- 00001) Attachment C General Applicability Criteria ORIGINA ROCENED I',Af 05 2009 PLM N)N6 QWAU /'UT CRY OF CLEARWATn 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. West: The property to the west includes an unpaved parking lot which has been approved for a 150 -ft tall resort hotel. North: The property to the north is Clearwater Harbor and the City Marina. East: The property to the east includes an existing two story hotel and parking lot. South: The property to the south includes a one story hotel and parking lot. The scale, bulk, coverage and density of the proposed project are in keeping with the Design Guidelines set forth in Beach by Design for the Small Motel District. The proposed mid -rise limited service motel project maintains the existing use, maintains a maximum height below the 100 -foot maximum and decreases the ISR from the existing 0.90 to 0.60. This provides substantial green and landscape areas. The north parcel includes the motel, parking garage and maintains an existing pool and deck overlooking the City marina. The southern parcel includes surface parking, stormwater pond and 39.5 -foot green buffer from Coronado Drive. The proposed project will enhance this area of the beach in a number of ways, including: • Removal of an existing older hotel not consistent with Beach by Design criteria. • Construction of a new motel consistent with new City code and Beach by Design criteria. • Upgrade in landscaping from the existing non - existing condition, to areas of planting and grassed open space. • Providing a flag motel to Clearwater Beach. • Setting an example in a Beach by Design district that has not had much redevelopment. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposed development maintains an existing appropriate land use according to Beach by Design with a mid -rise motel that caters to families and established clientele. The project includes adequate off - street parking and significantly expands the green area within the parcels. The new project will provide a positive example along the east side of Coronado Drive to serve as a catalyst for redevelopment of mid -rise limited service motels with off - street parking. This will have a positive impact on the value of the adjacent land and also provide clientele for the surrounding restaurants and retail shops. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The limited service motel maintains the existing use and does not introduce any new businesses that may adversely affect the health of persons residing or working in the area. The safety of the neighborhood is enhanced by the construction of additional sidewalks within the adjacent rights of way connecting the existing walks along Devon Drive and Coronado Drive. The existing driveways along the arterial Coronado are being removed and replaced with two driveways along the secondary street Devon Drive. The proposed structure will comply as required with applicable codes including the Florida Building Code, the Life Safety Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The project includes 108 limited service motel rooms that require by City code a total of 108 parking spaces. The project provides 112 parking spaces which allow for 1 parking space per -unit plus 4 spaces for staff including manager, desk clerk and two housekeeping staff. The existing driveways along the arterial Coronado are being removed and replaced with two driveways along the secondary street Devin Drive to provide access to the parking garage and surface parking. S. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity proposed for development. The proposed redevelopment project will improve the visual appeal at this north entry to Beach Walk and South Clearwater Beach. The architectural style integrates a tropical modern design which is appropriate and aesthetically pleasing for the small motel district. The limited service motel development maintains the existing use of the property and is consistent with the properties to the east and south. The property also transitions the height of buildings from 150 feet approved to the west toward the maximum 35 feet allowed for detached dwellings within the LMDR area along Devon Drive (which is not part of Beach by Design). ORIOINAL RECEIVED i1iii , 06 2009 KANNN69VAU'UNT CRY OF CCEARWRI ' 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent. properties. The building includes enhanced design elements on the fagade as required by Beach by Design including adequate windows, vertical and horizontal plane changes and recommended color palette. The acoustic and olfactory impacts are minimized by providing the majority of the parking within an enclosed parking garage. Hours of operation will be 24/7 which is consistent with surrounding properties catering to the tourist industry. RPCEWED i,,,o ' 0 5 2009 CMY OF CLEAR, ATER Attachment D Applicable Flexibility Criteria 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 project access will include one driveway to the north parcel from Devon Drive accessing the parking garage located below the motel units. A second driveway will connect to Devon Drive and provide access to the surface parking lot on the south parcel. The parcel proposed for development will front on Coronado Drive, which is a major arterial street. The existing driveways along Coronado Drive will be removed. 2. Height: The increased height results in an improved site plan and /or improved design and appearance. The proposed building height of 89 -feet above BFE provides for a new modern Holiday Inn Express motel that replaces dated existing two and four story hotels that has exceeded its useful life and includes almost no landscaped areas. The proposed plan also removed existing impervious area and increases the green area by 8,400 square feet which included landscaping and grassed areas. The existing driveways that currently connect to Coronado Drive, a major arterial street, will be removed and replaced with two driveways on Devon Drive. In addition, the south parcel includes the development of a surface parking lot providing relief from taller buildings approved on surrounding parcels and creates a vista to the Bay. 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 comprehensive sign program will be submitted for approved as a separate package addressing signage locations, height and size. 4. Front Setbacks: a. The reduction in front setback contributes to a more active and dynamic street life. The front setback reductions requested along Coronado and Devon will allow the building facades to be located within approximately 5.0 -ft from the public sidewalk facilitating access from the Beachwalk enhancements to the front desk, and encourage appropriate massing to match approved projects across Coronado Drive. The proposed first floor lobby provides o A°�, `r G Q o 0 . _P G an access point from the public right of way to the lobby on the fifth floor. Since the project is located within a flood zone, active building space cannot be provided. 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. The reduced front setbacks for the north parcel allow the design of a fully enclosed parking garage under the proposed motel, and the maintaining of the existing pool area. The northwest corner of the parcel has been left undeveloped to provide a landscaped area and sign location adjacent to the pirate ship and other vender areas along the bayfront. The southern parcel provides additional code compliant surface parking and normally dry stormwater treatment for the site. The location of the parking is set back over thirty feet to facilitate upgraded landscaping along Coronado Drive. C. The reduced setback will not result in the 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 existing site currently has 3,076 square feet of open landscaped area. The proposed project provides 12,608 square feet of open landscaped area. A large landscape area is proposed within the front setback along Coronado Drive along the northwest corner of the parcel to serve as a gateway to the Beach Walk area. The reduction in the front setback on the north parcel consolidated the building onto one of the two parcels and C] allows a 39 -foot front setback on the second parcel to pavement, which provides for a normally dry stormwater pond as well as upgraded (� landscaping. a Side and Rear Setbacks a. The reduced setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles and /or personnel. It is anticipated that emergency vehicles will not access the property, but rather stage in the adjacent right of way due to the small size of the parcels. The south parcel is accessible through the parking lot driveway, and does not require access through the side setbacks. The northern parcel allows access through the pool deck as well as Devon Drive to the sides of the building. M 0 0 N ON I-- 's MJ (So "- �0 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. The reduced side setbacks for the north parcel allow the design of a fully enclosed parking garage under the proposed motel, and the maintaining of the existing pool area. The side setback reduction is due to dimensional requirements of a double loaded driveway and separate access ramp. The southern parcel provides a double loaded surface parking area requiring a minimum width of 60 -feet to be code compliant. The side setback was reduced to provide additional area in the front setback to for stormwater and landscaping. This area is visible from the right of way and Beach Walk. e. The reduction in side and rear setbacks does not reduce the amount 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 existing site currently has 3,076 square feet of open landscaped area. The proposed project provides 12,608 square feet of open landscaped area. A large landscape area is proposed within the front and side setback along Coronado Drive along the northwest corner of the parcel to serve as a gateway to the Beach Walk area. The reduction in the side setback on the north parcel consolidated the building onto one of the two parcels and allows a 39 -foot front setback on the second parcel to pavement, which provides for a normally dry stormwater pond as well as upgraded landscaping. 6. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District design guidelines in Section 3 -501 as applicable. a) Density: The project maintains an overnight accommodation density of 50 units per acre plus additional unites are being requested from the Hotel Density Reserve via a development agreement. b) Height: The height of the building is maintained below 100 feet above BFE. c) Design, Scale and Mass of Building: �? 1. Buildings with a footprint of greater than 5000 square feet or a 0 ° rM 0 single dimension of greater than one hundred (100) feet will be constructed so that no more than two (2) of the three (3) building o dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. For this purpose, equal in length means that the two lengths vary by less than forty (40 %) of the shorter of the two (2) lengths. The horizontal plan measurements relate to the footprint of the building. The overall length of the building along the west and east sides is 154 -feet, the north is 82 -feet and south side is 86 -feet rounded. The height to the roof deck is a maximum of 89 -feet and the height to the top of the parking garage wall is 37 feet. The heights at the north side are the same as the west and the heights along the east side are the same as the south. The ratio of the long dimension and the short dimension of the building at grade 100:44, i.e. the shorter side is 44% of the longer. See attached exhibit for non - rounded exact dimensions. 2. No plane of a building may continue uninterrupted for greater than one hundred linear feet (1001). For the purpose of this standard, interrupted means an offset of greater than five feet (5'). Along the west side the building there are two indents, one near the south end, 5' -0" deep by 6' -10" wide at the stairs and one at the elevator lobby, 5' -0" deep x 9' -0' wide. Along the east side there are two bump outs, one near the south that extends out 5' -0" x 11' -0" plus, these will be used for mechanical rooms on the second, third and upper levels of the parking garage. A second bump out is located near the north end of the east wall of the parking garage that extends out 5' -0" x 7' -2" plus, this area will be used for mechanical and maintenance closets. Note that the east side of the building steps back at the fifth floor above the parking garage for a distance of 18' -0 ". This step back extends vertical for the balance of the building. 3. At least sixty percent (60 %) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. For the purpose of this standard, an elevation is that portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for development. The west elevation has 75% glass and architectural elements and 10% of the gross elevation is open into the parking garage. The north elevation has 79% glass and architectural elements and 12% of the gross elevation is open into the parking garage. The east elevation has 70% glass and architectural elements. The east wall of the parking garage will not have openings due to building code requirements. And the south elevation has 62% glass and architectural elements and 37% of the gross elevation is open into the parking garage. 4. No more than sixty percent (60 %) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above forty -five feet (45') will be occupied by a building. However, in those instances where an overnight accommodations use on less than 2.0 acres that has been allocated additional density via the Hotel Density Reserve, no more than seventy- five percent (75 %) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located 1 n O rn OR i un r above forty -five feet (45') may be occupied by a building unless the property is located between Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico, then no more than 70% may be occupied by a building. • Area of project parcels = 31, 419.96 SF • Theoretical maximum envelope = 1,728,138 CF, based on 100 -feet above elevation 13.0 BFE. • 75% of maximum envelope above 45 -feet from grade = 1,296,103 CF • Percent of building envelope above 45 -feet = 41.76% of allowable envelope. • See attached exhibit for exact dimensions. 5. The height and mass of buildings will be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. The building height is maintained at less than 100 -feet to provide a buffer between the 150 -foot tall buildings along South Gulfview and the properties to the east. The height and mass of the building have been kept to a minimum since the motel is a limited service motel without banquet halls restaurants or conference centers. The mass of the building allows for landscape buffer areas as well as an enhanced landscape area at the northwest corner of the property adjacent to the tourist attractions and water oriented tourist services to provide an eastern gateway landscape enhancement. This will complement the proposed signage and landscaping associated with the Clearwater Beach Hotel proposed on the west side of Coronado Drive. 6. Buildings may be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permitting uses. The building will be designed to provide a moderately priced waterfront family style motel with a pool and limited services. N d) Setbacks: The buildin g is set back a minimum o 3. feet from Coronado Drive pavement and 1.0 eet from Devon Drive pavement. 7. 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. N/A project lot width complies with code. The lot width reduction is due to existing parcel conditions. The building height of 92 -feet is within Beach by Design criteria for the small hotel district within Beach by Design, and provides a buffer from the approved 150 -foot tall hotels along the beach to the areas east of the project not within the Beach by Design area. The southern parcel does not include a structure, and provides relief from the surrounding hotels across Coronado Drive to the areas outside the Beach by Design limits. 8. 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. The development agreement will include the hurricane evacuation plan. 9. A development agreement must be approved by the City Council...... A development agreement has been enclosed in the submittal package and will be processed with the City Attorney to meet requirement a through c. Q ate, ROOF DECK ROOF DECK z w 0 PORTION OF zz BUILDING NEAR — NORTH END 59' 59 w 59' LOWER EDGE OF BALCONIES 0 © I `7 37' 7 7' � v - i cj SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION GRADE NORTH SIDE ELEVATION GRADE --f WEST SIDE ELEVATION 5I9 96' 1 1 GRADE 53' 13' 94' 13' 9 EAST SIDE 2, o BUILDING PERIMETER AT 37' ABOVE AND UP o 86' N V) 58' H � O O Z fn WEST SIDE 41' Imo-- 95'/ 24' 1 ycY ROOF DECK BUILDING FACE STEPBACK LINE EAST SIDE ELEVATION I; EAST SIDE 0 w z 0 U J Q m 59' � I 0 u- 37' GRADE 0 25' 82' ° BUILDING FOOT PRINT AT GRADE o g6' (n (n H H O O Z N WEST SIDE BASIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS DIMENSIONS HAVE BEEN ROUNDED TO NEAREST FOOT pROppSFO "lik" c 'S9 OF TyF�ReTCgo �ncgC Mq pRo �kj4u �Ii�UM pfRTYCl/y /4p�NC fS eNvezopt - OP4- THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE (45 FEET TO 100 FEET = 1,728,138 CF) (75% OF MAXIMUM ENVELOPE = 1,296,103 CF) PROPOSED BUILDING = 541,215 CF ( 41,76% OF ALLOWABLE HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS / I / / / I / I � L/ - Y41Z3 3Z1iG1 R E S O L U T I O N No. 74 - 143 WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida, through its 'TOPICS Program, is realigning and widening the intersection of Mandalay Avenue (SR 60) and Marianna Street, in the City of Clearwater, Florida; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to utilize in this project certain parcels which are designated "park" on the Plat of City Park Subdivision and which previously have not been used for that purpose; and WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that this realignment project is to the best interest and advantage of the City and the general public and that said designation is not necessary nor required; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, IN SESSION DULY AND REGULARLY ASSEMBLED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the "park" designation on all parcels as set out on the Plat of City Park Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 23, page 37 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby vacated and set aside. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to record this Resolution in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th d ORIGINAL RECEIVED 052009 KANNING DEPAX IT CHY OF Attest: CLERM3 �L — — — — — — — — • r awl vvvlww%w� PROPOSED PLANT UST im L=nn- z7-Ed KEITH ZAYAC & ASSOCIATES, INC. (727) 793 -9$89 of nrrurusa awn R an {u E- 0 n u 0 0 2 r- 0 z I ft o aI NOT FOR 4STRUCTION I C9 OF 10 1 � I �j .� � 1 ` , I4, '�^ -; �:•"' -,� 1 _' (; , 1 �• •iii .4 J 1 r ; imp, �Ii S 4A � 1 r 1 t -. ,e, 4� •4 i •°' �Nii- I� I, {I tom(M, REITN ZAVAC A ASSOCIATE!, INC. (737) 781.4,816 ..�•. ;! -� rf t. � � � r .-�� �I I I ii•' .t �l� _ �r i" .�l� !rli. i�IG i(! r 'ifw� 'r' � � o jjo,� 0%104 EAST ELEVATION A7 SCALE: ORIGINAL RECEIVED gy 12 200q PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER FINEHES - COLORS A CONCRETE /MASONRY WALL WITH CEMENTITIOUS FINISH PAINTED WITH "SHERWIN WILLIAM" 'HEARTS OF PALM LRV 54%' "SW 6415" A CONCRETE WALL PANELS WITH CEMENTITIOUS FINISH PAINTED WITH "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'HEARTS OF PALM LRV 54 %' "SW 6415" STRUCTURAL RETANGULAR PORTION OF B CONCRETE COLUMN WITH CEMENTAOUS FINISH PAINTED WITH "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'RICE PADDY LRV 67%' "SW 6414" FLAT CEMENT ROOF TILES B FINISH PAINTED WITH "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'RICE PADDY LRV 67 %' "SW 6414" SEMICIRCULAR PORTION COLUMN WITH C CEMENTITIOUS FINISH PAINTED WITH "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'ANTIQUE WHITE' "LRV 74 %' SW 6119" FASCIA C CEMENTITIOUS FINISH PAINTED WITH "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'ANTIQUE WHITE' "LRV 74 %' SW 6119" ALUMINUM FRAME AND IMPACT RESISTANT D LIGHT GREEN TINTED GLASS STOREFRONT SYSTEM, COLOR TO MATCH "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'EXTRA WHITE LRV 8507' "SW 7006" D PTAC AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WITH EXTRUDED ALUMINUM GRILLE WITH COLOR TO MATCH STOREFRONT FINISH. 42 INCH HIGH ALUMINUM GUARDRAIL WITH D COLOR TO MATCH "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'EXTRA WHITE LRV 85 %' "SW 7006" D STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING WITH COLOR MATCHING "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'EXTRA WHITE LRV 85 %' "SW 7006" F STAINLESS STEEL AND CLEAR GLASS 42" HIGH GUARDRAIL AT ROOF DECK GOPENING INTO PARKING STRUCTURE t-- c" t9 ul C) Q oy r Z 0 :5U ��..... . ����� :.,� �� �0 ©9�. ,rt ��'� ���� �� ��.�, ,, ` .. � ��• . ����� :.,� �� �0 ©9�. ,rt ��'� ���� �� N. mm6o _ 1 �) mf „M —tit 4 V, p0 0 � nd(ilm •FA- m r. o � IL iS il,� t w if IMR t LEGEND - — PROPEiI" BOUNDARY PROP09:]) —9I PAVEMENT PROP03D 1bfa_ 90ExAt11 NTFfOQl lAN08CAPE AREA 9Gt16 iLp (rrPJ TYRCAL aawrAC sr.Ate a. .... 1TC�_ •� YfN°Mx _ I rb`t/a.NaA� u” :i _,.n r�� -1 f h iMT rf+COq ONA00 O Ew - - -y I `- L gNMM O /Pownr�f COq ONA00 DRIVE .i R.1)bf-PF Y (Af'Ag1d(J wW - - - -�- \ ` �� _ Rytf -PF YNnb (AS'ANa1dfJ A,�Y vmmm — =smm _--- m.ti95 ®',I mmL.Y mmm —m mm mm mm m m—CAP- 19E�5� oEnnE COb+vANeA NOOME PROPFmEa e]aeb elaAlova cam surtE Na RaaNFElq WgCO1dN $1006 E✓8)iNAQIb N 2 ENOUFER NFIIN UYACt A980CN1F3. fIG lATOlGPE APGNRFCT: T11 ENIERP109E W1A0 FA9T SUITE WI BAFEn NA1BdL0.]a]t6 (m)]VJM66 N (TxxIrLlAb]6 iaa aARCIIIIECrNMIE: WILLIMIF. MILLBp AT0111ECr TEA Ra�FOYw' 911TE 10r lev)slomro au 3.9URVEYORNAME MILE b ABBOCNTES.M aaAx IEroEwon BLV0. au1TE]00 TM.PA 0.aRw]3e0tm IH]ISmbw er �— lPPD.IECTAOOTBAa: PAROFLtONlM16A6606O00.01a1 vAROFl t 060N Sf1000M1BUt00 MaratONA�Ibne6600020p1x 101 COR T cle/awATE$ F I.ORIOA a1TA b. xcwlaa r -rolnmT y eAHURE IAfO.w. � PREavrt 119E: ovEmOOmACCpMOMTIXI6 a DEV¢oFEOUae ae oVemaccTrMxxNMmATlore uNRanvLB rzavEwa MxoMMOOArarre TorA1 e. aIM110 aE,BAdS Q NORM B1E-n PA IFOUtBD PXOP08FD 8 iT1DNT aR 16 FT. FROM IMESit 16 FT. 1. FROIrtISOUTN} 16 er. ] 1 `P ace �F.aTj w n. zsx Fr aiAIDPN i Tn Fr E�aBr. vdalwrrtl ece MORTI1i 10FT. 120.�� EaJasI Tom. FO01PVM1) aaM PMCa: REOUFBD PROPOaED FRDN1 INE9TT RONT 1b 6 Fi. ]0.00 FT (fO aQC.) ii': Sl:•S t Fr. am Frlm B.0.G1 ammo.j OFT. 10.00 FTIro —) 810E 18oum} ID FT. 6A0 FT(10 B.QG) —t L BFE roFUTaooF OEOIO -R. M Q L� Ia vMUR10GLCtMTOft M_ P aeffiAfsa tnffiA�a 11.811E MTA TABLE MM OEVFIOPABLEAREA: ]1A168F.8Lrz Kj a1Ata 8F.I$rzAt) M,000 aF. pxnl BUlotN3 A1BM 10A61 aF. txarb 8e. - ABPNAILTA'%1N{Y2TEMIBC 11,b1 $F. bgbb aF. ,• TOTAL FSFnvlaus MBA: xb.]ax aF.(pA018R),a610 aF. N.bo l&OxtAar BF. (OA60 �KrpEN ffiACE ",....$...Oi $F.1a0)ACI 1xAB68F. (0.xt ACI ,Ax1 aF. (DAMN ___.. ____�__ —_.__ Ar¢AHAAy �1Tne0 rotrtOtOa I.VLBCw1¢ NWUtLR;aAn swwAN,bx1�FM 61,0x) PROVpER AMN RtAbal 12 TNA1 PROPHRY APPEAP3 TO ILE MTR1 H fLOa xIONE'VE' �LEY.1 ]}'AE• �y (E1EV. t11L- AE•(HEV. 111AS BNOMN ON TIEFLCMIO N9UPIMCE MTE AMP. CpNUNRY PANEL tlxbOx601 Op, RBIIaHFD BY THE i£OFAAL EMEROE1aC'f MMIMEMEmxgFMLY, EFFECTNE 8EVIENBERa xvoa .n to 1NFJB ARE NO ENVNOINENTMLYUNIpA : MEMCN 811E daIUPBEDAIBAB W1MN I00m-0FWAY BNNL BE 80DOEDANGpA m m m m t~PLNIIED.ANOW UBEPEIMIRMiL BE REOAA/BO FOR IANOYMMNa]ML OTNER tlVP10)VE6EHIa W1IXH RON. in' sa o WASTE Mu BE vRwoEO BY A aouour DINVSTEH e amvwanENMNB erMU aE NSrfa tfonACmmrwt : n11N T1e cm of tlEMaw.VTERB IAt nutBAlEN1s ANO aTM1oARm AIL PROFOBED BLEWAlxb a DWN Nor FJU nA CRWBBIOPEOFxx 1r. TTERa.00MT6POUI$IITRHY 90AE$AtE ONC MIa0. aI1EFOIMEB BE NAHiFD,aQiFF/IFD, OR b11EA W IBE COIICFKEp, p1 BLENDED N BLMINXOM0111ECI,AE 16 ML UNUSED D W V E WAYS MpT BE RENO V ED MAD RF.R/�D ]VIIII GA6f, aOENALK NOlAM8CMN0 ro IUItN Ea6THOODM11pN90R BETIETi 10. H1 RAOID RFPFAIFAfMOFlRM BW8IERBYSIEM NIBT COMPLY WRIT ol+oBewrE ala Tenor IMOU anTEM REdAwr Nxe wa alnnaon ru L KEITH ZAYAC 11 ASSOCIATES, INC. (727) 793 -9888 o, eNTeaeatse aoAD $ aTe as sAPen xnaboa. eL M6tb 0 � O l.7 � 0005 Q m M a° O� Gy NOT FOR I OF 10 JSTRUCTION ORIGIN4 'D':r-FIV[-D a X003 CX CLEARWAtV FRST FLOOR - PARKING W[LLIAM F. MILLS 11 -ARCHITECT HOLI DAY INN EXPRESS 3300 HENDERSO —t - slie 107 CORONADO DRIVE 4 13 u 11 TAMPA, FLORA �3609-2978 CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIt 8. sa ---------------------------------------- O NX oil I O W cl — — ---------------- cf) AN A Tf I LLLL I Ax ❑ e�A3 z S� m _. FRST FLOOR - PARKING W[LLIAM F. MILLS 11 -ARCHITECT HOLI DAY INN EXPRESS 3300 HENDERSO —t - slie 107 CORONADO DRIVE 4 13 u 11 TAMPA, FLORA �3609-2978 CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIt 8. sa uAl g SECOND FLOOR - PARKIP — �g WILLIAM F. M II -ARCHITECT HOUDAY INN EXPRESS � IIIIII 3300 H7K'®Eh --A BL - ste 9 07 CORONADO DRIVE < s TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609 -2978 CLEARWATER REAC:�, FLORIDA THIRD FLOOR - PARKING Jjj'j WLLIAM F. MILLS II - ARCHITECT HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS F do fi 330® Hrz-NDERScw BL - e.,e 1 07 CORONADO DRr1E 40 1 III TAPM�A, FLO." 336 09 -2978 CLEARWATER BEACH, FLOP FOURTH FLOOR - PAR;CINI' qpq I'M WILLIAM F. Pty [I - ARCHITECT' HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 3300 HEKIDEh-,A ®L - Ste 107 CORONADO DRIVE R � TAMPA, FLORIDA 336 ®S -2��3 CLEARlfl9A�ER BEACH, FLORIDA 0 WIN FIFTH FLOOR - HOTEL ROOMS g 3300 HENDERS( a -ARCHITECT 10 HCOR�ONADO DRIVE a I TAMPA, V-L ®.qI 33609-2978 CLE4RFINATER BEACH, FL ®RI �IHm- f!I 6th, 7th, and Gth FLOORS - "=HOTEL RO(X4S flil WILLIAM F. W 11 - ARCHITECT HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 8 mill 330® HEKIDFt. 4 BL - ste 1 07 CORONADO DRIVE= a ss TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609-2978 CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA n NINETH FLOOR - HOTEL ROOMS WILLIAM F. ,VILLS II - ARCHITECT HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 3300 HFNDERSO� 63L s�e 07 CCRO�IA®O ®RIVE a m TAMPA, F LORI 33609 -2978 CLEARWATER REACH, FLOSI f p 6 G I ol z� u� P= TENTH FLOOR - HOTEL RCS - ROOF WILLIAM F. M' [h-ARCHITECT FhOLU©AY INN EXPRESS �g ! ! 3300 HENDEK .4 SL - ste 9 07 CORONADO GRIME a • �s TAMPA, FLORIDA 336(09 -2978 CLEARWATER REACH. FLORIDA WEST ELEVATION iu PEF.1u)EU .L.SS SITOREFROUi SYSTL .0 U�w 6sFWsw )006' u "'x 4111 M � (19 ITN 1,dW .LUMIUUU .PILE wM Mw0E0 ST.RE M INFILE " y ON w lE lAV ' 1006' ul B5 % 85VSn Sw IN CxFN. MATCHU ' D NISHES - COLORS COUCRE1ENU.50n'NV — will CEMENTITIOUS 6� pppwwwpp�ppp 0- FNISN 'nE.- OF I— LRV55'lr 6.t5' w co S6. .NSN.pE w11. R = R LE6I,,lilnus HEAR15 IF'AU.1 I}IVSU.%�SW uA ui iNU011IRAl REIAN.VUR RURTOU (IF NI.N WANUNML AI — UL.K _ Kx�� FINISH -TTED 1TNw'SNERINNIW v5' 6b RATIIAT ¢uENr Raa F.S FIn SH ED 11X SHEFIN wwaus' R w6r LNV 6)F' "sw 6ux 0 '6HE IME WI IN - AnilOUE 1aiE' R1N 1 LRV )AF Sw EVI9'+ R co ILRV ] % sw 61110'+ AnilOVE WwT � A` iu PEF.1u)EU .L.SS SITOREFROUi SYSTL .0 U�w 6sFWsw )006' u "'x 4111 M � (19 ITN 1,dW .LUMIUUU .PILE wM Mw0E0 ST.RE M INFILE " y ON w lE lAV ' 1006' ul B5 % 85VSn Sw IN CxFN. MATCHU ' D S AU uITAI ROO 11)N COLOR � CNN. w E— w AMS" 'ExmA -1. 'Sw ¢�I L ® U- L Rv 65% 000' •I� -1r�i� STAINLESS STEEL .N0 I-- CUSS .2 � � Iw g NI.N WANUNML AI — UL.K _ —IND IN. R.RKIV. STRUCTURE FINISHES NG FINI 15,000 F )IAN +- RAL ELENTAE:ES1 wAw AT CwTECNRAL ELEUEUiS 1 250 Sr .- ALIT$ r'w.ENi )SF j''' i� TiNiie Ekave W M - 00067Q WC 50628 c6R.w 0808 w .S.Vw Yrao SCALE: 1/8' -1' -0' - FINISHES - COLORS O COUtR PaH ASO RY 'ALL WITH C OLS L AM 'ALL. W 'HEARTS Of Lu LRV SAX 'Gw GAIS" O,�SFw LRSw 5a,G MEAPR OF GAW.MUSSAXw 5 Wfi.�i S "Y © STRUCtURAt RE.. — R—T S MCPC U �OLVUN w ERI1 Ll 'RitE PAOOT LRVw6]X 'Sw 6�1''LUAUG' © FLAT ROOF HIES TEO FH SuEPN+N W NS RCE 1A001 LRV 6]X' 'Sw 6AI ♦ "W IS © CEU_nwnn0 6tI9 arvTEO wtxTn "SNH�V ,N w ANTWE WHITE' % Sw © invRi.� Wsw ..S. `A.- wHtire' ucwi cuEENR i ^To -ATCss srGR6"z xu 1006 s L6TEUSC [ %OPm 0 ♦ CH 'SHERxtN w uwu — — 851 s (D ALC. ,R CONOrtlorvwc uNIrWtm �xTRUOEn sTOR—ON""' os11. --01 To RICH ' i u Ws w EWwAROaaI wrH C_ o " T P E AHItE LCV 85V 7CO6us" ST 0 LRV YG — AE ROOtING ITH COLOR OI TAI TCRIv Yn UANS" 'E111 111TE A_ "sw 6" L ® NIUHU L1.unAURA0L AIN RIIInE OECD ASS L't" © W'EUING INTO nAPUIHC STRUCTURE BUILDING FINISHES (PERCENTAGES) G OSS TSURFACE 15,000 Y +- CLASS A- ARCHITECTURAL ELEUENTS Z,, GLASS/Ei —TS PERCENT ]OX� b EAST ELEVA110N SCALE 1/8' -1'-0' WAR-00 504U J NCA 0 sane w eT - — VJ t■ nl ■I I ■In nl ■I II ■In nl ■I I■ln nl ■I illlnll ■ � � ■ I . �: � � � � II_�' , I�� �� ? 1 ..:I ' ��'�'� � � {' , IIIIIIIIIIIIIII� I (IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�- (IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII jllllllllllll (IIIIIIIIIII -- IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII - (IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII - (IIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIII <- 1IIIIIIIII -1 1 ■!rn11nIL�CII ■Inllnl ■1�1j11 ■Inllnl IIII'llllllc. ■Illllllnlj IIIIIII��IIIIIIIIIII I�III�IIIII� 'III 131 �II��'�I�I�IIf�'rI�II�rfI IIIIIIIIIII "'= I�Inl■1111■Inlle■1111■ JuIIVIIIIUI ms11nl■ll11111n1 VIIUUI - IIUIIIUIIIUI uuuuulr 711111111110-1,1111111111111 ��,T Iluuulluc - IIIIIIIUUUIIIVIVIUIUI- 11iiuuiiiu ulululul - llu111111ll � nl ■II I�InI Inl_■ 1111 ■Inllnl I ■1111 ■lnllnl ■IIII� ' �, w� I`�I IIIIIIIIIIIII....IIIII IIIII ry�l IIIIIIIIII..:.IIIIIIIIIIII Ih�l 111111 II�III IJ Ic IIIIIIIIIIIII ,..,�IIIIIIIIII4IIIIIIIIIII� ...(IIIIIIIIIIIII Iii IIIIIIIIIIIII ..IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� Icl ..IIIIIIIIIIIII Ill IIIIIIIIIIII....IIIIIIII ■ nIIIII1`..:.I ■ lIIIInIIIIIIIlI� l nIIIIIII lIII lIIInIIIIIIIIl 1III 1 1I ■IIIIIGI,'.I�..I lII lIIIInIIIIIII loll IIIIIIII ■IC1I 11I I I ■ (�) n,�. , II (III (III I 1711111111117 IlllI IIIIII l IIII■IIIIIII\..�:I.1 IIIII I I1 II IInIIIIII II II III -�' .7 I 1InIIIIIIIlIIII ,II I I ,.■.I ,I I ....(IIIIIIIIIII ■ ! ■ ! , '■ ■ I -1 �' ring ■11 ■111 ■In lime l■ 1111 ■Inllnl ■1111 ■Inllnl ■1111■I11 VIIIIIIIIIIIIII %IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII; %IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII` IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIYIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII "IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII"IIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIII . (IIIIIIIIIII -1 ns �� i000il� �� ICI __ � � ��i�V�r■ —in�hl � h � .. - .3T,m..,�..�,�.:n =:.■ EAST ELEVA110N SCALE 1/8' -1'-0' WAR-00 504U J NCA 0 sane w eT - — FINISHES - COLORS 10i 41 u/uu[0 w Y wALL win CwuNilPWs M 'SNCRwn' w NCAR19 0P1PALU lRV 5aX 'SW 6115'• CI O nEARiS OF PALU CC ' 55 ERWKCCNCNRi1.OUS Rv S.X Sw 6,15'5 © CoN—T, COLEIANCVUF POP I ON OF 'NICE VADOr lAV 679 SW 6414* © 'RICE nP.CD1 1 E0 A w 6n)X l"SRERwu w 5 'Sw 6411' LLI © LEUEGNRi11I_ PAUS 1 DDJEVN WtTI '_R. w H vwiE' Y Sw fi11D BUILDING R FINISHES (PERCENTAGES) FACE 9,588 4 9ASD WNORTH ELEVATION T, S D . N PEN -1 Eu=N,S AL —S PE «- = 9. BUILDINGR CRD55 AND ARC DPEN 4:712 ._ SOUTH ELEVATION 4 SS FE 1— 2CNRAL ELEUCN2 - /ELEwLNrs P�NaN1 91: AuINUU ERAUE AND IM +AC1 RE951ANI GREEN P TO CLASS S10REEROVI TO uAiCn 'S85V in ■© =a AOWAUSCOLOR 'Cl M " iYRVA WY2 lAV 95X " )OOfi' PTAC ALUUI UR CON'OIn 11 C O UA1RU0E0 u GRILLE w. COLON' 10 Cn SiOREHRONi 11NISn. i ■i■ ,1 IN'[n ALI Ln 1I - -R GUANORAIL w ' 'S Ea1FA WWii1E LRV 659 7106' © AA-141 sW )06iAL R INC ATR COLOR 1 "'E %iNA O E ® iA:NI ESS 5211 AND CLEAR GLASS ,I" F, DUARDRAIL AT ROp' DECK © OPENING w70 P—NO - UC1uRE BUILDINGR CRD55 AND ARC DPEN 4:712 ._ SOUTH ELEVATION 4 SS FE 1— 2CNRAL ELEUCN2 - /ELEwLNrs P�NaN1 91: SCALE: 1/8' -1' -0' in ■© =a MINA o_= �0mN i ■i■ i ►1 I ; ■ a ■I■ o_o n:o_wl ■�����!■1■! o.a��:o_o:o o10,0110 -. r r DI�o101011� IIN f�l ICI SCALE: 1/8' -1' -0' HOLIDAY INN BEACHSIDE CLEARWATER, FL STORMWATER REPORT May 4, 2009 Prepared By: Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 701 Enterprise Road East, Suite 404 Safety Harbor, F134695 (727) 793 -9888 ORIGINAL RECEIVED C 5 2009 C[91' OF CLEARWA111 -- p 731 -08 REPORTS �r i ZAYAc; MAY 0 5 2009 P.E. NO. 48192 ). ;_. ;-. C I"; , , % ^_ Clearwater Ffre & Roscus L I g �g .� 610 Franklin street - Clearmator, Florida 33756 -Yater Public Works Administr ation - Engineving Deparbrrient 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Sulte 200 - Clearwater, Florida 333766 --''IDRA Z' T -aV N This warksl'�eej is req.Arad to be suhmitted to and approved by lhe &-ihori[ty Hating Jurisdiction (AHJ) prior to ORC meeting fbf arty project that Is rare than 3 stones or morn than 30 11rof In Night above the ;omst Fire Dept vehicle aLXe$$ Point or ar any 0-,er project f.'18; VVill requi."t an Altornabc 'Net Standpipe System andlor Fje R;rrip bellbre anj pennitsfornew building constricton, bjlding expansion orfire tyuhe Qty of Clearwater. er. informaton and design mus! cornp!y frith Parda Building Code., Chapier ED - Fire Protection Systerria. Florida Fire Prav&ntic�-.,. Code to in. dude 2 pplicat-le NFFA Code (NFPA. 1, 13, 130, i3E, 13F2. '14, '15, 20e 291 and 1142 Annex H) , an C, AMPOJA U -17 - Insfailation, Field Testing and Maintenance of Fire, Hydra-11ta Project Name PORTIVEEW HOTEL Project Addre--w 101 & 105 CORONADO STREET CLEARWATEa, FL RT Location of 1`4,arest Fire Hydrant Coronado Dr- & 1st Street. Hydrant#: #35 811,0 of "fiaterMain Supplying Fire Flow: .6" Looped System', or Dead End WaterMain? L�ped stetic: 64 -psi Re! dual: 53 —Psi .. Pilot:- 4i Psi Flow: 1130 QpFr1 Distance of test Gauges Retallve to tne Base of the Riser, Horizontal X00 Ft. Vartit-A Elevation F1 HydrerjtTp-.4 Conducted by City of Clearvatej Public Utilities, WateT Department (irc!ude/A?13ch C, )y of,;4ju;,jTest Suet) Area # Cj*'q.S(f Won Hotel La (Hazard J_1gEkjp && ja Ordinary Hazard AhachAdrNioi,a, 0 —1 70-W, Descripion of Hazqrd piotected (00MJ'WffY0eSc1'!gim, S'uWeHeVVan5Ar!arWrmv, ifaAWicable): — a Rise Hotel 1plark_iM.Gam e_ Page I Of 3 opaGIM RECEIVED ,-A 05 2009 PLANNING W ^-R"Yt*R CRY OF CLEARWATV r F T 71;r-1-71 -77 � g Arvo # Siyseeom' T" pe Atv.s (t-q. ft,.) D,5n,�ity (rprVk) biside t4rjsp bpr� outide Hose iqnq Class I '100pla at 100 psi at most re-11"cle -tor. of standpipe 5 Qgprn-at f)ps Laid= " e Is the lar gest f. JOv de --cTI -1 —h h' xid tu§ pr 0 eV, q, Annual tote Lo,- ¢he _Fire p umr fir. 15 C ;3t ',rated flow will 11 111, A'Wc GOU011ai, Sheets if Nrcs4s,9ry To4a' Nft&.d Fire Mlf)w (r1,j*,F.) 1125 gprr. ISEXISting Systern Sup;jySuffdent 1DML*3f N.F.F,Above' No X— Yes tN71 m - 51F� P, -F g KEN W, -'e n *1 co .7p 0 f; t A ppil cat, lo JVFPA. -S li;,7 da I d Yo a r Ed At io n a y V 0 V i or A p pO'catV p Co U e s o r a ki te,3 Fire -S-pririlder Svstem NFPA 13 2002 Ed, * 1,4760-3 -Pd. tandr '\fFPA 20 1.999 Ed, A!I,Y. n A cdUinal She its Al Nwess ary F hdudes Fire MMIP, SJ�gj;yiha Follovvirig: Fire RJrnp k-Iformadur Pum_- Capacity:.` 750 cpm Rated Prrussur-j: 115 p.-; 011-Site Storage Tank Capacity (VI: WX F-repaier i%rre: — JAN ES IN4. CURTIS, P.E Cc, rr� Parl V 14a rr' C'URA 1 a: in 19./75 BA YHEAD RD. City: —1)."IDE CITY zip.. "'523 'acne: 33) --(-'�52) 588-1.169 Churn Prcqv;L.re: 190 psi Pressurc '0� 1 501k Row: 53 p§ ilk I Y -Z F F ' 2' L �a2. 0 2 of 3 ORIGINAL RECEIVED 1 052009 PLANNING DrSFAMANT CITY OF CLEARAWR 4C 4 ' C, FLOW TEST CITY OF GLEARWATER WATER DEPARTMENT ORIGIN. RECENED 05 2009 Ill-NNINGDUM 71; C Fl Y OF C LEARM I-W.lr- 1) -1 ,x\ =- SAFETY:' F I RE 5u, 'Iding Location System, Cori". ac;t Daia Ple HRV ICE COMPANY M. C-urds, P.E _7 29775 BAY)MUT ROAD DASD CITY, Fl, 335023 FAx, (X'!,' FIRE SAFETY INC. desig riCafi resafety-Inc. comn. P.O. BOX 17371 CLEAKWATER, F.- 33762 727-523-'1643 KPORTVIEW HOTEL fIll OTE L 101 & 10'5 CORONADO DR STANDPIPE N/A Port'vie'-w.ml CLEARVVATER, FL cr) ati ri C2 < oRIGINAL RECEIVED 052009 PU;NNING M., "E,t,��5'Mr--IT CITY OF CLU-kpzlljkl, * r) ,PRE SAFETY ING, Page 'I HI F'C?UVIEVIIII HOTEL. Date 022709 HY_sRAOLIC.. DESIGN INFORI~7.k'i TON SfiBET Name - POR7VIEW :HOTEL Gate - 3 /7 /`'UL1q Loc:ati :n i.0i & 10 CORONADO :1R CUAaWATIER, FL Bu.i idi.ng - HOTiri, System Nu. - S:ANDPIPE- Contrac + -cr •- Cont -act No. - N/A X31: "ul�r - 51Yp.014 SCOTT Driwing Nc. - P1 NFPA -13 LIGFT HAZARC, 6 RESIDENTZA -1 13 ;X; �1F'PA. : ^ Numr'Ier .)F °tancipi.pes i ) 1 (X) 2 3 ( 1 4 { } r )Other ,1. ) Specific; Rl.tiirtg Miade by Cate E how a 'ion Bost OUt1rt 5, 0 r� Prts. at TOO, vloat rJutiet - 104 Ps.. (X) Wet { } DI:y Flow For Ea. Additio naii St•arndpilp•e 250 Cpm D `7oLal Additional Flow ?50 Gvu Z Elevatiu;. at. iiig.hest Out let - 96' -0 Feet s Hcse Vaive 4- U:ii; ?Ct1.7:1 { ) i 1/2" 'X)2 1 Class S- erv3.Ce ;X)L I. ( :S II { )III G' Note: M Calc-o.] . GPm Required ;50 51-u many C'- ractcr Used: W Water Flcw Tc?St: A nc 2/20/07 Tin':e of A sL - NOT GI E'EN E st�tiC (r'si) - 64 E P.e!;icjuai. Psi) - `3 Flo.i (Gprl:} ^ ,PRE SAFETY ING, Page 'I HI F'C?UVIEVIIII HOTEL. Date 022709 HY_sRAOLIC.. DESIGN INFORI~7.k'i TON SfiBET Name - POR7VIEW :HOTEL Gate - 3 /7 /`'UL1q Loc:ati :n i.0i & 10 CORONADO :1R CUAaWATIER, FL Bu.i idi.ng - HOTiri, System Nu. - S:ANDPIPE- Contrac + -cr •- Cont -act No. - N/A X31: "ul�r - 51Yp.014 SCOTT Driwing Nc. - P1 NFPA -13 LIGFT HAZARC, 6 RESIDENTZA -1 13 ;X; �1F'PA. : ^ Numr'Ier .)F °tancipi.pes i ) 1 (X) 2 3 ( 1 4 { } r )Other ,1. ) Specific; Rl.tiirtg Miade by Cate E how a 'ion Bost OUt1rt 5, 0 r� Prts. at TOO, vloat rJutiet - 104 Ps.. (X) Wet { } DI:y Flow For Ea. Additio naii St•arndpilp•e 250 Cpm D `7oLal Additional Flow ?50 Gvu Z Elevatiu;. at. iiig.hest Out let - 96' -0 Feet s Hcse Vaive 4- U:ii; ?Ct1.7:1 { ) i 1/2" 'X)2 1 Class S- erv3.Ce ;X)L I. ( :S II { )III G' Note: M Calc-o.] . GPm Required ;50 51-u many C'- ractcr Used: W Water Flcw Tc?St: A Gate of Teat. - 2/20/07 Tin':e of A sL - NOT GI E'EN E st�tiC (r'si) - 64 E P.e!;icjuai. Psi) - `3 Flo.i (Gprl:} ^ 1130 Poi Required 56 At Test: G erhead 120 tinde>around 140 Pump Tank or reservoir: Cap. Rated Cap. -i5C Elev. t PSI 11: EIev. 12 felt Proof Flow Gprv. P Lr.,_at on, HYDRAN "' #35 -DrATED nT COPONA00 6 DEVON STREET f,8 2' ATTCHED P ^1AP!-:, ) L Source :,)" Informa _ion; CITY OF CLEARWATER WATER DEPAF.TM iJT Y ('r.n,ruT #.r4v Prtr.:^Ama F,u Hurtea'Pr ;nr Pnufu 9 S t OlzIGINAL R6%es. D 0(15 2009 M OF CLEARIYATE. '.MnAhnm N) 1; r ICa n -krtn7 . - - — I-. - - t 1 11; Y FIRE SAPEII-Y IN %-,-. HI k�;OTEL Pace 2 Date 022745 k t .lf-V V -later SUPPIY: Pump Data: C i - Stalic Pressure' 64 P I PL1111-11) Churn Pressu,,e Demand: C2 - Residual Pressure: : '138. D1 - Elevation 4 11.578 P2 Pump Rated Pressure '115 D2 - System Flo ,,,v C2 - residual Flow 1130 P2 - rump Rated Flow -Tr ,0 - PUM I D2 - Systet, Pressure 155.092 "'ity Water Adjysfed to PUMP 1,11lej P3 P PfesSUM @ Mz))(Flaw 7475 Hose Adi City fOr Pf - Elev - Hose Flow P3 - Pump Max Flow 1125 Hose Dernarid*) GityPesidual FlOw 0 2927.37 D3 - System.Dernand 75(F-- A-1 - Adjusted Static: 52.803 'C'ity Residuai Flovv 2390.65 vo, A2 - Aidl Resid 43.067 750 �_ >0 Safety Margin A3 - Adj Resid 32 .49 City Water 50% -�Urrjp 53.09 42. 9 7 5 125 210 196 P 168 + P2 R 154 E 140, 126 P-3. S112 R 84 - - ---- -- f- - -- - - -- - - 4_ -- - - - -- -. E 7() 56 A2 42 A3 28 0 1z A 4 14 Z z - _10 02 ^r I n 200 400 6.00 800 1000 4600 1200 1400 0 FLOW N A 1800 Pte-- V h'r.7 Computer! rograrrz.% by Hydrate,; inc. Route i 11 Windham N, H. LJ 'SA 030P ,7 r m -1, '! I t" M. Flit' Safety, Inn. FAX N, 2", '! 12, 3 "1 F. 0 I Now Diagram FIRE SAFETY INC. Page 3 HIPORTVIEW HOTEL Date 022'99 270 750 3 - Plypo Soo 750 750 ?56 P42PV- S r lAA9- TEST 750 ORIG14NAL RECEIVED 05 2009 PLANNING 10MAM1,10VIT CITY OF CLEARWAfr-:p r.omn-itp,r Pmnram-cq hv inr Rniftc .I1 f0 W I MA n•4,1Q7 FIRE S A F E T Y Kf HI PORT1v!Ew 140TIEH- 0 z 0 0 n m Oq Page 4 Date 022709 f=itting Legeno' Abbiev. 1'43me 2 2112. 3 31/2 4 5 4 0 i7 14 --24 F3 Generic Butter gy v;,7,lve 13 0 0 E 2. 2 3 4 5 1 0 12 9 10 12 119 21 0 0 0 6 0 r .3 Generic; Gate \,"alve 0 0 10 1 '10 12 14 18 22 27 35 40 45 50 61 S Generic SvN(inq ChfmP V!v 4 5 5 7 1 14 16 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 43 T 90'Fovo Thru Tee 3 4 6 1() 12 15 19 1-7 22 20 27 32 45 5t 65 76 67 98 iog 130 25 30 35 50 60 1 1 4 81 y 1 101 121 Units Summary Diam*eter Units [riches I-p-noth Units Feet Flow Units US Gallons per Minute Pressure Units POurids per Square Inch 0 0 z 0 0 n m Oq Computer Pmgrams by Hydratec Inc. Route 1 t.1 Windham N.H. USA 03087' p afAl:,Y, j e. -1; , " Inc. !tA 7 7 Q N C., 4 Pr*ssure Y Flow Summary - "I .,,,IDARD FIRE SAFETY INC,, Page 5 K. PC,,RTVIEW HOTEL Date 022709 Node E.!PVSt;:Cr. K -F a --t P" Pq Flow Density kea Press NO. Actual Req. r6.0 112,16 na 2 SO. 0 50.0 114,83 na HCS1 96.0 100.0 na 2 960 104.?2 1.13 3 96.0 115.34 ne 4 12.0 154.1.9 M8 P NA P C.) 12 0 155.09 no -P,',/,Pl 12.0 43,07 no 12.13 43.42 1 1 A.�- z 'I'D 50.47 r.z -EST D'o 58,85 nA —1 he maxanum velocity is 33,51 and It occurs in the pipe between nodes HOS1 and 2 0MGMAL RECEPAD I'd 05 2009 PLANNING DST4Aw-,NWAMJT Cri V OF CLEARWATkIvit ki; j— P,j,f. � , 1 %AGAi-,— Al U 1 ICA 'I'JnQ7 ij ri.. irNi i, , 1 , .1 1+ I' I ` e, ",k t 6, t ';7, Final Calculations - Hazen -W. ms FIRE SAFETY INC. Page 6 1-fl PORWE"Al HOTEL. Date 0221, 09 Hyd. Qf a Dia, F i t i n;y Pipe Pt Pt Ref. or Ftnq's Fe P v Notes Point Q! Pf/Ft Eov. Total Pf Pri H082. 250.00 2.459 1T '12.0 3. 330 112177 Q@ 260.00 frJ 420 0.0 12.000 0.0 1150.0 0.2154 0,0 12-330 2,656 Vel 96.75 0.0 4.26 1 T 26,334 4. 540- 114.833 to 12.0 1G 2.G33 28.967 0.0 3 250. C. 0.0151 0,0 33.501 0.507 Vein 5,63 2 5 010 1 ^ 5,340 K -actor= 23.25 HOS s 500.00 2,469 1 E 6, 0.330 100,000 Oa = 500.00 to 20 0.0 6.000 0,0 500-0 0,7765 0.0 6,330--'. 4.916 Vel = 33.51 2 0.0 4,26 2E 26.334 162.25y 104.916 , 1 0 1 1151 2.63,� _67 o. C, 500.0 0,054: 0,0 191.217 10.424 Vel = 11,25 3 250,00 6.357 4E 70411 79,050 115,340 X, 120 0.0 70.4 ;1 36.380 4 7�0,0 01.0164 0.0 150.361 2.47 i Vel 7.58 3. 6.3 1 B i 2.573 2 000 154.19'.' to 120 18 40,235- 52.808 0.0 PlYPO-1 750 0 0.0164 0-0 54A08 0.901 Vel = 7.58 0.0 0 -155.092 K FnWr 60.2, Sys , te'm Deniaild Pressure 155,092 Sawy Margin ro-in 2. 9 7 .5 Continuation Pressure 158,067 Pressure @g Purnp Outiet 158 067 Pressure, FroTj FJLJMP Curve - 115.030 Oressure Cd) P-jr-.ip Imlet 43.067 0.0 6-357 1E 17, F; 011 3 3.580 43,067 io 120 0.0 17,603 .0.0 0,0164 0.0 21.183 0.348 Vel 7.58 6,1157 5E 88.014 51 700 43.415 to 120 0,0 88.014 4,764 1.4 F F 750.0 G-C164 0.0 139.714_ 2.2,95 Ve! 7.58 I A F C1 F 0.0 , 16 1 G 4.3U4 5,G00........ Ci. Q, 0 5C-474 10 140 4F 80 336 54,640 6,433 r f=ixed I c s Is TEST 750.,) 0,0144 0.0 134�6040 i.940 Vel B-0,1 750.'7C K Fac .7 7 tor z 97 . ORIGRIAL RECHAD 05 2009 I- '.I-, SAIi-4-- tit U I ICA n-,,-.Df4 IWA&IT CRY OF CLWZdA1A.A k, Po I >1 A!" N., o. J L-10 Oj qeCEIVED 0 5 2009 PLANNING p!.6TPM-"RvrMT CITV OF CLEARVWh Inc r C, afety, oar c.IV 7i I. zi, o , �u 1.: 14 .704 k, Po I >1 A!" N., o. J L-10 Oj qeCEIVED 0 5 2009 PLANNING p!.6TPM-"RvrMT CITV OF CLEARVWh 4\ HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA STORMWATER NARRATIVE Existing Conditions The total project drainage basin boundary includes two parcels of land totaling 31,418 square feet. The existing conditions include 28,342 square feet of impervious area and 3,076 square feet of open space. Both parcels drain directly to the boundary limits of the project site with no stormwater treatment or attenuation. Proposed Conditions The northern parcel of the project includes 20,418 square feet of project drainage basin area. The proposed motel includes a stormwater vault within the parking garage to provide stormwater treatment of the first %" of runoff from the project site. The stormwater vault discharges through a modified "E" inlet control structure and through a 15" underground conveyance pipe. The pipe discharges through the existing seawall to Clearwater Bay. The southern parcel of the project includes 11,000 square feet of project drainage basin area. The proposed improvements include a paved parking lot and stormwater pond. Upon treatment of the first %2" of runoff from the project site, the pond discharges via a modified "E" inlet control structure. The control structure is connected to an existing inlet within the Coronado Drive right of way via a proposed 15" pipe. The control structure vertical weir attenuates the post condition peak discharge from the 25 year 24 hour storm event so as not to exceed the precondition peak discharge. The pre- condition CN number was calculated based on % credit for the existing impervious area within the south parcel. _"t '�'t APR 13 2009' NO. 4819P HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA STORMWATER NARRATIVE Existing Conditions The total project drainage basin boundary includes two parcels of land totaling 31,418 square feet. The existing conditions include 28,342 square feet of impervious area and 3,076 square feet of open space. Both parcels drain directly to the boundary limits ofthe project site with no stormwater treatment or attenuation. Proposed Conditions The northern parcel of the project includes 20,418 square feet of project drainage basin area. The proposed motel includes a stormwater vault within the parking garage to provide stormwater treatment of the first %" of runoff from the project site. The stormwater vault discharges through a modified "E" inlet control structure and through a 15" underground conveyance pipe. The pipe discharges through the existing seawall to Clearwater Bay. The southern parcel of the project includes 11,000 square feet of project drainage basin area. The proposed improvements include a paved parking lot and stormwater pond. Upon treatment of the first ' /Z" of runoff from the project site, the pond discharges via a modified "E" inlet control structure. The control structure is connected to an existing inlet within the Coronado Drive right of way via a proposed 15" pipe. The control structure vertical weir attenuates the post condition peak discharge from the 25 year 24 hour storm event so as not to exceed the precondition peak discharge. The pre- condition CN number was calculated based on %Z credit for the existing impervious area within the south parcel. RECEIVED " 5 2009 _11V OF CLEARWAI' CITY OF CLEARWATER 1 Req'd Treatment 2 Attenuation HI Express Parcel B 731 -08 STORMWATER CALCULATIONS 4/13/2009 Acreage Square Feet 1/2 inch Cu Feet Acre Feet 0.253 11,000 0.5 458 0.011 <Amount needed to treat FDOT ZONE VI: Tc =60 min i =3.7 inches per hour C existing calculation: Square Feet C 5000 Existing impervious area (sf) @ 0.49 2450 Existing gravel areas (SF) @ 0.50 0 0 Existing pond area (sf) @ 1.00 0 6000 Existing pervious area (sf) @ 0.20 1200 sum 3650 0.33 < Existing C C proposed calculation: 5300 Impervious area (sf) @ 0.95 0.95 5035 0 Gravel areas (SF) @ 0.5 0.50 0 2663 Pond area (sf) @ 1.0 1.00 2663 3037 Pervious area (sf) @ 0.2 0.20 607.4 sum 8305.4 0.76 < Proposed C Volume needed = tiA (Cp -Ce) t 3600 i 3.7 (i A 11000 � Cp 0.76 Cu Feet (Acre Feet) ® ;q 0 Ce 0.33 1424 0.033 < Volume needed for storage 0 © r-M V N M o t, ua I Pond Treatment Elevation 3.77 Water table 2.5 Pond Bottom Elevation: 3.50 Area of Pond at Treatment (sfy 1,842.00 0.04 K sand permeabilty,ft per hr): 0.21 Area of Pond at Bottoms 1,615.00 0.04 Side Sloe 41 Safety Factor dimensionless : 2 Increment n Rn E ELEV. (NGVD) h* TOTAL HEAD (ft) Ah INCR. HEAD (ft) V TOTAL VOLUME (cf) 18„9 AVG. FLOW ENGTH THRI 'OND BOTTOI (ft) HYDRAULIC GRADIENT i= h /le„9 AREA OF POND BOTTON A= (L)(h) (ft`) FLOW Q =KiA (cfh) AVERAGE FLOW (Q1 +Q2)12 (cfh) AT INCR. TIME (hrs.) ET TOTAL TIME I (hrs.) 3.770 ......................... 1.020 .................. 0:014 .................. 467 2.00 0.510 0.0 0.0 0 0 3:757 ............. ..:007 .......................................... 00135 ..................... 442 2.00 ............................. 0.503 1615.0 85.3 ......................................... 42.67 ............................... 0.581 0.581 3.743 ......................... 0.993 ................. 0.0135 . 417 2.00 ............................. 0.497 1615.0 84.2 ......................................... 84.77 ............................... 0.291 0.872 3.730 ......................... 0.980 ....... .................. 0.0135 393 2.00 ............................. 0.490 1615.0 83.0 ......................................... 83.62 ............................... 0.293 1.164 3.716 ............ ............................... 6-666 .................. .................... .0:0135 .............. 368 2.00 ............................. 0.483 1615.0 81.9 ......................................... 82.48 ............................... 0.295 1.459 3.703 ......................... 0:953 ............. 0.0135 344 2.00 ............................. 0.476 1615.0 80.8 ......................................... 8133 ............................... 0.297 1.757 3.689 ............ ............................... 0:939 ............... .................... 00135 320 2.00 ............................. 0.470 1615.0 79.6 ....................................... 80.19 .........................6..... ...300 I 2.056 3.676 ............ ............................... 0.926 ..1...... ................................ 0:0135 . 296 2.00 ............................. 0.463 1615.0 78.5 ......................................... 79.04 ............................... 0.302 2.358 3.662 ......................... 0.912 ................ .................. 0.0135 273 2.00 ............................. 0.456 1615.0 77.3 ......................................... 77.90 ............................... 0.304 2.663 3:649 ....................... 0 899 .......... ............... 249 2.00 ............................. 0.449 1615.0 76.2 ......................................... 76.75 ............................... 0.307 2.970 3.635 ......................... 0 885 .......... .0.0135 ............... 0.0135 226 2.00 ............................. 0.443 1615.0 75.0 ......................................... 75.61 ............................... 0.310 3.279 3.622 ......................... 0.872 .................. .................... 0.0135 202 2.00 ............................. 0.436 1615.0 73.9 ......................................... 74.46 ............................... 0.312 3.592 3.608 ......................... 0.858 ......... ..................... 0.0135 179 2.00 ............................. 0.429 1615.0 72.7 ......................................... 73.32 ............................... 0.315 3.907 ............. 3:595 .................. ..... 0 845 .................. .................. ..........0135 1.56.............. 2.00 ............................. 0.422 1615.0 71 6 ......................................... 72.18 ............................... 0.318 4.225 3.581 ......................... 0.831 .......... ..................... 0.0135 ............._ 134 2.00 ............................. ..416 1615.0 70.5 ......................................... 71.03 ............................... 0.321 4.546 3.568 ......................... 0.818 ............... .................... OA135 111 2.00 ............................. 0.409 1615.0 69.3 ......................................... 69.89 ............................... 0.324 4.870 3.554 ......................... 0:804 ........... ................... 0.0135 88 2.00 ............................. 0.402 1615.0 68.2 ......................................... 68.74 ............................... 0.327 5.197 3.541 ......................... 0.791 ................................................ ..................... ..0135 ................. 66 2.00 ............................. 0.395 1615.0 67.0 ......................................... 67.60 ............................... ...330 5.528 3.527 --------------- - - - - -- - -- 0.777 -- - - - - -- 0.0135 ----- . 44 2.00 ............................. 0.389 1615.0 65.9 ......................................... 66.45 ............................... 0.334 5.861 3.500 - - - - -- - -- 0.750 0.000 0 ................... VOLUME RECOVERS IN: 2.00 ............... -------- - - - - -- 0.375 1615.0 ............................ 6.5 HOURS 63.6 ............ ------ - - - - -- 64.74 ----- - - - - -- 0.678 ----- - - - - -- 6.540 POND TREATMENT NOTE: A SAFETY FACTOR OF "2" IS APPLIED TO "K" ORIGINAL RECEIVED z im Q 5 2009 PLANNNG DWAM IT CRY OF CLEARWAfn, 4 Weir Calculations 6 Pond Elevation Summary Q existing C existing i A TOB = 4.75 ft 0.310615 0.3318182 3.7 0.253 Top of Control Structure = 4.24 ft Weir Elev. = 3.77 ft Width of weir (ft) Weir factor 1.083/2 Q Bottom Elev. = 3.50 ft 0.092 3 1.122368923 0.310615 Width of weir (inches) 1.1 5 Elevation of weir 3.77 F ae Stage- Storaae- Perimeter Project Name: Holiday Inn Express Parking Lot Pond Project Number. 731-08 Designer: kez Date: 4110/2009 Comments: Treatment: 0.50 in /12 x 11,000 SF = 458 CU -FT (fill (ft) Area @ Top of Bank(TOB): 2,663.0 Elevation: 4.75 Volume: 2,674 Area @ Design High Water(DHW): 2,235.4 Elevation: 4.24 Volume: 1,425 Area @ Design Low Water(DLW): 1,841.4 Elevation: 3.77 Volume: 467 Area @ Bottom/Normal Water Level(BOT /NWL): 1,615.0 Elevation: 3.50 Volume: 0 STAGE AREA VOLUME STAGE AREA VOLUME TREATMENT (ft) (ft2) (ft) (ft) (ft2) (ft) VOLUME: 467 ft' 3.50 1,615.0 0.0 4.13 2,139.0 1,173.1 3.53 1,636.0 40.6 4.15 2,160.0 1,226.9 ATTENUATION 3.55 1,656.9 81.8 4.18 2,180.9 1,281.1 VOLUME: 958 ft' 3.58 1,677.9 123.5 4.20 2,201.9 1,335.9 3.60 1,698.8 165.7 4.23 2,222.8 1,391.2 3.63 1,719.8 208.4 4.25 2,243.8 1,447.1 3.65 1,740.8 251.7 4.28 2,264.8 1,503.4 3.68 1,761.7 295.5 4.30 2,285.7 1,560.3 3.70 1,782.7 339.8 4.33 2,306.7 1,617.7 3.73 1,803.6 384.6 4.35 2,327.6 1,675.6 3.75 1,824.6 429.9 4.38 2,348.6 1,734.1 3.78 1,845.6 475.8 4.40 2,369.6 1,793.1 3.80 1,866.5 522.2 4.43 2,390.5 1,852.6 3.83 1,887.5 569.2 4.45 2,411.5 1,912.6 3.85 1,908.4 616.6 4.48 2,432.4 1,973.1 3.88 1,929.4 664.6 4.50 2,453.4 2,034.2 3.90 1,950.4 713.1 4.53 2,474.4 2,095.8 3.93 1,971.3 762.1 4.55 2,495.3 2,157.9 3.95 1,992.3 811.6 4.58 2,516.3 2,220.6 3.98 2,013.2 861.7 4.60 2,537.2 2,283.7 4.00 2,034.2 912.3 4.63 2,558.2 2,347.4 4.03 2,055.2 963.4 4.65 2,579.2 2,411.6 4.05 2,076.1 1,015.1 4.68 2,600.1 2,476.4 4.08 2,097.1 1,067.2 4.70 2,621.1 2,541.6 4.10 2,118.0 1,119.9 4.73 2,642.0 2,607.4 4.75 2,663.0 2,673.8 4� A CIA Stage- Storaae- Perimeter Project Name: Holiday Inn Express Vault Project Number: 731 -08 Designer. kez Date: 3/2/2009 Comments: Treatment: 0.75 in /12 x 20,418 SF = 1,276 CU -FT E CA �� (ft) (ft) (ft) Area @ Top of Bank(TOB): 1,276.0 Elevation: 5.25 Volume: 2,233 Area @ Design High Water(DHW): 1,276.0 Elevation: 4.70 Volume: 1,531 Area @ Design Low Water(DLW): 1,276.0 Elevation: 3.50 Volume: 0 Area @ Bottom/Normal Water Level(BOT /NWL): 1,276.0 Elevation: 3.50 Volume: 0 STAGE AREA VOLUME STAGE AREA VOLUME TREATMENT (ft) (ft') (ft) (ft) (ft2) (ft) VOLUME:O ft' 3.50 1,276.0 0.0 4.38 1,276.0 1,116.5 3.54 1,276.0 44.7 4.41 1,276.0 1,161.2 ATTENUATION 3.57 1,276.0 89.3 4.45 1,276.0 1,205.8 VOLUME: 1,531 W 3.61 1,276.0 134.0 4.48 1,276.0 1,250.5 3.64 1,276.0 178.6 4.52 1,276.0 1,295.1 3.68 1,276.0 223.3 4.55 1,276.0 1,339.8 3.71 1,276.0 268.0 4.59 1,276.0 1,384.5 3.75 1,276.0 312.6 4.62 1,276.0 1,429.1 3.78 1,276.0 357.3 4.66 1,276.0 1,473.8 3.82 1,276.0 401.9 4.69 1,276.0 1,518.4 3.85 1,276.0 446.6 4.73 1,276.0 1,563.1 3.89 1,276.0 491.3 4.76 1,276.0 1,607.8 3.92 1,276.0 535.9 4.80 1,276.0 1,652.4 3.96 1,276.0 580.6 4.83 1,276.0 1,697.1 3.99 1,276.0 625.2 4.87 1,276.0 1,741.7 4.03 1,276.0 669.9 4.90 1,276.0 1,786.4 4.06 1,276.0 714.6 4.94 1,276.0 1,831.1 4.10 1,276.0 759.2 4.97 1,276.0 1,875.7 4.13 1,276.0 803.9 5.01 1,276.0 1,920.4 4.17 1,276.0 848.5 5.04 1,276.0 1,965.0 4.20 1,276.0 893.2 5.08 1,276.0 2,009.7 4.24 1,276.0 937.9 5.11 1,276.0 2,054.4 4.27 1,276.0 982.5 5.15 1,276.0 2,099.0 4.31 1,276.0 1,027.2 5.18 1,276.0 2,143.7 4.34 1,276.0 1,071.8 5.22 1,276.0 2,188.3 5.25 1,276.0 2,233.0 E CA �� i Holiday Inn Express (Clearwater Beach) Traffic Study Prepared by E &Za&I RQd viqu" (6 6 "[li` 6 , .7tw. 4846 Trinidad Dr. Land O' Lakes, FL 34639 V d - pT T+ • lit W, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section1. INTRODUCTION .................:.................................................. ..............................1 Section 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS.: ............................................. l Section 3. FUTURE CONDITIONS ......................................................... .................:............4 Section3.1 Trip Generation ...................:........................................ ..............................4 Section3.2 Trip Distribution ..........................:............................... ..............................5 Section 3.3 Background Traffic ....................................................... ..............................5 Section3:4 Study Area ................................................................... ..............:...............5 Section 3.5 Future Traffic Analysis ................:..:..:.......................... .............................7. Section4. CONCLUSION ...............:......................................................... ..............................8 LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE] Existing, Intersections Analyses Summary .............................. ..............................1 TABLE 2 Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis .................................... ..:...........................4 TABLE 3 Trip Generation ................::. TABLE 4 Future Intersections Analyses Summary ................................ ..............................7 TABLE5 Future Roadway Capacity Analysis ........................................ ..............................7 LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE1 Project Location .........................................:....:.......................... ........... ....................2 FIGURE Existing Traffic ...........................................................:.............. ..............................3 FIGURE 3 Project Traffic Assignment ..............:....:.................................. ..............................6 RECTI ED ,� 05 2009 APPENDIX Appendix A: Concept Plan & Methodology Appendix B: Turning Movements Counts Appendix C: Existing Intersections Analyses & FDOT Generalized Tables Appendix D: Trip generation Appendix E: Future Intersections Analyses M ON NAI RE`D 1� 052009 cay MN $.jWp L RWIA , Section 1: Introduction A Holiday Inn Express proposed is in Clearwater, Florida. This property is located west of S. Gulfview Boulevard, along Coronado Drive. The Holiday Inn Express will have 108 rooms. It will replace a 22 room motel. The build -out year of the project is proposed to be 2010. . The project location is shown in Figure 1. The methodology statement, including the concept plan, is included in Appendix A. The purpose of this report is to perform a detailed transportation analysis, which will evaluate the adjacent roadway network and intersections. Section 2: Existing Transportation Analysis Turning movement counts for the intersections were collected during the PM (4:00 PM — 6:00 PM) peak periods on a typical weekday (Tuesday — Thursday) of a non - holiday week at the three locations which are S. Gulfview Boulevard @ Hamden Drive, S. Gulfview Boulevard /Causeway Boulevard @ Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive @ Coronado Drive. The counts were taken from the Clearwater Beach Resort & Hotel project performed by. Florida Design Consultants, Inc. Counts were adjusted to peak - season conditions based on FDOT's seasonal, adjustment factors for Pinellas County. The hard copies of the turning movements counts are included in Appendix B. Table 1 summarizes. the intersection delay and LOS for the PM peak hour. Figure 2 illustrates the existing turning movement counts at the intersections. For unsignalized and signalized intersections, the latest version, of Highway Capacity Software (HCS +) was used for analyzing delay and Level of Service. The existing intersection analyses are included in Appendix C. Table 1— Existing Intersections Analyses Summary Intersection PM Peak Hour Type Delay LOS sec /veh S. - Gulfview Boulevard @ Hamden Drive 777 Signal 23.4 C S. Gulfview Boulevard/Causeway Boulevard @ Signal 15.0 B. Coronado Drive _ Hamden Drive @ Coronado Drive Two -Way Stop 7.9 A Note: Level of Service of the major street left turn movement is presented for the unsignal.ized intersection ORIGINAL RECEIVED 05 2009 I'LANNING DomAWq &�T GIB @F CLE iXj lief G'J .� V�• -~•✓ lar 1 � t 1 1 [ �91� 1 !b c a(`- {�Uf i � J Dis li t r`1 � @2009 GDog'!e _Map data HOLIDAY INN' PROJECT LOCTION FIGURE I 0 3 2009 P *NING p-r. AWN j7 CIN OF CLEAievVAtn, ) >y �4 I �v3rO PP558ge I 2 G� C r i� r e 181 03 N.T.S. 268 25 7 .523 a' 0 z x . 11 d o d r z � o 188 293 �- 1t 415 335 2 19 i 41.4 333 56 35 379 353 25 ~ 174 156 HOLIDAY INN PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING TRAFFIC FIGURE 2 RECEIVED .05 2009 ING Pi e- ,WET �El Y 0 F CL E A RV ( t2 . +1 Road facility .limits were defined in the Methodology Statement. Tablet provides the existing year link analysis for peak direction traffic flow. Capacities from the FDOT's Generalized Tables were used for . link analysis and are included in Appendix C. The level of service standard for both roadways are Level of Service D. Table 2: Existing Links Analyses Roadway No. of PM Peak Hour Capacity Capacity Available Daily Lanes Traffic Total In EB/NB WB /SB EB/NB WB /SB EB/NB WB /SB 24 61 Gulfview 30 63 882 Existing Hotel 310 1 22 -7 Boulevard: 2UL -7 -6 -13 1 -180 Net Trips 30 Roundabout to 49 293 188 760 630 Yes Yes Hamden Drive Coronado Drive: 4DL Brightwater 335 .415 930. 1140 Yes Yes Dr.to Hamden Drive Coronado Drive: 2UL Brightwater 335 .415 420 530 Yes Yes Dr.to Gulfview Blvd. Section 3: Future Condition 34 Trip Generation Traffic volumes generated by the proposed development were estimated using the appropriate rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7'h Edition. ITE Land Use Code 310 was used for the Hotel land uses and the net trip generation is shown in Table 3. No internal capture and pass by was applied. Trip generation from existing 22 hotel rooms was subtracted to get the net trip generation. (Hotel was used as a "worst case. ") Detailed trip generation calculations are included in Appendix D. y Table 3 : Trip Generation Land Use LUC Intensity AM Peak PM Peak Daily In Out Total In Out - Total Hotel 310 108 37 24 61 33 30 63 882 Existing Hotel 310 1 22 -7 -5 -12 -7 -6 -13 1 -180 Net Trips 30 19 49 26 24 50 702 ORIGINAL RECEIVED 0 5 2009 PLANNIING D7-j,% CITY OF C.LEAR' r� " e; . t 3.2 Trip Distribution The project traffic has been distributed to the roadway network based on manual. distribution and existing counts. Based on the existing traffic counts, 51% of the project traffic would travel to /from . south of the project site .and the remainder (49 %) from the north. Project traffic distribution is shown in Figure 3. 3.3 Background Traffic The existing traffic count was increased by a growth factor up to the project's build out date. Based on a discussion with the City Staff, a 2% growth rate was applied to the existing counts. 3.4 Study Area Links: Gulfview Boulevard : Roundabout to Hamden Drive Coronado Drive: Causeway Boulevard to Hamden Drive Intersections (PM Peak): Coronado Drive @ Hamden Drive Gulfview Boulevard @ Hamden Drive Gulfview Boulevard @ Coronado Drive OPICINAL PECE —D • C5 2069 . ���E��a���,e�� Ufa -i T.�'����T 5 2009 . - WY PF CLEEp% i,,' %T 1 N.T.S. 1 10 PROJECT SITE c"a O O z a v 0 v n� a 3 _ d z v ny O Driveway I" to to 2 20 . r v 13 22 11 14 1 10 Driveway 2 13 HOLIDAY INN PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC FIGURE 3 OR*R�aa��. W- K— F. W WY PF CLEEp% i,,' %T 3.5 Future Traffic Analysis As no committed improvements were identified in the vicinity of the project site, the future scenario analysis was performed with the existing geometry. Table 4 and Table 5 illustrate the future year analysis scenario for the intersection's and links, respectively. The ratios of V/C were checked to ensure they were equal to or less than 1.0 for all individual movements. Future turning movements at the identified intersections and the print outs of the analyses are included in Appendix E. Table 4 — Future Intersections Analyses Summary Intersection Type PM Peak Hour Delay sec /veh LOS S. Gulfview Boulevard @ Hamden Drive Signal 24.4 C . S. Gulfview Boulevard/Causeway Boulevard @ Coronado Drive Signal 15.9 B Hamden Drive @ Coronado Drive Two -Way Stop 8.0 A Driveway 1 @ V Street Two -Way Stop 8.4 A Driveway 2 @ 1 n Street Two -Way Stop 8.1 A wore. t.evet q/ jervrce aj the major street tejr turn movement is presenledJor the unsignaltzed intersection Based on the analysis all the identified intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service. The project driveways are expected to operate at an acceptable level.of service without any exclusive left and right turn lanes along the access roadway, which is V Street. Table 5: Future Links Analyses Roadway No. of PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Total Traffic Capacity Capacity Available Lanes Background Traffic EB/NB WB /SB EB/NB WB /SB EB/NB WB /SB EB/NB WB /SB EBNB WB /SB Gulfview Boulevard: Roundabout to 2UL 305 196 1 1 306 197 760 630 Yes Yes Hamden Drive Coronado Drive: Brightwater Dr.to 4DL 348 432 14 13 362 445 930 1140 Yes Yes Hamden Drive Coronado rive: Brightwater Dr.to 2UL 348 432 14 13 362 445 420 530 Yes Yes Gulfview Blvd. There is capacity available on the roadways adjacent to the project site. It, is anticipated that the links are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service during the build out year of the project. RECOVER n 5 2009 7 (= [`iY0F C c`rfIA Section 4: Conclusion The purpose of this report was to perform a detailed transportation analysis for the Holiday Inn Express project. The adjacent roadway network is expected to operate at an acceptable Level of-Service with the project traffic in, the year 2010. All the identified intersections and project driveways are also expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in the year 2010. No exclusive left nor right turn lanes are recommended at the driveways. C � V'w ;L RECEPAD, 5 2009 CITY Of CLEARM7M s Inc. ' Elizabeth Rodriguez & Associates, Ho liday Inn Express (Clearwater Beach) Traffic Study Methodology 4846 Trinidad Drive Land 0' Lakes, FL 34639 (813) 545 -33.16 email: ElizabethRodriguez @email.com Page 2 1:0 Introduction A Holiday .Inn .Express is planned in Clearwater, Florida, along Coronado Drive. Please see attached site plan. The Holiday Inn Express will have 10$ rooms. It will replace a 22 room motel. The build out year is planned to be 20-10. 2.0 Trip Generation Land Use Code (LUC) 310 (Hotel) from the Seventh Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual will be used to estimate trip generation. No passby .nor internal trip capture will be subtracted from gross trip generation. Trip generation from the existing 22 room motel will be subtracted, as calculated using LUC 320 (Motel). 3.0 Distribution /Assignment Trip distribution /assignment will be based upon the percentage of background vehicles making the comparable movement, as derived from link counts and Turning. Movement Counts (TMCs). 4.0 Link and Intersection Analysis Per conversations with City Staff, the link(s). from which the .project proposes tc take access; one -signalized .inteiseetion at either end of the link(s); and all driveways must be studied. Thus, the .links, intersections, and driveways to be studies are as follows: inks: Gulfview : Roundabout to Hamden Coronado Drive: Causeway to Hamden Intersections (PM Peak): Coronado/Hamden Gulfview/Hamden Gulfview /Coronado Future link volumes will be calculated using a 2 6/o/year`growth rate, per City Staff. Project traffic will be added to .future background traffic to derive total future traffic. This figure will be compared to the service volume at the LOS standard to determine whether the facility, with total future traffic, will' operate an acceptable LOS'. Future total intersection and driveway turning movements will be calculated in the same way.' Both link and intersection volumes will be seasonally adjusted. Intersections will be analyzed using the lasted version of Highway .Capacity Software (HCS). Mitigation will be suggested for any link or intersection projected to be operating below the adopted LOS standard.. Page 3 5.0 Conclusion The conclusion will re- state the introduction; summarize the findings of the analyses; and state any needed mitigation. t 1 � yyI1 aa p a, y __• . 2 S �i 1 jjaj &x!ji3 *zt _9 a c: gill, � Iry £e ��€ e3�b !�� � rR 3��at � .4 � � � RIt '*1' It F € 6 Rae° 61, H $,o+ € Bg$,s- �K . _£$$c n0 �I; ° _•. HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS OWNER: DECADE C0MPANIES s INCOME PROPERTILI w �- 91 1 ll i s • 101 I .105 CORONADO DRIVE 13555 BISHOPS COURT 1 GLEARWATER. FLORIDA 33767 SUITE 345 vc C n D i 1 O I x�- RROUTIFID. in. 53005. �a � �'�: a SITF: PLANS rn \ ..e i i .3 FDO LLw- 4?4'hop T17nU�40 2W'1YCf.IGJnb..r/irr,i.� PM PEAK HOUR DATA tSmvam.Oeach Rend d tblei Pgo.1EC7 NO- 2008.0020 OCAnO .. _ � Hamden D, i tE-WI d;uwa. ead . DAM, Tbw tlay. AO 24, .2000 WEATNEWCO -Nom , Stav1V - . LANE TYPE: NS REED UMft' � cB 2L s8 2s ED 2L ED _ 20 We 2L 1010 20 . PY PEA7C HOUR COUNT6 . THE NB NB MB SE SB 38 ES ED ED WB - WB WB TOTAL HOURLY. PM l T R L T 'q L T R L T R VOLUME VOLUMES 7vo ad6 O 0 0 t2 0 .. it a 05 0 0^ 42 _ 283 - _` -- 4:161:30 D O O '1o2 0 7 6 38 0 0 63 72 258 4.504;45 .O 0 0 so 0 7 6 as 0 0 38 118 290 a:45 -5:00 0 O O 105 a 10 5 i5 0 O 83 72 "20i 1,122 b003:15 a 0 0 A a 2 7 39 0 0 33 76 243 I ;= 5:154 :30 a 0. , 0 84 0 6 8 30 0 a 42 - - M 249 1.060 5:303:45 0 0 O so 0 8 7 40 0 O p M 2710 I;w 5:45$00 0 0 - `0 0 Jl O 6 a 30 0 O Q 67 248 1.021 O 0 739 O 58 51 30.1 U 0 343 051 $145 PEAK TIME 118 NB. NB SS SB S8. ED ED ED WD WS VM TOTAL PM L 7" A0 R L T 'R L T R L T R VOLUME 1;00 :15. O 6 82 0` il, �8 '45 0 0 t2 IS -- 2113 - 4:164�0 5 - O 0 102 0 7 6 38 0 0 43 72 260 4=4:45 0 0 0 io 0 7 6 ' 30 0 Y 36 113 290 x:43 -5:00 0 O --- — O 105 O 10 5 35 C 0 as 73 201 0 6 379 0 35 25 196 0 0 - 174 353 1.122 01TERSECTiOM PEAK'HOUR - 4:00.3:00 94TERSECMN.PHF - 096724 OnimSEOMN'PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1.122 .PEAK HOUR VOLUlk MB 0 ;PHF NB BDIVIW PEAK HOUR VOUMME 5B A14 PIIF to 0:90 PEAKHOUA VOLUME ES 161 :PHFES PEAK HOUR VOLUME WS 527 PNF WS 0.86 me NB HB ft - 3B SB ED ED 'ED WS WS 'we - L T R i T .R L T R L T q -2008 Tidba Count 0 6 Am7iJ Avw"-TrWft O 0 379 0 35 25 150 0 0 174 355 1,122 0 0 364 O 34 24 150 O 0 167 339 1,077 PM Peaty Hour Truck— 0.31L Ndr- 2006 Amwd AvgFaeior .3 FDO LLw- 4?4'hop T17nU�40 2W'1YCf.IGJnb..r/irr,i.� Truck. and To4a4 Trafec .Total Traffc :TotwTnHk Total TrlRe TOW Trallk 56 88 8B 56 ED iEB E8 ED '!40 .NB No N6 we YVB we µr6 Trucks Rl1h . TTUu Let ^Tswka R% ft Thu Lett Truk. RIpm T1a11 Laic Tnlcka NjA Thu LAIR 1 2 8 4 13 14 15 16 0 10 11 12 5 a 7 8 811 44:15 10 0 11 0 82 0 0 45. 8 1600 0 0 0 0' O 95 42 O Isis 0 7 0. 102 0 0 36 6 1815 -0 0 0 0 0 72 43 0 .� 1630 O 7 0 90 0 0 38 6 1630 0 0 O 0 3 113 36 0 1645 6 - 10 0 105 0 0 35 5 1645 O 0 0 0 0 73 53 0- 1100 O 2 0 87 0 O 36 7 1.700 0 0 `O . 0 O 76 33 0' 1715 0 5 G 94 -0 O. 30 .6 1715 0 0 0 0 0 60 '42 a 1730 0 6 9 DB 6 0 40 7 1730 0 0 '0 0 0 66 47 0 1745 0 a 0 at 0 0 30 'e 1743 0 O O 0 . O 437 47 0 �Pk 1k TraM.0 (4..0o to 5.OD) 0 35 0 370 0 0 l sa 26 0 0 0 0 3 353 174 0 LoD Total 414 481 0 527 Pwmt Rndra by Approach 0.0% 0.0% Iorm OAM inta—ctcn % Truck. 0.3% Signalized bdemection Hamden br . . f 25 M" H r 2O'MMr 2fl tin1� _ - Gi411viM 8Nd �, GuIM4rw Blvd lawkiil9 to (Roped Oft? ,i tsdaa;.: Fix . oar..rtvsooe - T• '�OOaOO1W144C�/sKranle.rfland.n �n ' 04/29/2008. 09:18 7275624755 ENG PIiGE " 02/82 GULFVTEW BV. HAMDEN -DR. Phase f Gulfview Bv. EBLT Phase 2 Gulfview By WB Phase 4 Hamden Dr. NB Phase 6 Gulfview Bv. BB Phase ,8 Hamden D_ SB /SBLT Phases 4 & 8 are split phased. Phase 4 is a normally closed driveway. CONTROLLER INTERVAL PHASE 1 PHASE 2, PHASE 4 ' PHASE 6 PHASE 8 RGTIAL 5 /0 5 /.O 5 PASSAGE .3 3 3 3 5 YELLOW 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 M CLEARANCE 5.5 3.6 5.0 3.6 7. D MAMMUM.1 20 40 40 40 .40 WALK 7 / 6 MINIMUM RECALL 7 FLASHNG DON T WALK X /V CONTROLLER WCLitVAL X /9- NE NIMUM RECALL X X MgMORY OFF X X X X X Z •PiIASE 3 PHASB 6 PHASE 8 INITIAL 20 CORO SAID UA.:& .GULMEW BV PASSAGE . 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Phase 2 Coronado Dr. 'SB RED CLEARANCB Phase 3 Gulfview Bv. EB (left head) 3.6 MAX MUM 1 55 Phase 6 Coronado Dr. .NB WALK Phase 8 Gutfview Bv. EB (ctr. & rt. head) / 6 MINIMUM RECALL X X CONTROLLER WCLitVAL X PHASE �, Z •PiIASE 3 PHASB 6 PHASE 8 INITIAL 20 /O 20 l0 PASSAGE . 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 YELLOW RED CLEARANCB 4.6 3.6, 4.6 3.6 MAX MUM 1 55 55 55 55 WALK 7 FLASHING DON'T WALK / 6 MINIMUM RECALL X X PED OMIT X �, 9.uw:70C O>.w: a7iimo4 T.12m8002NfkC 1NtCu,on.do.ar f f amt1.� i PM.PEM HOUR DATA PR JQCI: Cla MM w Boach ROW d No1o1 PROJECT No 2008-0020 LA)CAT 4 ---(r44) tlarnaon th a (E-W) Coronado Q QATE: TAusday, ApM 24. 2002 .WEATHER CONDTTiDNS: Sunny LAKE TYPE Na 11 SPEED LOOT: NO 25 se it se :25 _ EB 2L ED 20 W8 W8 eN PEAK HOUR COUNTS TIME Ns NB FMB Se SB 88 :Es EB ED WB W8 'WB TOTAL HOURLY PM L T_ R L 7 R _ L T R L T R VOLUME V6LW1Es _ 44":15 95 15 O .0 4 D 1 0 16 O 0 a 211 4:15-4:30 65 .13 0 0 6 1 0 0 110 .O 0 O 195 42O4AS 102 -.14 0 O 4 0 0 0 9s O 0 O 215 4:45- 5.'00 70 O 0 S 1 0 O 114 0 0 a 204 023 fi.00. 5:15 93 4 0 0 O 04 O 0 O 107 001 6:13 -590 i ! O O 5 1 2 0 '110 0' 0 'O 197 '903 5:406:46 80 9 O O 3 1 O 0 100 0 .a O 201 '780 5436:00 67 16 -- 0 0 '4 1 O 0 so 0 0 O 167 '7a2 646 _ 93 _ —�0 _ —0 — _ . 33 5 3 0 796 0. 0 'D 1:577 PEAK HOUR TIME NB 18 I1B SB SB SB 'EB EB 'EB WB WB W8 TOTAL PM L T R L T R , L T IR L T R VOLUME 4AD•4:15 90 15 O- 0 4 0 1 O is 'a a O 211 4:151:30 .'65 13 a O O 1 0 a 110 O 0 O I" 102 14 0 0 4 0 O O• 96 a 0 0 216 4:45.5100 70 14 0 O S 1 O 0 114 0 0 O ^204 373 56 0— —_0� _ 19 2 1 0 414 O .. O .. 4 825 WERSECTWN PEAR NOWT 4mm &-00 WEREECf10N PNF OA593 . MEASEC710N41EAK HOAR VOLUME 825 . PEAK HOUR VOLUME NO 309 Pw,ko 0.84 'PlAK:HOURVOLWE 58 21 - PNF so 0.75 PEAX NWR I/OLUME ES 416 - PNF CB 0.91 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 0 PNF WB 'myvt01 Na NB NB SB s8 s8 FJ! Es, EB WB 'WB WB 'L 7 R L T A L 'T R L T 'R .2000 Tram. Cant r= 56 A 0 19 2 1 0 414 0 0 0 025 Annul Avw*g.Tr 20 sfOc '3 54 0 0 10 2 1 0 397 0 0 0 792 PM Peak 11otn Tft.*s = 0,2% No14: R000 Ann" Avg T+ctm . '0.9ti 9.uw:70C O>.w: a7iimo4 T.12m8002NfkC 1NtCu,on.do.ar f f amt1.� i Trucks and TOW Traffic Unsignalized intersection Hamden Or 25 MP9r N 2n Um. Coronado Or 26 MA k S—: FOC Himden Or o.e:4n.nms r1>o0s-0010yTMGAICaorsOSatH.r� den .. i TOW TwRc . TofdTrafac Told Traflk: SB SB SB SB ES EB ED ES WB Trucks R1g1t Thru I.A t TnWM R" Thru UO • 1 2 9 4 13 14 15 16 44:15 1600 0 0 14 0 0 95 10 1 1615 1 1 6 0 0 110 0 0 1630 0 0 a 00 102, 95 0 0 1645 .0 1 5 0 0 114 0 O 1700 0 0 4 0 O 04 0 0 1715 0 1 3 0 O 110 0 2 1730 0 1 3 0 0 Ica 0' 0 9745 0 1 4 0 0 so O 0 Pk #k Tn1rc,(4-0010 5:00) 1 2 19 0 0 414 O 1 Leg Total 21 Jag 415 0 Pmt-il Trucks by Approach 4.9% 0.3% 0.0% volvp 101arseOLon % Trluks , 0.2% Unsignalized intersection Hamden Or 25 MP9r N 2n Um. Coronado Or 26 MA k S—: FOC Himden Or o.e:4n.nms r1>o0s-0010yTMGAICaorsOSatH.r� den .. i TOW Traffic . Told Traflk: ' NB :NB -146 NS WB W13 WB WB Tnxim 1Tlplrt Thu Let Tnx*s !fidk Thru LM 9 10 11 12 5 a 7 a 7600 0 0 15 96 0 0 0 0 1616 1 0 13 65 0 0 0 0 'few 0 0 14 102, O 0 0 0 460.5 0 o' U 70 a 0 0 0 1700 O 0 :o -93 O 0 0. 0 1715 0 o a 73 0 0 0 0 1730 0 0 9 Do 0 0 0 0 1745 0 0 15 67 0 0 0 0 1 0 56 333 0 0 0 - 0 Jag 0 0.3% volvp Unsignalized intersection Hamden Or 25 MP9r N 2n Um. Coronado Or 26 MA k S—: FOC Himden Or o.e:4n.nms r1>o0s-0010yTMGAICaorsOSatH.r� den .. i i i i i Ia4o4:T00 Ow: 47JYJeW T \NO5d6QDIfTICJHACam+dnel Wm- PM PEAK HOUR DATA FFKWE cbwwAw Boach R6s018 Hael PROJECT Mg. .2000-0020 .� rSrA,w. , (ry.,g) Colorlado LIA 8 (E-Wi CwMvim Blvd Pte: WQ&wdq. APrl 23. 2000 Survw LANE TYPE: No ZL - Ne 20 as 2L so 20 ED 2L - - ED 20 lire We TIME HB No' NB 'So PM PEAK 'so "OUR SS - COUNTS ED ED - ED Ws We We TOTAL HOURLY IOU L T R -L T R L T R L T R VOLUME VOLUMES 1'.004:15 O -- 1N O O 123 Y 54 O 8 D 0 O 387 4:15470 4 116 0 0 112 41 65 O 10 O O 0 337 4:304-.45 1 132 O 0 126 43 71 O 4 O, O 0 870 4V5300 2 126 0 0 140 S3 74 O 3 0 0 0 '404 1,307 5:00.5:15 1 429. 0 0 100 56 40 O 2 O 0 D 940 1/180 6:15370 1 .107 40 O 106 50 02 O 6 O O D 839 1,470 5..-3"45 1 104 O O. 416 5o b 0 3 .O O O 350 IA41 5:454%)D 1 101 O 0 too 49 V9 'O 1 O -O 0 349 1,886 11 964 0 D .- 934 ` 547 + 0 36 0 0 ` 0 2.893 PEAKHIt - MME NS NU me Se SB SB ED ED E9 We We We TOTAL PM L T R L T R L T A .L T R VOLUME 4:004:15 O 116 O �O "123 Y 64 O a O O N O 357 . 4:16470 4 115 O O 112 4i 66 0 10 O O O 117 4:304:45 I i32 'O O 1211 47 71 O 4 O 0 '0. 379 41453:00 2 120 O O 140 33 7s 0 3 O 0 O 404 7 523 O O 603 161 260 0 25 1D O i.S07 •RERSECTKIN PEALHOUR 4.'W - SIX INTERSECTION PHF - 021255 NTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1:501 PEAK "OUR VOLUME NB .530 Pw NB 0.90 PEAK HOUR VOLUME SS 684 PHF se .099 'PEAK HOUR VOLUME ED 293 PHF ED ODD PEAR HOUR VOLUME WS 0 _ PHF WB •#DrVpt WIS NB NB so se Ss ED EB - EB WB WB We L T R L T R L T R �L T R 2006 Tfulfla Cant 7 523 0 0 503 181 260 0 25 O 0 0 1,507 Annual A'vmrmq YnMc 7 502 0 0 483 174 257 0 24 0 0 0 1,M7 PM Peak No Trucim . 0.3% ' NoW 2006 Annual Avg Factor . 0.96 Ia4o4:T00 Ow: 47JYJeW T \NO5d6QDIfTICJHACam+dnel Wm- TOlal Tnrtfc _ 70w Troftc T TOW T T'a fk ' !' Tilmks and TOW TnsfBc 'TOW T SB Ti 58 S i ES E 4�tia Iwo 0 EB E 1615 1 1630 0 NB N 1845 0 No _ 1)00 0 we W .1715 1 WB irso 0 1745 0 Pk to Tndge (4p0 10 Sim 1 Lag TOW Peieetd TnlokYtiy.ilp aWh 0.1 i —ectcn % Trucks 'o .3% Signa(Ized lnterael:kan r ow 4�. . 7.YiDOig0I0y7►10;agt;arau4441 /1.nem I TOlal Tnrtfc _ 70w Troftc T TOW T T'a fk ' 'TOW T Tf fk 88 5 58 S SB E ES E _ 7 EB E EB N NB N NB N NB N No _ _w8 w we W W8' W WB Gultview Blvd Coronedo Dr .Fm 20 M" P49. 11 20 UP* Coronado Dr 2007 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: DISTRICT Category: 1500 PINELLAS GOUNTYWrDE MOCF: 0.94 week Dates SF PSCF 1 01/01/2007 - 01/06/2007 1.09 1.17 2 01/07/2007 - 01/13/2007 1.,05 1.12 3 01/14/2007 - 01/20/2001 1.02 1.09 4 01/21/2007 - 01/27/2007 .1.0.1 1.08 5 01/28/2007 - 02/03/2007 0.99 1.06 6 02/04%2007 - 02/1.0/2007 0.98 1.05 7 02/11/2007 - 02/17/2001 0.96 1.03 1,8 02/18/2007 - 02/24/2007 0.95 1.02 * 9 02/25/2007 - 03/03/2007 0.94 1.00 *10 03/04/2007 - 03/10/2007 0.93 0.99 *11 03/11/2007 - .03/17/2007 0.91 0.97 *12 03/18/2007 - 03/2.4/2007 0.92 0.98 *13 03/25/2007 - 03/31/2007 0.92: 0.98 *14 04/01/2007 - 04/07/2007 0.92 0.98 *15 04/08/2007 - 04/14/2007 0.92 0.98 *16 04/15/2007 - 04/21/2007 0.93 0.99 *17 04/22/2007 - 04/28/2007 0.94 1.00 *.18 04/29/2007 = 05/05/.2007 0.95 T.n *19 _ 05/06/2007 - 05/12/2007 0.97 1.04 20 05/13/2007 - 05/19/2007 0.98 1.05 21 05/20/2007 - 05/26/2007 0.99 1.06 22 05/27/2001 - 06/02/2007 0.99 1.06 23 06/03/2007 - 06/09/2007 1.00 1.07 24 06/10/2007 - 06/16/2007 1.00 1.07 25 06/17/2007 - 06/23/2007 1.00 1.07 26 06/.24/2007 - 06%30/2007 1.00 1.07 27 07101/2007 - 07/07/2007 1.00 1.07- 28 07/08/2007 - 01/14/2007 0.99 1.06 29 07/15/2.007 - 07/21/200`7 0.99 1.06 30 07/22/2007 - 07/28/2007 1.00 1.07 31 07/29/2007 - 08/04/2007 1.01 1.08 32 08/05/2007 - 08/11/2007 1.02 1.09 33 08/12/2007 - 08/18/2007 1.03 1.10 34 08/19/2007 - 08/25/2007 1.03 1.10 35 08/26/2007 - 09/01/2007 1.04 1.11 36 09/02/2007 - 09/08/2007 1.04 1.11 37 09/09/2007 - 09/15/2007. 1.05 1.12 38 09/16/2007 - 09/22/2007 1'.05 1:12 39 09/23/2007 - 09'/29/200'7 1:04 1.11 40 09/30/2007 - 10/06/2007 1.04 1.11 41 10/07/2007 - 10/13/2007 1.04 1.11 42 10/14/2007 - 10/20/2007 1.03 1.10 43 10/21/2007 - 10/27/2007 1.04 1.11 44 10/28/2007 - 11/03/2007 1.04 1.11 45 11/04/2007 - 11/102007 1.05 1.12 46 11/11/2007 - 11/17/2007 1.05 1.12 47 11/18/2007.- 11/24/2007 1.06 '1.13 48 11/25/2007 - 12/01/•2007 1.07 1.14 49 12/02/2007 - 12/08/2007 1.08 1.15 50 12/09/2007 - 12/15/2007. 1.09 1.17 51 12/16/2007 - 12/22/2007 1.06 1.13 52 12/23/2007 - 12/29/2007 1.04 1.11 53 12/30/2007 - 12/31/2007 1.02 1.09 * Peak Season Page 1 of 2 APPENDIX ,C Two -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY leneral Information ISite Information nal st East/West Street: Coronado Drive en /Co. Intersection Orientation: North -South Date Performed 212511009 nal sis Time Period PM ear Page 1 of 1 Project Description Holiday Inn East/West Street: Coronado Drive North /South Street: Hamden Drive Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : .0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 .2 3 4 5 6 0.95 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 333 56 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles • 19 2 Peak -Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 . Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 350 58 0 0 20 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 /c 0 0 1 Lanes 0' 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT 2.08 TR. Upstream Signal 0 0 10.9 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lanes L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)1 LR 414 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00. 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 4 0 435 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles • 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach 350 N N Storage 0 1'596 0 RT Channelized 1049 0 /c 0.22 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 uration LR DEfi Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 350 436 C (m) (veh/h) 1'596 1049 /c 0.22 0.42 5% queue length 0.84 2.08 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.9 10.9 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) — -- 10.9 pproach LOS -- — B Copyright m 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.3 Generated: 2J27/20o9 1I= AM file: / /C: \Users \Tanzina Atique\AppData \Local \Temp \u2kC3E0.tmp 2/27/2009 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 Initial Unmet Dand, Qb em 0.0 HCS +- DETAILED REPORT 0.0 1.000 General Information 0:0 Site Information Delay Calibration, k 0.0. Analyst y Agency or Co. Date Performed 2/25/2009 Time Period PM Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project 1D Gulfview Blvd. @Coronado Drive All other areas 2008 Holiday Inn 0 Volume and Timing Input 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 Lane Width . 12.0 EB WB NB SB •, LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 _0 1 N 0 N 0 2 1 1 Lane Group L R Buses Stopping, NB LT 0 T R Volume, V (v ph) 268 0 25 0 0 7 523 3.2 3.2 503 181 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 03 2 NS Perm 06 07 2 2 G= 15.4 JG= 1 2 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 G= IY= 0.93 Y= 7.3 IY= Y= 0.93 0.93 Y= 10.93 Y= 0.93 Pretimed P or Actuated A A Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination A EB Im NB A A TH I A TH Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 TH 2.0 LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 2.0 27 12.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 570 2.0 541 195 Lane Group Capacity, c 2.0 488 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 1271 3 708 488 v/c Ratio, X 3 10.06 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 0.45 0.76 0.40 1 13.0 0.31 3.0 3.0 Mafdnrin ,rneotoan,. i nnn 0.38 t no0 0.38 0.31 1 11.000 12.2 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Dand, Qb em 0.0 1.000 0.0 1.000 0:0 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.0. 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Incremental Delay, dZ 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 Lane Width . 12.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 12.0 0.0 12.0. 0.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N _0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 .Min. Time for Pedestrians, 15.2 3.2 3.2 12.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.4 JG= G= JG= JG= 19.0 G= G= IY= G= Y= 7.3 IY= Y= 1Y= JY= 8.3 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 50.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB Im NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 268 27 570 541 195 Lane Group Capacity, c 545 488 1271 708 488 v/c Ratio, X 0.53 10.06 1 1 0.45 0.76 0.40 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.31 Uniform Delay, di 14.3 12.2 11.6 .13.5 13.7 1.000 1.000 9.32 0.11 5.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 fiieWCAUsersUanzina Atique\AppData \Local \Temp \s2k28C8.tmp 2/27/2009 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.13 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, dZ 1.0 0.0 0.3 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.000 1.000 9.32 0.11 5.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 fiieWCAUsersUanzina Atique\AppData \Local \Temp \s2k28C8.tmp 2/27/2009 I'age 2 ol-2 Detailed Report Control Delay 15.3 12.2 11..8 M185 Lane Group LOS B B B 11.8 Approach Delay 15.0 B Approach LOS B 15 0 X� = 0.66 Intersection LOS Intersection Delay • Generated: 2127/2009 11:08 AM Copyright m 2007 - university of Ftorida, All Rights Reserved HCS4TM Version 5.3 file: / /C: \Users \Tanzina Atique \A.ppData \Local \Temp \s2k28C8amp 2/27/2009 Detailed Report Agency or Co. Date?erformed 2/252009 Time Period PM Page. 1 oz 1 HCS +- DETAILED REPORT Site in formation Intersection Gul/view Blvd. @Hamden dr. Area Type All other areas ,lurisdiction Analysis Year Existing 2008 Project ID. Holiday Inn Volume and Tim in In ut WB NB SB LT EB. TH RT LT 7H RT LT TH R1 iT TH y RT Number of L anes, N1 0 2 1 T 1 R L LR Lane Group LT 174 353 379 35 Volume, V v h 25 156 2 2 2 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 0 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 A A Pretimed P or Actuated . A A A A 2 0 A 2 0 2.0 2.0 Start-1.113 Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.o 2.0 Extension of Effective 2,0 2.0 2.0 Teen e 3 3 3 3 3 Arrival T e, AT 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Unit Extension, UL 3.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1..000 Filterin /Metenn , 1 1.000 O.o D.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 12.0 E0 Lane Width 12.0 N N 0 N ' N 0 N N 0 N Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm 0 0 0 Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 15.2 15.2 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.'2 12.2 Phasin EB ON EW Perm 03 04 SB Onl G = 38.2 06 G = 07 G = 08 G = G= 15.0 Timing G= 40.0 G= Y= G= Y= Y= 10.5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 9 Y= 7.3 C de Length, C = 120.0 Duration of Anal sis, T = 0.25 Lane Group Ca ci Control DeEIaB and LOS Determination NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 39 TH Adjusted Flow Rate, v. 190 183 372 Lane Group Capacity, c 1578 621 1128 563 504 v/c Ratio, X 0.12 0.29 0.33 0.71 0.07 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.53 0.33 0.71 0.32 0.32 Uniform Delay, di 14.0 29.6 6.5 6.0 28.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000. 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.3 0.2 4.1 0.1 0.0 Initial Clueue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.1 28.6 14.0 29.8 6.7 2/27/2009 file: / /C: \Users \Tanzina Atique\AppData\Local \Temp \s2k7285.tmp . _ 'age "Z,oi 1 Detailed Report Control Delay A B D C C " Lane Group LOS 39.1 14.3 Approach Delay 14.0 p B Approach ,LOS B C Intersection Delay 23.4 Xc = 0.48 Intersection LOS Generated: 2127!2009 3:10 AM copyright ®,2007 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved " '1 HCS +TM Version 5.3 file: / /C: \Users \Tanzina Atique\AppD.ata \Local \Temp \s2k7285.tmp 2/27/2009 TABLE 4 - 7 GENERALIZED WEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBANIZED AREAS* UNIN I'ERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS FREEWAYS Level of Service Interchange spacing> 2 mi. apart Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service I Undivided 110 400 790 1,130 1,440 Lanes A 13 C D Ii ' 2 Divided 1.060 1,720 2,500 3,230 3:670 2 1,270 2,110 2,940 3,580 3,980 3 Divided 1,600 2,590 3,740 4,840 5,500 3 1,970 3,260 4,550 5,530 6,150 4 2,660 4,410 6,150 7,480 8,320 STATE TWO -WAY ARTERIALS Class I ( >0.00 to 199 signalized intersections per mile) 5 3,360 5,560 7,760 9,440 10,480 Level of Service 6 4,050 6,710 9,360 11,390 12,650 Lanes Divided A B C 1) 1.- 1 Undivided "' 220 720 860 890 Interchange spacing <2 mi. apart 2 Divided 250 1,530 1,810 1,860 ••' Level of Service 3 Divided 380 2,330 ' 2,720 2,790 •" Lanes A B C D E 4 Divided 490 3,030 3,460 3,540 "4' 2 1,130 1,840 2,660 3,440 3,910 3 1,780 2,890 4,180 5,410 6,150 Class 11(2.00 to 4.50 signalizcd intersections per mile) 4 2,340 3,940 5,700 7,380 8,380 Level of Service 5 3,080 4,990 7,220 9,340 10,620 Lanes Divided A B C D E 6 3,730 6'040 8,740 11,310 12,850 1 Undivided •• 100 590 ' 810 850 2 Divided " 220 1,360 1,710 1,800 BICYCLE MODE 3 Divided •' 340 2,110 2,570 2,710 4 Divided •' 440 2,790 3,330 3,500 (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of Class III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below within primary city central business district of an by number of directional roadway lanes to determine maximum service volumes.) urbanized area over 750,000) Paved Shoulder / Level of Service Level of Service Bicycle Lane Lanes Divided A 13 C D E Coverage A B C D E I Undivided " "• 280 660 810 0-49% •• '• 170 720 >720 2 Divided '• '• 650 1,510 1,720 50-84% •a 130 210 >210 '•• 3 Divided "' "• 1,020 2,330 2,580 85 -100% 160 380 >380 • "a ••• 4 Divided '• 1,350 3,070 3,330 PEDESTRIAN MODE Class IV (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within (Note: Level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on roadway primary city central business district of an urbanized area geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic eonditidns, not,the number of over 750,000) pedestrians using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below Level of Service by number of directional roadway lanes to determine maximum service volumes.) Lanes Divided A 13 C D E 1 ' Undivided • . as 270 720 780 Levelo'fService 2 Divided "" •' 650 1,580 1,660 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 3 Divided "' ♦' 1,000 2,390 2,490 0.49% a• •" as 330 810 4 Divided •• •• 1,350 3,130 3,250 50 -84% •' •' . •a 520 990 85 -100% •0 120 590. >590 too NON -STATE ROADWAYS Major City /County Roadways BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route) Level of Sery ice (gore: Bumper taw shown seedy for the peak hour in the single direction of the higho traffic flow.) Lanes Divided A B C D _ / E Level of Service (Buses per hour) 1 Undivided a• •'• 480 760 V 810 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 2 Divided '• 4e 1,120 1,620 1,720 0-84% •' >5 >4 23 >2 3 Divided as 1,740 2,450 2,580 85 -1001/0 >6 >4 >3 ?�2 >I Other Signalized Roadways ARTERIAL/NONSTATE.ROADWAY ADJUSTMENTS (signalized intersection analysis) (alter corresponding volume by the indicated percent) Level of Service Lanes Divided A 13 C D / I: I Undivided .4 •" 250 530, 660 Lanes Median Left Turns Lanes Adjustment Factors 2 Divided •' 580' 1,140 1,320 1 Divided Yes +5% I Undivided No -20% Source: Florida Department of Transportation 05/17/07 Multi Undivided Yes -5% Systems Planning Office Multi Undivided No -25% 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 ' Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0450 ONE WAY FACILITIES htt,p: / /wwva. dot. state. Il. usplanning /systems/smAos/default.htm Increase corresponding volume by 1.2. • Values shown arc hourly directions] volumes for levels of service and am for the sute,"bildtruck modes unless specifically stated. To conven to annual average daily traffic volumes, these volumes must be divided by appropriate D and K factors This table does mi constitute a strodard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for mom specific planning applications The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where mom refined techniques exist. t.evel of service letter grade dtmsholds arc probably mi comparable .cross ntbdes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be nude with caution. Funhemtom, combining levels of service of diffemrit modes into oneovaall roadway level of scrv,ce rs ram recommended Caleu]xtions em furred on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LAS Model, pedestrian LAS Model and Transit Capacity and Duality of Service Manual, rest mlively for the autpmobdeAruck, bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes - Cannot be achieved using table input value defalilts •• •Not applicable for that level of service letter grade For autotmbilehruik modes, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have bee" reached For bicycle and pedestrian modes. the level of service letter grade (including F) is mi achievable, because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. TABLE 4 -4 GENERALIZED PEAK HOUR TWO -WAY VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBANIZED AREAS* UNINTF,RRUP;I'ED FLOW II1G11WAVS FREEWAYS Interchange spacing> 2 mi. apart 1: 1,610 Interchange spacing < 2 mi. apart ru ... ,,. E. Level of Service 2,620 Lanes A B C D 6,670 4 2,310 3,840 5,350 6,510 10 010 6 3,580 5,930 8,270 10;050 8 4,840 8,020 11,180 13;600 10 6.110 I'0,'I 1 Level of Service Lanes Divided . A B C D 2 Undivided 210 730 1,450 2,060 4 Divided 1,940 3,140 4,540 5,870 6 Divided 2,900 4,700 6,800 8,810 STATE TWO -WAY ARTERIALS Class I ( >0 00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile) 620 ' 3,830 4,680 Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided •• 400 1,310 1,560 4 Divided 460 2,780 3,300 3,390 6 Divided 700 4,240 4,950 5,080 8 Divided 890 5,510 6,280 6,440 FREEWAYS Interchange spacing> 2 mi. apart 1: 1,610 Interchange spacing < 2 mi. apart ru ... ,,. E. Level of Service 2,620 Lanes A B C D 6,670 4 2,310 3,840 5,350 6,510 10 010 6 3,580 5,930 8,270 10;050 8 4,840 8,020 11,180 13;600 10 6.110 I'0,'I 1 Class 11 (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Level of Service Level of Service A Lanes Divided A B C D 1: 2 Undivided t4 180 1,070 1,460 1,550 4 Divided •" 390 2,470 3,110 3,270 6 Divided •r 620 ' 3,830 4,680 4,920 8 Divided •r 800 5,060 6,060 6,360 13;420 15,240 10 5,600 9,070 0 14,110 17,160 12 12 7,360 12,200 17,020 20,710 Class 11 (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Level of Service Level of Service A Lanes Divided A B C D 1: 2 Undivided t4 180 1,070 1,460 1,550 4 Divided •" 390 2,470 3,110 3,270 6 Divided •r 620 ' 3,830 4,680 4,920 8 Divided •r 800 5,060 6,060 6,360 Class 111 (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of an urbanized area over 750,000) E 7,240 11,180 15,130 19,050 23,000 BICYCLE MODE (Note: level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometries at 40 mph.posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Level of Service Lanes A II C D E 4 2050 , 3,350 4,840 6,250 7,110 6 3,240 5,250 7,600 9,840 11,180 8 4,420 7,160 90,360 13;420 15,240 10 5,600 9,070 13,130 16,980 19,310 12 6,780 10,980 15,890 20,560 23,360 BICYCLE MODE (Note: level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometries at 40 mph.posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Source Florida Department of Transportation 05/17/07 Multl - Undmded No 0 Systems Planning 011ice 605 Suwannee Street,, MS 19 ONE -WAY FACILITIES Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0450 Multiply the corresponding two - directional volumes in this table by 0.6. htip: / /kewkv.dot.state. fl.us/ planning /systems/sm/los/dcfault.htm V.1- shown are presented as hourly "-way volumes for levels of tervict and are for the automobilehruck modes unless specifically stated. Although presented as peak hour two-way volumes, they actually represent peek hour peak dimmi.. condifttxa with an applicable D factor applied. This table does rot eonstimm a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer enodeh from %•kith this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where mom refined techniques exist. Level of service term, gnede thresholds am probably rot comparable across modes and, therefore. cross nodal comparisons should be made with caution. Furthermore, combining levels of service of dfrereni nvwdcs info one overall roadway level of service is not recomrrtendtd Calculations arc based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manuel, Bicycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and Tranxi, Capra .nd Qunlip of Servicm Manual, res{+ettivclq for the autemnhildm,cl, bicycle, perkgrian and bus modes ::Cannot be achieved wing table input value defaults 'Nat applicable for tha, level orse'vicc lean grade, rot autornobilchtuck modes, volumes greeter than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached For bicycle end Paved Shoulder Level of Service Bicycle Lane Level of Service Lanes Divided A. B C D F Coverage A B C D E 2 Undivided •• •' 500 1,200 1,470 0.49% •• •• 310 1,310 >1,310 4 Divided '• '• 1,180 2,750 3,120 50.84% •• 240 390 >390 • ++ 6 Divided '• "• 1,850 .4,240 4,690 85- 100% 300 680 >680 ••• "+ 8 . Divided •• "• 2,450 5,580 6,060 PEDESTRIAN MODE Class IV (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within (Note: level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on roadway primary city central business district of an urbanized area geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of pedestrians over 750,000)' using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number • i.evel of Service of directional roadway lanes to determine two -way maximum service volumes.) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided •• „ 490 1,310 1,420 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 4 Divided re +, 1,170 2,880 3,010 0-49% „ ++ r• 600 1,480 6 Divided `• •' 1,810 4,350 4,520 5044% •• '• •• 940 1,800 8 Divided •• " 2,460 5,690 5,910 85 -100% '• 210 1,080 , >1,080 ••, BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route) NON -STATE ROAbV►'AYS Major City /County Roadways (Buses per hour) Level of Service (note: ausesper hour Shawn am only t r the peak boor in the tingle ditectloo of higher traffic flow.) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided ,r •• 870 1,390"'/ 1,480 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 4 Divided ' . •• 2,030 2,950 31120 0 -84% •, >5 ?4 >3 >2 6 Divided ^' ,r 3,170 4,450 4,690 85 -100% >6 >4 �3 i2 >1 ARTF,RIAL MON -STATE ROADWAY ADJUSTMENTS Other Signalized Roadways (alter corresponding volume by the indicated percent) (signalized intersection analysis) Level ol'Service Lanes Median Left Turns Lanes Adjustment Factors Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Divided Yes +5% 2 Undivided ++ •• 450 950V 1,200 2 Undivided No -20% 4 Divided ''• '• 1,050 2,070 2,400 Multi Undivided Yes -5% Source Florida Department of Transportation 05/17/07 Multl - Undmded No 0 Systems Planning 011ice 605 Suwannee Street,, MS 19 ONE -WAY FACILITIES Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0450 Multiply the corresponding two - directional volumes in this table by 0.6. htip: / /kewkv.dot.state. fl.us/ planning /systems/sm/los/dcfault.htm V.1- shown are presented as hourly "-way volumes for levels of tervict and are for the automobilehruck modes unless specifically stated. Although presented as peak hour two-way volumes, they actually represent peek hour peak dimmi.. condifttxa with an applicable D factor applied. This table does rot eonstimm a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer enodeh from %•kith this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where mom refined techniques exist. Level of service term, gnede thresholds am probably rot comparable across modes and, therefore. cross nodal comparisons should be made with caution. Furthermore, combining levels of service of dfrereni nvwdcs info one overall roadway level of service is not recomrrtendtd Calculations arc based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manuel, Bicycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and Tranxi, Capra .nd Qunlip of Servicm Manual, res{+ettivclq for the autemnhildm,cl, bicycle, perkgrian and bus modes ::Cannot be achieved wing table input value defaults 'Nat applicable for tha, level orse'vicc lean grade, rot autornobilchtuck modes, volumes greeter than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached For bicycle end APPENDIX D Holiday Inn Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 108 Rooms of Hotel. February 24, 2009 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor. Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 8.1.7 3.38 1.00 882 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.34 0.00 1.00 37 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.22 .0.00 1.00. 24 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.56 0.78 1.00 60 4 -6 PM 'Peak 'Hour Enter 0.31 0.00 1.00 33 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.28 0.00 1.00 30 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.59 0,.80 1.00 64 AM Pk Hr, Generator, 'Enter 0.29 0.00 1.00 31 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 6.23 0.00 1,00 25. AM Pk Hr, Generator., Total 0.52 0.75 1.00 56 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.35 0.00 1.00 38 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.26 '0.00 1.100 28 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.61 0.81 1.00 66 Saturday 2 -way Volume 8.19 3.13 1.00 885 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.40 0.00 1.00 43 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.32 0.00, 1.00 35 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.72 0.87 1.00 78 Sunday 2-Way volume 5.95 2.89 1.00 643 Sunday Peak-Hour Enter 0.26 0.00 1.00 28 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.30 0.00 1.'00 32 Sunday Peak Hour Total 01.56 0.75 1.00 60 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 22 Rooms of Hotel February 24, 2009 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source:.Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 8.17 3.38 1.00 180 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.34 0.00 1:00 7 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.22 0.00 1.00 5 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.56 0.78 1.00 12 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.31 0.00 1.00 7 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.28 0.00 1.00 6 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.59 0.80 1.00 13 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.29 0.00 1.00 6 AM 'Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.23 0.010 1.00 5 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.52 0.75 1.00 11 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.35 0.00 1.00 8 PM'Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.26 0.00 1.00 6 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.61 0.81 1.00 13 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 8.19 3.1.3 1100 180 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.40 0.00 1.00 9 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.32 0.00 1.00 7 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.72 0.87 1.00 16 Sunday 2 -way volume 5.95 2.89 1.00 131 _Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.26 0.00 1.00 •6 Sunday :Peak Hour Exit 0.30 •0.00 1.00 7 Sunday Peak Hour Total. 0.56 0.75 1.00 12 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source:.Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS APPENDIX E EAST -WEST STREET NORTH-SOUTH STREET COUNTYEAR: BUILD OUT YEAR : TIME PERIOD PEAK HOUR FACTOR PSCF : 'EXISTING ADJUSTED TRAFFIC" "PERCENT DISTRIBUTION" "GROWTH RATE" `BACKGROUND TRAFFIC" "PROJECT TRAFFIC" 'TOTAL TRAFFIC' Trutk Parewda0a: Mlnlmum 2% TMC Sheet PM Peak Hour Hartden DMe ;2008 2010 PM 0.96 1.00 . l ESL EST QuMVbw Blvd. EBR WEL WST I WBR NBL Hamlin Ddw NOT NOR SBL SBT I SBR 25 1 156 1 1 1 171 1 353 1 1 1 378 1 1 35 COUNTYEAR : 12008 113.81%186.19%1 .0.00% 133,M 166.98% 1 OW% I 1 1 191m%l 0.00% SAS% BUILD OUT YEAR : . - 2070 2.0% 2.01A 2.0% ' 'PIA 262 181 1 .%7 1 1 391 1 36 iPSCF : "Loo 4 1 1 1 13 COYOM6. Oin 26 1 162.j I I im 1 331 1 1 1 4w 1 36 EAST -WEST STREET: Coronado Odw NORTWSOUTH STREET : Odvs COUNTYEAR : 12008 BUILD OUT YEAR : . - 2070 TIME PERIOD : 'PIA . PEAK HOUR FACTOR : '0.95 iPSCF : "Loo COYOM6. Oin H.man EOL EDT EBR WBL MIST WBR NSL NOT NBA SBL SBT SBR "EXIST]NO ADJUSTED TRAFFIC" 7 1 1 414 1 1 1 1 333 1 58 1 1 1 1B ' 'PERCENT DISTRIBUTION` 024% 1 199,78%] 85.60%] 14.40% 90.48% 9.52% 'GROWTH RATE" 2.0% 1 2-0% 1 2:0% ' "BACKGROUND TRAFFIC' I 1 1 431 1 1 346 1 eE 'PROJECT TRAFFIC" I 1 13 1 1 14 -TOTAL TRAFFIC" I I 1 444 1 1 1 1 360 1 9 _2e 2 EAST -WEST STREET : 5"" BNd. -� NORTH -SOUTH STREET ; Coronado Drive COUNT YEAR : 4003 . BUILD OUT YEAR : 2010 TIME PERIOD : 'PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR : 0.83 ' PSCF : :1.00. Guffvlaw BIM. Coronado Drf a EBL EBT FOR WOL WBT WBR NSL NBT NOR SBL SOT SBR `EXISTING ADJUSTED TRAFFIC' _ 25 1 1 7 '623 1 503 tat ., 'PERCENT DISTRIBUTION" 91,47% 1 D.53% 1 1.32% 88,611% 1 173.54%126 "GROWTH RATE" 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 'BACKGROUND TRAFFIC` 279 24 7 5a4 52! 1a8 `PROJECT TRAFFIC 1 1 10 tl "TOTAL. TRAFFIC" 279 1 27 1 1 a C4 EAST4NESTSTREET livistrw NORTH-SOUTH STREET : fDAvamW 7. COUNTYEAR : 2006 BUILD OUT YEAR : 2010 TIME PERIOD : PM PFAK HOUR FACTOR : 0.85 , P3CF : 1.00 _ tat Street 'DAVawa 1 EBL EST FOR WBL WOT WBR NBL NBT NOR SBL 38T SBR "EXISTING ADJUSTED TRAFFIC" 1 335 1 415 "GROWTH RATE" 2.0% 1 2. "BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 346 1 422 'PROJECT TRAFFIC 1 22 1 1 1 20 'TOTAL TRAFFIC' 1 22 1 348 1 432 f S b Assumed Coraudo Dr. traffc alwV 1q Street. Ma)o ty of On Project beffk wouW oriented toffrom Commeo OAw. To gal Ow affect of all movwmems at the dAvaway, extra 1 trip trae asst rw in an oppoab dkacum. WTXJEST STREET: 7 10 Vt" NORTILSOUTN STREET : 2 COUNT YEAR : 2003 BUILD OUT YEAR : 2010 TIME PERIOD : PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR : :0.85 PSCF : ,1.00 tat Strew 2 EBL EBT FOR WBL WBT WBR NSL NBT NOR SBL SOT SBR "E)USTM ADJUSTED TRAFFIC" Q 415 'BACKGROUND TRAFFIC' ao 432i�■i�i��� 'PROJECT TRAFFIC' -TOTAL TRAFFIC" Assumed Coronado Dr..tmf3c 2" 181 Street. MapAty of ft pro)ed traffic would ariamad toArom Coronado Ddvs. To yat the affect of as movemerds M the driveway, extra 7 trip wres asalpned In the oppoa8e dln ct , t Page 1 of i Two -Way Stop Control TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Wi Information Information section Orientation: North -South Volumes and Ad- UStirientS Southbound 11CIe Northbound 5 6 or Street 3 4 rement L T R L 2 ume veh/h 360 58 0 95 1.D0 .1.00 0.95 0.95 �k -Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0 21 2 irly Flow Rate, HFR 378 61 0 _ ,cent Hea Vehicles 2 Undivided than Type 0 1 Channelized 1 0 0 1 0 0 TR nes nfi uration LT 0 lstream Si nal 0 Westbound nor Street Eastbound -8 10 11 12 )vement 7 T R L T R L plume veh/h 1 1.00 444 0.95 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 yak- Hour•Factor, PHI- 0 -95 0 0 ouriy Flow Rate, HFR 1 0 467 0 eh/h 0 2 0 0 0 ercent Hea Vehicles 2 0 ercent Grade ( %) 0 N lared Approach N 0 Storage 0 0 0 ;T Channelized 0 0 0 0 0 0 anes LR ,on uration f )ela Queue Len th, and Level of Service Westbound.. Eastbound approach Northbound Southbound 8 9 •10 11 12 vlovement . .. 1 4 7 LR -ane Configuration LT 468 r '(veh/h) 378 1048 C (m) (veh/h) 1595 0.45 v/c 0.24 2.34 95% queue length 0.93 11.2 ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.0 g LOS A 11.2 pproach Delay (s/veh) — "- 8 pproach LOS — _ NC5 *TM Version 5.3 Generated: 1127/2009 11:11 AM Copyright 6 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file: / /C: \Users \Tanzina Atique\AppData \Local \Temp \u2kE046.tmp 2/27/2009 1 Detailed Report HCS +- DETAILED REPORT Page s of z General lnforr�ai+on Site Information Gulfview Blvd. @Coronado Intersection Drive Analyst Area Type All other areas Agency or Co. Date Performed 2252009 Jurisdiction Time Period PM Analysis Year Project ID Holiday Inn Holiday volume and.riming In ut `NB NB SB LT EB TH RT LT. TH RT LT TH RT LT 1H RT 1 Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 2 LT T R Lane G rou L R 8 554 534 188 Vo lume, V v h 279 27 2 2 2 2 % Heav Vehicles, %HV 2 2 0.93 0.93 0.93 .93 D.93 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 A q A Pretimed P or Actuated A A A 2.0 Start -u Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 ' 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2 0 2.0 3 reen e Arrival T e, AT 3 3 3 3.0 3 3.0 3.0 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0• 1.000 1.000 1.000 Filterin eterin , 1 1.000 1.000 0 0 0.0 0.0 Initial Unmet Demand, Ob 0.0 0.0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped 1 Bike 1 RTOR Volumes 0 0 0. 12.0 12.0 12.0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking I Grade I Parking N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm 0 0 0 Buses Sto in , NB . 0 0 3.2 12.2 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 15.2 3.2 P Phasing EB Onl 02 03 04 NS Perm G =.i9.0 -06 07 G= G= G = 08 G= 15.4 G= G= G= Y= Y= 8.3 Y= Y= Y= Timing Y = 7.3 Y = Y = C cte Len th, C = 50.0 Duration of Anal sis, T = 0.25 Lane Grou Ca ci Control Delay, and LOS DetermWB Pion NB SB EB TH RT LT TH. RT LT ' TH RT LT TH RT LT 605 574 202 Adjusted Flow Rate, v _ 300 29 708 488 Lane Group Capacity, c 545 488 1268 0.81 0.41 vlc Ratio. X 0.55 0.06 0.48 0.38 0.31 Total Green Ratio,' 91C 0.31 0.31 0.38 13.9 13.7 Uniform Delay, di 14.4 92.2 11.7 1.000 1.000 1 .000 Progression'Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 0.11 Delay Calibration, k 0.15 0.11 0.11 .0.35 7.1 0.6 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.1 0. 3 . Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2/27/2009 file: / /C: \Users \Tanzina Atique\AppDaia \Local \Temp \s2k2CED.tmp Detailed Report Control Delay .15.6 12.2 Lane Group LOS B B Approach Delay 15.3 Approach LOS B lntersection Delay 15.9 Copyright 0 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 12.0. B 12.0 B XC = 0.69 Intersection LOS HCS +TM Version 5.3 Page 2012 21.0 14.3 C B 19.2 .B 7r— ��B Generated: 2127/2009 11:11 AM 2/27/2009 file:HCA Users \Tanzina Atique\AppData \Local \Temp \s2k2CED.trnp Yage i of 4 Detailed Report HCS+- DETAILED REPORT neral Information Site information Guliview Blvd. @Hamden Dr. Intersection rAnalyst ency or Co. Area Type All other areas te Performed 2/252009 Jurisdiction Time Period PM Analysis Year 2010 Project ID Holiday Inn Volume and Ti min In ut WB NB SB LT EB TH RT LT TH RT LT 'TH RT 'T TH RT ' Number of Lanes, Ni 0 2 1 T 1 R - L LR Lane Grod 26 LT 162 181 381 407 36 2 Volume, V v h g 2 2 % Hea Vehicles, %HV 2 2 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 A A A Pretimed P or Actuated A A A 2.0 2 0 2.0 2.0 Start-u Lost Time, h 2.0 2A 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 reen, e 3 3 3 3 3 Arrival T e, AT 3.0 3.0 3:0 3.0 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 • Filterin IMeterin , 1 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 Initial Unmet Demand, Ub 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped I Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 12.0 , 12.6 12.0 12'0 Lane Width 12.0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking I Grade / Parking N 0 Parking Maneuvers, N- 0 0 0 0 i Buses Sto in , Ns 0 15.2 15.2 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 12,2 P Phasing EB Onl EW Perm 03 04 SBbn1 G = 38.2 06 G = 07 G = 08 G = ' G= 15.0 G= 40.0 G= G= Y= Y= 10.5 Y= Y= Y= Timing Y= 9 Y= 7.3 Y= C cle Length, C = 120.0 Duration of Anal I.sis, T = 0.25 Lane Grou Ca ci Control Delay, and LOS Determination NB SB EB TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 198 191 401 428 38 Lane Group Capacity, c 1570 621 1128 563 504 0.13 0.31 0.36 0.76 0.08 vic Ratio, X 0.32 0.32 Total Green Ratio, g!C 0.53 0.33 071 . 36.8 ' 28.6 Uniform Delay, di 14.0 29. 7 6.6 1.000 1.000 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.3 0.2 6.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2/27/2009 file : / /C: \Users \Tanzina Atique\AppData \Local \Temp \s2k7A90.tmp Page 2 oil Detailed Report Control Delay 4 0 130.0 6.8 42.8 28.6 Lane Group LOS B C A D C Approach Delay 14.0 14.3 41.6 Approach LOS 8 B D X� = 0.51 IntersecIntersection Delay 24.4 tion LOS C Generated: 2/27/2009 11:12 AM Copyright ® 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.3 , 2/27/2009 file: / /C: \Users \Tanzina Atique\AppData\Local \Temp \s2k7A90.tmp _."Page 1-of I Two -Way Stop Control Copyright ® 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Keservea - - file: / /C: \Users \Tanzina Atique\AppData \Local \Temp \u2kC5A5.tmp 2/27/2009 i Two -Way Stop Control page l of 1 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information eneral Information I 1st street Driveway 2 ntersection n al st Jurisdiction en /Co. Date Performed 7/2009 knaiysis Yeat 2010 al sis Time Period Pro'ect Description Holiday inn De North /South Street:. Drivewa 2 Eased Street: !st Street Stud Period Mrs): 0.25 Intersection Orientation: East -West ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Eastbound westbound a'or Street 1 2 3. 4 5 6 L T R L T R Movement 0.90 0 348 0.90 386 11 0.90 12 1 0.90 1 432 .0.90 480 0.90 0 oiume veh/h Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- - Undivided Median Type 0 RT Channelized 0 1 0 Lanes 0 i 0 0 nfi urat'ton TR LT stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound - Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R oiume veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 10 0.90 1 -00 1 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 0 1 0 0 0 veh /h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 2 0 2 ercent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfi urafion LR a Queue Len th and Levet of Service . proach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbounvement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ne Configuration LT LR veh/h) 1 12 m) (veh[h) 1161 334 151% 0.00 0.04 queue length 0.00 0.11 ntrol Delay (s /veh) 8.1 16.2 S A proach Delay (s/veh) — — 16.2 proach LOS — — C .1.10 AW Copyright ® 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +,-' version o.o -- - - -- -- - file: / /C: \Users \Tanzina Atique\AppData \Local \Temp \u2kF9CE.tmp 2/27/2009 DI Elizabeth Rodriguez & Associates, Inc. tin -b Holiday Inn Express Clearwater Beach Traffic Study Addendum April 2009 4846 Trinidad Drive Land 0' Lakes. FL 34639 (813) 545-3316 email: ElizabethRodriguez@email.coni 1.0 Introduction On April 16, 2009, the developer's consultant met with City of Clearwater staff regarding the traffic study for the Holiday Inn Express - Clearwater Beach. Staff requested that - rather than calculating background traffic by applying a 20/o/year growth rate to existing counts, the consultant used the 2% growth rate coupled with the "layering" of vested traffic from the Clearwater Beach Hotel and the Aqualea. Staff also asked the consultant to examine the left turn queue length for proposed driveway one, to determine whether any queue would interfere with the adjacent signalized intersection. 2.0 Background Traffic Adjustment City of Clearwater staff sent the consultant project trip generation and trip distribution from the Clearwater Beach Hotel and the Aqualea. Project trips from those hotels; inflated background trips; and Holiday Inn Express project traffic are shown in the "Attachments" section of this report. Also included in the "Attachments" section of this report, are the revised HCS analyses, which have been updated using the new background traffic. The delay at the study area intersections has increased, because of the increase in background traffic, But, all intersections are still operating within the adopted LOS standards. Tables 4 and 5 from the original report are included, herein, and are updated to depict the new background traffic. Table 4 - Future Intersections Analyses Summary Intersection Type PM Peak Hour Delay (sec /veh) LOS Gulfview Boulevard @ Hamden Drive Signal 26.7 C Gulfview Boulevard /Causeway Boulevard @ Coronado Drive Signal 27.3 C Hamden Drive @ Coronado Drive Two -Way Stop 12 B Driveway 1 @ V Street Two -Way Stop 8.4 A Driveway 2 @ l n Street Two -Way Stop 8.1 A Table 5 - Future Links Analyses Roadway No. of Lanes PM Peak Hour Background Traffic Project Traffic Total Traffic Capacity Capacity Mailablc EB/NB WB /SB EB/NB WB /SB EB/NB WB /SB EB/NB WB /SB EB/NB WB /SB GulNiew Blvd.: 2UL 305 196 1 1 306 197 760 630 Yes Yes Roundabout to Hamden Dr. Coronado Dr:: 4DL 1 363 444 14 13 377 457 930 1140 Yes Yes Bridgewater Dr. to Hamden Dr. Coronado Dr.: 2UL 363 444 14 13 377 457 420 530 Yes i Yes Bridgewater Dr. to Gulfview Blvd. I - I 3.0 Driveways Queues Relative to Intersection The HCS+ (unsignalized) printouts for the two driveway are included. As they show, the 95% queue lengths are almost negligible. So project traffic backing up into the adjacent intersection should not be an issue. 4.0 Conclusions The issues that were raised in the meeting have been addressed and the study area transportation facilities are expected to operate within their LOS standards with the inclusion of project traffic. Attachments Legend 188 45 91 N - Background (2008) 523 1 - Holiday Inn Express NTS Project 37 121 - Clearwater Beach 7 544 Hotel 10 2 - Aqualea ,� .9" �s 11 1 10 22 0 _ O N < O Q. C (D �. O 2 40 12 � 15 0 43 348 196 05 13 14 15 346 14 30 58 NA c�4 ,0 /i; 'Y l 09, 30 � 3 , 367 787 Attachments r, r .r_r�ime�lna;a � eats r ..:•.; :'�.:, ..:. off•' -::, .: ",..' ,:: 1..,:'., :'i" 2 „_'`. :3' .d ,,�'. ..�.. . J. ?. «: ;�•.�f�' ve sprAiid •J .`n C.r sy.y� W - _ s. , :1 ! w a: _ dY� r ee ri�w.. i- - ' 88 ut'FbOr!:,PHR� :•.9,00,v—. ;Etg4p 17ate, FlFR _ rs�e111 J rte.` r. �, ..;.: �'...�. .,, ; ; ti! ,fA � � G8, Jr�r h�i�4�t �sa� � �s•� ��xT;.:.. 8 . j f r -- y. 4RYz �•'V� .y. , .. �� .':T "s�� .�11� 'K4 � •F J.IO'yY: , ,': :.: ... .. •• -,•, y.�.p /yam __ - _ - v ,..... �► s` EsaYrunnreisayer :�ror«ta.r�x�a�eser�a 'rry eo�e+ar�L rtao�r?� - �• :�:•�_ ��ie ,lC:'lUsCtu�T� . • ' nt.�i�i Ue�A+ �i&teiT:;OCa(XTe;J�1 ' 111 G'S �i ..� �..%,�:•<, `�;�::>•'�. :r..., ._. : ,. - w`:Y!.; _ -_.... ....r.C' "HA': t , _�+w•�'!�?n`v 5. ���� .' urh:ri; ` .'J r.r , a�'p� - ffl7� -{ TAf',ttY,., -; "[Y4Wr7' Y � - r: ,.gl. - .�•� �;' � D' •' - - ?'y`rF(.{l,,. _ r, r .r_r�ime�lna;a � eats r ..:•.; :'�.:, ..:. off•' -::, .: ",..' ,:: 1..,:'., :'i" 2 „_'`. :3' .d ,,�'. ..�.. . J. ?. «: ;�•.�f�' ve sprAiid •J .`n C.r sy.y� W - _ s. , :1 ! w a: _ dY� r ee ri�w.. i- - ' 88 ut'FbOr!:,PHR� :•.9,00,v—. ;Etg4p 17ate, FlFR _ rs�e111 J rte.` r. �, ..;.: �'...�. .,, ; ; ti! ,fA � � G8, Jr�r h�i�4�t �sa� � �s•� ��xT;.:.. 8 . j f r -- y. 4RYz �•'V� .y. , .. �� .':T "s�� .�11� 'K4 � •F J.IO'yY: , ,': :.: ... .. •• -,•, y.�.p /yam __ - _ - v ,..... �► s` EsaYrunnreisayer :�ror«ta.r�x�a�eser�a 'rry eo�e+ar�L rtao�r?� - �• :�:•�_ ��ie ,lC:'lUsCtu�T� . • ' nt.�i�i Ue�A+ �i&teiT:;OCa(XTe;J�1 ' 111 G'S �i ..� �..%,�:•<, `�;�::>•'�. :r..., ._. : ,. - w`:Y!.; _ -_.... ....r.C' "HA': t , _�+w•�'!�?n`v 5. ���� .' urh:ri; ` .'J Rig,r QQ yew , IMi .......:..: : , , ft '.: ... .... ..:, �p��� .... ..t..:... .., :._C ;� , _c ��� ... ...-•.gin :T,-9:. , _ .. .:.. : - .eak= vi�r__�aa�:ir �i;iF O.�Eiti:::. r,. ;�:A � .:1?'f�"0 . :,; _.:i'rO�U::. _ • �'�1. : f� <r:. Er• . NFR .,. z...;. - 9 � ,480 p�,(�► t� Fu _ �rf y. , .....� .. , ... , .f...:.. - •' � - .•n :_:;+• ^.•:a °: >� ^ >:i >. :/y-�1_ — ,�.. :' sue:.: .i aq� .: ".,:•. H�Rr;,.:, a�':' . '.. ..:::: :'•yam': - - 2' i 2 d 1r N sm. go Si : i i ,' - :�::::.: a..• - .. �� (�. .. ': �..:::,:::_ : Vii:,'. :^rye.,; '•._..: ':: -. .. - 't:.�S't... ti I10 2047 IinMriapi d6ff01idd .i: Reserved fIM Ia���G-�-:��,I�+rslTanz�na At�quelAppta�Lc�cajlTe�iiplu2kF9�E _. r,. >�� - 2�'�9 _ -rC- i' .�� l..Mny.;.: •.'v: i ,.n!iry1 •• _ _ tin - .. - _.— _,....._:,:.a:_,__- <.,..,.u. .. �. ::+lc :...ms's ?�'A -..._ �'::' _ .. ..u:•k;./,�;?':. HCS +: TI-Signalized Intersections Rele-Qe 5.3 Two -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Agency /Co.: Date Performed: 4/28/2009 Analysis Time Period: PM Intersection: Coronado Drive @Hamden Drive Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2010 Project ID: Holiday Inn East /West Street: Coronado Drive North /South Street: Hamden Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R 1 L T R Volume 375 88 60 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 394 92 63 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- -- -- Median Type /Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? 12.0 Approach LOS Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 i 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 1 456 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 480 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists? /Storage / No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Approach NB Movement 1 Lane Config LT Queue Length, and Level of Service SB Westbound Eastbound 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 1 1 LR v (vph) 394 481 C(m) (vph) 1540 993 v/c 0.26 0.48 95% queue length 1.02 2.70 Control Delay 8.1 12.0 LOS A B Approach Delay 12.0 Approach LOS B HCS +: Signalized Intersections Release 5.3 Analyst: Inter.: Gulfvi--w Blvd. @Hamden Dr. Agency: Area Type: All other areas Date: 2/25/2009 Jurisd: Period: PM Year 2010 Project ID: Holiday Inn E/W St: Gulfview Blvd. N/S St: Hamden Dr. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Duration I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I areas I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 No. Lanes ! l I I I 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 LGConfig I LT I T R I I L LR 1 Volume 126 162 I 181 411 I 1447 36 1 Lane Width 1 12.0 ! 12.0 12.0 I 112.0 12.0 ' I RTOR Vol 1 i 0 ( 1 0 1 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A A I NB Left Thru A A ( Thru Right 1 Right Peds X X I Peds X WB Left 1 SB Left A Thru A I Thru Right A I Right A Peds X X I Peds X NB Right I EB Right SB Right I WB Right A Green 15.0 40.0 38.2 Yellow 3.5 3.5 3.5 All Red 5.5 3.8 7.0 Cycle Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Eastbound LT 1570 3523 Westbound T 621 1863 R 1128 1583 Northbound 0.13 0.53 14.0 B 0.31 0.33 30.0 C 0.38 0.71 7.0 A Length: 120.0 secs Approach Delay LOS 14.0 B 14.1 B Southbound L 563 1770 0.84 0.32 48.7 D LR 504 1583 0.08 0.32 28.6 C 47.2 D Intersection Delay = 26.7 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = C HCS +: signalized Intersections Relearn 5.3 Analyst: Inter.: Gulfv.i�-w Blvd. @Coronado Drive Agency: Area Type: All other areas Date: 2/25/2009 Jurisd: Period: PM Year 2010 Project ID: Holiday Inn E/W St: Gulfview Blvd. N/S St: Coronado Drive SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Duration 0.25 Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound 1 L- T R 1 L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes I I I I I 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 ) 0 0 0 LGConfig I L R I I LT I T R I Volume 1280 26 1 18 712 1 660 188 1 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 1 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 RTOR Vol 1 0 1 ( I 0 I Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A 1 NB Left A Thru 1 Thru A Right A I Right Peds X 1 Peds X WB Left 1 SB Left Thru 1 Thru A Right I Right Peds X I Peds X NB Right I EB Right SB Right A I WB Right Green 15.4 19.0 Yellow 3.5 3.5 All Red 3.8 4.8 Cycle Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Length: 50.0 secs Approach Delay LOS Eastbound L 545 1770 0.55 0.31 15.6 B 15.4 B R 488 1583 0.06 0.31 12.2 B Westbound Northbound LT 1112 2925 0.70 0.38 15.0 B 15.0 B Southbound T 708 1863 1.00 0.38 50.0 D 42.1 D R 488 1583 0.41 0.31 14.3 B Intersection Delay = 27.3 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = C S tef— 3/3/2009 -� 9 Receipt #: 1200900000000001394 11:27:OOAM Date: 03 /03/2009 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid FLD2009 -03013 04 Flexible Commercial 001000000341262000 1,205.00 FLD2009 -03013 Fire - Prelim Site Plan 001000000342501000 200.00 Line Item Total: $1,405.00 Payments: Method Payer Bank No Account No Confirm No How Received Amount P -24 Check DCIP LLC R D 1 In Person 1,205.00 Check DCIP LLC R_D 2 In Person 200.00 Payment Total: $1,405.00 THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. cRcccipt.ri, [)a -c I of I w. FLD2009 -03013 101 CORONADO DR HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ATLAS # 267A ZONING: T LAND USE: RFH RECEIVED: 03/03/2009 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: MAPS: PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: Ono CLWCoverSheet BUILDING FINISHES (PERCENTAGES) GROSS SURFACE � = 5 + R�ASC —1 G1A55/ElF ERl51PER FAL ELEAEN15 10.500 SF +- cWew...o am snug \uui.. r. uxb sWroau*.n•V.0<crs \xoo. \mm rwx vl.WANRiON .nWSm u s.�. V \jI-I-I =I-I-Ir/ Q uU M-�m -i SCALE 1/e' -1' -T DISCIPLINE SHEET A7.3 of u PROJECT SHEET 1 of o 11, 1I ■ j ! : o ■ ■ ..- •�. j ■■ ! ■ ■ j ■ ■ o j ■ �� ■ I ■.� ■e j �■ ..�1 IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII `BIIIIIIII IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII�iII`�I (IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIS�II )IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII`SIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIS :'.IIIIIIIIIII■ ' � � nl ■III!'�lnl�I�: � �. 1111 CC >����Inl � � lnl ■Illl�lrnllnl�llllll � � � n .tlIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111 IIIlllli : %IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - IIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIII `IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII % IUi!'! 911111IIIIIIIIIIIII ,.:IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIG Iillllllllllll� elf IITI >I�������I���. I IInIII� "� I •I1111I I��I I� ! ��l � j lllllllln' JIIIIIII'llll„Illnll'I "U I : lrl i�S.'I . I I��II�I�I���IIIL.I: �IIII�In Jil IInI�IiII�Irinll111n111I1711l�1I1111I1111l1 YIII� j�j�� j�� ■ Y� ■'� (111111n1111 ��II''�llllllll �III� IInI����III�III IMF. I����i�I��I�j 1nI�IIII�InIInI, �III1�InII�InI, �IIIIIIIII�nI I ,11111111111116...,111111 � � III II III III I��IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII._,IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII...I ����� III I „I I"I II „��IIIIIII�I�Ilnlj I„I 1 — il�ll�j IIIIIIIIII�IIIII',J I1111111711 I II11I ICI II'I�IrIIIIII'' I' I I (cal �I'�II lial 1111 1I I11I I� 1 I�I�I�I� m - -- 1 110■ OC1i�i ®.1 1 !! I ■❑DO■ I I ■■�■i� 11 ■��] ■I�1 1! ii ©II I■� ■I i11 l 110■ OC1i1 ®. I��r ���� i 11 I ■0001 1011 1 111 ■� ■1�1 a ���ii 1� � �I I ■� ■I t =O 1 110■ �Ciil ®. sl I �I�i 1 !! I00�I 101 I 1 i i:1i ■i Ali 1 0® 01 ph III 1IC�10ns I 00lM1�11��� EAST ELEVATK)N i h. c 0� mow 2 ®U U8rc-0 C R . J�QV M E �_agw J a w Q uU M-�m -i SCALE 1/e' -1' -T DISCIPLINE SHEET A7.3 of u PROJECT SHEET 1 of o Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:42 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: Delk, Michael; Tefft, Robert Subject: A04- 01420: FW: Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf Attachments: Re: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn; Hampton Inn.pdf Leslie - The approval of Case No. FLD2009 -03013 (related to DVA2009- 00001) for the Holiday Inn Express (now to be a Hampton Inn), approved by the CDB on May 19, 2009, for property located at 101 Coronado Drive, included the following Condition #5: 5. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, ownership of the deck /dock on the north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department. The attached letter may not be properly worded, but the intent is to seek a determination of compliance with this condition of approval. I am attaching an email train that includes Joe Burdette and Bill Morris for your assistance. If I read the attached letter and the email train, the owner is not contesting ownership of the submerged land (which Bill Morris feels is city- owned) but is attempting to determine if a submerged land lease will be required. Bill Morris is apparently not looking for a lease of the submerged land (which then may be also required of all property owners on the north side of Devon Drive, which we apparently do not have today). I think they are looking for a response that says the city owns the submerged land but we are not seeking a lease of the submerged land at this time (we could still reserve the right to come back in the future and ask this property owner and all others similarly affected on the north side of Devon Drive for submerged land leases when the city so decides such leases should now be required). This would satisfy in my opinion Condition #5 leading up to the issuance of a building permit for the hotel. Wayne ------ Original Message---- - From: Delk, Michael Sent: Wednesday, January 19, To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: A04- 01420: FW: FYI 2011 1:31 PM Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:05 PM To: Tefft, Robert Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: A04- 01420: FW: Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf Please see attached correspondence received by me. I am not aware of any pending application for amendment of the D.O. or DVA. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ayo, Ellen Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:59 AM 1 To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Subject: Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf Leslie, As requested. Ellen The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Hampton Inn.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e -mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 2 'I Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:26 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Fwd: DCIP, LLC Letter as to Hampton Inn Project Attachments: Hampton lnnProject.pdf; ATT00001.htm Wayne For your records... this was mailed today via hard copy (snail mail) to Leslie Dougall -Side Joe I/ Qw& �B�yLLP r Leslie Dougall- Sides, Esq. City Attorney's Office City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758 411 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 -4497 Tel 414.277.5000 Fax 414.271.3552 www.quades.com Attorneys at Lazo ins Phoenix and 1licson, Arizona Naples, Florida Chicago, 116nois Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin Writer's Direct Dial: 414.277.5667 Writer's Fax: 414.978.8667 E -Mail: mary.fertl @quarles.com January 7, 2011 RE: Hampton Inn Project 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida Dear Ms. Dougall- Sides: This law firm represents DCIP, LLC ( "Decade "), the owner of the above property. We understand that a question was raised as to whether Decade claimed or would claim ownership of the submerged lands. We understand the property currently owned by Decade constituting the former PortVue Motel property was acquired, together with other adjacent water fronting property, by Decade's predecessor in title by a conveyance from the City of Clearwater in 1951. The PortVue Motel was built upon said land in the early 1950s and has been located thereon ever since. When Decade acquired the subject property in 2005, it acquired the same improvements which have been located upon such property since the 1950s, more than 50 years ago. Attached is a copy of the 1951 historical deed whereby the City of Clearwater conveyed the subject property (together with adjacent waterfront property) to Decade's predecessor in interest to title to the property. Decade is not claiming ownership of fee title to the submerged lands, but does have riparian rights with respect to the waterfront areas appurtenant to the property to maintain its improvements. The 1951 Deed from the City of Clearwater, a copy of which is attached to this letter, only restricted structures which crossed a line bearing N45° East, from the Southwest corner of the intersection of the Westerly boundary of Water Lot 1 and the Eastwardly projection of the North boundary of Gulf View Boulevard, extending 40 feet therefrom. Attached is a copy of a Survey showing such structure setback line. All the existing improvements on the Decade property do not. cross such line. We assume that the same is also applicable to the adjacent Seacaptain's Hotel and other homes. QB \8585924.1 Leslie Dougall- Sides, Esq. January 7, 2011 Page 2 Decade does not intend to claim title to the submerged lands but merely to maintain as a part of its riparian rights the right to maintain structures which do not cross the stated line. We hope this provides you with the necessary documentation to eliminate Condition No. 5 of the Development Order/Development Agreement. Very truly yours, QUARLES & BRADY LLP �r Mary N e Fertl MNF:nia QB \8585924.1 U - I a�T STATE Ole FLORIDA CQMITY 01� FY[JEL3r19 i MUa IbANis[MM, wade the day of May, 1951, hutwoon tho CITY OF 0LP.1.R'.;ATPIt, PZMUDA, a municipal oor,poratiou, :,arty of the first port, and OVM3, ff. N. BAMiT, D. a. ggmzy, n., t ' J. -RANK HAN000K, JR., and T. B. 0-,4=,L all of the County of Pinellas and State of rlorida� portion or tho second Dart: :'iITNESsm.- that the party or the first part, for and in copsideration of the gum of Tea (ev10.00) Dollars and other good and valuable consideration to it in hand paid by said parties of the noaoad part, at or before the anaeoling and delivery of Uses presents, the reooipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, boa'grantsd, bargained, sold convoyed cod confirmed unto the said parties or the neooud port, and to 'their heirs end assigns forevar, all the following ?1000, parcel, lot or trnot of land, eituato, lying and being in the County of ^iri0lla3 and State of ?lorida, and described as follows; Basin. at the Southwest (SW) 'oorner of 'later Lot one (1) of City park Subdivision, as recorded In plat boot 23, at page 37, and run thence North 4 degrees 85 uilnutes 11 seconds 'lost along the westerly line or -rater Lot one (1) 71.53 feet to the existing high water mark in Clear- water Narbor; thence, in an FAatorly.and Southerly direatioa along said high water mark fo an intersection frith the Scat and :feet oentex 11S)e Of Scatioh 8, Township 20 South, 11ans0 15 Snot; thence Treat along said Neat aad Vast center line 200 feet nears or lees to the point of beginning, togetbor with all riparian rights tharouato appertaining. It is turthar covenanted and agreed that neither party to this deed, shall Veot.any atruoture Or make any fill, based an their respa'ativaly owned riparian areas whioh.will Oross a line boaring North 450 Met, ftM the SOUthweR darner of the intersection or the :lestarly boundary of Water zot 1 and the Eastw$rdly projection of the. Worth boundary of Of flew Boulevard, extending forty (40) fast therefrom. TOGMER WITH all and singular, the tenements, hereditament. end appurtgnanoea thereunto belonging or appertaining; and ovary right, title or interest, legal or equitable, of the said party of the first part of, in and to.the same. TO HAVE Alm TO HOLD the a=a unto the said parties -OW Fi%(00 I of the second part, theib hears and assigns, to their own yroyer use, benefit and behoof forever. n; WIt1ji9s vdmm, tha oeid party or the tirct.Pant has oausod the so Presents to be executed in its name by its City Uaaager and City auditor and Clark, oountcrcignod by its Unyor- Oomtti9aiionor, and its corporate seal to be hereunto nttaohod, the dj4P .tier first abbVe written. 1; R' Oy• 0 CITY or CLgw.:Ana, F mtnA Signed, cooled mud delivered in OF presence of: Approved as to form and aprreptnosa! rLa�. a limAtE a city Attorney 3?:25 -, CF n0MDA 001P .My OF P.I=XM ? I H3tL= CZR%TrX, that on this dsyy of ma A.D. 1952., betora me ppersonally dppearbd MW N, H. G. ,. and rTMRMT Impim respeoti'vely aity.manager, city Auditor ebd Clerk and 7Jnyox -0o�isoner or tho City of Clearwater, a muaioipal oorpora- tiou exist? der the laws of the State of V%orida, •to'me known to be tAe individuals and offioers described in and ado exbouted the foregoing conveyanco to W. D. 0WM, H. - BAWN, D. G. )tRMGY, JR., J. BRAW H1�IMOK, JR., and To B. OWE, and severally a0knoWledged the execution thereof to be their free sot and deed as snvb officers there- unto duly authorized; and that the official seal of aa14.man1o1pa1 corporation is duly affixed thereto, and the said conveyance is the act and deed of said corporation. Wn%M my signature and ofrivial coal at Clearwater ill the County of Pinellas and State of noride, the day and YOU last times. nritteu. Notary ia', tam! 71OV127L e ^ Large. 17] Y. f ` sion ezpireas � �$4ra�ta'd IL f FW. r; _ ss! .tie reeq�$ nr f. Plaeller tiii.q, 7laida.'11ry • .. .. . _r: it -i.�;� -$ - •'•�Kv.�"••io'aeF't�?2:�is !ie'itik acted sLon . a1.lrtalt Cta't. , V411W C111% FOR MILLS and ASSOCIATES. INC. I cwaw�rn.c LRGINEERS . �..�o wRVCrows DECADE PROPERTIES T wmea eoatrro -• sra m numt naxow �xoa -xx imr+ohc (n�) eta -eeei a a r N� r� rN�r•U•�is� • rV•�• P .JO.1 r+or�s.•�ti•r Y. Itl �' .w r•����.•rr uex a ®sar - r.rr h.�i � .rrw • r Pr 1� l ABM h �A .sT q arl�h•r h M �la'L' /Yl rai hK P� .w'w..r.6 r/ .••M �r l_� artl IM'fP Pt S!N M h hr IVM10bY�� Y hf lb �M P�i•h•rl rw• M Ri.r h11 .I OIYHIw II �Y � 11 iT Ji{ hY ar•+ y l�.•11r Owrl /hek hMil} /� JtiA awP �! M U wPY Q•�� M�L`•hA Mw �l� yh rl lall hl .` .r RwIO' l(G.Pa' fA' ' �t NO yl h N• FPM) w• InM rw F..ww � [el as h•a a h.w MYD' P.t� M h M wM M1/•M�, NOTES, •.•h1 M era • wr war w ea ew. NIR �rws.•w M.�i a� ~••.�w�..r.�i .ti�� -w 4�rwe w a�.�• ara w.~i er •w.• w waa w ...•. w �n�r iw rte. �•a . �.w�e •+.e+r.v.vn.. lltll[f01f R'JrV.V -IL P(IOLCf �r anR er: �_ ..Whams la .w0 l05 CQPAVA00 Uv/t£ 1 art CCEARWA7M aOWA oatl n: �'1— wal9lIlm! a'v Rao .vwrr. ra-w -w ,roe Ro. "...�."�",�.'r' �•�•"� "w. �."h"'...... ...n tl naz r a•mn awrrr u-ae 08- D01.051 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:01 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Subject: City of Clearwater Letter Joe — 1. No attachment. 2. It is Leslie Dougall- Sides. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 20113:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Fwd: City of Clearwater Letter Wayne Attached is the letter that is being send to Leslie Dougal -Side to satisfy condition #5 of the Holiday Inn (now Hampton Inn) approval .... It is being mailed to her from Wisconsin tomorrow If you have any comments let me know... but I think this does it. Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:02 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Fwd: FW: City of Clearwater Letter Attachments: CityofClearwaterLetter.pdf Try this that will be sent to Leslie Joe &411 411 East Wisconsin Avenue Attorneys at on, A in: (iC�`1'` /'n" LLP Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 -4497 Phoenix and 1Lcson, Arizona Tel 414.277.5000 Naples, Florida Fax 414.271.3552 Chicago, Illinois www.quarles.com Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin Writer's Direct Dial: 414.277.5667 Writer's Fax: 414.978.8667 E -Mail: mary.fertl @)quarles.com November 1, 2010 Leslie Dougall- Sides, Esq. City Attorney's Office City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758 RE: Hampton Inn Project 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida Dear Ms. Dougall- Sides: This law firm represents DCIP, LLC ( "Decade "), the owner of the above property. We understand that a question was raised as to whether Decade claimed or would claim ownership of the submerged lands. We understand the property currently owned by Decade constituting the former PortVue Motel property was acquired, together with other adjacent water fronting property, by Decade's predecessor in title by a conveyance from the City of Clearwater in 1951. The PortVue Motel was built upon said land in the early 1950s and has been located thereon ever since. When Decade acquired the subject property in 2005, it acquired the same improvements which have been located upon such property since the 1950s, more than 50 years ago. Attached. is a copy of the 1951 historical deed whereby the City of Clearwater conveyed the subject property (together with adjacent waterfront property) to Decade's predecessor in interest to title to the property. Decade is not claiming ownership of fee title to the submerged lands, but does have riparian rights with respect to the waterfront areas appurtenant to the property to maintain its improvements. The 1951 Deed from the City of Clearwater, a copy of which is attached to this letter, only restricted structures which crossed a line bearing N45° East, from the Southwest corner of the intersection of the Westerly boundary of Water Lot 1 and the Eastwardly projection of the North boundary of Gulf View Boulevard, extending 40 feet therefrom. Attached is a copy of a Survey showing such structure setback line. All the existing improvements on the Decade property do not cross such line. We assume that the same is also applicable to the adjacent Seacaptain's Hotel and other homes. QB \8585924.1 Leslie Dougall- Sides, Esq. November 1, 2010 Page 2 Decade does not intend to claim title to the submerged lands but merely to maintain as a part of its riparian rights the right to maintain structures which do not cross the stated line. We hope this provides you with the necessary documentation to eliminate Condition No. 5 of the Development Order /Development Agreement. Very truly yours, QUARLES & BRADY LLP Vary e Fertl MNF:nia QB \8585924.1 amer vLt�tt aeon • STATE O$ noRlDA ) Man OF PYNELi+�19 j) i THIS IIaDhivTURB, made the day of Imy, A. D. 1952, 110tWoon the CITY OF OLF.!.MATM, FLORA, s munioipal corporotloat party of the first part, and :!, D. 07=3, H. H. mmarI, D. o. mazy, n. J. ?RANK HANOOOK, Jti., and T. B. 0-,=S,La11 of the county of Fine7las and state of rlorida� portion or the second part; • 7ITm3rm -- that the party or tho first part, for and in consideration or the am or Tam ($10.00) Donors and other good and valuable consideration to it in hand paid by said parties of the nocood part, at or before the ameadling and delivery of these presents, the :•ecoipt rthersot 1s heraby dakncraledged, has •grautad, bargained, • sold oonvoywd and oohfirmed unto the void parties or the second part, and to their heirs and assigns forever, all the following piece, parcel, lot or tract or land, aituato, lying and being in the County of :'Hellos and state or ?Lerida, and desaribed as follows= Basin at the Southwest (3w)•corner or ,-!star Lot one (1) or city Park subdivision, as recorded in plat boob 23, at gaga 37, e.md run.thenoe North 4 degrees 85 ud=tes 11 seconds :lest along the westerly line or •rater Lot ono (1) 71.53 feat to the existing high water mark iu Clear- water $arbor; thsmoe,in an Bastarly.ond 84utherly direation along sold high water mark fa an intersection pith the seat and West oentor line of 9e4tioh at Township E4 South, Rance 15 Mast; tbende Ylest along said Nast a td •:last center line 300 toot tacre or less to the point of begituiimt3, together with all riparian rights therouato apperto ring. it is further covenanted and agreed that neither party to thin tread, shell arFeot any etruetura or meta any fill, based on their respectively owned riparian areas which .will cross a line boariug North 4810 vast, from the SouthwuR dorner, of the intersection of the Westerly boundary of water Xot 1 and the 3astwgrdly projeetiom Of the Borth boundary of Mf View Boulevard, extending tarty (40) feet therefrom■ TOG=SR VCM all and singular' the tonencents, hereditements and appnrtenanoeo therounto belonging or appertaining, and avery right, title or iatarest, legal or equitable, of the said party of the that part of, is and to the same. TO HAP3 AZ>D To Rojo the value unto the said parties hL , of tho second part, theft heirs and assigns, to tbalr own lroyer uoo, banofit and behoof forever. IN YlS*t7 MS h OF, the said party or the first, part has oaunod the no _regents to be executed In its nomo by its City tuancCer and City Auditor and Clark, countersigned by Ito lsayor- 0=19sionor, and its oorporate seal to be hereunto attached, the :U4, first above mitten. N CITY OF Claw.';ATIR, rzmtlDA SISnod, sealed and delivered in presence oft Approved as to form and corroctuosa! D: flare, City Attorney s?::? a of i+LOFi7l�A ) 1 C OV?•II'Y CF PI�T,AS ? I HERM CIZRO d3C, that on this � dayy or dtay, A.D. 1951, before me persona3lyy+ appeared FRMIS , W 0. GOB and MZMMT HIM respaotivalY Oity;lianager, City Auditor Arad fterk ma 7.BV= -Ooam4 *1 nor of the CCity of Olearwaters a municipal corpora- tion exiattug under the Jaws Of the state of Florida, -to 'me known to bo the individuals ana offioers described in and who ezaauted the foregoing oonveyenoo to W. D. Cam, S. A. BOW, Be t}. BRMOY, JR., T. FRAM ELM; 1R., end T. A, oWza, and severally acknowledged the execution thereof tb be their free act and deed as Such officers there- unto duly authorized= aafl that the official goal of gai4:naAIDipal corporation is duly affixed tWWato, and the said conveyance is the not =d dead of said corporation. VITNM ray sleneture and official seal at Clearv►OM in tho County of Pinellas and state of Fdoride, the day and year last t To written, otary r4bila, State of rib **; a�.�t• K i.Tilge♦ �� • WM hb1c, afar N •w1Y(r,� f ~scion expirent siMr+y P C& if ' filed for mW4 sd Um raw* ry rimellu OWEV. W 110110a mVW AW" LA W�.. ow chwat cu", iC OMW CIVIL a _ r��r.u,rr gear .... ........r.. ,�.oµ r•�e..r r.r ... rr)r «.r w.rr.e+rwrrr wru w'"rw« -w iibs,Mw..Mr+.t •.t —sMSlA'(.e,mkIre r.r Ias'tre xe Ir.r .r w.r, a.i.�,�(.e aw rimer w�.rw «�i »u+•I ,0 M b ti MI «Iywrl. ). ln,r b•�Y� Y _ . F In. Y r•r .ar w LLl e,r wt,q a ..r. ».mil M u1., •,0.r �_ir_2r •• a M O�r� �iww rriwe� I•+q a M•F ,rr •rr MILLS and ASSOCIATES, INC, IOI AW 105 ��� OR 1 a2 coNSU�nwc CNGN[[RS ! uuo surtKVOas omi or: _ w)c_ u`'r' GY repoo p FLAPlDA DECADE PROPERTIES ,.m, _ a ^-- r,� -:n. '.,r- m, >D'rL' NO ha(»wrc (e,])e)e -seen �., .b•.b•.,rr.rw adR.w,uPr v -e.-ar 0"1.051 4 -1- } Wells, Wayne From: wfmillsii @mindspring.com Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 2:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: 101 Coronado Drive, Hampton Inn Wayne, I read through your comments. At the present time I will put my request on hold. I will try to make the space that I have work, its tight. Thank for your review. Thanks, Bill - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: —� To: wfmillsii(cDmindspring.com Cc: m Pal mer(cDsynergycivileng.com; michael .delk(a)MyClearwater.com; Robert. Tefftta7.MyCIearwater.com; iburdette505(a�tampaba .rte Sent: 11/3/2010 2:15:24 PM Subject: 101 Coronado Drive, Hampton Inn Bill /Michael — I have reviewed both the changes to the building submitted by Bill Mills and the site changes submitted by Mike Palmer under a separate email, have reviewed these proposed changes with Michael Delk and have the following comments: 1. These changes must be submitted as an official Minor Revision request. A cover letter outlining the changes and the reasons for the changes must be submitted, as well as accompanying drawings (one set of the affected civil and architectural sheets, including elevations) reflecting these changes. There is a $400 application fee for the Minor Revision. 2. Regarding the additional bump -out at the northeast corner of the building, there are some concerns. This project had considerable discussion at the CDB meeting and by City Council when discussing the Development Agreement, especially the setbacks to the building. The primary design purpose of the . bump -outs on the east side of the building were to comply with the maximum 100 -foot building length before there was a deviation in the building plane of at least five feet in depth. It appears that the bump -outs are now becoming more use driven. It is due to the high scrutiny of this project that staff is not so inclined to approve the additional bump -out as proposed, but desires to look at alternatives. It has been stated that the potential use of the first floor of this bump -out would be for pool equipment. Pool equipment is exempt from needing to meet required setbacks, but must be screened from view from roadways and adjacent properties. Since you are (or may not be) aware that the masonry wall along the east property line (which is part of the site improvements for the property adjacently to the east) slightly encroaches onto the subject property on the northern portion of the subject property. I am aware that the adjacent property owner will be requesting an easement from this property owner to allow the wall to remain in its present location. Perhaps by locating the pool equipment within the setback area at this northeast corner of the building would allow the wall to provide a visual screen to the pool equipment. By working with the adjacent property owner, pot entially there is a win -win situation to both property owners. You have also indicated that ,,e potential use of the second floor of this u.,-np -out would be for the main electrical switch gear. I would also assume that there may be additional need for telephone and cable TV equipment rooms. The CDB- approved design of the two bump -outs on the east side of the building have 45- degree walls connecting to the easternmost wall of the bump -outs. A design concern with the proposal to lengthen the northern bump -out is the loss of architectural consistency of the semicircular column with the flat concrete column reveal for the first four floors. in deference to the proposed lengthened bump -out, staff may be more inclined to modify the two bump -outs to have perpendicular walls that connect to the easternmost bump -out wall, with the perpendicular walls close to the semicircular columns. This change in the bump -out configuration would lengthen the bump -outs and make the interior area more functional in a rectangular room, but being between, and retaining, the semicircular column for the first four floors for the northern bump -out. There is another concern with the proposed setback for this additional floor area. The original project approved by the CDB included a side (east) setback of 2.5 feet to this bump -out at the northeast corner. The concern is that the building has been designed at a slight angle to this east property line, narrowing from the south at 6.71 feet to the semicircular column to the north at 6.12 feet to the semicircular column. Any proposed lengthened and /or reconfigured bump -out will need to meet the CDB - approved setback of 2.5 -feet. Any proposal less than that approved by the CDB will require new CDB approval through a Level Two application (not as a Minor Revision). The civil and architectural plans would need to show this addition would meet this 2.5 -foot setback to be considered as a Minor Revision. 3. Site Data for this project will need to reflect the loss of one parking space (the proposed total number of parking spaces would be reduced to 110) to accommodate the additional handicap parking space to meet the Code minimum number of five handicap spaces. 4. Based on the proposed location of the transformer in the northwest corner of the northern parcel, bollards appear unnecessary, since it is in a landscaped area. It is noted that the proposed transformer should be coordinated with site landscaping and the proposed location of the freestanding hotel signage (located in the same area). Wayne From: wfmillsii @mindspring.com [mailto:wfmillsii @mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:06 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: HAMPTON INN Wayne, Attached are two PDF's. One is the first floor of my building and the second is an enlarged area plan of the north east comer of the building. I would like to add this area to the building on the 1 st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors. The 1 st floor space could be used for swimming pool equipment. The second floor I want to use for my main electrical switch gear. This would work well with the power transformer located on the northwest corner of the property. This would add only 110 square feet of building area on the site. Mike Palmer says that we would be well within the site requirements. Your opinion please. Please call me to discuss. Bill wfmillsii(i�,mindspring.com William F. Mills II - Architect 3300 Henderson BL., Ste 107 Tampa, Florida 33609 813- 870 -2006 •ai¢r1s rnerer, iexors �m�x: tix xsrmr�s mratl��x wnwc rrr uor ® rwrrr nr-wm nm A� x. 6Y ItlIY� v x W Nvn ��nO��twoln, mry �4nlO aK'O lyrl/A� •w w W-AZW -T-W g6 • • i� • • • ~0 Go C Q �JJ LL�LL (IN Dam 0 - r ZALOSET DUMPSTER M _ .. irdst tlm re sw 4 FLAT RAMP UP — ins a x a o: Y .min M ru � �erx tl .a roar 000 0 vrx arr �srt wr x rnwN urr rtla ■ � rrr s te. orr •o r�i rrar •m wu rYrt•t r.,r rrr aw porn Y CD s Q s e = y � � � orrice rrr o .mr.. AWW� ,er W-AZW -T-W g6 • • i� • • • ~0 Go C Q �JJ LL�LL (IN Dam 0 i w c� N N I U � U Q J iL } 0 Wells, Wayne From: Michael J. Palmer [mpalmer @synergycivileng.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 3:09 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: wfmillsii @mindspring.com Subject: RE: Hampton Inn Clearwater Baech (FLD2009- 03013) Attachments: C -9 LANDSCAPE PLAN.PDF; C -9 LANDSCAPE PLAN -2.pdf Wayne, I have revised the plan per your comments. Also, no fence is proposed around the transformer pad, just bollards. Thanks, Mike Michael J. Palmer, P.E. President SYNERGY Civil Engineering, Inc. 3000 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Suite 201 Clearwater, FL 33759 Office: (727) 796 -1926 Mobile: (727) 470 -1344 Email: mpalmer(@svnerevcivilenR.com Website: www.synergvcivileng.com From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:29 AM To: mpalmer @synergycivileng.com Subject: Hampton Inn Clearwater Baech (FLD2009- 03013) Michael — A number of questions or comments: 1. Why is a handicap space being added to the southern parking lot? Is this being required by Traffic Engineering? 2. By adding the one handicap parking space to the southern parking lot, is parking being reduced from that previously approved? 3. What is the proposed setbacks to pavement? 4. If approved, there will need to be a handicap accessible path to the public sidewalk (not presently shown). 5. Why is the transformer being moved onto the subject property? 6. How will the relocated transformer affect the retention pond design? 7. Is a fence being proposed around the transformer? If so, why? 8. Will the transformer be within an easement? Wayne a From: Michael J. Palmer [mailto:mpalmer @synergycivileng.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:20 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Hampton Inn Clearwater Baech (FLD2009- 03013) Wayne, I have attached a pdf copy of Hampton Inn site plan showing one addition handicapped parking space and a new transformer pad location. Please review and let me know if the proposed locations are acceptable. Thanks, Mike Michael J. Palmer, P.E. President SYNERGY Civil Engineering, Inc. 3000 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Suite 201 Clearwater, FL 33759 Office: (727) 796 -1926 Mobile: (727) 470 -1344 Email: mpalmer @synergycivileng.com Website: www.synergvcivileng.com �0 Q� �Q µ£ST BOUNDARY WATER LOT 1 — Wr PARK SUBDIWSION (PER PLA w o o d d o c k 15' PAlk (PER CITY PARK eg SUBDINS/PLAT) 31 Lp. 1a Ye �yT� 1' cwc curb & gulf H EAST BOUNDARY CORCWADO DRIW CYTY PARK SUBOINS/AV (PER PLAT) 0 ioP 10• dip. — di J= R tAi e II, 0 c W� o� v I 0 0 a� I yL�y} ."s �sJ o II \ �WV.'s 0 10" dip. 0 8 .. •. • ; �'iJfi��r�� .• r • •' /1 /A� /t•� /� %C� /t.• / + /i►: /�•. �IW /L' /�/W '. .�W:1•.�:I. ::I.:W W,.I:IjlI:e.- �.�.�i:�i:�_ 4 I ��$ 1 ` C==== C===== r ►� ci r R t ,_ „ , , YA /���� � ���� � �y������r11 ��� � � � � � � r ����'I�r��i���I�r���r � ��Iw� C►'w� j ��1 i ����� i ►t � iA' • J OR ' •; .. . , �. V Wells, Wayne From: Michael J. Palmer [m palm er @synergycivileng.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:20 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Hampton Inn Clearwater Baech (FLD2009- 03013) Attachments: CIVIL - SITE- PLAN.pdf Wayne, I have attached a pdf copy of Hampton Inn site plan showing one addition handicapped parking space and a new transformer pad location. Please review and let me know if the proposed locations are acceptable. Thanks, Mike Michael J. Palmer, P.E. President SYNERGY Civil Engineering, Inc. 3000 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Suite 201 Clearwater, FL 33759 Office: (727) 796 -1926 Mobile: (727) 470 -1344 Email: mpalmer @synergycivileng.com Website: www.sVnergvcivileng.com ro 4 v y n o ,i.9! S n C/0 top o- o q 6 asphalt Qmer Fe//s + 3•A 6 4.2 •e or Cme 6 Ines orners (3) W.M. s C/O y aah 3q6 66, oho 3q 3.43 1" exoti z" N ' U. P. RQ1B "W wa /k 3.99 a� h f00 om � � � I .0 I x319 II \ O 2' cone. curb & gutter planter Q� NM �W y O II O lb ' NO NUK rO Q I "III .Ia2' • �ja O .0 O r� 2827 p. 3.58 b 3,51 O V 15° r.c.P• ro 90 a ,E c Wv. 's b J i.v. c.b. & " U-', Q1 �40 fil 4P ;control ost U �• P " P. m. C./p. DAM. 1 P. m. o p. m. 12" o/m n "P � m . 9 p 01 11' P o/ m e. b. 10" plm 10" po /m UP. s10 po /mfe /e. o.h.u./ la 9. T p510000; SO; 730'29 (M '� 6' chain /ink /ence� ............. ... 1 Id q I 6 manhole • � II /Wv.'s 100' OF THE WEST 110' LOT 1 BLOCK B .ons y P +,�Ctl,onjrolyers ject, Loco d =00000 ON AREA U O 3 b 5 1 0 °a b 14' 4.5 G'0 loP asphalt Tj 4.2 6 F.P.K. Disc As 3913 parking area 4• 1 4SB 4 �Z w a / k 45j 150; 5J2;io'W(PJ c./.p. c on c e 1 e wa /k 3.99 a� h as °ob. n.5g� k20q .0 I x319 11 " palm in 2' cone. curb & gutter planter .!OOo�i NM ' NO NUK "III ►I�s� �1 q I 6 manhole • � II /Wv.'s 100' OF THE WEST 110' LOT 1 BLOCK B .ons y P +,�Ctl,onjrolyers ject, Loco d =00000 ON AREA U O 3 b 5 1 0 °a b 14' 4.5 A?5 4 33 9 %C—Z — �( 43 — `450 — — `451 `466 10 � a Centerline of Pavement C O R O N A D O DRIVE- S onitory Sewer Manhole top el = 4.59 n. in v. el. = 1.2 s. in v e% = 1.21 1 r - P in v P/. = 1..34 G'0 loP asphalt Tj 4.2 6 F.P.K. Disc As 3913 parking area 4• 1 4SB 4 �Z w a / k 45j 150; 5J2;io'W(PJ c./.p. c on c e 1 e wa /k 3.99 a� h as °ob. n.5g� k20q .0 x319 11 " palm in 2' cone. curb & gutter planter A?5 4 33 9 %C—Z — �( 43 — `450 — — `451 `466 10 � a Centerline of Pavement C O R O N A D O DRIVE- S onitory Sewer Manhole top el = 4.59 n. in v. el. = 1.2 s. in v e% = 1.21 1 r - P in v P/. = 1..34 Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 3:38 PM To: Morris, William D.; Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: Re: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn One Correction It is my understanding that when all. of the docks on (hat finger were constructed no lease was required. They were just told that they were not allowed to build their docks beyond a certain point out into the water. 1. believe the owners agree that the city owns the submerged lands, but the owner does not want to negotiate a lease for it unless everyone on the fingers is required to do so. It is the owner's intention to do maintenance wort: on the existing pool deck and dock just as the owner of the Sea Captain. did a while back: and I don't believe he was required to get a lease? 1 thnk lie simply got an, easement from the city to do the work and., if need be; that is what we would be requesting. Who does the letter stating all. of this need to go to? Joe In a message dated 9/21/2010 2:35:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, William.Morris cc,myClearwater.com writes: Wayne; I just spoke to Joe Burdettee after lunch and based on this email he is going to send me a request on what the party he is representing would like to do and ask that I address that request to satisfy city requirements. The ownership of the bottomland has not been challenged and based on the non survey sealed graphic of Water Lot 1 boundaries it is the cities bottomland. I am not sure if any surveys exist to validate the actual boundaries. Joe Burdette has informed me that they would if required negotiate a submerged land lease at which point we would require a signed sealed survey of the bottomland. If they are not planning any development on the water or over water lot one I would not ask for a lease for upland development. I would not ask at this time for a submerged land lease. If at some point in the future they would chose to do seawall repairs or pool deck repair it appears their pool deck support pilings and their boat slip pilings encroach upon water lot one and at that time before we signed off on a permit we would need to "define the line" that is the water lot one boundary along their upland property, probably best done by a professional survey if one does not currently exist. v/r Bill M From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 4:09 PM .- 4* To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Subject: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Joe — The condition in the Staff Report states: That, prior to the issuance of any permit, ownership of the deck /dock on the north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department. You should contact Bill Morris, Harbormaster, at William.morris @mvclearwater.com or at 462- 695422 to see who owns the submerged land (we believe it is City- owned) and see if there is a current lease and /or if this owner needs to obtain a lease for the submerged land. If there is a current lease, provide a copy. If there is no current lease, either obtain one and submit a copy of this new lease or obtain something in writing from Bill Morris that a lease is not required at this time. No permit will be issued until something in writing is submitted. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne Regarding the dock at the Hampton Inn (formerly Holiday Inn Express). When this was brought up last year we acknowledged that the land belongs to the city and that we have no lease (nor does anyone else on both sides of that finger). When the docks along that finger ire originally constructed, there is was a me drawn that showed where no dock could extend beyond and that was it and this dock does not extend beyond it.No lease was asked for or required that we know of which would seem to be the case for every dock along that finger (whether or not they extend to far out I wouldn't know, but ours does not). We are planning no new construction for the dock, but perhaps some maintenance. Let me know what it is you would like for us to do. Joe Joe Joe Wells, Wayne From: Delk, Michael Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 3:03 PM To: Morris, William D.; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne - I think the burden on establishing rights is on the project and their representatives. Bill can provide reasonable effort to resolve it when he gets an opportunity. They may have to do research on their own. From: Morris, William D. Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:50 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: FW: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne, sorry for dancing around the issue on this, but I do not have a signed sealed survey of water lot one's boundaries. I am in the middle of preparing for 3 back to back downtown events that will fill /impact the downtown boat slips and have a staff of one downtown. We are currently working with the movie shoot folks on moving boats I know you have had your own dealing with their preferred treatment. I will continue to dig around for files on water lot one. I know the city issued and easement to Don Eifert /the Sea Captain the parcel adjoining the "Hampton Inn Parcel" on its eastern boundary. The easement was to allow the Sea Captain to repair their seawall that was built on City bottom land. I think we may have done a quit claim deed to give the Sea Captain the property, It has been 7 or so years since that was done. When I called legal I was not warmly received and backed off. We may have taken some action with the sea Captain that may well have set a precedent on how we deal with the Hampton Inn as we move forward. As I am now working on Parasail regulations in addition to my other items Downtown I did not want to add this to my plate prematurely. If you need a specific statement from me let me know what that is, I do not want to hold up progress, just be advised that side of water lot one is cloudy at best with no signed sealed survey. v/r Bill M From: Morris, William D. Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:36 PM To: Wells, Wayne; 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Delk, Michael; Barrett, Earl Subject: RE: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne; I just spoke to Joe Burdettee after lunch and based on this email he is going to send me a request on what the party he is representing would like to do and ask that I address that request to satisfy city requirements. The ownership of the bottomland has not been challenged and based on the non survey sealed graphic of Water lot 1 boundaries it is the cities bottomland. I am not sure if any surveys exist to validate the actual boundaries. Joe Burdette has informed me that they would if required negotiate a submerged land lease at which point we would require a signed sealed survey of the bottomland. If they are not planning any development on the water or over water lot one I would not ask for a lease for upland development. I would not ask at this time for a submerged land lease. If at some point in the future they would chose to do seawall repairs or pool deck repair it appears their pool deck support pilings and their boat slip pilings encroach upon water lot one and at that time before we signed off on a permit we would need to "define the line" that is the water lot one boundary along their upland property, probably best done by a professional survey if one does not currently exist. v/r Bill M 4A' , From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 4:09 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Subject: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Joe — The condition in the Staff Report states: That, prior to the issuance of any permit, ownership of the deck /dock on the north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department. You should contact Bill Morris, Harbormaster, at William.morris @myclearwater.com or at 462 - 695422 to see who owns the submerged land (we believe it is City - owned) and see if there is a current lease and /or if this owner needs to obtain a lease for the submerged land. If there is a current lease, provide a copy. If there is no current lease, either obtain one and submit a copy of this new lease or obtain something in writing from Bill Morris that a lease is not required at this time. No permit will be issued until something in writing is submitted. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne Regarding the dock at the Hampton Inn (formerly Holiday Inn Express). 1, , When this was brought up last year we acknowledged that the land belongs to the city and that we have no lease (nor does anyone else on both sides of that finger). When the docks along that finger were originally constructed, there is was a line drawn that showed where no dock could extend beyond and that was it and this dock does not extend beyond it.No lease was asked for or required that we know of which would seem to be the case for every dock along that finger (whether or not they extend to far out I wouldn't know, but ours does not). We are planning no new construction for the dock, but perhaps some maintenance. Let me know what it is you would like for us to do. Joe Joe Joe Wells, Wayne From: Morris, William D. Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:50 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: FW: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne, sorry for dancing around the issue on this, but I do not have a signed sealed survey of water lot one's boundaries. I am in the middle of preparing for 3 back to back downtown events that will fill /impact the downtown boat slips and have a staff of one downtown. We are currently working with the movie shoot folks on moving boats I know you have had your own dealing with their preferred treatment. I will continue to dig around for files on water lot one. I know the city issued and easement to Don Eifert /the Sea Captain the parcel adjoining the "Hampton Inn Parcel" on its eastern boundary. The easement was to allow the Sea Captain to repair their seawall that was built on City bottom land. I think we may have done a quit claim deed to give the Sea Captain the property, It has been 7 or so years since that was done. When I called legal I was not warmly received and backed off. We may have taken some action with the sea Captain that may well have set a precedent on how we deal with the Hampton Inn as we move forward. As I am now working on Parasail regulations in addition to my other items Downtown I did not want to add this to my plate prematurely. If you need a specific statement from me let me know what that is, I do not want to hold up progress, just be advised that side of water lot one is cloudy at best with no signed sealed survey. v/r Bill M From: Morris, William D. Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:36 PM To: Wells, Wayne; 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Delk, Michael; Barrett, Earl Subject: RE: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne; I just spoke to Joe Burdettee after lunch and based on this email he is going to send me a request on what the party he is representing would like to do and ask that I address that request to satisfy city requirements. The ownership of the bottomland has not been challenged and based on the non survey sealed graphic of Water Lot 1 boundaries it is the cities bottomland. I am not sure if any surveys exist to validate the actual boundaries. Joe Burdette has informed me that they would if required negotiate a submerged land lease at which point we would require a signed sealed survey of the bottomland. If they are not planning any development on the water or over water lot one I would not ask for a lease for upland development. I would not ask at this time for a submerged land lease. If at some point in the future they would chose to do seawall repairs or pool deck repair it appears their pool deck support pilings and their boat slip pilings encroach upon water lot one and at that time before we signed off on a permit we would need to "define the line" that is the water lot one boundary along their upland property, probably best done by a professional survey if one does not currently exist. v/r Bill M From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 4:09 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Subject: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Joe — The condition in the Staff Report states: � . K That, prior to the issuance of cmy permit, ownership of the deck /dock on t,,,= north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department. You should contact Bill Morris, Harbormaster, at William.morris @myclearwater.com or at 462 - 6954x22 to see who owns the submerged land (we believe it is City - owned) and see if there is a current lease and /or if this owner needs to obtain a lease for the submerged land. If there is a current lease, provide a copy. If there is no current lease, either obtain one and submit a copy of this new lease or obtain something in writing from Bill Morris that a lease is not required at this time. No permit will be issued until something in writing is submitted. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne Regarding the dock at the Hampton Inn (formerly Holiday Inn Express). When this was brought up last year we acknowledged that the land belongs to the city and that we have no lease (nor does anyone else on both sides of that finger). When the docks along that finger were originally constructed, there is was a line drawn that showed where no dock could extend beyond and that was it and this dock does not extend beyond it.No lease was asked for or required that we know of which would seem to be the case for every dock along that finger (whether or not they extend to far out I wouldn't know, but ours does not). We are planning no new construction for the dock, but perhaps some maintenance. Let me know what it is you would like for us to do. Joe Joe Joe Wells, Wayne From: Barrett, Earl Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 3:19 PM To: Morris, William D. Cc: Delk, Michael; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn ME I have a large file on Water. Lot 1. The City has a 1982 boundary survey performed by DeYoung & Associates that appears to contain a substantial error in the southwest corner where the old Sea Captain Resort operated. I have updated title searches as late as 2001 and a copy of a 1993 survey and sketch prepared by surveyor Eugene S. Caudell for the Sea Captain. Survey notes indicate a number of Bayside Sub. plat errors and perceived errors in the DeYoung survey. From: Morris, William D. Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:36 PM To: Wells, Wayne; 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Delk, Michael; Barrett, Earl Subject: RE: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne; I just spoke to Joe Burdettee after lunch and based on this email he is going to send me a request on what the party he is representing would like to do and ask that I address that request to satisfy city requirements. The ownership of the bottomland has not been challenged and based on the non survey sealed graphic of Water Lot 1 boundaries it is the cities bottomland. I am not sure if any surveys exist to validate the actual boundaries. Joe Burdette has informed me that they would if required negotiate a submerged land lease at which point we would require a signed sealed survey of the bottomland. If they are not planning any development on the water or over water lot one I would not ask for a lease for upland development. I would not ask at this time for a submerged land lease. If at some point in the future they would chose to do seawall repairs or pool deck repair it appears their pool deck support pilings and their boat slip pilings encroach upon water lot one and at that time before we signed off on a permit we would need to "define the line" that is the water lot one boundary along their upland property, probably best done by a professional survey if one does not currently exist. v/r Bill M From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 4:09 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Subject: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Joe — The condition in the Staff Report states: That, prior to the issuance of any permit, ownership of the deck /dock on the north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department. You should contact Bill Morris, Harbormaster, at William.morris @myclearwater.com or at 462 - 6954x22 to see who owns the submerged land (we believe it is City - owned) and see if there is a current lease and /or if this owner needs to obtain a lease for the submerged land. If there is a current lease, provide a copy. If there is no current lease, either obtain one and submit a copy of this new lease or obtain something in writing from Bill Morris that a lease is not required at this time. No permit will be issued until something in writing is submitted. I _ , I- Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne Regarding the dock at the Hampton Inn (formerly Holiday Inn Express). When this was brought up last year we acknowledged that the land belongs to the city and that we have no lease (nor does anyone else on both sides of that finger). When the docks along that finger were originally constructed, there is was a line drawn that showed where no dock could extend beyond and that was it and this dock does not extend beyond it.No lease was asked for or required that we know of which would seem to be the case for every dock along that finger (whether or not they extend to far out I wouldn't know, but ours does not). We are planning no new construction for the dock, but perhaps some maintenance. Let me know what it is you would like for us to do. Joe Joe Joe Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 4:09 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Subject: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Joe — The condition in the Staff Report states: That, prior to the issuance of any permit, ownership of the deck /dock on the north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department. You should contact Bill Morris, Harbormaster, at William.morris @myclearwater.com or at 462- 695422 to see who owns the submerged land (we believe it is City- owned) and see if there is a current lease and /or if this owner needs to obtain a lease for the submerged land. If there is a current lease, provide a copy. If there is no current lease, either obtain one and submit a copy of this new lease or obtain something in writing from Bill Morris that a lease is not required at this time. No permit will be issued until something in writing is submitted. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Re: Re: Hampton Inn Wayne Regarding the dock at the Hampton Inn (formerly Holiday Inn Express). When this was brought up last year we acknowledged that the land belongs to the city and that we have no lease (nor does anyone else on both sides of that finger). When the docks along that finger were originally constructed, there is was a line drawn that showed where no dock could extend beyond and that was it and this dock does not extend beyond it.No lease was asked for or required that we know of which would seem to be the case for every dock along that finger (whether or not they extend to far out I wouldn't know, but ours does not). We are planning no new construction for the dock, but perhaps some maintenance. Let me know what it is you would like for us to do. Joe Joe Joe Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:22 PM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Subject: Joe B - Qucik Question Joe — Condition #5 in the Development Order states: "That, prior to the issuance of any permit, ownership of the deck /dock on the north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department." Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:59 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B - Qucik Question Wayne What was that issue for the Holiday Inn Express (now a Hampton Inn) with the docks that you wanted me to address with? It had to do with the docks being on city land? Since we are not doing anythng with that, do we need to address anything now? If so, it will affect every single homeowner on. that finger?. Anyway, what do we need to do... we have started construction drawings and should-.be.in.a position to file for building permit in about 3 months Joe Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 1:07 PM To: 'wfmillsii @mindspring.com' Subject: Hampton I don't see a problem as designed. From: wfmillsii @mindspring.com [mailto:wfmillsii @mindspring.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Hampton Attached are two partial elevations with my proposed change. The client has not seen this yet. - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: To: wfmillsii(cD-mindspring.com Sent: 8/23/2010 10:03:17 AM Subject: Hampton What increase in size are you talking about? Can you send me a sketch? From: wfmillsii @mindspring.com [mailto:wfmillsii @mindspring.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:44 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Hampton Wayne, My clients would like to increase the size of the roof for the roof top deck bar. How much can I increase it before we need to go through the minor revision process? -- - — �-- ¢- = - - I= wfmillsii@mindsprin� m William F. Mills II - Architect 3300 Henderson BL., Ste 107 Tampa, Florida 33609 813 - 870 -2006 - _. — ._ _ W;I . , 3Sr � -.. - •-( _.i�: '1.. �>. y.. �.:;= y .a.Y ;j • G .Ll .c. {� ..a.1 � E n. ♦ Y' '^� .,� 100' ABOVE Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:06 PM To: 'wfmillsii @mindspring.com' Subject: Hampton Inn Attachments: Coronado 0101 Development Order 5.20.09.doc Signage is regulated in Article 3, Division 18 of the Community Development Code. Our Code is on -line at www.municode.com. Any freestanding sign must be a monument -style sign (see condition #6 under the approval of FLD2009- 03013- attached). Only one attached sign is allowed, maximum of 20 square feet. Potentially, a Comprehensive Sign Program (CSP) will be something you /your client will submit for review and approval. Basically, that CSP allows greater flexibility than minimum Sign Code requirements. The CSP application form is available on -line under the Planning Department at www.myclearwater.com. From: wfmillsii @mindspring.com [mailto:wfmillsii @mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 11:54 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Hampton Inn Wayne, Is there a code for the size and type of signs that can be place directly of the exterior of the building? If so could you forward such to me? M wfmilisii(�ilrnindsprin <�.com William F. Mills II - Architect 3300 Henderson BL., Ste 107 Tampa, Florida 33609 813- 870 -2006 I/ cx '� d, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562 -4865 August 12, 2010 Mr. Joe Burdette The Consus Group LLC 618 Pineland Avenue Belleair, Florida 33756 Re: Development Order — Minor Revision FLD2009 -03013 — 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive Dear Mr. Burdette: On May 19, 2009, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved with 13 conditions the above referenced request, which was a request for (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 108 -room overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to lot .width along Devon Drive/First Street from 150 to 100 feet (north side) and from 150 to 110 feet (south side), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street)„ a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building)_ (north side of Devon Drive /First Street), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 to eight feet. (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (north) setback f.om 1:0 to zero feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive /First Street), a reduction to the side (east) setback . from 10 to 2.5 feet (to proposed building) and 7.22 feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 to five feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), and an increase to the building height from 35 to 89 feet (to top of roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2- 803.I, and approval of a two -year development order; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 72 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. A proposal has been submitted to change the hotel branding to a Hampton Inn, with the following revisions: • Fifth floor lobby: Added an additional private office to the original office area and added a business center adjacent to the lobby; • Fifth floor: Converted the former meeting room to a gathering area and opened it up to the corridor and lobby area; • Fifth floor: Expanded the exercise room and relocated the restrooms to a portion of the first former guest room (now prep and storage) on the east side of the corridor; • Fifth floor: The original office and the gathering area (floor area) has been extended out onto the balcony 4' -8 "; V August 12, 2010 Burdette — Page 2 • Fifth floor: Created a breakfast buffet area on the south side of the gathering area and created a prep and storage area in a portion of the first former guest room on the east side of the corridor and the balcony of this former guest room; • Fifth floor: Converted the first two guest rooms on the west side of the corridor to laundry, housekeeping and employee breakroom; • Fifth through tenth floors: Redesigned the bathroom layout in the guest rooms; • Ninth floor: Two guest rooms from the fifth floor have been relocated to the area directly under the roof top swimming pool (pool deleted, see below); • Tenth floor: The roof top swimming pool has been deleted and this area converted to a sunning deck; • Tenth floor: Converted the former pool equipment/storage room to a guest room (relocated from the fifth floor); • Tenth floor: The restrooms have been enlarged and now are, as well as the guest room (former exercise room), accessed from internal floor area; • The roof design for the elevator and stair towers have been changed to hip roofs and both stair towers and the elevator tower have been raised in height to provide access to the roof and needed mechanical space (all of these towers are less than the 16 -foot maximum height from the roof top deck); • The roof material for the stairs, elevator and rooftop bar has been changed from metal to barrel tile; • Windows have been added to the exercise room on the fifth floor and the guest rooms on the sixth through tenth floors on the east side of the building (north portion); and • The exterior finish colors have been revised to the primary base color of "Restrained Gold" with "Navajo White" for the facia and the semicircular columns and `Blonde" for the vertical banding.on each side of the Cemicircular columns. Storefront framing will be dark bronze with bronze tinted windows. Barrel tile roofing will be Santa Fe S tile (red, galeras & peach). In accordance with Section 4 -406.A of the Code, the revisions proposed are deemed to be a Minor Revision and are APPROVED. All conditions of approval from the CDB approval on May 19, 2009, are still in effect. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III, at 727 -562 -4504. Sincere ichae P Planning and Development Director S: (Planning DepartmentIC D BIFLEX (FLD)Ilnactive or Finished ApplicationslCoronado 0101- 0105 Holiday Inn Express (T) 2009.05 - Approved - WMCoronado 0101 - 0105 Minor Revisions Development Order 8.11.10.doc HAMPTON INN `L 2010 CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM E MILLS II CffV 0= CLEQWAiER A R C H I T E C T To Whom It May Concern: The following narrative described the interior changes to the originally approved design formerly known as (Holiday Inn Express). The project hereafter will be known as Hampton Inn. These interior changes have been brought about due to the requirements by Hampton. INTERIOR CHANGES: 1. There are no changes to the parking levels 1 through 4. 2. Changes to the fifth floor. A. In the lobby, an additional private office has be incorporated within the northwest corner. This office and the original office have been extended out on to the balcony 4' -8 ". This will have little effect on the exterior appearance of the building. B. The meeting room has been relocated to the first two guest rooms on the east side of the corridor. These rooms have been relocated to the ninth floor, more on these later in this narrative. C. The original meeting room has been opened to the corridor and the lobby for a more open feeling and has rename as gathering area. D. The restroom that was in the meeting room and the restroom that was adjacent to the exercise room have been relocated to a portion of the guest room that now is the meeting room and the balcony for that former guest room. E. The area of the exercise room and the restroom have now become a laundry, housekeeping, prep and storage. This storage has been extended.4' -8" on to:the balcony of the former exercise. F. The bathrooms within the guest rooms have been redesigned to be more in keeping with the standards for Hampton Inns. 3. Changes to the sixth, seventh and eighth floors A. The only changes to these floors is the redesign of the bathrooms. 4. Changes to the ninth floor. A. The bathrooms have been redesigned. B. The two guest rooms that were on the fifth floor have been located In the area which was the area directly under the roof top swimming pool, which has been removed for the project. 5. Changes to the tenth floor: A. As mentioned above the roof top swimming pool has been removed from the project. B. The area of the former pool, is now noted as a sunning deck. C. The exercise room has been relocated to the former pool equipment/storage room. D. The restrooms have been enlarged. E. The guest bathrooms have been redesigned. Architecture via AutoCAD Architectural Desktop - 3300 Henderson BL ate 107 Tampa Florida 33609 -2978 Florida Lic. #AR0006749 NCARB # 50,428 813 870 2006 FAX 813 870 0704 RECEIVED �?�ANIVING DEPARTMENT EXTERIOR CHANGES: CITY OF CtEARWATET 1. = be roof design for the elevator and the stairs has been changed to hip roofs. 2. The roof material for these and that of the roof top bar has been changed from metal ,to barrel tile. 3. The exterior finish colors have been changed to "Sherwin Williams" `Navajo White. Blonde and Restrained Gold', storefront framing will be dark bronze with bronze tinted glass. 4. Windows have been added in the guest rooms, exercise room and prep on the east side of the building. William. ZMills II — Architect Florida # AR0006749 J Betty Ackerman From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:01 AM To: Jeff Keierleber Cc: Steve Cooper; Betty Ackerman Subject:. Joe B - Re: Hampton Inn Jeff I need a check payable to the City of Clearwater for $400.00 to review the minor amendment for the Hampton Inn You can just mail it to me Joe Burdette 618 Pineland Ave Belleair, Florida 33756 and I will deliver it. The drawings were dropped off this morning. Joe w Wells, Wayne From: wfmillsii @mindspring.com Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:03 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Hampton Inn Minor Revision Attachments: 0808 - Hampton 8.10.2010.pdf Wayne, Attached it the floor area calculations Bill - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: To: wfmillsii(cDmindspring.com Cc: jburdette505(a�tampabaV.rr.com Sent: 8/10/2010 3:57:09 PM Subject: Hampton Inn Minor Revision FEE As a note, the maximum height of the elevator and stair towers above the highest roof is 16 feet to the top of the tower. Further, the top of the bar "hut" cannot be higher than 100 feet (as shown it is less than the maximum allowable). Along with the revised drawings you are going to drop off tomorrow morning,1please. provide a square footage calculation for the accessory uses in relation to the gross floor area of the building. Add. up the square footage of the gathering area and meeting room on the fifth floor and the exercise room on the.tenth floor to determine the total square footage of the accessory uses of the hotel. Provide-the gross floor area of the total building (the total interior floor area of a building measured at the inside face of the exterior walls, but excluding parking garages, carports, stairwells and elevator shafts; and not including any balconies or the tenth floor open deck area). The purpose of needing the total accessory use floor area and the gross floor area is to look at the ratio of the two, not that this project is subject to the current regulations for such under the Community Development Code, but to ascertain whether this project will be nonconforming to the current regulations. Thanks. Wayne I - +� WILLIAM F. MILLS II ARCHITECT 08.10.2010 Wayne Wells City of Clearwater Development & Neighborhood Services Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Suite 210 Clearwater, Florida 33756 Re: Hampton Inn Coronado Drive Clearwater Beach Re: habitable floor areas '5th floor = 10,500 sf 6th floor = 10,500 sf 7th floor = .10,200 sf 8th floor = 10,200 sf 9th floor = 10,200 sf 10th floor= 8,450 sf Total = 59,750 sf Accessory use areas Gathering area = 1,000 sf Exercise room = 1000 sf Gathering area prep area = 680 sf Total = 2,580 sf Percentage of accessory area vs. total habitable area = 4.15% Sincerely, w/lKw 14 /Tees // William F. Mills II — Architect Florida AR- 0006749 rrrir i CITY OF CLEARWATER 14 d; PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Posr OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWAI'ER, FLORIDA 337584748 �^�9 %w':�- -- •�'`�OQ��' rI.�QTER.,[,o MUNICIPAL SERvicLs BUILDING, 100 Sou7"H MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORmA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAx (727) 562 -4576 RECEIPT # : 392132 DATE: 7/7/2010 Line Items: Case No. Tran Code Description Revenue Account No. Amount Paid FLD2009 -03013 MREV Minor Revision 001000000341262000 $400.00 Line Item Total: $400.00 Method Payor Cashier Check No. Amount Paid Check PORT VUE VJM 1 $400.00 Payment Total: $400.00 As of June 19, 2009, in accordance with City Ordinance #8025 -09 sec.32.288, all hauling of construction and demoliton debris using open top roll -off containers will need to be coordinated through the City of Clearwater Solid Waste department. For more information, please call 727 - 562 -4920. THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. 7/7/2010 °EQmL BvLOYMENTT Ai�,D AFFIRAIAME Acrloni EMPLOYER" Receipt2Custom Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:57 PM To: 'wfmillsii @mindspring.com' Cc: Delk, Michael; jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: Holiday Inn Express '1C The review criteria of Section 4 -406.A of whether a "change" is a Minor Revision or not is as follows: 1. Does not result in conflicts in on -site circulation and /or negative impacts with ingress /egress. 2. Does not change the use unless such change is of a similar or less intensity, as determined by the community development coordinator. 3. Does not increase the density or intensity of the development. 4. Does not result in a reduction of setback or previously required landscape area. 5. Does not result in a substantial change to the location of a structure previously approved. 6. Does not result in a substantial modification or the cancellation of any condition placed upon the application as originally approved. 7. Does not add property to the parcel proposed for development. S. Does not increase the height of the buildings in a manner that will change the overall height of the project, will not alter the scale of the project, does not exceed the maximum height permitted in by the applicable special area plan and zoning district. 9. Any other minor revision that does not substantially alter the character and design of the project. I have reviewed the attached "preliminary" changes in light of the above criteria and generally do not find the proposal in conflict. I will reserve final approval authority once a formal request is filed with this department for a Minor Revision. I do have the following concerns or observations of the submitted plans: 1. Square footage of accessory uses in relation to the overall building square footage will need to be submitted. The maximum square footage of accessory uses cannot exceed 10% of the overall gross floor area. Need to submit the gross floor area and the square footage of accessory uses. Accessory uses that count as square footage include the breakfast room and pantry, the food prep and storage area and the meeting room on the 5th floor and the exercise room on the 10 "' floor. The lobby on the 1St floor, the lobby, reception, the two hotel offices, the two restrooms, and the housekeeping and electric closets on the 5th floor, the housekeeping and electric closets on each floor and the restrooms and housekeeping and electric closets on the 10th floor are all part of the hotel floor area and are not part of the accessory uses that are countable. 2. Adjacent to the food prep room on the 5th floor is an undefined room with no entry door. Depending on its intended use, it may qualify as "accessory use" (see comment #1 above). 3. With the redesign on the 5th floor, restrooms have been relocated. Ensure required hallway egress width is being provided adjacent to the women's restroom leading to the stairwell. 4. The revised number of guest suites with full kitchens must be submitted (a maximum of 25% is allowable). 5. The exercise room on the 10th floor appears isolated from other hotel functions due to the diminished activity on the open deck (no pool) and is now accessible only from the exterior and not through an interior hallway. 6. With the removal of the pool from the 10th floor, the open deck appears to become more of an amenity deck, where it appears the bar cabana becomes more of the focal point of this area. 7. It is difficult to see how the extended floor area on the north side of the 5th floor will affect the exterior appearance of the building. Revised building elevations will need to be submitted. Any concern here may relate to Condition #4 on FLD20G9- 03013, which states: "That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB." Wayne From: wfmillsii @mindspring.com [mailto:wfmillsii @mindspring.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:30 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Holiday Inn Express Wayne, Attached are three PDF's showing the proposed revisions that I have done to date. These have been forward to Steve Cooper. Revisions as follows: Remove pool from roof deck Move exercise room to tenth floor Move two guest rooms from fifth floor to the ninth floor, in place of under pool area Extended interior floor area out onto the balconies 4'6, leaving 1'6 balcony, none accessible Moved meeting rooms to area of two guest rooms that are moved to the ninth floor. Rearranged meeting and surrounding area to accommodate breakfast room and prep as required by Hampton. Revised areas shown within clouded area Call me to discuss M-R wfmillsii@mindspring.com William F. Mills II - Architect 3300 Henderson BL., Ste 107 Tampa, Florida 33609 813 - 870 -2006 D r m w n' FIFTH FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS jjj�j WILLIAM F MILLS II -ARCHITECT HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS jglkll 330000 HENDERSON BL • ate 107 COROONAODOO DRIVE 4 996 11 TAMPA FLORIDA 3600' 29; 8 CLEARWATER :EACH FLORIDA �I E Y 2 r fl R M IN, .1 IN S Y1 u p� o P g T D w w n' 1 NINE TH FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS WILLIAM F MILLS II -ARCHITECT HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 330000 HENDERSON BL • stc 107 COORONADDOO DRIVE TAMP A FLORIDA 33609-2978 CLEARWtiTER BEACH, FLORIDA E110, - INO ll g o g D r rri w w n' I,1 TENTH FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS ROOF WILLIAM F MILLS II • A'CHITECT HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 330000 HENDDERSON :L • stc 107 COORONADOO DRIVE TAMPA FLORIDA 33609-2978 CLEtiRWATER :EACH FLORIDA NO Ing b� Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 9:31 AM To: 'Hunraf @aol.com' Cc: Elbo, Bennett; Doherty, Steve Subject: Joe B Quick Question Joe — The approved site plan indicates the existing/former use for the overall site was 53 overnight accommodation units (22 at 101 Coronado Drive; 16 at 105 Coronado Drive; and 15 at 35 Devon Drive). This number of units will be confirmed at time of application for the BCP for the new hotel for use in the transportation impact fee credits (if still applicable). Bennett Elbo does that review. As for the water and sewer, the same holds true (Steve Doherty would do that review). If you need letters re such, you will need to contact Bennett and Steve. Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com [mailto:Hunraf @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:04 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Joe B Quick Question Wayne We are getting ready to demo the Portvu Hotel to make way for the new Holiday Inn Express... I need to make sure that we will retain credits for the rooms in the Portvu and the sewer and water for determining the impact fees that will be assessed for the new hotel. What is the best way to go about preserving those credits? Joe It PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 -4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAx (727) 562 -4865 March 29, 2010 Mr. Joe Burdette The Consus Group LLC 618 Pineland Avenue Belleair, FL 33756 Re: Development Order — Minor Revision FLD2009 -03013 — 101 Coronado Drivc Dear Mr. Burdette: On May 19, 2009, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved with 13 conditions the above referenced case, which was a request for (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 108 -room overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to lot width along Devon Drive/First Street from 150 to 100 feet (north side) and from 150 to 110 feet (south side), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 to eight feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive /First Street), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to existing noel deck) (north side of Devon Drive/Firct CirP..Pt) n rerilirtinn to the chip (Pact) gPthaCl- from 10 to 2.5 feet (to proposed building) and 7.22 feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 to five feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), and an increase to the building height from 35 to 89 feet (to top of roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2- 803.I, and approval of a two -year development order; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 72 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. Due to potential changes by the City to make Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive one -way streets, revised civil and architectural plans date stamped February 12, 2010, have been submitted to provide a one -way entrance only driveway on Coronado Drive into the building north of Devon Drive. This revision reduces provided parking by one space, for a total of 111 parking spaces (108 required parking spaces). In accordance with Section 4 -406.A of the Code, the revision proposed is deemed to be a Minor Revision and is APPROVED. Please ensure building plans reflect this approved change. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III, at 727 -562 -4504. Sincere Michael Delk, AICP Planning and Development Director S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)Ilnactive or Finished Applications) Coronado 0101 - 0105 Holiday Inn Express (T) 2009.05 - Approved - WMCoronado 0101 -0105 Minor Revisions Development Order 3.29.10.doc 1% TOUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" Wells, Wayne From: Hunraf @aol.com Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:30 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: wfmilisii @mindspring.com; jkeier @decadegroup.com; scoop @decadegroup.com; ehooperl @aol.com Subject: FLD2009 -03013 Revised Request for Minor Revisions Mr. Wayne Wells Palnner III City of Clearwater Re: Holiday Inn Express Request for Minor Revisions Dear Wayne Please accept this letter as our request for minor revisions to FLD2009- 03013, 101 Coronado Drive, Clearwater Beach. The revisions are being requested to revise the entrance to the proposed project to be a one -way "enter only driveway off of Coronado. There will continue to me entry exit drives off of Hamden as was approved. The request is being made in response to the city's plans to make Coronado and - Hamden Drive one -way streets which will severely impact the entrance into the proposed hotel from the North. The resulting,minor revision will result in the loss of only one parking space for the project and the project will still meet, all applicable parking requirements. The revision will result in some extremely minor changes, to the civil engineering drawing. A copy of the revised civil drawings with the minor changes clouded for your convenience is included in this request. Pursuant to CDC Section 4- 406.A, the purposed amendment meets the criteria for this; request as follows: . A. The purposed minor revisions do no result in conflicts in on -site circulation and/or negative impacts with ingress /egress. B. The purposed minor revisions do not change the use of the project. C. The purposed minor revisions do not increase the density or intensity of the development. D. The purposed minor revisions do not result in a reduction of setback or previously required landscape area. E. The purposed minor revisions do not result in a substantial change to the location of the structure as previously approved. F. The purposed minor revisions do not result in a substantial modification or the cancellation of any condition placed upon the application as originally approved. G. The purposed minor revisions do not add property to the parcel proposed for development. H. The purposed minor revisions do not increase the height of the buildings in a manner that will change the overall height of the project, will not alter the scale of the project and does not exceed the maximum height permitted in by the applicable special area plan and zoning district. I. The purposed minor revisions do not substantially alter the character and design of the project. Should you have any questions or need any further information please let me know. Thank you for your help in this matter. Joe Burdette Owner's Representative Cc: Jeff Keierleber Steve Cooper Ed Hooper Bill Mills z i �� Wells, Wayne From: Joe Burdette Oburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:22 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: FLD2009- 03013, 101 Coronado Drive - Holiday Inn Express Joe From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:20 PM To: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2009- 03013, 101 Coronado Drive - Holiday Inn Express Joe — 1. 1 finally talked to Michael regarding the fee. Yes, there is a $400 fee for Minor Revisions and it has been charged on other projects. Due to the revision is being caused by the City relating to one -way pairing of Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive, Michael Delk is waiving the fee in this case. 2. So that there is something on the record as to this Minor Revision request, please provide a letter or email of Minor Revision request, outlining the issue and the reasons for the Minor Revision, including what changes are proposed as part of the Minor Revision. It also would be helpful to address the criteria of CDC Section 4- 406.A: a. Does not result in conflicts in on -site circulation and /or negative impacts with ingress /egress. b. Does not change the use unless such change is of a similar or less intensity, as determined by the community development coordinator. C. Does not increase the density or intensity of the development d. Does not result in a reduction of setback or previously required landscape area. e. Does not result in a substantial change to the location of a structure previously approved. f. Does not result in a substantial modification or the cancellation of any condition placed upon the application as originally approved. g. Does not add property to the parcel proposed for development. h. Does not increase the height of the buildings in a manner that will change the overall height of the project, will not alter the scale of the project, does not exceed the maximum height permitted in by the applicable special area plan and zoning district. i. Any other minor revision that does not substantially alter the character and design of the project. Thanks— Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 12:44 PM To: 'Joe Burdette' Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: FLD2009- 03013, 101 Coronado Drive - Holiday Inn Express Joe — The Minor Revision fee has been on the books for years. However, I will check with Michael tomorrow. Will let you know. Wayne Y� { 4 From: Joe Burdette [mailto:jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 12:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: FLD2009- 03013, 101 Coronado Drive - Holiday Inn Express When did that start? There has never been a fee before... Could you check with Michael because the only reason we are doing this is because of what the city is doing or contemplating doing... If the city does not change to one -way pairs we won't use this ... we really did not want to have to change so I think waving the fee would be fair... Joe From: Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com [ mailto :Wayne.Wells @myC[earwater.com] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 11:59 AM To: jburdette505 @tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2009- 03013, 101 Coronado Drive - Holiday Inn Express Joe — You dropped off to Michael Delk this past Friday a Minor Revision request for the above referenced project. Please submit the application fee of $400. Thank you. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 C � &ConmGroqLLC 1 Holiday Inn Express Request for Minor Amendment. Michael Delk ECRIVE i FEB 1 2 Oulu SERVICES Z/4) CG,I �nm Group LL C Michael Here are two sets of drawings (including the changes to the civils) for the minor amendment . we have been discussing for the Holiday Inn Express showing the one -way "Enter Only" off of Coronado. We will only lose one (1) parking space with this change. Thanks f r all your help Joe Wells, Wayne From: Richard Marcel, LEED AP NC [Richard @Keithzayac.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 7:38 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Delk, Michael Subject: Clearwater Holiday Inn Express Attachments: Holiday Inn Express - Proposed Conditions.pdf; Holiday Inn Express - Existing Conditions.pdf; image001.gif Wayne /Michael, Attached is a copy of the proposed landscape and existing conditions for Clearwater Holiday Inn Express. Can you please confirm that these are the two exhibits you are looking for? Thank you, Richard Marcel, LEED AP NC Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 701 Enterprise Road, Suite 404 Safety Harbor, FI 34695 (P) 727 - 793 -9888 Ext. 305 (F) 727 - 793 -9855 (C) 727 - 488 -1002 DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (KZA) makes the electronically stored data available . for hformation purposes only. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made regarding the accuracy or reliability of the aforementioned data.. KZA reserves the right to revise, update, and improve its electronically stored data without notice and, assumes -.no;:. . responsibility for any images which may arise as a result of the use of its data. The user:agrees,to-verify the.data to ascertain its accuracy for the intended use. KZA makes every effort to ensure the data, is :vi:rus;_free; however; KZA . assumes no responsibility for damages caused by the installation /use of the enclosed, data. Use of the enclosed data indicates the user accepts the conditions contained herein. Please note, in some cases final approval may not have been issued by all the permitting agencies; hence, modifications, which are not depicted on the enclosed electronically stored data, may be required. Unless other arrangements have been agreed to, use of the electronically stored data for any activities shall proceed solely at the risk and responsibility of recipient/user of said electronically stored data. Additionally, any use of the enclosed electronically stored data shall relieve KZA and /or any of its employees from liability/responsibility regarding any modifications to said electronically stored data which may be required due to reviewing agencies' comments and /or final design revisions /modifications. ,�l1 r+ ALOF F H F A- C I T Y OF C L E A R W A T ER POST OMCE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 L�,� MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLEAVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 „ f TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAx (727) 562 -4865 PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 20, 2009 Keith Zayac Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 701 Enterprise Road East. Suite 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 RE: Development Order — Case No. FLD2009 -03013 (Related to DVA2009- 00001) 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive Dear Mr. Zayac: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4- 206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On May 19, 2009, the Community Development Board reviewed your request for (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 108 -room overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to lot width along Devon Drive/First Street from 150 to 100 feet (north side) and from 150 to 110 feet (south side), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 to eight feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 to 2.5 feet (to proposed building) and 7.22 feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 to five feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), and an increase to the building height from 35 to 89 feet (to top of roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2- 803.I, and approval of a two -year development order; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 72 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. The Community Development Board (CDB) APPROVED the application with the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval: Findings of Fact: 1. The 0.72 acres is located on the east side of Coronado Drive at the northeast and southeast corners of Devon Drive/First Street; 2. The site is comprised of three parcels, two on the north side of Devon Drive and one on the south side of Devon Drive; 3. The proposal is to construct a 108 -unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 150 units /acre, which includes the allocation of 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design; �s °F...,.. 1r ............. .......... Ate....,...,...... A,- ....,... F.............ri May 20, 2009 Zayac — Page 2 4. A companion Development Agreement (DVA2009- 00001) that must be approved by City Council is also on this CDB agenda is, providing for the allocation of the 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve; 5. The hotel is proposed on the northern portion of the site north of Devon Drive and is proposed at a height of 89 feet from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the roof deck; 6. The proposed 89 -foot building height transitions building height from the highest on the west side of Coronado Drive (Kiran Grande — 150 -foot maximum height) to the detached dwellings to the east of this site (30 -foot maximum height); 7. The first four levels of the hotel will provide a total of 94 parking spaces, with driveway access on Devon Drive; 8. The proposal includes setback reductions from all property lines on the northern portion of the site; 9. While the proposal includes a setback of 2.5 feet from the east property line, a majority of the building at the fifth floor and above is set back approximately 21.3 feet from the east property line; 10. A surface parking lot of 18 spaces is proposed on the southern portion of the site south of Devon Drive, with driveway access on Devon Drive; 11. The proposal includes setback reductions from the north and south property lines only on the southern portion of the site; 12. The proposal includes constructing a total of 112 parking spaces, exceeding the minimum requirement of 108 spaces (one space per room); and 13. There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2 -801.1 and 2 -803 of the Community Development Code; 2 That the dei elnnment nrnnngal :s consistent xztitlh t}le VI.- ihili4 -w criteria n� rear Ce�tinn 2_R(12 -f+1 Y r... ... r. r p. .. Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3 -913 of the Community Development Code; 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design; and 5. The proposal is compatible with the adjacent land uses. Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development Agreement with the City (Case DVA2009- 00001); 2. That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later than May 19, 2011, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 3. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records; 4. That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 5. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, ownership of the deck/dock on the north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department; 6. That the freestanding sign be a monument -style sign, be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program; May 20, 2009 Zayac — Page 3 7. That the books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with the Hotel Density Reserve criteria of Beach by Design as allowed by general law; 8. That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, existing overhead utility lines within the right -of -way along the north side of Devon Drive be placed underground and electric panels and boxes on the second floor of the parking garage be painted the same color as the building; 9. That the bicycle parking/storage area on the ground level of the parking garage be for hotel guest convenience as an accessory use only; 10. That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, an easement be recorded in the public records for the sidewalk along Coronado Drive partially on the subject property; 11. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 12. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 13. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and the Fire Department be addressed. Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit shall be made according to the time frame listed under Condition of Approval #2 above. All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the initial building permit. The building permit must be obtained within six months of the initial permit application. This timeframe to obtain the initial building permit may be extended for an additional six months for cause by the Community Development Coordinator. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Coordinator may grant an extension of time for the Flexible Development approval for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. The icciiane-P of thig T1PVP1nnrnPnt Orr1ar dnPc not relieue vniii of tlke n}ktain an.r kiiµ �li— permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Section 4 -502.13 by the applicant or by any person granted party status within 14 days of the date of the CDB meeting. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on June 2, 2009 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, Planner III, at 727 -562 -4504. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: www.mvcleanvater.com /eov /dents /Dlannin2. Sincerely, ichael , AIC Planning Director S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)Unactive or Finished Applications lCoronado 0101 - 0105 Holiday Inn Express (7) 2009.05 - Approved - WWICoronado 0101 Development Order 5.20.09.doc Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:23 AM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: Public Hearing on Decade Companies Income Properties at 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Frances Everett [ mailto :everett.ondevon2 @verizon.net) Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:08 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Public Hearing on Decade Companies Income Properties at 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive We want to voice our concern regarding the above request. Devon Drive is a residential street with over 40 homes, with the exception of the captioned property and one other low profile motel at the beginning of the street. It is very difficult to turn off Coronado onto Devon Drive and it is very difficult to pull out of Devon Drive onto Coronado. This congestion already exists without the impact of the Aqualea project that is not yet complete. We respectfully request that you deny the request. Henry A. Everett, homeowner Frances B. Everett, wife 188 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach., 33767 5/20/2009 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:42 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: Public Hearing for the New Holiday Inn Express Hotel FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Phil Weber [mailto:philwweber @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:02 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Public Hearing for the New Holiday Inn Express Hotel Mr Wells, We are annual visitors to Clearwater Beach and always stay at the Sea Captain Resort on Devon Dr. We are very upset that the charm and character of Clearwater is being destroyed by the huge amount of tall condos and Hotels which will change Clearwater and make it the same as the rest of Florida. We have no issue with some new building. But the new Hotel should be no taller than 3 stories and should sit on the same footprint as the motel/hotels it replaces. The excessive height of the proposed new building will adversely affect the Sun we get at the Sea Captain and may also effect the grasses in the sea where the fish and manatees feed. Thank you for considering the views of your visitors and please remember, we come to Clearwater Beach for its charm, not its high rises. Phil and Geri Weber 516 S Ferncliff Dr Pueblo. West, CO 81007 Home 719 - 647 -3203 Cell 303- 880 -4787 5/19/2009 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent:. Monday, May 18,.2009.8:10 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: Variance 5/19/09 1:00. FYI - See attached letter. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Dex15 @aol.com [mailto:Dex15 @aol.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:48 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Variance 5/19/09 1:00 Please find my letter of objection to. be considered for the variance. 5/19/09 1:00 Linda Deichman A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See Yours in Just 2 Ea" $ sl 5/18/2009 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 8:06 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: holiday inn FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Bob & Doreen [mailto:robert.tytler @sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:14 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: SEACAP100 @AOL.COM Subject: holiday inn To Planning Dept. City. of Clearwater. Our family have been informed of the plans to build a Holiday Inn Express directly in front of the Sea Captain Resort on Devon Drive. Is this progress or a step back? As winter visitors to Clearwater Beach for 15 years we feel saddened at the changes we have seen over the last few years. The family atmosphere is slowly dissapearing with the high -rise buildings on the beach - Mandalay Ave.(is there anyone in them ?) We spend our money in Clearwater Beach on Groceries, gasoline,clothing and restaurant meals. Hair cuts and snacks on the marina,also occasional fishing trips. Will the people in the Holiday Inn spend money in town or only in the Hotel? The Sea Captain Motel is one of the few family- run,family - oriented Resorts left on the beach with no shortage of REGULAR visitors. Mrs.Doreen Tytler. 5/18/2009 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 8:07 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject:. Holliday Inn. Express. FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Bob & Doreen [mailto:robert.tytler @sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:32 PM To: wayne.wells@myclearwater.com Cc: SEACAP100 @AOL.COM Subject: Holliday Inn Express. Wayne Wells, Planning Department.City of Clearwater. We have been comming to the Sea Captain Resort on the Bay for the last fifteen years, and have enjoyed the friendly atmosphere of Clearwater Beach very. much. It is once more -sad to see "Corporate America" distroying the charming, well run, family business. If this developement is allowed to go ahead with these set - backs, hight allowances etc., when there is a much better lot directly opposite, it would remind. me of the poor judgement and desighn of the. original traffic circle comming off the causeway, the construction blunders on. the overpass and the empty concrete moausoleums residing on Mandaly! On the other hand - perhaps the council should approve this new developement and the rest of us will take our business elsewhere. Robert.D.Tytler 5/18/2009 LL Clearwater FMM Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 TO: -,}`� DATE: S1 r 0 9 FAX: 71-3 - 9 h n TELEPHONE: '7 5 3- !J� 0 8 FROM: Wayne M. Wells TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4504 SUBJECT: 101 cp"L'_' o W i Ye. MESSAGE: NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): Z °Clearwater Fi M Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 TO: c. DATE: FAX: 713 - c) 83-:5 TELEPHONE: 79.3 FROM: Wayne M. Wells TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4504 SUBJECT: It 01 G ro ► C� o -Pr It V e- MESSAGE: L P-t[AP5 eF i L.o Y- . Z.e 1 NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 1:38 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: May 19 planning meeting FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Rosie & Jerry Zirbel [mailto:jrzirbel @wi.rr.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 1:14 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: May 19 planning meeting Mr Wells, I am a Wisconsin resident who has been vacationing at the Sea Captain Resort on Clearwater Beach nearly every year since 1.982. In recent years, I have been dismayed by the transformation of Clearwater Beach from a family friendly vacation destination to one where the "mom and pop" motels have been torn down and replaced with high rise luxury condominiums and hotels. I have also noticed the many empty store fronts and restaurants that depended on the weekly turnover of tourists that these "mom and pop" motels provided. While I am sure these luxury condos have increased your revenue, they have not been friendly to your local businesses and tourists. It has recently come to my attention that there are now plans to build another high rise hotel nearly on top of the Sea Captain. Resort. The proposed height of this hotel is completely out of character with the surrounding properties and would loom over the Sea Captain Resort and cast a large shadow over the property. This would adversely affect the quality of the vacation experience that the Sea Captain Resort has provided for so many years. While I am not against progress ( if this is, indeed, progress) I think several options should be considered by the Planning Department before approval for this new development is given. The height of the proposed hotel is just too high. It could be reduced significantly if the five floor parking ramp was removed from the plan. There appears to be many vacant properties very nearby that could be developed to provide the necessary parking required for this hotel and should be considered. While this may add some extra cost to the development, it would make the hotel more consistent with. surrounding properties and more aesthetically appropriate for that area of Clearwater Beach. In addition, all. set backs should be maintained. Placing a building of this proposed size just 2.5 feet from a property line is just too close and would have an adverse affect on the residents of the Sea Captain Resort. Please consider all stakeholders in your planning and maintain. the family friendly reputation that Clearwater Beach has worked so long and hard to obtain. Gerald Zirbel. Waukesha, Wi. 5/18/2009 Clearwater Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 TO: K43h c- DATE: s I i $ b I FAX: 7 9 3.9 oo Ss TELEPHONE: 713- � S 8 � FROM: Wayne M. Wells TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4504 SUBJECT: I G (`V na X Df'► y Q MESSAGE: Z. wll NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): S Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 TO: A,c.. DATE: FAX: 7% 3 -°% gSs TELEPHONE: 7 13 9 8 8 8 FROM: Wayne M. Wells TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4504 SUBJECT: / 0 / Co rb na A Prc V t MESSAGE: LAY-r e% n D M l',V NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 13 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:24 AM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: Rebuttle Against New Motel Complex FYI - See attached petition - - - -- Original Message - - - - -. From: Shelley Dibble [ mailto:shelley7_30 @hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 5:31 PM To: Wells, Wayne; Sea Captain Subject: Rebuttle Against New Motel Complex My petition is attached. Shelley Hotmail@ has ever - growing storage! Don't worry about storage limits. Check it out. 5/17/2009 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:19 AM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: Proposed Holiday Inn Express near Sea Captain Resort FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: WAYNE WALTON [mailto:wlw43pw @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Proposed Holiday Inn Express near Sea Captain Resort Dear Mr. Wells: We are writing in response to the proposed Holiday. Inn Express immediately next to the Sea Captain Resort. It is our understanding that said proposed Holiday Inn would be approximately 96' tall. Having stayed at the Sea Captain in excess of 12 ,years, it is our believe that the sun would never shine on the Sea Captain Resort after 1:00 p.m. One would certainly think that there is available commercial property that could accomodate a structure such as the proposed one that would not affect an otherwise charming vacation spot. Sincerely, Wayne and Patricia Walton 1467 Chestnut Grove Rd. Salem, OH 44460 (330) 332 -1060 5/17/2009 TO: Wayne. Wells Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:38 AM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: SEA CAPTAIN RESORT Importance: High FYI. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ron Doughty [mailto:rdoughty @cac.net]. Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:22 AM To: 'mary ann eifert Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: SEA CAPTAIN RESORT. Importance: High Page 1 of 2 Mr. Wells here are our comments regarding the Sea Captain Resort and the new Holiday Inn Express. TO: Wayne Wells, & Sea Captain Resort of Clearwater Beach FROM:. Ron & Cathy Doughty. 2399 Red Wings. Dr. Brighton, Mi.. 48114 My purpose in writing this letter is to. inform the City of Clearwater that we object to having a Holiday Inn Express built near the location as descripted to us. I am a member of the ZBA and Planning' Commission of the Charter Township. of Brighton, Mi. We feel the request for variances are SELF imposed, and should not be approved. We have been coming to Clearwater Beach since 1980, and make two trips there almost every year. We enjoy the beach area, spend money on food, entertainment etc. We don't like the current trend as to the way Clearwater beach is going. This 100 ft.. Holiday Inn would further take away from the family type of resort area, block the view, and harm the bay waters. The Sea Captain is a well managed, clean, well kept business, and a good citizen for Clearwater Beach. We feel that a new box store type hotel would further take away from the family business style, thus less business for the current attractions there.. More traffic is something that is NOT needed there. I assume a'flexible development' is similar to our Commercial PUD. This is supposed to help surrounding business, the developer, and the City. of Clearwater.. It appears to us the only party being 'helped' is the developer.. In conclusion. We feel the developer has the right to. develop his property per the current zoning ordinances, however not at the expense of the Sea Captain, NO Holiday INN THANKS 5/15/2009 TO: Wayne Wells RONALD & CATHY DOUGHTY 2399 RED WINGS DR. BRIGHTON, MI. 48114 1- 810 - 227 -6356 5/15/2009 Page 2 of 2 LL Clearwater rEMV, Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 TO: IkA I A rSS- DATE: Vis—jo 9 FAX: -773- 9$ TELEPHONE: 9 3 - 1509 FROM: Wayne M. Wells TELEPHONE: (727, 562 -4504 SUBJECT: /Of Cnr dr,&A. //r MESSAGE: " NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:42 AM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: Proposed Development Plan by Decade Companies Income Properties FYI - - - -- Original. Message - - - - -. From: Jeanne Silverberg [mailto:jojeesilver @charter.net] Sent:. Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:57 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Proposed Development Plan by Decade Companies Income Properties Dear Mr. Wells: My wife, family and I have been vacationing in Clearwater Beach at the Sea Captain for over twenty years. We consider the Sea Captain our winter home. An eight story building west of the Sea Captain would shade the Sea Captain's pool. My grandson wouldn't like to swim in a shaded pool and my wife and family couldn't sunbathe watching him. We would have to find another winter home outside of Clearwater Beach. Four stories of parking ramps within fifteen feet of the rear of the Sea Captain will ruin the view of the rooms . on the west side. Having a hotel the size of which is being considered abut up to the Sea Captain is intolerable and certainly not conducive to a relaxed vacation. Tall, high density buildings should remain along the Gulf. Building them inland would adversely change the family vacation destination and relaxed character of this section of the Beach. The Sea Captain has a reputation of being one of the best, small family owned resorts in the area. It has always been maintained at the highest level and, therefore, brings a clientele which benefits the commercial community of Clearwater Beach. Please reject the Decade Companies proposal and keep Clearwater Beach. a family friendly destination. Sincerely, Jeanne and Joe Silverberg 2802 Arbor Dr., #1 Madison, WI 53711 5/15/2009 Page 1 of 2 Wells, Wayne From:. Wells, Wayne Sent:. Friday, May 15, 2009 9:40 AM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING MAY 14.09.doc FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: ]an Montgomery [mailto:jmontgomery@on.aibn.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:11 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING MAY 14.09.doc KENNETH W. SMITH BARRISTER & SOLICITOR TELEPHONE 27 FOSTER STREET (613) 267 -5910 P.O. BOX 157 TELECOPIER PERTH, ONTARIO (613) 264 -0789 K7H 3E3 e -mail: kenwsmith@on.aibn.com BY FAX 1- 727 - 562 -4865 AND BY E -MAIL: wayne.wells @myclearwater.com City of Clearwater May 14, 2009 Planning Dept. 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 Attn: Wayne Wells, Planning Dept. Dear Mr. Wells: Re: Proposed Redevelopment of corner. of Devon and Coronado (former site of The Sunny Motel and The Port Vue) As a long time winter visitor to Clearwater Beach it has been brought to my attention that the above - referenced properties are the subject of an application for construction of a 108 room Holiday Inn Express situate above a four -level parking garage. I understand that the height of the proposed structure will be nearly 100 feet. I further understand that balconies will look out to the east and to the north, and that a request has been submitted to reduce the easterly sideline set back to an alarming 2.5 feet from the adjacent motel property. This would effectively place a multi -level parking garage only a few feet away from occupied motel rooms - an environmentally unhealthy and unacceptable situation. The inevitable noise factor must also be considered. I am of the opinion that such a development flies in the face of the character of the area. The adjacent motel property together with several residential properties adjacent to it will be virtually devoid of sun for long stretches of time each day, as will large portions of the marine basin with the resultant adverse 5/15/2009 I/ Page 2 of 2 effects on marine life. Traffic at the intersection of Devon and Coronado is extremely heavy at times and the presence of the proposed development would only serve to exacerbate a problem that already exists. I would ask that this correspondence be tabled into consideration at the Community Development Board Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, May 19th, 2009. Yours sincerely, KENNETH W. SMITH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Ken Smith Per: Kenneth W. Smith /jm 5/15/2009 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:12 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: FLD2009 -03013 and DVA2009 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive Keith - Attached are the Staff Reports for the above referenced cases, to be heard by the Community Development Board (CDB) at 1:00 pm on Tuesday, May 19, 2009, in City Council Chambers (City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue). Please review the attached FLD Staff Report and let me know by 10:00 am on Monday, May 18, 2009, if the Conditions of Approval are acceptable or not. As you are aware, since there have been letters and emails of opposition, this case will not be on the Consent portion of the CDB agenda and full presentation is expected. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Coronado Coronado 1 Staff Report.dt Dev. Agree. S LL ater h'.�r •� 'aaJ+ U Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 TO: 2na DATE: FAX: � TELEPHONE: 7 f3- FROM: Wayne M. Wells TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4504 SUBJECT: IV/ Corona Na MESSAGE: NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): Z Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:57 AM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: Concern re Holiday Inn Express Development. FYI - See attached petition. - - - -- Original Message--- - From: Harry and Lynda Traini [mailto:traini @rogers.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:39. AM. To:. Wells, Wayne Cc: SEACAP100 @aol.com Subject:. Concern re Holiday Inn. Express Development. Please find attached a copy of our letter that is currently being mailed to you with our signatures. Since the meeting is next week we were unsure as to whether or not it would arrive in tiime. Harry and Lynda Traini traini@Logffa.com 519- 936 -7613 5/14/2009 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:05 AM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: Sea Captain Resort FYI - See attached petition. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ruth Kemp [mailto:kemper @altelco.net] Sent: Thursday, May 14,. 2009 10:59 AM To: Wells,. Wayne Subject: Sea Captain Resort Mr. Wells, attached please find my letter of support for the Sea. Captain Resort. Thank you for reading my letter, rk 5/14/2009 LL i ITT `Y U r ate F:8.0 ED Fax Cover Memo, CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 TO: DATE: S ) 1Z! 0 FAX: 793- 9,5ssj TELEPHONE: 7 9 ,3 — q 5 � Op FROM: Wayne M. Wells TELEPHONE: (727 ) 562 -4504 SUBJECT: ID S C© rp ern "o D 6 v -e— MESSAGE: .hov. NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 3 OA rw ater U Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 TO: C DATE: Z-1 01 FAX: 793 - TELEPHONE: __713 - l b s S FROM: Wayne M. Wells TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4504 SUBJECT: 10 t`0, & A, —_ray 1 0- MESSAGE: NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): '�' Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:35 PM To: William (Bill) Mills II (E -mail) Subject: FLD2009 -03013 and DVA2009 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive FYI - See FLD comment - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:32 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: FLD2009 -03013 and DVA2009 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive Keith - I have been reviewing the re- resubmittal package for the above referenced applications and find the following missing from or needing revision to. the package: FLD package: 41. South Elevation - Beach by Design requires a minimum of 60% of the elevation to be covered with windows and architectural decoration. The submitted South Elevation indicates the glass /elements to be 48 %, which is inconsistent with the requirements of Beach by Design. How can this be fixed? If it can be fixed now to have a higher percentage, then revise and resubmit the South Elevation, and also need to amend the percentage indicated in Attachment D, Criteria 6.c.3 (submit revised sheet to be collated into the Attachment D). DVA package: 1. Submit the Development Agreement application. 2. Signature on the Application - Unclear who signed this application, as the notary failed to include the signatore's name when notarizing the form. Need to redo signature and notarization. 3. Page 4 - Section 6.1.3.2 - Ninth line - After "Code or from seeking an amendment to this agreement." delete the rest of this section (end of line 9 through line 16). (See also Comment #4 below) 4. Page 5 - Section 6.1.4 - a. 8th line - Add before the sentence "It is understood" the following: "Additionally, prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Developer hereby agrees to execute a Declaration of Unity of Title for the Project Site providing that the Project Site shall be developed and used as a single project, the form of which Declaration of Unity of Title is available from the City Planning Department." b. End of Section paragraph - Add the following: "Additionally, the City shall execute and deliver to the Developer a Release of Unity of Title suitable for recording in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida." 5. Hopefully the changes to Section 6.1.3.2 and Section 6.1.4 will only require the reprinting of these two pages for insertion into the CDB packages. If it changes more on other pages, potentially reprint the entire document. The above needs to be fixed and submitted by 10:00 am on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 (one original and 14 copies). Please see Sherry Watkins so you can collate the above revisions into the application packages. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:32 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: FLD2009 -03013 and DVA2009- 00001. -.101 Coronado Drive Keith - I have been reviewing the re- resubmittal package for the above referenced applications and find the following missing from or needing revision to the package: FLD package: 1. South Elevation - Beach by Design requires a minimum of 60% of the elevation to be covered. with windows and architectural decoration. The. submitted South Elevation indicates the glass /elements to be 48 %, which is inconsistent with the requirements of Beach by Design. How can this be fixed? If it can be fixed now to have a higher percentage, then revise and resubmit the South Elevation, and also need to amend the percentage indicated in Attachment D, Criteria 6.c.3 (submit revised sheet to be collated into the Attachment D). DVA package: 1. Submit the Development Agreement application. 2. Signature on the Application - Unclear who signed this application, as the notary failed to include the signatore's name when notarizing the form. Need to redo signature and notarization. 3. Page 4 - Section 6.1.3.2 - Ninth line - After "Code or from seeking an amendment to this agreement." delete the rest of this section (end of line 9 through line 16). (See also Comment #4 below) 4. Page 5 - Section 6.1.4 - a. 8th line - Add before the sentence "It is understood" the following: "Additionally, prior to the issuance of the first building . permit for the Project, the Developer hereby agrees to execute a Declaration of Unity of Title for the Project Site providing that the Project Site shall be developed and used as a single project, the form of which Declaration of Unity of Title is available from the City Planning Department." b. End of Section paragraph - Add the following: "Additionally, the City shall execute and deliver to the Developer a. Release of Unity of Title suitable for recording in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida." 5. Hopefully the changes to Section 6.1.3.2 and Section 6.1.4 will only require the reprinting of these two pages for insertion into the CDB packages. If it changes more on other pages, potentially reprint the entire document. The above needs. to be fixed and submitted by 10:00 am on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 (one original and 14 copies). Please see Sherry Watkins so you can collate the above revisions into the application packages. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 LL 0g, ., ater I IFA-ED Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 TO: e DATE: S-1 S D 9 FAX: 7 9 3' 9 S TELEPHONE: 7 9 3 FROM: Wayne M. Wells TELEPHONE: (727, ) 562 -4504 SUBJECT: 1-1+s I 114 NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 2— ROOF DECK PORTION OF BUILDING NEAR NORTH END 13' 13' 1 T13, SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION ROOF DECK ROOF DECK WEST SIDE ELEVATION 53' 94' 13' 9— EAST SIDE n LJ BUILDING PERIMETER AT 37' ABOVE AND UP w D 82' � 2 86' OZ ,MO 58' n o Q m 0 a z �^ C WEST SIDE m m a� 41' 95' 24' 160' ROOF DECK NORTH SIDE ELEVATION DECK BUILDING FACE STEPSACK LINE EAST SIDE ELEVATION 32L-� 18' 1-�- -- EAST SIDE R W� N Q ^ LL 13' 25' W BUILDING FOOT PRINT AT GRADE o ', rn 86 O O z WEST SIDE N 160' _ I BASIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS DIMENSIONS HAVE BEEN ROUNDED TO NEAREST FOOT z w I °z 13' 13' z a w w 0 � 1 to in WEST SIDE ELEVATION 53' 94' 13' 9— EAST SIDE n LJ BUILDING PERIMETER AT 37' ABOVE AND UP w D 82' � 2 86' OZ ,MO 58' n o Q m 0 a z �^ C WEST SIDE m m a� 41' 95' 24' 160' ROOF DECK NORTH SIDE ELEVATION DECK BUILDING FACE STEPSACK LINE EAST SIDE ELEVATION 32L-� 18' 1-�- -- EAST SIDE R W� N Q ^ LL 13' 25' W BUILDING FOOT PRINT AT GRADE o ', rn 86 O O z WEST SIDE N 160' _ I BASIC BUILDING DIMENSIONS DIMENSIONS HAVE BEEN ROUNDED TO NEAREST FOOT May 01 09 02:39p William F. Mills II 813- 870 -0704 p.1 �l = O ^ ^ rT1 v OCP BCD COO 0 -n rri O O fTt m D rr rr ou r / O r_x °� D — D \ Z C O X o�o� c II F� Z M tv O -p n z �. M J Z ^ o� n II 1 / -rI N co Cp z Z ^ _ < OD -P co r 0) no �I — -71 -U 0) O— m nom' r r ny C X O C) z a TT D 1 1 O r I V J co r r V 1 rri . r r r r r r ME r r 213IvMHv313 40 AID 11431041M R) 9NINWd C13/U3 R 1vNI9RK) Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:27 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: FLD2009- 03013 and DVA2009 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive Keith - I have been reviewing the resubmittal package for the above referenced applications and find the following missing from or needing revision to the package: FLD package: J1. Submit the rendered West Elevation (8.5" x 11 "). 12. Submit Sheet C10 of 10. J3. Architectural elevations - Provide the following height dimensions: ✓a. from BFE to the flat roof deck (we have advertised the height at 89 feet, after discussion with Bill Mills, to be on the conservative side, as it may be slightly less than 89 feet); Jb. the height of the stair and elevator overruns from the flat roof deck to the top of the overruns; Jc. the height of the parapet from the flat roof deck to the top of the parapet; 4. Written material - Revise all references to building height to 89 feet. ✓5. Sheet C9 - Unclear why, on the southern parcel, the WT is not continued from the present southern end around the southern edge of the pond to the parking lot backup flair. Is this due to need for maintenance (mowing)? Still unclear why TJ or WT could not be planted for at least a portion of this area, still allowing for an access point for a lawn mower. J6. Revise Sheet C4 - General Site Notes - #5 Present Use to 53 units (not 31 units); a. Revise Attachment D, Criteria #6.c.4. Theoretical maximum envelop of 87,607 cf is not consistent with the drawing. , ,which indicates 82,607 cf (which number is correct ?). F Revise Attachment D, Criteria #6.c.4 � -:Look and copy online for revised criteria, which permits 75% of the maximum (your calculations indicate 60.54 %, which otherwise would have been inconsistent with the 60% maximum under Beach by Design). A. Revise the drawing to be 3D (not too understandable in 2D). Anything below 45' is irrelevant (move the theoretical maximum building envelop of 82,607 cf.!up above 45' line). Shading for the 34,075 is inconsistent between the legend and, the drawing. Change the drawing from sf to cf. 8. Still need color samples /swatches of the new proposed color scheme. The photos of the hotel in Houston supplied are not close to the scheme indicated on the building elevations, as the colors look much paler than indicated on the building Jelevations. Are you intending to include the Houston photos in each CDB package, as they presently are not? 9. Attachment "C" - Responses to General Applicability criteria #2 - First sentence is still not clear and does not read properly. It still appears to have left out something after "maintains the existing ". 1710. Application - Attachment "N'- Add the legal description for the southern parcel across Devon Drive. 11. East Elevation - Since the "northernmost" guest room has been bumped out to reduce the linear plane on the east side below the 100' maximum, the elevation should be showing a distinct break in the elevation line on each floor and for the upper building facia. Revise (including the 8.5" x 11" colored elevation). J12. South Elevation - Provide the opening height for the driveway into the garage and the height of any doorway for the , dumpster "room ". 13. South Elevation - Revise the 8.5" x 11" colored elevation to match the large scale drawing, as. an overhead door has /been added for the dumpster access. Ve Responses to General Applicability and overnight accommodation criteria in Attachments "C" and "D" - Revise "motel" t "hotel" wherever stated (not existing motels being replaced or surrounding this site). 15 Attachment "D" - Flexibility criteria #5 - Revise for the following: ic.1. Provide a diagram illustrating compliance with this design guideline; 0 The percentage of each elevation covered with windows and architectural decoration must also be placed on the elevation sheets in the architectural plans; (The setbacks stated do not match that indicated on the submitted site plan (setbacks are measured from the property line, not from the edge of the roadway pavement). J 16. Provide the complete Criteria 9 in Attachment D: 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; is . b. Be recorded with the Clerk of the C it Court pursuant to F.S. § 163.3239, with .opy 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. J1 7. Show on North Elevation the storefront system for the rooms. 418. Architectural plans - Fifth - Tenth floors - Place a note in the particular units on each floor that are "suites with full kitchen" ONLY on those units (total of 13 rooms) that have kitchens. Remove the language of "Guest Suite (typical suite)" from non - kitchen units. This change is required due to provisions in the Development Agreement. DVA package: 1. Submit the Development Agreement application. 2. Signature on the Application - Unclear who signed this application, as the notary failed. to include the signatore's name when notarizing the form. Need to redo signature and notarization. 3. Page 2 - Section 3.2 - Unclear why the following was not removed "or under contract to be owned in fee simple ", since I am unaware of any pending sale of the property. 4. Page 3 - Section 4.1 - Add a period at the end of the last sentence. 5. Page 3 - Section 4.2 - Revise the number of parking spaces to 112. 6. Page 3 - Section 4.3 - Fill in the proposed height of the building to read 89 feet (to roof deck) and add a period at the end of the sentence. 7. Page 3 - Section 4.4 -. Add a period at the end of the sentence. 8. Page 3 - Section 5.1 - Remove the quotation marks from the Code section and revise the. Code section to add a period after 606 so that it reads 4- 606.G.2. 9.. Page 4 - Section 6.1.3.1 - Fourth line - Add FLD in front of 2009 - 03013. 10. Page 4 - Section 6.1.3.2 - Unclear why the end of the last sentence of this Section was not changed to. "these time frames pursuant to applicable provisions of the Code and of the Florida Building Code or from seeking an amendment to this Agreement." 11. Page 4 -. Section 6.1.4 - Revise for the following: a. Second line - Correct the spelling of "Public ". b. Relocate the sentence on Page 5 reading: "Additionally, prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Developer hereby agrees to execute a Declaration of Unity of Title for the Project Site providing that the Project Site shall be developed and used as,a single project, the form of which Declaration of Unity of Title is available from,'the City Planning Department." to be on. Page 4, eighth line before "It is understood ". 12. Page 5 - Section 6.1.5 - Revise: a. Line 2 - Underline "Covenant.Regarding Use of Hotel, Density Reserve Units. ". b. Line 4 - Revise the word "form" to "from ". c. Line 9 - Add the word "if' between "or" and "any". 13. Page 7 - Section 9 - Line 2 - Add "of' between "terms and "this ". 14. Page 7 - Section 10 - Eliminate the "10.1" and rather pull up the paragraph to be after the title "Termination ". 15. Page 10 - Signature of Developer - Under the signature line, add the person's name and their position within the corporation. 16. Page 13 - Exhibit "A" - Need to include all legal descriptions of the overall site, including the southern parcel on the south side of Devon Drive. 17. Page 14 -. Exhibit "B" - Remove "Legal - See Schedule A" at the top and revise "Site Plan ". to "Site and Building Plans ". 18. Page 15 - Exhibit "C" -.Third paragraph - End of second line, add "mid- sized," between "of' and "mid- priced ". 19. Exhibit "C" - Page 16 - Under the line the Developer signs on, include: "Print Name ". 20. Page 20 - Exhibit "D" - Under the line the Developer signs on, include: "Print Name ". These applications are being placed on the May 19, 2009, CDB agenda but the above needs to be submitted by Tuesday, May 5, 2009 (one original and 14 copies). Please see Sherry Watkins so you can collate the above revisions into the application packages. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER FLORIDA 33758-`37`38 :. \�4,� MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLEAVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 E`�9`1��� TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 28, 2009 Keith Zayac Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 701 Enterprise Road East. Suite 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Re: Community Development Board Meeting (Case No. FLD2009- 03013) Dear Mr. Zayac: You have filed Case No. FLD2009 -03013 for property located generally at 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive for (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 108 -room overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to lot width along Devon Drive/First Street from 150 to 100 feet (north side) and from 150 to 110 feet (south side), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 to eight feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive /First Street), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 to 2.5 feet (to proposed building) and 7.22 feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon D ive/First Street), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 to five feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), and an increase to the building height from 35 to 89 feet (to top of roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2- 803.I, and approval of a two -year development order; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 72 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. This case has been scheduled for review by the Community Development Board on May 19, 2009. The meeting will take place at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 3rd floor of City Hall at 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 727 -562 -4504. Sincerely, V, �'" 1- •l.1'I Wayn M. Wells, AICP Planner III S: IPlanning Departmen 6 C D BIFLEX (FLD) IPending caseslUp for the next CDB ICoronado 0101 - 0105 Holiday Inn Express (7) 2009.05 - 5.19.09 CDB - WWICoronado 0101 CDB Letter 4.28.09.doc To1IA1. EMPIAYMENT AND AFFIRMATNE AcnnN EMPI.f1YF.R" F"' - Wells, Wayne From: Keith Zayac [keith @keithzayac.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 2:56 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: jkeier @decadegroup.com Subject: Hl Express Wayne, Attached are the pictures of the hotel in Houston, TX that the color is based. on. A truer color can be found at www.hotelindigo.com Keith E. Zayac, PE, RLA, LEED AP President Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (727)793-9888 Phone (727)793-9855 fax 4/20/2009 Page I of I Hotel Indigo HOUSTON Hotels I HOUSTON AT THE GALLERIA I Welcome Page 1 of 1 Note INDIGO www.hatelindigo.com InterContinental Hotels Group Hotel Indigo HOUSTON AT THE GALLERIA 5160 HIDALGO STREET I T i C Exterior View- bay Book Now or Call 1 877 270 1392 http : / /www.hotelindigo.conVWdlinl l lenlhotellhouhs ? &sitrackingid= 33964771 &sicreative... 4/20/2009 b.- • -w Hotel Indigo HOUSTON Hotels I HOUSTON AT THE GALLERIA I Welcome Page 1 of 1 hotel O'NDIGO www.hotefindigo.com IInterContinental Hotels Group Hotel Indigo HOUSTON AT THE GALLERIA 5160 HIDALGO STREET kamm N_ Tr ��n�� ��NITED STATES Book Now or Call 1 877 270 1392 z d "- N:I �- ,�,/0 WI !� r Exterlor View- -Night http:// www. hotelindigo. coml hl dl inl llenlhotellhouhs ? &sitrackingid= 33964771 &sicreative... 4/20/2009 Keith Zavac & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning 701 S. Enterprise Road E., Ste 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 793 -9888 Phone (727) 793 -9855 Fax keitha,keithMac.com EB 9351 LC26000212 1 April 12, 2009 Mr. Wayne Wells City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL RE: 101 CORONADO DRIVE; FLD2009 -03013 Dear Mr. Wells: ORIGINAL RECEIVED APR 13 2009 CITY OF CL�MWER Enclosed please find 15 copies of the revised submittal package addressing DRC comments received including the following: General Engineering: 1. The sanitary sewer wye shall be installed by the City with time and materials to be paid by the applicant. Note has been added to utility plan 2. Ductile iron pipe shall be used between water main (tap) and the backflow prevention device (B.F.P.D.). Added to utility plan 3. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of the B.F.P.D. Added to utility plan 4. Reclaimed water is available for irrigation and other non - potable water needs. An 8- inch main is located in Devon Drive fed from a 12 -inch main in Coronado Drive. Reclaimed water will be provided to northern parcel by existing service and meter. A new reclaimed service and meter have been added to utility plan to serve the southern parcel 5. The landscape sheet refers to County inspection, details and ordinances. Revised to "City" 6. The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, and a B.F.P.D. (back flow preventer device) if applicable. Applicant is responsible for all applicable impact and installation fees. Payment for the backflow prevention device is paid to Utilities Customer Service in the Municipal Services Building located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue. Acknowledged 7. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove /relocate any /all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) Note added to utility plan 8. Relocate the sanitary sewer cleanout to a point about 3 -feet from back of curb. Cleanout relocated 9. Provide sidewalks along First Street/Devon Drive at one -foot from property line (City Index 109) where possible instead of at back of curb. Prior to CO, provide easement for portions of sidewalk along Coronado Drive that encroach onto private property. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site - specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense (City Ordinances 32.095.(7) and 32.187.(5). 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. This comment was deleted at DRC and sidewalks will match location of existing sidewalks Fire: 1. Show the location of the Fire Pump room above BFE PRIOR TO CDB. Added to architectural plans 2. This building is determined to meet the criteria of a High Rise Building as defined by the Florida Fire Prevention Code, 2007 Edition; therefore the requirements of a High Rise structure must be met. These requirements include, but are not limited to Fire Code items such as: Fire Pump, sprinkler system throughout with control valve and water flow device on each floor, Class I Standpipe System, Fire Alarm using voice /alarm communication, Central Fire Control Station, firefighter phone system, Emergency lighting, Generator, Pressurized Stairwells, Stairwell marking and Elevator Lobbies. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB Acknowledged 3. Must Comply with Ordinance No. 7617 -06 Radio System Regulations for buildings, install 911 Radio Repeater / Antenna Booster System. Place note on plan with intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB Note added to site plan 4. This is a high -rise building and as such two FDC are required. Show on page C6 of 10 the location of the 2nd FDC at the NW end of building with a supporting fire hydrant that is 25' to 50' away and will serve as your secondary hydrant for this project. PRIOR TO CDB FDC relocated and hydrant added near NW corner or building 5. Show the location of the Fire Command Room which must be located above BFE. PRIOR TO CDB Fire command room added to architectural plans 6. Elevators cannot open into exits and are required to open into separated lobbies. Show details of intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB Revised on architectural plans 7. Show location of the generator room above BFE PRIOR TO CDB CR4SINA Located on architectural plans WCEIED APR 13 2009 PLANf%'7tJf Pu' ;,; WONT CF1Y OF CLU,TRATn, 8. Automatic Class I wet standpipe w/ fire pump providing 100 psi at roof. The system shall be designed so as not to incorporate Pressure Regulating Devices (PRD). The system must be designed as a zoned system. This provides a safe operating condition for firefighters that will use the system. If the design of the system requires PRD'S they will be required to be Elkhart adjustable devices. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB Acknowledged 9. Door from north stair on ground floor must swing in direction of egress. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB Revised and shown on architectural plans Landscaping: 1. Sheet C10 - Revise irrigation notes to City (not County) requirements. Sheets C4, C5, C6 and C9 - Wheel stops are required for the western parking row of parking spaces in the surface parking lot on the south side of Devon Drive. Irrigation note revised, wheel stops added 2. Sheet C9 - Revise for the following: a. Proposed plant list indicates 315 TJ, but I only count 280 TJ on the plan; b. Between northernmost sidewalk on north side of building and the sidewalk into the lower lobby, there is WT shown but is not indicated as to how many are proposed; c. On the very north side of the northern parcel, unclear why the undefined dark- shaded plants (NO ?) and RI are not continued to the property line, rather stopping at the "park" line; d. On the very north side, unclear what plants are proposed inside the RI (sod ?); e. There appears to be RI shown in the northeast corner of the northern parcel but no plants indicated; f. No plants are indicated between the existing pool screen wall and the northern wall of the proposed building; g. Unclear as to the number of plants proposed between the two "drives" on the north side of First Street in a 24 -foot area (15 PVT on 2' O.C.) versus the 12 PVT indicated wrapping around the corner of the building in approximately a 44 -foot distance. The numbers don't seem to add up properly; h. Unclear as to the number of plants proposed on the southern parcel from the west side of the driveway wrapping around to the drainage flume, an approximate 26 -foot distance, where only 7 PVT are proposed at T O.C.; i. On the southern parcel, continue the WT from the present southern end around the southern edge of the pond to the parking lot backup flair; j. If there is sod proposed in other locations of the northern and/or southern parcels, need to indicate such; and k. With such a huge setback from Coronado Drive to the parking lot on the southern parcel, plant at least two shade trees instead of the six palms proposed to provide shade to this surface parking lot. Landscape plan revised to address plant counts and locations Stormwater: 1. Please use a Time of Concentration of 60 minutes for both pre - development and post development. Tc has been revised in stormwater calculations CW D -D Z . r--j. M o o C= �A 2. Existing paving on the southern parking lot shall be given only %Z credit, not a full credit as utilized in the submitted stormwater report. Pre - condition impervious area CN number has been revised to 46 3. Please provide a minimum of 6" between the top of the control structure /skimmer and the top of bank to satisfy the freeboard requirement. Freeboard has been increased to a minimum of 6" by expanding pond volume 4. Provide the draw down analysis for the pond and the vault. Draw down for the pond shall be supported by the soil analysis and the Double Ring Test result. For the vault, please submit the buoyancy calculation supported by the soil analysis result (i.e. seasonal high water table elevation, etc.) A drawdown analysis has been provided based on historical data, and will be revised as necessary prior to building permit submittal with a soils report 5. Provide adequate clearance between the skimmer bottom and the pond bottom to maintain a proper flow of stormwater into the control structure. Clearance has been increased to allow adequate separate from sump bottom 6. Provide north to south and east to west cross sections extended to the adjacent properties and/or right -or -way for the proposed pond and vault for review. Please account for the vault thickness (side, cover, and bottom) in the cross section and seasonal high water table. Cross sections have been added through vault. Structural design will be added to building plans prior to submittal 7. Provide an access door into the vault for maintenance. Access cover has been added to detail 8. Please add a note on the Paving/Grading Plan stating that all roof runoff shall be routed to the proposed vault for treatment before discharge. Applicant shall acknowledge that he or she will submit a detailed calculation showing the design of the roof collection system (piping/gutter sizing) that is adequate to handle a 25 -year storm event. Please note that a detail plan showing the connection of this system to the vault shall be submitted for review at building permit application. Include the exposed part of the ramp portion of the parking garage into the design and calculations. Note has been added to grading and drainage plan. It is acknowledged that plumbing plans will incorporate required storm event, and detailed plans will show connections to vault. Solid Waste: 1 . Explain how Solid Waste and Recycling will be handled? If roll -out containers are to be used Max 4 yd Dumpsters need to be rolled to staging area near the curb. Roll out containers will be used and rolled out of 10 -foot wide staging area Traffic Engineering: 1. Provide mirrors to assist motorists exiting any parking space(s) wherever sight visibility is restricted. Mirrors are added to architectural plans 2. The main driveway access for the hotel building does not meet the connection spacing requirements of 125'. Currently it measures 30' from the closest edge of pavement to the next closest edge of pavement. (Community Development Code, Section 3 -102. D.) t'9 .mow p C LN tt? The driveway access consolidates the existing driveways on Coronado Drive to one driveway on Devon Drive. The driveway provides access to a limited service motel which will not have events or meetings that will require a vehicular staging area or initiate backup into the adjacent right of way. Based on the property use, the spacing from the intersection will not provide traffic backup issues within the right of way. 3. Provide a turning template of a scaled passenger vehicle measuring 19' in length exiting and entering the driveways. A turning template has been added to garage on architectural plans 4. Accessibility signs can be mounted on the wall to avoid using sign posts. Signs have been relocated to the wall 5. Provide a note on both the civil and architecture plans that the parking garage accommodates van accessible parking by providing a vertical clear height of 8'2". This includes entrance, route, parking space and exit per ADA parking compliance. (Florida Building Code Ch. 11, 11- 4.1.2. (5) (b) and 11- 4.6.5) Note has been added to architectural and civil plans 6. Provide a note on both the civil and architectural plans that the vertical clear height of each floor level in all vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm). Vehicle and pedestrian areas accommodating van- accessible parking shall be in accordance with Chapter 11. (Florida Building Code Chapter 4, Section 406, (2)(2)) 406.2.2 Clear height. Note added to plans 7. Provide pedestrian access connection between satellite parking lot and hotel using crosswalk markings along Coronado Drive. Access will be provided at existing crosswalk at intersection 8. Relocate columns /shear walls so that the columns /shear walls are no closer than 2 -feet away from the ends of parking stalls. Columns have been relocated on architectural plans 9. Provide a turning template for a scaled passenger car measuring 19' in length making a turn around the curve inside the parking garage. The vehicle making the turn shall not encroach into the opposing lane. Template has been added to garage plans 10. Ensure that the proposed number of parking stalls is sufficient to accommodate both guests and employees. The parking spaces have been increased to 112 spaces to provide 108 spaces for rooms and 4 spaces for staff. Based on the limited service nature of the motel, the spaces provided will be adequate for staff requirements 11. Provide current City standard dimensions for parking stalls and drive aisles on all levels /floors of the parking garage. Dimensions have been added to garage parking spaces and aisles 12. Identify how the trip distribution to /from the site was determined in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Changes to this distribution shall have an impact on the vehicle & intersection delay(s) stated in the study and may require mitigation or impact site access not presently addressed in the analysis. The Traffic Impact Study shall be revised to the satisfaction of the Traffic Operations Department. Traffic consultant is working with Traffic Operations Department to resolve changes to traffic study and report will be provided upon completion in time for distribution to CDB n -° Z A GQ 13. Re -design all the proposed flared driveways into a 30' radius driveways. Based on discussion at DRC, urban flares will remain at access points to be in conformance with Beach Walk improvements to permanent driveways along Coronado Drive ,Planning: 1 . Unclear of the purpose of the area under the ramp on the east side of the building, since it is designed with a 15 -foot wide opening and driveway. It appears that it is solely a dumpster room. It is not a parking area. As a dumpster "room ", and maybe storage, the opening should be cut down to a maximum of 8 -10 feet wide. Also, the driveway should be redesigned and converted to a dumpster staging area, where dumpster(s) are placed on pickup days. Ground floor plan and south elevation does not indicate any overhead door or grating (elevation indicates it as being open). Need to have an overhead or other door to screen views of the dumpster(s) and any storage. Might also recommend a door from the parking area into this "room ". Revise the civil plans and the architectural plans (ground floor and south elevation). The dumpster rollout ramp has been reduced to 10 -feet in width 2. Sheet C 1 - Legal Description - Add the southern parcel across Devon Drive. Southern parcel added to legal description 3 The parcels included in this application have the following addresses: 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive. On Sheet C1 under the parcel numbers, on Sheet C4 under Project Address and on Page 1 of the application, the Devon Drive address should be added. However, if there is a desired address of, say, 101 Coronado Drive, then that address should be put in the title block on the right side of each sheet. The address will be consolidated to 101 Coronado Drive ® There are overhead utility lines along the southern frontage of the northern parcel, which need to be placed underground. The overhead utility lines located along the east property line of the southern parcel are recommended to be placed underground. On -site, all electric and communication lines must be placed underground. A note has been added to utility plan regarding relocation of lines underground 5 . Architectural plans - Ground floor plan is at a different scale (appears to be 1/8" = F- 0") than the upper floors (appears to be 3/16" = 1' -0 "). Revise ground floor plan to be at the same scale as the upper floors. Provide the scale of the drawings on all sheets, including the elevations. Scaled revised and noted on all architectural plans as needed J6 . I only count 110 total parking spaces. The area labeled "bicycles" cannot be counted as a parking space if it is being designated for bicycles. Revise the proposed amount on Sheet C4 under General Site Note #10 and elsewhere in the application material. Parking spaces have been revised and updated count added to site plan J7 . Survey - There is shown a 15' Park (per City Park Subdivision Plat) indicated on, and partially on, the northern portion of the property. Has this been vacated? If not, this presents building and other improvements problems ( ?). Advise /revise. Based on coordination with City Engineering Department, the easement has been I vacated and document enclosed �! 8 . Engineering - There is a portion of the Coronado sidewalk on the subject property (north of East/West centerline - see survey). Do you need an easement? 0 11� -o co N 0 cm M M a We request that an easement agreement be forwarded for City improvement to property owner for review 9. Sheet C4 - Remove the number of parking spaces symbol with a "2" in it adjacent to the southern stairwell (there are eight parking spaces in this row and the symbol with the proper "8" is located farther north). T e "2" has been deleted 10 The area to the north of the north property line, indicated as "brick paver area" and wood dock" is located within the submerged area owned by the City. Does the owner have a lease for these structures within our property? If not, need to remove these structures. The wood dock ownership will need to be coordinated with project attorney. We request this be worked out and resolved prior to building permit as a condition of approval 11 . Sheet C4, C5, C6 and C9 - Doorway to the exterior on the north side of the building is not located the same as depicted on the ground floor architectural plan. Revise. Doorway has been coordinated and revised 12 . The plan indicates an eight -inch wall being retained on the south side of the pool parallel with the north side of the building. This is an existing safety wall for the existing pool. Retaining this wall will create a four -foot wide "no man's" area between this open wall and the building wall. Strongly recommend removing this wall and utilize the proposed building wall to create the pool area and then provide a fence /wall from the building to the east property line and then along the east property line to the seawall. The plan also needs to indicate a fence /wall along the west side of the pool to enclose the pool from a safety aspect. Is the existing covered pool pump area being retained or will it be reworked? It appears there needs to be electrical work done (looks like an extension cord is being used for power). Wall has been removed, and fencing added 13 . Note: The proposed freestanding sign on the north side must only meet a minimum five -foot setback to property lines (but cannot be within the "park" area if it hasn't been vacated yet). Park area has been vacated and sign moved to 5 -feet from property line �{ 14. Engineering and Fire - Don't the driveways into the building on the north side of First Street and into the surface parking lot on the south side of First Street need to have a 30 -foot radius on the driveways? Per discussion with DRC, urban flares remain since fire truck access will remain within right of way due to small size of properties 15. Engineering - There are existing drop driveways on Coronado Drive for the northern and southern parcels (either side of First Street). Need to remove and install upright curbing, fixing the sidewalks too. Is Note #18 on Sheet C4 sufficient? Driveways will be removed per demo plan and notes J16 . Engineering - Why isn't a sidewalk being constructed one -foot off the property line along the northern frontage of the southern parcel, similar to that constructed for our parking lot directly east, "bending" around the transformer? Also, why isn't the sidewalk on the north side of First Street not being placed one -foot off the property line? Sidewalk is being constructed based on sidewalk locations surrounding properties and remain per discussions at DRC 17 Sheet C4 - General Site Notes ONG6NAL RLICEIVED APR 13 2009 PLANNIN& DWARTMT CITY OF CLEARWATV1 a. #5 - Only 22 units are listed as "present use ", which is at 101 Coronado Drive, but there were 16 units at 105 Coronado Drive and 15 units at 35 Devon Drive that have been already been demolished. For impact fee credits, should list all units (existing or already demolished); and b. #6 - The proposed number of rooms /units needs to be detailed so as to indicate 36 rooms based on the base density of 50 rooms per acre and 72 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve, also indicating the proposed density of 150 rooms /units per acre. Existing units have been revised in notes 18 . Beach by Design requires no plane of a building to exceed 100 linear feet without a minimum five -foot offset of the building. Based on the dimensions provided on the east side of the building on Sheet C4 for the parking garage levels (First - Fourth floors), if the building is at a 6.71 -foot setback at the southeast corner and a 6.12 -foot setback at the northeast corner, and the angled rooms are supposed to be five feet in depth (although it appears the five feet is measured incorrectly from the inside, rather than the outside, face of the building wall), there cannot be a building setback to the angled room of 3.88 feet at the southeast corner and 3.45 feet at the northeast comer. Dimensions do not add up. Architectural plans conveniently don't provide dimensions for these angled rooms. Revise to meet the requirements, ensuring dimensions are accurate. Dimensions have been added to the plans and revised to meet criteria Additionally, need to provide a detail of the area of the southern stairwell to demonstrate that "there is a minimum offset of five feet being provided and dimensioning the width of the opening between the columns. Detail has been added to plans Finally, the east side of the building does not meet this requirement for the Fifth - Tenth floors as it measures close to 120 feet in length for this linear plane. There is no variance to this maximum length of 100 feet without a minimum five -foot offset. Plans have been revised to meet minimum 100 -foot maximum length Provide dimensions on the east and west sides of the building indicating the length of a plane of the building between the offsets. Building dimensions and configuration has been revised per comments 19 . Southern stairwell - The egress door for this stairwell is recessed from the opening (offset in the building), potentially creating an unsafe "alcove" where it will be difficult to see if there is anyone back in the corner. Can the door be moved to open toward the north? The exterior of the door is noted as 4 -foot high J20. Northernmost sidewalk from Coronado Drive provides a wide sidewalk to the north side of the building, however, there is no door into the lobby at this location, per the architectural plans. Revise sidewalk to the opening in the wall to the garage by the handicap parking. Sidewalk has been revised to provide access to motel first floor access to lobby J21 . Question - Is there any concern on the developer /owner's part that the pool is proposed to be accessed solely outside of the building from a sidewalk that leads to Coronado Drive and that the lobby is on the fifth floor, where there is no connection between office personnel and the pool area in case of an emergency or unauthorized use by outsiders? Shouldn't access to the pool be farther east from the garage from the handicap access aisle between the two handicap spaces, and access from Coronado Drive be severed? Pool will be monitored by camera, and access revised on plans OR1GINAl. RECEIVED AM 13 2003 P1ANNpNsP�, MVP-MA MT 22 . Question - With the closeness of the proposed building to the existing pool, will the pool survive construction of the proposed building without cracking or other sinking? This will be a construction issue rather than site plan approval 23 . Sheet C5 - Will the lower lobby be handicap accessible via the sidewalk from the lobby to the sidewalk within Coronado Drive? Additionally, if the finished floor elevation of the garage is proposed at 5.25 and the public sidewalk within Coronado Drive at the southern stairwell exists at an elevation of 3.93 feet, is it acceptable to have the sidewalk slope from 5.25 to 3.93 feet over a six -foot area to meet Building Code requirements? Sidewalk access has been revised to provide handicapped accessibility to right of way sidewalk `j 24. Sheet C6 - What happened to Utility Notes #13 -15? Utility Note #17 - With the building located five feet from the property line, is this distance separation between the FDC and building possible? Revise note. Separation was verified as acceptable at DRC with Fire Chief J 25 . Architectural Plans - Provide a scale for the elevation drawings (1/8" =1 " -0" ?). Scale provided ,) 26 . Architectural elevations - Finished floor of the first floor garage is proposed at 5.25 feet, not approximately 6.0 feet. Revise. Einished floor revised 27 Architectural elevations - Provide the following height dimensions: a. from BFE to the flat roof deck; b. the height of the stair and elevator overruns from the flat roof deck to the top of the overruns; c. the height of the parapet from the flat roof deck to the top of the parapet; and d. the height from BFE to the top of the tiki bar roof (cannot exceed 100 feet due to limitation under the Code definition of "height "). Height dimensions provided 428 . Sheet C4 - Provide overall building dimensions on this sheet. Overall building dimensions added to site plan J29 . Architectural plans - First through fourth floors - Provide dimensions of parking spaces (length and width) and drive aisle widths. Additionally, show all parking spaces at full length of 18 feet. Dimensions added, and spaces revised 3 . A bicycle area is indicated right inside the garage entrance. Are these bicycles the hotel will provide to its guests (free or for a fee ?) or will there be an outside company come in to rent bicycles to the guests? Bike space is just a convenience to guests and not a rental location 31 . Architectural plans - Ground floor - Stripe similar to handicap access aisles the area between parking spaces accessing the dumpster "room" (see Sheet C4). Area has been striped on plans J32 . Architectural plans - Fourth floor - The drive aisle between the easternmost parking spaces does not meet the required Code width of 24 feet. Drive isle has been revised to 24 -feet wide J33 . Architectural plans - Second - Fourth floors - Consider relocating from a safety aspect the entrance door to the mechanical room in the southeast corner on each floo the west side to allow opening of the door outside of the drive aisle. ovibWIAL Mechanical room doors have been relocated and increased in size RE ED 3 20TJI PLANNNN� � r Ii�WAT cyry OF &EARWAT0 0 Unclear where electric meters will be located (must be above BFE). Show location. If exterior to the building, show Progress Energy meter reader landing and steps (this counts as a structure needing to meet setbacks). Need to paint exterior electric boxes to match the color of the building. Main electric service and meter has been noted on the second floor plan on the south side of the south stairs 35 . West and North Elevations - Flat cement roof tiles on the roof over the lower lobby entrance on the northwest corner of the building appears inconsistent with standing seam metal roof proposed for the bar roof and roofs over the stairwells and elevator on the top of the building. Revise to standing seam metal roof on the first floor. The cement tile roof at the first floor entry has not been changed Vxterior building color scheme - The proposed green color scheme does not comply twIhe color palate in Section LA of Beach by Design. Try another color scheme. Provide color samples /swatches of the new proposed color scheme. Additional information has been provided for color scheme J37. Appears that the east side parking garage levels (first - fourth) is a solid wall with no openings. Correct? The east wall of the parking and living level which are within 15 -feet of the east property line. J38 . Unclear why the glass is clear, rather than green tinted, in the guardrail system around the rooftop pool, whereas the rooms /units have a green tinted glass in the windows. The glass is clear at the railing for view only, green tinting may be used 39 . Elevation Sheets - Add in "C" for fascia into the Finishes - Colors legend. Finish "C" has been added to the elevations 40 East and North Elevations - Show the storefront system for the rooms on these elevations (elevation "A" on Fifth floor plan). Storefront has been added to the north and east elevations 41 . North Elevation - Egress door indicated on ground floor architectural plan not shown. Additionally, the wall between the columns on the ground floor on the north side appears different than that indicated for the west side, potentially indicating a solid wall (not open on the ground floor, as the elevation indicates). Which is correct? of access has been clarified 42 South Elevation - a. Are there openings "G" on the parking garage levels? and b. Provide the opening height for the driveway into the garage and the height of any doorway for the dumpster "room ". tu th elevation access has been clarified 4 West Elevation - Remove the "Theoretical Maximum Envelope Calculations" from this sheet and add into the written application material, along with an appropriate diagram showing what the calculation is stating. Also, Beach by Design was revised to a 45 -foot dimension rather than 42 feet (it was inconsistent previously between diagrams and written material). Revise calculation. Theoretical envelope note has been removed, and calculations revised with an enclosed diagram 44 Application - Attachment "A" - Add the legal description for the southern parcel across Devon Drive. �x� Legal description for southern parcel added to attachment A om %<to J45 . Application - Attachment "B" - Revise Description of Request to that indicated by Staff. Ps,scription has been revised per staff and updated dimensions added 46 Responses to General Applicability and overnight accommodation criteria in Attachments "C" and "D" - Revise "motel" to "hotel" wherever stated. Revised 447. Attachment "C" - Responses to General Applicability criteria #1 - What appears to be paragraph 3, starting with "The proposed project..." needs to be completed with how it will enhance the area. Response revised a Attachment "C" - Responses to General Applicability criteria #2 - First sentence does not read properly. It appears to have left out something after "maintains the existing ". Response revised J 49 . Attachment "C" - Responses to General Applicability criteria #4 - Second sentence needs to reflect the 110 parking spaces on the plans (not 111), and only allowing two spaces for staff (not three). What happens to employee parking in the event that the common ownership of this project and the Holiday Inn Beachside project is split up and there is no more common housekeeping and maintenance staff? Response revised to reflect updated 112 spaces which is adequate for limited service staff and total rooms 50. Attachment "C" - Responses to General Applicability criteria #5 - Second paragraph/second sentence - Rather than saying this project serves as a buffer, suggest saying it transitions the height of buildings from the 150 feet approved to the west toward the maximum 35 feet allowed for detached dwellings within the LMDR area along Devon Drive (which is not part of Beach by Design). Response revised 51 . Attachment "D" - Responses to Flexibility criteria #1 for overnight accommodations in Section 2 -803.I - Code has been changed. This criteria now reads: "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;" Revise criteria and response appropriately. Note: Coronado Drive is being designated a major arterial street with future amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, being relocated from S. Gulfview Blvd. Any revised discussion should refer to such designation. This project is consistent with the criteria as it takes access to the side street, removing direct access it presently takes. Additionally, there really isn't a drive being provided to the dumpster area, as it will be a staging area, not a driveway. Revise discussion. Response revised 52. Attachment "D" - Responses to Flexibility criteria #2 for overnight accommodations in Section 2 -803.I - First sentence refers to replacing a dated 2 -story motel. This project replaces not only 2 -story motels, but also a 4 -story motel (Port Vue). Need to provide additional justification for being an improved site plan, such as potentially the reorientation of driveways off of Coronado Drive and the provision of a surface parking lot on the south side of Devon Drive, which opens up a vista (along with the City surface parking lot to the east) where taller buildings will not be every parcel and provides visual relief from any potential "crowding" of buildings. Revise. Response revised OR��,� � F. r 9 . �� C�E� r� 4 53 . Attachment "D" - Responses to Flexibility criteria #4 for overnight accommodations in Section 2 -803.I - a. Revise "Setbacks" to "Front Setback "; b. Revise the first criteria to "The reduced setback shall contribute to a more active and dynamic street life; ". The response does not show HOW the proposal is consistent with this criteria, since the first floor is primarily a parking garage. In fact, you may need to respond in the negative to this criteria due to the parking garage. There is a lower lobby, that only provides an access point to the elevators, which then brings one up to the lobby on the fifth floor, which does not contribute to the street life; c. Revise the second criteria to "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 ". Revise the response appropriately; and d. Revise the third criteria to "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." Revise the response appropriately. Response revised 54. Attachment "D" - Flexibility criteria #4 for overnight accommodations in Section 2- 803.I - Revise this criteria to the following (Code was amended to split this off from the front setback criteria): "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 revised Provide new appropriate responses: aa. Under the present application material, criteria 4c should be 5a. Reorient the response to state that access by emergency vehicles will be prevented, however, due to the small size of the property emergency personnel will have pedestrian access to the rear areas; bb. Under the present application material, criteria 4d should be 5b. The last sentence is only applicable to the southern parcel. Revise; and cc. Under the present application material, criteria 4e should be 5c. Provide an appropriate response. onse revised 55 Attachment Flexibility criteria #5 for overnight accommodations in Section 2- 3.I - Revise to Criteria #6 and revise the criteria to read: "The design of all buildings shall comply with the Tourist District site and architectural design guidelines in Section 3 -501, as applicable;" 4 a. Revise the allowed density from 40 to 50 rooms per acre. Additional units are being requested through the Hotel Density Reserve; c.1 Provide a diagram illustrating compliance with this design guideline; J c.2. See other Planning comments regarding noncompliance with this criteria; The percentage of each elevation covered with windows and architectural decoration must also be placed on the elevation sheets in the architectural plans. For the north elevation, see other Planning comments questioning the openness of the ground floor. For 4 i c� o `U the east elevation in the second sentence talking about the east elevation, revise "do" to "due ". Is there an overall for the east elevation? c.4. Revise from 42 to 45 feet and revise the calculations. Provide a diagram illustrating compliance with this design guideline; J c.5. See Planning comment for General Applicability criteria #5 for language that may be helpful for this response; and The setbacks stated do not match that indicated on the submitted site plan. Revise. Response revised "D" J56. Attachment - Flexibility criteria #6 for overnight accommodations in Section 2- 803.1- Revise the criteria and the number of the criteria to the following: "7. 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;" There is no lot area reduction requested. However, there is a lot width reduction that needs to be part of the request, as there is not 150 feet of frontage (lot width) along Devon Drive (100 feet on the northern parcel and 110 feet on the southern parcel). Need to provide a response to the criteria. Response revised 57 Attachment "D" - Need to provide responses to the following Flexibility criteria for overnight accommodations in Section 2 -803.I - "8. 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 9. 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." A revised development agreement has been included in submittal that address this response 58 . Based on a recent discussion with the adjoining property owner and his architect of a proposed hotel on the parcel to the east of this property (on the north side of Devon Drive) where there were issues with the proposed site and hotel design, it is suggested to potentially join the properties together for one hotel project to have a larger parcel for building and site design purposes. Property owner has expressed that he is not interested in purchasing additional property since proposed motel meets unit count that is representative of limited o,, service motels 58 . Architectural plans - Fifth - Tenth floors - Place a note in the units on each � Q N 2- � CYa particular floor that are suites with full kitchen". � Notes added ® Z O �( 59. Intent of the Hotel Density Reserve is for mid -priced hotels. Provide the price range for hotel rooms. 55 Motel prices will range from mid $100s to mid $200s 60. Unclear if the parking garage will be naturally vented or if it is required to have mechanical ventilation. If mechanical ventilation required, show location and design of mechanical equipment for venting on architectural plans and elevations. Garage is open to the outside and naturally vented K6ith E. Zayac, PE, RLA, LEED AP President cn G� _o 0� ti GL C 0 a LL rwater WE 0, 1 E= Ft���ffi� Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: —DATE: A0 10 FAX: A13,67V-0-704- TELEPHONE: 9)3-,870,2_-Q0(g FROM: Way!je M. Wells TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4504 SUBJECT: k�h /'� MESSAGE: NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): Exhibit "C" — page 3 Beach by Design Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings Item C -4 4. No more than sixty percent (60 %) of the theoretical maximum building envelope lo- cated above forty -two feet (42') will be occupied by a building. For the purpose of this standard, theoretical maximum building envelope is the maximum permitted building volume that could be theoretically occupied by a building and occupied by a building in- cludes any portion of the maximum possible building envelope that is not visible from a public street. MAXIMUM POSSIBLE VOLUME VOLUME 42'. 100': MAXIMUM: 6,804,850 CF PROPOSED: 2,807,740 CF VOLUME 100'-150': MAXIMUM: 4,316,350 CF PROPOSED: 1,420,100 CF TOTAL: MAXIMUM: 11,121,200 CF PROPOSED: 4,227,840 CF RATIO: PROPOSED DESIGN IS 38.0% OF MAXIMUM Note: Calculation is based on proposed setbacks. PROPOSED DESIGN 1 J SUPERIMPOSED ORIGINAL RECEIVED SEP 15 2000 PUNNING DEPARTMEM CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 50 100 200 CLEARWATER BEACH RESORT & HOTEL Q NICHCLS l3ROSCH CLEARWATER, FLORIDA WUdSI V✓fliFE SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 PROPOSED by THE RELATED GROUP C -3 .. Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:18 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: FLD2009 -03013 and DVA2009 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive Keith - Attached are the Draft comments for the above referenced project (FLD and DVA cases), to be discussed at the April 2, 2009, DRC meeting, occurring at 2:00 am in the Planning Department offices. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 L9 KM Draft 4.2.09 Draft 4.2.09 C Action AgendC Action Agend Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 20094:42 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: FLD2009 -03013 -.101 Coronado Drive Keith - Attached is a Letter of Completeness. The original is. being mailed to you. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 letter of pleteness 3.11.1 C el ater 0 March 11, 2009 Keith Zavac 701 Enterprise Road East Suite 404 Safety Harbor, F134695 CITY OF CLEA WATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4576 W W W. MYC LEAR W ATER. C OM VIA FAX: (727) 793 -9855 RE: FLD2009 -03013 -- 101 CORONADO DR -- Letter of Completeness Dear Keith Zayac : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2009- 03013. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on April 02, 2009, in the Planning Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building. The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in downtown Clearwater. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments may be generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727 -562 -4504 or Wayne. Wells @myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, I �It v A Wavne Wells, AICP Planner III Letter of Completeness - FLD2009 -03013 -101 CORONADO DR Keith Zavac & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning March 10, 2009 City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Attn: Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner III Reference: Holiday Inn Express — 101 Coronado Drive Permit #: FLD2009 -03013 KZA #: 731 -08 Dear Wayne: 701 Enterprise Road E., Ste 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 793 -9888 Phone (727) 793 -9855 Fax keithkkeithzayac. com EB9351 LC26000212 ORIGINAI. RICENED MAR '10 2009 PL "S PORNKNT CRY OF CiiMWAqV Enclosed please find fifteen (15) copies of sheet C4, Site Plan, revised per your comments. 1. Provide a survey for the southern parcel (SE corner of Coronado Drive and Devon Drive) (one original and 14 copies). a. Surveys provided and enclosed. 2. Sheet C4 — Provide dimensions for the width and length of parking spaces in the parking garage, the width of the ramp and the depth of the closet and mechanical bumpouts on the east side of the building. a. Dimensions have been added to sheet C4. Ground Floor architectural — Provide the dimension of the southern indentation at the stairwell on Coronado Drive. a. Dimensions have been added to sheet C4. 3. Show or indicate the location of all outdoor lighting fixtures. a. Light standard locations are shown on sheet C4. 4. Provide a REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'/X11) (Sheet C4). a. Reduced color site plan provided and enclosed. 5. Indicate on the large scale building elevations the proposed exterior material and colors (use a key legend as necessary) a. The proposed exterior material and colors have been added to large scale plans. 6. While there has been response to the Overnight Accommodation criteria in Section 2- 803.1, the response to criteria 5 regarding compliance with Beach by Design guidelines needs to be expanded to address all six guidelines of Section C. Design, Scale, Mass of Buildings. The responses need to have ant necessary diagrams to illustrate compliance with these guidelines. a. Responses to all six guidelines of Section C has been added to attachment D. Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any further questions or comments regarding this project. Very truly yours, Keith Zajac & Associates, Inc. Cc: File 731 -08 ORIGINAL RtCEIVED MAR 1 o 2009 PLANMNS DEMS IT Ory OF CCEARWA Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 10:37 AM To: 'Keith Zayac' Cc: wfmillsii @mindspring.com Subject: FLD2009 -03013 & DVA2O09 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive Keith - Yes, there is a color chart. Yes, there is. an 8.5 "x11" color. rendering of the building. The color rendering, however, is indistinguishable between the two colors of green. I now see the letters on the plan, but they are very small to read. As I grow older, I find it easier to read large print. It is also unclear where a "minor wall" is the elevations. The large elevations need to also articulate the exterior material and colors proposed. Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Zayac (mailto:keith @keithzayac.coml Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:49 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: wfmillsii @mindspring.com Subject: RE: FLD2009 -03013 & DVA2009 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive Wayne, Just one clarification, we submitted a 8 1/2 x 11 color chart with Sherwin Williams colors. Doesn't that suffice regarding comment 5. Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RLA President Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (727)793 -9888 phone (727)793 -9855 fax - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne. Wells @myClearwater.com ( mailto :Wayne.Wells @myClearwater.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:08 PM To: keith @keithzayac.com Subject: FLD2009 -03013 & DVA2009 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive Keith - Attached is a Letter of Incompleteness for FLD2009- 03013. I cannot attach the Letter of Completeness for DVA2009- 00001, but it is complete and is being placed on the DRC agenda for April 2, 2009. The originals of both letters are being mailed to you. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 <<Letter of Incompleteness 3.5.09.pdf >> 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:08 PM To: Keith Zayac (E -mail) Subject: FLD2009 -03013 & DVA2009 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive Keith - Attached is a Letter of Incompleteness for FLD2009- 03013. I cannot attach the Letter of Completeness for DVA2009- 00001, but it is complete and is being placed on the DRC agenda for April 2, 2009. The originals of both letters are being mailed to you. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Letter of impleteness 3.5 LL °- ater U March 05, 2009 Keith Zavac 701 Enterprise Road East Suite 404 Safetv Harbor. F134695 CITY OF CLEPWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4576 W W W.MYCLEARWATER. COM VIA FAX: (727) 793 -9855 RE: FLD2009 -03013 -- 101 CORONADO DR -- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Keith Zayac : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2009- 03013. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments. 1. Provide a survey for the southern parcel (SE corner of Coronado Drive and Devon Drive) (one original and 14 copies). 2. Sheet C4 - Provide dimensions for the width and length of parking spaces in the parking garage, the width of the ramp and the depth of the closet and mechanical bumpouts on the east side of the building. ('rntinrl Flnnr arch :tect'aral -Provide the dimension ^f the ernitliarn in.lantotin„ of tl,a otoi..�.oll JV LL lilvl ll iiiuvii LLL L1 V11 LLL L11V JLUll Y Vll on Coronado Drive. 3. Show or indicated the location of all outdoor lighting fixtures. 4. Provide a REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8 %2 X 11) (Sheet C4). 5. Indicate on the large scale building elevations the proposed exterior material and colors (use a key legend as necessary). 6. While there has been a response to the Overnight Accommodation criteria in Section 2- 803.I, the response to criteria 5 regarding compliance with Beach by Design design guidelines needs to be expanded to address all six guidelines of Section C. Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings. The responses need to have any necessary diagrams to illustrate compliance with these guidelines. Section 4 -202 of the Community Development Code states that if an application is deemed incomplete, the deficiencies of the application shall be specified by Staff. No further development review action shall be taken until the deficiencies are corrected and the application is deemed complete. Please resubmit by Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at NOON. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727 -562 -4504 or Wayne.Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, Letter oflncompleteness - FLD2009 -03013 -101 CORONADO DR r CITY OF CLEARWATER ater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4576 W W W .MYCLEARWATER. COM March 05, 2009 wa Wavn� ells Planner III Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2009 -03013 -101 CORONADO DR Wells, Wayne From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 11:17 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael; Tefft, Robert Subject: FW: GM09- 1420 -055: FW: A04- 01420: FW: Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf Attachments: Port Vue Concrete Dock Memo8.12.09.doc; DECADE PROPERTIES RIPARIAN 1 (2).pdf; DECADE PROPERTIES RIPARIAN 2.pdf See additional information and attachments. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Mahony, Laura Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:07 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: Akin, Pam Subject: RE: GM09- 1420 -055: FW: A04- 01420: FW: Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf Please see my opinion as to the ownership of the submerged lands and other lands relevant to the subject proposed development - as well as appurtenant riparian rights. I believe it would be prudent for the city to reserve the right to require a submerged lands lease at some point in the future - should circumstances dictate that the City management, for whatever reason, chooses to do so. However, at this time, I agree that a submerged lands lease is not required. Also note that the existing dock may be repaired and /or maintained, but the City should not approve any permits for new construction, as allowing new construction would arguably trigger the reverter restriction /provision on the submerged lands. Laura - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:48 PM To: Mahony, Laura Subject: GM09- 1420 -055: FW: A04- 01420: FW: Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf FYI. I'm not sure whether you were aware of Marine's approach to whether to require submerged land leases. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:42 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: Delk, Michael; Tefft, Robert Subject: A04- 01420: FW: Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf Leslie - The approval of Case No. FLD2009 -03013 (related to DVA2009- 00001) for the Holiday Inn Express (now to be a Hampton Inn), approved by the CDB on May 19, 2009, for property located at 101 Coronado Drive, included the following Condition #5: 1 5. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, ownership of the deck /dock on the north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department. The attached letter may not be properly worded, but the intent is to seek a determination of compliance with this condition of approval. I am attaching an email train that includes Joe Burdette and Bill Morris for your assistance. If I read the attached letter and the email train, the owner is not contesting ownership of the submerged land (which Bill Morris feels is city- owned) but is attempting to determine if a submerged land lease will be required. Bill Morris is apparently not looking for a lease of the submerged land (which then may be also required of all property owners on the north side of Devon Drive, which we apparently do not have today). I think they are looking for a response that says the city owns the submerged land but we are not seeking a lease of the submerged land at this time (we could still reserve the right to come back in the future and ask this property owner and all others similarly affected on the north side of Devon Drive for submerged land leases when the city so decides such leases should now be required). This would satisfy in my opinion Condition #5 leading up to the issuance of a building permit for the hotel. Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Delk, Michael Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:31 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: A04- 01420: FW: Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:05 PM To: Tefft, Robert Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: A04- 01420: FW: Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf Please see attached correspondence received by me. I am not aware of any pending application for amendment of the D.O. or DVA. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ayo, Ellen Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:59 AM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Subject: Emailing: Hampton Inn.pdf Leslie, As requested. Ellen The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Hampton Inn.pdf 2 Note: To protect against computer viruses, e -mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e -mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. LL } Clearwater U City Attorney's Office Interoffice Correspondence Sheet To: Pam Akin, City Attorney From: Laura Mahony, Assistant City Attorney Date: August 12, 2009 Re: Ownership of Submerged Lands in the Southwest corner of Water Lot 1 in the area of the proposed Holiday Inn (Decade properties) ISSUE You have asked for a title determination on certain submerged lands in the southwest corner of Water Lot 1 in the area of the proposed Holiday Inn. STATEMENT OF FACTS /DISCUSSION Decade Properties ( "Decade ") has made application to develop a Holiday Inn on the former Port Vue Motel property on the upland in the southwest corner of Water Lot 1. A question has arisen regarding the ownership of the adjacent submerged lands, specifically, the submerged lands upon which a concrete dock (concrete platform on concrete pilings) has been constructed by a predecessor in interest to Decade. Property records reflect that the City owns Water Lot 1. Suffice it to say that the property issues related to the submerged lands, filled lands and water rights in the area are beyond complicated and outside of the scope of this memo. However, based on all information reviewed by this office, it is my opinion that the ownership of Water Lot 1 came into the City via a 1925 Special Act ( "Act "). The Act described a "centerline" off of which, the City (through Pinellas County) was granted five hundred feet to the north and seven hundred feet to the south for purposes of constructing a bridge. The 1200 foot wide strip of submerged lands terminated at the "high tide on Sand Key ". Much of the then - existing upland of "Sand Key" has been extended by fill, apparently including a portion of the upland of the subject property. More specifically, the City of Clearwater granted a Quit Claim Deed on May 25, 1951 To Owens, et. al., which makes up a portion of the upland, and a Deed of Conveyance to a Walter L. Timmons and Frank Bouman on January 27, 1958, which transferred 1435 square feet, more or less. The Deed of Conveyance property is the northernmost boundary of the subject property, and abuts the mean high water of Water Lot 1 as it exists today. The concrete dock, however, falls outside of the upland conveyance and sits, at least for the most part, on submerged lands for which I find no record title in the upland owner. As such, the majority of the dock sits on submerged lands which were granted via the Special Act. The Act restricts uses of the 700 foot -wide strip on the south side to "public purposes ", or the lands revert to the state. However, the Act expressly states, "this grant shall not affect the riparian rights of the property owners on the eastern and western termini of said strip of land ". Further, the Act was amended in 2007 to ratify existing uses which had been authorized by the City of Clearwater, whether such use was for public purpose or not. CONCLUSION It appears that the upland owner has legal title to the upland but not to the adjoining submerged lands upon which the concrete dock is situated. However, the Special Act makes an express exception to protect the riparian rights of owners on the western terminus of the Special Act land grant (the subject area), and House Bill 1585 (2007 legislation) ratifies the existing use for the dock. As the House Bill is written, the "reverter" provision of the 1925 Special Act, as amended, would be triggered by any use authorized by the City and not ratified by the 2007 legislation. As to the division of riparian rights in the southwest corner, see attachment titled "Marina Riparian Sketch Decade Properties ", which reflects the Quit Claim Deed restriction that neither party to the deed would erect any structure which crosses a 45 degree line from the intersection of Water Lot 1 and the north boundary of Gulf View Blvd., extending out 40 feet. From the sketches, it does not appear the dock crosses the line. Two maps are attached - one to reflect the referenced riparian line per the deed book description and one to reflect the adjusted riparian line which results from the vacation of right of way (per O.R. Book 4236 -1875) on the westerly side of Water Lot 1. Legal interpretations may vary as to which of the two maps applies. 2 Wells, Wayne From: Morris, William D. Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:29 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Re: FLD2009- 03013, 101 Coronado Drive - Holiday Inn Express They have not talked to me, I believe that bottom land is part of water lot one and as such city bottom land From: Wells, Wayne To: Morris, William D. Sent: Tue Aug 3107:39:57 2010 Subject: FLD2009- 03013, 101 Coronado Drive - Holiday Inn Express ME The approval of the Holiday Inn Express (now to be a Hampton Inn) included the following condition of approval: That, prior to the issuance of any permit, ownership of the deck /dock on the north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department. The applicant is proceeding to the architectural drawing stage for this project. Has the applicant or agent had any discussion with you regarding this deck /dock and compliance with this condition,.such as obtaining a submerged land lease from the City (1 think the submerged land is City owned)? . Wayne Wells, Wayne From: Quillen, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:21 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Cc: Barrett, Earl; Akin, Pam; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: GM09- 1420 -055: Legal Description of Sidewalk Encroachment Area, Decade DVA We'd need to get the survey CAD file from their surveyor, then writing the legal is easy. Say 2 weeks. Michael D. Quillen, P.E. Director of Engineering Citv of Cleanvater mich ael. a uilleni R� rK i Wells, Wayne From: Akin, Pam Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:25 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie; Wells, Wayne; Quillen, Michael Cc: Barrett, Earl; Delk, Michael Subject: RE: GM09- 1420 -055: Legal Description of Sidewalk Encroachment Area, Decade DVA The encroachment issue needs to get resolved as quickly as possible. What if they never build this project? From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:23 PM To: Wells, Wayne; Quillen, Michael Cc: Barrett, Earl; Akin, Pam; Delk, Michael Subject: RE: GM09- 1420 -055: Legal Description of Sidewalk Encroachment Area, Decade DVA No, I was directed to include it in the DVA. From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:11 PM To: Dougall- Sides, Leslie; Quillen, Michael Cc: Barrett, Earl; Akin, Pam; Delk, Michael Subject: GM09- 1420 -055: Legal Description of Sidewalk Encroachment Area, Decade DVA Leslie — The following Condition #10 was included by the CDB upon the approval of the companion Flexible Development. application (FLD2009- 03013) to this Development Agreement: "That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, an easement be recorded in the public records for the sidewalk along Coronado Drive partially on the subject property." Would this work for that which presently exists and whatever widened public sidewalk that might also be placed upon their property, such that no condition would be necessary in the Development Agreement? Wayne From: Dougall- Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:43 PM To: Quillen, Michael Cc: Barrett, Earl; Akin, Pam; Wells, Wayne Subject: GM09 -1420 -055: Legal Description of Sidewalk Encroachment Area, Decade DVA Our office is going to need a legal description of the area which the City sidewalk encroaches into the developer's property for the Decade Companies Income Properties /Holiday Inn Express project, 101/105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive. I will be placing a condition into the Development Agreement that the developer shall execute and record a perpetual easement of the area to the City on or before the effective date of the Development Agreement. The DVA was continued to the 8/20 Council meeting; therefore if approved the easement would need to be executed and recorded within the time frame set forth in Section 5 [30 -58 days depending upon the timing of certain events]. 1 V . . f4 Please let me know your time frame for developing such a legal description. Thank you. Leslie K. Dougall -Sides Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 (727) 562 -4010 phone (727) 562 -4021 fax Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law Admitted in Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia Senior Professional in Human Resources z Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:16 PM To: Goudeau, Cyndie Cc: Delk, Michael; Silverboard, Jill; Horne, William; Irwin, Rod; Akin, Pam Subject: 08/03/2009 Work Session follow up - Holiday Inn Express Cyndie — According to the site plan submitted by the project engineer (Keith Zayac) and approved by the CDB, the total lot area for the three existing parcels that make up the project is 31,418 square feet (0.72 acre) (two parcels north of Devon Drive and one parcel south of Devon Drive). The existing total building coverage is 10,961 square feet (34.8%), the existing total impervious surface ratio (ISR) is 28,342 square feet (90.2 %) and the existing total open space is 3,076 square feet (9.8 %). The proposed total building coverage is 12,875 square feet (40.9%), the proposed impervious surface ratio (ISR) is 18,810 square feet (59.9 %) and the proposed total open space is 12,608 square feet (40.1 %). Wayne From: Goudeau, Cyndie Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:29 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: 08/03/2009 Work Session follow up - Holiday Inn Express Wayne — please see the Mayor's question below. Please forward response to me for distribution to Council. Thanks. - Cyndie From:'Hibbard, Frank Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:27 AM To: Goudeau, Cyndie; City Council Cc: Horne, William; Akin, Pam; Silverboard, Jill; Irwin, Rod Subject: RE: 08/03/2009 Work Session follow up - Holiday Inn Express What is the footprint and ISR compared to the existing? Frank V. Hibbard Mayor City of Clearwater 112 S. Osceola Ave. Clearwater, FL. 33756 727 - 562 -4042 From: Goudeau, Cyndie Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:24 AM To: City Council Cc: Horne, William; Akin, Pam; Silverboard, Jill; Irwin, Rod Subject: FW: 08/03/2009 Work Session follow up - Holiday Inn Express From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:59 PM To: Goudeau, Cyndie; Delk, Michael 1 Cc: Vaughan, Karen; Call, Rosemarie, tuillen, Michael Subject: 08/03/2009 Work Session follow up - Holiday Inn Express Cyndie — Based on the architectural drawings submitted to the Community Development Board (CDB) and discussion with the project architect, the average size of the hotel rooms for this project is 400 square feet (some units are larger; some are smaller; average out at 400 square feet). Based on information submitted by the applicant to the CDB, the project provides a total of 112 parking spaces. One parking space per room has been provided (108 spaces) and four additional parking spaces for employees (one for the manager, one for a desk clerk and two spaces for housekeeping staff. The owner has indicated that there would be a maximum total number of employees of 10, with a maximum on -site at any one time of seven (when housekeeping staff is on- site). It was indicated to the CDB that housekeeping staff is intended to be shared between this hotel and the Holiday Inn Hotel at 521 S. Gulfview Blvd. The sidewalk issue has been discussed with Michael Quillen and Scott Rice this morning (they will be in attendance at the City Council meeting Thursday night to answer questions as needed). There is a choke point based on the available right -of -way for Coronado Drive adjacent to the northern portion of this project (north of Devon Drive) where the sidewalk is less than seven feet. As mentioned at the City Council workshop, the public sidewalk is located slightly on the project property at two locations, where a condition of approval was included in the Development Order requiring the granting of an easement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The sidewalk south of Devon Drive is seven feet in width, as constructed as part of the Beach Walk project. The project does not propose to construct /reconstruct any portion of the public sidewalk on Coronado Drive, except at two locations to remove existing driveway aprons. I am attaching a copy of the site plan submitted to the CDB. Wayne i From: Goudeau, Cyndie r: Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:36 AM To: Delk, Michael; Wells, Wayne Cc: Vaughan, Karen; Call, Rosemarie; Quillen, Michael Subject: RE: 08/03/2009 Work Session follow up - Holiday Inn Express Forgot to add if possible please provide a picture or rendering of the sidewalk issue. From: Goudeau, Cyndie Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:35 AM To: Delk, Michael; Wells, Wayne Cc: Vaughan, Karen; Call, Rosemarie; Quillen, Michael Subject: 08/03/2009 Work Session follow up - Holiday Inn Express Reminder— need to provide Council with information regarding the size of the units in the hotel and the number of employees that will be there. Please respond by noon today. Also, need to get with Engineering regarding the width of the sidewalk. Concerns were expressed regarding it narrowing down to 5 feet. Need to provide this information Thursday night. From: Rosie & Jerry Zirbel yrzirbeI(? wi.rr.corro Subject: May 19 planning meeting Date: May 18, 201)9 1:13:48 PM EDT To: wayne.wellso@myclearwater.com SU klv�, �1� il) aA- 41a cD Icl)a`Y w w Mr'AVells. I am a Wisconsin resident who has been vacationing at the Sea Captain Resort on Clearwater Beach nearly every year since 1982. in recent years. I have been dismayed by the transformation of Clearwater Beach from a family friendly vacation destination to one where the "mom and pop" motels have been torn down and replaced with high rise luxury condominiums and hotels. I have also noticed the many empty store fronts and restaurants that depended on the weekly turnover of tourists that these "mom and pop" motels Drovided. While I am sure these luxury condos have increased your revenue, they have not been friendly to your local businesses and tourists. It has recently come to my attention that there are now plans to build another high rise hotel nearly on top of the Sea Captain Resort. The proposed height of this hotel is completely out of character with the surrounding properties and would loom over the Sea Captain Resort and cast a large shadow over the property. This would adversely affect the quality of the vacation experience that the Sea Captain Resort has provided for so many years. While I am not against progress ( if this is, indeed, progress) I think several options should be considered by the Planning Department before approval for this new development is given. The height of the proposed hotel is just too high. It could be reduced significantly it the five floor parking ramp was removed from the plan. There appears to be many vacant properties very nearby that could be developed to provide the necessary parking required for this hotel and should be considered. While this may add some extra cost to the development, it would make the hotel more consistent with surrounding properties and more aesthetically appropriate for that area of Clearwater Beach. In addition, all set backs should be maintained. Placing a building of this proposed size just 2.5 feet from a property line is just too close and would have an adverse affect on the residents of the Sea Captain Resort. Please consider all stakeholders in your planning and maintain the family friendly reputation that Clearwater Beach has worked so long and hard to obtain. Gerald Zirbel 2009 -05 -18 13:50 p. brennan 860 -889 -7409 » 727 399 0558 P 2/2 PAUL C. BRENNAN U Ridgewood Drive Norwieb, CT 0636467313 May 18, 2009 Wayne Wells, Planning Department City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Dear Mr. Wells: I have j= received information regarding the properties around the Sea Captain Resort on The Bay. My wife and I are concerned visitors to the Sea Captain, a well maintained and delightful vacation apes — a place the city of Clearwater should be very proud to have in its area. We were quite urmed when we read of the way the owners of the Sea Captain are being treated with the propound development of high -rise hotels and balconies looking down onto the Sea Captain residents. Sunshine, views and air quality will certainly be affected, as well as the sea - life of the fish, etc., in the vicinity. We 6ncxrely hope the Planning Board Will give much thought to its decision, and will take into consideration the Sea Captain's long time dedication to their visitors and also the Clearwater Beach area. Sincerely, Paul C. Brennan !s From: "Bob & Doreen" <robert.tytlerQsympatico.ca> holiday Inn Date: May 18, 2009 7:13:57 PM EDT <wayne.wells0 myclearwater.corn> Cc' <SEACAP100i@AOLCOM> To Planning Dept. City of Clearwater. Our family have been informed of the plans to build a Holiday Inn Express directly in front of the Sea Captain Resort on Devon Drive. Is this progress or a step back? As winter visitors to Clearwater Beach for 15 years we feet saddened at the changes we have seen over the last few 1 The fang atmosphere is slowly erg with the high -rise bu**gs on the beach - AAandatay Ave.(Is there anyone in them ?) We spend our mover in Clete Beach an Grooeries. gasoimcloNrig and restoLmt rthe d Hair arts and snada an the rrmri+a.also ou�sioraal 1 WWil the people in the Holiday Yin spend money it Ism or orhy in the Hotel? The Sea Captain Motet is one of the few family- r n,famiy - oriented Resorts lit on fie beach with no shortage of REGULAR visitors. -Mrs.Doreen Ty0er. Frorn: "Deanne Bryant" <deanne.bryantOverizon.net> Sea Captain mate: May 18, 2009 7:08:16 PM EDT <wayne.wells 0mycIearwater.com> Cc: <seacap1000aol.cort> 1 Attachment, 0.9 KB Dear Mr. Wefts, Via are dismayed, to say the least, that the beautiful Sea Captain property is in danger from the proposed development plan filed by DECADE tOMPANII INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT who stay several weeks each year. we beium out she proposed pier, t approved, will have a sbuM negative alien an the quatdy of our own personal vacation in this arse of Clearwater Beach and cause us to consider leaving Clearwater Beech after 14 Years of enjoying this incredible resort The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality Tarniy enWo ment with well kept roans, immaculate grounds, outstam management, and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach while making improvements to insure continued nation -wide aliention from satisfied visitors. That the owner of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT has gone to mhsiliently greet lengths over the years io provide an outidandinig experience for guests or Clearwater Beech seems to hem gone unotced by those considering this development proposal. VHIe wish to STRONGLY OBJECT to this proposal as totally unsuitable for the footprint being considered and adjacent to The See Captain Resort Deanne Bryant =rom: "Bob $ Doreen* vobert.tytler@sympatico.ca> Holliday Inn Express. ?ate: May 18, 2009 731:44 PM EDT . <wayne.wells§myclearwater.corri> rc- <SEACAPIOOQAOL.COM> Wayne Wlells, Ptaruring Deparbnent.City of Clearwater. We have been cormfring to the Sea Captain Resort on the Bay for the last fifteen years, and have enjoyed the kier>dhr atmosphere of Clearwater much. it is once more -sad to see T"porale America distroft the charming, well run, fancy business. If this developement is allowed to go ahead wi backs, hight alorrances e1c., when Here is a much beflar lot directly w F I I it would remind me of the pow judge+nerd and desighn of the orilp ckde com mirg off the dray, the construcillon Murders on the overpass and the e110y oorrcrs/e m0mmo tune reSWft an MWWW On the other hand - perhaps the cmnxA shotW move this new developernent and the rest of us will talae our business efsewtW*. -- Robert-D.- T -ytter May 18 09 03:24p Vance Rose 127946 p.1 FROM THE DESK OF KAREN ROSE FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Chris Foley Karen Rose COMPANY: - - DATE- SwimKids 5/18/2W9 RETURN FAX NUMBER TOTAL NO, OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 205 -752 -7946 3 PIIONE N UMBER: 205 - 799 -9713 (cell) R- Fiexible Development & Variance, associated with Decade Companies Income Properties 0 URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTFS: COMatE• NTS: Attn: Mr. Chris Foley Attached are two letters that were sent to Wayne M. Wells, Planner for the City of Clearwater, Florida. The second letter attached, from Mrs. Lynn McColl, was featured in the Clearwater Gazette on Thursday, May 14, as a letter to the editor. Thank you for your time, �_i11 b May 18 09 03:24p Vance Rose Lynn McColl 520 Avalon Place Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 205- 292 -4526 2r"7527946 P.t May 12, 2009 My family has been vacationing at Clearwater Beach for over thirty -five ,Years. We originally came to Clearwater Beach with our four young children who have since married and blessed us with thirteen grandchildren. They all love Clearwater Beach as much as their parents when we first took them. —Our entire - family- takmat= least -oae= trip =to= the beach together every year as a mini- family reunion and to relive the memories of years past. There is a special charm and warmth in the Clearwater Beach community that is so very difficult to find anywhere else in Florida today. Earlier this spring when we had all flown in to Tampa from four different states to go to Clearwater Beach for one of our annual trips, we got some disturbing news. For as far back as I can remember we have stayed at the Sea Captain beach motel. During our recent ten day visit to the beach, we discovered that larger towering hotels are threatening to destroy the quaint beauty and charm of our favorite vacation spot. I support the rights of property owners to develop their properties as they choose, but not when it violates existing laws and regulations that were established to protect the beach community that we love so very much. Please don't allow the neighbors of the Sea Captain to infringe upon our special place by granting them the variances that could make Clearwater Beach a tunnel of concrete structures that destroy your unique beach community. It would be a shame to see that special place in the beach community become like so many other Florida beaches that are overbuilt Once it starts, there is no turning back. It would break my family's hearts to leave Clearwater Beach as our favorite vacation spot_ Please don't grant the variances that would destroy a very special place we have loved for years. Sincerely, Lynn McColl May 18 09 03:25p Vance Rose 20`0946 P.,J 4 May 8, 2009 I am writing this letter after a recent trip to Clearwater Beach where I enjoyed the casual, relaxed atmosphere and lack of large -scale developments on the beach. I have been a visitor to the beach for many years and while not opposed to the development of the "New" beach, what I read in the paper recently was disturbing. Granting of variances, while most appear to be small, represent things that will last a lifetime- -once you grant one variance you are locked in for years. Both the Zoning Commission and the City Council need to be aware that beach zoning variances can never be taken back! The zoning variance for the Coronado -Devon Drive property before the Zoning Commission on May 19`h addresses changes that will affect the beach for years to come. I can only hope that the Commission will look at what they are about to vote on and realize that it will affect future generations, not just citizens and visitors for the next few years. Granting both setback variances and density variances, while generating short term revenue for the city will ultimately make Clearwater Beach equivalent to the South Florida East Cost and will drive people to other areas. As a Zoning Board, please do not be short- sighted and make a decision based on what is good for the city today, but instead what is good for the city in the many years to come. I have a real problem with an out -of -state developer coming in and asking for variances that will help make him and his company make money and then sell off and leave town- He will be gone and not only the Zoning Commission and the City Council, but the citizens of Clearwater and visitors to the area will be left with the mistakes made and the precedent set to grant the same variances to everyone who applies in the years to come. At issue are the variances being requested that allow him to greatly increase the density allowed on this property-300% even. His request looks like a textbook request for over - development! There are other properties on the beach for this size development that would allow for appropriate distribution of the density via additional surrounding property. Everyone can say that each case is an individual case, but as we all know, once such variances are granted, legal precedence typically establishes that they will be granted each and every time. I would hate for this Council and Zoning Commission to think in 20 years that they had sold their soul to big developers, and they had singlebandedly ruined Clearwater Beach. As I stated above I am all for the development of the beach, but not when it means selling one's soul to do it. This proposal is trying to squeeze a Sears Tower onto a postage stamp lot. Setback and density variances are there for a reason —to protect and not unfairly ignore the citizens of the beach. the citizens of Clearwater, and our future generations. Thank you, Vance Rose SwimKids, Inc. P.O. Box 2365 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403 205- 752 -7946 031'13/12009 03:243 51969651._" DHRIFIP WOPF"S PAGE 01 May 18, 2009 To CDB, Michael Delk, & City Commissioners Dear Planning Board and Community Development Board: This letter addresses the negative impact of DVA 2009 -00001 on surrounding properties. The Clearwater land development code and flexible standards are designed to minimize negative impact of proposed development projects while promoting beach and tourism development. The addition a Holiday Inn Express to our beach community appears superficially on the outside to be a worthwhile development. Unfortunately, the location of the property and small lost size purchased for this development, does not allow for such a project without substantial negative impact on surrounding properties and community. The DVA 2009 -00001 project proposal negatively impacts a prime boutique hotel property with strong repeat buslness consisting of families who return for stays of several weeks at a time. These patrons continue to return to the Sea Captain annually for over 20 years. This negative impact reduces sunlight on surrounding properties. Increases levels of dust and debris, as well as increases pollutants into Clearwater Bay. These impacts will affect the patronage and value of the surrounding properties and minimize enjoyment of the Sea Captain Hotel. This boutique hotel property has a strong customer following who value its unique outdoor setting. The pool, the sun, and the beauty of the nearby marina, boats, and bay are enjoyed by guests, visitors, and the owners of the surrounding affected properties. The proposed Holiday Inn Express ten story building constructed on such a small lot will not exist without negatively compromising surrounding properties and patrons who frequent these nearby businesses. To our knowledge, no one from the planning board has visited the Sea Captain to evaluate the impact of the proposed hotel development. Further due diligence on a property development of this size is necessary. Sun, sand, water, and beauty are all reasons people return to Clearwater Beach. These attributes should be respected and protected for nearby and affected property owners. we strongly recommend additional project modifications to address these issues of property influence and impact. A more compatible, less obstructive project must be adopted for the proposed development. In promoting tourism on Clearwater Beach, we must strive to maintain repeat tourists and the integrity of the beach community. Driving and established clientele base away due to property shading and loss of sunlight, decreases enjoyment in surrounding properties and quality of life. This is not the answer. Rather a balanced and modified approach to this project development must be addressed. Sincerel /- Dr. Dell ifert, Dr. John Eifert, Dr. Karen Rose, Bob Eifert, Jim Eifert, and their families Thirteen employees Thousand of visiting and returning guests Sea ea#a4t ;Ze &%r opt toe Vary 40 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 Phone 727 - 446 -7550 800 - 444 -7488 Fax 727 - 298 -0100 W- /7 o' 1") lb 1� , 0,6 --7� H SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. -The -Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS Ruth Kemp 2839 Bonneville Ct. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49525 COMMENTS: Mr. Wells, my name is Ruth Kemp. I have been traveling to the Clearwater Beach area since the 1960's. For decades, I have considered the Sea Captain Resort Motel to be my second winter and spring home during the breaks afforded my by virtue of my occupation as a public school teacher in the state of Michigan. As a retiree, I can now extend my time at the Sea Captain by weeks each year. For years, I have decried the massive changes to the Clearwater Beach ambiance. You seem bent on changing the very essence of the reasons my friends and I choose the Gulf's best beach area: we want a family - friendly, AFFORDABLE place to unwind, dine, relax, and most of all walk your beaches! The gigantic high rise properties have killed the "mom and pop" entities, leaving in their wake unaffordable (and empty) condo units and middle -class values. Your beautiful beach walk is partially hidden by the growing high rise south of the parking lot. I realize you have factions fighting for your approval of their proposals. To destroy the unique quality of the Sea Captain property is to continue to destroy the middle -class visitors' ability to choose a venue that offers so much more than a rental unit. The Sea Captain's strengths involve: an incomparable setting, superb service, COMPLETE access to grounds and the pool area (without hundreds competing for space), a caretaker whose pride in workmanship is evident daily, and an owner who knows us by name (yes, there is a "Cheers" presence in your city) and appreciates our business with him. If you allow the proposal for the Holiday Inn to proceed, you will have struck another blow to those of us who seek quality at a still - affordable price. My friends (dozens) in the Fort Meyers area are moving away to end the ever - increasing prices and the congestion caused by the very projects you are considering. PLEASE, consider what you want of Clearwater Beach — check'the rosters of property changes /demolitions in the past twenty years (by the way, where IS the former Holiday Inn? I believe that beautiful property is still an empty lot). You will not find the Sea Captain name on any of those lists. Please do something RIGHT for your tax- paying resort owners whose rooms are always rented, not on speculation, but because of their consummate care of their clients. I hope that you give MORE consideration to the Sea Captain than to a corporation which has so often changed property locations and has deserted your Sand Key Bridge area. Continue to let your loyal owner and his guests enjoy all the reasons which draw us to your part of Florida. Let other cities deal with unoccupied units and ruined beachscapes. There is MUCH to be said for tradition and quality; I hope you choose these over any POTENTIAL increase in revenue. This fragile economy should provide the final reason for denial of unacceptable variances on property next to the Sea Captain. Sincerely, Ruth Kemp Ub- 14 -Vy; UL : J WM; rktiNNt I H w W I I H F'HU. WHF'. ; b I J 9 2/ 2 TEIEPH014E (613) 267 -5910 TEECWIM (613)261-0789 KENNETH W. SMITH HARNSTER & SOL UM& Ott BYFAX 1-727-562-4865 AND BYE MAIL wayne.wells@myclearwater.com City of Clearwater Planning Dept. 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 Attn: Wayne Wells, Planning Dept Dear Mr. Wells: 27 FOSTER SrRFEZ P.O. BOX 157 PERTH, ONrAR10 K7H 393 May 14, 2009 Re: Proposed Redevelopment of corner of Devon and Coronado (former site of The Sunny Motel and The Port Vue) As a long time winter visitor to Clearwater Beach it has been brought to my attention that the above - referenced properties are the subject of an application for construction of a 108 room Holiday Inn Express situate above a four -level parking garage. I understand that the height of the proposed structure will be nearly 100 feet. I further understand that baloonies will look out to the east and to the north, and that a request bas been submitted to reduce the eakerly sideline set back to an alarming 2.5 feet from the adjacent motel property. This would effectively place a multi-level parking garage only a few feet away from occupied motel rooms — an environmentally unhealthy and unacceptable situation. The inevitable noise factor must also be considered. I am of the opinion that such a development flies in the. face of the character of the area. The adjacent motel property together with several residential properties adjacent to it will be virtually devoid of sun for long stretches of time each day, as will large portions of the marine basin with the resultant adverse effects on marine life. Traffic at the intersection of Devon and Coronado is extremely heavy at times and the presence of the proposed development would only serve to exacerbate a problem that already exists. I would ask that this correspondence be tabled into consideration at the Community Development Board Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, May 19's, 2009. Yours sincerely, KENNETH W. SMITH PROFgeinneth MT 0" Pen W. myth /jm May 15, 2009 Wayne Wells Planning Department City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Ave Clearwater, F133756 RE: Variance for Decade Companies Income Properties Tuesday May 19, 20091:00 pm Mr. Wells: I have been a resident of Pinellas County since 1958. I was raised in Clearwater and have since moved to Palm Harbor in 1978. I have resided in the same location in Palm Harbor since moving here. Being raised in Clearwater I have always had a very strong dedication to Pinellas County and feel that Clearwater Beach is truly a very unique, beautiful place to enjoy and is still part of the taxes that 1 pay to live in Pinellas County. Many of our family and friends that come to Florida always look forward to their visits to the beaches of Clearwater. This letter is in regards to the variance that has been applied for the Holiday Inn Express and packing garage. 1 have.been very involved in the Sea Captain Resort since 1980. This location is very well maintained and many families have made the Sea Captain, Resort a yearly reunion as well as a wonderful family, friends and visitor place to visit_ The'Sea Captain still makes their guests feel safe and gives them the small hotel which is being pushed out of the market. How do you think these guests will feel seeing a 100 foot building lurking behind them with thew new people sitting on the balconies staring down at them? The other obstacle that I see is the effect of a building utilizing every square foot of the property being next to a property that still has the ability to have greenery, regular parking and a beautiful seawall for their guests to utilize as well as a beautiful place to see from the water as the local boats and sighting seeing boats pass by. Clearwater's image to the tourist is so very important to maintain repeat visits. This entire piece of property, Decade Companies as well as the Sca Captain Resort should be considered. This could be developed as one property to create a beautiful waterfront development instead of one overstated property next to an older but well maintained property. The City of Clearwater needs to consider the final result not just romving some new revenue without the evaluating the final esthetics of the property. I am opposed to this development and hope that the City of Clearwater will reconsider granting a variance that will be an eyesore as well as a deterrent to the Sea Captain Resort. sincerely, Linda Dcichman Subj: Fwd: SEA CAPTAIN RESORT Date: 5/15/2009 10:37:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: meifert _ tampabay.rr.com To: seacap100 @aol.com Begin forwarded message: > From: "Ron Doughty" <rdoughty @cac.net> > Date: May 15, 2009 10:22:08 AM EDT > To: "'mary ann eifert"' <meifert@tampabay.rr.com> > Cc: <wayne.wells @myclearwater.com> > Subject: SEA CAPTAIN RESORT > Mr. Wells here are our comments regarding the Sea Captain Resort and > the new Holiday Inn Express. > T0:– Wayne- WeUsi–&- Sea - Captain - Resod -of -flea ater= Beach- > FROM: Ron & Cathy Doughty > 2399 Red Wings Dr. > Brighton, Mi. 48114 > My purpose in writing this letter is to inform the City of Clearwater > that we object to having a Holiday Inn Express built near the location > as descripted to us. I am a member of the ZBA and Planning Commission > of the Charter Township of Brighton, Mi. We feel the request for > variances are SELF imposed, and should not be approved. • We have been coming to Clearwater Beach since 1980, and make two trips • there almost every year. We enjoy the beach area, spend money on • food, entertainment etc. We don't like the current trend as to the way • Clearwater beach is going. This 100 ft. Holiday Inn would further • take away from the family type of resort area, block the view, and • harm the bay waters. The Sea Captain is a well managed, clean, well • kept business, and a good citizen for Clearwater Beach. We feel that • a new box store type hotel would further take away from the family • business style, thus less business for the current attractions there.. • More traffic is something that is NOT needed there. • I assume a 'flexible development' is similar to our Commercial PUD. • This is supposed to help surrounding business, the developer, and the • City of Clearwater. It appears to us the only party being 'helped' is • the developer. • In conclusion. We feel the developer has the right to develop his • property per the current zoning ordinances, however not at the expense • of the Sea Captain, NO Holiday INN > THANKS > RONALD & CATHY DOUGHTY > 2399 RED WINGS DR. > BRIGHTON, MI. 48114 Qatiirdsv Mav 16 ?009 A01.• CFAC'AP100 Page I of 2 SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS Ruth A. Vander Weide 2315 Radcliffe Village Dr SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 COMMENTS: Dear Mr. Wells, I am writing to object to the approval of the Holiday Inn Express at the former site of The Sunny Motel and the Port Vue. For various reasons, I believe this would negatively impact the area. I have been coming to Clearwater Beach and to The Sea Captain hotel for at least twenty years now and I usually come two to three times per year. The hotel and its staff are impeccable and The Sea Captain is affordable. I have seen the changes in Clearwater Beach over the years, and while I enjoy the beautiful beach and the new beach walk, I am also dismayed with the new high rise buildings going up right along the beach. This takes much away from the ambiance of this city. Clearwater Beach always used to have a family atmosphere and now with the ritzy new buildings and the vacant properties where other new high rise buildings had been planned and are now seemingly abandoned, Clearwater Beach is increasingly losing its charm. Adding another tall building at the site you have proposed would not enhance the area, either. I am greatly concerned that my quality of vacation time and those of other guests who frequent The Sea Captain would be greatly diminished with the addition of the Holiday Inn Express so close by. The height and density for this area of the beach does not fit with existing properties and with what makes this a charming place to visit. I do not come to The Sea Captain to be overshadowed by another high rise building; I come to relax and enjoy the marina and the bay where sea grasses grow and the manatee and dolphin frequently swim in the area l come not to be bothered by the busyness of another tall hotel and its guests and parking garage right up next to The Sea Captain. I come to have_apleasant a_he- re_- wherel- cari7-en}fl�± all T_he.Sea- Captain-'s impeccably kept grounds and to be able to sit in the sun by the pool, not to sit in the shade of the Holiday Inn Express. Indeed, I do not understand why the city would consider this a good spot for this hotel when it does not fit in with the other quality mom -and -pop hotels along the back strip while the former site of the Holiday Inn is vacant and has plenty more space to build on rather than encroaching on The Sea Captain. I do consider myself as one who has paid taxes over the years to Clearwater Beach and I do enjoy being able to stay there, shop there, frequent the local restaurants and enjoy a quiet, spacious, and serene place to stay. I especially have enjoyed the beautiful setting and wonderful people who work at and own The Sea Captain. They are considered friends by me and many other "regulars." My Michigan friends and I have been ambassadors for Clearwater Beach and many of our family members and friends have also come to experience the quaint and lovely beach and city that is Clearwater Beach. The 100+ room Holiday Inn Express and parking garage clearly does not belong on The Sunny Motel and The Port Vue properties. It would change so many things that are good. Please consider my request and others and do not grant this proposed development plan to go forward. Consider, instead, what Clearwater Beach means to the people who go there for vacation. Consider also the people who work there and own hotels and have been there for years. Newer and bigger does not always mean better, especially when designed in the wrong space. Thank you for considering my request, Ruth A. Vander Weide Sea Rwoott dw 44e Va# 40 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 Phone 727 - 446 -7550 800- 444 -7488 Fax 727 - 298 -0100 I Iq ST':"rfL-Er wad � 1 0 Ov Gss ie y C" IS ONN, 67*a 6r L- a a t'�' j, 1bL C'-'4- �,..� W I U'eQrs .Sea RW 44LC act tle �cuy 40 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 Phone 727 - 446 -7550 800 - 444 -7488 Fax 727 - 298 -0100 k.,5, �'� 'k, ".� -U 0- W&VtC W CE We. the undersigned, wish to ol-- °ct to the proposed development plan f ' by DECADE ... Page I of 2 Subj: WePETITION (1) Date: 5/15/2009 4:49:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: jn aito@gmail.com To: seacap100 a aol.com SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS John & Susan Gaito 22 Country Meadow Drive,East Greenbush NY 12061 COMMENTS: We are opposed to the proposed development plan filed by the party listed above for the following reasons: • The natural envirement for the Manatee and the sea grasses in the bay will ultimately be destroyed. The impact of the increased traffif flow especially at the Devon and Coronodo intersection will cause major congestion. • The ambiance of the natural beauty and the pristine beach will also be affected. C7 . NOT all change is progress. . There are already too many hotels and condos ( hi- rises) that are for the most part uninhabited.Are more needed ? ? ? ?? As a long time visitor to Clearwater Beach WE OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL. Thank you, in advance for your consiseration �_i.....1__. A w__. 1 / 'l nnn A 111 . C' T- w I- A 71 1 n/\ SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain - Resort provides a quality-family- environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. C9MMENTS: (,� Tf Jt� (�A2 6�-ti dW IAJ6 _7'O P/2- 6 ✓A(-, T'crJ 20P_ 01 E/TT T14 Rc/� �' OA r n�C� -t-�, 7 2ti` 7--0 12, Tif i 2�c� �;�: A 12--S: t1 �1 i Tr,' r� F: s` �� n T i�F?� i'- L c, i�vIf A `'� r_' 7V STS �v t -S HE � �J J to r- F N TK C'X��� �'Cr ,4f ✓1� ��i���� BUT it/Lj 1 14 /,J TcI Ei/ , /T-//�'r S �i p%fj �ti �e�~ R �vN� �1s �������J wC i .Sez Rem as as Vew 40 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 Phone 727 - 446 -7550 800 - 444 -7488 Fax 727 - 298 -0100 �✓ � `v /r/1GC�Oe1M �''` CA vim. U QQ1 CA \ S \V OV t U\ oL'A C'I C-CX -�- v.� ��� � ✓fit cane c� M Cl ✓1 G rte. �� � V � �.� We. the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS rl- COMMENTS: 4)Q IC�C�QOr .Sea Re &a as tte icuy 40 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 Phone 727 - 446 -7550 800 - 444 -7488 Fax 727 - 298 -0100 0 C-1 e.m.Ir W04eX &ea..C-k e ocr' eaw C" LA, ✓►-� US bOL"t' 5© �� e J Q 5 cJ e e P �/e g r e !- L�,ce ` c.J �l ear+ -� a u-�' (3 �a c2 Un ale �. S . �4 _ f,JQs per J-1-y s o b c ( �( T� ®! i c�q v ✓l r1 ��4 ,'P� �-% ?�� / tie ci v� / �` ✓orr7 Sco f %ate-, v� fq s �o L✓a ✓e / L!G e ✓ev S a. ,4- ki C/ � �' �� E�e S�C # or' Cler u/ a 7 , f c�Je �.� ` e.'O- j II__ i� Cl a� o,s �C c-+-c q _ ��r y /��L -�- wE Pea��e �.% h o beca-,-,�e C c�.v .ec.� -�a�5 �t l •J��oS e NecL.y -S 4 q en e / ve% m enl _ l �/ �1 C � � � eS a-�l e� G-li �i-, 1 �-ea.�- c.� w c v A), tike. e►1oi e a n 'erq Pr CI /o � % eol'b %e 56 / A),:r e Uou `'+z' I ` V , � I° �`-t" qqCp n'r m c.�erL. �-�'t -�-wt � L�� �-Y► yo L{,,- � e a,r- �' o�- i'l�cw f., �o sa c to to Y115 ka r t -r_ b e a-4�q-u / O-r e-q �`J �pt� u�>t .�or Uc5 �G YL'rica �C C (y We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS f 5 4 C20�T 0EqD L -1 S �- ORT� Lr4NAAKSt-i/i2E S Cc� i LA X17 (A. K COMMENTS: SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort providma -qua ' mnent -with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS Michelle Dibble 121 East 33`d St Holland, Mi 49423 Chris Dibble 121 East 33`d St Holland Mi 49423 Jenna Vander Zwaag 121 East 33`d St Holland Mi 49423 Heather Vander Zwaag 121 East 33`d St Holland Mi 49423 Dave Tinholt 55 East 33`d St Holland Mi 49423 Gaylene Tinholt 55 East 34`h St Holland Mi 49423 COMMENTS: We have been staying at The Sea Captain for a number of years and love the area and the surrounding community. We always used to stay at the Sun West Beach motel and fell victim to a high rise. Clearwater beach needs the small mom and pop places like Sea Captain. They are friendly, the rooms are very well kept up and the grounds are maintained beautifully. We feel the view will be spoiled if a high rise that tall goes up next to them. It will tower over and shadow over Sea Captain. Clearwater beach has enough high rises and motels in the area. V � �) "a C' SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Cl ch. The Sea- Captai -n-- esort-- pr- ovides -a- quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS ,, gc 'ea, 1A eat/ d -3 P RJ LAilb R. 5 }�a RF-W o D J� , 1 � . 6d uo'� COMMENTS: VV 14 A V E % 6E. �J C o v� 1 ►f G To j3 6 A F6 O v6 R, 2T Rs N kESaRTS RCPL.AC6 -b By N /emu R1SF- RU)LbJNCS_ -t'u� SEA CAPTA)NS w SNCS. ►NF-Y R R C 'T� k6SOAT &– f- T` 6,).J 7WE 3LAC H. T14oy SA>4Z S j-) A u C G jJ J oY E. n S% A Y J G. A T -f R C S CLcA RTC R, La— S mALL ,ASE. ES � Ec T ACC, a F �'�� 4�tt W U���Is /) SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARW kTFR BEACH, FLOR[OA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 development We, the undersigned, wish to object t'o the proposed rncnt plan filed by UF.CADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES• we belie�'e thsx the proposed 'plan. As iregpent guests of THE SEA C N?TATN REQ -10" ;. If approved will adversely affect the quality of our. vacation time famil dcnviranment with Clentwater Bea&. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality Y, . Well kept morns and grounds and has maintained the cbaracter. o£ Claawater.Beach; KnT)RESS Q, Me, 5a /,/lam /IG9;c���� - ,,, A ' - Piz, halv'6 � f s,�ia.ne- 7 �h-e u d �y SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clear -water Beach. The-Sea - Captain_Resort -provides -a- quality family_environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS: &/ Y NE w✓ / TIE L SIA0 t AlwT r3F _rALLE Q _1 If Wf�rz,rS ¢S14g)VLQ UsE "rHe- Fvo-rPP_i^/r DV- Tke OLn A)c -rrLS 8'00-7 3 l Lb % g�rn My Favor Vacati©n Cwt `'2- p p •rn S Jam»y 16,2M L mgtnVc tuts ii$ ToMms Bveay Vemg bmA I lD to Ckwwvftr Beach, Fkdd& My X19 WId" grandparents always stay at the Sea CapWn on the marina. I always watch boats go by and dolphins ,jump in tbemarina. I have been going eyes since I was two. The Sea Captain is a scuail motet where every one corm back w, which means everyttody-laswvs- each other. I Me the Sea Captain fDr many reasons- First of all I love fishing, and since these is a marina rilo meet door, I can go fis>ling with my grandpa off the pier. Another . reason I lave the Sea Captain is because they have shuffleboard. Shuf W=rd is a game where: you ptj� pucks and try to get a high mom. The first one to gBt to one hundred wins, Also, the Sea Captain has a very nice heated pool. Cleav Beach is my favorite vacation spot because of the beach. Sometitneg if I wake up early I can go knock on my grandma's door and she will come walk the .each with me and help me ford shells. The beadh is very fun. There is so ranch too do Owe ]We lock dilnum s is tine ocean wad I iatlee seed ee es� ouL The beach also has a Pier tat is very long. You can gA sdmppiog 13r �h t awescm sunset. The beach is where I spend moat of m9 time_ while we are there we go to a very fits place called Tarpon Spy- it is filled with lots of cheesy sponge stores and lots of games and activities. Alw in Tarpon Springs there are boat torus to dive and picas sponges. Tarpon Springs is known for it's food and Paul's h the place to go if You Me shrimp• All together Tarpon Spnnl� is very 'tin. Cleeaawakv is bamn for it's fishing and nW grandpa im;m that so he t dm me on a deep." fishing hnaL Mdx is so fun became v+ou catch Ng fah sod then vcrn act to eat it iamr imai nigbi.. MY Smudpsa and I also lave a maimir can wao cam 421KM 'are mwi fish Coe alVays Seem, to Winl. Ukep-ma fishing is Oft of My tltinoc #(� rin whjiP in 14-y hmii!y at4 M m to a rat called F—.-n--hies v4ffle down in Clem' !at,-,T. x is very fin ft is Hire a tnday's but ail fist. Also in Nmchies there is a fumy sign tiw �; s Br-&We of Bub;• Ra dw. Ever one thins it is a rattle .^o t � cpeu the ha MY slowly and they see a rattle like a baby uses! Frenchies is very yununy and may- Sometimes I Flay Ards with my graadma and grar4a. L'�vcr vaCanoa 1 ga so W, ;-.t, nuch won from my RTBIIdpirt ents and it is very fua_ Overall Clearwater is so ftm and hh We is so much to••de it noycr geU boring no matter how many limes I to and iLat ii wily t is my favorite vacation spot - Beach by Desiqn structure. Given the urban nature of Clearwater Beach as well as the extent to which the existing parcels of land are configured or "broken -up ", the assemblage of a parcel of land large enough to generate 120 rooms at the current base density or under the CPA approved alternatives, is very unlikely. On average, between three and five separate parcels would need to be acquired to amass just one acre of land, and at least ten parcels would need to be acquired to amass three acres of land, and in most scenarios some segment of those ten parcels would be separated from the balance by a right -of -way; thereby making the development of a hotel difficult at best. In order to overcome the constraints upon hotel development on Clearwater Beach due to the economic disparity with condominium development, as well as to facilitate the restoration of those lost mid -size, mid - priced hotels, Beach by Design establishes a Hotel Density Reserve (Reserve) of 1,385 hotel rooms. The allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve shall be made through the approval of a development agreement with the City of Clearwater with said allocation being strictly controlled. In order to be eligible to draw units from the Hotel Density Reserve, a development would have to incorporate, meet, and/or abide by each of the following: Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; Those properties and/or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and/or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve; 55 Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach • :• A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size less than 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than or equal to 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve a density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. However, in no instance shall the density of a parcel of land exceed 150 units per acre regardless of whether it has received benefit of transfers of development rights in addition to the Reserve, or not; ❖ Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a mid - priced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category; No hotel room allocated from the Reserve may be converted to a residential use (i.e. attached dwelling); • :• The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve; ❖ When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and : the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part o . a development, only hotel rooms brought in to the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met; � � S 4- A legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenants z that the overnight accommodation use will be closed as soono m i as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater D N a M cm Beach is posted by the National Hurricane Center; Z Access to overnight accommodation units must be provided through a lobby and internal corridors; ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 19 2009 Per Beach By Design Page 55. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Lot size of less than 2.5 acres may be allotted no more than 100 rooms from density pool. Applicant Lot size is .72 (rounded to .75 for simplification) Minimum lot width allowable under code is 100 (on a scale of 100 -150) feet Applicant's lot width is exactly 100 feet Per code Applicant is allowed 36 units per current density Requesting 72 from density reserve pool for total of 108 If assign a value to Beach by Design criteria of 2.5 acres = no more than 100 rooms from density pool That equals ( =) 40 rooms per acre .75 X 100 = 30 rooms per acre Using this method you would arrive at 66 rooms for the Applicant's project as opposed to 108. EXHIBIT d STREET LEVEL Ex a- O7 PROPOSED HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 10 STORY — EXISTING PORT VUE 3- STORIES OVER PARKING Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting Engineering • Planning • Transportation -Permitting 13825 1COT Blvd., Suite 605 Clearwater, Florida 33760 Phone: (727) 524 -1818 Fax: (727) 524 -6090 I RF_ PARKING GARAGE SEA CAPTAIN 2- STORIES N N SEA CAPTAIN MOTEL COMPARATIVE BUILDING HEIGHTS SCALE V =20' EXHIBIT Ex J 0 Z n0 M0 m� M Q0 D� C a �M u N N SEA CAPTAIN MOTEL COMPARATIVE BUILDING HEIGHTS SCALE V =20' EXHIBIT Ex J Req. Prop. REQUIRED 15' SETBACK 4e C- SETBACK Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting 13825 ICOT Blvd., Suite 605 Clearwater, Florida 33760 Phone: (727) 524 -1818 Fax: (727) 524-6090 RECENEL>• PAY 19 2009 ANNING DEpARIMENT XY OF C "WATER REQUIRED 10' SETBACK SEA CAPTAIN MOTEL GROUND FLOOR REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS SCALE 1 " =30' EXHOIT fx � F a a 0 a r _a w it 3 0 0 0 C w z Req. 11ro. ProF REQUIRED 15' SETBACH PROPOSED 5' SETBACK SETBACK yu Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting . 13825 ICOT Blvd. Suite 605 Clearwater, Florida 33760 r Phone: (727) 524 -1818 Fax: (727) 524 -6090 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 1 qa 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENI CITY OF CLEARWATER PROPOSED 2.5' SETBACK ROPOSED 7.3' SETBACK QUIRED SETBACK 20POSED 2.5' SETBACK SEA CAPTAIN MOTEL GROUND FLOOR SETBACKS TO BUILDING EXHIBIT SCALE 1 " =30' EXHIBIT s � ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 19 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Sea Captain Motel #40 Devon Drive S 'Jk► Review of Application for Holiday Inn Express #101 &105 Coronado Drive W 1. The Sea Captain Motel contains 28 rooms and is located on a waterfront site immediately east of the proposed Holiday Inn Express. The Sea Captain is 2- stories (22 feet in height) and has a pool deck on the eastern portion of the property overlooking Clearwater Harbor. The Sea Captain has existed for over 50 years, and guests had enjoyed the location immediately east of the Port Vue Hotel with a sun filled pool deck and partial views of the Gulf of Mexico. The existing Port Vue is approximately 40 feet in height (3- stories over parking). 2. The proposed Holiday Inn Express is expected to contain 108 hotel rooms which is 3 times the permitted density (36 by permitted density and 72 from the hotel density pool). To meet parking code 1- 1- 2- parking spaces are proposed- (94-iii a four -story garage on site and 18 in a surface lot owned by the applicant on the south side of Devon Drive). Immediately east of this proposed surface parking lot is a City of Clearwater surface parking lot containing 25 public spaces. The applicant is seeking a Level 2 Flexible Development Approval to reduce building setbacks, reduce the required lot width, and increase height to accommodate a 10- story structure. 3. The east setback is being reduced from 10 feet (required) to 2.5 feet in some areas, and 7.3 feet in most areas. The parking garage will be located only 7.3 feet from the Sea Captain property line and will contain a solid masonry wall. The proposed Holiday Inn Express will have 4- stories of parking with 6 additional stories of hotel rooms above to complete the 10 story structure. The total advertised height per code is 89 feet, however, the structure will actually be 96 feet above grade. 4. The requested additional height of the 96 foot tall building will place afternoon and early evening shadows over the majority of the Sea Captain property leaving the pool deck in shadows for several daylight hours, particularly during the tourist season (December — April) when the sun is lower in the sky. This materially impairs the enjoyment of this property. 5. Existing conditions diagram demonstrates the Sea Captain pool deck does not get overshadowed by 40 foot high the Port Vue hotel until the sun is below 17- degrees. 6. Beach by Design allows for a 150 -feet height on properties west of Coronado Drive. The Kiran Grand, a 150 foot high hotel has been approved and the diagram demonstrates, the Sea Captain pool deck would not be overshadowed by the approved Kiran Grand hotel until the sun gets below 28- degrees in the sky. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED MAY 19 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 7. The proposed 10 story, 96 foot high structure would be located as close as 2.5 to 7 feet from the east property line. The diagram demonstrates the Sea Captain pool deck would be completely in shadows when the sun gets below 37 degrees in the sky. In reviewing the plans it appears the applicant can still achieve the desired number of hotel rooms and parking spaces without constructing a 10 -story building on the site immediately adjacent to the Sea Captain. The applicant could construct a multi -level parking garage on the lot south of Devon Street, thereby eliminating the need for the first 4- stories to be used as parking. Due to floodplain regulations the first floor can only be used for parking, however, this would allow the actual hotel building to be reduced to 6- stories of hotel rooms over 1 -level of parking. In reviewing the building elevations this would reduce the overall building height by approximately 33 feetl M Instead of being 96 feet above grade-it-would-be-63-feet-above grade. 9. Placing a multi -level parking garage on the surface lot south of Devon Drive would not impair the enjoyment of the Sea Captain since the property immediately to the east is a city owned parking lot. By reducing the building to 7- stories the shadows cast by the proposed hotel would be very similar to those expected by the Kiran Grand. 10. Why not reduce the west (front) setback to zero feet and thereby increase the east setbacks to 7.5 feet and 12.3 feet ? ?? This would create a closer link to the street life on Coronado Drive while providing a larger east setback where it is really needed. 11. Why not place parking a multi -level parking garage on the south lot? It could be zero feet from the east property line (abutting a city owned parking lot) and still provide 26 feet of green space adjacent to Coronado Drive. EXISTING __. I.. - AA _. - Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting Engineering • Planning • Transportation -Permitting 13825 ICOT Blvd., Suite 605 Clearwater, Florida 33760 Phone: (727) 5241818 Fax: (727) 524 -6090 y_n "G Z SEA CAPTAIN MOTEL 0 0 EXISTING CONDITIONS C SCALE V=40' 1* � m � m Csj m N Q 0 c. 0 KIRAN GRAND MAX 150' Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting Engineering • Planning • Transportation -Permitting 13825 ICOT Blvd., Suite 605 Clearwater, Florida 33760 Phone: (727) 524 -1818 Fax: (727) 524 -6090 SEA CAPTAIN MOTEL BASELINE CONDITION SCALE 10=40' n �z -0 151 , N C=) r m0 �_ M In M Q 0 KiRAN GRAND MAX 150' Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting Engineering • Planning • Transportation -Permitting 13825 ICOT Blvd., Suite 605 Clearwater, Florida 33760 Phone: (727) 524 -1818 Fax: (727) 524-6090 SEA CAPTAIN MOTEL PROPOSED CONDITIONS o m SCALE 1'=40' 0 —Di c: z) KIRAN GRAND U2 MAX 150' CORONADO DRIVE Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting Engineering -Planning -Transportation -Permitting 13825 ICOT Blvd., Suite 605 Clearwater, Florida 33760 Phone: (727) 5241818 Fax: (727) 5246090 COMPROMISE BY RELOCATING �c PARKING & REDUCTION TO 63' TAN(X) = * =.496 X =26° POOL IN SHADOW WHEN SUN X26° PROPOSED 7 STORY 63' HT. EXISTING PORT VUE R 40' HT. SEA CAPTAIN 22' HT. 7' 120' 127' nS; �z < �p SEA CAPTAIN MOTEL o z G) COMPROMISE CONDITIONS M, SCALE 1"=40' A ca ORIGINAL. RECEIVED MAY 19 2003 ROBERT C. PERGOLIZZI, AICP, PTP PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL CITY OF CLEARWATER CV 15 SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Pergolizzi has conducted numerous transportation studies and land development feasibility studies in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando, Collier, Sarasota, Lee, Manatee, Polk, Walton and Citrus Counties. These studies include site impact analyses, traffic engineering and traffic operations studies, travel time studies, parking studies, transportation analyses for DRI submittals, roadway capacity analyses and alternative corridor /alignment studies and impact fee studies. He also prepares signal warrant studies and signalization plans in accordance with MUTCD and MUTS procedures and access permits in accordance with FDOT and local government regulations. Mr. Pergolizzi has also served as a transpnrtation -planner with the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization where he prepared reports to assess traffic impacts of amendments to the Long -Range Transportation Plan. He is familiar with the latest transportation software including FSUTMS, Highway Capacity Software (HCS), FDOT QLOS Software, SYNCHRO, SIGNAL 2000, PASSER and TRANSYT -717. He has also served as land use consultant and expert witness for various land use plan amendments, rezonings, conditional use and variance hearings for Clients in the Tampa Bay area. SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE Land Use /Zonine ■ Lowe's /Publix — Pinellas Park ■ Waterchase — Hillsborough County ■ Suburban Lodge — Largo ■ Cypress Cove Townhomes — Hillsborough County ■ Oak Valley Townhomes — Hillsborough County ■ Oak Park — Pinellas Park ■ Walgreens — Pinellas County ■ Pinellas Expo Center — Pinellas Park ■ Park Place Townhomes — Pinellas Park ■ St. Petersburg College EPICENTER — Largo ■ St. Petersburg College Health Education Center Expansion - Pinellas Park ■ Cumberland Trace Townhomes — Largo ■ Roosevelt Commons Office Park — Pinellas County ■ Hidden Bayou Townhomes - Pinellas County ■ Skylark Plaza - Pinellas County ■ Palmbrooke Townhomes - Pinellas Park ORIGINAL. RECEIVED MAY 19 2000 DRI Traffic Studies PLANNING DEPARTMENT • Northwood DRI Traffic Analysis CITY OF CLEARWATER • Park Place DRI Traffic Analysis — Clearwater • River Ridge DRI Traffic Analysis - Pasco County • Heritage Pines DRI Traffic Analysis - Pasco County • Timber Pines DRI Expansion - Hernando County • ICOT Center DRI Traffic Analysis - Pinellas County • Mitchell Ranch Plaza DRI - Pasco County • Crossroads Mall DRI — Largo • CORPOREX Business Park — Hillsborough County • Beacon Woods East — Pasco County • The Grove at Wesley Chapel DRI - Pasco County Roadway Corridor Planning /Alternative Systems Studies • Lynn Turner Road - Hillsborough County • Drew Street — Clearwater • Belcher Road Extension - Pinellas County • Keene Road (CR 1) Extension - Pinellas County • City of Tarpon Springs Traffic Circulation Element Update - Tarpon Springs • Gateway to Clearwater Beach/Causeway Boulevard/Roundabout — Clearwater • DeCubellis Road — Pasco County • Gulf Trace Boulevard - Pasco County Traffic Operations Studies /Desiens /Sienalization Desiens • MPO Transportation Plan Amendment Studies - Preparation of numerous studies for roadway plan amendments. • Baywalk/Mid -Core Traffic Analysis/Traffic Signal Design — St. Petersburg • Gulf Boulevard/W. Gulf Boulevard Traffic Signal— Treasure Island • Gulf Boulevard /112t' Avenue and Gulf Boulvard/ 117`1i Avenue Traffic Signals —Treasure Island • Venetian Residential Development - Sarasota County • Wal- Mart/Sam's Club - Traffic studies for rezoning and FDOT permits for numerous facilities in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Manatee, Sarasota, Lee, and Collier Counties • Suncoast Lakes MPUD — Pasco County • Perrine Ranch Road Analysis — Pasco County • Clearwater Communitj Sports Complex — Clearwater • Thurston Groves 102" Avenue and Ridge Road Improvements — Seminole • RiverWalk at Manatee River Plantation — Manatee County • Valrico Road/Wheeler Road Traffic Signal - Hillsborough County • Morton Plant Hospital Master Plan - Clearwater Campus • Palm Harbor University High School - Pinellas County v ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 19 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • Madison Avenue /Gould Street Improvements — Clearwater • Bryan Dairy Road/Eckerd Corporation Traffic Signal - Pinellas County • Bryan Dairy Road/Longwood Drive Traffic Signal - Pinellas County • Clearwater Mall Transportation Analysis — Clearwater • Trinity Town Center �- Pasco County • Rooms to Go Distribution Center Expansion Traffic Analysis - Lakeland • Broadway Avenue /Williams Road Intersection Improvements - Hillsborough County • SR 580 /Summerdale Drive Signalization Plans - Pinellas County • The Lakes at Lucerne Park - Winter Haven • The Lakes at Laurel Highlands — Lakeland • Miller Road / Lumsden Road Signalization Plans — Hillsborough County • Morton Plant Hospital — Axelrod Pavilion Access Permits ■ Numerous access permits for commercial and residential projects throughout Florida. Parking Studies ■ Frenchy's Rockaway Grill — Clearwater Beach ■ Post Corner Pizza — Clearwater Beach ■ Outback Steakhouse — Clearwater Beach ■ Roma Square Shopping Center - Clearwater ■ Mandalay Grill — Clearwater Beach ■ Morton Plant Hospital - Clearwater Travel Time Studies • St. Anthony's Carillon Outpatient Center — Pinellas County • Community Hospital of New Port Richey — Pasco County • St. Joseph's Hospital North— Hillsborough County • Lakeland Regional Medical Center — Polk County • Bayonet Point Hospital - Pasco County • Martin Memorial Medical Center - Martin County/St. Lucie County ■ Morton Plant Hospital - Pinellas County ■ St. Joseph's Hospital South — Hillsborough County ■ Baycare SE Pasco Hospital — Pasco County ■ Poinciana Hospital Medical Center — Osceola County /Polk County ORIGINAL RECEIVED VAY 19 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER EDUCATION Master of City and Regional Planning, Rutgers University, 1987 Bachelor of Ails, Environmental and Urban Studies, Montclair State College, 1985 Successful completion of 128 hours of training conducted by the Federal Highway Administration and the Florida Department of Transportation on Urban Systems Modeling, Transportation Planning and Site Impact Analysis Graduate course work in Traffic Engineering, University of South Florida PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION American Institute of Certified Planners #9023, 1991 Professional Transportation Planner #133, 2008 AWARDS 1990 Florida Institute of Transportation Engineers Past Presidents Award for Technical Paper submittal Unsianalized Intersection Analysis on Florida's Divided Arterials MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS American Institute of Certified Planners Institute of Transportation Engineers American Planning Association Largo /Mid - Pinellas Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors — Florida H.S. for Accelerated Learning- Pinellas County Campus Board of Directors - Tampa Bay Junior Lightning, Inc. Wells, Wayne From: Patni, Himanshu Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 2:56 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: 101 Coronado -Traffic Study Wayne, Per our discussion and our review of the traffic impact study submitted for the proposed Holiday Inn Express on'Coronado I am outlining what the submitted traffic study meets from the relevant section of the overnight accommodations ordinance 7925 -08: - The study does recognize standard data sources as established by the MPO by using at LOS standards, turning movement counts, & PM peak analysis. - The study does identify LOS standards for the analyzed roads. - The study does not utilize or reference proportionate fair share requirements since these are an option to the developer and so far nobody as elected to pursue Proportionate Fair Share in the City. - The study does utilize the MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology but there are some sections where it does not provide all the data that is occasionally required (ex: Conducting 72 hour volume counts as opposed to the PM peak hour turning movement counts we approved in the methodology which are also recognized in the MPO's Methodology). - The study does recognize existing facilities that may be constrained based on the MPO LOS Report and our methodology required the consultant to study these segments & intersections as part of the study. Himanshu Patni, P.E. Traffic Operations City of Clearwater (727) 562 -4560 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 12:00 PM To: 'FOWLERARCH @aol.com' Subject: Sea Captain Resort Steve - I am assuming you are desiring the Staff Report and am attaching both the FLD Staff Report and the Development Agreement Staff Report. If this is not what you wanted, please let me know. Wayne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: FOWLERARCH @aol.com [mailto:FOWLERARCH @aol.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:10 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Sea Captain Resort Wayne, I am requesting a copy of the comments for the DRC application for the property next to the Sea Captain Resort ... thanks. Steve Fowler Fowler Associates, Architects, Inc. 727 - 449 -2021 A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! 5/18/2009 Wells, Wayne From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:51 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Delk, Michael; Tefft, Robert Subject: FW: Publicity - Variances on Clearwater Beach Is this regarding your hotel project? - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Shell, Heather C. Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:28 AM To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina Subject: Publicity - Variances on Clearwater Beach Good morning. This is an editorial written by a resident about beach variances. Not sure if it is of interest .... Clearwater Beach Variances My family has been vacationing at Clearwater Beach for over thirty-five years. We originally came to Clearwater Beach with our four young children who have since married and blessed us with thirteen grandchildren. They all love Clearwater Beach as much as their parents when we first took them. Our entire family takes at least one trip to the beach together every year as a mini family reunion and to relive the memories of years past. There is a special charm and warmth in the Clearwater Beach community that is so very difficult to find anywhere else in Florida today. Earlier this spring when we had all flown in to Tampa from four different states to go to Clearwater Beach for one of our annual trips, we got some disturbing news. For as far back as I can remember we have stayed at the beach motel Sea Captain. During our recent ten -day visit to the beach, we discovered that larger towering hotels are threatening to destroy the quaint beauty and charm of our favorite vacation spot. I support the rights of property owners to develop their properties as they choose, but not when it violates existing laws and regulations that were established to protect the beach community that we love so very much. Please don't allow the neighbors of the Sea Captain to infringe upon our special place by granting them the variances that could make Clearwater Beach a tunnel of concrete structures that destroy your unique beach community. It would be a shame to see that special place in the beach community become like so many other Florida beaches that are overbuilt. Once it starts, there is no turning back. It would break my family's hearts to leave Clearwater Beach as our favorite vacation spot. Please don't grant the variances that would destroy a very special place we have loved for years. - Lynn McColl Heather AThink Green. r - rr�gy , Conditions Associated With FLD2009 -03013 101 CORONADO DR Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 03/24/2009 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: 562 -4773 1. The sanitary sewer wye shall be installed by the City with time and materials to be paid by the applicant. 2. Ductile iron pipe shall be used between water main (tap) and the backflow prevention device (B.F.P.D.). 3. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of the B.F.P.D. 4. Reclaimed water is available for irrigation and other non - potable water needs. An 8 -inch main is located in Devon Drive fed from a 12 -inch main in Coronado Drive. 5. The landscape sheet refers to County inspection, details and ordinances. 6. The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, and a B.F.P.D. (back flow preventor device) if applicable. Applicant is responsible for all applicable impact and installation fees. Payment for the backflow prevention device is paid to Utilities Customer Service in the Municipal Services Building located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue. 7. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove /relocate any /all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) 8. Relocate the sanitary sewer clean out to a point about 3 -feet from back of curb. 9. Provide sidewalks along First Street/Devon Drive at one -foot from property line (City Index 109) where possible instead of at back of curb. Prior to CO, provide easement for portions of sidewalk along Coronado Drive that encroach onto private property. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy L. site - specific water capacity and pressure requirements and /or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense (City Ordinances 32.095.(7) and 32.187.(5). If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental Condition 03/23/2009 Fire Condition No issues. Sarah Josuns 562 -4897 Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. Leonard Rickard 562 -4327 x3078 04/16/2009 Fire Pump SHALL be in a separate 2 hour room plan indicates fire command in same room Not Met Not Met Not Met 03/17/2009 4/16/2009 Revised plan note # 5 Fire Command room added to architectural plans Plan shows Not Met this in same room as fire pump FIRE PUMP SHALL be in a separate 2 hour room. FIRE COMMAND SHALL be in a separate 2 hour room and accessable by the main lobby or off the stairs,no higher than the second floor. Show the location of the Fire Command Room which must be located above BFE. PRIOR TO CDB 03/17/2009 Elevators cannot open into exits and are required to open into seperated lobbies. Show details of Not Met Print Date: 05/14/2009 CaseConditons Page 1 of 5 FLD2009 -03013 101 CORONADO DR Fire Condition Leonard Rickard 562 -4327 x3078 intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB Parks & Recs Condition Chris Hubbard 03/16/2009 The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of Not Met building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Christopher Hubbard at 727 - 562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. 03/16/2009 Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if Not Met applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727 - 562 -4818 to caclulate the assessment. Storm Water Condition Phuong Vo 562 -4752 03/23/2009 The following shall be addressed prior to Community Development Board: Not Met 1. Please use a Time of Concentration of 60 minutes for both pre - development and post development. MET 2. Existing paving on the southern parking lot shall be given only Y2 credit, not a full credit as utilized in the submitted stormwater report. MET 3. Please provide a minimum of 6" between the top of the control structure /skimmer and the top of bank to satisfy the freeboard requirement. THIS IS NOW A PRE BUILDING PERMIT CONDITION. 4. Provide the draw down analysis for the pond and the vault. Draw down for the pond shall be supported by the soil analysis and the Double Ring Test result. For the vault, please submit the buoyancy calculation supported by the soil analysis result (i.e. seasonal high water table elevation, etc.) MORE COMPLETE INFORMATION WILL BE NECESSARY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 5. Provide adequate clearance between the skimmer bottom and the pond bottom to maintain a proper flow of stormwater into the control structure. MET 6. Provide north to south and east to west cross sections extended to the adjacent properties and /or right -or -way for the proposed pond and vault for review. Please account for the vault thickness (side, cover, and bottom) in the cross section and seasonal high water table. THIS IS NOW A PRE BUILDING PERMIT CONDITION. 7. Provide an access door into the vault for maintenance. THIS IS NOW A PRE BUILDING PERMIT CONDITION. 8. Please add a note on the Paving /Grading Plan stating that all roof runoff shall be routed to the proposed vault for treatment before discharge. Applicant shall acknowledge that he or she will submit a detailed calculation showing the design of the roof collection system (piping /gutter sizing) that is adequate to handle a 25 -year storm event. Please note that a detailed plan showing the connection of this system to the vault shall be submitted for review at building permit application. Include the exposed part of the ramp portion of the parking garage into the design and calculations. THIS IS NOW A PRE BUILDING PERMIT CONDITION. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of the Building Permit: 1. Submit a copy of the approved SWFWMD ERP permit. 2. Please provide a concrete pad around the control structure to prevent weeds from growing around the weir blocking water from flowing into the control structure. 3. Please verify the finished floor elevation of the existing structure directly south of the proposed parking lot and confirm that the proposed work will not create any adverse impact to this property. 4. The use of the HDPE pipe in the City right -of -way is prohibited. Please replace a portion of the proposed pond outfall pipe that is located in the City right -of -way with RCP or ductile iron pipe. 5. Please provide a note on the Paving /Grading plan showing the type of survey datum is being used. Please note that it is required to use the NAVD88 datum. 6. Please incorporate a skimmer for the control structure of the proposed vault. Print Date: 05/14/2009 Page 2 of 5 CaseConditons FLD2009 -03013 101 CORONADO DR Storm Water Condition Phuong Vo 562 -4752 7. Submit the operational manual for the proposed stormwater facilities. 8. Please provide a minimum of 6" between the top of the control structure /skimmer and the top of bank to satisfy the freeboard requirement. 9. Provide the draw down analysis for the pond and the vault. Draw down for the pond shall be r supported by the soil analysis and the Double Ring Test result. For the vault, please submit the buoyancy calculation supported by the soil analysis result (i.e. seasonal high water table elevation, etc.) 10. Provide north to south and east to west cross sections extended to the adjacent properties and /or right -or -way for the proposed pond and vault for review. Please account for the vault thickness (side, cover, and bottom) in the cross section and seasonal high water table. 11. Provide an access door into the vault for maintenance. 12. Please add a note on the Paving /Grading Plan stating that all roof runoff shall be routed to the proposed vault for treatment before discharge. Applicant shall acknowledge that he or she will submit a detailed calculation showing the design of the roof collection system (piping /gutter sizing) that is adequate to handle a 25 -year storm event. Please note that a detailed plan showing the connection of this system to the vault shall be submitted for review at building permit application. Include the exposed part of the ramp portion of the parking garage into the design and calculations. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. I 2. At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report; and any other drainage related document for review and record. Traffic. Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 03/24/2009 Provide mirrors to assist motorists exiting any parking space(s) wherever sight visibility is Not Met restricted. MET 2. The main driveway access for the hotel building does not meet the connection spacing requirements of 125'. Currently it measures 30' from the closest edge of pavement to the next closest edge of pavement. (Community Development Code, Section 3 -102. D.) MET 3. Provide a turning template of a scaled passenger vehicle measuring 19' in length exiting and entering the driveways. THIS IS NOW A PRE BUILDING PERMIT CONDITION. 4. Accessibility signs can be mounted on the wall to avoid using sign posts. MET 5. Provide a note on both the civil and architecture plans that the parking garage accommodates van accessible parking by providing a vertical clear height of 8'2". This includes entrance, route, parking space and exit per ADA parking compliance. (Florida Building Code Ch. 11, 11- 4.1.2. (5) (b) and 11- 4.6.5) MET 6. Provide a note on both the civil and architectural plans that the vertical clear height of each floor level in all vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm). Vehicle and pedestrian areas accommodating van - accessible parking shall be in accordance with Chapter 11. (Florida Building Code Chapter 4, Section 406, (2)(2)) 406.2.2 Clear height. MET 7. Provide pedestrian access connection between satellite parking lot and hotel using crosswalk markings along Coronado Drive. MET- CROSSWALK IS EXISTING 8. Relocate columns /shear walls so that the columns /shear walls are no closer than 2 -feet away from the ends of parking stalls. MET 9. Provide a turning template for a scaled passenger car measuring 19' in length making a turn around the curve inside the parking garage. The vehicle making the turn shall not encroach into the opposing lane. MET 10. Ensure that the proposed number of parking stalls is sufficient to accommodate both guests and employees. MET 11. Provide current City standard dimensions for parking stalls and drive aisles on all levels /floors Print Date: 05/14/2009 CaseConditons Page 3 of 5 FLD2009 -03013 101 CORONADO DR Traffic Eng. Condition Bennett Elbo 562 -4775 of the parking garage. MET 12. Identify how the trip distribution to /from the site was determined in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Changes to this distribution shall have an impact on the vehicle & intersection delay(s) stated in the study and may require mitigation or impact site access not presently addressed in the analysis. The Traffic Impact Study shall be revised to the satisfaction of the Traffic Operations Department. THIS CONDITION IS TO BE MET PRIOR TO CDB DISTRIBUTION. 13. Re- design all the proposed flared driveways into a 30' radius driveways. MET - URBAN FLARE IS ACCEPTABLE The above shall be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Note(s): 1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Zoning. Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 03/31/2009 4/28/09 - WW Applicant indicates mid -$100 to mid -$200 for room prices. 3/31/09 - WW Intent of the Hotel Density Reserve is for mid - priced hotels. Provide the price range for hotel rooms. 03/29/2009 4/28/09 - WW Applicant desires to retain this structure. Include as a condition of approval to be worked out prior to the issuance of any permit. 3/29/09 - WW The area to the north of the north property line, indicated as "brick paver area" and "wood dock" is located within the submerged area owned by the City. Does the owner have a lease for these structures within our property? If not, need to remove these structures. 03/30/2009 4/28/09 - WW Include as a condition of approval that the bicycles are for guest convenience as an accessory use only. 3/30/09 - WW A bicycle area is indicated right inside the garage entrance. Are these bicycles the hotel will provide to its guests (free or for a fee ?) or will there be an outside company come in to rent bicycles to the guests? 03/30/2009 4/28/09 - WW Since this is an open garage, include as a condition of approval that the meter and electric boxes be painted the same color as the building. 3/30/09 - WW Unclear where electric meters will be located (must be above BFE). Show location. If exterior to the building, show Progress Energy meter reader landing and steps (this counts as a structure needing to meet setbacks). Need to paint exterior electric boxes to match the color of the building. Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met 03/26/2009 4/28/09 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval. 3/26/09 - WW There are overhead utility lines along the southern frontage of the northern parcel, which need to be placed underground. The overhead utility lines located along the east property line of the southern parcel are recommended to be placed underground. Print Date: 05/14/2009 Page 4 of 5 CaseConditons J FLD2009 -03013 101 CORONADO DR Zoning. Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727 - 562 -4504 On -site, all electric and communication lines must be placed underground. 05/10/2009 South Elevation - Beach by Design requires a minimum of 60% of the elevation to be covered Not Met with windows and architectural decoration. The submitted South Elevation indicates the glass /elements to be 48 %, which is inconsistent with the requirements of Beach by Design. How can this be fixed? If it can be fixed now to have a higher percentage, then need to also amend the percentage indicated in Attachment D, Criteria 6.c.3. Print Date: 05/14/2009 Page 5 of 5 CaseConditons Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:13 PM To: Robert Pergolizzi (E -mail) Subject: FLD2009 -03013 and DVA2009 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive Robert - Attached are the Staff Reports for the above referenced cases, to be heard by the Community Development Board (CDB) at 1:00 pm on Tuesday, May 19, 2009, in City Council Chambers (City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue). Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Coronado Coronado 1 Staff Report.dl Dev. Agree. S' �. y FCDB Meeting Date: May 19, 2009 t�J Case Numbers: FLD2009 -03013 (Related to DVA2009- 00001 Agenda Item: EA. (Related to F.1.) Owner /Applicant: Decade Companies Income Properties Representative: Keith Zayac, PE, RLA, LEED AP, Keith ZUac & Associates, Inc. Address: 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 108 -room overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to lot width along Devon Drive/First Street from 150 to 100 feet (north side) and from 150 to 110 feet (south side), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 to eight feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 to 2.5 feet (to proposed building) and 7.22 feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon D ive/First Street), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 to five feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), and an increase to the building height from 35 to 89 feet (to top of roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2- 803.I, and approval of a two -year development order; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 72 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH) BEACH BY DESIGN CHARACTER DISTRICT: Small Motel PROPERTY USE: Current Use: 22 -room motel and vacant land Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 108 rooms (150 rooms /acre on total site, including the allocation of 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve) and approximately 1,500 square feet (0.048 FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel at a height of 89 feet (to roof deck) Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 1 of 12 EXISTING North: Preservation (P) District SURROUNDING South: Tourist (T) District ZONING AND USES: East: Tourist (T) District West: Tourist (T) District City Marina Retail sales and Overnight accommodations Overnight accommodations and City parking lot Temporary City parking lot ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.72 acres is located on the east side of Coronado Drive at the northeast and southeast comers of Devon Drive. The site is comprised of three parcels, two on the north side of Devon Drive and one on the south side of Devon Drive. The northern portion of the subject property is currently developed with a 22 -unit motel at 101 Coronado Drive (Port Vue Motel) and vacant land (formerly a 16 -unit motel). The vacant area is presently being used for construction trailers for the Hyatt/Aqualea project (301 S. Gulfview Boulevard). The southern portion of the subject property is currently vacant land (formerly a 15 -unit motel), also being used for construction trailers for the Hyatt/Aqualea project. The City's beach marina exists to the north of the subject property. The Sea Captain motel is located to the east of the northern portion of the site. A City surface parking lot is located to the east of the southern portion of the site. Retail sales and overnight accommodation uses exist to the south of the subject property. The property to the west of this site has been approved by the CDB and City Council for the development of a 450 -room hotel. All prior uses on this property to the west have been demolished. Currently a temporary City parking lot occupies this property. Development Proposal: The proposal is to construct a 108 -unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 150 units /acre, which includes the allocation of 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design. This is the first hotel to be placed on the Community Development Board agenda since the amendment of Beach by Design in July 2008 creating the Hotel Density Reserve as a means to encourage the construction of new mid -size, mid -priced hotels on the beach in response to the loss of hotel rooms since 2002. Also on this CDB agenda is a companion Development Agreement (DVA2009- 00001) that must be approved by City Council, which provides for the allocation of the 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve. This Development Agreement provides for mandatory evacuation/closure of the hotel in the event of the posting of a hurricane watch including Clearwater Beach by the National Hurricane Center, which also complies with Beach by Design criteria. The applicant indicates room rates for this hotel will be in the mid -$100 to mid -$200 range. This proposal complies with the Beach by Design criteria to access all rooms through a lobby and internal corridors. The hotel is proposed on the northern portion of the site north of Devon Drive and is proposed at a height of 89 feet from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the roof deck. The first four levels of the hotel will provide a total of 94 parking spaces, with driveway access on Devon Drive. There is an entry lobby on the ground floor providing access to the elevators. This proposal retains an existing ground -level pool located to the north of the hotel building adjacent to the City marina. There also exists a deck/dock extension of the ground -level pool into the water of the City marina, being retained under this proposal. The main lobby and registration desk is located on the fifth floor, which will monitor the ground level pool via cameras. The fifth floor also provides amenities for the hotel guests of approximately 1,500 total square feet (meeting room and exercise room) and 15 hotel rooms. Floors 6 — 8 provide 20 hotel rooms per floor. The ninth floor provides 18 hotel rooms. The tenth floor provides 15 hotel rooms, a rooftop pool and a small tiki bar. Full kitchens are proposed in 12 hotel rooms (11.1 percent of the total number of rooms), which is below the maximum of 25 percent allowable under Beach by Design. The Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 2 of 12 top of the tiki bar will be below the maximum District height of 100 feet, in compliance with the restriction under the definition of building height for rooftop occupancy structures. The ramp to obtain access between parking levels is located on the east side of the building. All parking garage levels will be open on the north, west and south sides, but the garage will be closed (solid wall) on the east side due to Building Code requirements. Balconies are provided for guest rooms facing north and east, but guest rooms facing Coronado Drive will not have balconies. The main exterior color of the building is a light green (heart of palm). Wall accents and the entry roof tiles will be a lighter shade of green (rice paddy), while the circular columns and facia will be antique white. The window frames, railings and metal roofs will be white. The building is proposed to be set back five feet from the Coronado Drive and Devon Drive property lines. The proposal includes a zero side setback from the north property line in order to retain the existing ground -level pool and pool deck as an amenity for the hotel guests. The proposal also includes a 2.5 -foot side setback to the east property line, measured to two building bump -outs designed to break up the linear fagade on the east side of the building, as required by the Beach by Design design guidelines. The maximum width of these bump -outs is approximately 22 feet. This 2.5 -foot side setback is also for only the first four floors that are the parking garage. Protruding columns from the face of the wall are set back a minimum of 6.1 feet to the east property line, while the majority of the east wall of the building is set back approximately 7.3 feet. This eastern wall of the building is also not set back continuously from the ground to the top of the building, but rather the building steps back from north to south. The northernmost 47 feet of the building is at the setbacks mentioned, but on the fifth through tenth floors the first guest room steps back 8' -10" from this eastern wall face. The southernmost seven guest rooms are further stepped back an additional 5' -2 ". Therefore, a majority of the building at the fifth floor and above is set back approximately 21.3 feet from the east property line. The proposed 89- foot building height for this project transitions building height from the highest on the west side of Coronado Drive (Kiran Grande — 150 -foot maximum height) to the detached dwellings to the east of this site (30 -foot maximum height). A surface parking lot of 18 spaces is proposed on the southern portion of the site south of Devon Drive, with driveway access on Devon Drive. This surface parking lot has been designed meeting the front setback from Coronado Drive and the eastern side setback. Setback reductions for this surface parking lot are requested on the south side and on the north side from Devon Drive. A stormwater retention pond is proposed between the parking lot and Coronado Drive. A City parking lot is located to the east of this proposed surface parking lot. The applicant is requesting a two -year development order due to market conditions. Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must be submitted within one year of the date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise specified under this approval. Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Section 2- 801.1, the maximum density for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 50 overnight accommodation units per acre. Based on the 0.72 overall acres zoned Tourist District, a maximum of 36 overnight accommodation units are permissible under current regulations. The proposal also requests 72 hotel rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted as an amendment to Beach by Design under Ordinance 7925 -08. The overall density for this project is 150 overnight accommodation units /rooms per acre, which meets the maximum established in Beach by Design for projects that have acquired units from the Hotel Density Reserve. Impervious Surface Ratio GSRZ Pursuant to CDC Section 2- 801.1, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.60, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 3 of 12 Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, the minimum lot area for overnight accommodations can range between 10,000 — 20,000 square feet. The overall existing site is 31,418 square feet of lot area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for overnight accommodations can range between 100 — 150 feet. For the northern portion of the site, the lot width along Coronado Drive is approximately 225 feet and along Devon Drive the lot width is 100 feet. For the southern portion of the site, the lot width along Coronado Drive is 100 feet and along Devon Drive the lot width is 110 feet. The lot width reduction does not produce a building that is out of scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. The existing two -story motel to the east at 40 Devon Drive is approximately five feet from the common property line. Other existing motels and retail sales buildings are located very close to property lines. The approved but not yet constructed Kiran Grande hotel across the street at 100 Coronado Drive will have two towers at a height of 150 feet joined by a connecting wing at a height of 95 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, the minimum front setback for overnight accommodations can range between 0 — 15 feet and the minimum side setback can range between 0 — 10 feet (structures on corner lots must meet front setbacks along rights -of -way and meet side setbacks adjacent to the other property lines). The proposal includes a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 to eight feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 to 2.5 feet (to proposed building) and 7.22 feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 to five feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive). With regard to the proposed development on the north side of Devon Drive, the building will be set back five feet from the Coronado Drive and Devon Drive property lines, within the flexibility range and where the minimum five -foot wide foundation landscape area is being provided. The proposal includes a zero - foot side setback from the north property line. This setback reflects the applicant's desire to retain the existing ground -level pool and pool deck as an amenity for the hotel guests. The proposal also includes a 2.5 -foot side setback to the east property line. This setback is measured to two building bump -outs designed to break up the linear fagade on the east side of the building, as required by the Beach by Design design guidelines. The maximum width of these bump -outs is approximately 22 feet. This 2.5- foot side setback is also for only the first four floors of the parking garage. Protruding columns from the face of the wall are set back a minimum of 6.1 feet from the east property line. The majority of the east wall of the building is set back approximately 7.3 feet from the east property line. The eastern wall of the building is not set back continuously at previously mentioned from the ground to the top of the building, but rather the building steps back from north to south. The northernmost 47 feet of the building is at the setbacks mentioned, but on the fifth through tenth floors the first guest room steps back 8' -10" from this eastern wall face. The seven southernmost guest rooms are further stepped back an additional 5' -2 ". Therefore, a majority of the building at the fifth floor and above is set back approximately 21.3 feet from the east property line. From a design perspective, the proposed setbacks must be reviewed in relation to the dimensional requirements for parking lots and the need for building structure in relation to the east/west 100 -foot lot width. In order to provide a double - loaded drive aisle (18 -foot long parking spaces on either side of a 24 -foot wide drive aisle) with a necessary two -way, 24 -foot wide ramp between floors, a width of 84 feet is necessary and leaves 16 feet for building structure and setbacks to property lines. The proposed design represents an efficient parking area where foundation landscape requirements adjacent to streets have not been reduced. Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 4 of 12 With regard to the proposed development on the south side of Devon Drive, the surface parking lot will be set back 39 feet from the Coronado Drive property line, exceeding the minimum front setback requirement. The parking lot will also be set back 10 feet from the east property line in compliance with the minimum side setback requirement. A five -foot setback from the south property line to the backup flair for the end parking spaces is proposed. The pavement for the parking spaces themselves complies with the side setback requirement. Based on the desire to provide parking in excess of the minimum Code requirements to ensure adequate employee parking and based on the dimensional requirements for the width of parking spaces, the parking lot is proposed at an eight -foot front setback from the Devon Drive property line. The City parking lot to the east of this proposed surface parking lot was approved at a front setback of 15 feet. The proposed eight -foot front setback from Devon Drive provides a more efficient off - street parking area by providing adequate parking spaces for hotel employees. There is no perimeter landscape buffer requirement in the Tourist District; therefore there is no loss of required landscaping. Due to this southern portion of the project being a surface parking lot, it is acknowledged that the reduced setback does not contribute to a more active and dynamic street life, but the need for adequate parking is a more significant factor. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, the maximum allowable height for overnight accommodations can range between 35 — 100 feet. The proposed building is 89 feet in height from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof, which is below the Code maximum. This site is located within the Small Motel character district of Beach by Design, which does not prescribe any maximum heights for this area. Good planning practice is to transition building heights from a compatibility standpoint. The Community Development Board approved the Kiran Grand overnight accommodation project at 100 Coronado Drive on October 21, 2008, with a 150 -foot building height (Case No. FLD2008- 05013). The detached dwellings on Devon Drive to the east of this site are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District where the maximum building height is 30 feet. The proposed building height for this project transitions building height from the highest on the west side of Coronado Drive to the detached dwellings to the east of this site. . Minimum Off - Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, the minimum required parking for overnight accommodations is one parking space per room, or a minimum of 108 parking spaces. The proposal includes constructing a total of 112 parking spaces. On the southern portion of the site, 18 surface parking spaces are proposed. On the northern portion of the site as part of the hotel, a total of 94 parking spaces on four floors in a parking garage are proposed. From an amenities standpoint accessory to the hotel, the proposal includes a meeting room of approximately 1,050 square feet and an exercise room of approximately 450 square feet, or a total of approximately 1,500 square feet. There is no restaurant proposed within this hotel. With such minimal amenities, the provided parking appears adequate for both hotel guests and employees. This proposal will take driveway access from Devon Drive for both the northern and southern portions of the site. Existing driveways on Coronado Drive will be removed. Sidewalks will be constructed for the site frontages along Devon Drive. A small portion of the existing public sidewalk on Coronado Drive has been constructed on the subject property. An easement for this encroachment will be required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. There will be mechanical equipment located on top of the flat roof of the building for the common areas of the building. The parapets surrounding the roof are only one -foot above the roof. Depending on the location of such mechanical equipment in relation to the outside walls of the hotel, the parapet may be, insufficient to screen the mechanical equipment and additional screening may be required. This will be reviewed at Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 5 of 12 time of the building permit submission. In -wall individual air conditioners will be provided for each hotel room and will blend in with the fagade of the building. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 904.A, to minimize hazards at the driveways on, and the street intersection of Coronado Drive and Devon Drive, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20 -foot sight visibility triangles. The hotel building is proposed within the sight visibility triangles. These encroachments have been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable, given the circumstances of this site. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3 -911, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this hotel will be installed underground on -site in compliance with this requirement. There exist overhead utility lines within the right -of -way along the north side of Devon Drive and along the east side of the southern portion of the site. The proposal will underground these existing overhead lines along the site frontage on Devon Drive. Electric panels, boxes and meters are proposed to be located on the second floor of the parking garage adjacent to the southern stairwell. To ensure views of these electrical equipment are minimized, since the walls for the parking garage at this location are not full walls, this electrical equipment should be painted the same color as the building. Landscaping_ Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District for this overall site. This proposal complies with the minimum five -foot wide building foundation landscaping along Coronado Drive and Devon Drive, which will be planted with a variegated pittosporum hedge with wedelia groundcover, together with cabbage palms. Landscaping assists with softening and reducing building massing to both pedestrians and motorists. There is a large landscaped area on the north side of the proposed building and west of the existing ground -level pool. This proposal complies with the interior landscape area requirements for the surface parking lot on the southern portion of the site, placing landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot for screening of the parked vehicles and providing trees appropriately spaced for shading of the parking lot and for visual appeal. Two live oak trees are proposed on the west side of the surface parking lot, while cabbage palms are proposed on other sides of the parking lot. Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize hotel housekeeping staff to remove trash from units and transport the trash to the dumpster(s) housed in a storage room on the ground floor of the hotel. On trash days, hotel employees will place the dumpster(s) outside the building in a trash staging area for truck pickup. After dumping, hotel employees will roll the dumpster(s) back inside the building out of view. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. Signage: The proposal includes a freestanding sign located on the northern portion of the site adjacent to the City marina. This freestanding sign should be designed as a monument -style sign, match the exterior materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program, in accordance with the flexibility criteria of CDC Section 2- 803.I.3. Attached signage must meet Code requirements. Additional Beach by Design Guidelines: Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed building footprint is approximately 12,875 square feet. The project's overall horizontal plane dimensions are approximately 154 feet along Community Development Board —May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 6 of 12 Coronado Drive and 86 feet along the Devon Drive, while the vertical plane is approximately 96 feet from grade to the top of the tallest roof. None of these dimensions are equal. Modulation of the building massing, especially on the eastern fagade, also provides considerable dimensional variation. Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. The west fagade of the building has been designed with a linear dimension of approximately 95 feet for the "center" portion of the building. The southern stairwell is indented breaking the linear plane on the south side. An indentation at the elevator lobbies breaks this linear plane on the north side. The east fagade of the building has been designed with a linear dimension of approximately 95 feet between bump -outs from the parking garage levels one through four. At the fifth through tenth floors the northernmost portion of the building extends southward 47 feet before the first guest room steps back 8' -10" from this eastern wall face. The southernmost seven guest rooms are further stepped back an additional 5' -2 ", which represents a linear fagade of approximately 94 feet. The south fagade length is approximately 86 feet for the first through fourth floors, reducing to 72 feet for the fifth through tenth floors. The north fagade length is approximately 86 feet. Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The applicant has calculated the west elevation at 75 percent with 10 percent open to the parking garage, the north elevation at 79 percent with 12 percent open to the parking garage, the east elevation at 70 percent, with no openings for the parking garage due to Building Code requirements, and the south elevation at 62 percent with 37 percent open to the parking garage. Section CA provide that no more than 60 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelop located above 45 feet be occupied, by a building. The applicant has calculated the overall proposed building mass between 45 — 100 feet at 41.76 percent, approximately two- thirds of the maximum permissible. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 7 of 12 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use (hotel) with the standards as per CDC Tables 2 -801.1 and 2 -803: 1 Includes 72 units /rooms allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve pursuant to Beach by Design 2 See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board —May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 8 of 12 Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 50 units /rooms per acre 108 units /rooms XZ (maximum of 36 units /rooms) (150 units /rooms per acre)' Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.60 X Minimum Lot Area 10,000 — 20,000 sq. ft. 31,418 sq. ft. X Minimum Lot Width 100— 150 feet Northern portion: XZ West: 225 feet South: 100 feet Southern portion: XZ West: 100 feet North: 110 feet Minimum Setbacks Front: 0 — 15 feet Northern portion: X ?. West: 5 feet (to building) South: 5 feet (to building) Southern portion: XZ West: 39 feet (to pavement) North: 8 feet (to pavement) Side: 0 — 10 feet Northern portion: X2 North: 0 feet (to existing pool deck) East: 2.5 feet (to building) Southern portion: XZ North: 8 feet (to pavement) South: 5 feet (to pavement) Maximum Height 35 —100 feet 89 feet (to flat roof) V . Minimum One parking space per unit/room 112 parking spaces XZ Off - Street Parkin 108 spaces) 1 Includes 72 units /rooms allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve pursuant to Beach by Design 2 See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board —May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 8 of 12 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2 -8031 See analysis in Staff Report. Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 9 of 12 Consistent Inconsistent 1. With the exception of those properties located on Clearwater Beach, the parcel X' 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. 2. Height: The increased height results in an improved site plan and/or improved X design and appearance. 3. Signs: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is X' 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: X1 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: X1 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. 6. The design of all buildings shall comply with the Tourist District site and X' architectural design guidelines in Section 3 -501, as applicable. 7. Lot area and /or width: The reduction shall not result in a building which is out of X1 scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. 8. The parcel proposed for development shall, if located within the Coastal Storm X' Area, have a hurricane evacuation plan requiring the use close when a hurricane watch is posted. 9. A development agreement must be approved by the City Council pursuant to F.S. §§ X' 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. See analysis in Staff Report. Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 9 of 12 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3 -913: I See analysis in Staff Report. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of April 2, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact. The Planning 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 0.72 acres is located on the east side of Coronado Drive at the northeast and southeast corners of Devon Drive/First Street; 2. The site is comprised of three parcels, two on the north side of Devon Drive and one on the south side of Devon Drive; 3. The proposal is to construct a 108 -unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 150 units /acre, which includes the allocation of 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design; 4. A companion Development Agreement (DVA2009- 00001) that must be approved by City Council is also on this CDB agenda is, providing for the allocation of the 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve; 5. The hotel is proposed on the northern portion of the site north of Devon Drive and is proposed at a height of 89 feet from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the roof deck; 6. The proposed 89 -foot building height transitions building height from the highest on the west side of Coronado Drive (Kiran Grande — 150 -foot maximum height) to the detached dwellings to the east of this site (30 -foot maximum height); 7. The first four levels of the hotel will provide a total of 94 parking spaces, with driveway access on Devon Drive; 8. The proposal includes setback reductions from all property lines on the northern portion of the site; 9. While the proposal includes a setback of 2.5 feet from the east property line, a majority of the building at the fifth floor and above is set back approximately 21.3 feet from the east property line; 10. A surface parking lot of 18 spaces is proposed on the southern portion of the site south of Devon Drive, with driveway access on Devon Drive; Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 —Page 10 of 12 Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X1 adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X1 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X1 immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X' visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. I See analysis in Staff Report. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of April 2, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact. The Planning 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 0.72 acres is located on the east side of Coronado Drive at the northeast and southeast corners of Devon Drive/First Street; 2. The site is comprised of three parcels, two on the north side of Devon Drive and one on the south side of Devon Drive; 3. The proposal is to construct a 108 -unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 150 units /acre, which includes the allocation of 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design; 4. A companion Development Agreement (DVA2009- 00001) that must be approved by City Council is also on this CDB agenda is, providing for the allocation of the 72 units from the Hotel Density Reserve; 5. The hotel is proposed on the northern portion of the site north of Devon Drive and is proposed at a height of 89 feet from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the roof deck; 6. The proposed 89 -foot building height transitions building height from the highest on the west side of Coronado Drive (Kiran Grande — 150 -foot maximum height) to the detached dwellings to the east of this site (30 -foot maximum height); 7. The first four levels of the hotel will provide a total of 94 parking spaces, with driveway access on Devon Drive; 8. The proposal includes setback reductions from all property lines on the northern portion of the site; 9. While the proposal includes a setback of 2.5 feet from the east property line, a majority of the building at the fifth floor and above is set back approximately 21.3 feet from the east property line; 10. A surface parking lot of 18 spaces is proposed on the southern portion of the site south of Devon Drive, with driveway access on Devon Drive; Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 —Page 10 of 12 11. The proposal includes setback reductions from the north and south property lines only on the southern portion of the site; 12. The proposal includes constructing a total of 112 parking spaces, exceeding the minimum requirement of 108 spaces (one space per room); and 13. There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law. The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2 -801.1 and 2 -803 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2 -803.I of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3 -913 of the Community Development Code; 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design; and 5. The proposal is compatible with the adjacent land uses. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the (1) Flexible Development application to permit a 108 -room overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to lot width along Devon Drive/First Street from 150 to 100 feet (north side) and from 150 to 110 feet (south side), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 to eight feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 to 2.5 feet (to proposed building) and 7.22 feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 to five feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), and an increase to the building height from 35 to 89 feet (to top of roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2- 803.I, and approval of a two -year development order; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 72 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development Agreement with the City (Case DVA2009- 00001); 2. That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later than May 19, 2011, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 3. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records; 4. That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 5. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, ownership of the deck/dock on the north side be verified and documentation of any lease of the submerged lands be submitted to the Planning Department; 6. That the freestanding sign be a monument -style sign, be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program; Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page 11 of 12 7. That the books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with the Hotel Density Reserve criteria of Beach by Design as allowed by general law; 8. That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, existing overhead utility lines within the right -of -way along the north side of Devon Drive be placed underground and electric panels and boxes on the second floor of the parking garage be painted the same color as the building; 9. That the bicycle parking/storage area on the ground level of the parking garage be for hotel guest convenience as an accessory use only; 10. That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, an easement be recorded in the public records for the sidewalk along Coronado Drive partially on the subject property; 11. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 12. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 13. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and the Fire Department be addressed. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: J Wayne M. Vfells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: • Location Map • Aerial Map ❑ Zoning Map ❑ Existing Surrounding Uses Map ❑ Photographs of Site and Vicinity S: (Planning DepartmentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)IPending caseslUp for the next CDBICoronado 0101 - 0105 Holiday Inn Express (7) 2009.05 - 5.19.09 CDB - WMCoronado 0101 StaffReport.doc Community Development Board — May 19, 2009 FLD2009 -03013 — Page. 12 of 12 BAYMONT ST PROJECT W SITE a z SAN MARCO W X ti DO4pN/ PAPAYA ST Q )g h d W Z Z O d Pier 60 O Causeway Blvd �r ,p T m� ° SECOND ��ON ST DR THIRD 3 ST W o° ° 0 Z O O jr O 0a BRIGHT WATER DR FIFTH ST ai 2 W V BAYSIDE i oq LOCATION MAP Owner: Decade. Companies Income Properties Cases: FLD2009 -03013 DVA2009 -00001 Site: 101 Coronado Drive (including 105 Property Size: 0.72 acres Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive PIN: 08- 29- 15- 15606- 000 -0141 Atlas Page: 267A & 276A 08- 29 -15- 00000 - 320 -0200 08- 29- 15- 17550- 002 -0012 1 I 13 I % 12 l L5606 z `o I I 1 z z I 1 I I 1 1 1 ' ' I WATER LOT 1 415 1 I 1 Qo;Q I (14) sa> ((rr // �� A 0SA? $ I 10 78. 10 'ov.�y sze 10Q � I r GOVT LOT 3 _ 1 357 144 11 1 1 59 1011 5 4a GOVT LOT 4 7 90 pp1 192 100 C� 14 1- 2 — 1 1' f I I I )00 0 _ _ L LE S07 -2911- 1,A R INFO _ _ — — 2 _ a �\ 128 104.21 3 459 ST 3 - - F/RST 9a 4 1 �® 1 1 1 IT 148 i s 50 151 4 41 98 4 5 1— J. — I97 o O 1 6 201 52 1 98 O A00 5 / 1 / 6 / - - - — — — 20 LDCTR 53 ' 99_ 212 7 LMDR 7 100 1755 — T 15 54 21 — ~ -- L v _—, 8_ _ — — 218 35 �� 2 w 0 10 9 — 7 . — N NS 22 216 ^ti° 11 — 4 —� — 3 224 52 56 — — 35 3 — — �b 12 h ^ ^ ° 13 14 ^ N 10 1- — _ _ — 7 22d3 — cr 11 1 229 57 1 10,9 "9 1756P 228 51 w w _ 1 _ — — 230 L 230 — — — -O— 1 I J 50 / w — LL 12 70 � — S T — as 48 / / 47 / — — I 30158 � 3 1 $ 251 / 4 I 45 — — — — _ I — — — =0�'j 30f 1 30 60 59 - - P 35 - 1�w3o ZONING MAP Owner: Decade Companies Income Properties Cases: FLD2009 -03013 DVA2009 -00001 Site: 101 Coronado Drive (including 105 Property Size: 0.72 acres Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive PIN: 08- 29 -15- 15606- 000 -0141 Atlas Page: 267A & 276A 08- 29 -15- 00000 - 320 -0200 08- 29- 15- 17550- 002 -0012 12 � � 15606 1 - 1�- 1 I ----- 1 1 1 z s 1 Pier 60 1 1 I 1 City 1 Marina 1 1 WATER LOT 1 1 Q ) u 1 11a> 1 sa> A s 1 's7.9 1q0 59 1 1Q� 781 10110j� GOVT LOT 3 7 144 1 1 1 1 go I I k3 59 1 1 Overnighfl' ir./a�` GOVT LOT 4 i6�40o Brach City PAR `''1�'"�'Ig PAR INFO A&co3. _"'7 59 v y\ 3 128 46-94 104.21 — _ _ 8 FIRST ST _ rl 1 T ._ � m Q 94 3 1 m a 1 1 ► to ® 149 50 151 41, C1I 98 5 - 1 —I_ I97 x Q 1 Dw d - - - - 1 Vempbrary g j00 5 s • s 1 r98 V at � s 212 — — 2 �LOCTR99_ _ a Q Q et he ,Beach , 215 54 �,o_ v r —1 W dati0 elli ry 8 _ _ 218 O M ^� 0 ,o 218 9 _ 70 * _ N NS 70 i 4 o°' 11 way of c}h d _ _ _ -� _ ht 56 — ss 3 _ 224 52 * s 1! > ,� - �; _ ccom3nada ' ns 21ket ch d ^ I" V� 3. „ — 1 229 57 1 104 ht 22 Dw Ii 23o - , -- 230 ernigut- -n J 2 Beach LL aPdat oils 49 48D / ache 1 ° _ _ _ geomwo a_ o TH /RD ST — 301 47 1 X111 _ � SO � 251 S 1 as O' atie rn 3 r / 59 Ace odati ns ,osw3 _ 7 3 EXISTING Owner: Decade Companies Income Properties Cases: FLD2009 -03013 DVA2009 -00001 Site: 101 Coronado Drive (including 105 Property Size: 0.72 acres Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive PIN: 08- 29 -15- 15606 - 000 -0141 Atlas Page: 267A & 276A 08- 29 -15- 00000 - 320 -0200 08- 29- 15- 17550- 002 -0012 Wells, Wayne From: Albee, Rick Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:37 AM To: Watkins, Sherry; Buzzell, William; Chase, Susan; Dougall- Sides, Leslie; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hollander, Gwen; Hufford, Diane; Josuns, Sarah; Keller, James; Lutz, Deb; Patni, Himanshu; Reid, Debbie; Rickard, Leonard; Shell, Heather C.; Steve Fairchild (E- mail); 'US Post Office (E- mail); Vo, Phuong; Yellin, Catherine Subject: RE: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting Holiday Inn -No Issues 811 Cleveland- No Issues 1888 Betty Lane - Revised conditions to be met at Building Permit. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:44 AM To: Buzzell, William; Chase, Susan; Dougall- Sides, Leslie; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hollander, Gwen; Hufford, Diane; Josuns, Sarah; Keller, James; Lutz, Deb; Patni, Himanshu; Reid, Debbie; Rickard, Leonard; Shell, Heather C.; Steve Fairchild (E- mail); US Post Office (E- mail); Vo, Phuong; Yellin, Catherine Subject: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following.cases have been resubmitted for the FLD2009 -03013 Holiday Inn Express 101 & 105 Coronado Drive - Planner Wayne Wells FLD2009 -02007 811 Cleveland Street, 804 Park Street Planner Wayne Wells FLD2009 -03012 1888 Betty Lane Planner Wayne Wells I have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (please do not take it, as we need it for the CDB mail out). Please review your comments /conditions for this case in Permit Plain and determine if they are met. .i ether the conditions are "met' yr Mill "IiVt Ii1Ct,'1 please affirm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12pm on Monday April 20, 2009. Thanks, Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 Wells, Wayne From: Doherty, Steve Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:06 AM To: Watkins, Sherry; Buzzell, William; Chase, Susan; Dougall- Sides, Leslie; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hollander, Gwen; Hufford, Diane; Josuns, Sarah; Keller, James; Lutz, Deb; Patni, Himanshu; Reid, Debbie; Rickard, Leonard; Shell, Heather C.; Steve Fairchild (E- mail); 'US Post Office (E- mail); Vo, Phuong; Yellin, Catherine Subject: RE: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting I have reviewed the following cases for compliance with all Engineering Dept. requirements: FLD2009 -03013 Holiday Inn Express 101 & 105 Coronado Drive - Planner Wayne Wells All pre CDB conditions have been met FLD2009 -02007 811 Cleveland Street, 804 Park Street Planner Wayne Wells Stormwater pre CDB conditions not met - please make conditions of approval on Staff Recommendation to CDB FLD2009 -03012 1888 Betty Lane Planner Wayne Wells Stormwater pre CDB conditions not met - please make conditions of approval on Staff Recommendation to CDB Thanks Wayne for getting conditions into staff recommendations. -Steve Stephen L. Doherty Engineering Specialist 1 City of Clearwater Engineering steve.doherty@myclearwater.com 727.562.4773 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:44 AM To: Buzzell, William; Chase, Susan; Dougall- Sides, Leslie; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hollander, Gwen; Hufford, Diane; Josuns, Sarah; Keller, James; Lutz, Deb; Patni, Himanshu; Reid, Debbie; Rickard, Leonard; Shell, Heather C.; Steve Fairchild (E- mail); US Post Office (E- mail); Vo, Phuong; Yellin, Catherine Subject: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the FLD2009 -03013 Holiday Inn Express 101 & 105 Coronado Drive - Planner Wayne Wells FLD2009 -02007 811 Cleveland Street, 804 Park Street Planner Wayne Wells FLD2009- 030121888 Betty Lane Planner Wayne Wells I have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (please do not take it, as we need it for the CDB mail out). Please review your comments /conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12pm on Monday April 20, 2009. Thanks, Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst :e Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:54 AM To: _ Planning Subject: FW: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting Importance: High FYI Thank you, Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keller, James Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:10 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: FW: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting Importance: High Ms. Watkins, I had to add a comment for the FLD2009 -02007 things to be addressed prior to building permit. Thanks again, Jim Keller - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keller, James Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:53 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: FW: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting Importance: High Ms. Watkins, I am not sure if my e -mail went through so I am re- sending. Thank you for your help in this matter. Respectfully, James Keller Fire Inspector II Division of Fire Prevention Services Clearwater Fire & Rescue - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:44 AM To: Buzzell, William; Chase, Susan; Dougall- Sides, Leslie; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hollander, Gwen; Hufford, Diane; Josuns, Sarah; Keller, James; Lutz, Deb; Patni, Himanshu; Reid, Debbie; Rickard, Leonard; Shell, Heather C.; Steve Fairchild (E- mail); US Post Office (E- mail); Vo, Phuong; Yellin, Catherine Subject: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the FLD2009 -03013 Holiday Inn Express 101 & 105 Coronado Drive - Planner Wayne Wells [Keller, James] .,,e Not met FLD2009 -02007 811 Cleveland Street, 804 Park Street Met / will also add PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT addressed:Fire Sprinkler /Exit requirements /cooking equip.requirements FLD2009 -03012 1888 Betty Lane Planner Wayne Wells [Keller, James] items to be Planner Wayne Wells [Keller, James] Met I have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (please do not take it, as we need it for the CDB mail out). Please review your comments /conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met' or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12pm on Monday April 20, 2009. Thanks, Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:37 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Reid, Debbie Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:32 PM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting Pis see responses below. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:44 AM To: Buzzell, William; Chase, Susan; Dougall- Sides, Leslie; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hollander, Gwen; HufFord, Diane; Josuns, Sarah; Keller, James; Lutz, Deb; Patni, Himanshu; Reid, Debbie; Rickard, Leonard; Shell, Heather C.; Steve Fairchild (E- mail); US Post Office (E- mail); Vo, Phuong; Yellin, Catherine Subject: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the FLD2009 -03013 Holiday Inn Express 101 & 105 Coronado Drive - Planner Wayne Wells (Reid, Debbie] P&P impact fees due on this project. FLD2009 -02007 811 Cleveland Street, 804 Park Street Planner Wayne Wells [Reid, Debbie] No issues FLD2009 -03012 1888 Betty Lane Planner Wayne Wells [Reid, Debbie] No issues I have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (please do not take it, as we need it for the CDB mail out). Please review your comments /conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please aff irm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12pm on Monday April 20, 2009. Thanks, Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:44 AM To: Buzzell, William; Chase, Susan; Dougall- Sides, Leslie; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hollander, Gwen; Hufford, Diane; Josuns, Sarah; Keller, James; Lutz, Deb; Patni, Himanshu; Reid, Debbie; Rickard, Leonard; Shell, Heather C.; Steve Fairchild (E- mail); US Post Office (E- mail); Vo, Phuong; Yellin, Catherine Subject: Resubmittals for the May 19, 2009 CDB Meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the FLD2009 -03013 Holiday Inn Express 101 & 105 Coronado. Drive - Planner Wayne Wells FLD2009 -02007 811 Cleveland Street, 804 Park Street Planner Wayne Wells FLD2009 -03012 1888 Betty Lane Planner Wayne Wells I have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (please do not take it, as we need it for the CDB mail out). Please review your comments /conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12pm on Monday April 20, 2009. Thanks, Sherry Watkins Administrative Analyst Planning Department 727 -562 -4582 Wells, Wayne From: Freok Sheryl Sent: Monday, April OG.2O082:48PyN To: VVo||m Wayne Subject: FLD2009-0301 1 AERIAL.doc EXISTING.doc LOCATON.do ZONING.doc Map Request Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:17 AM To: Fresk, Sheryl Cc: Herman, Jason Subject: Map Request for FLD2009- 03013/DVA2009- 00001, 101 Coronado Drive Sheryl - Attached is a map request for Cases FLD2009- 03013/DVA2009 -00001 for the property at 101 Coronado Drive (including 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive). I will bring over the paperwork. The surveys you may keep. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Map Request Form.doc Map Request Planner Name: Wayne Wells Case Number: FLD2009- 03013/DVA2009 -00001 Date Requested: April 3, 2009 Date Requested for (date): April 17, 2009 Maps Requested ® Location Map ® Aerial Map ® Zoning Map ® Existing Surrounding Uses Map Required Documents to be submitted to Engineering ® Legal Description LGAL-s AK- Gvcf) Ptqt, P-,*j-,.?Av j t3-( ® Survey WULS ,as JOG 00,061.0-S] ® Map with Proposed Site Highlighted IN ADDITION TO THE REQUESTED MAPS, PLEASE PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WE HAVE PROVIDED IS COR AND URATE. Thomas Mahony, Geographic Technology Manage ;ignat6r'A'//" Map Name Owner: Decade Companies Income Properties Cases: FLD2009 -03013 DVA2009 -00001 Site: 101 Coronado Drive (including 105 Property Size: 0.72 acres Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive PIN: 08- 29 -15- 15606- 000 -0141 Atlas Page: 267A & 276A 08- 29 -15- 00000 - 320 -0200 08- 29- 15- 17550- 002 -0012 Map. Request Planner Name: Wayne Wells Case Number: FLD2009- 03013/DVA2009 -00001 Date Requested: April 3, 2009 Date Requested for (date): April 17, 2009 Maps Requested ® Location Map ® Aerial Map ® Zoning Map ® Existing Surrounding Uses Map. Required Documents to be submitted to Engineering ® Legal Description ® Survey ® Map with Proposed Site Highlighted IN ADDITION TO THE REQUESTED MAPS, PLEASE PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WE HAVE PROVIDED IS CORRECT AND ACCURATE. Thomas Mahony, Geographic Technology Manager Signature. Map Name Owner: Decade Companies Income Properties Cases: FLD2009 -03013 DVA2009 -00001 Site: 101 Coronado Drive (including 105 Property Size: 0.72 acres Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive PIN: 08- 29 -15- 15606- 000 -0141 Atlas Page: 267A & 276A 08- 29 -15- 00000 - 320 -0200 08- 29- 15- 17550- 002 -0012 A• A %p I =,I ANIffil WAN L01A a bwdj DI C,��aM�d. '1�. ol water L PREPARED BY PUBLICWORKSADM ISTRATION ENGINEERINGIGIS 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756 Ph.: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)526-4755 r— 2t- www.MyC[oiirwater.com Md~ PvbkW—Wd.Wk1.dMdbYft Ur/orCle—le, WNn Nbrk+AdNJMroNE,NYH.rLM. uM mu,iw s[mPled ftf0oel-WMWW".A11mkMCRY.fCJ—WPWA1E i \ MYMUM •t W ( -!7— here, w.--d-d WM vIN 100 7u.77 r7, 1-2 City Owned Property 4'V Agreement to Annex 0 Annexation 0 Deannexation ;Correction cc (- Rezoning E11311 Refer Plot) 1....r.__ .. . .......... . .... SUB NUMBER to . .. ... ....... 0 BLOCK NUMBER ............... . . . II SUB PARCEL NUMBER i --------- ......... . .... ... to, -J — 9.IDGE PARCEL NUMBER (Meat GD LAND HOOK (COMMON OWNERSK F—, OS IR PLATTED SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY COUNTYHIGHWAY .. ........ .... ....... s STATE HIGHWAY G3U.S. HIGHWAY OUtside City of Clearwater Zoning Atlas ------------- Apr 07, 2005 ------------------------ SW 114 of 32-28-16 267A ➢7SA �e�01�� X3013 %Y,Pl�oO� •gD011 10 w a PREPARED BY PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERINGIGIS 1100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756 Ph.: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)526-4755 ........ ... .... . ..... I I Ld www.MyClearwater.com ..... .......... ............ . ... ... • ............ ........... . . .. ... ............ . .. ............ V...w �pfw' • I . . ........ O.S/ 4 N ............ XIV W-�- E ............ ....... .... .............. . ............. .......... ...... . ...... A. r VE..U—WTR-- r r; ILL; L. —j 0. City Owned Property ........... • • 69 +uja P! Pj Agreement to Annex ......... . 7 ' •. p .............. . Annexatlon 0 eannexation Correction Rezoning .... ....... r L. SUB NUMBER ( ' - R.N, I. PIM) a e .r nr ' BLOCK NUMBER ....................... . ........ O SUB PARCEL NUMBER ... ................ t. PARCEL NUMBER (M&S) urV P ......... .. .. . ... ....... ........... ..... .. .. LAND HOOK (COMMON OWNERSK L BOUNDARY —j PLATTED SUBDIVISION . .................... [L COUNTY HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY r ....... L21— U.S. HIGHWAY .......... f Outside City of Clearwater Zoning Atlas .............................. • .... .. .. ............................ F .. ....... Apr 07, 2005 SW 114 01 32 -28 -16 ----------- '7 276A um 1: ri 2.00 pm Case Number: FLD2009 -0 -'\. -- 101 CORONADO DR Owner(s): Decade Companies Income Proper ' 13555 Bishops Ct • Brookfield, Wi 53005 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Representative: Keith Zayac 701 Enterprise Road East Safety Harbor, F134695 TELEPHONE: (727) 793 -9888, FAX: (727) 793 -9855, E -MAIL: keith@keithzayac.com Location: 0.72 acres located on the east side of Coronado Drive at the northeast and southeast corners of Devon Drive/First Street Atlas Page: 267A Zoning District: T, Tourist Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 108 -room overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to lot width along Devon Drive/First Street from 150 to 100 feet (north side) and from 150 to 110 feet (osuth side), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 to five feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 to eight feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 to 3.45 feet (to proposed building) and 7.22 feet (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive/First Street), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 to five feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Drive/First Street), and an increase to the building height from 35 to 92 feet (to top of roof deck), under the provisions of Section 2- 803.I; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 72 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. (Related to DVA2009- 00001) Proposed Use: Overnight accommodations Neighborhood Clearwater Beach Association Association(s): TELEPHONE: 443 -2168, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: papamurphy @aol.com Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Robert Tefft, Steve Doherty, Scott Rice, Jim Keller, Tom Glenn Applicant: Keith Zayac, Bill Mills The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 25 DRC Actim Agmda 1.1 Prior to the issuan6- . a Building Permit: 1. The sanitary sewer wye shall be installed by the City with time and materials to be paid by the applicant. 2. Ductile iron pipe shall be used between water main (tap) and the backflow prevention device (B.F.P.D.). 3. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of the B.F.P.D. 4. Reclaimed water is available for irrigation and other non - potable water needs. An 8 -inch main is located in Devon Drive fed from a 12 -inch main in Coronado Drive. 5. The landscape sheet refers to County inspection, details and ordinances. 6. The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, and a B.F.P.D. (back flow preventor device) if applicable. Applicant is responsible for all applicable impact and installation fees. Payment for the backflow prevention device is paid to Utilities Customer Service in the Municipal Services Building located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue. 7. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove /relocate any /all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaimed water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) 8. Relocate the sanitary sewer clean out to a point about 3 -feet from back of curb. 9. Provide sidewalks along First Street/Devon Drive at one -foot from property line (City Index 109) where possible instead of at back of curb. Prior to CO, provide easement for portions of sidewalk along Coronado Drive that encroach onto private property. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site - specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense (City Ordinances 32.095.(7) and 32.187.(5). If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: Fire: No issues. Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464 -4422) for further information. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 26 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 1 . Show the location. _ the Fire Pump room above BFE PRIOR TO L_ 2. This building is determined to meet the criteria of a High Rise Building as defined by the Florida Fire Prevention Code, 2007 Edition, therefore the requirements of a High Rise structure must be met. These requirements include, but are not limited to Fire Code items such as: Fire Pump, sprinkler system throughout with control valve and water flow device on each floor, Class I Standpipe System, Fire Alarm using voice /alarm communication, Central Fire Control Station, firefighter phone system, Emergency lighting, Generator, Pressurized Stairwells, Stairwell marking and Elevator Lobbies. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB 3. Must Comply with Ordinance No. 7617 -06 Radio System Regulations for buildings, install 911 Radio Repeater / Antenna Booster System. Place note on plan with intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB 4. This is a highrise building and as such two FDC are required. Show on page C6 of 10 the location of the 2nd FDC at the NW end of building with a supporting fire hydrant that is 25' to 50' away and will serve as your secondary hydrant for this project. PRIOR TO CDB 5. Show the location of the Fire Command Room which must be located above BFE. PRIOR TO CDB 6. Elevators cannot open into exits and are required to open into seperated lobbies. Show details of intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB 7. Show location of the generator room above BFE PRIOR TO CDB 8. Automatic Class I wet standpipe w/ fire pump providing 100 psi at roof. The system shall be designed so as not to incorporate Pressure Regulating Devices (PRD). The system must be designed as a zoned system This provides a safe operating condition for firefighters that will use the system. If the design of the system requires PRD'S they will be required to be Elkhart Adjustable devices. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 9. Door from north stair on ground floor must swing in direction of egress. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1 . No issues. Land Resources: 1 . No Issues. Landscaping: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 27 DRC Action Ag.da 1.1 I . Sheet C10 - Revi- - rigation notes to City (not County) requireme._ 2. Sheets C4, C5, C6 and C9 - Wheel stops are required for the western parking row of parking spaces in the surface parking lot on the south side of Devon Drive. 3. Sheet C9 - Revise for the following: a. Proposed plant list indicates 315 TJ, but I only count 280 TJ on the plan; b. Between northernmost sidewalk on north side of building and the sidewalk into the lower lobby, there is WT shown but is not indicated as to how many are proposed; c. On the very north side of the northern parcel, unclear why the undefined dark - shaded plants (NO ?) and RI are not continued to the property line, rather stopping at the "park" line; d. On the very north side, unclear what plants are proposed inside the RI (sod ?); e. There appears to be RI shown in the northeast comer of the northern parcel but no plants indicated; f. No plants are indicated between the existing pool screen wall and the northern wall of the proposed building; g. Unclear as to the number of plants proposed between the two "drives" on the north side of First Street in a 24 -foot area (15 PVT on 2' O.C.) versus the 12 PVT indicated wrapping around the comer of the building in approximately a 44 -foot distance. The numbers don't seem to add up properly; h. Unclear as to the number of plants proposed on the southern parcel from the west side of the driveway wrapping around to the drainage flume, an approximate 26 -foot distance, where only 7 PVT are proposed at T O.C.; i. On the southern parcel, continue the WT from the present southern end around the southern edge of the pond to the parking lot backup flair; j. If there is sod proposed in other locations of the northern and/or southern parcels, need to indicate such; and k. With such a huge setback from Coronado Drive to the parking lot on the southern parcel, plant at least two shade trees instead of the six palms proposed to provide shade to this surface parking lot. Parks and Recreation: 1 . Open space /recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727 -562 -4818 to caclulate the assessment. 2. The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Christopher Hubbard at 727 -562 -4837 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 28 DRC Action Agwda 1.1 The following sh, a addressed prior to Community Developmer,. ard: 1. Please use a Time of Concentration of 60 minutes for both pre - development and post development. 2. Existing paving on the southern parking lot shall be given only % credit, not a full credit as utilized in the submitted stormwater report. 3. Please provide a minimum of 6" between the top of the control structure /skimmer and the top of bank to satisfy the freeboard requirement. 4. Provide the draw down analysis for the pond and the vault. Draw down for the pond shall be supported by the soil analysis and the Double Ring Test result. For the vault, please submit the buoyancy calculation supported by the soil analysis result (i.e. seasonal high water table elevation, etc.) 5. Provide adequate clearance between the skimmer bottom and the pond bottom to maintain a proper flow of stormwater into the control structure. 6. Provide north to south and east to west cross sections extended to the adjacent properties and/or right -or -way for the proposed pond and vault for review. Please account for the vault thickness (side, cover, and bottom) in the cross section and seasonal high water table. 7. Provide an access door into the vault for maintenance. 8. Please add a note on the Paving/Grading Plan stating that all roof runoff shall be routed to the proposed vault for treatment before discharge. Applicant shall acknowledge that he or she will submit a detailed calculation showing the design of the roof collection system (piping/gutter sizing) that is adequate to handle a 25 -year storm event. Please note that a detail plan showing the connection of this system to the vault shall be submitted for review at building permit application. Include the exposed part of the ramp portion of the parking garage into the design and calculations. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of the Building Permit: 1. Submit a copy of the approved SWFWMD ERP permit. 2. Please provide a concrete pad around the control structure to prevent weeds from growing around the weir blocking water from flowing into the control structure. 3. Please verify the finished floor elevation of the existing structure directly south of the proposed parking lot and confirm that the proposed work will not create any adverse impact to this property. 4. The use of the HDPE pipe in the City right -of -way is prohibited. Please replace a portion of the proposed pond outfall pipe that is located in the City right -of -way with RCP or ductile iron pipe. 5. Please provide a note on the Paving/Grading plan showing the type of survey datum is being used. Please note that it is required to use the NAVD88 datum. 6. Please incorporate a skimmer for the control structure of the proposed vault. 7. Submit the operational manual for the proposed stormwater facilities. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. 2. At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any other drainage related document for review and record. Solid Waste: 1 . Explain how Solid Waste and Recycling will be handled? If roll -out containers are to be used Max 4 yd Dumpsters need to be rolled to staging area near the curb Traffic Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 29 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 Planning: Provide mirrors t, sist motorists exiting any parking space(s) wh, . er sight visibility is restricted. 2. The main driveway access for the hotel building does not meet the connection spacing requirements of 125'. Currently it measures 30' from the closest edge of pavement to the next closest edge of pavement. (Community Development Code, Section 3 -102. D.) 3. Provide a turning template of a scaled passenger vehicle measuring 19' in length exiting and entering the driveways. 4. Accessibility signs can be mounted on the wall to avoid using sign posts. 5. Provide a note on both the civil and architecture plans that the parking garage accommodates van accessible parking by providing a vertical clear height of 8' 2 ". This includes entrance, route, parking space and exit per ADA parking compliance. (Florida Building Code Ch. 11, 11- 4.1.2. (5) (b) and 11- 4.6.5) 6. Provide a note on both the civil and architectural plans that the vertical clear height of each floor level in all vehicle and pedestrian traffic areas shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 nun). Vehicle and pedestrian areas accommodating van - accessible parking shall be in accordance with Chapter 11. (Florida Building Code Chapter 4, Section 406, (2)(2)) 406.2.2 Clear height. 7. Provide pedestrian access connection between satellite parking lot and hotel using crosswalk markings along Coronado Drive. .1 8. Relocate columns /shear walls so that the columns /shear walls are no closer than 2 -feet away from the ends of parking stalls. 9. Provide a turning template for a scaled passenger car measuring 19' in length making a turn around the curve inside the parking garage. The vehicle making the turn shall not encroach into the opposing lane. 10. Ensure that the proposed number of parking stalls is sufficient to accommodate both guests and employees. 11. Provide current City standard dimensions for parking stalls and drive aisles on all levels /floors of the parking garage. 12. Identify how the trip distribution to /from the site was determined in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Changes to this distribution shall have an impact on the vehicle & intersection , delay(s) stated in the study and may require mitigation or impact site access not presently addressed in the analysis. The Traffic Impact Study shall be revised to the satisfaction of the Traffic Operations Department. 13. Re- design all the proposed flared driveways into a 30' radius driveways. The above shall be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Note(s): 1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 30 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 I . Unclear of the purr - of the area under the ramp on the east side of . building, since it is designed with a 15 -foot wide opening and driveway. It appears that it is solely a dumpster room. It is not a parking area. As a dumpster "room ", and maybe storage, the opening should be cut down to a maximum of 8 -10 feet wide. Also, the driveway should be redesigned and converted to a dumpster staging area, where dumpster(s) are placed on pickup days. Ground floor plan and south elevation does not indicate any overhead door or grating (elevation indicates it as being open). Need to have an overhead or other door to screen views of the dumpster(s) and any storage. Might also recommend a door from the parking area into this "room ". Revise the civil plans and the architectural plans (ground floor and south elevation). 2. Sheet C1 - Legal Description - Add the southern parcel across Devon Drive. 3. The parcels included in this application have the following addresses: 101 and 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive. On Sheet C1 under the parcel numbers, on Sheet C4 under Project Address and on Page 1 of the application, the Devon Drive address should be added. However, if there is a desired address of, say, 101 Coronado Drive, then that address should be put in the title block on the right side of each sheet. 4. There are overhead utility lines along the southern frontage of the northern parcel, which need to be placed underground. The overhead utility lines located along the east property line of the southern parcel are recommended to be placed underground. On -site, all electric and communication lines must be placed underground. 5. Architectural plans - Ground floor plan is at a different scale (appears to be 1/8" = F -0 ") than the upper floors (appears to be 3/16" = 1' -0 "). Revise ground floor plan to be at the same scale as the upper floors. Provide the scale of the drawings on all sheets, including the elevations. 6. I only count 110 total parking spaces. The area labeled "bicycles" cannot be counted as a parking space if it is being designated for bicycles. Revise the proposed amount on Sheet C4 under General Site Note #10 and elsewhere in the application material. 7. Survey - There is shown a 15' Park (per City Park Subdivision Plat) indicated on, and partially on, the northern portion of the property. Has this been vacated? If not, this presents building,and other improvements problems ( ?). Advise /revise. , . . 8. Engineering - There is a portion of the Coronado sidewalk on the subject property (north of East/West centerline - see survey). Do you need an easement? 9. Sheet C4 - Remove the number of parking spaces symbol with a "2" in it adjacent to the southern stairwell (there are eight parking spaces in this row and the symbol with the proper "8" is located farther north). 10. The area to the north of the north property line, indicated as "brick paver area" and "wood dock" is located within the submerged area owned by the City. Does the owner have a lease for these structures within our property? If not, need to remove these structures. 11 . Sheet C4, C5, C6 and C9 - Doorway to the exterior on the north side of the building is not located the same as depicted on the ground floor architectural plan. Revise. 12. There plan indicates an eight -inch wall being retained on the south side of the pool parallel with the north side of the building. This is an existing safety wall for the existing pool. Retaining this wall will create a four -foot wide "no man's" area between this open wall and the building wall. Strongly recommend removing this wall and utilize the proposed building wall to create the pool area and then provide a fence /wall from the building to the east property line and then along the east property line to the seawall. The plan also needs to indicate a fence /wall along the west side of the pool to enclose the pool from a safety aspect. Is the existing covered pool pump area being retained or will it be reworked? It appears there needs to be electrical work done (looks like an extension cord is being used for power). 13. Note: The proposed freestanding sign on the north side must only meet a minimum five -foot setback to property lines (but cannot be within the "park" area if it hasn't been vacated yet). 14. Engineering and Fire - Don't the driveways into the building on the north side of First Street and into the surface parking lot on the south side of First Street need to have a 30 -foot radius on the driveways? 15. Engineering - There are existing drop driveways on Coronado Drive for the northern and southern parcels (either side of First Street). Need to remove and install upright curbing, fixing the sidewalks too. Is Note #18 on Sheet C4 sufficient? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 31 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 16 . Engineering - Why - t a sidewalk being constructed one -foot off th. _ _operty line along the northern frontage of the southern parcel, similar to that constructed for our parking lot directly east, "bending" around the transformer? Also, why isn't the sidewalk on the north side of First Street not being placed one -foot off the property line? 17. Sheet C4 - General Site Notes a. #5 - Only 22 units are listed as "present use ", which is at 101 Coronado Drive, but there were 16 units at 105 Coronado Drive and 15 units at 35 Devon Drive that have been already been demolished. For impact fee credits, should list all units (existing or already demolished); and b. #6 - The proposed number of rooms /units needs to be detailed so as to indicate 36 rooms based on the base density of 50 rooms per acre and 72 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve, also indicating the proposed density of 150 rooms /units per acre. 18. Beach by Design requires no plane of a building to exceed 100 linear feet without a minimum five -foot offset of the building. Based on the dimensions provided on the east side of the building on Sheet C4 for the parking garage levels (First - Fourth floors), if the building is at a 6.71 -foot setback at the southeast corner and a 6.12 -foot setback at the northeast corner, and the angled rooms are supposed to be five feet in depth (although it appears the five feet is measured incorrectly from the inside, rather than the outside, face of the building wall), there cannot be a building setback to the angled room of 3.88 feet at the southeast corner and 3.45 feet at the northeast corner. Dimensions do not add up. Architectural plans conveniently don't provide dimensions for these angled rooms. Revise to meet the requirements, ensuring dimensions are accurate. Additionally, need to provide a detail of the area of the southern stairwell to demonstrate that there is a minimum offset of five feet being provided and dimensioning the width of the opening between the columns. Finally, the east side of the building does not meet this requirement for the Fifth - Tenth floors as it measures close to 120 feet in length for this linear plane. There is no variance to this maximum length of 100 feet without a minimum five -foot offset. Provide dimensions on the east and west sides of the building indicating the length of a plane of the building between the offsets. 19. Southern stairwell - The egress door for this stairwell is recessed from the opening (offset in the building), potentially creating an unsafe "alcove" where it will be difficult to see if there is anyone back in the corner. Can the door be moved to open toward the north? 20. Northernmost sidewalk from Coronado Drive provides a wide sidewalk to the north side of the building, however, there is no door into the lobby at this location, per the architectural plans. Revise sidewalk to the opening in the wall to the garage by the handicap parking. 21 . Question - Is there any concern on the developer /owner's part that the pool is proposed to be accessed solely outside of the building from a sidewalk that leads to Coronado Drive and that the lobby is on the fifth floor, where there is no connection between office personnel and the pool area in case of an emergency or unauthorized use by outsiders? Shouldn't access to the pool be farther east from the garage from the handicap access aisle between the two handicap spaces, and access from Coronado Drive be severed? 22. Question - With the closeness of the proposed building to the existing pool, will the pool survive construction of the proposed building without cracking or other sinking? 23. Sheet C5 - Will the lower lobby be handicap accessible via the sidewalk from the lobby to the sidewalk within Coronado Drive? Additionally, if the finished floor elevation of the garage is proposed at 5.25 and the public sidewalk within Coronado Drive at the southern stairwell exists at an elevation of 3.93 feet, is it acceptable to have the sidewalk slope from 5.25 to 3.93 feet over a six -foot area to meet Building Code requirements? 24. Sheet C6 - What happened to Utility Notes #13 -15? Utility Note #17 - With the building located five feet from the property line, is this distance separation between the FDC and building possible? Revise note. 25 . Architectural Plans - Provide a scale for the elevation drawings (1/8" = 1" -0" ?). Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 32 DRC Anion 4m& 1.1 26 . Architectural elev:._ _is - Finished floor of the first floor garage is p. , .,sed at 5.25 feet, not approximately 6.0 feet. Revise. 27. Architectural elevations - Provide the following height dimensions: a. from BFE to the flat roof deck; b. the height of the stair and elevator overruns from the flat roof deck to the top of the overruns; c. the height of the parapet from the flat roof deck to the top of the parapet; and d. the height from BFE to the top of the tiki bar roof (cannot exceed 100 feet due to limitation under the Code definition of "height "). 28. Sheet C4 - Provide overall building dimensions on this sheet. 29. Architectural plans - First through fourth floors - Provide dimensions of parking spaces (length and width) and drive aisle widths. Additionally, show all parking spaces at full length of 18 feet. 30. A bicycle area is indicated right inside the garage entrance. Are these bicycles the hotel will provide to its guests (free or for a fee ?) or will there be an outside company come in to rent bicycles to the guests? 31 . Architectural plans - Ground floor - Stripe similar to handicap access aisles the area between parking spaces accessing the dumpster "room" (see Sheet C4). 32. Architectural plans - Fourth floor - The drive aisle between the easternmost parking spaces does not meet the required Code width of 24 feet. 33 . Architectural plans - Second - Fourth floors - Consider relocating from a safety aspect the entrance door to the mechanical room in the southeast corner on each floor to the west side to allow opening of the door outside of the drive aisle. 34. Unclear where electric meters will be located (must be above BFE). Show location. If exterior to the building, show Progress Energy meter reader landing and steps (this counts as a structure needing to meet setbacks). Need to paint exterior electric boxes to match the color of the building. 35 . West and North Elevations - Flat cement roof riles on the roof over the lower lobby entrance on the northwest corner of the building appears inconsistent with standing seam metal roof proposed for the bar roof and roofs over the stairwells and elevator on the top of the building. Revise to standing seam metal roof on the first floor. 36. Exterior building color scheme - The proposed green color scheme does not comply with the color palate in Section LA of Beach by Design. Try another color scheme. Provide color samples /swatches of the new proposed color scheme. 37. Appears that the east side parking garage levels (first - 'fourth) is a solid wall with no openings. Correct? 38. Unclear why the glass is clear, rather than green tinted, in the guardrail system around the rooftop pool, whereas the rooms /units have a green tinted glass in the windows. 39. Elevation Sheets - Add in "C" for facia into the Finishes - Colors legend. 40. East and North Elevations - Show the storefront system for the rooms on these elevations (elevation "A" on Fifth floor plan). 41. North Elevation - Egress door indicated on ground floor architectural plan not shown. Additionally, the wall between the columns on the ground floor on the north side appears different than that indicated for the west side, potentially indicating a solid wall (not open on the ground floor, as the elevation indicates). Which is correct? 42. South Elevation - a. Are there openings "G" on the parking garage levels? and b. Provide the opening height for the driveway into the garage and the height of any doorway for the dumpster "room ". 43. West Elevation - Remove the "Theoretical Maximum Envelope Calculations" from this sheet and add into the written application material, along with an appropriate diagram showing what the calculation is stating. Also, Beach by Design was revised to a 45 -foot dimension rather than 42 feet (it was inconsistent previously between diagrams and written material). Revise calculation. 44. Application - Attachment "A" - Add the legal description for the southern parcel across Devon Drive. 45. Application - Attachment "B" - Revise Description of Request to that indicated by Staff. 46. Responses to General Applicability and overnight accomodation criteria in Attachments "C" and "D" - Revise "motel" to "hotel" wherever stated. 47. Attachment "C" - Responses to General Applicability criteria #1 - What appears to be paragraph 3, starting with "The proposed project..." needs to be completed with how it will enhance the area. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 33 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 48 . Attachment "C" - _ ,ones to General Applicability criteria #2 - E sentence does not read properly. It appears to have left out something after "maintains the existing ". 49. Attachment "C" - Responses to General Applicability criteria #4 - Second sentence needs to reflect the 110 parking spaces on the plans (not 111), and only allowing two spaces for staff (not three). What happens to employee parking in the event that the common ownership of this project and the Holiday Inn Beachside project is split up and there is no more common housekeeping and maintenance staff? 50. Attachment "C" - Responses to General Applicability criteria #5 - Second paragraph/second sentence - Rather than saying this project serves as a buffer, suggest saying it transitions the height of buildings from the 150 feet approved to the west toward the maximum 35 feet allowed for detached dwellings within the LMDR area along Devon Drive (which is not part of Beach by Design). 51 . Attachment "D" - Responses to Flexibility criteria #1 for overnight accommodations in Section 2 -803.I - Code has been changed. This criteria now reads: "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;" Revise criteria and response appropriately. 52 53 . Note: Coronado Drive is being designated a major arterial street with future amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, being relocated from S. Gulfview Blvd. Any revised discussion should refer to such designation. This project is consistent with the criteria as it takes access to the side street, removing direct access it presently takes. Additionally, there really isn't a drive being provided to the dumpster area, as it will be a staging area, not a driveway. Revise discussion. Attachment "D" - Responses to Flexibility criteria #2 for overnight accommodations in Section 2 -803.I - First sentence refers to replacing a dated 2 -story motel. This project replaces not only 2 -story motels, but also a 4 -story motel (Port Vue). Need to provide additional justification for being an improved site plan, such as potentially the reorientation of driveways off of Coronado Drive and the provision of a surface parking lot on the south side of Devon Drive, which opens up a vista (along with the City surface parking lot to the east) where taller buildings will not be every parcel and provides visual relief from any potential "crowding" of buildings. Revise. Attachment "D" - Responses to Flexibility criteria #4 for overnight accommodations in Section 2-803.1- a. Revise "Setbacks" to "Front Setback "; b. Revise the first criteria to "The reduced setback shall contribute to a more active and dynamic street life; ". The response does not show HOW the proposal is consistent with this criteria, since the first floor is primarily a parking garage. In fact, you may need to respond in the negative to this criteria due to the parking garage. There is a lower lobby, that only provides an access point to the elevators, which then brings one up to the lobby on the fifth floor, which does not contribute to the street life; c. Revise the second criteria to "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 ". Revise the response appropriately; and d. Revise the third criteria to "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." Revise the response appropriately. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 34 DRC Action Ag®da L I 54 . Attachment "D" - .ibility criteria #4 for overnight accommodatio_ i Section 2 -803.I - Revise this criteria to the following (Code was amended to split this off from the front setback criteria): "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." Provide new appropriate responses: aa. Under the present application material, criteria 4c should be 5a. Reorient the response to state that access by emergency vehicles will be prevented, however, due to the small size of the property emergency personnel will have pedestrian access to the rear areas; bb. Under the present application material, criteria 4d should be 5b. The last setence is only applicable to the southern parcel. Revise; and cc. Under the present application material, criteria 4e should be 5c. Provide an appropriate response. 55 . Attachment "D" - Flexibility criteria #5 for overnight accommodations in Section 2 -803.I - Revise to Criteria #6 and revise the criteria to read: "The design of all buildings shall comply with the Tourist District site and architectural design guidelines in Section 3 -501, as applicable;" a. Revise the allowed density from 40 to 50 rooms per acre. Additional units are being requested through the Hotel Density Reserve; c.1. Provide a diagram illustrating compliance with this design guideline; c.2. See other Planning comments regarding noncompliance with this criteria; c.3. The percentage of each elevation covered with windows and architectural decoration must also be placed on the elevation sheets in the architectural plans. For the north elevation, see other Planning comments questioning the openness of the ground floor. For the east elevation in the second sentence talking about the east elevation, revise "do" to "due ". Is there an overall for the east elevation? c.4. Revise from 42 to 45 feet and revise the calculations. Provide a diagram illustrating compliance with this design guideline; c.5. See Planning comment for General Applicability criteria #5 for language that may be helpful for this response; and d. The setbacks stated do not match that indicated on the submitted site plan. Revise. 56. Attachment "D" - Flexibility criteria #6 for overnight accommodations in Section 2 -803.1 - Revise the criteria and the number of the criteria to the following: "T 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;" There is no lot area reduction requested. However, there is a lot width reduction that needs to be part of the request, as there is not 150 feet of frontage (lot width) along Devon Drive (100 feet on the northern parcel and 110 feet on the southern parcel). Need to provide a response to the criteria. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 35 DRC Action Agmda 1.1 57 . Attachment "D" -,.-.d to provide responses to the following Flexib._ _j criteria for overnight accommodations in Section 2 -803.I - "8. 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 9. 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." 58 . Based on a recent discussion with the adjoining property owner and his architect of a proposed hotel on the parcel to the east of this property (on the north side of Devon Drive) where there were issues with the proposed site and hotel design, it is suggested to potentially join the properties together for one hotel project to have a larger parcel for building and site design purposes. 59. Architectural plans - Fifth - Tenth floors - Place a note in the particular units on each floor that are "suites with full kitchen ". 60. Intent of the Hotel Density Reserve is for mid -priced hotels. Provide the price range for hotel rooms. 61 . Unclear if the parking garage will be naturally vented or if it is required to have mechanical ventilation. If mechanical ventilation required, show location and design of mechanical equipment for venting on architectural plans and elevations. Other: No Comments Notes: Application is insufficient to move forward to CDB. Revise and resubmit 15 copies (one original and 14 copies) of revised material for additional DRC review. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - Page 36 DRC Action Agmda I.I property Appraiser General Information: 08/29/15/15606/000 /0141 Card 1 Interactive Map of this Comparable Sales Back to Oueiv New Tax Collector parcel Listing Results Search Information Page 1 of 4 (question /Comment about this panel 08/29/15/15606/000 /0141 Building 2of 2 Building 1 Data Current as of March 04,. 2009 [6:00 pra Wednesday March 4] -' a Nonresidential Property Owner, Address, and Sales Print Motel/Hotel < 4 Property Use: 313 Stories CITY PARK SUB PT WATER LOT 1 DESC AS FROM SW COR OF WATER LOT 1 OF CITY PARK SUB RUN W 15FT FOR POB TH S 5DEG 321301W ALONG E LINE OF CORONADO DR 16.26FT S 84 DEG 27130'E 10OFT N 5DEG 32'30'E E 78.06FT NWLY ALONG SEAWALL 113.38FT MOL TH SW'LY 43FT(S) TH SE'LY 66FT(S) TO POB * Click here for short legal ** 2008 Exemptions Homestead: No Use: 0% Ownership: 0% Tax Exempt: 0% Government: No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 2008 Value 2008 Tax Information Comparable Sales Value:: $0 Tax District: CW Building Value per F.S. Millage: 20.3578 553.844 Just /Market Value: $1,025,000 Non Ad Valorem Assessments: $.00 Assessed Value/ SOH Cap_$1,025,000 Taxes: $20,866.80 History_ Taxable Value: $1,025,000 Taxes without Save -Our -Homes cap: $20,866.80 A significant taxable value increase may Taxes without any exemptions: $20,866.80 occur when sold. Click here for details. Owner/Mailing Property Address Sale Date Book/Page Price Q/U V/I Address 5/2008 16270/2675 $3,487,200 U I DECADE COMPANIES 6/2005 14417/347 $4,083,000 U I INCOME PROPERTIES 13555 BISHOPS CT 101 CORONADO DR 6/2005 14385/1901 $359,700 U I SUITE 345 4/2005 14240/155 $1,100,000 U I BROOKFIELD WI 53005 Parcel Information Plat Year Plat Book/Page(s) Book/Page: Land Use: Hotels, 1939 023/037 16270/2675 Motels (39) Census Tract: 260.02 http:// www. pcpao. org/ general_ nadet .php ?pn = 1529081560600001411 3/4/2009 Property Appraiser General Information: 08/29/15/15606/000 /0141 Card 1 Page 2 of 4 Land Information Seawall: Frontage: Bay View: Land Use Land Size Unit Value Units Method Hotels, Motels(39) 100.00 10,288.00 S Structural Elements Foundation: Special Footing Floor System: Wood with Subfloor Exterior Wall: Concrete Block/Stucco Roof Frame: Bar Joist/Rigid Frame Roof Cover: Built -up Metal/Gypsum Height Factor: 0 Floor Finish: Carpet Combination Interior Finish: Drywall Party wall: None Structural Frame: Masonry Pillar & Steel Cabinet & Mill: Average Quality: Average Heating &.Air: Heating & cooling Package Electric: Average Bath Tile: Wall Only Fixtures: 66 Total Units: 22 Year Built: 1963 Effective Age: 10 Other Depreciation: 0 Functional Depreciation: 0 Economic Depreciation: 0 Open plot in New Window View Floor: 0 1 2 3 ;Click here if screen is blank http: / /www.pcpao.org/gencral _ nadet.php ?pn= 1529081560600001411 3/4/2009 Property Appraiser General Information: 08/29/15/15606/000 /0141 Card 1 Sub Area information Description Building Finished Ft2 Base Area 2,550 Open Porch Finished Carport Finished Utility Room Unfinished tJp ep r Story Base Area 5,100 Total Building Finished SF: 7,650 Page 3 of 4 Gross Area Ft2 Factor Effective .W 2,550 1.00 2,550 3,816 .30 1,145 3,822 .30 1,147 W 5,100 .90 4,590 Total Gross SF: 15,386 Total Effective SF: 9,471 http: / /www.pepao.org/gencral _ nadet.php ?pn= 1529081560600001411 3/4/2009 Nonresidential Extra Features Description Dimensions Value/Unit Units Total NewValue Depreciated Value Year Asphalt 6X200 $1.75 1200 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 Unknown Pool 912SF $30,000.00 1 $30,000.00 $13,800.00 1970 Concrete Pavement 2093 SF $4.00 2093 $8,370.00 $8,370.00 Unknown Elevator 4STOP $30,000.00 1 $30,000.00 $18,000.00 1993 Shuffleboard Court 312SF $1,500.00 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 1963 Dock 444 $40.00 444 $17,760.00 $ 16,870.00 2005 Elevator Stop $3,500.00 4 $14,000.00 $8,400.00 1993 Patio/Deck 1540 $12.00 1540 $18,480.00 $17,560.00 2005 http: / /www.pepao.org/gencral _ nadet.php ?pn= 1529081560600001411 3/4/2009 ,,Property Appraiser General Information: 08/29/15/15606/000 /0141 Card 1 Page 4 of 4 Radius (feet):417 Aerials: 2007 Color ransparency: 0.5 Updafe 1111ap If you do not see a map, the SVG viewer has not been installed. Click here for information and installation. How to copy and paste a static map using Internet Explorer: Right -click on the map; Select "Copy SVG "; Open a Word document; Select 'Paste Special' from Edit menu on toolbar; Select Bitmap, then OK Pow to copy and paste a static map using Mozilla Firefox: Right -click on the map; Select "This Frame"; Select "Open [Frame in New Window "; Print from the new window. Interactive Ma of f this Comparable Sales. Back to ue New Tax Collector parcel Listing Results Search Information Question/Comment about this page h4: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ nadet.php ?pn= 1529081560600001411 3/4/2009 Welcome to VDB on the Web QLl r"— - - U 2ss j ai 1 .s0 M f�l1d n 1 OYahoo [ 8 Psn Tool . Zoom Tool ihlnawr Tpai: tfentil�t T Aerial Photography: 12007 Color Transparency (0.0- nr I 1.0 ) 1— ' Theme Description This is the default set. It has no data layers, just linework. All of the map layers are black. y ; y T .• 7 Page 1 of 1 http: / /vdb.pcpao.org/vdb.php 3/4/2009 Property Appraiser General Information: 08/29/15/00000/320 /0200 Card 1 Interactive Map of this Comparable Sales Back to Queiy New Tax Collector parcel Listing Results Search Information Page 1 of 4 Question /Comment about this Parcel 08/29/15/00000/320 /0200 Building 1 Data Current as of March 04, 2009.: _. [6:02 pm Wednesday March 4] Nonresidential Property Owner, Address, and Sales Print Motel/Hotel < 4 Property Use: 313 Stories BEG NE COR CORONADO DR & 1 ST STREET TH N06DE 100FT TH S84DE 100FT TH S06DW 100FT TO N LINE OF 1ST ST TH N84DW 100FT TO POB ** Click here for short legal. ** 2008 Exemptions Homestead: No Use: 0% Ownership: 0% Tax Exempt: 0% Government: No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 2008 Value 2008 Tax Information Comparable Sales Value:: $0 Tax District: CW Builder Value per F. S. Millage: 20.3578 553.844 Just /Market Value: $395,100 Non Ad Valorem Assessments: $.00 Assessed Value/ SOH Cap: $395,100 Taxes: $8,043.38 History Taxable Value: $395,100 Taxes without Save - Our -Homes cap: $8,043.38 A significant taxable value increase may Taxes without any exemptions: $8,043.38 occur when sold. Click here for details. Owner/MaHing Property Address Sale Date Book/Page Price Q/U V/I Address 5/2008 16270/2678 $1,323,300 U I DECADE COMPANIES 11/2004 13945/2355 $1,500,000 Q I INCOME PROPERTIES 13555 BISHOPS CT 105 CORONADO DR 9/2003 13105/1597 $15200,000 Q I SUITE 345 2/1998 9989/2119 $645,000 Q I BROOKFIELD WI 53005 Parcel Information Plat Year Plat Book/Page(s) Book/Page: Land Use: Hotels, Not Platted 16270/2678 Motels (39) Census Tract: 260.02 http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ nadet.php ?pn= 152908000003200200 3/4/2009 Property Appraiser General Information: 08/29/15/00000/320 /0200 Card 1 Page 2 of 4 Land Information Seawall: Frontage: None View: Land Use Land Size Unit Value Units Method Hotels, Motels (39) 100 x 100 100.00 10,000.00 S Structural Elements Foundation: Spread/Monolithic Footing Floor System: Slab on Grade Exterior Wall: Concrete Block/Stucco Roof Frame: Flat Roof Cover: Built -up Composition Height Factor: 0 Floor Finish: Carpet Combination Interior Finish: Drywall Party wall: None Structural Frame: Masonry Pillar & Steel Cabinet & Mill: Average Quality: Average Heating & Air: Wall/Floor Furnace Electric: Average Bath Tile: Wall Only Fixtures: 51 Total Units: 0 Year Built: 1953 Effective Age: 20 Other Depreciation: 0 Functional Depreciation: 0 Economic Depreciation: 0 Open plot in New Window View Floor: 1 2 Click here if screen is blank W 9ft 0 http:// www. pcpao.org/general_nadet.php ?pn= 152908000003200200 3/4/2009 Property Appraiser General Information: 08/29/15/00000/320 /0200 Card 1 Sub Area information Page 3 of 4 Description Building Finished Ft Gross Area Ft? Factor Effective Ft? Base Area 3,314 3,314 1.00 3,314 Open Porch Finished 1,807 .30 542 Canopy 310 .25 78 Upper Story Base Area 3,542 3,542 .90 3,188 Total Building Finished SF: 6,856 Total Gross SF: 8,973 Total Effective SF: 7,121 Depreciated Value Year Nonresidential Extra Features Description Dimensions Value/Unit Units Total NewValue Asphalt 4000SF $1.75 4000 $7,000.00 Patio/Deck 300SF $6.00 300 $1,800.00 Pool 760SF $24,000.00 1 $24,000.00 Depreciated Value Year $7,000.00 1970 $720.00 1970 $9,600.00 1970 http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ nadet.php ?pn= 152908000003200200 3/4/2009 Property Appraiser General Information: 08/29/15/00000/320 /0200 Card 1 'J us ials: 12007. Color Fr I Page 4 of 4 Update Map I you do not see a map, the SVG viewer has not been installed. Click here for information and to copy and paste a static map using Internet Explorer: Right -click on the map; Select "Copy SVG "; Open a Word nent; Select 'Paste Special' from Edit menu on toolbar; Select Bitmap, then OK to copy and paste a static map using Mozilla Firefox: Right -click on the map; Select "This Frame "; Select "Open in New Window "; Print from the new window. Interactive Map of this Comparable Sales Back to Query New Tax Collector ap rcel Listing Results Search Information _ uestioniComment about this page http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ nadet.php ?pn= 152908000003200200 3/4/2009 `Welcome to VDB on the Web "3+oCi� o a r ss 1 y + > ft I �t.ONAYfEQ20D � �DYahoo '. "'T001 �2ooin T Mwwv�ilual dentHy Too Aerial Photography: 12007 Color Transparency (0.0- o� 1.U)! i Theme Description This is the default set. It has no data layers, just linework. All of the map layers are black. http: / /vdb.pcpao.org/vdb.php � , r JJkrAMk FRWM Mq IL f l Ir Page 1 of 1 A R 3/4/2009 ' ;,roperty Appraiser General Information: 08/29/15/17550/002 /0012 Card 1 Page 1 of 2 Interactive Map of this Back to Quei New Tax Collecior Question/Comment about this P arcel Results Search Information ap rcel 08/29/15/17550/002 /0012 Data Current as of March 04, 2009 [6:02 pm Wednesday March 4] Vacant Property Owner, Address, and Sales Print Property Use: 0 COLUMBIA SUB BLK B, N 100FT OF W 1/2 OF LOT 1 2008 Exemptions Homestead: No Use: 0% Ownership: 0% Tax Exempt: 0% Government: No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 2008 Value 2008 Tax Information Comparable Sales Value:: $0 Tax District: CW Just/Market Value: $434,500 Millage: 20.3578 Assessed Value/ SOH Cap: $434,500 Non Ad Valorem Assessments: $.00 History Taxable Value: $434,500 Taxes: $8,845.47 A significant taxable value increase may Taxes without Save -Our -Homes cap: $8,845.47 occur when sold. Click here for details. Taxes without any exemptions: $8,845.47 Owner/Mailing Property Address Sale Date Book/Page Price -Q—/U V/1 Address 5/2008 16270/2681 $1,108,000 U I DECADE COMPANIES 6/2005 14349/661 $1,350,000 Q I INCOME PROPERTIES 13555 BISHOPS CT 2/2000 10825/2134 $715,000 U I SUITE 345 BROOKFIELD WI 53005 Plat Year Plat Book/Page(s) Parcel Information 1944 023/060 Book/Page: Land Use: Vacant 16270/2681 Commercial (10) Census Tract: 260.02 Seawall: Land Use Vacant Commercial(10) Land Information Frontage: None Land Size 100 x 110 View: Unit Value Units Method 50.00 11,000.00 S http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ vadet.php ?pn= 152908175500020012 3/4/2009 4roperty Appraiser General Information: 08/29/15/17550/002 /0012 Card 1 Page 2 of 2 Interactive Map of this Back to Query New Tax Collector Question/Comment about this parcel Results Search Information page http: / /www.pcpao.org/general _ vadet.php ?pn= 152908175500020012 3/4/2009 ,. . rWelcome to VDB on the Web r� e .t u^ - �P#il ZOQfli �� �t�loq.tai�t dentffy Too Aerial Photography: 12007 Color _'. Transparency (0.0 -rn--,�—, 1.0 ) 1:.. Theme Description This is the default set. It has no data layers, just linework. All of the map players are black. Page 1 of 1 '001 . ' S i 1 �ti ♦ R r � • 1� err _ ' i 4k Ilk �r�7TTTa' :rb Y , oot # 41. http: / /vdb.pcpao.org/vdb.php 3/4/2009 'A j V OJ CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold public hearings on Tuesday, May 19, 2009, beginning at 1:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following requests: NOTE: All persons wishing to address an item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meeting. Those cases that are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. will be placed on a consent agenda and approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. City of Clearwater is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit Utility /Infrastructure uses in the Open/ Space Recreation (OS /R) District, the Industrial Research and Technology (IRT) District and the Institutional (1) District as Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Sections 2- 1404.A, 2- 1304.0 and 2- 1204.A.. (Proposed Use: Utility /Infrastructure [Water Production Wells]) at — (1) 1740 Weston Dr.; (2) 1571 Cleveland St.; (3) 2634 Sabal Springs Dr.; (4) 1840 Airport Dr.; (5) 1475 N. Hibiscus St.; (6) 1700 Belcher Rd.; (7) 1709 Keene Rd.; (8) 3024 Eastland Blvd.; (9) 2784 Enterprise Rd. E.; (10) 2775 State Road 580; (11) 2698 Fifth Ave. N.; (12) 1515 Cleveland St.; (13) 2630 Sabal Springs Dr.; and (14) 600 S. Evergreen Ave., (1) 02- 29 -15, M &B 33.02, (2 & 12) 14- 29 -15, M &B 21.01, (3) 29- 28 -16, M &B 22.04, (4) 12- 29 -15, M &B 32.01, (5) Palm Terrace Unit 1 Public Park, (6) Clearwater Industrial Park Lot 13 Less S 30ft for St and Less Rd on East, (7) Pinellas Groves SW 1/4 , S'h of Lots 25 & 26 Less Rd on W and Pinellas Groves NW '/4, N 283.13 of W 33.3 ft of Lot 6 & N 283.13 ft of Lots 7 & 8 Less Rd R/W on W,(8) 28- 28 -16, M &B 33.07, (9 & 10) 29- 28 -16, M &B 31.01, (11) 32- 28 -16, M &B 21.05, (13) 29- 28 -16, M &B 22.04, & (14) 15- 29 -15, M &B 41.01. Assigned Planner: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III. FLD2009 -04015 2. Habitat for Humanity of Pinellas County is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a 51 -lot subdivision for detached dwellings in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with a minimum lot area of 4,019 sq. ft., a minimum lot width of 40.9 feet (measured at the front setback line) and a reduction to the front setback requirement from 25 to 19 ft. (to building), as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Sec. 2- 304.G; and Preliminary Plat approval for a 51 -lot subdivision for detached dwellings. (Proposed Use: 51 -lot subdivision for detached dwellings) at 1888 N. Betty Ln. That portion of the west '/Z of the Southeast '/4 of Section 3, Township 29 South, Range 15 E in Pinellas County, Florida. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2009- 03012/PLT2009 -00001 3. Rule LLP. is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use of 9,728 square feet of restaurants, 3,464 sq. ft. of retail sales and services, one dwelling unit and 655 sq. ft. of nonconforming vehicle sales (rental) /display floor area in the Downtown (D) District with building heights ranging from 15 to 24 ft. and 30 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec. 2- 903.C. (Proposed Use: Restaurants, retail sales and services, auto rental and one dwelling unit) at 801 and 811 Cleveland St., 23 S Myrtle Ave, 802 &804 Park St., Lots 1- 3, Block 1, Less road right -of -way and lots 14 -16, Blk. 1, Magnolia Park. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2009 -02007 4. Decade Companies Income Properties is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a 108 -room overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to lot width along Devon Dr. /First St. from 150 to 100 ft. (north side) and from 150 to 110 ft. (south side), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 15 to 5 ft. (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Dr. /First St.), a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 to 5 feet (to proposed building) (north side of Devon Drive /First Street), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 to eight feet (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Dr. /First St.), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to zero ft. (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Dr. /First St.), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 to 2.5 ft. (to proposed building) and 7.22 ft. (to existing pool deck) (north side of Devon Drive /First Street), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 to 5 ft. (to proposed pavement) (south side of Devon Dr. /First St.), and an increase to the building height from 35 to 89 ft. (to top of roof deck), under the provisions of Sec. 2- 803.1, and approval of a two -year development order; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 72 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design. (Proposed Use: 108 -room hotel) at 101 & 105 Coronado Dr. & 35 Devon Dr., Begin at the SW corner of Water Lot 1, City Park Subdivision, according to map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 37, of the Public Records of Pinellas County Florida; run thence West along the East -West Center Line of Section 8, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, 15 feet to the Point of Beginning' thence South 5 132'30" West along East right -of -way line of Coronado Dr. 16.26 ft.; thence South 84 027'30" East, 100 ft.; thence North 5 032'30" East 78.06 feet; thence Northwesterly along existing along concrete seawall 113.38 feet more or less; thence South 6 010'00" West, 82.63 ft.; thence South 4 °25'11" East, 25.74 ft. to the Point of Beginning and Begin at the Southwest corner of Water Lot 1 of City Park Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 37, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; and run thence West along the East and West Center Line of Section 8, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, 15 ft. to the Easterly line of Coronado Dr.; thence South 5 032'30" West, 16.26 ft, for the Point of Beginning; thence continue South 5 032'30" West, 100 feet to the Northerly line of First Avenue, thence North 5 032'30" East, 100 feet; thence North 84 127'30" West, 100 feet to the Point of Beginning.: AND, The North 100 ft of the West 110 ft of Lot 1, Block B, Columbia Subdivision, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 60, Public Records of Pinellas Coun ,_Florida. Assigned Planner-W4yne M. Wells, AIC Planner III. FLD2009 -03013 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board or Council, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need to request a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. Community Development Code Sec 4 -206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board in quasi-judicial cases if the person requesting such status demonstrates that s /he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross - examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests, and needs to be requested and obtained during the case discussion before the CDB. An oath will be administered swearing in all persons giving testimony in quasi-judicial public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons without party status speaking before the CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact the assigned planner at 562 -4567 to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and /or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan. Michael Delk Cynthia E. Goudeau, MMC Planning Director City Clerk City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758 -4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL (727) 562 -4093 WITH THEIR REQUEST. To learn more about presenting to Clearwater boards and City Council, go to http:// cearwater .granicus.comNiewPubIisher.php ?view id =11 and click on "Resident Engagement Video." You can also check the informational video out from any Clearwater public library. Ad: 5/7/09 F LD2009- 03013/DVA2008- 00001 35 l L10 DEVON DR LLC BADERTSCHER, JAMES R BASKIN, H H EST Z120 RANGE RD BADERTSCHER, DARLENE J OWENS, W D EST - LEARWATER FL 33765 - 2125 121 DEVON DR 516 N FT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2439 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3905 :HRISTMAN, KENNETH R SR CRYSTAL BEACH CAPITAL LLC CUSTER, GERALD :HRISTMAN, LINDA J 101 E KENNEDY BLVD STE 2125 2152 LONG BOW LN Z25 CORONADO DR TAMPA FL 33602 - 5189 CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 6414 : LEARWATER FL 33767 - 2431 )ECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPER DENELL, MARGARET M GONATOS- FELLIOS, MARIA E V19 W24130 RIVERWOOD DR STE 10 94 DEVON DR 120 DEVON DR NAUKESHA WI 53188 - 1131 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2436 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2438 -IAMODI, AHMED A K & P CLEARWATER ESTATE II LLC KEYES, JAY F THE 116 DEVON DR 5600 MARINER ST STE 227 KEYES, JANET D THE : LEARWATER FL 33767 - 2438 TAMPA FL 33609 - 3417 100 DEVON DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2438 VIAZUR, JAN MILO INVESTMENTS LLC PANOS, STEVE S VIAZUR, JANINA 4 AMBLESIDE DR PANGS, FILITSA Z16 HAMDEN DR BELLEAIR FL 33756 - 1910 109 DEVON DR : LEARWATER FL 33767 - 2446 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2439 ?APPAS, ANASTASIA QUINN, ANN E RUDMAN, MIRKO ?APPAS, TOM 225 HAMDEN DR RUDMAN, ANKA 115 DEVON DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2497 217 CORONADO DR ZLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2439 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2431 SEA CAPTAIN TRACEY, CHRISTINA M TROPICANA RESORT LAND TRUST 526 BELLE ISLE 207 CORONADO DR 300 HAMDEN DR BELLEAIR BEACH FL 33786 - 3612 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2431 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2448 WANIO, TATIANA A 14 GRENVIEW BLVD N TORONTO, ONTARIO M08X 2K1 00001 - CANADA 4 1 ORIGINAL RECEIVED SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAS' MAY 2 0 2009 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 CITY OF CLEARWATER FAX 727 298 0100 We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. AS frequent guests of TRE SEA CAPTAIN RE S4RT , we betie -re tttat the proposed pta�t If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time ill this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. Q, 6 IQ- s e- c-o w C, he cr k e COMMENTS: ; 4'l.L__ -h� i MR. AND MRS. MICHAEL B. STEEVES 173 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33767 May 15, 2009 Community Development Board City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 -4748 Dear Mr. Chairman: ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CRY OF CLEARWATER We strongly object to the Flexible Development permit requested by Decade Companies Income Properties to allow a 108 -room accommodation at 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive. Our single - family residence is at 173 Devon Drive. We are very concerned that the overwhelming density and height variances requested and the subsequent increase in traffic will substantially affect access to our property. The level of traffic at that intersection has already exceeded a level of acceptable service and the Patel property has yet to be redeveloped. I am also requesting that the hotel density reserve units not be granted. The Flexible Development plan request with limited setbacks and step -backs does_ not qualify for participation in the Beach by Design plan. Finally, the proposal is simply too big for the lot size and will overtax an intersection that already has an inadequate level of service. Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Michael B. Steeves, Esq. MBS:mlh _ . , �'l Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Frances Everett [everett.ondevon2 @verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:08 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Public Hearing on Decade Companies Income Properties at 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive We want to voice our concern regarding the above request. Devon Drive is a residential street with over 40 homes, with the exception of the captioned property and one other low profile motel at the beginning of the street. It is very difficult to turn off Coronado onto Devon Drive and it is very difficult to pull out of Devon Drive onto Coronado. This congestion already exists without the impact of the Aqualea project that is not yet complete. We respectfully request that you deny the request. Henry A. Everett, homeowner Frances B. Everett, wife 188 Devon Drive. Clearwater Beach., 33767 5/20/2009 SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727- 446 -7550 800 - 444 -7488 FAX 727 -298 -0100 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 1 ci 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER We the undersigned wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guest of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan if approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with well -kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME . ADDRESS Stephanie Phillips 3022 Oak Cove Drive, Clearwater, Fl 33759 / 727 -797 -8648 I am a 20 -year City of Clearwater resident and for the past 11 -years my family, my children and now their children have enjoyed a vacation at the Clearwater Beach Sea Captain. Two years ago, I attended a Clearwater City Council meeting as leaders of my community said, "These condominiums are the type of establishments that will bring Clearwater Beach the style and prosperity we should have." As you now ride past empty Clearwater Beach buildings and Clearwater Beach Stores, do you still think you were right? Planning for our city means looking past the bright big business dollars and toward a plan that will maintain the character as well as the quality of Clearwater Beach. And now you could make a decision that would block out the sun, the life, the joy and yes, very much the beauty of another family owned Clearwater Beach Resort. The Sea Captain .is an establishment you should point to with pride, not be the instrument of its destruction. Take one of those now mostly empty "Condos" and convert that to a Holiday Inn Express. That would be a win/win for Clearwater Beach and Sea Captain_ Please, this time make the right decision e 1'd 8SS0- 666(LZL) TgnN auiTan6aer d86 :60 60 61 FeW Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Phil Weber [philwweber @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:02 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Public Hearing for the New Holiday Inn Express Hotel Mr Wells, We are annual visitors to Clearwater Beach and always stay at the Sea Captain Resort on Devon Dr. We are very upset that the charm and character of Clearwater is being destroyed by the huge amount of tall condos and Hotels which will change Clearwater and make it the same as the rest of Florida. We have no issue with some new building. But the new Hotel should be no taller than 3 stories and should sit on the same footprint as the motel/hotels it replaces. The excessive height of the proposed new building will adversely affect the Sun we get at the Sea Captain and may also effect the grasses in the sea where the fish and manatees feed. Thank you for considering the views of your visitors and please remember, we come to Clearwater Beach for its charm, not its high rises. Phil and Geri Weber 516 S Ferncliff Dr Pueblo West, CO 81007 Home 719 - 647 -3203 Cell 303- 880 -4787 5/19/2009 May 19 09 10:05a CAL WILDE ?-d . LYNN 1'41,- - Z- s 7 z 7 - SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRRIE CLEXp,W kTERBEACU, FLORID 33767 PHONE '727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727/298 0100 231 - 799 -2617 1 p.1 C O& PCACJC, � �V W v.2 `Ale, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan riled by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. A .. Fs.s aecruent guests ofTl-M SEA CAPTN.I4*I RES431~i _.�,, �lieve �4iai?l�� pral�c:sed ct If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vaca.&ion time Clearxvater Beach. The Sea Captain Resart provides a qu&lfty -fitinily el011renrieric with Welt kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS CAl cl/N i A /V 0106-k W/ , ig /D GvHi 5 i�/ . MtJS�rE��,oN� /N /Cff /EJ.�/V S/9fy�- G�,30 COMMENTS:�C y 1/�'_BC�tY�S�y =L✓-5� -�T Ts�� -S�� C�Ai�'Ti9 /N O1.rAe, �q'7'� -N� -S roRy HoGi.O.�y /NN iYaT�G wires ,�r�.c eoN��%S o�E'ncoo��� ca&II Ti axe �����rc/� 3��;OCh/ �/Y17 STia AT J^X�E SSA Nxr9lll! lvav-, Ye`Ry ,BUS'y S/i'S/G �E-/e�rJUT /N C� M�GH Af Tflc" /SL AN P T241vel e 4110 !S O,I4.1 v !' 7ri6�E Co/��✓�R, Adf° v^�v tl �F c MAIr�/vc /7- 4,, l eev�e ov MA4//VIf foGr, ery 0 3,4V r'� 3'2AFFlG ' w /L f3E AFTER 4 NEAv ,AI,4y iN /s IF 7„f iS iv &�w w'- �Ji4YGc TO eolvs lve-lL Ivoll f ���5 �0�2 ovlL Y✓ //vTf� ST.4yS Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Bob & Doreen [robert.tytler @sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:14 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: SEACAP100 @AOL.COM Subject: holiday inn To Planning Dept. City of Clearwater. Our family have been informed of the plans to build a Holiday Inn Express directly in front of the Sea Captain Resort on Devon Drive. Is this progress or a step back? As winter visitors to Clearwater Beach for 15 years we feel saddened at the changes we have seen over the last few years. The family atmosphere is slowly dissapearing with the high -rise buildings on the beach - Mandalay Ave.(is there anyone in them ?) We spend our money in Clearwater Beach on Groceries, gasoline,clothing and restaurant meals. Hair cuts and snacks on the marina,also occasional fishing trips. Will the people in the Holiday Inn spend money in town or only in the Hotel? The Sea Captain Motel is one of the few family- run,family - oriented Resorts left on the beach with no shortage of REGULAR visitors. Mrs.Doreen Tytler. 5/18/2009 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Bob & Doreen [robert.tytler @sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:32 PM To: wayne .wells @myclearwater.com Cc: SEACAP100 @AOL.COM Subject: Holliday Inn Express. Wayne Wells, Planning Department.City of Clearwater. We have been comming to the Sea Captain Resort on the Bay for the last fifteen years, and have enjoyed the friendly atmosphere of Clearwater Beach very much. It is once more -sad to see "Corporate America" distroying the charming, well run, family business. If this developement .is allowed to go ahead with these set - backs, hight allowances etc., when there is a much better lot directly opposite, it would remind me of the poor judgement and desighn of the original traffic circle comming off the causeway, the construction blunders on the overpass and the empty concrete moausoleums residing on Mandaly! On the other hand - perhaps the council should approve this new developement and the rest of us will take our business elsewhere. Robert.D.Tytler 5/18/2009 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Dex15 @aol.com Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:48 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Variance. 5/19/09 1:00 Please find my letter of objection to be considered for the variance 5/19/09 1:00. Linda Deichman A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! 5/18/2009 May 15, 2009 Wayne Wells Planning Department City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Ave Clearwater, F133756 RE: Variance for Decade Companies Income Properties . Tuesday May 19, 2009 1:00 pm Mr. Wells: I have been a resident of Pinellas County since 1958. I was raised in Clearwater and have since moved to Palm Harbor in 1978. I have resided in the same location in Palm Harbor since moving here. Being raised in Clearwater I have always had a very strong dedication to. Pinellas. County and feel that Clearwater Beach is truly a very unique, . beautiful place to enjoy and is still part of the taxes that I pay to live in Pinellas County. Many of our family and friends that come to Florida always look forward to their visits to the beaches of Clearwater. This letter is in regards to the variance that has been applied for the Holiday Inn Express and parking garage. I have been veryy involved in the Sea Captain Resort since 1980.. This location is very well maintained and many families have made the Sea Captain Resort a yearly reunion as well as a wonderful family, friends and visitor place to. visit. The Sea Captain still makes their guests feel safe and gives them the small hotel which is being pushed out of the market.. How do. you think these guests will feel seeing a 100 foot building lurking behind them with these new people sitting on the balconies staring down at them? The other obstacle that I see is the effect of a building utilizing every square foot of the property being next to a property that still has the ability to have greenery, regular parking and a beautiful seawall for their guests to utilize as well as a beautiful place to see from the water as the local boats and sighting seeing boats pass by.. Clearwater's image to the tourist is so very. important to. maintain repeat visits... This entire piece of property, Decade Companies as well as the Sea Captain Resort should be considered. This could be developed as one property to create a beautiful waterfront development instead of one overstated property next to an older but well maintained property. The City of Clearwater needs to consider the final result not just receiving some new revenue without evaluating the final esthetics of the property. I am opposed to this development and hope that the City of Clearwater will reconsider granting a variance that will be an eyesore as well as a deterrent to the Sea Captain Resort. Sincerely, Linda Deichman OS/18/2009 08:05 7277866814 DEICHMAN CONSTRUCTION #0317 P.001 /002 155 Carlyle Drive Palm Harbor. Fl. 34683 727- 784 -4007 727 - 7866814 Fm TO'. Community Development Board &60'r Linda Deichman Face 727- 562A866 Page$: 2 Phona: Date: 05/18/09 Re: Variance 51191091:00 cc ❑ urgent ❑ For Reviaw ❑ Please Coeunent ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle , • Comments; Cynthia Goudeau and /or Michael Deli. Please forward this letter to the proper department #or the variance hearing 5/19109 @ 1,00 regarding the Holiday Inn Express hotel and panting garage. Thank you, Linda Deichman 05/18/2009 08:05 7277866814 DEICHMAN CONSTRUCTION #0317 P.002 /002 May 15, 2009 Wayne Wells Planning Department City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Ave Clearwater, F133756 RE: Variance for Decade Companies Income Properties Tuesday May 19, 2009 1:00 pm Mr. Wells: I have been a resident of Pinellas County since 1958. I was raised in Clearwater and have since moved to Palm Harbor in 1978. I have resided in the same location in Palm Harbor since moving here. Being raised in Clearwater 1 have always had a very strong dedication to Pinellas County and feel that Clearwater Beach is truly a very unique, beautiful place to enjoy and is still part of the taxes that 1 pay to live in Pinellas County. Many of our family and friends that come to Florida always look forward to their visits to the beaches of Clearwater. This letter is in regards to the variance that has been applied for the Holiday Inn Express and parking garage. I have been very involved in the Sea Captain Resort since 1980. This location is very well maintained and many families have made the Sea Captain Resort a yearly reunion as well as a wonderful family, friends and visitor place to visit. The Sea Captain still makes their guests feel safe and gives them the small hotel which is being pushed out of the market. How do you think these guests will feel seeing a 100 foot building lurking behind them with these new people sitting on the balconies staring down at them? The other obstacle that I see is the effect of a building utilizing every square foot of the property being next to a property that still has the ability to have greenery, regular parking and a beautifiil seawall for their guests to utilize as well as a beautiful place to see from the water as the local boats and sighting seeing boats pass by. Clearwater's image to the tourist is so very important to maintain repeat visits. This entire piece of property, Decade Companies as well as the Sea Captain Resort should be considered. This could be developed as one property to create a beautiful waterfront development instead of one overstated property next to an older but well maintained property. The 'City of Clearwater needs to consider the final result not just receiving some new revenue without evaluating the final esthetics of the property. I am opposed to this development and hope that the City of Clearwater will reconsider granting a variance that will be an eyesore as well as a deterrent to the Sea Captain Resort, Sincerely, Linda Deichman MR. & MRS. CHRISTOPHER C. MARIAN[ 193 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER, FL 33767 May 14, 2009 Community Development Board ATTN: Planning Director City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758 Gentlemen: We respectfully request the Board deny the Flexible Development Permit requested by Decade Companies Income Properties to permit the 10- story, 108 room building at 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive on Clearwater Beach. We are residents of Clearwater Beach and live at 193 Devon Drive. As you may know, the current traffic level at that intersection makes it virtually impossible to turn onto Devon Drive now. We are very concerned that the approval of this vast density and height variance would make it even more difficult to gain access to our property given the even greater increase in traffic were this variance approved. Once the Patel property is redeveloped, a building of the height requested will create a virtual cavern on Coronado Drive. We are also requesting that the hotel density reserve units be denied. We believe the Flexible Development Plan request, with limited setbacks and stepbacks, does not qualify for participation in the "Beach by Design" plan. This entire proposal is simply too large for the lot size and will greatly increase traffic at an already overtaxed intersection, not to mention make access to our residential neighborhood even more difficult. Certainly this developer is entitled to develop his propel Ly, but he should not be granted special permits and should be required to stay within the Code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher C. Mariani and � Kymm N. Mariani CCM: 11boh cc: Ma, MAY 18M PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES C!TY Or C;t EARWATER Dr. and Mrs. F. David Hemerick 192 Devon Dr. Clearwater, Fl. 33767 Community Development Board City of Clearwater PO Box 4748 Clearwater, Fl. 33758 -4748 Dear Mr. Chairman: We are requesting that the Board not approve the Flexible Development permit by Decade Companies Income Properties to permit the 108 -room accommodation at 105 Coronado Dr. and 35 Devon Dr. Our single - family residence is at 192 Devon Dr. We are very concerned that the over- whelming density and height variances requested and the subsequent increase in traffic will substantially affect access to our property. The level of traffic at that intersection has already exceeded a level of acceptable service and the Patel property has yet to be re- developed. I am also requesting that the hotel density reserve units not be granted. The Flexible Development plan request with limited setbacks and step -backs does not qualify for participation in the Beach by Design plan. The proposal is just too big for the lot size and will over tax an intersection that already has an inadequate level of service. Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Myra & David Hemerick cc: Mayor Frank Hibbard �J MAY 18 2009 PLANNING & DEVELUP .SENT .,„ , SER` C 17Y C, , _ { ,TER 4-il"m9l I 6"'vac, A, -;n'tAl bos �lcl !19 1 :ii'iw l lriC3fii qc)Lw'-1 , li r I t x z t c I qn � j o � i i u of.-] ., r r. f I �AOIX-'Wl t) B j ul jiurt3q of a3'n-)qo-,f'f wciovil JW ftwn(l EQ.1 It ei nj Ot lall.n.; -,Tfluvlo i:)v)! wiT .1-10 of J:)li!,.lf; -al ' xl, o- �)[%-HnFf mtf Jn4ae,-iB A Jurt ?�'?SUJ )JTD. 4iff"k Nton, -..(i) u?"u, rnv I vpl, iltlsop wff ?.4,L�d-qPe bm, i;-Jilp9i ru;lq )aar,nqo[.ivjC fli mOv i "-u;q Xd 61., 1. imm, AF4 i Al j fyj 4,bf-,--n J�n'flj n6j;:m,�Wrli r1f., xel fli�w bua lof Al -!61 v`d f3o" Lrmtoq.. q &I `iii rjpllo !—i!�l fir, f3rl lulMVIA 2 ii pri;kmn it 'fl.!ov vit , 0'( Aflar"T ; I IJ �jj C7 mo I Y", To k w ' .e Jnvwv,:� ! f budirlill-i �frmmi 05/18/2009 10:10 7274619GF7 FDAVIDHEMERICKD PAGE 01 Dr. and Mrs. F. David Hemerick 192 Devon Dr. Clearwater, Fl. 33767 Wayne Wells Planner Code Developmeo Board City of Cl PO Box 4748 Clear,valm A 317594748 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 18 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Dear . C We aj e req that the Board not approve the Flexible Development permit by Decat a Compani Income Properties to permit the 108 -room accommodation at 105 Coroi ado Dr, an 135 Devon Dr. Ours gle- family'residenee is at 192 Devon Dr. We are very concerned that the over- whelr ing densi and height variances requested and the subsequent increase in traffic will s bstantiafly ect access to our property. The level of traffic at that intersection has aim exceeded level of acceptable service and the Patel property has yet to be re- 1 am a so requesti xg that the hotel density reserve units not be granted. The Flexible Devel p>mlent plar I request with fimited setbacks and step -backs does not qualify for pardc tion in th Beach by Design plan. The posal is j t too big for the lot size and will over tax an intersection that already has inadequate evel of service. you for yot* consideration regarding this matter. Myra David F cc: Mdvor Frank 0 03/13/2009 03:34 May 18, 2009 G19G9GF1'5 To CDB, Michael Delk, & City Commissioners SHRIMP WORKS Dear Planning Board and Community Development Board: PAGE 01 ©PIGINA 117CEVED MAY 18 2009 �LACvNWG 0EVARTfVuENT CITY OF CLEARWATER This letter addresses the negative impact of DVA 2009 -00001 on surrounding properties. The Clearwater land development code and flexible standards are designed to minimize negative impact of proposed development projects while promoting beach'and tourism development. The addition a Holiday Inn Express to our beach community appears superficially on the outside to be a worthwhile development. Unfortunately, the location of the property and small lost size purchased for this development, does not allow for such a project without substantial negative impact on surrounding properties and community. The DVA 2009 -00001 project proposal negatively impacts a prime boutique hotel property with strong repeat business consisting of families who return for stays of several weeks at.a time. These patrons continue to return to the Sea Captain annually for over 20 years. This negative impact reduces sunlight on surrounding properties, increases levels of dust and debris, as well as increases pollutants into Clearwater Bay. These impacts will affect the patronage and value of the surrounding properties and minimize enjoyment of the Sea Captain Hotel. This boutique hotel property has a strong customer following who value its unique outdoor setting. The pool, the sun, and the beauty of the nearby marina, boats, and bay are enjoyed by guests, visitors, and the owners of the surrounding affected properties. The proposed Holiday Inn Express ten story building constructed on such a small lot will not exist without negatively compromising surrounding properties and patrons who frequent these nearby businesses_ To our knowledge, no one from the planning board has visited the Sea Captain to evaluate the impact of the proposed hotel development. Further due diligence on a property development of this size is necessary. Sun, sand, water, and beauty are all reasons people return to Clearwater Beach. These attributes should be respected and protected for nearby and affected property owners. We strongly recommend additional project modifications to address these issues of property influence and impact. A more compatible, less obstructive project must be adopted for the proposed development, in promoting tourism on Clearwater Beach, we must strive to maintain repeat tourists and the integrity of the beach community. Driving and established clientele base away due to property shading and loss of sunlight, decreases enjoyment in surrounding properties and quality of life. This is not the answer. Rather a balanced and modified approach to this project development must be addressed. S' el �`'• y Dr. D ert, Dr. John Eifert, Dr. Karen Rose, Bob Eifert, Jim Nfert, and their families Thirteen employees Thousand of visiting and returning guests \./ W �� �Q n h _ � O� QV �� // z� C.) o May 18 09 02:26p Jac, line Ruhl W'. Lu-"' TI-1 �U-&L- may SS, 3003 To GOO, Nlictrae) Deck, & city Commissioners [7271' ' -0558 p.2 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 18 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OPCLEARWATER Dnar Planning Board and Gammunity DevelopMent Board= act of t711A 2o0'9-Otifl1D2 o:a surrounding properties. the rive impact nee to rrriatimize negatw, -, impact of This Fetter addresses the nags mew The addition & Clearwater land development code and fl rmti standards are designed proposed development projects w'"e prornotirrg beach and tourism t Express to our beach sa*mnunity appears SuperfRiaffY on the outside to be a worthwhile Holiday nn Exp s� �$ii b sue pu- chased for this development. Unfortunately, the location of the prup2rtY 1mPact on surround!ng development, does not allow for such a proles Without substantial Vega properties and community. The OVA 2009 v000t project Proposal nna�el' impacts a prime boutique hotel property nth strong repeat business oorr;iating of families who return for stays of severs! weeks at a time t patrons continue to return to the Sea Captain annually for over 20 years. This negative ueduc Into on surrounding properties, increases levels of dust and debris, as well as increases poll Clearwater Say. These impacts Will affect the patronage and value of the surrounding properties and minimize enjoyment of the Sea Captain Hotel. This boutique hotel property has 3 Strong ctastomer following who value it; unique outdoor setting. The pool, the sun, and the beauty of the nearby m0ri;tz, boats, and bay are enjoyed by guests, visitors, and the ovmers of the surrounding affected properties. The proposed tmoliday Inn Express ten story building constructed on such a small lot will not. exist without negatively compromising surrounding properties and patrons who fiequerit these rkearby businesses. To our knowledge, no one from the planning board has visited the Sea Captain to evaluate the impact of the proposed hotel development. Further due ditiseice on a property development of this size is rleecem'ry. Sun, sand, water, and beauty are all reasons people return to Clearwater Beach. These attributes should be respected and pintected for nearby and affected property owner& We strongly recommend additional, project modifications to address these issues of property influence and impact. A more oompatibie, iess obsunactive project must be adopted for the proposed development. In promoting tourism on Clearwater beach, we must strive to maintain repeat tourists and the integrity of the beach community. Driving an>lk estabtishPd clienttie base away due to property shading and loss of sunlight„ decreases enjoyment in surrounding properties and quaitty of life. This is Vat the answer, Rather a balanced and rnodltted approach to this project development must be addressed. Sincere a ter rY, 0r. john Eder, Dr, Karen Rose, Bob Eifert, lira Fr$ert, and their families Thirteen employees Thousand of visiting and returning guests 2009 -05 -18 13:43 p. Brennan May 18, 2009 860- 889 -7409 >> 7275624865 PAUL C. BRENNAN 88 Ridgewood Drive Norwich, CT 06360 -7313 Wayne Wells, Planning Department City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Dear Mr. Wells: P 2/2 OR*Kk REGENF.r V,AY 18 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 1 have just received information regarding the properties around the Sea Captain Resort on The Bay. My wife and I are concerned visitors to the Sea Captain, a well maintained and delightful vacation spot -- a place the city of Clearwater should be very proud to have in its area. We were quite amazed when we read of the way the owners of the Sea Captain are being treated with the proposed development of high -rise hotels and balconies looking down onto the Sea Captain residents. Sunshine, views and air quality will certainly be affected, as well as the sea- life of the fish, etc., in the vicinity. We sincerely hope the Planning Board will give much thought to its decision, and will take into consideration the Sea Captain's long time dedication to their visitors and also the Clearwater Beach area. Sincerely, Paul C. Brennan /s May 18 09 02:26p Jac line Ruhl 17271' ` -0558 kb` atTuu SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 p.l ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 18 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the duality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS W ' 6. vb -,-ter -Stn Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Rosie & Jerry Zirbel Urzirbel @wi.rr.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 1:14 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: May 19 planning meeting Mr Wells, I am a Wisconsin. resident who has been vacationing at the Sea Captain Resort on Clearwater Beach nearly every year since 1982. In recent years, I have been dismayed by the transformation of Clearwater Beach from a family friendly vacation destination to one where the "mom and pop" motels have been torn down and replaced with high rise luxury condominiums and hotels. I have also noticed the many empty store fronts and restaurants that depended on the weekly turnover of tourists that these "mom and pop" motels provided. While I am sure these luxury condos have increased your revenue, they have not been. friendly to your local businesses and tourists. It has recently come to my attention that there are now plans to build another high rise hotel nearly on top of the Sea Captain Resort. The proposed height of this hotel is completely out of character with the surrounding properties and would loom over the Sea Captain Resort and cast a large shadow over the property. This would adversely affect the quality of the vacation experience that the Sea Captain Resort has provided for so many years. While I am not against progress ( if this is, indeed, progress) I think several. options should be considered by the Planning Department before approval for this new development is given. The height of the proposed hotel is just too high. It could. be reduced significantly if the five floor parking ramp was removed from the plan. There appears to be many vacant properties very nearby that could be developed . to provide the necessary parking required for this hotel and should be considered. While this may add some extra cost to the development, it would make the hotel more consistent with surrounding properties and more aesthetically appropriate for that area of Clearwater Beach. In addition, all set backs should be maintained. Placing a building of this proposed size just 2.5 feet from a property line is just too close and would have an adverse affect on the residents of the Sea Captain Resort. Please consider all stakeholders in your planning and maintain the family friendly reputation that Clearwater Beach has worked so long and hard to obtain. Gerald Zirbel Waukesha, Wi. 5/18/2009 MAY- 18- 2009(MON) 09;33 MHPT Tnc. (FRH)807R244856 P.001 /001 T>eborak L.... �SDIQpI. SI+�L May 18, 2009 Wayne Wells Director of Planning & Community Development Board City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Dear Mr. Wells, ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 1 r,' 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY Of CLEARWATER Please accept this letter as STRONG opposition to the requested variance for the high -rise structure at the corners of Devon Drive and Coronado Drive on Clearwater Beach. Previous construction and traffic pattern changes have given little consideration to residents living on Devon Drive, Rayside Drive and Brightwater Drive. During peak traffic, it is very difficult for us to come and go from our homes. These changes have created UNSAFE, conditions in the event there is a need for fire or ambulance service. It would be irresponsible to allow construction that would most certainly exacerhate the already unsafe conditions when the additional adverse effects from the opening of the Hyatt is still unknown. T realize that we are few relatively speaking, but we should be given more consideration than we have been given in the past. For Clearwater to allow this situation to become more unsafe for our neighborhood would be unconscionable. Deborah L. Soboleski 191 Devon Drive Clearwater, FL 33767 May 18 09 10:20a Ja--ue l i ne Ruhl N� I , . N , W '�' t � '_> SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY VE 40 DEVON DRI CLEARW XT FR BE F,OIUDA. 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 804 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 [727'x99 -0558 p.1 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 18 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTMS. N irequcnt guests of-ME' SEA CAPTPkTN RESORT ;..ue belseve than die proposed flan. if approved will adversely affect the quality of ,aur. vacation lame iz, this area ()f Clean, sWer Be&ch. The Sea Captain Resort prov ;des a quality family cnviron�metjt witll Well kept wow and mounds and has maintained 1 e character o£ Ctearwater.l3eacli: ro NAME _ ADDRESS Qsh a, u1 . �5 3 18 0 rooms aA ZPJ1e-#'V"e wr . v --- v yr -.•.... i � . •.�._•� y� , w .v- - - - - - - - 0 h lDor's and, rl/ e' C;G/vn S, 9/..i, ho"116 �*bvn im-edvi-e, why A shame- -Me .Sea �Ple -7� fdie .Sea- -�yi� y ¢r90 et��oye�L �c% phly values May 18 09 10:30a Ja-- ueline Ruhl (727'999 -0558 SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 P. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED MAY 18 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS; 4NYNck✓ 14-rWL SaouCn Ale,:):: ALLEQ elf+Al fTV2�C5 't- S(4 0,1 LD USL -IL- C ,9nP�v:D uoq-P0,wr 49r-^iiie (9LA (e —acs 8'/407 3lC>07 W ' W ks ORIGINAL RECEIVED .5" - Rwma dw tie V" MAY 1 r") 2009 40 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone 727- 446 -7550 CITY OF CLEARWATER 800 - 444 -7488 Fax 727 -298 -0100 I V4�v 0�' -ke �'� &1,9-�"A- IR:j_- . )L -A.-J Vpk uv, IAn G C, �7A Aim- -V-�L Z'd 89SO- 66E(LZL) jynN auijanboer e9ir=60 60 91 Rew .Sect , ' Redone OW tle 641y 40 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida 33757 Phone 727- 446 -7550 800 - 444 -7488 j Fax 727 - 298 -0100 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 16 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER � "-Vyr U4 00 C�15 o�N, C�r- I - �:� T'd 8990- 666IL2L] Tyna auiTanboer e9tr =60 60 9T Rew May 16 09 09:42a Jar -keel ine Ruhl (727''99 -0558 P.1 .Sea ' Rejo r aw die 04V 40 Devon Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 Phone 727 -446 -7550 800 -444 -7488 Fax 727 - 298 -0100 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MIAY 16 20V PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 4N io cN � v Y-� �9�1�.�.i' ��.�✓ � 1�� ��'�V° �l/Gi['�� �? C�iV�Q QRC� �av C�'1S`C V� FV C >" G� C{�C/ M C.� ►� G.��e. ��' Gf'V L v..L We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan fled by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS GrsoP -6e ? 1V1,12G.gj2.c- i -V' j LL-tc t< i E i S Li CROA74EAD CRESC.e�/O7 -- 13C- L,,, rl it y Al o 2.-rj-4 I-Aj\3 AR- kc S *4I �eC- Sear-z AA-5D (,I K COMMENTS: %.0Kk%9Y1'1P96 RECEIVED MAY 16 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER T'd 6990- GGE(L2L) T4nN auilanbaer eSE :GO Go 91 ReW ORIGIN& RECENEp MAY 1 `J .Sew r�.e�uv�t oa .�e Say 6 200 40 Devon Drive PL4NN/NG,D Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 CITY OF CLEgRWA70 r Phone 727 -446 -7550 800 -444 -7488 Fax 727 - 298 -0100 Dco-r m v Lu EI ( S V a. -ne- L-`a 9"[a. e,k r�-'� 1,Lic_j2L. I con-,e ei c-r L�� �- ��. =��Z, �►-1 G���sb ,� C'�ny�� 1 SCE i:, -c�5 c...?��t;�� d0C3gr�.k C-)c2.l" U.ie liie <.i, -rc% ow.•- .uot,�.r� .J � (�1z ia.1 1✓h� �.5.>4 a �o be c�sd����ac -�-/ 9a_y by cJ 04 Arc�c�� efear5 r 11 f ✓t.G� Ll �a Res 64s % G �1 o��.rs P !�! s 7 o L ✓�x cl� / �'!E �'e �z vt el e ✓e4 s 8n "S we- 6!X Sin Eke Spa f f ire �: ©��e�- u/ - /3C':clI/e w h0 A�eCCL.YI7C e1,;- C naffs Gi �l �l1o.SC CcLY EL G�. s �1 rG r►'1 w� G� Lt?' 1 / � •c+ .Sat= � d'1 15 Lcv-t 4o,- u,5 f L-�re-�5 A/ 2, 1 z'd 8990- 666(L2L) tynd auilanboer e96 :60 60 91 ReW May 1G 09 09:52a Jar--lie 1 i ne Ruhl Ub- '14 -Uy; Ul: J!1dM; KLNNL W I i H F'HU. (;UHF'. TELEPHONE (613)267 -5910 TELECOPIER (613)264.0789 (727lg99 -0558 p.1 i1;1 # 2/ 1 XENNETH W. SBMH HAMSTER R SOLICITOR e -mail: kenwsmithQon.aibn.coan BY FAX 1- 727 - 562.4865 AND BY E- MAIL: wayne.wells@myclealwater.com City of Clearwater Planning Dept. 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 Attn: Wayne Wells, Planning Dept. Dear Mr. Wells: 27 FOSTER STREET P.O. Box 157 PERTH, ONTARIO K7H 3E3 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 16 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 14, 2009 CITY OF CLEARWATER Re: Proposed Redevelopment of corner of Devon and Coronado (former site of The Sunny Motel and The Port Vue) As a long time winter visitor to Clearwater Beach it has been brought to my attention that the above- referenced properties are the subject of an application for construction of a 108 room Holiday Inn Express situate above a four -level parking garage. I understand that the height of the proposed structure will be nearly 100 feet I further understand that balconies will look out to the east and to the north, and that a request has been submitted to reduce the easterly sideline set back to an alarming 2.5 feet from the adjacent motel property. This would effectively place a multi -level parking garage only a few feet away from occupied motel rooms — an environmentally unhealthy and unacceptable situation. The inevitable noise factor must also be considered. 1 am of the opinion that such a development flies in the -face of the character of the area. The adjacent motel property together with several residential properties adjacent to it will be virtually devoid of sun for long stretches of time each day, as will large portions of the marine basin with the resultant adverse effects on marine life. Traffic at the intersection of Devon and Coronado is extremely heavy at times and the presence of the proposed development would only serve to exacerbate a problem that already exists, _ 1 would ask that this correspondence be tabled into consideration at the Community Development Board Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, May 19'h 2009. Yours sincerely, KENNETH W. SMITH PROFESSiA T Qlw- Per: Kenneth W. nuth /jm May 16 09 09:52a Ja--ueline Ruhl vJ /i7 /GVVJ 1..1V IGf /VOpOlY May 15, 2009 Wayne Wells Planning Department City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Ave Clearwater, P133756 [727'x99 -0558 p.2 UZ1t-n.VVV UUN.I'TXUUTl' #VJIJ e.UU1 /VV1 RE: Variance for Decade Companies Income Properties Tuesday May 19,2009 1:00 pm Mr. Wells: ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 16 2009 eLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER I have been a resident of Pinellas County since 1958. I was raised in Clearwater and have since moved to Palm Harbor in 1978. I have resided in the same location in Palm Harbor since moving here. Being raised in Clearwater I have always had a very strong dedication to Pinellas County and feel that Clearwater Beach is truly a very unique, beautiful place to enjoy and is still part of the taxes that 1 pay to live in Pinellas County. Many of our fancily and friends that come to Florida always look forward to their visits to the beaches of Clearwater. This letter is in regards to the variance that has been applied for the Holiday Inn Express and parking garage. 1 have.been very involved in the Sea Captain Resort since 1980. This location is very well maintained and many families have made the Sea Captain Resort a yearly reunion as well as a wonderful family, friends and visitor place to visit. The Sea Captain still makes their guests feel safe and gives them the small hotel which is being pushed out of the market. How do you think these guests will feel seeing a 100 foot building lurking behind them with these new people sitting on the balconies staring down at them? The other obstacle that I see is the effect of a building utilizing every square foot of the property being next to a properly that still has the ability to have greenery, regular parking and a beautiful seawall for their guests to utilize as well as a beautiful place to see from the water as the local boats and sighting seeing boats pass by. Clearwater's image to the tourist is so very important to maintain repeat visits. This entire piece of property. Decade Companies as well as the Sea Captain Resort' should be considered. This could be developed as one property to create a beautiful waterfront development instead of one overstated property next to an older but well maintained property. The City of Clearwater needs to consider the final result not just receiving some new revenue without the evaluating the final esthetics of the property. I am opposed to this development and hope that the City of Clearwater will reconsider granting a variance that will be an eyesore as well as a deterrent to the Sea Captain Resort. Sincerely, Linda Deichman May 16 09 09:52a \v-�)J� !"s Jar ^lie 1 i ne Ruhl (727 »99 -0558 SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 p 3 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 16 2009 PANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development .plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS C i it, cLQ3`b bP, ! 1J00R „wo b j�' , „L C. 6 b CA 0'y- COMMENTS: k(V E M A U C. $&Z-4 Ca Im G To C LCAKW H T L 12 ESdRls REPL.ACEJ EV NICN R)-5 EE 9UILbJ�.lc ASE. RESPC< a i"JJG SE.A CAp- "p�l0S W %SN<--- S A',RE -rHe- L3 5i 5Y"r, R6S40 4 T' 1 E 4F T 6) i' W, A C �-1. 1 l io v S A i3 � S ()F pc 1� (- t J-) u L' J av !� ; A �l Cam' a -r -s �i s chi f I- A f t f v�. iz iC'-::7 `JAR S. May 1G 09 09:52a Jar ^ueline Ruhl [727'x99 -0558 p.4 W , ' 'Wi (? -,l'Is SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 16 200 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS l' y CQMMENTS: tl�LrJ ^n 6 (1 Z. a /4T ! r` I Re-Se i ( F f L6),Y1A1eF P / -i-lge 7'o N )L-1) OUT* N1 L111\J i 0 19T "7 R :5"&P A �'P,P7"F'�!v j�'j S � ntTi7 � !� �� � �} /?'� f L-t�f C'1 %�.l C f'J % � !, �A,J �, // ��1 r"?/! �t .•/'� , May 16 09 10:54a Ja"ueline Ruhl SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE t727'g99 -0558 CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 P.1 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 16 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS Michelle Dibble 121 East 33rd St Holland, Mi 49423 Chris Dibble 121 East 33rd St Holland Mi 49423 Jenna Vander Zwaag 121 East 33rd St Holland Mi 49423 Heather Vander Zw•aag 121 East 33rd St Holland Mi 49423 Dave Tinholt 55 East 33rd St Holland Mi 49423 Gaylene Tinholt 55 East 34th St Holland Mi 49423 COMMENTS: We have been staying at The Sea Captain for a number of years and love the area and the surrounding community. We always used to stay at the Sun West Beach motel and fell victim to a high rise. Clearwater beach needs the small mom and pop places like Sea Captain. They are friendly, the rooms are very well kept up and the grounds are maintained beautifully. We feel the view will be spoiled if a high rise that tall goes up next to them. It will tower over and shadow over Sea Captain. Clearwater beach has enough high rises and motels in the area. May 16 09 10:35a Jar—jeline Ruhl �1 ff tki W S s (727'x99 -0558 P.1 ORIGINAL RECEIVED - - --MAY 16 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ADDRESS A. Vander Weide 2315 Radcliffe Villa e Dr SE; Grand Ra ids, MI 49546 49546 [MENTS: Mr. Wells, writing to object to the approval of the Holiday Inn Express at the former site of The ; of The iy Motel and the Port Vue. For various reasons, I believe this would negatively lY Lct the area. ,e been coming to Clearwater Beach and to The Sea Captain hotel for at least twenty wenty now and I usually come two to three times per year. The hotel and its staff are e :ccable and The Sea Captain is affordable. I have seen the changes in Clearwater ter ;h over the years, and while I enjoy the beautiful beach and the new beach walk, I am I am dismayed with the new high rise buildings going up right along the beach. This takes takes h away from the ambiance of this city. Clearwater Beach always used to have a May 16 09 10:35a Jam reline Ruhl (727'n99 -0558 p.2 family atmosphere and now with the ritzy new buildings and the vacant properties where other new high rise buildings had been planned and are now seemingly abandoned, Clearwater Beach is increasingly losing its charm. Adding another tall building at the site you have proposed would not enhance the area, either. I am greatly concerned that my quality of vacation time and those of other guests who frequent The Sea Captain would be greatly diminished with the addition of the Holiday Inn Express so close by. The height and density for this area of the beach does not fit with existing properties and with what makes this a charming place to visit. I do not come to The Sea Captain to be overshadowed by another high rise building; I come to relax and enjoy the marina and the bay where sea grasses grow and the manatee and dolphin frequently swim in the area. I come not to be bothered by the busyness of another tall hotel and its guests and parking garage right up next to The Sea Captain. I come to have a pleasant atmosphere where I can enjoy all The Sea Captain's impeccably kept grounds and to be able to sit in the sun by the pool, not to sit in the shade of the Holiday Inn Express. Indeed, I do not understand why the city would consider this a good spot for this hotel when it does not fit in with the other quality mom- and -pop hotels along the back strip while the former site of the Holiday Inn is vacant and has plenty more space to build on rather than encroaching on The Sea Captain. I do consider myself as one who has paid taxes over the years to Clearwater Beach and I do enjoy being able to stay there, shop there, frequent the local restaurants and enjoy a quiet, spacious, and serene place to stay. I especially have enjoyed the beautiful setting and wonderful people who work at and own The Sea Captain. They are considered friends by me and many other "regulars." My Michigan friends and I have been ambassadors for Clearwater Beach and many of our family members and friends have also come to experience the quaint and lovely beach and city that is Clearwater Beach. The 100+ room Holiday Inn Express and parking garage clearly does not belong on The Sunny Motel and The Port Vue properties. It would change so many things that are good. Please consider my request and others and do not grant this proposed development plan to go forward. Consider, instead, what Clearwater Beach means to the people who go there for vacation. Consider also the people who work there and own hotels and have been there for years. Newer and bigger does not always mean better, especially when designed in the wrong space. Thank you for considering my request, ORIGINAL Ruth A. Vander Weide RECEIVED MAY 16 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: WAYNE WALTON [wlw43pw @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Proposed. Holiday Inn Express near Sea Captain Resort Dear Mr. Wells: We are writing in response to the proposed Holiday Inn Express immediately next to the Sea Captain Resort. It is our understanding that said proposed Holiday Inn would be approximately 96' tall. Having stayed at the Sea Captain in excess of 12 years, it is our believe that the sun would never shine on the Sea Captain Resort after 1:00 p.m. One would certainly think that there is available commercial property that could accomodate a structure such as the proposed one that would not affect an otherwise charming vacation spot. Sincerely, Wayne and Patricia Walton 1467 Chestnut Grove Rd. Salem, OH 44460 (330) 332 -1060 5/17/2009 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Shelley Dibble [shelley7_30 @hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 5:31 PM To: Wells, Wayne; Sea Captain Subject: Rebuttle Against New Motel Complex My petition is attached. Shelley Hotmail@ has ever - growing storage! Don't worry about storage limits. Check it out. 5/17/2009 SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME Michelle Dibble ADDRESS 121 East 33rd St Holland, Mi 49423 Chris Dibble 121 East 33rd St Holland Mi 49423 Jenna Vander Zwaag 121 East 33d Holland Mi 49423 Heather Vander Zwaag 121 East 33rd St Holland Mi 49423 Dave Tinholt 55 East 33rd St Holland Mi 49423 Gaylene Tinholt 55 East 34`" St Holland Mi 49423 COMMENTS: We have been staying at The Sea Captain for a number of years and love the area and the surrounding community. We always used to stay at the Sun West Beach motel and fell victim to a high rise. Clearwater beach needs the small mom and pop places like Sea Captain. They are friendly, the rooms are very well kept up and the grounds are maintained beautifully. We feel the view will be spoiled if a high rise that tall goes up next to them. It will tower over and shadow over Sea Captain. Clearwater beach has enough high rises and motels in the area. TO: Wayne Wells Wells, Wayne Page 1 of/ j From: Ron Doughty [rdoughty @cac.net] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:22 AM To: 'mary ann eifert' Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: SEA CAPTAIN RESORT Importance: High Mr. Wells here are our comments regarding the Sea Captain Resort and the new Holiday Inn Express. TO:, Wayne Wells, & Sea Captain Resort of Clearwater Beach FROM: Ron & Cathy. Doughty 2399 Red Wings. Dr. Brighton, Mi. 48114 My purpose in writing this letter is to inform the City of Clearwater that we object to having a Holiday Inn Express built near the location as descripted to us. I am a member of the ZBA and Planning Commission of the Charter Township. of Brighton, Mi. We feel the request for variances are SELF imposed, and should not be approved. We have been coming to Clearwater Beach since 1980, and make two trips there almost every year. We enjoy the beach area, spend money on food, entertainment etc. We don't like the current trend as to the way Clearwater beach is going. This 100 ft. Holiday Inn would further take away from the family type of resort area, block the view, and harm the bay waters. The Sea Captain is a well managed, clean, well kept business, and a good citizen for Clearwater Beach. We feel that a new box store type hotel would further take away from the family business style, thus less business for the current attractions there.. More traffic is something that is NOT needed there. I assume a `flexible development' is similar to our Commercial PUD. This is supposed to help. surrounding business, the developer, and the City of Clearwater. It appears to. us the only party being `helped' is the developer. In conclusion. We feel the developer has the right to develop his property per the current zoning ordinances, however not at the expense of the Sea Captain, NO Holiday INN THANKS RONALD & CATHY DOUGHTY 2399 RED. WINGS DR. BRIGHTON, MI. 48114 1- 810- 227 -6356. 5/15/2009 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne. From: Jeanne Silverberg Dojeesilver @charter.net] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:57 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Proposed Development Plan by Decade Companies Income Properties Dear. Mr. Wells: My wife, family. and I have been vacationing in Clearwater Beach at the Sea Captain for over twenty years. We consider the Sea Captain our winter home. An eight story building west of the Sea Captain would shade the Sea Captain's pool. My grandson wouldn't like to swim in a shaded pool and my wife and family couldn't sunbathe watching him. We would have to find another winter home outside of Clearwater Beach. Four stories of parking ramps within fifteen feet of the rear of the Sea Captain will ruin the view of the rooms on the west side. Having a hotel the size of which is being considered abut up to the Sea Captain is intolerable and certainly not conducive to a relaxed vacation. Tall, high density buildings should remain along the Gulf. Building them inland would adversely change the. family vacation destination and relaxed character of this section of the Beach. The Sea Captain has a reputation of being one of the best, small family owned resorts in the area. It has always been maintained at the highest level and, therefore, brings a clientele which benefits the commercial community of Clearwater Beach. Please reject the Decade Companies proposal and keep Clearwater Beach a family friendly destination. Sincerely, Jeanne and Joe Silverberg 2802 Arbor Dr., #1 Madison, WI 53711 5/15/2009 05- 14- 09;02:17PM;KENNETH "' SMITH PRO, CORP. KENNETH W. SMITH BARRISTER & SOLICITOR TELEPHONE (613)267 -5910 TEI.ECOPIER (613} 264 -0789 e -mail: kenwsmithQon.aibn.com BY FAX 1- 727 - 562 -4865 AND BY E- MAIL: wayne.wells @myelearwater.com City of Clearwater Planning Dept. 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 Attn: Wayne Wells, Planning Dept. Dear Mr. Wells: ;613 # 1/ 1 27 FOSTER STREET P.O. BOX 157 PERTH, ONTARIO K7H 3E3 May 14, 2009 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 14 2063 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Re: Proposed Redevelopment of corner of Devon and Coronado (former site-of The Sunny Motel and The Port Vue) As a long time winter visitor to Clearwater Beach it has been brought to my attention that the above- referenced properties are the subject of an application for construction of a 108 room Holiday Inn Express situate above a four -level parking garage. I understand that the height of the proposed structure will be nearly 100 feet. I further understand that balconies will look out to the east and to the north, and that a request has been submitted to reduce the easterly sideline set back to an alarming 2.5 feet from the adjacent motel property. This would effectively place a-multi -level parking garage only a few feet away from occupied motel rooms -- an environmentally unhealthy and unacceptable situation. The inevitable noise factor must also be considered. I am of the opinion that such a development flies in the. face of the character of the area. The adjacent motel property together with several residential properties adjacent to it will be virtually devoid of sun for long stretches of time each day, as will large portions of the marine basin with the resultant adverse effects on marine life. Traffic at the intersection of Devon and Coronado is extremely heavy at times and the presence of the proposed development would only serve to exacerbate a problem that already exists. I would ask that this correspondence be tabled into consideration at the Community Development Board Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, May 19`h, 2009. Yours sincerely, KENNETH W. SAMTH pRCTF -1M RATI_dN enneth W. meth /jm Matj 13 09'11:10a J ueline Ruhl (72 99 -0558 P.2 SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 14 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPER X'IES_ As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. ��► #. r , I► J 6 'd LIN ' °N M'1111!3 'Pr ME:E 6006 'ti[ 'APN May 13 09 °11 : 10a .. {uel ine Ruhl (72. .199 -0558 SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7489 FAX 727 298 0100 p.2 ORIGINAL RECEIVED VIAY 14 200 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY Of CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPMIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of. our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea. Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS `` E 'd LIN ' °N ONO ` "03 I4OP AdIZ :E 6002 'ti[ 'AIN 9 May 13 09J1:10a J, jueline Ruhl (727r _ -99 -0558 SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 $00 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100 P. 2 ORIGINAL RECENED MAY 14 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMEM CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPER FIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT; we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of. our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach„ The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS: ' d �eCi-- or. c�o�n�e���,n �+n� �, �� � one ►' �h t �� �z 1 ot� we bl Gib ti 'd L I N ' °N OAVIII�!3 'Pr AdI6:E 6002 'til 'AIN Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Harry and Lynda Traini [traini @rogers.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:39 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: SEACAP100 @aol.com Subject: Concern re Holiday Inn Express Development. Please find attached a copy of our letter that is currently being mailed to you with our signatures. Since the meeting is next week we were unsure as to whether or not it would arrive in thme. Harry and Lynda Traini traini@rogers.com 519- 936 -7613 5/14/2009 SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 FAX 727 298 0100. ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 14 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach... The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS Harry Traini 187 -2025 Meadowgate Blvd London, ON Canada N6M1K9 Lynda Traini 187 -2025 Meadowgate Blvd London, ON Canada N6M1K9 COMMENTS:. We are not the long time visitors as some of the others that have been coming to Clearwater for many more years but we felt we had found an oasis in Clearwater Beach that we could continue to return to for many years. We are very disappointed that Clearwater has taken to replace the many small motels with monstrosities that not only destroy the integrity of the beach but also eliminate family run and owned motels that have been the cornerstone of the beach for many years. Evidence is the many empty motels that now dot the landscape of the beach. It would be much more worthwhile to see changes further to the south where many abandoned motels lay vacant rather than destroy one that is a home for many of us. Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Ruth Kemp [kemper @altelco.net] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:59 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Sea Captain Resort Mr. Wells, attached please find my letter of support for the Sea Captain Resort.. Thank you for reading my letter, rk 5/14/2009 SEA CAPTAIN RESORT ON THE BAY 40 DEVON DRIVE ORIGINAL CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 RECEIVED PHONE 727 446 7550 800 444 7488 MAY 14 2009 FAX 727 298 0100. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the undersigned, wish to object to the proposed development plan filed by DECADE. COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES. As frequent guests of THE SEA CAPTAIN RESORT, we believe that the proposed plan If approved will adversely affect the quality of. our vacation time in this area of Clearwater Beach. The Sea Captain Resort provides a quality family environment with Well kept rooms and grounds and has maintained the character of Clearwater Beach. NAME ADDRESS Ruth Kemp 2839. Bonneville Ct. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49525 COMMENTS: Mr. Wells, my name is Ruth Kemp. I have been traveling to the Clearwater Beach area since the 1960's. For decades, I have considered the Sea Captain Resort Motel to be my second winter and spring home during the breaks afforded my by virtue of my occupation as a public school teacher in the state of Michigan. As a retiree, I can now extend my time at the Sea Captain by weeks each year. For years, I have decried the massive changes to the Clearwater Beach ambiance. You seem bent on changing the very essence of the reasons my friends and I choose the Gulf's best beach area: we want a family - friendly, AFFORDABLE place to unwind, dine, relax, and most of all walk your beaches! The gigantic high rise properties have killed the "mom and pop" entities, leaving in their wake unaffordable (and empty) condo units and middle -class values. Your beautiful beach walk is partially hidden by the growing high rise south of the parking lot. I realize you have factions fighting for your approval of their proposals. To destroy the unique quality of the Sea Captain property is to continue to destroy the middle -class visitors' ability to choose a venue that offers so much more than a rental unit. The Sea Captain's strengths involve: an incomparable setting, superb service, COMPLETE access to grounds and the pool area (without hundreds competing for space), a caretaker whose pride in workmanship is evident daily, and an owner who knows us by name (yes, there is a "Cheers ". presence in your city) and appreciates our business with him. If you allow the proposal for the Holiday Inn to proceed, you will have struck another blow to. those of us who seek quality at a still - affordable price. My friends (dozens) in the Fort Meyers area are moving away to. end the ever- increasing prices and the congestion caused by the very projects you are considering. PLEASE, consider what you want of Clearwater Beach — check the rosters of property changes /demolitions in the past twenty years (by the way, where IS the former Holiday Inn? I believe that beautiful property is still an empty lot). You will not find the Sea Captain name on any of those lists. Please do something RIGHT for your tax - paying resort owners whose rooms are always rented, not on speculation, but because of their consummate care of their clients. I hope that you give MORE consideration to the Sea Captain than to a corporation which has so often changed property locations and has deserted your Sand Key Bridge area. Continue to let your loyal owner and his guests enjoy all the reasons which draw us to your part of Florida. Let other cities deal with unoccupied units and ruined beachscapes. There is MUCH to be said for tradition and quality; I hope you choose these over any POTENTIAL increase in revenue. This fragile economy should provide the final reason for denial of unacceptable variances on property next to the Sea Captain. Sincerely, Ruth Kemp. 08/19/2015 07:35 FAX Mr. Wayne Wells Planning Department Dear Mr. Wells, [a 001 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 14 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER May 13, 2009 We have recently heard of a proposed plan to build a 108 room Holiday Inn Express and,parking garage at the corner of Coronado and Devon. We are very much Against yet another "high rise" hotel on Clearwater Beach. We have been coming to "the beach" for about 25 years and it has changed too much already. The smajl homey feeling is going fast. We have been staying at the Sea Captain Resort for-about 18 of those years. The new proposed hotel will certainly affect us-with .a large shadow on the property and the sea grasses there. In addition it would' be far too close to the back of the Sea Captain Resort properly. There is already so much traffic in the area. Please keep Clearwater Beach a family oriented beach and not give the large hotels and condos free reign. Tom and Joyce Skocz 233 High Street Fair Oaks, Pa 15003 May 12, 2009 TO: City of Clearwater Planning and Development ATTN-. Mr. Wayne Wells and Mr. Michael Delk and Ms. Cynthia Goudeau Fax: 727 562 -- 4865 Dear Mr. Wells, Mr. Delk and Ms. Goudeau; This Fax is a follow up to my attempts to reach you by phone earlier today. I wish to fonnally request a postponement of the meeting to discuss proposed development of the corner property at 101 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive, DVA 2009 - 00001 I am requesting a continuance, as I am only just receiving notice of the 5/19/09 meeting at this time. I am an affected owner of the adjacent Sea - Captain Property, living in San .Diego, CA. and wish to be present at the meeting. Please contact me at your earliest convenience, as I realize time is of the essence. Sincerely, r. Robert Eifert 4306 Newport Ave_ San Diego, CA. 92107 'I'B JWE(&,aol.com (619) 788 -7550 Cc: Mr, Harry Kline, Attorney A rR, @R0TIE T (J E1 MAY Z 2009 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT CITY OF CLEARWATER Z0 39vd SAdOM dWIdHS 9L99969619 6E :ZZ 60OZ /aZ /E0 May 12 09 04:08p Vance Rose 2057527946 p.1 mim K1 DS Where learning to swim is FUN. 'l�� - 3&a -L48&S To: Wayne M. Wells, Planner From Vance Rose Fax: 205 - 752 -7946 Pages 2 Phone: 205 - 792 -6033 Date: 5/12/2009 Wee Flexible Development & Variance, associated with Decade Companies Income Properties 0 Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: Attn: Mr. Wayne M. Wells, Planner Attached you will find a letter concerning the recent discussion of the development on Devon and Coronado Drives. Please take this into consideration when deliberating on this matter. I appreciate your time. Direct your attention to my letterhead for any contact information that may be needed. Thank you, Vance Rose ORIGINAL RECEWD MAY 12 2009 NANNING DEPARTMENT rMy OF CLEARWATER P.O. Box 2365 • Tuscaloosa, AL 35403 • Phone & Fax (205) 752 -SWIM (7946) — --j _ —j ...._.=....w -- — _.,...,,.0 — 1, =.......,, a......._.=,..u.j .6...= =..._.., .,..._,. — .,a — beach, the citizens of Clearwater, and our future generations. Thank you, Vance Rose SwimKids, Inc. P.O. Box 2365 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403 205- 752 -7946 May 12 09 04:09p Vance Rose May 8, 2009 2067527946 P.1 ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 12 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER I am writing this letter after a recent trip to Clearwater Beach where I enjoyed the casual, relaxed atmosphere and lack of large -scale developments on the beach. I have been a visitor to the beach for many years and while not opposed to the development of the "New" beach, what I read in the paper recently was disturbing. Granting of variances, while most appear to be small, represent things that will last a lifetime --once you grant one variance you are locked in for years. Both the Zoning Commission and the City Council need to be aware that beach zoning variances can never be taken back! The zoning variance for the Coronado -Devon Drive property before the Zoning Commission on May 190' addresses changes that will affect the beach for years to come. I can only hope that the Commission will look at what they are about to vote on and realize that it will affect future generations, not just citizens and visitors for the next few years. Granting both setback variances and density variances, while generating short term revenue for the city will ultimately make Clearwater Beach equivalent to the South Florida East Cost and will drive people to other areas. As a Zoning Board, please do not be short- sighted and make a decision based on what is good for the city today, but instead what is good for the city in the many years to come. I have a real problem with an out -of -state developer corning in and asking for variances that will help make him and his company make money and then sell off and leave town. He will be gone and not only the Zoning Commission and the City Council, but the citizens of Clearwater and visitors to the area will be left with the mistakes made and the precedent set to grant the same variances to everyone who applies in the years to come. At issue are the variances being requested that allow him to greatly increase the density allowed on this property -300% even! His request looks like a textbook request for over - development! There are other properties on the beach for this size development that would allow for appropriate distribution of the density via additional surrounding property. Everyone can say that each case is an individual case, but as we all know, once such variances are granted, legal precedence typically establishes that they will be granted each and every time. I would hate for this Council and Zoning Commission to think in 20 years that they had sold their soul to big developers, and they had singlehandedly ruined Clearwater Beach. As I stated above I am all for the development of the beach, but not when it means selling one's soul to do it. This proposal is trying to squeeze a Sears Tower onto a postage stamp lot. Setback and density variances are there for a reason -4o protect and not unfairly ignore the citizens of the beach, the citizens of Clearwater, and our future generations. Thank you, Vance Rose SwimKids, Inc. P.O. Box 2365 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403 205- 752 -7946 ORIGINAL FROM THE DESK OF LYNN MCCOLL RFCP -VED MAY 12 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT COY OF CLEW#ATER FACSIMILE TRAMMI'I rAL SH ET TO: • • _ FROM: Wayne Ni Wells, Planner Lynn McColl COMPANY: RATE: City of Clearwatcr Pm & 5/12/2009 Development RkC.RYPT FAX N[]MAER: TOTAL, NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 727-562 -4865 2 RE: Plemble Development and Variance, in assodawa with Decade Company Intone Properdes O URGENT El FOR REVIEW 13 PLEASR COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY © PLEASr REc3'cLE NOTES /COMMENTS: Attached is a letter to Mr. Wayne U Wells, Planner with the City of Clmrwatet P41111 g and Davelopawnt Depa=tc a t. Please revi~xr this infnrmation and consider it in your decision regarding the new development on Coronado and Devon Drive. My contact information can be found on the attached letter. Thank you for your time 520 AVALON PLACE - TUSCALOOSA, AL 35401 - 205 - 292.4526 Z0 /T0 39Vd DNIINf10ood nov Z68E- 817E -50Z 6E :17T 600Z/ZT /90 Lynn McColl 520 Avalon Place Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 205 - 292 -4526 ORIGINAL 4FCFVED MAY 12 2069 e0LMN1i%v urrHkIMENT CITY OF CLEARW.4MQ May 12, 2009 My family has been vacationing at Clearwater Beach for over thirty -five years. We originally came to Clearwater Beach with our four young children who have since married and blessed us with thirteen grandchildren.. They all love Clearwater Beach as much as their parents when we frst took them. Our entire family takes at least one trip to the beach together every year as a mini - family reunion and to relive the memories of years past. There is a special charm and warmth in the Clearwater Beach community that is so very difficult to find anywhere else in Florida today. Earlier this spring when we had all flown in to Tampa from four diffcrcnt states to go Lu Clearwater Beach for one of our annual trips, we got some disturbing news. For as far back as I can remember we have stayed at the Sea Captain beach motel. During our recent ten day visit to the beach, we discoveraed that larger towering hotels are threatening to destroy the quaint beauty and charm of our favorite vacation spot. I support the rights of property owners to develop their properties as they choose, but not when it violates existing laws and regulations that were established to protect the beach community that we love so very much. Please don't allow the neighbors of the Sea Captain to infringe upon our special place by granting them the variances that could make Clearwater Beach a tunnel of conerctc structures that destroy your unique beach colt, Fuugily. TL would be a shame io see that special place in the beach community become like so many other Florida heachec that are overbuilt. Once it starts, there is no turning back. It would break my family's hearts to leave Clearwater Beach as our favorite vacation spot. Please don't grant the variances that would destroy a very special place we have loved for years. Sincerely, Lynn b 4pcol} Z0 /Z0 39dd JNI-LNnoDov fled Z68E- 806 -50Z 6E :bT 600Z/ZT/50 May 8, 2009 Anchor Mini Mart Marlyn Tracey 207 Coronado Drive Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 727 446 3737 City of Clearwater 100 Myrtle Street P.O. Box Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 -4748 RE: Decades Companies Income Properties Coronado Drive, Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 Dear Michael Delk, This letter is in response to the article printed in the St. Petersburg Times, May 7, 2009. I own and operate a very small store on Coronado, I'm very concerned about the set backs for the new Holiday Inn Express. I'm opposed to them. I will be in California the week of May 19, 2009 attending my daughters'. graduation from law school. I will not be able to attend, but want you to know that I am opposed. I am seeking an attorney who will represent me in this matter. Thank you, Marlyn Tracey /Anchor Mini Mart R D Eck"WE L MAY 8 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER Hand delivered this day, May 8, 2009 by Marlyn Tracey 1\ TELEPHONED LEASE CALL IMP, ORTANT MESSAGE WILL CALL AGAIN FOR WANTS TO SEE YOU DATE / //Z- M TIME .6 P.M. RETURNED YOUR CALL 1OF SPECIAL ATTENTION PHONE l AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION MESSAGE SIGNED 1 SC9711 TELEPHONED LEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:35 PM To: 'tbjwe @aol.com' Subject: FLD2009- 03013/DVA2009 -00001 - 101 Coronado Drive Mr. Eifert - MR Attached are the Community Development Board Rules of Procedure. The provisions for Visual Electronic Presentations. can be found on Pages 4 and 5. Contact Shawn Stafford in the Public Communications Department at 727 - 562 -4686 or Shawn.Stafford @myclearwater.com for information regarding Visual Electronic Presentations. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 -5520 Phone: 727 - 562 -4504 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 Rules of :edure - Revise( . - �Ep[a�:.. �OF CLEARWATER�. '�$ ®'" �� <: 'PLANNING 8, DEVELOPMENT�SERtVICES R! o� POST OFFICE BOX 4748 99�go' CLEA'RINATERFL`ORIDA33758 -4748 �'ATEFFn' 337584748 m r v J w L V 0 v N FN127 SW 6126 Z Q Q OC s (D FN129 SW 6128 Oo O 0— (D FN130 SW 6129 70 (D N 0 - V ^ 0 Q a Olft ik ° M fk dsr,- w � i — �. � • to � t �.. -pill- Alk Ilk Vila AERIAL MAP Owner: Decade Companies Income Properties Cases: FLD2009 -03013 DVA2009 -00001 Site: 101 Coronado Drive (including 105 Property Size: 0.72 acres Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive PIN: 08-29-15-15606-000-0141 Atlas Page: 267A & 276A 08- 29 -15- 00000 - 320 -0200 08- 29- 15- 17550- 002 -0012 A "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'HEARTS OF PALM LRV 54% "SW 6415" BASIC WALL COLOR B "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'RICE PADDY LRV 67% "SW 6414" MINOR WALL and ENTRY ROOF TILES �H w" 9 0 "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'ANTIQUE WHITE' LRV 74%' "SW 6119" U CIRCULAR COLUMNS and FASCIA D "SHERWIN WILLIAMS" 'EXTRA WHITE LRV 85%' "SW 7006" WINDOW FRAMES, RAILINGS and METAL ROOFS E GLASS STOREFRONT GLASS, GLASS RAILINGS, LIGHT GREEN TINT CLEAR GLASS Beach by Design F. Small Motel District The area to the east of the Beach District is an area of small motels, many of which have established clientele. The Small Motel District reflects a common paradox of beachfront communities -- improvements which were constructed in a different time before jet travel and air conditioning -- with limited on -site amenities and off - street parking. In many parts of the country, these kinds of units have evolved into residential uses. However, the relative intensity of adjacent land uses and the volumes of north south traffic have maintained the current condition between Hamden and Coronado. Beach by Design contemplates that the existing improvements in the Small Motel District will be sustained over time. Although the existing improvements may not represent the theoretical "highest and best" use of this area, the relatively good condition of most buildings and the economic value of the existing 21 Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwaier Beach improvements make it difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate significant land assembly, demolition and new development. Brightwater Drive is also developed with small motel uses with building conditions and transient populations similar to those found along Hamden and Coronado. Brightwater's location on the Intracoastal Waterway, in between two other stable residential "fingers ", makes it riper for redevelopment. Beach by Design calls for the redevelopment of Brightwater with land uses and building mass which are compatible with the residential cul -de- sacs to the north and south. Mid -rise townhouses and timeshares between 2 — 4 stories above parking are contemplated. Additionally, consideration should be given to the development of a shared parking facility along the street to provide some of the required parking that will be associated with redevelopment. n City s Z —�C m G m D ry o o EXHIBIT I —la--a D J „.: ' a+r '�.���.r' . ;..- .e��a•s•,�,ry,. -n --mow r ,p J a<vl¢T.EL'' AA n City s Z —�C m G m D ry o o EXHIBIT I —la--a D City of Cleanl!ater, Florida ORIGINAL RECENEI` MAY 19 206 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CRY OF CLEARWATER EXHIBIT � Fsx: (727) 524-6M ZT rr ti LIZ m m N D e Al M EXHIBIT I -.& D� �\Qi PGP q rY LLJ a� PORT VIEW .> �I 0 r ILLS AND ASSOCIATES INC. (DECADE PROPERTIES I SURVEY 08- 001.Qili ,r. �s • F ' i mO[�Tm THIS IS NOT A GRAPHIC SURVEY 0' 40' 80' SCALE: 1" = 40' GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) a SEACAPTAIN Ji w CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRANK BY DWG. NO. BJR N/A '* CHECKED BY MARINA RIPARIAN SKETCH SHEET p � DECADE PROPERTIES SECT - DECADE 8/12/2009 08- 29S -15E GRID / N/A ORDINANCE N/A Ko�Tm THIS IS NOT A GRAPHIC SURVEY 0' 40' 80' SCALE: 1" = 40' GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) 1 _ off0 LLJ `': - . <' PORTVIEW s� SEACAPTAIN����! >1 ILLS AND ASSOCIATES INC. , (DECADE PROPERTIES L * SURVEY 08- 001.0;%,14 ` ♦ ,+ x 4 f CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA ' ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT .f DRANK BY BJR DWG. NO. N/A CHECKED BY p � MARINA RIPARIAN SKETCH SHEET 01- z DECADE PROPERTIES 8/12/2009 SECT- 08- 29S -15E / N/A ORCNANCE N/A its 1 „1il�b J l^ Amok 1' k ` 4 Y Pew• �.= .sA:,':�. View looking NE at northern portion of subject property on N side of Devon Drive (including 101 and 105 Coronado Drive) View looking E at deck/dock on N side of northern portion of subject property (N of seawall) Drive (northern portion of subject property on left) View looking SE at southern portion of subject property on S side of Devon Drive (35 Devon Drive) View looking N at City Marina N of northern portion of subject property northern portion of subject property 101 Coronado Drive (including 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive) FLD2009- 03013/DVA2009 -00001 Page 1 of 2 View looking S at City parking lot at 41 Devon Drive (E of southern portion of subject property) View looking S along Coronado Dr at Hyatt/Aqualea project at 301 S. Gulfview Blvd and temporary City parking lot on right View looking W at temporary City parking lot at 100 Coronado Dr (site of Kiran Grande hotel project) View looking SE along Coronado Dr at retail sales and overnight accommodation uses S of southern portion of subject property View looking SW at temporary City parking lot at 100 Coronado Dr (site of Kiran Grande hotel project) View looking NW at intersection of Coronado Dr & S. Gulfview Blvd (Pier 60 parking lot in background) 101 Coronado Drive (including 105 Coronado Drive and 35 Devon Drive) FLD2009- 03013/D VA2009 -00001 Page 2 of 2