The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2014-02004a. c � 1�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD _� � _�, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: GENERAL DATA: Agent.......................... Applicant / Owner. . . . . ...... April 15, 2014 G.2. FLD2014-02004 Flexible Development application to permit a boatlift as an addition to an existing 948 square foot Multi-Use Dock as accessory to an existing attached dwelling with a decrease in the side (east) setback from 9.5 feet (one-tenth of the width of the property) to zero feet, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-601.C.3. William J. Kimpton, Esq. Jack Eugene Millikan Location .......................... 300 Venetian Drive; 0.498 acre waterfront lot located on the north side of Venetian Drive at the northeast corner of Venetian Drive and Venetian Point Drive/Sunset Drive. Property Size .................... 0.498 acres Future Land Use Plan...... Residential Urban (RU) Zoning .......................... Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Special Area Plan .............. None Adjacent Zoning.... North: South: East: West Existing Land Use ............. Proposed Land Use......... Preservation (P) District Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Attached dwellings (nine units) with accessory docks (948 square feet) and three boat lifts Attached dwellings (nine units) with accessory docks (948 square feet) and four boat lifts t l�l�.(�1 ��l�l Level iI Ffexible Development Hp�liEation Review .... �.: ��.J„� i',... . . . . � � � ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.498 acre site is a waterfront lot located on the north side of Venetian Drive at the northeast corner of Venetian Drive and Venetian Point Drive/Sunset Drive. The subject properly is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District. The intent and purpose of the MDR is to protect and preserve the integrity and value of existing, stable residential neighborhoods of medium density while at the same time, allowing a careful and deliberate redevelopment and revitalization of existing neighborhoods in need of revitalization or neighborhoods with unique amenities which create unique opportunities to increase property values and the overall attractiveness of the City. The subject property is comprised of one parcel with a frontage of approximately 95 feet along Venetian Drive and 95 feet of frontage along a small man-made bay which leads directly into Clearwater Harbor. A nine-unit attached dwelling, built in 1959, is centrally located on the site. An 852 square foot dock is located along the north side of the site extending 41 feet into the bay. �'he 75 foot wide dock consists of a main dock structure with four catwalks providing eight slips. The dock also includes a single boatlift attached to slip five centrally located within the dock structure. The existing dock is 10 feet from the side (east and west) property lines. The immediate vicinity is characterized by a mix of attached and detached dwellings with a variety of accessory uses including, pools, decks, patios and docks. The prevalent uses in the area are, however, detached dwellings. Several overnight accommodation uses exist farther to the east along North Fort Harrison Avenue. A few of these properties are waterfront with frontage along the same bay as the subject property. An informal analysis of the location of docks vis-a- vis side property lines for properties along Venetian Drive and Venetian Point Drive/Sunset Drive was conducted utilizing aerial photographs 1 � . � � � � � .v � PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION SVtihY�LE� CAt d � N.T.S _. . 5urrsErt+a��:- Fl,� ;r .L PROJECT SfTE •ty, z ��•, t CALUl.SET$' �-�� • < �� roo�or�s sT �. .Y . ... .. . , �I. i] � kRO�U{il.ri $T �. . � � � � ��,.. _ . . = ,_ � � : .� � sY � <,�k � -�„ � « c� o q• rEt��- � �� V •H}Bj �eN�' fer.�+ �!* 0 � � � � � � Q c:' v LOCATION MAP s? ry x x � ;? � �,, ~LMDR .'° � � �� r � ;�. . _. _ !G17 �e» „�, p {e» b D k , b � T : ` � � �� : ;, � � •n �:- '�•..: Vf.NETIANPOI 16R .. � � ,r. ' '1`�^ � � _ ' 3i,d ZONING MAP >DETAGHEC� QWEL�INGS VENET(AN P01N7 bR DETA�FiED DWELLINGS � 0 = r= � zp o � �. � w� 04 � x ,...� �- o. ATTACHEQ 2 : 0 2 RWELkINGS q� � VENE7(AM�AOINT� � ,...s vrr W EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 1 *a� T � � a '_ W�l T� li��+l. L0K2I.I.I. FI2Xt�]I2, Q2�YP�QQfI72[lt. Aj��{W�10[1 ELEYI2YV. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION . ... .. ,.� r.ecm�- . .. via Google Maps and the City of Clearwater's GIS mapping services. The analysis resulted in the identification of nine properties with accessory docks and/or boatlifts which appear to be within 10 feet of their respective extended side property lines. It must be emphasized that this was an informal study and precise measurements are not possible without the submission of scaled surveys for each property. In addition, with one exception (an overnight accommodations use) all such noted docks are associated with detached dwellings. Site History: On November 20, 2012, the site was the subject of a Level Two Flexible Development application (FLD2012-08015) which requested approval to permit a 96 square foot addition to an existing 852 square foot Multi-Use Dock as accessory to an existing attached dwelling with a decrease in the side (west) setback from 32 feet (one-third of the width of the property) to 10 feet to an extension of an existing catwalk and 12 feet to a proposed boatlift associated with slip seven and approximately 26 feet to a proposed boatlift associated with slip six, a decrease in the side (east) setback from 9.5 feet (one-tenth of the width of the property) to five feet to a proposed davit and an increase in the maximum width of a dock from 71.25 feet (75 percent of the width of the property) to 75 feet (78.9 percent of the width of the property), under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-601.C.3. That case was approved by the Community Development Board (CDB) on November 20, 2012 with seven conditions and the sole exception of the proposed davits attached to slip 1 on the east side of the site. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Development Proposal: The proposal is to locate a boat lift on slip one on the east side of the site with a side (east) setback of zero feet. No other changes are proposed. The proposal is being reviewed as a Flexible Development application because the dock exceeds 500 square feet in area and does not meet the minimum side setback requirements or the maximum width limitation. Section 3-601 provides, in part, that a multi-use dock is any dock owned in common or used by the residents of a multi-family development and may be permitted as a Level I(minimum standard) use provided such dock is less than 500 square feet in deck area. The CDC section further provides that multi- use docks which exceed 500 square feet in area shall be treated as a commercial dock. All commercial docks must be reviewed as Level Two Flexible Development uses. Therefore, irrespective of the deviations with regard to side setback and dock width, the proposal would need to be reviewed by the Community Development Board as part of a Level Two Flexible Development application. In addition, Section 6-102 provides that nonconforming structures may not be altered, enlarged or changed in any way that increases its nonconformity. The proposed boatlift will be nonconforming with regard to setback (east). It should also be noted that no other changes to the site or use are proposed and that only the proposed boatlift is the subject of this review. It should also be pointed out that the proposal does not increase the total number of slips (eight) associated with the property thereby keeping the effective intensity of use the same as it is now. Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 2 r 41Ca��a��.1 l,evel II Ftexi6le Dauelapment Application Reuieuu rLnNxiNG & DEVer.orMENT . .... -� � .. ,.� . .. _. . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Special Area Plan: None Communitv Development Code ➢ Purpose, Intent and Basic Planning Objectives The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment. The subject site is located within a four-lot MDR district enclave within a larger LMDR district area. The size, location and shape of the parcel are similar to other parcels in the associated MDR district. The proposed boatlift is similar to other docks and boatlifts in the area with regard to side setbacks. Therefore this Code section is applicable to and in support of this proposal. Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties. Surrounding properties are a mix of attached and detached dwellings with a variety of accessory structures typical of waterfront detached dwellings such as pools, patios, decks and docks. The proposed boatlift will result in a property developed similaxly to surrounding properties. The proposal will not increase the number of existing slips (eight). The proposal is consistent with the established character of the neighborhood and meets this Code section. Section 1-103. B. 3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The proposal includes the enhancement of an existing attached dwelling with nine dwelling units with a boatlift associated with slip one. The proposal will be consistent with the character of the area with regard to the proposed side setbacks of the boatlift and would enhance the value of the existing development. Therefore the proposal meets this Code section. Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matteN of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the ma.ximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes professionally installed boatlift. The proposal will have limited aesthetic impact, positive or negative. Therefore this Code section is not strictly applicable to this proposal. Section 2-401.1 Intent of the MDR District and R U FL UP classification. The CDC provides that the intent of the MDR District is to protect and preserve the integrity and value of existing, stable residential neighborhoods of inedium density while at the same time, allowing a careful and deliberate redevelopment and revitalization of existing neighborhoods in need of revitalization or neighborhoods with unique amenities which create unique opportunities to increase property values and the overall attractiveness of the City. Development is to be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as required by state law. Section 2.3.3.1.5 of the Countywide Land Use Rules provides that the purpose of the RU FLUP classification is to depict those areas of the County that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in an urban low density residential manner; and to recognize such areas as primarily Community Development Board — April I 5, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 3 ." ��%µ�P� �CYP�. u�:. FI�X��2. Qeu2IQ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT i t v pcCl2nt AppGcdtiOn. REXieW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION i . ..�:�.. �"^'<..> � well-suited for residential uses that are consistent with the urban qualities and natural resource characteristics of such areas.. The proposal includes the enhancement of an existing attached dwelling with nine dwelling units with a boatlift associated with slip one. It should be noted that the permitted density for properties within the RU FLUP classification is 7.5 dwelling units per acre. The subject site is permitted up to three dwelling units where nine exist. As such, it would be reasonable to expect an attached dwelling development with three dwelling units and accessory structures and uses consistent with that level of development. The surrounding area has been developed in accordance with or less than the intensity of use permitted by the underlying FLUP classification of RU. The proposal includes a level of intensity not supported by the intent of the MDR District and the RU FLUP classification in that it includes triple the permitted density with a corresponding intensity of accessory structures. ➢ Development Parameters Intensit�of Use: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-301.1, the maximum density for properties with a FLUP designation of RU is 7.5 units per acre. The 0.498 acre property yields a permitted density of three dwelling units where nine exist. The site is, therefore, nonconforming with regard to density. Staff feels it is important to note that the existing use is considered an existing, legally permitted nonconformity. Based on aerial photographs and the submitted survey it appears that the site is also nonconforming with regard to front (south) side (west) and rear (north) setbacks. Should this building be damaged or destroyed to an extent greater than 50 percent of the assessed value of the building it would not be permitted to be rebuilt as it currently exists. It is highly recommended that a termination of status of nonconformity with regard, at least, to lot width, density and setbacks, be requested. Planning staff can provide additional information and advice on this if requested. To be clear, the density and existing site conditions exclusive of the dock are not the subject of this application and/or review. However, density should be considered when judging this request. The site is permitted three dwelling units and it is reasonable to assume that the intensity, scale and scope of accessory structures and uses be consistent with three dwelling units. Im�ervious Surface Ratio �ISR,� Pursuant to CDC Section 2-301.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.65. The overall existing ISR is approximately 0.52, which is consistent with applicable Code provisions. No changes are proposed which will change the ISR of the site. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-303, the required lot area and lot width are to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 100 feet, respectively. The lot area is 21,693 square feet and the lot width is 95 feet. While the lot area exceeds the otherwise minimum area required by Code the width does not. As mentioned above one way to address this shortcoming is to apply for a termination of status of nonconformity. However, lot width, with regard to the proposal, only impacts the required side setbacks, length and width of the dock. Minimum Setbacks: Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 4 '_ V�� T ti�� (,.EYEL Ij.. FI@Xlb� DEYE�OG[ClEI1C. ApjlllCdGQA E�2Yl2W � PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - -�, ,.,,.. .. .�. . . ,. ,.. .. . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION L . . _ r;' �1+ � Pursuant to CDC Table 2-303, front, side and rear setbacks to the principal structure are 25 feet, five and 10 feet, respectively. According to the submitted survey the front (south), side (east and west) and rear (north) setbacks are 11 feet, zero feet (east and west) and 11 feet, respectively. As mentioned, while these setbacks as applicable to the existing building and are not the subject of this application it is suggested that these nonconformities be addressed at some point to protect the owners of the properly. Setbacks and other dimension standards as associated with docks are provided below. 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. Mechanical equipment is not proposed with the application. Si�ht Visibilitv Trian�les: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.B, to enhance views of the water from waterfront property, no structure or landscaping may be installed, other than a fence around a swimming pool or any non- opaque fences not exceeding 48 inches, within 20-foot sight visibility triangles located at each rear corner of the lot. No objects are proposed within any required sight visibility triangle. Docks: CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h. provides development criteria and standards for commercial docks (the definition of which includes multi-use docks exceeding 500 square feet in area). Required side setbacks are calculated differently based on the type of adjacent use. In the event that the site containing the commercial/multi-use dock is adjacent to a site occupied by a detached dwelling and that use is consistent with the zoning district the side setback shall be one-third the width of the property as measured along the water. A second provision provides direction for calculating the side setback if the dock is located on non-residentially zoned property. That provision is not applicable in this case because the subject site is within the MDR district. The final provision relating to side setbacks for commercial/multi-use docks provides that otherwise the side setback shall be 10 percent of the property width. As noted, the subject site is residentially zoned and is bordered by a property on the west within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district and occupied by a detached dwelling and is bordered on the east by attached dwellings located on property within the MDR district. Therefore, given the property width of 95 feet the side (east) setback is 9.5 feet (10 percent of the property width). The proposal includes a boatlift on the eastern-most catwalk on slip 1 resulting in the reduction of the side (east) setback to zero feet which does not meet the requirements of Code. ➢ General A�licability Criteria Requirements The proposal supports of the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows: Section 3-914.A.1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. Surrounding properties are a mix of attached and detached dwellings with a variety of accessory structures typical of waterfront detached dwellings such as pools, patios, decks and docks. The proposed dock extensions and boatlifts/davits will result in a property developed similarly to surrounding properties. The proposal will not increase the number of existing slips (eight). The Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 5 '_ �l��i tT [�Ll.� Level II Flexibte Develo�xtent ARGlication [teuie.Ht rLa,�vmrG & nevELOrMExr ,; . s_ ?'�-,..`'�.''".i°,, • � � '_-.v'��r n;r ;�„ < . . _ . � . . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION proposal is consistent with the established character of the neighborhood and meets this Code section. Section 3-914.A.2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposal is generally consistent with the character of adjacent properties with regard to use and the existing and proposed accessory structures are similar in scale and scope to surrounding accessory uses. The proposal will have no impact on the ability of adjacent properties to be redeveloped. It is not expected that the proposal will significantly impair the value of adjacent land and buildings. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 3-914.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The proposal will result in a new boatlift as accessory to an existing attached dwelling development. The proposal will likely have no effect on the health and/or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposal will likely have minimal effect, negative or otherwise, on traffic congestion. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. As noted, several nearby properties have been identified which have docks andJor boatlifts with setbacks similar to that as proposed with this request. An informal analysis does appear to indicate a pattern of development in the neighborhood which includes docks and boatlifts with side setbacks similar to the proposal. The properties in question are marked with stars and include extended side property lines (in yellow) on the following aerial photograph. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 3-914.A.6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent prope�ties. The design of the proposed development should not result in any adverse olfactory, visual and acoustic impacts on adjacent properties. The proposal includes a new boatlift as accessory to an Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 6 ° Clearwater �e� u�� ,�, �,�,� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION v. . .._ . '"�;�^�,'� r . . . existing attached dwelling development. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. ➢ Standard Criteria Requirements for Commercial/Multi-use Docks The proposal supports of the General Standard for Commercial/Multi-Use Docks per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.a-g as follows: 1. Use and compatibility. a. The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort, convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the properry. The proposed boatlift is an accessory use commonly acknowledged as a usual convenience associated with residential waterfront properties. b. The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent properties and the neighborhood in general. As noted, the location, scale and scope of the proposed boatlift is consisted with the character of the adjacent property to the west but not the property to the east. It is consistent with the pattern of dock and/or boatlift placement in the neighborhood in general. c. The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general vicinity As noted, the proposed boatlift is consistent with dock patterns in the general vicinity. Given the above, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 2. Impacts on existing water recreation activities. The proposed dock/tie poles or use thereof, shall not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently using the adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, the dock shall not preclude the existing uses of the adjacent waterway. Such uses include but are not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats. The proposed boatlift should have no impact of the health, safety or well being of persons currently using the adjacent waterways because the boatlift will be located no further that the dock to which it will be attached. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 3. Impacts on navigation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation, recreational or other public conveniences. The proposed boatlift should not have a detrimental with regard to the use of adjacent waterways for navigation, transportation or other uses because the boatlift will not extend any farther into the waterway than the existing docks. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 4. Impacts on marine environment. a. Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid inju�y to marine g�assbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas. b. Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nuNSery feeding gNOUnds for marine life, or established marine soil suitable for Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 7 ° Clearwater �V� u F��►e Q�� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - ,. 2IU�t�l�nt A�pI1CdGQ[1 R2Y121N DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � . .. ... . z�"�'.'S?; . .. .. producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such artificial reef which has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to be approaching a rypical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity; oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries or shell fisheries areas; and habitats desirable as juvenile fish habitat. Boat access routes will not change with the proposal and any existing grassbeds or other aquatic resources should not be affected. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. S. Impacts on water quality a. All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area associated with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest member of a vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the waterbody at mean or ordinary low water (- 0.95 NGVD datum). b. The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage, shoaling of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the area o� limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in the area in which the dock is proposed to be located. The proposed boatlift should have no effect on the surrounding waterway, nor should there be any impact with regard to erosion or other drainage issues. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 6. Impacts on natural resources a. The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so as to be contrary to the public interest. b. The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative, terrestrial, or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one or more of the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or feeding grounds; habitats which display biological or physical attributes which would serve to make them rare within the confines of the city; designated preservation areas such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan, national wildlife refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other designated preservation areas, and bird sanctuaries. The propose boatlift should have no impact on the conservation of wildlife marine or otherwise or any other natural resources. The boatlift will be attached to an existing dock in a heavily developed area already containing a plethora of docks, boatlifts, tie poles and the like. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 7. Impacts on wetlands habitat/uplands. The dock shall not have a material adverse affect upon the uplands surrounding The proposed boatlift will have no impact on any surrounding upland area. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 8 '_ Vl�� i L��1. LC�l2�I. II. FI2XIt1I2 D2�t. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT �1i�� '�� DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � �r " . ➢ Development Parameter Deviation Criteria Requirements for pocks The proposal does not meet all of the specifc criteria for deviations from the development parameters for commercial/multi-use docks pursuant to Section 3-601.C.3.i.i - vi of this Code as follows: 1. A dock of lesser length poses a threat to the marine environment, natural resou�ces, wetlands habitats or water quality. The proposal includes no change in the length of the dock which is 53 feet where 71.25 feet is permitted. Therefore, this Code section is not applicable to the request. 2. The proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to minimize impacts relating to criteria set forth in Sections 3-601. C. 3. b. g. The location of the dock will not be changed with this proposal. Therefore, this Code section is not applicable to the request. 3. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would result in extreme hardship due to the unique nature of the project and the applicant's property. The applicant further asserts that the proposal is similar to other docks/boatlifts in the area vis-a-vis scale, scope and placement. While this appears to be accurate, the applicant has not provided any evidence that the subject property or the project is unique or that an extreme hardship would result from not having the proposed boatlift. While the circumstances of the site as they relate to zoning provide a somewhat unusual juxtaposition of uses and zoning districts it is not unique and it is not clear how the literal enforcement of this Code Section would result in extreme hardship as the site has already been developed, even overdeveloped, with nine attached dwellings where three are permitted and a dock including eight slips and three boatlifts. Therefore, this Code section has not been met by the proposal. 4. The deviation sought to be granted is the minimum deviation that will make possible the reasonable use of the applicant's property. However, where an applicant demonstrates riparian or Zittoral rights which will affect the location of the dock, the minimum further deviation to provide for exercise of such rights shall be allowed A reasonable use of the property would include three dwelling units where nine exist. Furthermore, it would be reasonable to expect three slips and/or three boatlifts for three dwelling units that are otherwise permitted on the site where eight slips and three boatlifts exist and a fourth boatlift is proposed. Simply put, the site has been overdeveloped with regard to density and, by extension, the scope of accessory uses/structures on the site. A logical conclusion is that a more than reasonable use of the property has already occurred. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this CDC Section. 5. The granting of the requested deviation will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this section and will not be injuNious to the area involved or othe�vise detrimental or of adverse effect to the public interest and welfare. A"general intent" is not provided in the Code for this section however, it may be reasonable to assume that the general intention of this section is to provide for the development of docks as accessory to permitted uses which do not degrade the natural environment, prevent other property owners from reasonably using their properties and/or cause navigational conflicts. The proposal will not restrict any other waterfront property owner from accessing the water Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 9 '- �/��+�v� LEYEI IL FIP�(It1I2-QBYeI0�LT12[1t�.Aj�dtIW1� R@VI2H1� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT . .:. .., , �" . ,,,� . . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION from their respective docks, installing and using a new dock for those properties currently without a dock, cause or contribute to environmental degradation or hinder in anyway nautical navigation. However, the proposal is inconsistent with criteria three and four, above. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with this CDC Section. 6. No dock shall be allowed to deviate from the length requirements specified in Section 3- 601. C. 3. h. by more than an additional SO percent of the allowable length or to project into the navigable portion of the wate�vay by more than 25 percent of such waterway, whichever length is less, except for those docks located on the east side of Clearwater Harbor adjacent to the mainland, which shall be allowed to deviate up to a maximum length equal to 25 percent of the navigable po�tion of the waterway. No increase in the length of the existing dock is proposed. Furthermore, as noted, the length of the existing dock is well within the limits outlined by the CDC. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. ➢ Burden of Proof Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the a�proval rec�uested. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4- 206.D.4. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is supported by applicable various Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element Objective A.5.5 - Promote high quality design standards that support Clearwater's image and contribute to its identity. The proposal includes the provision of a boatlift to an existing dock with a side (east) setback of zero feet. While not meeting the requirements of Code the proposal is consistent with the placement of other docks in the immediate area although it should be noted that most of these docks serve detached dwellings. The proposal would enhance an existing waterfront use and is supported by this Objective. Policy A.5.5.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing oN envisioned cha�acter of the neighborhood. As mentioned above, the proposal is consistent with other docks in the area with regard to side setback and is consistent with this Policy. Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 10 9 Clearwater�,� u �►� ��.,� �u�� . . . . , . .. . .:� x 'aF k.§x`� � _ v �,. - . . . . . . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the applicable standards for accessory uses/structures as per CDC Section 3-201: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Minimum Setbacks Addressed in the Compliance with Dimensional Standards section of N/A this document. Maximum Height 15 feet Zero feet X COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize tra�c congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. � See analysis in Staff Report Consistent � Inconsistent X� X� XI X� X' X� COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL DOCKS (Section 3- 601.C.3.a-�): The individual criteria for commercial docks (and multi-use docks which shall be reviewed as commercial docks based on proposed square footage in excess of 500 square feet) are set forth in the following table: Consistent I Inconsistent 1. Use and compatibility. X' i) The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort, convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the property. ii) The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent properties and the neighborhood in general. iii) The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general vicinity. 2. Impacts on existing water recreation activities. The proposed docWtie poles or use X� thereof, shall not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently using the adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, the dock shall not preclude the existing uses of the adjacent waterway. Such uses include but are not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats. 3. Impacts on navigation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a Xl detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation, recreational or other public conveniences. Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 11 ° Clearwater �e,�� u F� �� ,e� U . . ,. ..: . �i , R : �.._'r . . . . 4. Impacts on marine environment. i) Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas. ii)Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine soil suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such artificial reef which has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to be approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity; oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries or shell fisheries areas; and habitats desirable as juvenile fish habitat. 5. Impacts on water quality. i) All turning basin, access channels, boat moaring areas and any other area associated with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest member of a vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the waterbody at mean or ordinary low water (- 0.95 NGVD datum). ii) The dock shall not efFectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage, shoaling of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the area or limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in the area in which the dock is proposed to be located. 6. Impacts on natural resources. i) The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so as to be contrary to the public interest. ii) The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative, terrestrial, or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one or more of the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or feeding grounds; habitats which display biological or physical attributes which would serve to make them rare within the confines of the city; designated preservation areas such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan, national wildlife refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other designated preservation areas, and bird sanctuaries. 7. Impacts on wetlands habitat/uplands. The dock shall not have a material adverse affect upon the uplands surrounding. � See analysis provided by the applicant in the applrcation submittal PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Consistent I Inconsistent X' ►�i X� X' COMPLIANCE WITH DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (Section 3-601.C.3.h): Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Dock Setbacks 33.3% of the width of the property (31.5 feet) 10 feet (to dock); X� (Minimum) 10% of the width of the property (9.5 feet) Zero feet (to boatlift) Dock Length 75% of the width of the property (71.25 feet) 53 feet (no change) X (Maximum) Dock Width 75% of the width of the property (71.25 feet) 75 feet (no change) X' Maximum 1 See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board — April I 5, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 12 ° Cl�arwater�,v�u E� ��,�Y�� ., . .. . . . ,�.. "�^ � v;, ,. . . . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH DEVIATION CRITERIA FROM DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (Section 3-601.C.3.i.i - vi): l. A dock of lesser length poses a threat to the marine environment, natural resources, wetlands habitats or water quality. 2. The proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to minimize impacts relating to criteria set forth in Sections 3-601.C.3.b.—g. 3. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would result in extreme hardship due to the unique nature of the project and the applicant's property. 4. The deviation sought to be granted is the minimum deviation that will make possible the reasonable use of the applicant's property. However, where an applicant demonstrates riparian or littoral rights which will affect the location of the dock, the minimum further deviation to provide for exercise of such rights shall be allowed. 5. The granting of the requested deviation will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this section and will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental or of adverse effect to the public interest and welfare. Consistent Inconsistent N/A' N/A� X� X' X1 6. No dock shall be allowed to deviate from the length requirements specified in Section N/A� 3-601.C.3.h. by more than an additional 50 percent of the allowable length or to project into the navigable portion of the waterway by more than 25 percent of such waterway, whichever length is less, except for those docks located on the east side of Clearwater Harbor adjacent to the mainland, which shall be allowed to deviate up to a ma�cimum length equal to 25 percent of the navigable portion of the waterwav. � See analysis in Staff Report SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of March 6, 2014, and deemed the development proposal to be legally insufficient, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findin�s of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. The 0.498 acre site is a waterfront lot located on the north side of Venetian Drive at the northeast corner of Venetian Drive and Venetian Point Drive/Sunset Drive; 2. The subject property is located within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. The subject property is comprised of one parcel with approximately 95 feet of frontage along Venetian Drive and 95 feet of frontage along the water; 4. The subject property is not located in a special plan area; 5. The property was the subject of a Level Two Flexible Development application which requested approval to permit a 96 square foot addition to an existing 852 square foot Multi- Use Dock as accessory to an existing attached dwelling with a decrease in the side (west) setback from 32 feet (one-third of the width of the property) to 10 feet to an extension of an existing catwalk and 12 feet to a proposed boatlift associated with slip seven and approximately 26 feet to a proposed boatlift associated with slip six, a decrease in the side (east) setback from 9.5 feet (one-tenth of the width of the property) to five feet to a proposed davit and an increase in the maximum width of a dock from 71.25 feet (75 percent of the Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 13 '_ ��r��if��+l L@X@��II.FIEXIb�.D2Y2I0C7�;Ii1Q��jil{WXIp[1�.RQV{e,1N�. PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT � .,: . ..:r�i�. ., ��k�"�+�y,� l,.,„. f ,...,,.., . . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION width of the property) to 75 feet (78.9 percent of the width of the property), under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-601.C.3. That case was approved by the Community Development Board on November 20, 2012 with seven conditions and the sole exception of the proposed davits attached to slip 1 on the east side of the site; 6. The proposal is to add a boatlift to slip one of an existing dock on the east side of the property with a side (east) setback of zero feet; 7. The dock is and will continue to be accessory to an existing attached dwelling use; and 8. There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the Deviations standards as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.i. i, ii and vi are not applicable to the proposal; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the following: a. The pattern of development of the surrounding neighborhood; b. The General Purposes of the Community Development Code including CDC Sections 2- 401.1, 1-103.B and D; c. Section 2.3.3.1.5 of the Countywide Land Use Rules with regard to use; d. The Standards for accessory structures per CDC Section 3-201; e. Applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan including Future Land Use Plan Element Objective A.5.5 and Policy A.5.5.1 f. The General Standards for Level One and Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A; g. The General Criteria for Commercial and Multi-Use Docks per CDC Section 3- 601.C.3.a-g; h. The Deviations standards as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.i. v 3. That the development is inconsistent with the following: a. Section 2.3.3.1.5 of the Countywide Land Use Rules with regard to density; b. The Dimensional Standards with regard to dock setback as per CDC Section 3- 601.C.3.h.i.a; c. The Deviations standards as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.i. iii and iv; and d. The requirement for the submittal of substantial competent evidence as per CDC Section 4-206.D.4. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends DENIAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a boatlift as an addition to an existing 948 square foot Multi-Use Dock as accessory to an existing attached dwelling with a decrease in the side (east) setback from 9.5 feet (one-tenth of the width of the property) to zero feet, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-601.C.3. %"�� ; , __d �_ � ___�..__ Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: �� ;�`�`�..�...._.�-�-�-� � Mark T. Parry, AICF, �'lanner III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs Community Development Board — April 15, 2104 FLD2014-02004— Page 14 MARK T. PARRY 1655 Linwood Drive Tel: (727) 742.2461 Clearwater, FL 33755 E-mail: mparry@tampabay.rr.com SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS A dedicated, AICP certified professional Planner focused on contributing to the field of Urban Planning experienced in public and private sector planning. An excellent communicator, able to effectively interact with clients, local government officials and business professionals at all levels. Experienced in various aspects of urban design and planning, zoning regulations and permitting. OBJECTIVE � To secure a Planning position which will allow me to continue improving the built environment and my community through sound and innovative planning and design principals. EDUCATION COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, New Brunswick, NJ B.S. Landscape Architecture Major, Urban Planning Certification B.S. Environmental Planning and Design Certificate Urban Planning Golden Key National Honor Society; Sigma Lambda Alpha American Planning Association (Florida Chapter); member AICP #020597 40-hour OSHA (Hazwoper) Training PLANNER III PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CLEARWATER 04/12 - Present 08/98 — 04/05 • Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting. • Assist in the implementation and subsequent review of the Community Development Code. • Responsible for assessing and writing Community Development Code amendments. • Land Development Code development, interpretation and application. • Provide, inspect and direct landscape review/design. • Acting Development Review Manager 9/99 —11/99 and 01/05 — 03/05. • Manage and direct Associate Planners. • Review, process and present variance/conditional use, land use/zoning atlas amendment and annexation applications at in-house and public review meetings. • Principal Planner in creating and implementing Clearwater's Downtown Design Guidelines. Assisted in the implementation and application of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan. SENIOR PLANNER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CARDNO TBE 04/05 — 04/12 • Planner of record for Cities of Indian Rocks Beach, Seminole and Clearwater and Town of Belleair. • Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting. • Perform site design and inspections. • Provide technical planning support for engineering department. • Provide support for Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Plan amendments. • Research and write Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. • Create and update Special Area Plans/Form-based Codes. • Provide CADD support. • Assist with creating redevelopment marketing material. • Perform technical environmental services including soil and groundwater sampling. Designer/Owner GREENSCAPES-GLD, MARLBORO, NJ 9/92 - 6/98 • Founded and established a local garden and landscape business. • Plan and oversee installation of commercial and residential landscaping projects utilizing a variety of CADD and photo-manipulation programs. • Develop and implement advertising programs, brochures and graphics. • Estimate, bid and negotiate jobs. • Source and negotiate purchase of materials and equipment. • Manage, train and schedule installation crews. Program Supervisor LONGSTREET FARM, MONMOUTH COUNTY PARK SYSTEM, HOLMDEL, NJ • Assisted in formulating and running children's summer program ("Hayseed"). • Created and coordinated daily programs and schedules for 6-9 year old groups. • Supervised several other programs throughout the year. • Created a demand which was twice the program's capacity after the first year. COMPUTER SKILLS 6/87 - 8/93 Access, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Works, ClarisWorks, MS Word, Land Designer Pro, Permit Plan, Excel, Cornerstone, AutoCADD, PowerPoint, Publisher f- - � � � � ...:, :! '��? ► ' �, � � Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTtVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $ZOO APPLICATION FEE: $1�� PROPERTYOWNER(PERDEED): JACK EUGENE MILLIKAN MAILING ADDRESS: 2540 Kdl tPr ROdd O1 YRlpl d, Washi nqton 98502 PHONE NUMBER: ( 36� ) 402-2790 EnnAi�: ensenada jack@hotmai 1. com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Wi 11 i am J. Ki mpton , ESq . MAILINGADDRESS: 6O5 Pdlfll BOU12Vd1"Cl, Dunedin, FL 34698 • PHONE NUMBER: 72 - Ennai�: bi 11 @ki mqtonl aw. com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: UCiI t 4( Boat S1 i p#1) , 300 Veneti an Dri ve, C1 earwater, FL PARCEL NUMBER(S): 04 29 15 93895 000 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: UCII t 4, VENETIAN SHORES, a Condomi ni um, per P1 at Book 14581, Page 2362 and Boat Slip No..1 PROPOSED USE(S): BOdt Li ft to be i nstal l ed i n descri bed wet sl i p DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: App11 Cdllt requests a vari ance for Eastern most boat sl i p No . Specificolly identify rne request 1 of 9' to al l ow a boat 1 i ft to be pl aced wi thi n the (indude ol! requested code flexibility,• e X 1 5 t 1 11 g We t b o a t S 1 p 0. e.g., reduction in requi�ed number of ' porking spaces, height, setbocks, lot size, lot width, speciFc use, etc.): Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Ciearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01/12 LL ° � rwater � U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWiNG INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAiLURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBIY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPUCATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING USE Medium Densitv Residential (MDR) District �'- .-. ... � (currently exist�ng on site): AttdCh2d dWel 1 i nqS ( 9 uni ts ) wi th an 852 s f PROPOSED USE (new use, ifany; plus existing, ifto remain): �CC2550Py dOCk amP, hut al 1.,�,; n� hnat 1 i ft i n wet cl i n Nn 1 SITE AREA: sq. ft. GROSS FIOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: Proposed: Maximum Allowable: sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): First use: sq. ft. Second use: Third use: sq. ft. sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: Proposed: Maximum Allowable: BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (1't floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: sq. ft. ( Proposed: Maximum Permitted: sq. ft. ( sq. ft. ( % of site) % of site) % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: sq. ft. ( % of site) Proposed: sq. ft. ( % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area); Existing: sq. ft. ( % of site) Proposed: sq. ft. { % of site) Pianning & Development Deparlment, 100 S. Myrtie Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727.562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: Proposed: Maximum Permitted: DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): Existing: Proposed: Maximum Permitted: OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: Proposed: Minimum Required: BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: Proposed: Maximum Permitted: WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: North: Prec?rvation (P) Dictr;�t - Intercoastal Waterway soutn: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District - Detached Dwellings East: Medium Densitv Residential (MDR) District - Attached Dwellings west: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District - Detached Dwellings STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this 20th representations made in this application are true and November day of accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize 2013 . to me and/or by City representatives to visit and photograph the Jack Mi 11 i kan who is personally known has property described in this application. — . �1 A . / /% produced as identification. re of p�eperty awner " l'_./— �:�n:'r"�•-, JAYNE L. LAWTON My commission expires: ;:�� Commission # EE 056839 Planning 8, Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01H2 LL ° �,�� Planning & Development Department ' � e Flexible Develo ment A lica ' p pp tion U Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: O Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subjert property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the locafion of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. ❑ If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. � If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other si milar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on private and commercial docks. ❑ A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: ❑ Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. ❑ North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. ❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. ❑ Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable. O Location, footprint and size of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site. ❑ Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points of access. ❑ Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalls and any proposed utility easements. ❑ Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including calculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construrtion permit. ❑ Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. ❑ Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406. ❑ All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. ❑ Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building separations. ❑ Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height and building materials. Planning 8 Devetopment Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearvvater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page4of8 Revised 01/1T ❑ Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. ❑ Demolition plan. ❑ Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. ❑ If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than SO% (excluding those standards where the difference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study wiil need to be provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. ❑ A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. ❑ A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicabfe by staff. Check with staff. ❑ A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: ■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour (directional trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting streets) and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day; or ■ Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unacceptable levels; or . ■ The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided by the City of Clearwater Police Department; or ■ The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expeded to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. ❑ A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shafl include the following i�formation, if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: ❑ Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names. ❑ Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, including drip line. ❑ Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and vehicular use areas. ❑ Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. ❑ Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. O Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations. ❑ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any. Planning & Development Deparfinent, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727_562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/12 0 LL ° �� Planning & Development Department � Flexible Developrnent Application U General Applicability Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERiON IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROVOSAL. 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. There are 9 properties on a private bay with accessory docks and/or boat lifts which are typically within 10' or less of their respective extended side property lines. 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 �ro�osed reauest is tv�ical to the area which i f�77y d vP �e� and will havP no impact upon surroundinq properties or values 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. -. • �•. � .� �. � - •i- u �•. �•- i• i-, i • • �- �i ,• �. • � i. � �- �- .��• �� 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congesfion. The request has no affect on traffic. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The request will allow usage of the wet slip similar to other wet slips in the immediate vicinitys_and literal enforcement of Sec. 3-601(c)(2) would result in extreme hardshi due to the uni ue nature of t r' � *See attaChed sheet �or contin��tjon pf thiS item 6. The design of the proposed evelopment mirnmizes adverse effects, mcluiiing visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The project is fully developed and the request provides for usaQe of thP wpt �i;., _ ,� - . _. - - - -- _ - - �-� .� � ' � i i. Planning 8 Development Departrnent, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of S Revised 01l12 Community Development Code/Division 6. Dock/Marina Standards 2. and 3. The subject dock is a multi-use dock, wherein the subject boat slip No. 1 is located, serving a 9 unit residential existing project. As the subject dock has 948 square feet (as approved in a prior Application in 2012, increasing the same from 852 feet by an additional 96 feet), it is subject to Section 3("Commercial Docks"), as it exceeds 500 square feet. a. Use and Compatibility (i) The subject dock has been detennined to be subordinate to and contributory to the comfort, convenience, or necessity of the users, or the occupants of the principal use of the property, in the 2012 Application. The proposed boat slip would likewise contribute to the comfort, convenience, and usage of the dock facilities to the owner of the boat slip, particularly since such usage is similar to the community in which the boat slip is located, as was shown in the prior Application. Incidentally, the prior Application involved numerous requests and expansions of the subject dock, and all of same were approved, contrary to StafPs recommendation of denial, except for the then proposed davits in slip No. 1. (ii) In the 2012 Application, the City found that the dock as expanded was in harmony with the scale and character of the adjacent properties and the neighborhood in general, and specifically that "the proposal is consistent with other docks in the area with regard to side setback". The proposed boat lift to be placed within such boat slip space will likewise be consistent with similar boat lifts within the adjacent small harbor and neighborhood. b. Impacts on existing water recreation activities - In the prior Application, evidence was presented and the City found that the proposed expanded dock, and use of same, did not adversely impact the health, safety, or well being of the persons using adjacent waterways. In fact, the subject dock and boat slip No. 1 are located in an enclosed small harbor serving only the particular residential community. 'I'he proposed boat li$ to be placed within such boat slip will not affect the harbor, but will enhance the use of such slip by its owner. c• Impact on Navigation - The placement of a boat lift within the subject boat slip No. 1 will have a beneficial effect on adjacent waters for navigation, recreation, etc. as it will reduce trips required to store the owner's boat in a high and dry marina. There are no impacts anticipated on navigation. d• Impacts on Marine Environment (i) T'he City has previously found that the expansion of the docks (Boat Slip No. 1 previously existed) would not be injurious to grass beds or aquatic resources. The dock in which boat slip No. 1 is located is essentially located in a private harbor serving a small residential community. Place of the boat lift in the existing boat slip will not affect aquatic resources. (ii) The City has previously found that the expansion of the docks (Boat Slip No. 1 previously existed) would not be injurious to grass flats suitable as nursery grounds for marine life or established marine soil suitable for producing plant growth or feeding grounds. The dock in which boat slip No. 1 is located is essentially located in a private harbor serving a small residential community. Place of the boat li$ in the existing boat slip will not affect aquatic resources. e. Impacts on Water Quality (i) The City has previously determined that the expansion of the commercial dock will not affect turning basin, access channels, mooring areas, etc. Similarly, lifting a boat out of the water in an existing slip will have no affect upon such matters. (ii) Installation of a boat lift in the previously approved commercial dock will not cause erosion, shoaling of channels, or the water quality presently existing around the subject dock. f. Impacts on Natural Resources (i) The dock and boat slip aze already existing. Installation of a boat lift to lift the boat out of the water will not adversely impact wild life, marine life or other natural resources. (ii) The installation of a boat lift in the already existing boat slip at the existing and approved commercial dock will not impact vegetated areas, vegetative, terrestrial, or aquatic habitats, nesting or feeding grounds, etc. g. Impacts on Wetlands Habitat/Uplands - The City has previously determined that the subject dock will have no impact upon the Uplands, and there is no reason to believe that installation of a boat lift in an existing boat slip would increase any such effect. Such boat lifts are typical to the private harbor in which the commercial dock is located. h. Dimensional Standards - The existing boat slip No. 1 in the existing commercial dock facility, which has been expanded by City approval, is within the 10' setback at the East end of the existing dock system. This slip existed before the change in the Clearwater Ordinance and is not being expanded by this request. To the contrary, the existing tie poles to the East which create the subject slip No. 1 actually encroach outside of the boundary line between the existing 9 unit project and the adjoining 6 unit project. However, there are no adjoining slips affected, and the encroachment does no harm to the adjoining usage and the existing dock system at that property. Notwithstanding, as part of the subject proposal, the Applicant will bring the Easterly encroaching tie poles in line with the property boundary, in order to eliminate the encroachment. I. Deviations - Continuation of Item #5 The subject relevant deviation here is not applicable to the commercial dock facility, which has been expanded and approved by the City at the appropriate hearing. In that hearing, the Community Development Board approved numerous expansions of the commercial dock facility, but denied the installation of a boat davit in Boat Slip No. 1. This Application is a request for a boat lift in Boat Slip No. 1, as the boat dock contractor indicates that a davit is not appropriate for lifting a boat in this location, as the pilings will migrate, due to the silted nature of the submerged land in the highly silted small harbor in which the boat slip is located. The boat lift will allow the Applicant to make appropriate use of the boat slip, and is consistent with other boat lifts in the small community. Enhancement of the water front use is a clear objective of the relevant Code sections. Additionally, the Applicant will relocate existing pilings to the boundary line of the 9 unit project in which the dock is located, which benefits the adjoining 6 unit project. Additional information pertaining to the deviations requested is as follows: A. Deviations to the dimensional standards for multi-use docks may be reviewed and approved in accordance with Section 3-601.C. l.g; and B. Per Deviations iii), a literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would result in extreme hardship due to the unique nature of the project and the Applicant's property in that the proposal is consistent with other docks in the area with regard to side setback encroachments (see attached aerial photograph marked as Exhibit "B"); and as stated extensively in the above paragraphs, there is no particulaz benefit to the other property owners or to the City to deny the reasonable usage of the boat slip so as to allow the boat owner to lift his boat out of the water; and C• Per Deviations iv), the deviation sought to be granted is the minimum deviation that will make possible the reasonable use of the Applicant's property; and the granting of the requested deviation will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this section and will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental or of adverse effect to the public interest and welfare. To the contrary, the Applicant proposes to reduce the encroachment of the existing pilings in aid of minimizing the effects of the commercial dock on the adjoining residential development. The granting of the requested deviation will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this deviation section and will not be injurious to the area or otherwise detrimental or adverse to the public interest and welfare. The request is minimal and reasonable and will allow the property owner fuller use of his boat slip, and the request should properly be granted. A survey is attached as Exhibit "C". LL ° arwater > U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names: Jack Eu4ene Millikan 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: Unit 4(and Boat Slip No. 1), 300 Venetian Drive, Clearwater, Florida 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request): Boat lift to be installed in Blat Slip No 1 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: - W� 1 1 � am � �i mn+n G as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That (I/w , undersigned authority,� r y ce ' that the foregoing is true and correct. � Property er Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON THIS _ ��th DAY OF Iun4amhar � 9f11 � PERSONALLY APPEARED Jack Mi 11 i kan WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE FIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. :: ��Yl�:= Comm ssio�n EE 056839 �;-��; Expires Ma�ch 10, 2015 ':;p� ��•` Bonded Thru Troy fafn Ms�rance 8(q-38S7019 Notary Public Signature Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01h2 �� WATERWAY W1DTH �t. � :' / � WATLRFRONT WtDTH , � Plsa.Viaw ��PPllcant ead adj�cxnt docks) . ocx . �oo Vear�n�.t�. , � ' , �ie�na�nSlr�at-e� �Conc�o . �P t� �p � ° ° ° � -..�" ID' � � ' � _ ��i �°i ° �, � � �, �+, . r • '�d.� • r -, 6 " -'• . - � ; '� � ' � . �: s,.,r....rd.�ne[*�n. , � ,, �— � '_1� . � I' �' . ._�..��,,..,,---� �.."�"' �� „� -.� �� ' . f �,, n Q� � � � . to' . : �.. 0 � h�V' _ � _ ;-��p� - SHORELINE �`�' 3O'"� � Q �". � � ... � � � � 0 : C earwater Level II Fiexible Development Application Review u �:/^,.�''�`^�.�, `. - ^.n .. ro s��.r�. , .. �,� ,. _ _._.. _ __ __ ._ W - - PLAIdNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVEIAPMENT REVIEW DNISION �i � � . �; � �EGEND .�. .� �.d .m ...�.. ..�.�.�.. fm �f01�1i OO i� /1�[ � KY .Iqlp OdIC. IOM�{tT COIF •Od10K'li �CIII •�[T IA' 1�011 q MMN iCl� �f011r W!/Y IRII �OY � •MC C.�. .WCIU SMIM . •.,�„� a •a�am nr.�. .ran r4t w.i. •uruin rni t.r.i. •uwr rou ►.�. .rui �oac n. •�� wn. •�au�rr + -,-s-.- • ruec ure � -i-ri- . nra ur �r�ro•�a�rur �.�.r.a.- �arrr �inw rwv unr�� AIC • Alt WiITI� �Y w ia� • �xuriw nn�r�a tW • ►Ilpp�[0 4�y11T14 C.L.►.• p611Y L119f I[NQ wi. n.• wi� n�wna N' . �IMIT Of WY �.f. • WIMi /[i � � _� � i � 3 � 6 �� W i � i � � � �• • �. :• . ■��—�� ■��r—�— LOT 35 CLEARWATER HARBOR � ��4'a 4' UNSET DRIVE � �� W.3' P�r I.�Od Y b�19�R�,�' � � ry Z =9 m IC' �"' Z W � � "D' a < � � � Z N a � � � �� ,cc�`, � y j � ifAIiNAY � � � 11f •1 .......�:M ..............�...w..........r.�•r 0 � � � IIAO' Z_ ,,, �.,`-,, � � U� c W � 2'�rtORY �NIASdP(I�Y D � � � � B111i.tilMG #300 � � � r� < �+ , - - ' , � vp � _ , �, , ' , � ,� C � iao g G %.. . 7,` N YO'00'00'W � COIIC. DMIF NOTES: � � � ra aavrt� o is �s w � �`Q wN awv.w n� rar �wisis ' - - _ _ , ` N+.�uuia��sr��---__, � p......�a ►r�T�e... . �u upoin r� r� Yramrpi � �rrr �nt��rerrut ro.\ `� ` •,`,> , ., isew ero�ip s xrnw qr � rr �a�no � wuwdq. � � LEGAL DESC�IPJION= SEC. 04 T 17'J.37• S eB'E7'80'E 120' Wwur�el �y (Waaw�e) +� 8 l�39'r43'E _,`�.B 64A' fPlo�) — 10.6' � i a�� . Y V 6.6' � \ O m : ,��., `�. w g �`� _o � . , �:' �� . � � -� � s , �„ _ ��` �-, ° �: � {� � —�� S� � �aJ c —�i . _� `� � r �, ,: � � , ; `, "� M 6.5' � � � �� N �\ ' , . W _ -�� ", 3 � � ��: f�78.'JO' i l6Yaund) N YO'OObO'E VENETIAN DRIVE 60' RIGHT OF WAY 22� PAVED ROAD SUNSET DRIVE (PLAT) 28 S RN(i. ia E �I[OHA�lYAD B. FAR 8139 MEADOWVIEW PUCE PLEASE SEE EXHI8IT A-1 O. FOR METES 8 BOUNDS DESCRIPTION. NEW PORi RICHEY, FL 34635 • ALL SUBSTANCIAL CONSTRUCTION IS EXISTING AND COMPLETE. (727) 375-1740 . FAX(727) 375-1741 R ' �1 I � � 1 � � � � � _ � i I '�,� � _ .` .> �� . i � -- . : , __ � . �. . � �� X-Cut ind. � � � � � i i � �� -- � � i i i � i� � _ / i� � � i � ,\ '--, � I \ 1 � � I � , ,, ,, . - Y U .� ,� � o L � u� "'" w � � c a W � I-IiY' FDEP FLOpD PLANE CERTIFlGTION ACCORDINO TO THE F.LRM. MAP. COMMUNITY PA1EL NUMBER: 1250D8/OOOB�D DA1Ea OB/I��I THE PROPERTY. APPEARS TO B,E IN FLOOD ZONE ' VE 8 AE ` ANU THE 8A9E 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION IS i�.a r�w s�► �va. CERTIFIED T0:800 VEt�T1AN LLC. COLONUIL BAIiG BTAVAOS TINGIRDES P.A ATICRDE1f�$' TITLE ItqURANCE fUAD INC ' DRAWN BY: ►�F FELD N�ORK DAiE: 04i08�OP •REK N0. I 04/0 CHECKED 8Y. RON FELD BOOK NO.: 1410 '�• � Y 12/3 VAOE NO.: 40 Rk'�.;NO. 3 04i t 1 BCALE: . I' • 4Q'� J09' IWY6ER.' D2042Z QiYrJ10. 4 �T�la a�rtif N� tAat a �urv�Y ef fA• prep�rty Id��orlA�d 4�r�sn ra� AaA• unA�r �p �up�rvl�len and ihot tA• �urw) eesqll�� rith �� minlmum t�c�nlaal �ta�darda ut }ortA by tA� FloilAa 8ear0 ot Prof�n lonol Lond Surw7er� 6 Mnpp�r• In ChaPr�r OIO-17 F.A.C., pur�uant to B�etlon 47L.OL7. Fisride Btotut�s. And, i�at fA• �k�teA ��r�ea 1� a Tru• anA aeeurat� � r�pf��nlotlon t��r�of te ih� b�N of qy � kno�INO• a�d e�ll�f, suY/�et to not�s ontl � IIOfY1Nll• •A�Ilfl A�f�op. NOT VALID UNLES9 SIONED DATED AND S7AMPED W I TH E►60SSED S�AI.. 04i I Y�05 /Ll��E�i�...,eCd .t7. �_ DAii Jfq8Y0f�O J. IIJR P.i! /6E�6 EXHIBIT C 1► � � �� } _ . 4. i .._. _ .. u � � �.�. I ., 6.. _... 1._....... .. ...,.,, —..� �, o � fl�fl 7 i odI r .. p L ^ t W... W. ... _.. ... _ � ....... n �., ......... N i I � ' 1 _ ;; t ' i _ i i _.. i i i i � � � f, _. � ,. } ,.. ....� .. _. 9 ...... .. .. .... ' 1 ; � t � � i 9 ' � � a R �., ..� � .. ;�. � 1 � ....... _ . I fi � 4,' j fful ,a M.] ,m ,834 � < � � f \ . VET T%N DR E . .. . z . ,m ,m 1861 ,m ,834 � < � � f \ . VET T%N DR E . .. . z . OWNER FOR VENETIAN City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Ave Clearwater, FL33576 Att. Mark Parry Dear Sir, Re: Dock boat lift application for Jack Milhkan, 300 Venetian Dr. My property is adjacent to Applicants property and his request for a waiver of the set backs so that he can install a boat lift on or near the property line I I do object and request the waiver application be denied. I do want to state that in trying to assist Jack I have no objection to him install ing davits on his existing dock if the City codes allow it. Thank you, Pick Talley 316 Venetian Dr. MAR Clearwater, FL 33755 ph. 727-420-0052 T E Y 316 . ORIVE CLRARWATr=R, FL 33755 / r V- I no T