The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2015-03008. v � � e��r��t�� J MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: GENERAL DATA: Agent... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Applicant / Owner... ... ... ... Location ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... . Property Size... ... ... ... ... ..... Future Land Use Plan........ Zoning... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . Special Area Plan ............... Adjacent Zoning.... North: South: East: West. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT May 19, 2015 E.6. FLD2015-03008 Flexible Development application to permit the construction of a new accessory use dock and boat lift for a single-family detached dwelling with a proposed length of 64.6 feet located within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District pursuant to Section 3-601.C.l.g.iii., Community Development Code. Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting William Blackwood The parcel is a waterfront lot located on the eastern side of Bay Esplanade at the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and the termination of Mango Street with the Mandalay Channel 7,579.44 SF (0.174 acres); 6,506.78 SF upland and 1,072.66 SF submerged Residential Urban (RU) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District N/A Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Preservation (P) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Existing Land Use ............... Detached Dwelling Proposed Land Use... ... ..... Detached Dwelling ^ ' C��1 �u�� Level II Flexible Development Application Review ° . � �'��^ ..a:...,.: ,... ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The subject property is a 0.174 acre site located on the eastern side of Bay Esplanade at the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and the termination of Mango Street with the Mandalay Channel. The site features a one-story detached dwelling with a detached accessory garage along the northern edge of the property The subject property is located within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Residential Urban (RU). The immediate vicinity is characterized primarily by detached dwellings between one and two stories. Site History: In August of 2013, the site was the subject of a Level One Flexible Standard Development application (FLS2013-08027) which requested approval to permit an accessory, single-family dock structure with a length of 79 feet, reduced side setbacks of 12.3 feet (north) and 7.3 feet (south) and an increase of maximum dock width from 23.62 feet to 47 feet. That case was denied by the Community Development Coordinator on September 12, 2013, due to fact that the proposal exceeded the maximum dock length permitted (50.62 feet), a reduction in required setbacks from a minimum of 20 feet to 12.3 feet (north) and 7.3 feet (south), and exceeding the maximum dock width of 23.62 feet. In September of 2013 the property owner filed an appeal (APP2013- 00002) regarding the denial of FLS2013-08027. The appeal never went before the Community Development Board as the owner requested multiple continuances. In July of 2014 the property owner withdrew APP2013-00002 and filed an amended application to FLS2013- 08027A which was withdrawn when the current application for Level Two Flexible Development review was submitted on March 2, 2015. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENS REVIEW DIVISION GARDENIA ST� V � � � � N.T VERBENA ST PROJECT ^ ^y { � srre L.�.---1 u r � C W y A j � ao �--'} n Da m <f � m m ; �j;�AT�� mV � CL ��gB08 a � � IR1S ST � F� ST � m f`�� LOCATION MAP � � 8� � 82J VERBENA ST ty 0 � �' � N.T.S o � � � a�a 81 vyi �' e 817 t�n m � � 805 x m A 0 a n MANGO ST C m s 770 785 783 765 781 C]i�"'"� � � ,6o H �36 767 EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP so ' � � ' ; a.3o ! , 8z, _ 1 �RiENA ST W � � � Q '_ 2f .. �8i9 'r- -8iz% �� i .�i ,. B?9_ � , i A �� "7S _.. .. _ D� W :. &t5. i ' I � f2 yI a . NI' N�y—�2. - i ,,. 80J� . A➢S � 1 z'� ; o m jSSfi yy„ s'i � • tu� p MANGO ST � C(?75 � - . . . '.. 78T m'; no �as _. �, ; '� � 765 ~� 766 � -1 _ib1_�_ _T62-' ��, I � 760 ��. y � � 7b6 r �/59 � 752� r -,�-� Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-03008— Page 1 �B, 767 � N.T.S P C�� R H ;- _ i ZONING MAP > < ' vi�(41 ��L�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review u , �tiac�� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMEN'T REVIEW DMSION Development Proposal: The proposal includes a single-family dock with two wet slips and one covered boat lift. The dock will feature a length of 64.6 feet and will be placed within the center one-third of the waterfront property with a side (north) setback of 21.6 feet and a side (south) setback of 21.6 feet. Access to the dock will be through a proposed four foot wide walkout which will begin at the seawall and terminate at the dock. The dock will measure 23.6 feet in width with a covered boatlift measuring 25 feet by 15 feet located along the southern side of the dock. The resulting side (south) setback to the boatlift will be 15.7 feet which complies with the minimum requirement of 10 feet. Proposed tie poles along the northern side of the dock will have a side (north) setback of 11.2 feet where one foot is the minimum requirement. The application is being reviewed as a Level Two, Flexible Development consistent with the recently adopted changes to Section 3-601 through Ordinance No.8654-15, which were approved by City Council on February 5, 2015. Specifically, Section 3-601.C.l.g.iii, which provides for deviations for dock length may be approved through a Level Two application subject to conditions being satisfied. The following report will detail the project compliance with the required conditions. NOTES: N • NORTH SETBACK TO POLES = 11 FT NORTH SETBACK TO DOCK = 21.6 FT '�U "` • SOUTH SETBACK TO DOCK = 21.8 FT • SOUTH SETBACK TO UFT = 75.7 FT � • DOCK WIDTH = 23.6 FT • DOCK LENGTH = 64.6 FT • LIFT DIMENSIONS: 15 FT X 25 FT 6Z5 LF OF WATERFRONT --�� PARCEIBOUNDARY 40 -- ` 60 FT ROW MANGO ST. � Plan view of proposed dock and boatlift APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SEA GRASS SITE VISIT BY PINELLAS COUNTY ENVIR�NMENTAL MANAGEMEiVT QE?T -------- i_EXTENDEDPROPERTYLINE '_�'— ° 21.6 ° 6.0 � �—y o� 11.2 57.5 — ` 23q 6 � I-- 25.0 --I } 15.7 ._� _ _ _ _ — _ _ _EXTENDED PROPERTY LINE �` THIS LINE IS OFFSET FROM THE WALL 64.6 FT. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-03008— Page 2 ' C�l.[ii ��Ll.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANTIING & DEVELOPMENT .. '�c�.i �„a .� . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � Elevation view of proposed dock and boatlift Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is supported by various Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element Objective A. S. S- Promote high quality design standards that support Clearwater's image and contribute to its identity. The proposal includes the construction of a single-family dock for an existing detached dwelling which will serve as an accessory use for the property owner. The majority of the surrounding properties also feature a variety of dock structures as consistent with the sizes of the properties and frontages along the waterway. The proposal will meet all of the required bulk and dimensional specifications for a single-family dock as detailed within the CDC. The proposal will enhance the existing waterfront use and is supported by this Objective. Policy A.S.5.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or envisioned character of the neighborhood. As mentioned above, the proposal is consistent with other docks in the area with regard to the size and configuration of the subject property, complies with all requirements of the CDC and is consistent with this Policy. Community Development Code: Purpose, Intent and Basic Plannin�Objectives The proposal supports by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 1-103.B.1. AZlowinQ pro�tv owners to enhance the value o their ��erty through annovative and creative redevelo ment The property owner seeks to provide a typical amenity of waterfront dwellings, an accessory use dock with a boat lift. The proposal will provide the detached dwelling with a dock which will Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-03008— Page 3 DC�L�l 1'1'�L�1 Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review PL`'.rrrr�rrG&DEV�LOPMErrr i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION accommodate two wet slips and one covered boat lift. The dock has been designed to avoid the delineated sea grass beds and provide adequate water depth for owner's boats. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that develonment 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 ofsurroundingproperties Surrounding properties have been developed with detached dwellings most of which include docks. The proposed docks are setbacks are 21.6 feet to the north and south extended property line, which exceeds the Code requirement of 20 feet. The proposal will not hinder the redevelopment of adjacent properties nor adversely affect their value. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the citv's economv and increasing its tax base as a whole The proposal includes an accessory dock to serve the existing detached dwelling use. The proposal is expected to enhance the value of the overall project thereby positively contributing to the City's economy and its tax base. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beauti acation o,�' the citv a matter of the hi�hest prioritv and to rec�uire that existing and future uses and structures in the citv are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted bv law The proposal includes a new dock which will serve as an accessory feature for the detached dwelling. The dock has been specifically designed to avoid the existing sea grass beds and provide adequate depth to prevent prop dredging. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.E.5. Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the communitv for both the resident and tourist population consistent with the citv's economic under in nnings As mentioned, the proposal preserves the sea grass beds and should prevent or limit incidents of prop dredging. The proposal will support the existing detached dwelling and the utilization of the Mandalay Channel. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 2-801.1 Intent of the LMDR District and R U FL UP classi acation The CDC provides that the intent of the LMDR District is to protect and preserve the integrity and value of existing, stable residential neighborhoods of low to medium density while at the same time, allowing a careful and deliberate redevelopment and revitalization of such 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 proposed project is 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 axeas 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 well-suited for residential uses that are consistent with the urban qualities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-03008— Page 4 ° Clearwater Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLnrrNING & nEVeLOrMErrr u .,.. '�".e+gi?. ;.. ... ,. DEVfiLOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION The proposal includes an accessory use to an existing detached dwelling as permitted by the RU FLUP classification. The surrounding area has been developed in accordance with the intensity of use permitted by the underlying FLUP classification of RU. Development Parameters: Section 3-601.C.1.a-g., CDC, provides development criteria and standards for single-family docks. a. A dock shall be placed in the center one-third of the lot or 20 feet from any property line extended into the water, whichever is less, unless the dock is proposed to be shared by adjoining properties whereupon the dock may be constructed on the common property line provided that all other standards of this division are met. Boatlifts and service catwalks shall be a minimum of one foot from any extended properry line. Single pile davits and personal watercraft lifts are exempt fi°om these setback requirements provided they are contained entirely within the extended property lines. All watercraft must be contained entirely within the extended property lines. The proposed dock will feature a side (north) setback of 21.6 feet and a side (south) setback of 21.6 feet, which complies with this section. b. The length of docks and boatlifts shall not exceed 25 percent of the width of the waterway or half of the width of the property measured at the waterfront property line, whichever is less, up to a maximum of 250 feet. The waterfront property length is 67.5 feet which would permit a dock length of 33.75 feet, which would negatively impact the delineated sea grass beds. Deviations from this section are provided in Section 3-601.C.1.g and will be addressed within the following portions of this report. c. The width of docks, excluding boatlifts, shall not exceed 35 percent of the width of the property measured at the waterfront property line or SO feet, whichever is less. The proposed dock width is 23.6 feet which is 35 percent of the 67.5 foot waterfront property length and complies with this section. d. Covered boatlifts are permitted provided a permanent and solid roof deck is constructed with material such as asphalt shingles, metal, tile or wood. Canvas and canvas like roof materials are prohibited. Vertical sidewalls are prohibited on any boatlift or dock. The proposed dock includes a boatlift which will feature a covered roof consisting of wood, metal and shingled or tiled roof and no vertical sidewalls are proposed, which complies with this section. e. No more than one dock structure shall be located at a single family dwelling and no dock shall provide more than two slips for the mooring of boats. Personal watercraft lifts are not considered to be boat slips. The proposed project includes one dock for the existing single-family dwelling which will have two slips for the mooring of the residents' boats and complies with this section. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-03008— Page 5 ' C�l.�l 1'1'ull.� Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLnxrr�rrG & DEV�LOrMExT ;, �„,,, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION f. Service catwalks shall not exceed three feet in width. The proposed dock does not include any service catwalks. g. Deviations. ii. No dock shall be allowed to deviate from the length requirements specified in Section 3- 601. C.1. b., CDC, by more than an additional SO percent of the allowable length or project into the navigable portion of the watenvay by more than 25 percent of such waterway, whichever length is less, except as stipulated in Section 3-601. C. l.g. iii and iv., CDC. This deviation would have provided for a dock length of 50.63 feet which would negatively impact the delineated sea grass beds. iii. Deviations for dock length in excess of that which is permitted in Section 3-601. C. l.g. ii above may be approved through a Level Two (flexible development) approval process only under the following conditions: a) A dock of lesser length poses a threat to the marine environment, natural resources, wetlands habitats or water qualiry; and The proposed dock length of 64.6 feet will extend beyond the limits of the existing sea grass beds which have been inspected by the Pinellas County Environmental Management staff. The site visit and field work resulted in the determination that the existing sea grass beds extend approximately 54 feet from the seawall. In order to minimize impacts to the environmentally sensitive areas, the dock was extended to the 64.6 foot distance which results in no portion of the T-head dock, roof, lifts or slips being located within the sea grass bed areas. b) A literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would result in extreme hardship due to the unique nature of the project and the applicant's property; and The waterfront property dimension is 67.5 feet and the maximum flexibility under a Level One application would result in a dock the length of 50.63 feet which would result in significant negative impact of the dock and mooring areas to the existing sea grass beds. The proposed dock length of 64.6 feet has necessitated the submittal of the Level Two application. c) The deviation sought to be granted is the minimum deviation that will make possible the reasonable use of the applicant's property; and The extent of the sea grass beds is approximately 54 feet from the seawall and the T- head portion of the dock will extend 57.5 feet from the seawall. The proposed dock configuration provides that the eastern portion of the dock with the mooring areas will be 64.6 feet from the seawall. This will ensure that any proposed boating activity by the applicant will occur outside of the environmentally sensitive sea grass beds. d) The granting of the requested deviation will be in harmony with the general intent and purposed of this section and will not be injurious to the area involved or othe�rvise detrimental or of adverse effect to the public interest or welfare. The proposed dock is in harmony with the general intent and purposed of the section for the following reason; the proposed length of 64.6 feet is the minimum flexibility Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-03008— Page 6 ° ClearwaterLevel II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u needed in order to have full utilization of a dock at the subject property without negatively impacting the environmentally sensitive sea grass beds; the proposed dock is in character with the size, shape and dimensions of docks in the immediate area; the proposed dock will comply with all other requirements for a single-family dock; and the proposed dock will not encroach into the navigable waterway of the Mandalay Channel. Please note that the Harbor Master has reviewed the submittal and has no objection to the proposed dock configuration. It should also be noted that dock permits are ultimately issued by Pinellas County Water and Navigation. General Applicability 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. The proposed single-family private dock will be in character with the scale of the other docks in the area given the width and overall size of the site. The following chart details an overview of the surrounding properties dock information within the block to the north and south of the subject property. The properties to the south of the subject parcel feature docks that are generally shorter than the docks to the north of the subject property. An analysis of aerial photos of this area resulted in observation that the sea grass beds appear to begin in the area where Mango Street crosses Bay Esplanade and extends northward. The properties south of Mango Street do not appear to be impacted by the sea grass beds thus resulting in shorter dock lengths. The average dock length north of the subject property is 69.4 feet and the proposed dock is below the average and is consistent with the allowable deviations of the Code. Therefore, the proposal supports 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. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-03008— Page 7 ° Clearwater Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u �rn . ;�., The proposal is generally consistent with the character of adjacent properties with regard to scale and scope and should enhance that value of the subject property as the improvement costs will impact the assessed property value. Additionally, the proposed project will not hinder the usage of adjacent properties as the proposed dock will meet all required setbacks. 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 include a new single-family dock as accessory to an existing detached dwelling. The dock will be for the use of the upland resident which will not include any fueling, pump out services, boat repairs or public use permitted. The proposal will likely have no effect on the health andJor 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 nzinimize traffic congestion. The proposal will likely have minimal effect, negative or otherwise, on traffic congestion as the dock will be for the utilization of the upland resident of the subject property. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A. S. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. The subject property is consistent with the zoning and future land use category which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed dock is consistent with the scale and character of other existing docks within the immediate area. 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 properties. The dock will be constructed with wood fixed in placed by wooden pilings and the installation requirements will adhere to the Pinellas County dock construction code. There will also be no walls or enclosures on the dock, only the covered roof structure over the boat lift. The design of the proposed development should not result in any adverse olfactory, visual and acoustic impacts on adjacent properties. There will be no fueling, pump out services, boat repairs or public use permitted. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested. The applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by Section 4-206.D.4., CDC. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-03008— Page 8 ' Ll�ctl 1'1'[[�Ll.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review ° . a . .. ... .. �. . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REV�',W DIVISION Compliance with Standards and Criteria: The following table depicts the development proposals consistency with the standards and criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.1: Standard Proposed Consistentl Inconsistent Dock Setbacks Center one-third of lot or 20 feet North: 21.6 feet X (Minimum) South: 21.6 feet X Boatlift Setbacks Ten feet from property line North: 35 feet X (Minimum) South: 15.7 feet X Tie Pole Setbacks One foot from property line North: 11.2 feet X (Minimum) South: 33 feet X Dock Length Half width property at water frontage 64.6 feet * X* (Maximum) (33.75 feet) Dock Width 35% width of properiy at water frontage 23.6 feet X (Maximum) (23.6 feet) J'ee ana[ysrs in Staff Report Requires Level Two Review Compliance with Flexibility Criteria: The Flexibility Criteria for a single-family dock are set forth in Section 3-601.C.l.g.iii; Deviations for dock length in excess of that which is permitted in Section 3-601.C.l.g.ii may be approved through a Level Two approval process only under the following conditions of a-d which are set forth in the following table: a. A dock of lesser length poses a threat to the marine environment, natural resources, wetlands habitats or water qualiry; and b. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would result in extreme hardship due to the unique nature of the project and the applicant's property; and c. The deviation sought to be granted is the minimum deviation that will make possible the reasonable use of the applicant's properry; and d. 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. 1 See analysis provided by the applicant in the application submittal Consistent' Inconsistent X X � � Compliance with General Applicability Standards: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level One and Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adiacent nronerties. See analysis in Sta„�'Report Community Development Board — May 19, 2415 FLD2015-03008— Page 9 Consistent' Inconsistent X X X X X X ° Clearwater Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ... . � �::�= W :. . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of April 2, 2014, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. The 7,579.44 square foot (0.174 acre) subject property is located at the northeast corner of Bay Esplanade and Mango Street; 2. The subject property is located within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. The subject property is not located in a special area plan; 4. The proposal is to construct approximately 370 square feet of new boat dock with a boat lift; 5. The existing property features 67.5 feet of linear water frontage along the Mandalay Channel; 6. The proposal includes a dock with a length of 64.6 feet, a width of 23.6 feet, a side (north) setback of 21.6 feet to dock and 11 feet to tie poles, a side (south) setback of 21.6 feet; a boatlift with dimensions of 15 feet by 25 feet and side (south) setback of 15.7 feet under the provisions of CDC Section 3-601.C.l.g.iii.a-d; 7. The proposal will serve as an accessory use to the existing detached dwelling; and, 8. There is no active Code Compliance case for the subject property. Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal has been found to be consistent with the applicable portions of the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2. That the development proposal has been found to be consistent with the General Purposes of the CDC pursuant to Section 1-103, CDC; 3. That the development proposal has been found to be consistent with the standards for pocks pursuant to Section 3-601, CDC; 4. That the development proposal has been found to be consistent with the General Standards for Level One and Two Approvals pursuant to Section 3-914.A., CDC; and, 5. That the development proposal has been found to be consistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial competent evidence pursuant to Section 4-206.D.4., CDC. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit the construction of a new accessory use dock and boat lift for a single-family detached dwelling with a proposed length of 64.6 feet located within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District pursuant to Section 3-601.C.l.g.iii., Community Development Code, subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: l. That the proposed dock and boatlift be for the exclusive use by the resident of the detached dwelling; Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD20 ] 5-03008— Page ] 0 '- C11.��Lt,1 Level II Flexible Development Application Review pL'u�vING � DEV�LOPI`'¢NT .� DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 2. That fueling, pump out services, boat repairs or public use be prohibited; 3. That a Building Permit be obtained for the proposed boatlift; and, 4. That a Private Dock Permit be obtained from Pinellas County Water and Navigation. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: �l�( '=i'�!.%-��4�• �-' Melissa Hauck-Baker, AICP, Planner II Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-03008— Page 11 Melissa Hauck-Baker, AICP, NJPP 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater Florida 33756 727-562-4567 x2855 melissa.hauck-baker(a�mvclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE • Planner II, Development Review Division - July 2013 to Present City of Clearwater, FL Provide professional urban planning services to citizens, City Officials and businesses regarding Land Development Review procedures and legal requirements of the Community Development Code for the City. Assist in the day to day planning and zoning operations as well as long range planning initiatives, interdepartmental cooperation and assistance. Conduct plan reviews, site investigations, report preparation, meeting attendance and presentation of findings as relating to proposed development projects and required regulatory review procedures. Professional Planner Consultant - March 2010 to June 2013 Melissa Hauck Baker, AICP, NJPP Provide consulting services to clients as requested for various residential and commercial scale projects as relating to the necessary zoning and planning review processes required by the specific governing entity. Supervise the preparation of reports and plans, conduct site visits, attend and present findings at municipal and all related public meetings, coordinate with applicant, various municipal staff and related professional consultants. Senior Associate — January 2005 to March 2010 Project Manager - Apri12001 to January 2005 KEPG, LLC, Atlantic City, NJ Oversee consulting services provided to municipal clients in the area of zoning, planning, master planning and redevelopment planning. Review all proposed projects before any required municipal board, authority and commission as well as any additional jurisdictional requirement of other local, state and federal entities. Provide professional guidance regarding planning and zoning concepts, zoning ordinance development, urban design issues, master plans, and redevelopment plans as outlined within the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law. Supervise the preparation of reports and plans, conduct site visits, attend and present fmdings at municipal and all related public meetings, coordinate with firm staff, various municipal staff and related consultants to effectuate an efficient and thorough review process. Zoning Administrator - June 1998 to Apri12001 City Planner - November 1994 to May 1998 Historic Preservation Specialist - September 1993 to October 1994 City of Reading, PA Staff liaison and administrator to the Zoning Hearing Board, Planning Commission, Historic Architectural Review Board, Reading Redevelopment Authority and Fine Arts Board. Enforcement, interpretation and regulatory cooperation of the following ordinances; subdivision, land development, historic preservation, redevelopment and zoning. Provide assistance with downtown, neighborhood, comprehensive master plan, parks, recreation, and public property planning. Conduct site inspections, process violations, and pursue cases through the court system. Assist with review of proposed development projects in conjunction with planning, engineering, and building code staff as well as with the preparation of the Comprehensive Master Plan. Generate graphics for various presentations as required by the department. EDUCATION Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, State University of New York, Syracuse, 1993 LICENSES AND ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS American Institute of Certifed Planners #023351 (2009.to Present) American Planning Association (2001 to Present) Florida Chapter (2013 to Present) New Jersey Chapter (2001 to 2012) .° Licensed New Jersey Professional Planner #33LI00609500 (2009 to Present) 0 v � � _ -- ,� � ; r� w� :, . : , r , ��:;� �i+a:.c�:r,,.:ner.:J�up+i6 —�' °�{�•u..... ��cmn�:.':�LV�%,:iY:�7e�.,vn.Aa11'�.*7�,:;��. View of the property from Bay Esplanade. View of the property and seawall from NTango Street. View of Mandalay Channel looking north. � �� J ■� �� ! �� 'p ' � ��- �a�wn.i_.Y� �. R �hi..'i �i . � ��Rl�e . �Ear��F�.._..... _ r'T7Ig6.�.� n a'�K..- �:� _- �, � �_ �- �... ,� �.:� T _. � � ._ - _ � �--�`:�. _ . .- M--s- , �.. ,,.,,�.�: . � __- ___ _ _ * � J�� : �� - �J -,- _— r':�.' � _ . . _.� - ._ _ � � _. View of Mandalay Channel looking south. 801 Bay Esplanade FLD2015-03008 o Planning & Development Department � C earwater Flexible Develo ment A lication P PP � Detached Dwellings, Duplexes orAssociated Accessory Use/Structures IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO fAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200 APPLICATION FEE: $300 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): William Blackwood MAILING ADDRESS: 627 Bay Esplanade PHONE NUMBER: 727-251-7236 EMAIL: wblackwo@tampabay.rr.com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting MAILING ADDRESS: 1714 County Road 1, Suite 22 Dunedin, FL 34698 PHONE NUMBER: 727-786-5747 EMAIL: terriskapik@woodsconsulting.org ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 801 Bay Esplanade PARCEL NUMBER(S): 05-29-15-54666-033-0010 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: MANDALAY SUB BLK 33, LOT 1 PROPOSED USE(S): private dock for single family residential property DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Construct single family dock with 2 wet slips and 1 covered boat lift. Speci�ically identify the request Variance for maximum length allowed per code. (include all requested code flexibility; e.g., reduction in required number of parking spaces, height, setbacks, lot size, lot width, specific use, etc.): Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 7 Revised 01112 ° Clearwater � U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY QEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: LMDR RU EXISTING USE (currently existing on site): single family residential PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): no Change SITE AREA: 7,579 sq. ft. 0.174 acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: N/A sq. ft. Proposed: N�A sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: N�A sq. ft. GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): First use: N�A sq. ft. Second use: N�A sq.ft. Third use: N/A sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: N/A Proposed: N/A Maximum Allowable: N/A BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (15` floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: N�A sq. ft. ( N�A % of site) Proposed: N/A sq. ft. ( N/A % of site) Maximum Permitted: N/A sq. ft. ( N/A % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: N/A sq. ft. ( N�A % of site) Proposed: N/A Sq, {�, ( N/A % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: N/A Sq, ft, ( N/A Proposed: N/A sq.ft. ( N/A % of site) % of site) Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 7 Revised 01112 IMPERVlOUS SURFACE RAitO (totai syuare fnotage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of enNre site}: Existing: N/A Proposed: N1A Maximum Permitted: NIA DfNSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): Existing: N/A Proposed: NIA M�ximum Permitted: N/A SUILDBNG HElGMT: Existing: �/A Fraposed: N!A Maxirrtum Permitted: iJ/A OFf-SiREET PARKtiVG: Existing: ��A Note: A parkrng demond siudy must be provided !n canjunction with any request Proposed: N�A to reduce the amount of �equired off-street partcfig spaces. Please see the Minimum Required; N�A adopted Parking Demand 5[udy Guidelines for further information. WHAT iS TH� ESTIMATfO TOTAk VAl.UE O� THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ 4€},000 ZONING d1STRICTS FORALLADJACENT PROPERTY_ Narth: LMDR South: LMDR East: � P' Wesi: LMDR �TIaiE Q�F �iO�iESA, COUi�fT`�'t3F ?iN£LIRS !, the undersigned, acknowtedge that afE Sworn to and subscribed hefore me this �� day of representations made in this appficaiion are true and �/��}/ ZO/ f. to me andJar by accurate to the best of my knowledge and aathorize City representatives to vis[t and photograph the �/��1,1,/�-/f��btl Q , who is personally known has property described in this app[icafion. _, produced as ident'tfication. . /�V�%LG �� .� Signature oF property awner or representative Notary My cor OgPR .PUBli JONN DORAN a�e * � * MY COMMISSION # EE; Planning 8 Development Department, 100 5. Myrtle Avenue, Giea►water, FL 33756, Tel: 727-552-4567; Fax: T2T-562•4865 Pag� 3 of 7 Revised 07/12 o Planning & Development Department � C ear�vater Flexible Develo mentA lication P pP � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING, DUPLEX, OR ACCESSORY USE/STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH EITHER A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING OR DUPLEX SHALL INCLUDE A PLOT PLAN WITH TME FOLLOWING INFORMATION: ❑ Responses to the General Applicability criteria as set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(s�-of-way within and adjacent to the site. ❑ If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other si milar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on private and commercial docks. ❑ A tree survey showing the location, DBH (diameter at breast height), and species on the parcel proposed for development with a DBH of four inches or more and identifying those trees proposed to be removed. ❑ A site plan with the following information: ❑ North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. ❑ Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable. ❑ Location, setbacks and use of all existing and proposed building and structures. ❑ Location of all existing and proposed parking areas, sidewalks and driveways. ❑ Location, type of material and height of all existing and proposed fences. ❑ Location of all existing and proposed utilities, including water, sewer, gas, and stormwater. ❑ Location of all existing utility easements, including Official Records book and page numbers, and any proposed utility easements. ❑ Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height, building materials, and concealment of all mechanical equipment located on the roof. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Te1: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 4 of 7 Revised 01112 ° Clear�ater � U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 7 Revised 01112 ° Clearwater U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Flexibilitv Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(S) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(S) IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAIL, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). � z. 3 4. � 6. � SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 2 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 2 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 2 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 2 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 2 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 2 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 2 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. $. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 2 FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 7 Revised 01112 0�`�� ,;�� 'k� �� Pianning &. Development Depariinent Fl�xible Developrnent Application ° Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names o# al) property owners on deed — PR1NT fuil names: William Blackwood 2. That (I am/we are) the owner�s) and recard tii[e holder(s) of fhe following described property: 801 Ba}� Espla�ade, �arc�l I�e�tifica�ior� �Iur��r: ��-2�-1�-54666-033-OO�t} 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for 4d2scribe request}: Single Family Dock 4. That the undersigned fhas/haue) apooPnted and (does/doj a��oint: Terri Skapik, Waods Consu[ting as (his/theirj agent(s)�to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to af#ect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has, been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the ai�ove described properEy; 6. That site visits to the property are ne�essary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph tf�e property described in this appiication; 7. That (I/we}, the undersigned autho ', hereby certify that the foregaing is true and correc'�. �� .� Praperty Owner Properiy Owner Prnperty Owner 5TATE OF FLOIiIDA, GQUNTY' E'yF PINELL�'i.es Pro�er't�� Owner SEFORE ME TNE UNDEF2SlG�"ED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSfa�lED BY THE LAWS Q� THE STATE OF FL4RIDA, ON THIS DAY OF /� �� !� , , PERSONALLY APPEARED � �� /�'► ��L'��e�� WHO HAVIEVG BEEN F1RST DULY SWORN �3EPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/5HE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CaNTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SlGNEB. ��`°�,� .s�,� JOHN l?ORAN �. * MY COMMISSION N EE 092145 EXPIRES: July 18, 2015 �ArFOF F��¢,oe �onded Thru Budget Notary SeNices otary ub ic Signature Nofary SeaUS#amp My Commission Expires ��Ly ►� �v �� Pl�nning $ Deveiopment Department, 100 S. Myrtie A�enuu, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-582-4567; pax- 727-562-A685 Page 7 oi 7 Revised 01112 EXHIBIT 1: Written Submittal Requirements Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, cov�erage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposed sinale family private dock will be in character of the adiacent properties. The existinq properties are all residential properties and most if not all have private sinqle family docks Therefore the proposed sinqle family,private dock is consistent with the docks at the adlp�ent properties. The proposed sinqle family private dock will be in harmony with the scale bulk and coverarae of the private sinqle familv docks in the immediate area even wifih an increased lenath as requested As proposed the sinqle family private dock is onl�i 6�.6 ft in lenath which is shorter than existinp docks in the immediate area. The dock is moved out and awav from the seawall to avoid havinq slips located over top of submerqed aquatic resources particu/arly the sea arass '�zds The °inellas �ount� Environmental Manaqement aPt�artrrrent performed a site visit, at our repuest 'to map the extent of the secr rq ass beds and theV are sl�own on the attached plan view drawinps Based on their field inspection they cletermin�rJ the dock should be located farther out than allowed by code to avoid impactina th� arass beds ihrouph propeller or shadinq e ects. As reqards the existinq private docks in the immediate area please see the attached Woods Consultinp AERIAL Exhibit 1 This exhibit was creafied to show the proposed dock in relation to the exis�inra '�ocks in the immediate area. Imrnedia�ely to th,Q north o� t�he proi°ct site are feur private docks i-hat are all 60 to 75 fi �n lenqth. /�t! of these docfcs �rppear to have been permitted so that the terminal platforms are loeatecf bevond (v�rater-rvvard) of the qrass beds. The property immediately to the south is Manqo St (puh(ic riqht �� way) and there is no dock. The properties farther to the south aU have private docks thai ar� shorter. The aerial shows the qrass line diminishes toward the south. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage thc ap�ropriate development and use of adjacent land and building or significantly impair the value thes�eof. The proposed sinqle family private dock will not hinder or discouraqe appropriate use and development of udiacent /and or impair the value thereof In faci, a dock can siqnificantly improve the'value ofsurroundinq properties. The proposed sinqle family private dock will not hinder or discourape development at adiacent properties as the proposed dock abuts c� public riqht of way to the south where docks (with mooring) will likelv never be built. The dock is positioned in the center one-third of the parcel to provide the minimum required side setbacks and slips are positioned east/west to not further encroach on adiacent parcels. Althouqh a variance for lenpth is beinp repuested, the proposed lenqth is consistent with several larper existinq private docks in Clearwater Harbor. The proposed dock will not impede use of the waterway in this area. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in th'e neighborhood of the proposed use. The proposed single family private dock will be for the use b�r the upland resident and ►�UI not adversely affect health or safety of the residents or persons workina in the neiphborhood. The dock will be built to conform to County Dock Codes. 4. The propose�l c�evelvpmer�t is designed to avoid traffic eongestron. The proposed sinple family private dock will be for the use of the upland resident and therefore no additional traffic will be created with the proposed dock. 5. The propose�d development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for deve�opment. The proposed docic is consistent with the zoninp, future land use for a private sinple familv residence. The pr�posed dock is consistent with the size anc� sc�xle �� larqer docks that are located in the immediate area. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adv�rse effects, in�luding visual, aCoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on the adlacent properties. There wi!l be no neqative adverse effects visually as the dcck will be canst; ucted with wood fixed in place by wooden pilinqs. The construction materials and instaltation repuirements wil{ adhere to the.Pinellas County dock construction cade. There will �e no wcr(Is or enclosures an the dock; only the covered roof and one boat lift. There will be no nepative adverse effects acousticall� as th�s vvdll apera�e only as a sinqle�amilv private dock for the upland resident. There are no hiph/drv sli�s na foad out no wash racks no fuelinq facilities, etc. � EXHIBIT 2 Written Submittal Requirements Dock Criteria Section 3-601C1.g (i) through (iv) C. New docks. ' 1. Docks, boatlifts and service catwalks that serve sinale-family or two family dwellings. g. Deviations. i) The community development coordinator may grant deviations from the requirements of this section as a Level One (minimum standard) approval provided that signed and notarized statements of no� objection are submitted from adjaeent waterfront property owners, as well as signed and notarized statements on the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority permi�t application. In the event that such statements cannot be obtained, applications for deviations may be approved by the community development coordinator, provided that the proposed dock will result in no navigational corrflicts. Such deviations may be approved through a Level One (flexible standard) approval process based on one of the following: (a) The proposed docl< location needs to be adjusted to protect environmentally sensitive areas; or (b) The property, configuration or shallow water depth precludes �he placement of a dock in compliance with the required dimensional s;tandards; however, the proposed dock will be similar in dimensional characteristics as surrounding docl< pafiterns. The applicant is unablP to obtain a letter of no obiection or siqned and notarized statements of no obiection from the adiacent waterfront owners to adiust the dock lenqth to prot�ct environmentallv sensitive areas (a). The proposed doek wifl be similar in dimensiona! characteristics of surrvundinq dock patterns (f�) as rroted in the writfien su,bmittal repuirements in �"xhibit 1. ii) No dock shall be allowed to deviate from the length requirements specified in 3-601.C.1.b by more than an additianal 50 percent of the �Ilowable length oe• project into the navigable portion of the waterway by more than 25 percent of such v�aterway, whichever length is less, except as stipulated in Section 3-601.C.1.g.iii and iv below. In no case shall the length of the dock exceed 250 feet, except as stipulated in Section 3-601.C.1.g.iii and iv below. The dock as proposed is 64.6 f�' which �s a larqer deviation that allowed by item ii above. The lenpth of waterfront owned is 67.51inear ft allowinp a maximurr� lenqth vpriance of 50.6 ft' (67.5 ft x 50°0 = 33.75'ft; 33.75 ft x 50% = 16.9 ft; 33.75 ft -r- 16.9 Tt = 50.6 ft. 50.6 ft is not adepuate lenqth to extend past the environmentallv sensitive areas where sea arass beds are present. Therefore the app/icant is aware of the need to proceed under the Flexible Development Level ll process bv meetinq the conditions of iii below). iii) Deviations for docic length in excess of 250 feet that which is permitted in 3-601.C.1.g.ii above may be approved through a Level Two (flexible development) approval process only under the following conditions: (a) A dock of lesser length poses a threat to the marine environment, natural resources, wetlands habitafis or water quality; and The proposed dock as desiqned is 64.6 ft in lenqth in order to extend past the -He written submitt � Staff performed a preliminary site visit at our request to verify the extents of the sea prass beds As part of that field work it was determined that the sea qrass beds extend out fram the wall approximately 54 ft In order to minimize impacts to the environmentally sensit�ve areas the etoek was extended in fenqth 1Vo portion of the T-head dock roof, lifts or slips ore located over top of the environmentally sensitive areas. (b) A literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would resuft in extreme hardship due to the un�ique nature of the project and the applicant's property; and As noted the waterfront owned is 67.5 ft in lenqth. !n applyinq the maximum lenqth variance allowed the maximum lenqth is 50.6 ft which is shorter than the sea prass beds, A literal enforcement of the provision would not allow a dock with l�oat slips to be permitted at this location. The praposed dock is 64.6 ft in lenqth. (c) The deviation sought to be granted is the minimum deviation thaf wilB make possible the reasonable use of the applicant's property; and As noted, the'�dock walkout and T-head dock are positioned' pc�st t�ie secr qrass beds to avoid environmen'rally sensitive areas and 'ro nave onfy ine minirnrar» �rse a� c�reas Tor slips. The proposed dock is in fact much shorter than docks that have beera c�r�oued in the immediqte area. The applicant had oriqinally proposed a dock that was 79 ft irr n�o�ra/l /enqth requirinq variances to lenpth width and setbacks. The applicatioh was ultimatel� denied bv the City due to the code restrictions that were in plcrce. (d) The granting of the requested deviation wifl be i� harmony with the general intent and purpose of this section and will not be injurious to the area invc�l�red or otherwise detrimental or of adverse effect to the publac interest an� welfare. The proposec� dock is in harmony with the qeneral interrt and purpuse of �he section for the followinq reason: it is the minimum lenqth varianee needed to have b�ne�ECial use of a doek; the proposed dock is in character with the siz�, shal,e and dirriaaerrsiar7s of docks in the immediate area while avoidinq environrr►entallv sensitive areas; �da� proposed dock is not reauestinp additional variances from width or reducea� side setbcrcks to ensure adiacent properties are not impeded; and the proposed dock cfo�s nai encrocrch into a navipation channel or extend inio the waterway more than 25% (a qe�ne��al rule iar how lonp docks can b?� , iv) Docks located on i:he east side of Clearwater Harbor adjacen� �to ihe mainland may be allowed to deviate from the length requirements specified in Section 3-601.C.1.b up to a maximum length lequal to 25 percent of the navigable portion of the wa�terway. Item (iv) does not ap,c�ly to the proposed dock � � � BA,Y ES P LANAD E AE R IAL 1 SCALE 1 : 3,139 �, - --_� - -� 200 0 200 A00 600 FEET u 0 ¢ z � Q U? � r � m � w w � a SURVEY OF 801 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER, FL.ORIDA 337G7 FIp � � ' � � � N 4 0 3 � � FIR LOT 1, BLOCK 33, MANDALAY, ACCOftDiNG I 0 THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 32 THROUGH 35, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELL�S COUNTY, FLORlDA LO i 2 N9Q°00'00"E 111A0'(M){P) , � , 0.1' OFF � � z 12.96' . .:•.;.. �: .. .... . ...'� WALL 0.8'OFF ' �� BAY �, :�'�� ;�:.;: � � U �y f � �� •. " r A ❑ •,':':• ` � 13.84'. � `'T� s 25.80' 14.80' � 1?.92' 93.7�' � N RES# �0� `� N �� 6.52' 27.4p' • 17.88' . . o � �BRICK .. C o ' . CV � � � B�y _� ' C� .•. (`.J..:. ��:•.. ��: � ' W�ri��w ^ � N 4VALL 0.6'OFF S90°00'00"W 111.�'(hi)(P) MANGO S i 4.EET PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY J 3 w y CLF 1.1'ON ❑ PILINGS ;� a c 3, o �� o R(] �� ^ p � c� B �- :V � � 1%.iS� "' o� Z UNLESS N07ED OTHERWISE, 7HIS IS AN AS—BUILT SUR�Y SHOVANG MIPROVEMFl�1T5 IN RELAiION TO PROPERTY AhD PLAT MONUMENTS FOUND PROPERRTY�AND A 50 7HOS NIHOxPRCMAS�� OF 7HE CUP.RENT OWNERS OF 7HE O T O� 2O� rFO� iHERETO WIiHIN ONE leAR OF THE FlELD DATE NOT'iEpGON�lI-ISU3URVTE�.Y TME �� fAVEF� � SCFEEN / �CREE1 .. ��E E �w� P �a5m SCALE: 1"= 20' w�xro;d — � — A' CFWNIJNKFENCE — � — 6' WO�OF�WCE �� NOTaS: (1) IN COMPLJANCE WITH F.A.C. 61G17-6.0037-4—E, IF LOCP�TION OF EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS—OF—WAY OF RECORD, OTr1ER THAN THOSE ON RECOF2D PLATS, IS REQUIRED, iH15 INFOF2MATlON MUST BE FURNISHED TO 1}1E SURVEYOR ANO 0.4APPER, (2) IF APPLICA6LE, FENCES SHOWN lAEANDER ON OR OfF LMES. (APPROX.) (3) NO D(CAVATION Oit MAPPING OF UNDERGROUND IMPRO�Mt7VT5 HAS BEEN PERFORNED. CORNER MARKERS ARE 1/2" DlANE"iER UNLESS NOTED OiHERN75E BA515 OF BEARINGS IS R�W LyyE (USING PLAT BEARING OR ASSUMEO) UNLESS NOTID 07}1ERb'ASE LEGEND: (c) � CALCUI.ATFU, Cj � q1RY NWBR , C8� CABL BOX lP- ucair pa�, c/s - cowcaEr sus, c� � q{p�fd LINK FENC_, CONC � cona�7[ CSW � CONCRE7E SIpEyIpLK, (p) � pEpJ pE � DRANAGE EASQ,fENT, EB= p.ECTRIC BOX EOW = EDC OF WFTR, E/P : m�C � PAY-.�AENT, (� � Fl�1D,F/C � FENCE COiiNER, FpR — FlR CAPPED, FXC - FOVND X CUT, FC0.1 � FOIJND COPICRETE AIONUMQVT, FlP � FOUND IRON PIPE, FlR - FIXIND IRO� R00, FN � FOUND NAI� FND � FOUI� NAIL k DISK GA - GUY ANCHOR, ID — IOENTIFlCA710N, (!A) � AIEASURm, MH � MMIHOLE, NCF � NO IAI�FtKER FOUND, OHW - 04FF2HEA� 1ViRE, O/A � OVER ALL, (P) - PLAT, P/E-POOL EWIP. PP � P�WER P�L.E. �OB � POINT OF pE('.INNING, 1'OG = �pNT OF COMYC�JCc�t�'SIT, �RM +• pERM,WENT REfQ2ENG`T MIXJUMENT, R/W � PoGHT OF'WAY, S1R � SET 7/2' IRON ft00 LB 6912, SNp — SE7 NAIL AND DISIC L9 6912, lNF� Rr ANSFORMER, TOB � TOP OF BANK, T?� PHONE PEDESTAL, UE — U'RLJtt EA5,91EN7, 45B � Ylpi'cR BOX, NOf — WpOp fEN(� Know 1�, �OWy TI1C. � HEREBY CER77FY ThIAT THIS SKEfCH OE SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER FloridaBusinessCertificaleOl LOCATION — 2011 HEIDELBERG AVENUE, DUNE0IN, FL ��PONSIBLE CHARGE P7dD TO THE BEST OF IIY KNOVIIFDGE AND AulhorizationNumherL66912 VOICE 727-415—$305 FAX 727—]j6-2455 FORTH BY THE �IW BOARDEOf P�ROF6510NAL L,V D SDUl7JF.YORS CERTIFIED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE BELOW PAF2TIES IN CHAPTER 5J-1J FLOF2IDA ADMINISTRATI� CODE FURIHFJi , n+is DOCUMEDf� IS ELECTRO WILLIAM BLE1(�KWOOD NICrLL7 SIGNED ANp SFAIED PURSUANT TO SEC7lON 472.027, OF THE FLOWOA SfAMES MIp CHAPiER SJ-17 OF 7HE fLORIDA ADMINISTRATION CODE �,r Surveyor8 MapperNumbera636 +"J�`-H HY"� DATE OF FlELD WORK: 4-1-13 i'} `�i� S-„ DATE SIGNED 4-2-13 � ^ �� /J �;Uq�EV�P �V'� , FLORIDASURVEYDR@AOL.COM BI�,�, gyATT SCALE: 1" - 30� Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) NOTES: IV • NORTH SETBACK TO POLES = 11 FT ° • NORTH SETBACK TO DOCK = 21.6 FT �tl �• SOUTH SETBACK TO DOCK = 21.6 FT APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SEA GRASS '� '• SOUTH SETBACK TO LIFT = 15.7 FT SITE VISIT BY PINELLAS COUNTY � • DOCK WIDTH = 23.6 FT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPT. • DOCK LENGTH = 64.6 FT • LIFT DIMENSIONS: 15 FT X 25 FT � w _ ¢ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _EXTENDED PROPERTY LINE � �J � ° 21.6 ° — ° � � 67.5 LF OF WATERFRONT � 6.0 �+ 11.2 I + 57.5 23.6 PARCELBOUNDARY � � 4.0 15.0 � 64.6 21.6 � � 25.0 --I � 15.7 __ _______� __�_______�XTENDEDPROPERTYLINE 60 FT ROW MANGQ ST. �— THIS LINE IS OFFSET FROM THE WALL 64.6 FT. SHEET 2 FLOI��IA►� h�'►j��T6 4F �OODS CONSULTING g01 BAY ESPLANADE ` 1714 COUNTY ROAO 1. SUffE 22 � '. I DUNEDIN FL 34698 `�� E ••� !� PH. (727� 786-5747 � v :.� i fAX (727) 786-7479 � - 15 = = DOCK : •- • :W=_ REV�sE�: PLAN VIEW Q� : W � '�I��•� f�� ' �?� TOTAL SQUARE FEET 370.6 SF �V '• � L p A�O��,�� WATERBODY WIDTH >850 FT WATERFRONT WIDTH 67.5 LF ,��i FS'SI��P ��,, MHW +o.�a' MLW -�.2s' ��U �� ELEVATIONS REFERENCE NAVD-1988 SCALE: 1" = 10' PRIVATE RESIDF_NTIAIL SIi�V(�LE-F/�,MIL�Y F�pplication# (OFFICIAI_ USE ONLY) �i, MATCH SEAWALL �LEVATION 42" HIGH RAILING SEE SHEET 2 FOR CROSS SECTION A- A' LQCATION F�ORIDA CERTIFICATE OF A�UTHOR��TION #27664 �� PR�.,W'�S�� I�� r,�G E NSl�°;y�`+'��''� 0 15586 �� `"m� • �d-m * � :�ko��o �* ; �,� �� ir � N N • E OF . �/ �'� :�/ 7 : �J 3 � . '�j0 q \�P,•' �?�•�Q�� S�oNA`�i°�� `�� WOODS CONSULTING 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 WNEOIN R 34698 PH. (727� 786-5747 FAX (727) 786-7479 REVISED: �o� �.�� _,�� (s�� '� �o - �� MHW ELEV = +�.74 FT MLW ELE`J �_ -1.26 FT ELEVATIOI�1�� = NAVD88 SHEET 3 SCALE: NONE I'RIVATE RESIDENTIAL SIf��LE-FAMdL`t' F�PPlication# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) It is the intent of the following construction details to Ibe a reference guide for quality, strtactural arrd safety standao-ds. All structures to meet local, and or state g�uidelines for aquatic and marine comstrucU:ia�n. GENERAL DOCK NOTES: 1. ALL DECKING TO BE TRIMMED, BOTH SIDES. 2. ALL PILINGS TO BE SEATED WITH A FREE FALLING HAMMER IF WATER JETTING IS INSTALLAT€ON METHOJ. ALL PILES TO BE TRIMMED SAME HEIGHT. 3, PILING CENTER TO CENTER SPACIN_G ON ALL FIXED DOCKS TO BE 10' NOMINAL. AND NOT TO EXCEED 1?'� __ _ 4. DOCK FRAMING AND DECKING TO BE COf�STRUCTED USING STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS (SCREWS TO BE iYPE SPECIFIC FOR MATERIAL UTILIZED). 5. WOOD DECK BOARD SPACING AT TIME OF INSTALLF,TiON NOT TO EXCEED 1I�s" TO ALLOW FOR CURING, CC�MPOSITE DEC:K SPACING NOTTO EXCEED 1/4". 6. ALL DOCK FRAMING OTHER THAN DECKING TO BE MINIMUM GRADE 2 LUMBER. 7. RASP OR FEATHER ALL SAWCUTS. 8. �+�LL CONSTRUCTION TO MEET OR EXCEED COUNTY REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTIONS 166-(332, 333, & 334) OF THE PINELLAS COUNTY WATER AND NAVIGATION CONTROL AUTHORI"fY REGULATIONS MANI�AL. 9. CCA WOOD NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR DECKING OR RAILING MATERIALS. WOOD TREATMENT AS FOLLOWS AF"E ACCEPTABLE: ALKALINE COPPER QUATERNARY (ACQ), IF ACQ TREATMENT IS UTILIZED, THEN THE WOOD l�EEDS TO Bi= SEALED WITH AN ENGINEER-APPROVED SEALANT. 10. IF A MAIN DOCK SUPPORT PILING FALLS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY (LESS THAN 2 FEET) TO A BOLLARD PILING F:EQUIRED FOR A FINGER PIER, THE BOLLARD PILING MAY BE USED FOR BOTH PURPOSES PROVIDING THE CENTER TO CENTER SPANS OF Ti-fE DOCK SUPPOfZT PILINGS DO NOT EXCEED 12 FEET. 11. 5/8" GALVANIZED FASTENERS ARE NOT TO BE USED IN WOOD WITH COPPER AZOLE TREATMENT 12. PILES TO BE WRAPPED FROM THE MUD (SILT) LINE TO 2.0' ABOVE THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE (MHWL). WITH PP.IME "rlIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE 30 MILS OR .030" THICK 13. FlLL WOOD PLANKING WHICH IS TO BE OVER AN AREA OF SEAGRASS, IF PP.ESENT, SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 8" WIDE AIVD HAVE A MINIMUM SPACING OF NO LESS THAN 1/2" APART AFTER SHRINKAGE. 14. PILINGS TO BE INSTALLED IN AREAS CONTAINING SEAGRASS, IF PRESENT, TO BE INSTALLED BY JETTIN3 WITH A 3" PUNdP REDUCED TO A 1-4" (JET PIPE), AUGERING AND DRIVII�G. SHOULD ANY ACCUMULATION OF SEDIMENT GCCUP. AT THE BASE GF THE PILING, IT IS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE GRASS AREA. FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF /aUTyQRt�A�T1QN ##2i664 ��,,`, D WA� ',��! e� �P,C� ,....... �t��i :��G.• `°�GEk"S�°��'S��i' ��_o � m + NO 1t5588 :� Pmmm � � pvm �- � .# �oo _ � . o�� , � �' -, ?S� T��F � ��/�a�� U '�l p: � � �� ' . 'C7��.•' � �� °QF� ��`;�Ot�A1-E;��`�� '" WOODS CONSULTING 1714 COUNTY ROAD t, SUITE 22 DUNEDIN, FL 34698 PH. (727) 786-5747 FAX (727) 786-7479 REVISED: �o� �1�� _k��. ��'r"��'.� ��i� I�� ELECTRIC CONDUIT PVC WATER LINE UTILITY SEt�tION VIEW DECK SCRE�'V PATTERN INTERMEDIATE BTRINGER LAP JOINT J}"�, (NTS) I�I _�.e DOUBLE STRINGER^uMIN. 4' OVE:2LAP INTERMEDIAT= STRINGER MIN. 2' OVERL.4P � 12' MAX. O.C. I 10' NOMINAL SPAGNG O,C. �I SHEET L� SCALE: NONE PFZIVATE RESlDENTIAL SII�t3l_E-FAMILY /�pp�ication# (OFFICIAf_ USE ONLY) 2" X 6" RAIt 2" X 6" RA1LS EQUALLY SPACE� HANDRAIL DETAIL (147.0 LF TOTAL) NOTE: IF COMPOSITE DECKING IS USED. O.C. STRINGER SPACING TO BE VIA MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS, NOT TO Ell"HER 5�4"X6" SAWN EXCEED 24" O.C. BRAZILIAN HARDWOOD, 2" X 6" PT, OR � COMPCSI7E DECKING 4" X 4" HANDRAIL STANCHIONS PLACED 5.0' O.C. �ILING TO 8E FASTENED TO RINGERS W/ SHORT BOLT, !D FASTENED TO PILE WITH �NGER BOLT WHEN AVAILABLE F�ORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUT O� �i�„�I�i�N�7664 � ��.CT*�R j��7� — `1 • ... �I ,� �'�.�� i,� C E /VS'�•.�y �'�v � � � No 15586 �� ° '� * . _ . _ � '��° � :' �� . �;• �� : �� P: '� ¢ . �i� � .••' �'j;`O� ¢ � � EN �� /I 1/1E��, U 2" X 10" INTERMEDIATE STRINGER MAX. 2.0' O.C. CCA OR ACG! .60 RET. ALL BOLTING TO BE 5/8" S/S MINItVIUM PIL� BEfVT BRACING: ALL PILE BENTS TO BE CROSS BRACED WITH 2" X 10" #2 S4S CCA 2.5 RET. ONE SIDE ONLY 0 0 0 0 o �0 � ° � � ° 22 DEG MIN ° 45 DEG MAX o t� HANDRAIL (WHERE APPLICABLE) STANCHIONS PLACEO 5.0' O.C. DOUBLE STRINCa�R 2" X 10" #2 S4S CCA OR. ACQ .60 RET. � 2" X 10" #2 S4S CCA � 2.5 RET. ONE EACH SIDE 2" X i 0" #2 S4S ,� CCA 2.5 RET. ALL PILE CAPS & CROSS BRACING & BRACING TO BE DOUBLE ELOCKING � BOLTED AS SPECIFIED NOTE: � ALL IN'fERMEDIATE STRINGERS TO BE LAP JOINTED AT BENTS 2.0' MIN. 1�1.�i iJ DOCK & WALKOUT MIN 10" TIP PILING 2.5 C.C.A. RET. SET BUTT DO�PIN, MIN S.0' PENETRATION. WOQDS CONSULTIN� �0� ��9 ��j�+I �N�l�� 1714 COUNfY ROAD 1, SUI7E 22 �aP i� k=<� DUNEDIN FL 34698 PH. (727j 786-5747 FAX (727) 786-7479 t� ��:L.� �.��f\ REVISED: C� ET� 9 L.�� SHEET �j SCALE: NONE TYPICAL 4 POLE BOAT LIFT MIN 4.5 K LIFT CAPACITY FLORIDA CEF��I,FtGATE OF :- _� : \Gr•��Cfiy •:< �'� • NO y�586 �. _ � * ��^ � oF �. 1 O_P . q L E�1 ''� ��,� Pf�IVATE RESIDENTIAL SING�E-FAMILI' � ,4pplication # WOODS CONSULTING 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 DUNEDIN FL 34698 PH. (727i 786-5747 �, FAX (727) 786-7479 _ I REVISED: = (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) �o� ��,iry ��eiP�..��,n�/�� F�f��Q.��E:D �� 0 Fi D�T�,�L.� SHEET 6 SCALE: 1" = 30' PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY I Application# (OFFICIAL USE ONLY) WEIGHTED TURBIDITY CURTAINS TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND REMAIN IN PLACE THROUGHOUT IN-WATER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. WATER LEVEL FLOAT SEA FLOOR � 12" M I o , 0 0 CONNECTING RODS --i CHAIN WEIGHTED� ��TYPICAL FLOATING TURBIDITY CURTAINS NOT TO SCALE (DESlGN BY AER-FLO INC.) FLORID ��;�FICATE OF AU 664 ,� �,••s��s `��',' �• i v' N 155gg ;�� o * $ m � : _3�� rE 4F Q� �� i N N : '•. � p,. '�i �� .,� d,s/ ,p �.� p, ,U;�,� � � o�cW� ,,��o�a; �N��. �U�� WOODS CONSULTING 1714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 DUNEDIN FL 34698 PH. (727� 786-5747 FAX (727) 786-7479 REVISED: 801 BAY ESPLANADE TURBIDITY CONTROL �o =, v : �.�<: .v. SHEET 7 SCALE: 1" = 50' � ,, ,°� � i.��,. '�° «� "�" � � �;� > �� a �� r" . �� Ly iF �� A n� � ��i `s � � � i f � F FLORID ��j�FICATE OF A �l 7664 •• I •' E �� :S'i'" ��i \� : . . / � V' � � g5g6 :. * � _ o � � : m t� /, q�0 w �,1� TATE �F �2�� K N N ., . `� �`. �,c� OFt�p�.�C?��•'�Q�� '�,��`S,S, ...-��GC`�`, NQ�� .,, O N P .. �, ��,��►��•` -� -- � � � . •.. _ . �'�� , . _ �a, , � , � � �� f - �, t =� ,�.. � g � �� r _,`'.� ,n �,._� ,.' �F,`�„,',�. �': WOODS CONSULTING 7714 COUNTY ROAD 1, SUITE 22 DUNEDIN, FL 34698 PH. (727) 786-5747 FAX (727) 786-7479 REVISED: � �� s .°` - *, �. �. +'. 2 « � a � g °�?4� �'� �#vr. �i� � � -A`'%'k _. „ . . .. . .,. �: „�.�� E.-;r°, �. `_ : %� = 't :K_ 801 BAY ESPLANADE MATERIALS/ CONSTRUCTION STAGING (OFFiCIAL USE ONLY) SHEET 8