Loading...
PSP91-13; PSP96-06; SP91-13; VR95-60PSP91-13; PSP96-06; SP91-13; VR95-60 2436 ENTERPRISE RD AVILLA GROUP CARE FACILITY C I T Y OF C L E A R W A T E R Interdepartment Correspondence M r TO: Al Galbraith, City Attorney FROM: Louis R. Hilton, Development Planner II SUBJECT: t?-AVILLA - A Proposed Adult Congregate Care Facility , (PSP 91-13) COPIES: James M. Polatty, Jr., Director of Planning and Development; Scott Shuford, Planning Manager/Development Code Administrator DATE: April 27, 1993 As a courtesy to you, attached is a brief background of the proposed AVILLA adult group care facility site plan. The background information is in the form of a letter requested by Ms. Janet Voorhees of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council for the Council's review and comment concerning the application for a DER permit. The attached information is not all inclusive, as the applicant has substantially revised the proposed site plan, but has not submitted the preliminary plans due to a dispute over the site plan review fee requirement. As you may know, a meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 11, 1993, 11:00 a.m. to discuss the proposed preliminary site plan with Bob Root (applicant), Bill Baker, Jim Polatty, Scott Shuford, Bob Maran, Mike Quillen and myself. If you should need. additional information please contact me at 6880. mn1.lr6 23 June 1995 Mr. Scott Shuford Director of Central Permitting City of Clearwater P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Dear Mr. Shuford: Thank you for your letter dated 7 June 1995; basically I believe the project can comply with the details of your letter; however, there are a couple of points which may need some additional clarification. To make it easier, I have followed your letter paragraph by paragraph: Based upon the wording of Chapter 43, and specifically 43.02(6), I was prepared to send you congratulatory flowers, but then couldn't decide what 'flavor' to get so, you get this letter instead. 2. A. You mention that this site will require a variance from the City's wetlands setback buffer requirements (42.28), and although I don't have a particular problem with this, let me mention to you that in the past, projects which were under review by the City staff were exempt from changes made to the code after the initiation of the review process. B. Due to the fact that this project was under review, and paid for, prior to the enactment of this statute, it seems reasonable to assume that this project would be exempt from the necessity of obtaining a variance. C. My position is further enhanced by recent treatment of another project under review by the city, which was basically developed under similar circumstances. D. I am also enclosing a copy of a plan for a city project which is currently being developed with a similar area extending into a protected area. I have not as yet been able to locate an application for a variance for that project, and of course the similarities are remarkable to my proposed project. 3. A. [Relating to driveway/parking] Having talked with Bob Maran, he has conveyed to me that the City Engineer, Mr. Richard Baier, feels that a 12 foot driveway would be needed in order to deliver goods and services to the dwelling. I believe that the proposed driveway more than meets those requirements. To assist you in the evaluation of this assumption on my part, please refer to Clearwater Code Section. 42.34 Parking: (4)(b) where it states 'Generally, there shall be not more than one entrance and one exit or one combined entrance and exit per property along any ?? ?? ? ?/? ?-? street unless otherwise determined necessary by the traffic en ig Weer. Prior to having Northside Engineering draw the plans as submitted, I reviewed my proposal with Mr. Mike Gust, Traffic Operations Engineer. Upon his tentative approval I had the plans drawn, and subsequently reviewed by staff members at a preliminary review session {recording in file, available for review at any time), confirmation was made as the suitability of said configuration by Mr. Gust during that meeting. B. As an alternative, I understand that as a single family or duplex, I can actually design a driveway where one could back out onto a City street. I am not against making such a design change; however, it seems as if backing into Enterprise Road would not be in anyone's best interest. It would be cheaper for me to do this, but who would profit from such a decision. C. Another concern was for delivery of 'goods' to the dwelling. Our design includes a five-foot wide walk to the front door; what 'good' would not be able to traverse a five-foot wide walkway? The front door to a house is usually no more than three feet wide. D. In response to those concerns I suggest that you review how this situation was handles at the apartment complex on NE Coachmen Road known as Town Place, Please note that the enclosed computer drawn picture shows a 4-foot wide wooden walkway leading to the entrances of those units, and that there is no alternative provided, excepts to transgress over the grass. I believe a similar situation exists here, but it is to be a 5-foot wide walkway, and yes, one could still approach the dwelling by walking on the grass. E. It was also mentioned that a driveway might be required to give 'fire trucks' an ingress to the property; if in fact this is the case, allow me to point out that emergency vehicles seldom pull into a driveway, as there is an increased danger of an accident when they are required to back into a street. F. If you can identify the problem, I will do my best to resolve the problem; however, it is difficult to resolve a problem, when one doesn't know what the problem is. 4. Of course, part of the problem is, since I have not declared what this project is going to be, either a single family dwelling, a duplex, or a residential group home for up to 12 individuals, it makes it somewhat difficult for the City staff members to evaluate my parking requirements; however, to simplify the situation, I am hereby going to declare that I would like to proceed with the project as if it were to be a residential group home for twelve individuals. This is not to say, that I will be building a group home, only that for permitting purposes, it is to be evaluated as if it were going to be a group home. 5. ['A cross access agreement/easement....'] An easement in favor of the Condominium has been recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, and there a 24-foot separation distance already provided been between the leading edge of the Condominium carport, and the rear face of our proposed building. 6. "Stormwater retention calculations must be submitted." I was under the impression that single family dwelling and duplexes were exempt from having to submit these calculations. This was verified by telephone conversation between me and Mike Quillen, this A.M. Also, unless I have been mis-informed, a group home, under chapter 419 for up to 14 individuals is to be treated as a single family dwelling; this was confirmed by conversations with Mike Quillen and Bob Maran this A.M.. If I am wrong in this assumption, please respond as quickly as possible, and I will supply the required computations. I have also validated these responses by talking to Val Mahan in regards to these matters. 7. "Stormwater quality" see pre-ceding paragraph for my response. 8. Will do. 9. Will do. 10. Thank you. I would rather see you and other City staff members spend their time on something more productive for the City, but as you can tell I have focused in on this project, and will do what it takes to develop same. As always 'thank you' for the professional consideration which I know will be given to the items as outlined in this letter. Kindest regards, Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Fl. 34623-1701 Ph/Fax: 813-799-8877 cc: file Bob Maran, Civil Engineer III Richard J. Baier, City Engineer Lou Hilton, Senior Planner Steve Doherty, Central Permitting Supervisor Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer Mike Gust, Traffic Engineer Val Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator 1 I would rather see you and other City staff members spend their time on something more productive for the City, but as you can tell I have focused in on this project, and will do what it takes to develop same. As always 'thank you' for the professional consideration which I know will be given to the items as outlined in this letter. M g ar , Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Fl. 34623-1701 Ph/Fax: 813-799-8877 cc: file Bob Maran, Civil Engineer III Richard J. Baier, City Engineer Lou Hilton, Senior Planner Steve Doherty, Central Permitting Supervisor Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer Mike Gust, Traffic Engineer Val Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator f r T vi I t) t.v a 0 rx? F- 6+4 A i h r ' Ind oo'DQ J ?HNP L- 0 W t1J (n W W In Ld Z J U Q _"-. 1 ', 111 0 ' 1 ' 1 1 n, 1 I 1 1 1' ' 1 ' 11 -----------'----, 1 ; 11 V 1 I 1 1 ? ?t? ' 1 1 1 ? 11 BoskeLOoll Court 1 1 11 II 1 1 1 ' 11 1 , , 1 ' 11 5+00 ?,,, 6+00 12.0 I t 11 ® 1 1 11 1 I1 11 1 11 1 1 ' 11 Son. 1 L .P. Sql. Conc p , Oeonout elk. Col. Rim 6.90 V t 1 `' 1 ' 1 11 1 2 1 ' 1 t1 v I 1 ; N• , Y 1 1 1 ; 5T' ?1 Co, ? 1 ' 1 1 elk. COI. 1 1 1 I 1 ' 1 11 1 1 1? I 1 ,, 1 ,1 i i 10' I 1 , 1 11 I 1 , 1 11 r I 1 11,' 1 1' I 1 , 1 1' ` , , L OV 1 1 - 1 FF Ele, L , t X 1 1.- -' ? 1 - ----------------- OII ------- rr' _ c. --?•?? u Y, 2' Ook grove _?;'it" , EA• l.Gx,C. II '1 ,1 ,t 11 10- 16' F )2- kiongrove Y$` - SO' Mongrovc O - Clear cr.q rcr PURPOSE: Const. New Deck, 995 Sq. Ft. k Ennonee Snoreline DATUM: N.G.V.D. 1929 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: City of Oeorwoter IN: SECTION 5, TWSP. 29S RNG. 15E CLEARWATER. PINELLAS COUNT'(, FL APPLICATION BY: City of Cleorwoter I ?2= ------ 4d i 1.5 l0 ;; 11 t2' ?• , 11 PRQ°OS£D STEWS 11 ? , ,1 It I 11 L' Ct U t 4 K ti 1 V Harbor a] ENHANCEMENT AREA PLAN SCAM: 1'-30' CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA. ENGINEERING DEP °•RTMENT -an a CLEARWATER SE"'Ci1 11/1/94 AG RECREATION CEN iT".R .? .o to PLAN yaoali oos? ?1 -! LY iF cuola C xw-m l.L/ M / 7 C-a ao-a7t 30 April 1995 Kevin D. Garriott, Permitting Supervisor City of Clearwater 10 South Missouri Avenue P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Re: Letter of Transmittal. Dear Mr. Garrott: MAY p 1 CITY OF CLEAnWATER Attached are sixteen, signed and sealed, copies of our proposal for the property located at 2436 Enterprise Road. If you should need additional copies, please do not hesitate on giving me a call. I was very pleased to experience a hightened level of professionalism by the staff of the City during our recent preliminary review of my proposal - thank you and your staff. erel Y Robert Root 2 2436 Enterprise Road/ Clearwater, Florida 34623-1701 Phone/Fax: 813-799-8877 -- -9 .?3a ? " -;;V I'-- J 20 July 1995 Mr. Scott Shuford, Director of Central Permitting City of Clearwater P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Fl. 34618-4748 Dear Mr. Shuford: c _c_: ?G ?-- R16- ?3 ,W 01 Thank you for you letter dated 27 June 1995; however, because I believe some of the assumptions which you and other city staff members have made are incorrect, or capricious in nature, and thereby have charged me with an unreasonable burden, I am hereby requesting review of same, by an independent third party, as permitted under Florida Statute 120. Basis for my claims stems from the following: 1. Based upon your statement that I will require a "conditional use permit", I believe you have burdened me with something that is unjustified, and I believe this item, violates Florida Statute 419. 2. Your letter mentions that as a residential group home for twelve or fewer individuals "(it) is not a single family use...", however, I believe that it is a single family dwelling, and also violates provisions of 419. 3. Concerning the submitted plan for a driveway, I have been able to find nothing, nor have I heard anything by you or Mr. Baier (City Engineer) which would preclude this design from being acceptable under the Cities ordinances. Subjective statements which leave much to mis- interpretation, can only be viewed in the light of the context with which they were made. In this case I don't believe justification exists which would exclude our proposed design concept. Perhaps if the specific area(s) of concern were to be relayed to me, this particular problem could be resolved without getting a third party involved. Please understand that Mr. Baier was always professional during our telephone conversation; however, any disagreement with his interpretation is based solely upon the facts, or lack thereof, as they have been conveyed to me. Based upon the items as outlined above, I am requesting that you, and the City Attorney [whom I have attempted to contact several time, to no avail] in an attempt to avoid this situation, proceed forthwith, as soon as possible to schedule a hearing through Tallahassee. As always, I am open to anything which may provide a mechanism for resolving this situation in the most efficient way possible. (4!E , Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Fl 34623-1701 ,1Ut 2 41995 C4EARWATER Ty O CE RF C, V-41- 4? ?-( Tuesday, August 01, 1995 Scott Shuford Director of Central Permitting P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FI 34618-4748 Dear Scott: Thank you for your letter dated 27 July 1995, and I do understand and appreciate your clarifying the City's position as to this being a permitted use. I also understand how you, as a city employee, might classify a home for 12 individuals as something other than a single family residence; however, it is my position that our proposed project is a single family dwelling in light of recent Federal Court rulings on this matter. I also wish to point out that this is considered a single family residence by both the State and Federal Regulatory Agencies. Furthermore, I believe that both Federal and State regulations takes precedence in this case. In response to your comment about contacting the City Attorney, I agree this would have been the preferred, and least costly, avenue to pursue in resolving this point; however, as I have left several messages at the City Attorney's office concerning this matter, and have yet to receive even a single return phone call, I can only deduct that this is not a viable option for me. In regards to the driveway and on-site circulation issue, you mention that you "...support Mr. Baier's determination" which means to me that you must understand Mr. Baier's rationale for not supporting my position, and if this is true, then please do me the courtesy of putting in writing your understanding of the justification for said rationale. If anyone will just be specific in regards to this matter, then I will consider changing the plan; however, if the City's position can not be defended, then I would expect the matter to be resolved to my satisfaction. I am going to postpone my request for a hearing as provided under State Statute 120, until I have received a response concerning these matters from either you or the City Attorney. Thank ou for your operation and I hope the operation went well. Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FI 34623 -1701 AUG 0 219950 CENTRAL PERMITTING CITY OF CLEARWATER I October 1995 William C. Baker Assistant City Manager P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Dear Mr. Baker: do, 1 "00 r, L foop TMTRIN - V-%, OCT 02 1995 CITY OF CLEARWATER Having read your letter dated 15 September 1995, I was rather surprised to receive a letter dated 22 September 1995, from Mr. Rich Baier, City Engineer, which seems not to parallel your letter, but in fact it appears to state just the opposite, fundamentally, Mr. Baier has laid out an ultimatum, `do it my way, or I won't approve your plan'. Based upon your letter, and in an effort to minimize the lingering reservations of the Engineering Department, I have "minimize(d) the length of the walk by locating the various features of the site plan in positions which would accomplish such minimization.". My latest attempts to resolve this matter provides for a sixty-eight feet (68') walk from building entrance to the parking area. Also provided is a 24'x 24' turning area within my property, thereby allowing vehicles access to the parking spaces provided, without having to make a turn using the city right-of-way. By the way, how does one get from the street to the driveway without turning the vehicle? Also, I have added an additional 3 feet of landscaped area between the rear of my building and the common driveway currently being used by the Villas at Countryside. The enclosed rough sketch for the modified site plan represents my best efforts to resolve the stated concerns of the Engineering Department, but if this attempt is not satisfactory, I believe it will be time to reassess my position concerning how this project is to proceed. Finally let me ask the rhetorical question: is there a problem with the proposed site plan, or does the real problem stem from something else? Kindest regards, Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 34623-1701 Encl.. Sketch of Proposal cc: Rick Baier, City Engineer Betty Deptula, Citly Manager ?Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director Val Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator Bob Mahan, Civil Engineer III (Bakerlwpd) 3 October 1995 Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director City of Clearwater 10 South Missouri Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Dear Mr. Shuford: I am requesting appeal, as provided for under the City Code, the decision made by the Engineering Department concerning the Avilla Project. Based upon the letter from Mr. Rich Baier dated 22 September 1995, the proposed revisions are not satisfactory to the engineering department. Please note that there are two items which I wish to appeal: The driveway: I contend that it is adequate as shown (see attached proposal) and does provide an area, separate from the right-of-way, to allow entrance to the parking spaces provided. Please note that my office is located about a block away from the Avilla site, and has the same configuration as the one which Mr. Baier now rejects. 2. The walk: I contend that as designed it will not constitute an undue hardship on any future resident of the Avilla project. If there is any paperwork to be completed, please so notify; however, if this letter suffices, please begin the process as soon as possible. As always, thank you for your cooperation. Z:51;ds Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 34623-1701 Encl.. `k'roposed Site Plan cc: Rick Maier, City Engineer Betty Deptula, City Manager Val Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator Bob Maran, Civil Engineer III 4 rrt laUdavu Ju dNJ I JaUa i ? ? _, 12lOd2!`d0 .? ' .S Z t 1 ---- a ---00•tis LO- __- •'? ?, .. Q33a. Ati S, y .. • cy +0 Y _ ; ZSR6 L# I ?b r • ...• .J?a''? ? (TI I{ ti ;? ?.?? ?r?? ' ,?? ,ti 11f r10J• 1 •M '??' f ?f?"(r a? •"CS _?' O '• 3 O rnld?0 _ d38d siRl 83Mod D*n 3leissod 3Wf1 ON00 v3W So-u ' n 3,etssod ds a ds• . 6,01 tt 301 /? ? ?a{yi,,,,,}•[Xe•?nG::G:c".?Z4 r: .... ? .-40,, .a. .. ., ry.• .,-,. ...r.. .:. .. .. C7 . 1J 'f, `f dS x ,, y -_?- 21311+M . ?O 3003 ?- .CD tb-i 1 G, / .6, : L.r..... 77E Z . C?l x x ; i, a ?? Oy O x Y pY, y 0.08 = L81 lZ/ l l dS' CY) 0o xC? L6-6L = t6/02/-V0 NOLVA3?3 63iVM O I QN0d f \ _ x V. ds' tea, ds N ti \ f - -a 1*i x. (. ' ?? 1 x ? 1 ? r 9 1 0 .Z l C?b Cl, c? IJ •L'9 t'8L 'AN] \`\\? f --?' L // as ILI :dOi 4 l/ 40 H 'ON00 6 \ \ p' _ I 0330 .-?6'LZ l\\ \\ d 319 ??_--- '°Q - 1--,C-'6Z1-1 ?\.._-.C0------ - ----- :?0 3 "09,6 0 - 364 0/61S Z9.6L = 3S Z861? 0/231S g II \J \ *ZT9 = NOLLYA 3 II nos OS'6L = N •ANII 13.1N1 •a00 '3'S L9.6L = M •ANI?'\i \ 1(10 X08 N WU :ivM3H1 ZZT8 :d01 \` ?? I ?? Lb n 11 i3_1 I Z) v- - - - cOn.9- O -?? _I - ?`O 1C ?8?1 w??? , . eam •?No? .z lb??ti? I ? ??titi? I --- --??a3_ ?zx?a? ? _--:_-® O , c ? Off' 1 =? ?? I u I 1 _-1 DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE PROJECT/LOCATION: AVILLA GROUP CARE FACILITY DRC Meeting Date: December 14, 1995 1. SCOTT SHUFORD, CENTRAL PERMITTING DIRECTOR 2. RICH BAIER, CITY ENGINEER 3. DON MEERIANS, TRAFFIC ENGINEER 4. STEVE SARNOFF, CENTRAL PERMITTING 5. BOB MARAN, ENGINEERING 6. MICHAEL QUILLEN, ENVIRONMENTAL 7. REAM WILSON, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR 8. JAMES GOODLOE, FIRE MARSHAL i 9. ALLEN V. MAHAN, CENTRAL PERMITTING, 10. LOUIS R. HILTON, SENIOR PLANNER 11. VICKIE DAVENPORT, STAFF ASSISTANT II (CONTROL SHEET ONLY) Date received by Planning and Development Office: November 20, 1995 Date of distribution: December 4, 1995 Remarks: Applicant proposes to construct an 8,000 SF Group Care Facility with associated parking, drainage and landscaping. The .449 acre site is at 2436 Enterprise Road and includes a large detention pond which presents site access and building location challenges. COPIES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1PSP9527.avm (A AvilaNat.avm AVILI A DRC NOTICE ... at its meeting of December 14, 1995. Proposed use of the property is for the construction of an Adult Group Care Facility. The property is zoned RM 16, Multiple Family Residential. i GLENN: ANOTHER CUSTOMER. BY THURSDAY, IF POSSIBLE. THANKS! AVM V 0 21OS F )N PAR X66` '?` ; Martial arts school CHUNG MOO DOE jiist, " `' inj moved to 628 Cleveland St. Owner Carl Am Schumacher, a third degree black belt, offers classes and adults Monday through Saturday morning, noo Call 446-2767 for costs and schedules. t PRIVA = CONN Anabe Mary I give n( I custor n r-j day-a- ?. , 4 ! ' ?--? L saying house and th offer b estate, Private Financial Connection staff (left to rigbt): Anabel insura Larson, Monica Larson, Margie Douglass, Paul Douglass, 33 No. Trudy Patterson and Mary Ann Gagnon. 950. ( 77 9 9 y 9 -777 C I T Y OF C E E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3461 8-4748 DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL PERMITTING Telephone (823) 462-6567 October 18, 1995 Mr. Bob Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL 34623-1701 Dear Mr. Root: This is in response to your request for an interpretation of City Code Requirements pertaining to your -- property located at the above address; in particular, you are concerned about the interpretations made by the City Engineer with regard to site access. You have asked that I forward the interpretation to the City Attorney's Office for final consideration under the provisions of-Section 35.10 of City Code. The City Engineer and I recently met with Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides concerning this matter. Ms. Dougall-Sides advised that, given the number and variety of concept plans that you have presented to city staff, it would be more appropriate for you to formally submit for site plan review prior to requesting a determination of an interpretation of the City Code Requirements from her office. In other words, your request is not considered "ripe" for review until you have made a formal application. I hope you find this information to be of use. Please contact Val Mahan of my office to coordinate a formal submission of a site plan for city consideration. Should you have other questions or concerns, please contact either City Engineer Rich Baier or me. Sincerely, Scott Shuford, AICP Director of Central Permitting SS/db cc: Rich Baier, City Engineer Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney Val Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator" 0 -Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer- C?P 23 December 1995 Scott Shuford Director of Central Permitting City of Clearwater 112 South Osceola Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 Dear Mr. Shuford: Having received your letter dated 18 December 1995 this date. I thought it advisable to write a letter responding to same; accordingly: 1. Let me assure you that I can, and will complete this project, pending final approval by the City of Clearwater. 2. You are certainly entitled to your opinion concerning my intentions; however, to draw a conclusion based upon your opinion, and then to announce during the DRC meeting that `I might as well cancel this meeting right now, if you think we are going to provide you the basis for a lawsuit against the Villas at Countryside' was not only an incorrect assumption, the comment was inappropriate and ill timed. 3. My comments meant to convey that I would not be putting on a `dog and pony show' for the Development Code Adjustment Board. I will, as I hopefully have always done in the past, present the information in a professional and logical manner; however, if it is going to take a `slick-talker' to convince the Board to approve the required variances, then the project itself may be in jeopard, as I am perhaps Pinellas County's worst salesman. Also let me state that I believe this will be an excellent project, with the capacity of being able to help twelve individuals lead a richer and more productive life than they currently enjoy. 4. I believe the Staff will give the Development Code Adjustment Board the most appropriate recommendation, either `for' or `against', this project. It will then be up to this independent board to render a final decision. You do not, nor do 1, know how this Board will ultimately rule; however, if the ruling is favorable, I will complete the project; but, if it is negative, then, I will seek compensation, as provided for by Law. Believe me, I try and avoid the court system whenever possible, and your own code indicates that: 4.1.3. [Comprehensive Planning] "The City shall recognize the overriding Constitutional principle that private property will not be taken without due process of law and the payment of just compensation ... ". In this particular case, if the Board of Adjustment does not act favorably in regards to the variance for the 25-foot set back; then I would be more than willing to sit down with City Staff and see if their is any basis for my conviction that a `taking' may have occurred, thus potentially avoiding litigation altogether. i I DEC 2 71995 GITY Or'" w?Q 74J Let me also take this opportunity to state that the vast majority of City Staff, have always conducted themselves in a professional manner during the five years that this site has been under review. Hope you have a great holiday, and that 1996 turns into a real `banner year' for all of the citizens of Clearwater. Kindest regards, Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Fl. 34623-1701 cc: DRC Members Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney '' i i l i II I I ?' I L i ; I CITY OF CLEARWA'TER ( I Interdepartmental Correspondence ICI I;! ,:. TO: Ream Willi n,.Director,IParks & Recreation; Don Meerians, Assistant Traffic Engineer; Bob Maran, j 1 CE III-i likq buillen, Environmental Engineer; James Goodloe, Fire Marlall; Steve Sarnoff, Central ; Permitting Specialist I? J I .: I1I: i I !? j FROM: Allen V'. ITVI hhan, Coordinator, Central Permitting 3 SUBJECT Final Site Plan for AVILLA Group Care Facility -(SP'91_13)? i 3 I COPIES: ` Scott Sh u ford,; Central Permitting; Rich Baier; City Engineer I II '?i i i DATE: I ( April 2i 199 Attached is a copy of the' above describe Id amended site plan submitted on March 26, 1996 for certification. Please refer to the attached !)PC summary, meeting notes of January 25, 1996 addressing conditions of approval required by the DJ.k.C. for this amended site plan: If you find the'site plan to bd acceptable„ please initial and date next to the applicable condition(s) on the attachment. If you do have:',an objection and/or recommendation, please comment below or attach your comments to this memo. i I Comments: (by,, whom and with date, please) Gas ,I lil; I .? Vt I ?' 17 ? kip P• i I II W -1: /IL? 41,77941 ' i , ?1 11 i f I - , 3 -'76 3, APPENDIX A SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES AND CHARGES j BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS (§ 47.087) (1) Permits and fees, in general; exceptions. (a) Permits are not required for carpeting, painting, wall papering, tile, paneling over existing walls, and floor tile, nor where the valuation of labor, materials, and all other items does not exceed $500.00 and the work or operation is of casual, minor, inconsequential nature, and does not violate any city codes or ordinances, or is exempt pursuant to Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida (Special Acts), Section 25. (b) Valuations for new construction and additions shall be based on the current Southern Building Code Congress International's valuation tables. Other permits shall be based on contract value. The Building Official may request a copy of signed contract if value presented does not appear to be in line with other permits of like work. (c) Where no fee is stated, the same shall not be interpreted as an intention to waive any requirement for a permit that may be stated elsewhere in the City of Clearwater's Code of Ordinances. (d) Demolition permits shall be issued at the fee set forth in the fee schedule. However, no fee shall be required when the building or structure has been declared a hazard to public safety or welfare by the Building Official. (e) Prior to starting any electrical, gas, plumbing, mechanical, roofing or other work under a combination permit, the contractor of the subcontractor engaged to do the work shall file with the building inspections division a form showing the name and certification number of the subcontractor doing the work, the subcontractor's Clearwater license number or occupational license registration number, the number of the combination permit, the address where the work is to be done, and other related information as may be required by the building inspections division. Failure to file such form or provide such information shall be just cause for the refusal of inspection services, the issuance of a correction notice, and assessment of the appropriate fee. (2) Fee schedule In the case of reviews, inspections and similar activities associated with building and related codes not requiring a combination permit, the following schedule of fees shall apply. Description of service Fee or Charge Plan review fees: Building permit fee estimate Consultation or special service fee, per hour Plans examination fee: Multifamily and commercial, $50,000 value or less Greater than $50,000, but not exceeding $250,000 Greater than $250,000, but not exceeding $500,000 Greater than $500,000, but not exceeding $750,000 $750,000 or greater One or two-family residential building, per building For multiple identical single- family or two-family buildings in the same project: First building Each additional building Zoning plan review for new one and two-family; additions, remodeling, or new multi-family or commercial structures; per application Flood zone review, for structures located in Flood Zones "A" or "V", per application Threshold structures, per structure $25.00 50.00 $12.50 plus $3.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof $162.50 plus $2.50 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $50,000 $662.50 plus $2.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $250,000 $1,162.50 plus $1.50 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $500,000 $1,537.50 plus $1.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $750,000 $75.00 $75.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 (2) 4 Plan Amendments: Plan amendment (change to permitted plans), per hour $50.00 Minimum fee 50.00 Duplicate permit placards, each 25.00 Change of contractor, per contractor 25.00 Certificates of occupancy: One or two-family dwelling, per unit 10.00 Multi-family and commercial, per application 25.00 Conditional certificate of occupancy, per condition 25.00 Replacement or additional copy, except one or two- family dwelling 25.00 Special inspections: Change of use or HRS inspections, per trade 30.00 Maximum fee .60.00 After hours, weekends, per hour per inspection 50.00 Minimum fee, per inspection 100.00 Refunds: Permits under $30.00, unless issued in error by City No refund Work has commenced, or permit is over 90 days old No refund All other permits Refund of fee paid, less $30.00 or one-half the fee, whichever is greater, to be retained by the City Permit fees: $50,000.00 value or less $25.00 plus $6.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof Greater than $50,000, but not exceeding $250,000 Greater than $250,000, but not exceeding $500,000 (3) f $325.00 plus $5.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $50,000 $1;;325.00 plus $4.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $250,000 Greater than $500,000, but not exceeding $750,000 $750,000 or greater $2,325.00 plus $3.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $500,000 $3,075.00 plus $2.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $750,000 This fee applies to the following types of permits, with additional costs of $30.00 per trade as noted: Combination permits, subtrades (involve at least two of the following: Building, electric, plumbing, mechanical, roofing and gas) Building only Electrical only Mechanical (may require electrical) Gas only Roof only Aluminum structures (may require electrical) Aboveground fuel tanks Asbestos abatement Carports Davits (may require electrical) Decks Docks (may.require electrical) Driveways (plus $5.00 right-of-way permit,) Fire alarms Fire suppression systems Fireplace Fences Hoods Inground swimming pools (also requires electrical and plumbing) Lawn sprinklers Parking lots Remarciting Satellite dish (may require electrical) Seawalls Security alarms Siding, soffit and fascia Signs (may require electrical) Sheds Slabs Solar heaters and panels Spas (also requires electrical and plumbing) Underground fuel tanks (removal, replacement or new installation) Walls (privacy and retaining) (4) 3 T Miscellaneous permits: Mobile home, mobile office, construction trailer, sales trailer, etc. Building permit (tiedown and site placement) Electrical permit Gas permit Plumbing permit Mechanical permit Temporary power pole, not in conjunction with combination permit Tent permit (may require electrical) Demolition permit Plus, per square foot in excess of 1,000 square feet (No fee charged when demolition is ordered by City) Housemove Application Pre-inspection Plus, per mile outside City $30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 50.00 0.05 40.00 50.00 0.30 Remodeling permit, for setting house on lot $50,000 value or less $25.00 plus $6.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof. Greater than $50,000, but not exceeding $250,000 Greater than $250,000, but not exceeding $500,000 Greater than $500,000, but not exceeding $750,000 $325. 00 plus $5 . 00 per $1, 000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $50,000 $1,325.00 plus $4.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $250,000 $2,325.00 plus $3.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $500,000 $750,000 or greater $3,075.00 plus $2.00 per $1,000 of value or fraction thereof in excess of $750,000 Swimming pool permit, above-ground pool 30.00 Recertification of electrical service 30.00 (5) c Special fees: Work not ready for inspection (reinspection fee): First occurrence 25.00 Second or subsequent occurrence 60.00 Follow up on permit, failure to request inspections 50 percent of permit fee Minimum fee 30.00 After-the-fact permit First occurrence Triple permit fee Second or subsequent occurrence by same contractor, any job site in City 10 times permit fee "Combination permit" means a permit for construction privileges, conditions and restrictions of a building permit, electrical permit, gas permit, plumbing permit, mechanical permit, and roof permit, (or some combination thereof), of which proper approval has been granted the City and for which proper fees have been paid. SG?17'; b:sc13807.ord /G Z.. 17 (6) B&B"g7l.fim r--4 • w ' is i FAX MESSAGE CITY OF CLEARWATER DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL PERMITTING CITY HALL ANNEX 10 SO. MISSOURI AVE. P.O. BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FL 34618 FAX PHONE - (813) 462-6476 OFFICE PHONE - (813) 462-6567 December 18, 1995 TO: Robert Root ii FROM: Allen V. Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator i, FAX PHONE: 799-8877 0 i w 1995 DRC N f th D 14 h t b h d f S MESSAGE: rev . er e ecem , ummary o es o e Attac or your use are t e e Please call if you have questions. Happy olidays! cc: TOTAL PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): Total No. of pages including cover page ,5 6„3fax2.avm DRM51214.AVM Development Review Committee Summary Notes Thursday, December 14, 1995 CP Conference Room, 10 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, FL Five items were discussed: 1. Clearwater Christian College Expansion (PSP 95-26) 2. Avilla Group Care Facility (PSP 91-13) 3. Albertson's Preliminary Plat (SUB 95-08) 4. Rome Tower (PSP 95-07) 5. McMullen-Booth Elementary School (Courtesy Review) ' Results of the discussions were: I. Clearwater Christian College Expansion (95-26): The DRC approved the site plan subject to the following discussion/ conditions: A. Before the Site Plan can be certified, the applicant must complete the following action(s): 1. Provide a copy of the permit application and • calculations to Environmental Management.. 2. Have the final site plan signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida. 3. Obtain a variance from the Development.Code Adjustment Board for construction within 25' of jurisdictional wetlands and note the variance on the site plan. 4. Obtain City Commission approval of the action to build over the D.E.R. use boundary line through a Finding of Public Necessity and note the approval on the site plan. • 5. Field stake and label the corners of.the Boys Dorm Ph. V and associated parking. B. Before the City can issue building permits, the,applicant must complete the following actions: 1. Submit a copy of the approved SWFWMD Environmental Management. 2. Acquire clearing and grubbing and tree removal permits or a no tree verification form from Environmental Management. C. Complete/ observe the following actions as'indi:cated: 1. Obtain the requisite building permits within one(1) year from the site plan certification date:to prevent expiration of the site plan certificati6!6. 2. Obtain the requisite certificate(s) of o'c'cupancy within • three (3) years of the site plan certification date to prevent expiration of the site plan certification. i I; II. Avilla Group Care Facility (PSP 91-13): The DRC requested that the site plan be returned for further review with the following comments/ conditions applicable: A. Before the Site Plan can be certified, the',applicant must complete the following action(s): 1. Show on the plan a fire department connection a minimum of 15 ft. from the structure, adjacent to a paved drive and within 30 ft. of a fire hydrant assembly ;to provide for sprinklers. 2. Locate on the plan minimum 20 Ft wide (a). FIRE LANE(S) on the N , E , S_, W_, side of the structure beginning not closer to the structure than 10 feet. 3. Note that the project is exempt from the City's Open Space and Recreation Assessment Fees. 4. Provide a copy of the SWFWMD permit application and calculations to Environmental Management.. • 5. Show ADA ramps for sidewalks on the site ,plan. 6. Note that the project is exempt from the City's Open Space and Recreation Assessment Fees. 7. Obtain variances from the Development Code Adjustment Board for: a. construction within 25' of a jurisdictional wetland and b. side setbacks. 8. Provide EITHER a. volumetric calculations; and cross- sections which show that additional storage volume is • provided to compensate for the loss of storage volume due to the fill for the parking lot; OR b. cross sections showing that no existing stormwater storage volume is lost. 9. Submit a revised mitigation plan to Environmental Management. 10.Provide a cross section through the site from north to south through the parking lot and the proposed retention basin and east to west through the building. • 11.Provide drainage calculations for increased runoff from proposed building and parking lot. 12.Provide detail that illustrates how the building and parking lot drainage runoff flows to the detention basin. 13.Have the applicant's site engineer evaluate the project in light of the City's comprehensive plan objectives regarding public waterways. 14.Note that it is highly desirable for the project site & construction plans to identify and indicate building elements that are compatible with those o.f neighboring buildings. B. Before..the City can issue building permits,,the applicant must complete the following actions: 1. Obtain and furnish evidence of all applicable permits from other governmental agencies including but not limited to revised SWFWMD & FDEP permits to Environmental Management. 2. Acquire clearing and grubbing and tree removal permits or a no tree verification form from Environmental Management. C. Complete the following actions as indicated:. • 0 E is 1. Obtain the requisite building permits within one(1) year from the site plan certification date to prevent expiration of the site plan certification. 2. Obtain the requisite certificate(s) of occupancy within three (3) years of the site plan certification date to prevent expiration of the site plan certification. 3. Obtain review of and permits for signs and fencing/walls through separate review and permitting,procedures. III. Albertson's Preliminary Plat: the DRC approved the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions/discussions: A. Before the Preliminary Plat can be certified, the applicant must complete the following action(s): 1. Provide and illustrate on the preliminary plat ingress/egress easement(s) for City vehicles. 2. Provide and display on the preliminary plat a 10 foot blanket easement for water lines up to and including the fire hydrants. 3. Eliminate the language under the private dedication note that states that the City of Clearwater will assume maintenance of flow only in drainage easements. 4. Coordinate with the City Zoning and Engineering functions to develop an acceptable method of creating the separate lots on the plat so that they meet the intent of City Code. IV. Rome Tower(PSP 95-07): The DRC approved the site plan subject to the following conditions/discussion: A. Before the Site Plan can be certified, the: applicant must .complete the following action(s): 1. Show on the plan two fire department connections,a minimum of 15 ft. from the structure, adjacent to a paved drive and within 30 ft. of a fire hydrant assembly to provide for sprinklers. 2. Display the site address on the site plan, obtaining assistance as needed from the responsible Zoning Customer'Service representative in establishing the correct address. 3 ?; 3. Show proper lot-area-in site data table on site'plan and/or explain difference between existing and proposed. 4. Remove drainage notes 1 & 2 from site plan. 5. Identify the required 10% amenity area on the site plan. 6. Limit the site plan to one page. 7. Provide a copy of the SWFWMD permit application and calculations to Environmental Management. i 8. Note that the project is exempt from the City's Open Space and Recreation Assessment Fees. 9. Vacate the alley running parallel to Cleveland.'?treet and note such vacation by ordinance number and date on t'e site plan. 1O.Re-design the stormwater vault to eliminate theynorthwest corner. 11.Re-design the loading/delivery area to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer and Utilities Engineer. 12.Put a note on the plan specifying the firm, specific alternate parking arrangements to supplement the robotic.,parking garage integral to the building. 13.Delete any reference to " Future Development Site" on the site plan. B. Before the City can issue building permits, the applicant must complete the following actions: 1. Obtain and furnish evidence of all applicable.,p'ermits from other governmental agencies including but not l:imited to revised SWFWMD permit(s) to Environmental Management. 2. Acquire clearing and grubbing and tree removal permits or a,no . tree verification form from Environmental Management. C. Complete the following actions as indicated: 1. Obtain the requisite building permits within one(1) year from the site plan certification date to prevenit, expiration of the site plan certification. 2. Obtain the requisite certificate(s) of occupancy within • three (3) years of the site plan certification date to prevent expiration of the site plan certification. 3. Obtain review of and permits for signs'and fencing/walls through separate review and permitting procedures. V. McMullen-Booth Elementary School (Courtesy Review): The DRC reviewed the subject site plan and made the following major observation: 1. The school property will annex into the City & 'receive sewer , seAen the pr per, propi ious time,, Mahan, oo dinator, Central Permitting December 18, 1995 +. 4 JAM-19-1996 09:50 FROM CLEARbIATER FIRE DEPT. TO 64 76 P.01 _ M CITE' OF CLEARWATER INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE SHEET FIRE DEPARTMENT TO Val Mahan, coordinator rROX James E. Goodioe, Fire Marshal COPIES Jeff Daniels, Fine Inspector SUBJECT DRC Meeting of January 25 DATE January 1.9, 1996 I have no comments on the Avilla Group Care Facility as submitted in the January 27th distribution. pdll? TOTAL P.01 Janet K. Voorhees February 18, 1993 Page two The owners of the impacted Countryside developments were to file a law suit against the owner/developer responsible for the drainage problem that limited the development of their property. After the retention areas were in place, the owners never followed through with any legal action and the subject property was acquired by the applicant. of this DER permit. Consequently sometime in between the acquisition of the subject property, the Clearwater Department of Public Works Department requested the owners of the subject property to dig out the pond and grass the slopes to create a wet retention pond. The result is the retention pond that exists today on the site which the current owner is now trying to develop, which the City of Clearwater views as not developable. There is no site plan or file of record which provides a simple chronology of each of these actions; only the deduction of the City of Clearwater Public Works /Environmental Management and Planning Services staff. The site is rectangular and measures approximately 129' X 1521. This area completely consists of the wet retention pond proposed to be developed by the applicant. The subject property was subdivided by means of a metes and bounds legal description. It was considered an unlawful subdivision as it was never platted as required by the Clearwater ordinance. Therefore, this is an unlawful subdivision of'land within the City of Clearwater. The lot was allowed to fall delinquent in taxes and subsequently sold by Pinellas County to the present owner. Before a final site plan is approved or any building permit is issued, the site must be platted in accordance with city code. The Clearwater Environmental Management's review of the plan concludes that the construction of a building over the existing wet retention pond is in direct conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan, City stormwater design criteria and wetlands management. The specific areas of concern areas follows: 1) Erosion control of the pond banks; 2) The shading effect over the water, creating a dead zone of aquatic plant life; 3) Protection of the cypress dominated wetland area; 4) Water quality treatment prior to discharge into the cypress dome; 5) Providing a littoral zone 6) The need for a DER dredge and fill permit and lack of on- site area for mitigation for the wetland area. The proposal directly conflicts with numerous elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, goals, objectives and policies with Janet K. Voorhees February 18, 1993 Page three COO PS(, specific regard to erosion control, drainage, conservation of the natural environment, and preservation of the natural ecological community. I hope the information I have provided is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 462-6880. ASinc ly, . H ilton voorhees.lrh Ln .0 ..y:.:: N 00°2'36" W 152.01 a` G...-r' R s 22.0' f cv ..? 150.02' DEED o _>0 E op ?7_ •S r:,i F. S C5' ?_______-- ?+c Cf£. Oi t' S N J IX11 t-A Lol ??-`?Lr? Yom. `` F ?j ?i??.?•- ? i ? ° y?• .1? ryt ; a -- .?Z1'JCl4'J? ?JI`lh} `?8? Q ? ? O I ' I c F § _ T.0 B I I c?? if 0 (9S ^? ?? ? s ti? ?L? o l I 7. 101 110 i V y?!y V (?• £• 4 Go 0 JIM c Fi K ? I I'a, i` 3 of 2 9 I - - wm 'i C •r ?, `' ht IOi i? . o rl!„ ail rn a I A . ? rQ ! s o ?a !,r ? Ili i G t''t ?4 0 t.p sr I ?? ?9 i { e.s r 2I sa z ;? x I O n e t, e?'• r ? I, aiy t O O I x co I < I II O I 0 A 9 D,, a I :?5fi s D > Z'c 1 O 9? y 3 zv I? r? k ,S % ,?S Y s I I C, ?T1 C I X <1 t !ra 1C3' _. r • Y Z O .? >. ) x to y '? F at° S X O m Z I r 71 0 C) 0 0. Ul) 4 tD f } r \? \ { / ?/ ?2 O , ash ?? I I O, n ?l' Li Co 5? 8 I/ oI N ?r : - Iht }ii O (D Y S X `? I ?` VV yy?rr?' ? k A •IY ?'? m Y -'j m CD to 6' Cl) co 9 l (.+ ED " (I I 10 60' 0,9 Q/P r I `' X 3 1 / R 22.3' ?T n -? 8 d 1? _ X 0000 6p EDGE OF W _? \ "J R T x.. o f n ?? ?? I to lpg ?ATE?R ?? S) 00 00 10 W152.(70 0 0 I \ 0 XE AS P H . ROA Q TO NEW CONC. MAIN UNDISTURBED ?o W CUT ?°° 201 '? QO ,r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r f r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r .yr f r r r r-r r r f r r r r r r r r rrrr r r r r r f rrr r r r r r r r NEW C.O f r r'?7' f r r r r f r r r r f f r r f r r f r f f r r r r f f r r f f f f f r r f f 0. r f r f f f f f f f r r f f r f f f r r r rrr rf rf rrrrfrf frr r r r r r r r rrrrrr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r TOP EL.84. f r r r -STORY BLDG rffrrrrrrfrrrf INV. EL.81. frrrrrrrrrrr? • • • ' ' ,, rrrrr r r r r r r r r r r r r rrr r r r• r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rrrr rrrrrrrr r' r• r HEIGHT 3 0' r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 'r r r r r r rrrr rrrrr rrrrr 1 rn rrr r r nm11111111It.111rr1?.jfIHNNIIIIIII 8•{IIjHIII/11 rr r r r i 1 rrr Cl rrr rr r r rrr FE` -? x* v r r r r r r r r r f f r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rrrrr rrrrrr ' r r r r r r r r rrr r r r r r r r r r r. •r r r r r r r r r r r rrr r r r r rrrrrr rr rrr r rrrr rr rrrrrrrrr•rr rr rr rrrr rrrrrr rf rrrr rrrrfrrr rr rrfrfrf rrr rf rrrrrrr - r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r r r r r r r r r r f r r r r r r r r r r r r r r .y f f frff rrr frr, r f r r r f f r r r f f f r r f f f r f r r f f f f -. 2 5 ?`- rrf r f Y ?1 ,• f r r r r r. f r r r r r. f r rr r f r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r f f f r f f r r r f f f f f r r f r r r r r r f f r r r r f r r f f f f r r r r r f f f r r r r..,?_ rf f r r f f f f f f f f f f f f r ..1..` ?? r r r r f r r f NEW RETA NINE WALL EX. A S P N. 1;r ARC PLAN) ?D1 A? C57 ail EX. WET TENTION' ASIN g IT O'REMA114 ' 3 1 i e? WATER ?EIL. T9.91 ( 30-91) 3 d Z x-/ l?h ? lu NEW 51 W I DE i WOOD WALKWAY i' l EX.TOP OF BANK i 1 :Q EX.TOE OF SL PE \ H &W M. 0a. EX. EDGE W `. . . • .A , c 3 <.::. A ??®? 9 . V1 / Y 181 c on x av ? 3' It - F & a NEWC.O.24, Al TOP EL. I > ? p ! INV.EL.T8.0 co EX. CURB INLET EX 38`x24 TOP EL. 83.22 -? THROAT EL. 82.4 INV. EL.T9.50 1 _- @ ?tiol _ __-- ! - - - - - q'?olEX. 8"SAN-SEW_----% oI s .? m 1 C I T Y OF C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34618-4748 % J DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (813) 462-6880 February 18, 1993 Janet K. Voorhees, Project Manager Intergovernmental Coordination & Review Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Dear Ms. Voorhees: RE: ICNR #040-93, AVILLA ACLF STRUCTURE, FDER #522159983, CITY OF CLEARWATER The Clearwater City Commission denied the preliminary site plan for the proposed group care facility known as AVILLA at its November 21, 1991 meeting. At the time, the applicant was proposing to construct a two story building located over an existing stormwater retention basin. The site is approximately .44 acres with a zoning designation of residential multi-family "sixteen" (RM-16) and is part of the original development known as The Villas at Countryside Condominiums. The most recent certified final site plan is dated February 10, 1993, and contains a total of 227 residential dwelling units. At the same time this property was being developed, a golf course was being developed to the south of the subject property. The developer of the golf course cut an 80 foot wide swath through the cypress dominated wetland along the southern banks of the wetland. The alteration of the wetland restricted the natural flow of stormwater drainage from the north. The properties affected were the Villas at Countryside Condominium and the Village at Countryside, a commercial development located to the north across Enterprise Road. As a temporary solution to the drainage problem, the Clearwater Public Works Department required additional retention on these sites to compensate for the volume of stormwater that could no longer flow through the natural drainage course. One of these retention areas is located on the subject property. The golf course and associated residential development is located entirely in the unincorporated Pinellas County and all permits were issued without benefit of City review. klICH C I T Y i.0 7"i aC C `2PG DEPARTMENT O Telephone (813) 4624%7 O F C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34818-4748 V February 27, 19% Laura J. Rayburn Law Offices of Rayburn, Lerner & Cianfrone 1968 Bayshore Boulevard Dunedin, Florida 34698 Dear Ms. Rayburn: CT! LUG Fg28M CITY OF CI-U,F' EtvG???rEh'?G D=? __ 01 ? 1h Thank you for your letter of February 21, 1996 regarding the AVILLA development of Mr. R.L. Root and the VILLAS AT COUNTRYSIDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC interest in that development. The City of Clearwater shares your client's concerns with the acceptability of Mr. Root's project both during the construction phase and thereafter. That concern is reflected in part by the minutes of the February 8, 1996 Development Code Adjustment Board(DCAB) deliberations and minutes approving Mr. Root's project. Condition 5 of the motion to grant the variances states "...5) if not precluded by any ingress or egress easement, the property shall be permanently enclosed with an opaque fence or wall in a manner conforming to the approved plans and the Land Development Code prior to the initiation of any construction of the principal sbvcture or pond improvement." (Emphasis added.) Further, while not stated specifically in the DCAB variance approval or the Development Review Committee(DRC) site plan approval conditions, construction on site will be permitted in a logical sequence that will safeguard the integrity of the area drainage systems and capacities. Drainage systems are normally installed prior to the construction of structures. As well, no Certificate of Occupancy (CO) will be issued unless and until the site conforms to all of the features of the DRC approved certified site plan. We anticipate no problems with the construction of the AVILLA project, however. Mr. Root has been most cooperative throughout the development review process and we see this cooperation continuing. We will be pleased to keep your client abreast of progress on the AVILLA project. At present, the final site plan will have to be revised to reflect the DCAB conditions of approval for the variances granted. When the site plan is revised and returned by Mr. Root and the plan certified as a formal development order, construction permits will be issued and the construction profess begun. Not having yet received the site plan, we cannot tell you at this time when that process will start. ''Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer'' So far as monitoring the drainage in the area post-construction, this will be accomplished in accordance with our normal processes for monitoring and maintaining the capacities and conditions of our drainage systems throughout the City. We, of course, want to be assured that the drainage systems, including those in your client's area operate as designed. City construction inspectors will be monitoring the construction as it progresses, in any case, to determine that the approved plans are being adhered to. Your letter with our reply is being sent to the City Engineering and Public Works Departments to insure that attention is given to the project during and following construction. I hope that this letter has been responsive to your client's concerns. For additional information and assistance in this matter, including progress reports, please have those interested contact Mr. Allen V. Mahan, Coordinator, Central Permitting Department at 462-6567. Sincerely, ?- Scott Shuford, Director, Central Permitting Department AVM/avm CC: City Manager DRC Members Rich Baier, City Engineer Gardner Smith, Director, Public Works Department Sandy Glatthorn, Manager, Central Processing Kevin Garriott, Supervisor, Central Processing John Richter, Senior Planner R.L. Root, The R.L. Root Company, 2436 Enterprise Road, Clearwater, FL. 34623-1701 AVILALTI.AVM ROBERT ROOT 2436 ENTERPRISE ROAD CLEARWATER, FL 34623-1701 c RETURO RECEIPT REQUESTED DER rl?• ? "'i - ?- ? Q7C? z ],86 g77s 504 . 11?11Jt?-??-?5 I r C 'FWI TE:. r` J JUL 2 95 . U N11E HM??II v? ?OSI« SC RV?('[ nLrf? $2 52 -?^ . o MR. SCOTT SHUFORD, DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL PERMITTING P. O. BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34618-4748 .1 L-XF 4111 C.ec7` eSia-, ?? S, i i . i j CITY OF CLEARWATER Interdepartmental Contspondc= j I ?'I TO: i Ream "on,,Drector, Parks & Recreation; Don Meerians, Assistant Traffic Engineer; Bob Maran, CE III;; Mike 9uillen, Environmental Engineer; James Goodloe, Fire Marshall; Steve Sarnoff, Central ' Permitting' Specialist FROM: Allen V. Mahan, Coordinator, Central Permitting SUBJECT: ? Final Site Planor AVILLA Group Care Facility (SP 91-13),; COPIES: Scott Shuford, Central Permitting; Rich Baier, City Engineer r?3 3 r DATE: April 2, 1996 ; j Attached is a copy of the above described amended site plan submitted on March 26, 1996 for certification. Please refer to!the attached DRC summary meeting notes of January 25, 1996 addressing conditions of approval required by the D.R.C. for this amended site plan: If you find the:site plan to be acceptable,; please initial and date next to the applicable condition(s) on the attachment. If you do have; an objection and/or recommendation, please comment below or attach your comments to this memo. Comments: (by. whom and with date, plehse) Your assistance in PrePari3g the plan for an April 10 certification will bo'a" .. . i P_ Thanks. R 0 8 X996 Viv CENTRAL PERMING CITY QF CLEtaW SPF9113AVM ATER ?. d 04 l I . , c Y? aaUl t. 11 C I T Y i rAf- O F C I, E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34618-4748 DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL PERN=ING Telephone (813) 462-6567 June 7, 1995 Mr. Bob Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL 34623-1701 Dear Mr. Root: I have had an opportunity to review your latest site plan for the property located at 2436 Enterprise Road. Due to the unique circumstances of this property, and due to previous similar determinations, I have determined that this site shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 43 of the City code dealing with site plans. This is in accordance with Section 43.02(6) of that Chapter. Your current site design will require a variance from the City's wetlands setback buffer requirements (Section 42.28). As Section 43.23(2) indicates, it will be necessary for you to obtain this variance prior to final site plan approval by City staff. Prior to submitting your variance application, I suggest you consider the following changes to the plan to make it more compatible with City requirements: ? The current driveway/parking proposal fails to meet the provisions of Section 43.24(3) relating to convenience of access and internal circulation. I recommend that you consider constructing a drive on the west side of your property to the building. This drive should be designed to accommodate the maneuvering requirements of a panel truck typical to UPS type deliveries. It will be necessary for you to identify a specific use for the property in order to determine the precise size and design of your driveway (i.e. the allowable drive for a single family residential property is substantially different than that for a multifamily property). ? As noted above the use of the property must be specified. If you are interested 'in having multiple uses considered, be advised that the most stringent requirements for each category of development requirements for the range of uses must be utilized in reviewing your request. ? A cross access agreement/easement must be provided to allow safe access to the condominium parking on the south side of your property. Your structural setback in this area must be sufficient to allow a minimum of 24 feet of backing room. ? Stormwater retention calculations must be submitted. These calculations must show that the quantity of storage in the retention pond is not reduced, regardless of the use to which you put the property; depending upon the use, you may be required to provide storage in excess of that existing. "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" ?? K.j Mr. Bob Root 06/07/95 Page 2 ? Stormwater quality must be maintained in accordance with any of your permits from other agencies. The City may also need a drainage and utility easement over the pond. ? The site plan should be modified to list only the notes which are applicable, rather than the "laundry list" approach utilized on the plan. ? The property will need to be subdivided. This can be accomplished through an administrative lot division process once your site plan has been finalized. ? Since you have had a pending site plan under consideration by the City for some time, my staff has determined that there shall be no additional fee owed to allow us to continue this review process. City staff has provided significant assistance to you in your site design. We feel that many of our initial concerns about the development of your property have been addressed through your revised site plan. We have the above issues which we feel need to be addressed prior to your formal submittal. Other issues may be identified through our staff review process. Since you last had a site plan under consideration, several of the code requirements for site plans have been modified. In particular, site plans do not have to go to the Clearwater City Commission for "receipt and referral" unless they are of a substantial size (25 acres or greater). City staff now handles the technical review and approves site plans for sites which are under 25 acres. Also, there are property posting and additional submittal requirements which were not the case when you initiated your site plan review process several years ago. Val Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator, of my staff is ready to assist you with these new requirements. Please work with Central Permitting Supervisor Steve Doherty to initiate your variance application for the wetlands buffer. I look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have questions or comments, please contact me or Val Mahan. Sincerely, hi/o Scott Shuford, AIC Director of Central Permitting SS/db cc: Richard J. Baier, City Engineer wal Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator I Lou Hilton, Senior Planner Steve Doherty, Central Permitting Supervisor Bob Maran, Civil Engineer III Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer ROOTSP.SS C I T Y OF C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3461 8-4748 DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL PERMITTING Telephone (813) 462-6567 June 27, 1995 Mr. Bob Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL 34623-1701 Dear Mr. Root: I have had an opportunity to review your letter concerning City requirements expressed to you in my last correspondence for the property located at 2436 Enterprise Road. With regard to exemption from the indicated variance, the code requirements in question were adopted prior to your most recent proposal; consequently, you will be required to follow these requirements, and a variance will be necessary. You will also be required to address the encroachment within the drainageway to the satisfaction of Richard Baier, the City Engineer. With regard to the driveway and on-site circulation issue, the site plan requirements clearly state that safe and adequate access is required. Richard Baier is charged with determining what constitutes this access, and his determination has been made as relayed to you in my letter and your conversations with Mr. Baier. Please contact Mr. Baier if you have further questions. With regard to the proposed use issue, I appreciate your designating a use for the property. I encourage you to select a particular use of the property that is the one you intend to pursue as permitting will be complicated if you change uses. You selection of a residential group home for 12 individuals classifies your proposed use as a Level I Group Care Facility under our City code. This will require a conditional use permit; please work with Central Permitting Supervisor Steve Doherty to initiate both your variance and conditional use permit applications. These will have to be approved by the boards prior to site plan consideration. Please provide Mr. Maran with the Official Records citation of the applicable cross access easement you refer to in your letter so that it can be reviewed by staff for adequacy. As noted above, a residential group home for 12 individuals classifies your proposed use as a Level I Group Care Facility under our City code; this is not a single family use under our code, so retention calculations must be provided and reviewed by the City Engineer. Should you have questions or comments, please contact Richard Baier for engineering issues or Val Mahan for permitting issues. Since ely, Scott Shuford, AICP Director of Central Permitting SS/db cc: Richard J. Baier, City Engineer Va1.Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator Lou Hilton, Senior Planner Steve Doherty, Central Permitting Supervisor Bob Maran, Civil Engineer III ® Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer ROOTSMSS °Cr.11 Gmnln.rrn olt 1111 A.ffi-tiVC Ar-tinn Frnnlrn/?r" 1 ,/I//Till y r ?tv 1, ; N C-? ?;. C I T Y 4 F C 1,E A U W A T E R POST OFFICE.BOX 4748 CLEARWATE.R, FLORIDA 34618-4748 ;,::DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL PERMITTING "Telephone'(813),462x•6567 July 27, 1995 Mr. Bob Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL 34623-1701 Dear Mr. Root: I have had an opportunity to review your July 20 letter concerning City requirements expressed to you in my June 27 correspondence for the property located at 2436 Enterprise Road. As noted in my last letter, your selection of a residential group home for 12 individuals classifies your proposed use as a Level I Group Care Facility under our City code. I have reviewed the code again and found that I advised you in error: The use will not require a conditional use permit; it is a permitted use in the RM-16 zone- It appears that, in my haste to respond to your inquiries prior to going on leave for a surgical procedure, I failed to follow my standard practice of running my draft letter through my staff for verification. I apologize for my error and hope that you have not been inconvenienced as a result. In response to your second question, I must, however, repeat my previous statement that this use is not a single family use under our code; we do classify family care homes (6 or fewer persons) as single family uses,. but not Level I Group Care. Consequently, the development standards that pertain to multifamily and nonresidential uses will apply to your development. You may discuss this determination with the City Attorney (as provided under Section 35.10 of the code) if you disagree. With regard to the driveway and on-site circulation issue, the site plan requirements clearly state that safe and adequate access is required. Richard Baler, City Engineer, is charged with determining what constitutes this access, and his determination has been made as relayed to you in my previous letters and your conversations with Mr. Bader. As Development Code Administrator, I support Mr. Baler's determination. Please contact Mr. Baier if you have further questions in this area. Should you have questions or comments, please contact Val Mahan for permitting issues. Again, I apologize for relaying you incorrect information. Sincerely, j Scott Shuford, AICP Director of Central Permitting 1 SS/db ' cc: Richard J. Bader, City Engineer Viil Mahan;=,Central Permitting Coordinator Pam Akin, City Attorney i ROOTSMSS -Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer- J? i. C z Z' Y O F C-L E A R W A T E R U " POST OFFICE BOX 4748 ?.- , CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34 6 1 8-4 74 8 DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL PERNUTTING Telephone (813) 462-6567 August 7, 1995 Mr. Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL 34623-1701 Dear Robert: Thank you for your letter of August 1, 1995. I greatly appreciate your concern about my operation. It did go well and 1 am anticipating full recovery in a matter of a month or two. I have had an opportunity to spend some time discussing your case with our City Attorney, Pam Akin. Ms. Akin has directed me to Florida Statute 419 which includes considerable language indicating that an adult congregate living facility located in a multi-family area is required to adhere to the development standards for multi-family dwellings. In our opinion, these statutory requirements support the City Code requirements and my determinations. With regard to the driveway issue, I believe Mr. Baier's rationale for the driveway location is based upon a sound reading of code requirements. It would be very difficult for appropriate. access to your building to occur across a "bridge" across a retention pond. There are valid concerns about property access under your proposal from both vehicular and disabled person perspectives. Mr. Baier is ready to provide you with specifics with regard to what he would find to be acceptable access to the property. 1 do not believe that you will find his requirements to be onerous in nature since they simply involve locating a driveway along one side of the retention pond and providing access to your structure through parking that would be provided under the building. This does appear to be technically feasible. Finally, the City Attorney has advised me that you are governed by City Code appeal provisions. Should you find yourself aggrieved by the decisions by the Development Code Administrator (or other,City staff acting in my stead), please advise me and I will request that a determination be made by the City Attorney. Your next course of action would be to appeal to the court system. You do not appear to be entitled to a Chapter 120 hearing pursuant to FS 419. Should you have questions or comments, please contact me. Mr. Baier is ready to discuss driveway and site access issues with you at your convenience. Sincerely, Scott Shuford, AICP Director of Central Permitting SS/db cc: Pam Akin, City Attorney Richard J. Baier, City Engineer Val Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator ® ROOTORUI.SS "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer"' 15 August 1995 William C. Baker Assistant City Manager City of Clearwater 112 South Osceola Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 Dear Mr. Baker: RECEI V F-, A U G 15 1995 CITY MANAGLER Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to call me this date. To help you get a balanced view of what is happening, I am enclosing a copy of the letters which were going to Mr. Baier and Mr. Shuford; however, those letters have not been sent. If I can be of any assistance in resolving this situation, simply ask. No matter what the outcome, I want you to know that all City employees with whom I have had personal dialogue within the past year, have always acted in a professional way. Kindest regards, Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 34623-1701 Ph/Fax: 813-799-8877 15 August 1995 Richard J. Baier, City Engineer City of Clearwater 10 South Missouri Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Dear Mr. Baier: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me, Scott Shuford, and Bob Maran. I hope the following factually represents what was said during that meeting; however, if it does not, please contact me with any corrections as soon as possible. Fundamentally: You indicated that you did not approve of the design for the driveway as it did not allow for the parking of emergency vehicles; I believe you indicated that the turning radii was inadequate to allow emergency vehicles to ingress into the property. However, I have reviewed, as well as your staff member Bob Maran, the applicable City codes and both of us have failed to find a single `objective' statute that I have failed to meet. If the Clearwater code, or any other code or law, does support your conclusion, please provide a copy for my review. 2. You also stated that you felt that the walk over the pond was inadequate, as the distance to the front door was too great. But again let me say that I have not been able to locate any code or statute, or anything documented in a standards book, which would indicate that this walkway is inadequate. You also said you did not like two driveways leading into my property, but let me mention, that to the best of my knowledge, I followed the prescribed way of validating that this design was appropriate, and received permission for that design as provided for in the Land Development Code for the City. 4. You were gracious in providing alternatives to the design as presented, and they were appreciated; however, they were not, and are not, economically viable. 5. You twice mention that two city council members had approached you voicing their concerns over this project. If what I have proposed is in violation of any City Code, a part of the Life Safety Code, Police Department regulation, a Fire Department regulation, or any State or Federal Agency statute or regulation, please let me know. 15 August 1995 Scott Shuford, Director of Central Permitting City of Clearwater 10 South Missouri Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Dear Mr. Shuford: I am interested in having a determination made concerning what I believe were the arbitrary determinations, made without factual basis, by the City Engineer as they relate to the project known as Avilla. Per your letter dated 7 August 1995, I am hereby requesting a determination as provided for under Sec. 35.10 of the City Code. Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Richard I Baier documenting my position. If you need additional documentation, or if my request needs to be in a different form, please don't hesitate on giving me a call. I am also of the belief that the City may have activated the `taking' ordinance, and would like to know what needs to be done to have such a determination made, and the name of the individual, or the process by which such a determination is made. As always, I enjoy working with professional people, even if we are not in agreement. Hope you are continuing to improve from your surgery. Thanks for your continued support. Kindest regards, Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 34623-1701 Ph/Fax: 813-799-8877 V C I T Y O F C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34618-4748 City Manager August 23, 1995 Mr. Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL 34623-1701 Dear Mr. Root: Please allow this to serve as a written response to your letter of 15 August 1995 requesting that I review certain judgements recently rendered by our City Engineer relating to your proposed Avilla Development. I have examined the City Engineer's judgements and the Land Development code relating thereto. I have discussed this matter thoroughly with City Engineer Rich Baier and with Scott Shuford, Director of Central Permitting. There are two primary considerations which have thus far arisen regarding your proposed development. The first is a traffic engineering matter wherein Mr. Baier will not approve the two separate driveways you have requested. Each .of the driveways will serve only two parking spaces and require use _of the public right-of-way for maneuvering. Notwithstanding lengths, widths, radii, or maneuvering, the basic question of limiting the number of driveways has been fully established nationwide and we would, indeed, expect our City Engineer to manage the number of driveway openings on any road in Clearwater. Mr. Baier is also dissatisfied with your proposal to have all access to the building via a pedestrian walkway of 100 feet or so in length, over water. Such access does not offer acceptable ingress for medical and emergency personnel. This is especially true in light of the fact that you propose to establish an Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF). Mr. Baier's suggestion that you enter-the property by way of a single driveway off Enterprise Road terminating adjacent to the building would appear more desirable. The City is not obligated to accept a poor site plan simply because it is difficult or costly to provide a satisfactory one. While we are generally often able to work these matters out and resolve our initial differences, we circumstantially have less room to do so in your case owing to the fact that your property is almost entirely a detention pond (standing for another development) and whereupon, it might be said, you are "squeezing" your proposal. Your tract simply might not be suitable for such an endeavor. -Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer- Page -2- Mr. Robert Root August 23, 1995 The second primary consideration has to do with the detention pond occupying the site. As you go about obtaining stormwater permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, you must also convince our environmental staff that there is a practical means which will afford long range maintenance of the facility. These two considerations appear thus far to be the only sticking points associated with your project. While we will continue to work diligently with you in an effort to resolve any matter that might arise, we will not under any circumstance agree with your inference that our requirement that you obey our Land Development Code or our refusal to accept a flawed site plan constitutes a confiscatory taking of your property. Sincerely, C 74e William C. Baker Assistant City Manager cc: Betty Deptula, City Manager Rich Baier, City Engineer Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director C HIT Y OF C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34698-4748 City Manager September 15, 1995 Mr. Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL 34623-1701 Dear Mr. Root: Chapter 43 of the Land Development Code of the City of Clearwater deals with the subject of site plans and their review and approval by City staff. Section 43.24 specifically speaks to certain design.guidelines that are to be associated with the various review parameters.. Paragraph 3 of that . section lists 8 considerations relative to traffic and -parking. :...Two of these considerations are Pedestrian:walkways and Access for service and emergency equipment and personnel. After listing these considerations, subparagraph 3 goes on. to say that all of the above factors must be consistent with the objectives of the City's Thoroughfare Plan and "with current development standards and design specifications of the Traffic Engineer." Subparagraph 3 closes. by saying, "it shall be the objective of this guideline to ensure adequate provisions for vehicular and pedestrian movement and :safety:within the site and as it relates to the adjoining.public-street. .. .and thoroughfare system." As any responsible reviewer would go about determining the acceptability of your proposed pedestrian walkway-(a specific consideration per code), his attention would certainly be drawn to the fact that persons entering the proposed adult congregate living facility must enter a parking lot located adjacent to the public street and then walk a distance of approximately 100 feet before entering the building. One would wonder how acceptable such a distance is considering the nature and needs of the building's residents. r ?$ k A ; 9 - While . we haver civil engineering formula which will tell us how wide a street should be for a given amount of traffic,:°how large a pipe should be to convey a given :amount of water, how thick a: concrete sidewalk ghould be to withstand a given weight load, etc., there is, of course, no formula which will ascertain the exact acceptable length of a pedestrian walkway from parking space to entry door. Such parameters as the physical condition of the pedestrian, the weight of any load he may be carrying, the urgency with which he needs to enter the building and numerous other factors would be involved in such a determination. I would presume that -Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer- Page -2- Mr. Robert Root September 15, 1995 a responsible reviewer, in deference to the future occupants of the building, would simply expect f._. you to minimize the length of walk by locating the various- features of the site-plane in positions which would accomplish such minimization. This is a building that has not yet been constructed. Now is the appropriate time for the interest of its future occupants to be served. Of what benefit is it.for you to expect a reviewer to provide proof that his determinations appear in our code numerically, when the matter under consideration is entirely subjective. Let the length of the walkway simply be what it will be after you have appropriately considered its minimization. I am certain that the reviewing authorities, Mr. Baier, as well as all others, will expect, in the case of a non-numerical judgement determination, only that you provide a responsible attempt to attenuate the involved concerns. Sincerely, William'C. Baker . ?. _ Assistant City Manager cc: Betty Deptula, City Manager Rich Baier, City Engineer Scott Shuford,-Central Perinitting Director. Bob Davidson, Fire Chief SEP 1.8.1995.. . CENTRAL PERMITTING CITY OF CLEARWATER C I T Y OF C E F A A W A TE fit, POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEAhWATER, FLORIDA 34616-4748 September 22, 1995 Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Rd Clearwater, FL 34623-1701 RE: AVILLA PROJECT Dear Mr. Root, As the City Engineer for Clearwater, I have several departments under my authority, one of which is Traffic Engineering. City Ordinance 30.005, Authority of Police and Traffic Enctineerinq Departments, Paragraph (2) states: (2) The traffic engineering department, under the direction of the city manager, shall have full power and be charged with all duties in relation to the planning,. engineering and management of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. (code 1980,§ 120.05) This ordinance applies to the city right-of-way and to traffic problems on private development. City Ordinance 43.24 Designs Guidelines, Subsection (3) Traffic and Parking, This section refers to (f) Offstreet parking and loading space (g) Pedestrian walkways. The summarization of this subsection states: ...The above factors shall be determined consistent with the objectives of the thoroughfare plan and with current development standards and design specifications of the traffic engineer. It shall be the objective of this guideline to ensure adequate provision for vehicular and pedestrian movement and safety with the site... It is the position of City staff that the proposed 100 foot walkway as sole access to this building would not provide adequate safety for pedestrians or physically challenged individuals. At our last meeting in my office, there was some discussion about specific details on your plan. You had indicated that some parts of the seawall had been deleted, but the plan did not reflect this change. It is imperative that City staff be provided with an accurate plan so they can properly review your project. 0 "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" (2) Your specific site, as proposed, presents a problem for vehicular access to the building. This is the main problem I have in approving your latest drawing. As the City Engineer and the reviewing power that has been assigned to me by the City Manager, you are required to provide a 24 foot wide paved driveway up to the front line on the NW corner of your building. A secondary design problem involves the driveway sweep to your entrance. Vehicles may not start the turn into a parking space until they are out of City right-of-way. In other words, the automobile turning movement to enter the parking space must be done on your own property. I hope that my position on these matters has been clarified as it appears we have gone over many of these points in several previous meetings. Mr. Val Mahan has been directed to assist you in guiding your project through the design resolution and the site plan review process. In this capacity, he should be your contact person for any communications you believe are necessary Mr. Mahan may be contacted at 462-6567. Sincerely, Ri hard J. Baie C'ty Engineer RJB/RM/dg cc: William C. Baker,. Assistant City Manager Scott Shuford, Central Permitting, Director Val Mahan, Central Permitting.Coordinator Don Meerians, Assistant Traffic Engineer Bob Maran, Civil Engineer III root.6m AI C I T Y OF C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34618-4748 October 9, 1995 Mr. Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater,.Florida 34623-1701 Re: Enterprise Road Development Dear Mr. Root: I have received your October 1, 1995 submittal package. Mr. Baker has offered a logistical manner in which to resolve your engineering plan design deficiencies. In addition I have furthered this process by offering you a central point of contact in order to better coordinate your efforts. My staff is ready, able and willing to review a complete and formal submittal. Accordingly, Mr. Shuford has identified additional planning, and land use issues which you have informed me do not meet with your interpretation of City Code. To date, the City has not received a single plan containing a current design which address the staff comments to date. I have spoken with our City Management team and, although I cannot speak for them, they appear to agree with the concept of a complete/ coordinated review of an appropriately, engineered site plan. The option for a City customer, as you state, to reassess their course of action is only limited by the will of the customer. I can only reaffirm my commitment to work with you once given a complete site plan which addresses the concerns stated by Mr. Shuford and myself in our last three letters attached herewith. Further, I had occasion to converse with your engineer and he is willing to assist you in your design given our traffic and environmental concerns. If you have any further questions, contact me at 462-6042. Si ly, R Bard J. Baie [,P. E. ty Engineer JB/ns cc: William Baker, Assistant City Manager Pam Akin, City Attorney Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director Val Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator. Bob Mahan, Civil Engineer III (Rooc.ft,) "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" yas??C? Ir o; .l y C I T Y DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL PERMITTING Telephone (813) 462-6567 December 18, 1995 Mr. Bob Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL 34623-1701 Dear Mr. Root: O F C L E AR W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3461 8-4748 This letter is with regard to your comments both at and immediately after the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting of December 14, 1995 concerning the variances associeed with your Avilla project currently scheduled for the January 25, 1996 Development Code Adjustment Board meeting. These comments directly implied that you were not as interested in completing this project as you were in obtaining a "taking" decision against the City of Clearwater. City of Clearwater staff members have worked with you on the development of this unusual property for over two years. We have held countless meetings with you, provided you with a vast amount of correspondence, and otherwise assisted you in a variety of ways. Throughout this process, we have engaged in good faith application of Code and development requirements with regard to your numerous development proposals for this site. Now, as your project nears compliance with our requirements, you indicate that you are not especially interested in forcefully representing your variance requests before the City Development Code Adjustment Board, and suggest that you may have proceeded with this development request to generate an investment return based on legal action. Let me emphatically state the following: (1) The City of Clearwater is not interested in buying your property as we have identified no public use for it; (2) The City of Clearwater is always interested in facilitating the proper development of my property within its jurisdiction; (3) The City of Clearwater is committed to providing top quality customer service; and '(4) The City of Clearwater intends to enforce its ordinances, impartially and fairly, to the best of its ability. We stand ready to assist you in keeping with the statements in the above paragraph. Sincerely, Scott Shuford, AICP Director of Central Permitting SS/db cc: DRC Members y? Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney ,naa,r." "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer- -:?>q36 A ti DRMN60125.AVM 1-7 0, G ,?- Development Review Committee Summary Notes Thursday, January 25, 1996 Conference Room B, 10 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, FL Two items were discussed: 1? Avilla Group Care Facility (PSP 91-13) 2. Brigadoon Townhomes Completion(PSP 967Ol-) Results of the discussions were: I. Avilla Group Care Facility (PSP 91-13): The DRC approved the site plan subject to the following conditions./ discussion: A. Before the Site Plan can be certified, the applicant must complete the following action(s): 1. Show the property owner's name, address and telephone number; and the designated project applicant or representative and authorization for such representation if other than the property owner on the site plan. 2. Show the zoning districts assigned to adjoining properties. 3. Show the date(s) and condition(s) of approval for required variance(s) by the.Development. Code Adjustment Board. B. Before the City can issue building permits, the applicant must complete the following actions: 1. Obtain and furnish evidence of all applicable permits from other governmental agencies including but not limited to revised SWFWMD & FDEP permits to Environmental Management. 2. Acquire clearing and grubbing and tree removal permits or a no tree verification form from Environmental Management. C. Before the City can issue a Certificate.of Occupancy, the applicant must complete the following actions: 1. Bring all substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including ADA,_:and install sidewalk where none exists in the, .street right of way. 2. Pay the Transportation Impact Fee as called for by the Pinellas County Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance with assistance in determining the fee from the Clearwater Traffic Engineering Office. 1 ?_ ,, T" 3. Direct lighting from parking lot luminaries and other sources downward and away from residential areas. 4. Furnish as-builts and an engineer's certification to Engineering Services. D. Complete the following actions as indicated: 1. Obtain the requisite building permits within one(1) year from the site plan certification date to prevent expiration of the site plan certification. 2. Obtain the requisite certificate(s)--of occupancy within three (3) years of the site plan certification date to prevent expiration of the site plan certification. 3. Obtain review of and permits for signs and fencing/walls through separate review and permitting procedures. II. Brigadoon Townhomes Completion (PSP 96-01): The DRC revalidated the project for re-certification subject to the following conditions/ discussion: A. Before the Site Plan can be certified, the applicant must complete the following action(s): 1. Show the following on the site plan: a. The property owner's name, address and telephone number; and the designated project applicant or representative and authorization for such representation if other than the property owner. b. Parking formula calculation for each use. 2. Calculate and re-verify the open.space for the project in light of the apparent. discrepancy from that area required. 3. Identify and distinguish between the new. and existing buildings and driveways as well as other features on the plan. 4. Show all striping, pavement markings, signage and traffic control devices on the site plan conforming to F.D.O.T. Standard Indices-1995 edition and F.A.C. 14-110 (no.4" striping is to be shown). 5. Show all on-site lighting with 90-degree cutoffs directed away from abutting streets.right-of-way and residential properties. 2 B. Before the City can issue building permits, the applicant must complete the following actions: 1. Acquire clearing and grubbing and tree removal permits or a no tree verification form from Environmental Management for repair of the stormwater system. C. Before the City can issue a Certificate of occupancy, the applicant must complete the following actions: 1. Pay the Transportation Impact Fee as called for by the Pinellas County Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance with assistance in determining the fee from the Clearwater Traffic Engineering Office. 2. Visually screen the dumpster and provide gates with a minimum 12-foot clear opening to the front for access by Solid, Waste vehicles. 3. Direct lighting from parking lot luminaries and other sources downward and away from residential areas. D. Complete the following actions as indicated: 1. Obtain the requisite building permits within one(1) year from the site plan certification date to prevent expiration of the..site plan certification. 2. Obtain the requisite certificate(s) of occupancy within three (3) years of the site.plan certification date to prevent expiration of the site plan certification. 3. Obtain review of and permits for signs and. fencing/walls through separate review and permitting procedures. Allen V. Mahan, Coordinator, January 29, 1996 3 Central Permitting CITY OF CLEARWATER Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet REG02-04-10 TO: John Richter, Senior Planner ??- FROM: Michael Quillen, Water Resource Engineer COPIES: Richard J. Baier, City Engineer Scott Shuford, Director of Central Permitting Tom Miller, Asst. Director of ENG/Environmental Val Mahan, Site Plan Coordinator SUBJECT: Avilla Group Care Facility?? Variance Request #VR 95-60? DATE:, January 19, 1996 This memorandum is to provide supplemental information on the subject variance request. In our memorandum of November 29, 1995, Environmental Management expressed three concerns with the proposed site layout. Additional information, plans and calculations have now been received which address these concerns as follows. 1. Calculations and cross-sections were required to show compensation for any loss of flood storage volume due to construction of the parking area. Cross-sections have been submitted which show that the parking area is to be constructed on pilings, rather than fill. Consequently there will be no loss of flood storage volume. 2. Calculations and cross-sections were required to show that the proposed stormwater retention area was of sufficient size to store the required volume without wetland encroachment. Plans, calculations and cross-sections have been submitted which show the addition of a second retention area on the site. The ponds are now of sufficient size to store the required volume without wetland encroachment. 3. A revised mitigation plan was required. A revised mitigation plan has been submitted which appears to provide mitigation equivalent to what was previously approved by the state agencies. Based on the information submitted, the project should not have an adverse impact on water quality, flood storage or wildlife habitat; and, as such, Environmental Management now recommends approval of this variance request subject to the following condition: ,w Mr. John Richter January 19, 1996 Page Two Prior to issuance of a building permit, copies of approved permit modifications from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Southwest Florida Water Management District must be submitted to Environmental Management. If you have any questions or need additional information, you may call me at x6382. DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE PROJECT/LOCATION: AVILLA GROUP CARE FACILITY DRC Meeting Date: January 25, 1996(Second Meeting on Project) 1. SCOTT SHUFORD, CENTRAL PERMITTING DIRECTOR 2. RICH BAIER, CITY ENGINEER 3. DON MEERIANS, TRAFFIC ENGINEER 4. STEVE SARNOFF, CENTRAL PERMITTING 5. BOB MARAN, ENGINEERING 6. MICHAEL QUILLEN, ENVIRONMENTAL = 7. REAM WILSON, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR 8. JAMES GOODLOE, FIRE MARSHAL '" FALLEN V . MAHAN, CENTRALS-- P-ERMTTTING 10. LOUIS R. HILTON, SENIOR PLANNER 11. VICKIE DAVENPORT, STAFF ASSISTANT II (CONTROL SHEET ONLY) Date received by Planning and Development Office: January 16, 1996 Date of distribution: January 17, 1996. Remarks: Applicant proposes to construct an 8,000 SF Group Care Facility with associated parking, drainage and landscaping. The .449 acre site is at 2436 Enterprise Road and includes a large detention pond which presents site access and building location challenges. COPIES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 2PSP9528.avm F i FAIL MESSAGE CITY OF CLEARWATER DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL PERMITTING CITY HALL ANNEX 10 SO. MISSOURI AVE. P.O. BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FL 34618 FAX PHONE - (813) 462-6476.. . OFFICE PHONE - (813) 462-6567 February 22, 1996 TO: Robert Root, The R.L. RToot Company FROM: Allen V. Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator FAX PHONE: 799-8877 MESSAGE: Attached per your request are the minutes of the February 8, 1996 Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) granting the variances for your group care facility project, AVILLA. These draft minutes are scheduled to be accepted today at the DCAB meeting. Plea e c if you have questions. cc: TOTAL PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): Total No. of pages including cover page 4. 9113fax5.avm 0 DRAFT' Board discussion ensued regarding the application. In response to a question regarding a precedent, Ms. Dougall-Sides stated each case must be decided on its own merits. She responded to questions regarding structure non-conformities. -Concerns were expressed the request is not in harmony with the Land Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, nor insurance standards. Concern was expressed that variances were granted for work on the property that has not been finished after three years. Support for the pool was expressed by members who felt a pool is an attractive addition to a home. It was noted the only resident within 200 feet of the subject property who responded supports the request. Member Johnson moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Johnson and Jonnatti voted "Aye"; Members Plisko and Schwob voted "Nay." Motion carried. 2. (cont. from 12114195 & 1125196) Robert L. & Linda L. Root, THE (Avilla Groun Care Facility) for variances of (1) 25 ft to permit 0 ft of vegetative buffer where 25 ft is required; and (2) 7 ft to permit a 5 ft structural setback from a side (west) property line where 12 ft is required to allow a new building at 2436 Enterprise Rd, Sec 31-28- 16, M&B 12.05, zoned RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential). V 95-60 Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He noted this item was continued from previous meetings to allow time for review and recommendation by City Environmental Management and subsequent preparation of the staff report. He stated the applicant wishes to build a group care facility on a property currently used as a drainage retention pond. It was indicated circumstances support approval of both variances, subject to four conditions. In a letter dated January 19, City Water Resource Engineer Mike Quillen indicated the three main areas of concern have been addressed by the applicant. Environmental Management recommended approval, stating the project should not have an adverse impact on water quality, flood storage or wildlife habitat. Mr. Quillen recommended one condition which was incorporated into the staff report. Discussion ensued regarding the history of the property. It was indicated due to water collecting on this portion of his property, the former owner decided not to develop it, but to allow it to be used as a collection area for water from the surrounding properties. Time passed, the property was not developed and was eventually sold in a tax sale. Questions were raised if the current owner knew this history when he purchased it. Discussion ensued regarding density, parking and ADA requirements. Robert Root, the owner/applicant, distributed copies of a booklet containing an analysis and illustrations of the proposal. He gave an overview of the contents of the booklet and distributed copies of a drawing showing how he proposes to locate the building on the existing property. He listed the agencies that have already reviewed and approved his proposal. Mr. Root responded to Board questions regarding the history of the property, how he came into possession and how he developed his plans. mdc02a.96 J 02/08/96 0 DRAFT In response to a question regarding exactly what he proposes to build, Mr. Root indicated his plans could change based on the Board's decision. Discussion ensued regarding the Board's standard condition that variance approval is tied to specific building plans. Concern was expressed the amount of parking provided is not adequate fora 12 bed facility. Discussion ensued regarding parking provision in the immediate area. No one was present to speak in support of the request. Four persons spoke in opposition to the request. The president of the adjacent condominium complex spoke on behalf of numerous residents present in the audience. She explained conditions in the immediate area, the need for adequate drainage from the Villas property, and concerns regarding the impact on their property if development is allowed next door. She expressed a concern construction debris would be thrown into the water. If approved, she requested a condition the subject property be fenced during construction to lessen the negative impacts of noise and debris on the Villas property. One condominium resident spoke, concurring with their president. A former Villas property manager expressed strong opposition, stating the proposal would be materially injurious to the condominium property. Another Villas resident felt the proposal, to be partially built on stilts, would be incompatible with residential dwellings in the area and detrimental to the community. Five letters and a petition from the property owner and numerous residents of the Villas at Countryside were submitted in opposition to the request. Concerns were expressed with disturbing the cypress swamp wetland, waiving the 25 foot vegetative buffer, non-adherence to setback requirements, and possible property devaluation. Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer with the City's Environmental Management Group, addressed the Board. He responded to questions and provided technical and scientific data regarding the physical characteristics of the existing retention pond. He explained how the water quality benefits of the pond could be improved, stating he has worked extensively with the applicant to create a plan for accomplishing this. He said the applicant has agreed to remove non-beneficial vegetation and plans to provide additional retention elsewhere on his property. He indicated this will ensure flooding of neighboring properties will not result from the proposal. Mr. Quillen responded to questions regarding the reasons for the 25 foot landscaping buffer requirement. He stated buffers normally protect wetlands from development encroachment and allow access for maintenance. He did not feel the requirement applies to this proposal. Explaining the history of the pond, he stated it began as an excavation offered by the City to provide temporary retention while work was being done downstream. He indicated the downstream work was never done. After several years, the excavation has become established as a wetland environment. Since the wetland exists, he said they want to protect and preserve it, rather than fill it in, as was originally planned. Based on the potential for water quality improvement under the proposal, he stated Environmental staff supports the request. mdc02a.96 4 02/08/96 0 DRAFT Board discussion ensued regarding the proposal. Some felt it is based on economic gain, and would be injurious to well established surrounding properties by increasing the danger of flooding. Concerns were expressed with impact on the community, building a residential structure on stilts, -and the amount of public opposition expressed. Points expressed in support of the application included improved water quality and retention and conformance with parking requirements. It was not felt the applicant is seeking financial gain, but reasonable use of his property that was originally designed for a six unit residential structure. Having stilts at the rear of the property, unseen from the street, was not felt to be a problem. It was indicated the primary objections to the vegetative buffer variance have been adequately addressed by experts. It was felt the number of agencies that have given their approvals over the past four years indicates the applicant has been diligent in his efforts to cooperate with requirements. Mr. Shuford suggested language for a fence condition to protect the neighboring property from construction activities, if the application is approved. Member Johnson moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson and Schwob voted "Aye"; Members Plisko, Gans and Jonnatti voted "Nay." Motion failed. Member Gans moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) The variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained in accordance with the time frame specified by the Development Review committee upon approval of the site plan; 3) Prior to issuance of a building permit, copies of approved permit modifications from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) shall be submitted to the City of Clearwater Environmental Management Official; 4) The building shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the neighboring condominium buildings. Elevation drawings shall be submitted to the City Design Planner for review and shall be subject to approval of the Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 5) If not precluded by any ingress or egress easement, the property shall be permanently enclosed with an opaque fence or wall in a manner conforming to the approved plans and the Land Development Code prior to the initiation of any construction of the principal structure or pond improvement. The motion was duly seconded. Members Plisko, Gans and Jonnatti voted "Aye"; Members Johnson and Schwob voted "Nay." Motion carried. The meeting recessed from 3:40 to 3:52 p.m. mdc02a.96 5 02/08/96 0 t DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD - ACTION AGENDA Thursday, February 8, 1996 - 1:00 p.m., City Hall Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance and invocation A. Time Extension Requests - None a. Continued Variance Requests 1. (cont. from 1119195 & 1125/96) Jacqueline S. Latimer for variances of (1) 8 ft to permit a swimming pool 17 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at ptj D 1050 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Slk 68, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-53 ACTIO : Denied 2. (cont. from 12114195 & 1125196) Robert L. & Linda L. Root, THE (AVilla Group Care Facility) for variances of (1) 25 ft to permit 0 ft of vegetative buffer where 25 ft is required; and (2) 7 ft to permit a 5 ft structural setback from a side (west) property line where 12 ft is required to allow a new building at 2436 Enterprise Rd, Sec 31-28- 16, M&B 12.05, zoned RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential). V 95-60 ACTION Granted as requested subject to the following conditions: 1) The variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained in accordance with the time frame specified by the Development Review committee upon approval of the site plan; 3) Prior to issuance of a building permit, copies of approved permit modifications from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) shall be submitted to the City of Clearwater Environmental Management Official: and 4)The building shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the neighboring condominium buildings. Elevation drawings shall be submitted to the City Design Planner for review and shall be subject to approval of the Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 5) if not precluded by any ingress or egress easement, the property shall be permanently enclosed with an opaque fence or wall in a manner conforming to the approved plans and the Land Development Code prior to the initiation of any construction of the principal structure or pond improvement. C. New Variance Requests 1. Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America. Inc. for variances of (1) 19.9 ft to permit an addition 15.1 ft from street right-of-way where 35 ft is required, and (2) 7% to Ptys'f? permit 480/b open space for the front yard where 55% is required at 1910 Douglas Ave, ?. Sunset Point 2nd Add, Blk G, Lots 23 - 27, less road, together with Lots 39 - 42, zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Public). V 96-11 DCAB ACTION 1 02/08/96 5,.1 ,7 O/f 4_1L Joseph R. Cianfrone Patricia Leib Lerner Laura J. Rayburn Daniel L. Moody, of Counsel LAW OFFICES OF RAYBURN, LERNER & CIANFRONE a partnership of professional associations February 23, 1996 Scott Shuford Director of Central Permitting City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater , r iJ J`l *3 1. V 1968 Bayshore Boulevard Dunedin, Florida 34698 (813) 733-2154 (813) 738-1100 Fax(813)733-0042 RE: VILLAS AT COUNTRYSIDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC./ROOT MATTER Dear Mr. Shuford: Please be advised that I represent the above-referenced Association, and that while the Association is not going to contest the decision which was reached with regard to the property owned by Mr.. Root, it is anxious to be reassured concerning a number of matters, some of which were discussed at the recent hearing. It would be appreciated if.:you.would confirm that Mr. Root is not going to be permitted to begin construction until the required fence has been constructed. Furthermore, it is requested that Mr. Root also be required to construct any new retention areas before construction begins. Of course, my client is anxious to be kept advised as matters proceed with Mr. Root's permit processing and construction, and would appreciate it if you will do so and also monitor the condition of the drainage in this area in the future. Because the city is willing to permit this construction, my client will expect the city to be responsible for monitoring to prevent any adverse conditions occurring. I look forward to your prompt response. Thank you. I ff" t `FEB 2.61996 CENTRAL PERMITTING YV. AC! ca EARWATER 606 Madison Street, Suite 2001 Tampa, Florida 33602 Since ly, BUR , LERNER CI FRONE Laura J. • Ra urn 7419 U.S. Highway 19 New Port Richey, Florida 34652 5308 Spring Hill Drive Spring Hill, Florida 34606 - alai vj JAG ? "' 7???b I have decided to ask Mr. Shuford to ask the City Attorney for a determination concerning the above mentioned items. Believe me, I wish there were a better alternative, because I do think you are trying to help me. We just see it differently. Hope this letter find you having one terrific day. Thanks for your continued support. Robert Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 34623-1701 Ph/Fax: 813-799-8877 copy: Scott Shuford, Director of Central Permitting Val: If you will distribute the enclosed letters, it would be most appreciated. Thank you, Bob till 0 C T 051995 CENTRAL PERMITTING CITY OF CLEARWATER 43e,? / --;; y 23 June 1995 Mr. Scott Shuford Director of Central Permitting City of Clearwater P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Dear Mr. Shuford: Thank you for your letter dated 7 June 1995; basically I believe the project can comply with the details of your letter; however, there are a couple of points which may need some additional clarification. To make it easier, I have followed your letter paragraph by paragraph: Based upon the wording of Chapter 43, and specifically 43.02(6), I was prepared to send you congratulatory flowers, but then couldn't decide what 'flavor' to get so, you get this letter instead. 2. A. You mention that this site will require a variance from the City's wetlands setback buffer requirements (42.28), and although I don't have a particular problem with this, let me mention to you that in the past, projects which were under review by the City staff were exempt from changes made to the code after the initiation of the review process. B. Due to the fact that this project was under review, and paid for, prior to the enactment of this statute, it seems reasonable to assume that this project would be exempt from the necessity of obtaining a variance. C. My position is further enhanced by recent treatment of another project under review by the city, which was basically developed under similar circumstances. D. I am also enclosing a copy of a plan for a city project which is currently being developed with a similar area extending into a protected area. I have not as yet been able to locate an application for a variance for that project, and of course the similarities are remarkable to my proposed project. 3. A. [Relating to driveway/parking] Having talked with Bob Maran, he has conveyed to me that the City Engineer, Mr. Richard Baier, feels that a 12 foot driveway would be needed in order to deliver goods and services to the dwelling. I believe that the proposed driveway more than meets those requirements. To assist you in the evaluation of this assumption on my part, please refer to Clearwater Code Section 42.34 Parking: (4)(b) where it states 'Generally, there shall be not more than one entrance and one exit or one combined entrance and exit per property along any w street unless otherwise determined necessary by the traffic engineer. Prior to having Northside Engineering draw the plans as submitted, I reviewed my proposal with Mr. Mike Gust, Traffic Operations Engineer. Upon his tentative approval I had the plans drawn, and subsequently reviewed by staff members at a preliminary review session {recording in file, available for review at any time), confirmation was made as the suitability of said configuration by Mr. Gust during that meeting. B. As an alternative, I understand that as a single family or duplex, I can actually design a driveway where one could back out onto a City street. I am not against making such a design change; however, it seems as if backing into Enterprise Road would not be in anyone's best interest. It would be cheaper for me to do this, but who would profit from such a decision. C. Another concern was for delivery of 'goods' to the dwelling. Our design includes a five-foot wide walk to the front door; what 'good' would not be able to traverse a five-foot wide walkway? The front door to a house is usually no more than three feet wide. D. In response to those concerns I suggest that you review how this situation was handles at the apartment complex on NE Coachmen Road known as Town Place, Please note that the enclosed computer drawn picture shows a 4-foot wide wooden walkway leading to the entrances of those units, and that there is no alternative provided, excepts to transgress over the grass. I believe a similar situation exists here, but it is to be a 5-foot wide walkway, and yes, one could still approach the dwelling by walking on the grass. E. It was also mentioned that a driveway might be required to give 'fire trucks' an ingress to the property; if in fact this is the case, allow me to point out that emergency vehicles seldom pull into a driveway, as there is an increased danger of an accident when they are required to back into a street. F. If you can identify the problem, I will do my best to resolve the problem; however, it is difficult to resolve a problem, when one doesn't know what the problem is. 4. Of course, part of the problem is, since I have not declared what this project is going to be, either a single family dwelling, a duplex, or a residential group home for up to 12 individuals, it makes it somewhat difficult for the City staff members to evaluate my parking requirements; however, to simplify the situation, I am hereby going to declare that I would like to proceed with the project as if it were to be a residential group home for twelve individuals. This is not to say, that I will be building a group home, only that for permitting purposes, it is to be evaluated as if it were going to be a group home. S. ['A cross access agreement/easement....'] An easement in favor of the Condominium has been recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, and there a 24-foot separation distance already provided been between the leading edge of the Condominium carport, and the rear face of our proposed building. 6. "Stormwater retention calculations must be submitted." I was under the impression that single family dwelling and duplexes were exempt from having to submit these calculations. This was verified by telephone conversation between me and Mike Quillen, this A.M. Also, unless I have been mis-informed, a group home, under chapter 419 for up to 14 individuals is to be treated as a single family dwelling; this was confirmed by conversations with Mike Quillen and Bob Maran this A.M.. If I am wrong in this assumption, please respond as quickly as possible, and I will supply the required computations. I have also validated these responses by talking to Val Mahan in regards to these matters. 7. "Stormwater quality" see pre-ceding paragraph for my response. Will do. 9. Will do. 10. Thank you. 't- I would rather see you and other City staff members spend their time on something more productive for the City, but as you can tell I have focused in on this project, and will do what it takes to develop same. As always 'thank you' for the professional consideration which I know will be given to the items as outlined in this letter. Kindest regards, Robert R 06.2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Fl. 34623-1701 Ph/Fax: 813-799-8877 cc: file 14 Bob Maran, Civil Engineer III Richard J. Baier, City Engineer -'Lou Hilton, Senior Planner Steve Doherty, Central Permitting Supervisor Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer Mike Gust, Traffic Engineer Val Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator 14 `/444 v V C Z_' V!! ? ?:' C I T Y OF C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34618-4748 DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL PERMITTING Telephone (813) 462-6567 March 18, 1996 Mr. Bob Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL. 34623-1701 Dear Mr. Root: Thank you for your memo of March 7, 1996 regarding the architectural compatibility of the AVILLA development with that of the neighboring structures, principally those of the Villas at Countryside Condominiums. City staff has reviewed the Avilla building elevations you sent with the above referenced memo. The City's Associate Planner for Architectural Design Review, Mr. Don McCarty, was the principal reviewing official along with other Central Permitting and Engineering staff. He reached his conclusion only after a visit to the site. All staff, however, agreed with and concurred in the compatibility of the elevations presented with the surrounding area and neighboring structures from an architectural design perspective. In reaching this informed conclusion, the City staff is authenticating compliance of the project with condition II.A14 of the December .18, 1995 Development Review Committee(DRC) Summary Notes and with condition B 2 (4) of the Development Code Adjustment Board - Action Agenda. Your cooperation in supplying the requested elevations will help insure a project that is aesthetically acceptable to the neighboring community and is greatly appreciated. Please let us know how we may further assist you with your project. Since ely, Al en V. Mahan, Central Permitting Department 0 -Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer- CC: DRC Members Sandy Glatthom, Manager, Central Processing Kevin Garriott, Supervisor, Central Processing John Richter, Senior Planner AVU ALTS.AVM C I T Y OF C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34618-4748 DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL PERNUTTING Telephone (813) 462-6567 April 11, 1996 Ms. Evelyn K. Mense 2444 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL 34623 Dear Ms. Mense: Thank you for meeting with me today to discuss the concerns your condominium association has with the Avilla Project and the medical research establishment proposed for your area. Pursuant to the Avilla Project, I have enclosed a copy of the certified site plan for the project. Please note that it does contain the conditions established by the Development Code Adjustment Board in granting the variances for the project. In addition, by copy of this letter, I am instructing my staff to keep you apprised of any additional permitting activity for this project. With regard to the medical research facility, the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) will consider a rules change associated with this facility on April 17 at 9:30 a.m. in the County Commission meeting room. The PPC staff has prepared a rules amendment which requires many of the neighborhood safeguards included in the City of Clearwater code amendment. It appears we will need to make a few relatively minor adjustments to our code amendment to be consistent with the proposed Countywide Rules change. As we discussed, should there be any violations of conditions established for either of these two projects by the property owners, the City of Clearwater will expeditiously enforce all approval conditions as we feel they are necessary to preserve the quality of life in your neighborhood. Also as we discussed, should there be any substantive changes to the projects as approved, further public hearings will be required and we will actively seek and encourage your participation and that of your organization. Again, I enjoyed meeting with you. Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to discuss these. matters with me. Sincerely, Scott Shuford, AICP Director of Central Permitting SS/db cc: Elizabeth M. Deptula, City Manager Pam Akin, City Attorney Sandra E. Glatthorn, Central Permitting Manager Val Mahan, Central Permitting Coordinator John Richter, Senior Planner Steve Doherty, Permitting Supervisor A' MHNSE.S3 to ''Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer'' V Allen V. Mahan March 11, 1997 Central Permitting Coordinator P. O. Box 4748 City of Clearwater, 34618 Re: Avilla Dear Mr. Mahan: Please allow this letter to serve as my official request for a six months extension to develope the above referenced project. If additional information is necessary, please do not hesitate on giving me a call. qe e t r e rt Root 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Fl. 34623-1701 Ph/Fax 799-8877 h1? 13 1997 ?? 01 7 / YV 1?- 1Zoo? ?.?'f3rt.Lt?A`-l El?t 2 F' iV i? MAR , - 4 6V; aft It fill 11:1 TO: VAL MAHAN Coordinator for the Avilla Project City of Clearwater DATE: 3-7-1996 FROM: Robert Root R. L. Root Company 2436 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 34623-1701 Ph 813-799-8877 MEMO: Please have the proper individuals review the proposed elevations for the above referenced project in order to validate their compliance with the provisions of the recently approved variance(s). If, these do not meet those criteria, please delineate as to what those criteria are, and how one might be expected to comply with those standards. As always, I appreciate your professional standing in regards to this matter. Kindest regards, Robert Root EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 'J BR-4 O O BR-5 ( U ICU REF. ? n SUN ROOM OPEN TO ABOVE BR-1 BR-3 STORAGE BR-2 LIVING DINING ROOM ROOM REF. C REF. NDRY WASH DRV ROBERT ROOT 813-799-8877 AVILLA PROJECT PAGE SCALE 1" = 10' AVILLAA D Ell ? ?FFICE BR-7 OPEN TO BELOW BR-6 N STAFF LOUNGE I PORCH STORAGE ~2~3~ .~'1~e~~r~~, ~;v, ~y.mw.m~ M,. 4 , C' k~ ~ J r ~ ~ ) 6. it ~ I ~ e P , al 4~ ~t~~:, P,'.~~ ~ ~$m " ,erg t ..r sip l t q~i; 'I.~r`' : t , ;r~ ~`.;~°P,.. Si ~r ~ c 'u~ P x~y S ~~~,~ac ~ ~ t I ~ .~B J Y v ~`f ~ r v s. ,t , r,, NEW DUILDINO L.~.~E.I~ip .~y 4,w J ~ ~ ~ n... ~ ~ WWV ~dsr iy't' v~i"dw~~ -~I ~ ~d: ~:.r ~ Wa ~~~i i ~y r , \ f t ~ 4~ 1 74 1,~. r t ~ ~ ~ y .,`'t~ N T' ~ w.: I E.k. ~L. ' .,(63' ~ , ` ~ ~ x t a: ~ ' ' ~ ~ _;}.p~i'~.~ ~ 9 f ~a3 ~n) W L ~ L..C (L kPl 6:.- l~ ' ~ I'.FJ ~ .'a. " ~ 183.0 , f~ t ` ~ ~ , NEOY 4 PVC~SDR 14 FIRE NSW F.l,. ~n y t 1° I FIE ° - k N ~ , it";~ "r,w- ~ E!y 4 PVC-SDR 5 R ~ , , II NEw ~ToR~ ~I~~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~m. t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ j ~ f G~ ( NEVd 2 PVC 04FaSESTIC ~ 6, 4 e ) ~~,t~ ~rvI~~IN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIttllilltllll "VWU 1ie L•L dvy^ 5 r~ ,~"I 'r G ~ ft r r nT i { << t I } n -w- ' 1 ~ - ~ ~ ~•4 n.V, I'mo` . ~ ~ law ( A +I , b~ N a t- EVdM~DCVA A .S l , I' f y I , v . , o~.®~~a®.. ~1>=W rabt~l. ~-W~, u ~ ,`I r ) , , t r~ , 1;~ g~ 7 . , , t,,r v ~ s ~ ~ 3 "r` { ~ ~ ~ i FU TREE U 5 ~ o s ~ a 3 OIA o 6 I [ ~ ~ ' ~ p w ~ wCV p,MaP' OU TRY I . Q ~ 4. IR ~ ~ ~ NElY ~i~ DcVA 0 10 ~ 40 I t,,..«..M ' P~. , ~ d, ,r ~ r ~ ipvi ~ ~ i~~; + ~ Y C UR 5 G~ : i S/DE ~ C UN~RYSIQE A ~ _ Rt~~ AV {iNLLP It ~l~lh[ 1'~.MP. 5 T ~O ~ ~ {,a. ~ ~ T NEW 2 PVC DOMESTIC ~ NF~J ~s-#~OiJ ~ , - . t , ~ t ra I ~ ,SY ERR Q ~a~~ PLAZA t~,Q~.~ ~ P~~ s~`~~ ~iEA HE A DE I ~ 1 t ~ t ) I ) ka N ~ ' r r ti ~ f p Z FIR ANE ~2 EXEC.. ENT~~ ~ _.9 0 x i ~ ~ ~ ~i D ~D ~ III I ~ t t ~CQL~ ~ °~O ';r r - ~ , R ~ Y , W SHpPAIrVG A K5DALE p W~4 ~ ~ :3 p ~ ~ ~ i C€DAR yy 0 CH04LCW ON, "~4a NED 4x4~E TEE NE'N VI6URNUM HEDGE r r, ~ . ~ , 1 I , r~> , f t ~ ~ w ~ GOt F ,!250d w t J~ D qti I ~ ~ ~ IAN WOOD DR i T o~: ~ ~ ~ ~ . t ~ ~ { , ~ /r , ~ ~ ~ z° ~ to ,1_. ' ~ ~ ~ r~•4 NED 6x4 REDUCER {~l~.t ~ P h I 1,r i , , _ti_~ ~ a ~ i~ r e _ m p a w '~~f~st ' x ~r a 9 1z_. ,i, t , ~ °~~,~r rf i ~ h a 4 NEVI G QV p:~ , ~ L ~r ~ ~ , q~' ~ ~ ,I~~ ~ ° - ~ ~ ~'~~'a~~~:~. ~ tau Rrsla ~ ~ 8 ~9~,R"~ ~ ~ a i d 9F t ~ ~ i - ~,I w o a f-~~~ l; ~ CYPRE a ~ - D ~ ( t~ c~~~ ~ I , ~ E~ ~ p4 iii - ~t ~ E 1~ q;a:w `v a .4~ ° 0 IA >J ~ I ,I, ,R, , I Mpg p p~ pg NE6d IG, ~1~60 ~T TAP ~ ~I"'l+ as ,.?~li ~ :"I r' ( i i ~ R fi ~ ~ I ~f ~ [ ~ ~ t) ~~'4 P~ i ~ f I ( CT ~q ~ D+, ~'C ~ QR "~x~i!a Tai ~ 'EFITEF~Ia`'E----R~-,.. ~ - ~ t T ~ _ _ 3D _ - -5 ~t f ' ,II .1 ( ! { ~tt ~ s c~ it i HI i ~ vC' ¢ ~~q~` ~1 Q~ PREaASANT ~ /1 h EXISTS tVATER -sal • ~ ~f ~ . ,,r ,,t'r I ~ r~ V ' { k E '1~ _ , ~ _ t ~ IfI S j ~ a ti ~ ~ ~ "P ~ VCl l +4ggR ~ ~t W DDR- ~t1~~~1' Sir, , ~~P/~~ss P~hVT ~ ABER ~l NEV! F.H.A. _ - -WATER I.EvEE ~il.aa r,r :_I , i G / V a~ ~ )ti ~ )~j~4 ~ 6~s 7ry~t I~~) ~~`p ,I 5~@~ ~ t ~ ~ 0 NGT N~ - ~ '~S OFFING CENT ~ ~_~R I 1 N E D F, D, C. I ~ w ~ t k.~ fi 8450 -42'CL ~ r - ~r law p~ I xCA~ t , ~ ~ P ' ~ AK E R T ~ ARWI K I e MA l~~ ~~r• i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ SI ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I IRION as ' ' ~ ~ , S ~ ~ ~ 191 ~ { ~ ~ - - - _ FENCE "~l`~ r ^rr - ii , • , 1 o : z' r ' WATER LEVEL 80.D0 -4-- ~,,}'_,uN - ~ t LIFT EE Q , ~ '~~a)~ [ d ~t,' ? L x ~ RHO SIAN~DR~ t~ [ , I I ~ ABATE R CQNN ECT f ®N ~t--' l ~ PICIPdG f~~ 1. , t, ' r ~ 2t ~ r t.x t~+' ` r v~ t a g 8AN AN F- ~ ~ ~,tF I'1 ~ t ~ 1- ~ I - P~~~,NG ~ SECTIdN D°D ro~, ~~rk , e~,,e ~ ~ r ` r 1 's fJTS r ~a; t~:~ - } ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f M) r e r : ~ ~ ` y,8 PR ~ ~pR' WILLOW - I RAELI TRAIZ ~ PER IAN^~~1'~E i~ 4 bCNAUT UOUA~ ~ ' ~ I ' ~ SAS t o, i )DR~~!4T I~~~ U ~ ~e~ Y!E C IVE~I 8LU0 ~ ?-"`SCII ~ I ~ l7~ T I ~N G~C ,r r, - ~ ~ s ess Po1NT D ~ ~II°~~~ ® AFAAI~ BLV ~ AXE UT1VE CENT R ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ' ~ I ER•S (0 ~ ~ URS~~, ~ ~ : p ~ffICE r~ Jw~~ ~ ( NTS'• r ~,I , f~- 0~ ( 1 1 0~`~ i Alb b~~~ [ E ~ NocT r- IRISH a~~RA SCAN' PARK ~ t " .ITTLE BROOK rs~, R ~ ~~'T TF RD ; 4TH AV 5 's ~ ( ) o ~ 6 RE"Ccr~~'l~rs ~~{i~.1" ~ ~ l0 I ~ ~ ifARW Y DR AITI N ! a ¢~ILL p," ~ s EDISN ~ FLORE TINE R ; z ~ ~ ) ~ vAr~~E~ _ ' . 4~ EX ASPH. PARKING EX. ASPH. PARKING . ; i MULCN_ ~ „1 ~ I i ~ ARANM'Y LAND OSTA ~4:d'd' [u~R ;p; ~ ~r~[i ~~~u CRES)• °6 ~ ~d RECI N ANDI CENTRE. ~ J EXGR."` _ S4D $F~P~ , t, TC?P [ L Qt~.'a . i:t.. 83 `t. - ~ wr ICA ;zr~ I ~NG'+ I ~ ~ r SHOPPING ~ ) -i ~ ~ w ~ f,'{k~ ~ ' ~c. N' ~,i d, Cd 1 ~D ._....W..°.~w.-. _ 4' I EX.ROOF LINE/CARPORT ~ ~ ~ ~ a f t,, W RLD P W FINL DIA a'~~~ CENTER . ~ 1- , >ti..-.;~ ~..,,s~..x 4' Gn.,:..,.~.,.y,.~..,..~ ~ " BLVD aM rN qrr~ ~ Q AEQUADO IAN E fAN ~^~_r_ r ~ C MICK OG ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ w, ~ DR EN R D . I ~ I ` D> ~ t oti~ crib ~ i noiryc~ DP ~ r ~~lU ~A n~ ~ 2~Q ~~NTERVIEW ^ ~ ~ ' T ~ ~ ~~r ~rrr;~~trl~~.~~rl,r~ ~.I ~ti~~ ~''"h199°59t5011~ i.~~ 127,9 ~~a~ ~mq ~ _ ~ ~P, a I s , ~ ' ilia 'xvra:rC~ " + ~ II o EX. ASPH. ROAD TO ~l GCNERAL NOTE, ~ ENERAL NOTFS AND SPECIFICATIONS: ) ~ q~ ' f ~ I~p,. ELtlni ~ IOLF 6 UL~~O.OOa REE~6AIN UNDtSTUR6ED » ' ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~ f~ 10 L F ~ NEW 42 H IOH C. L, FENCE v ~ g~'' i , ALL E1,EV, 6 r... : ALL EhEVA'CIONS REFER TO N,G.V.D. ~ ( ~ ` S PVC Q,O. o . ~1~ s . ~ t~~~l ' ° w ° M.H. CONT ~ Q 2: RAC` Heginni~g at the Northeast corner of The Villas at Countryside,] ~ ' ~ TOP L.®4.01 rte a NEW RETENTION BASIN "S° ~ r r r'rr rrrrr 3 ~ ~ rrrrr r ~ EL. OE ALL CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY THELOCAT[ONANDELEVAT[ON a aandominium -phase XVTI as recorded in Ganda plat book S6, ~ " OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE START OF pages 117, 118 and 1o9, public records of Pinellas county, C. INV 51.3 ,rrrrrr,, I V 77.77(N`' TOP OF SANK ELEV 53.5 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r r rrrrrrr'`' INV.EL•77.53($) CONSTRUC l CONSTRUCTION, • 'Ip rrrrrrrrrrrr rr INV.EL177,3(Yd) SOT" OF SIN ELEV 82.0 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrr,', e A~-I`.I z ~rrrrrrrrrrrrrr r~' Florida'.. Thence 5.89 59'50"E. along the south right-of-way _ 3. TEIE LOCA "SG.CI"f./ ^T', ..r°.^" 'rrrrrrr rrrrrrr~rrrrrrrrrrr rr F'~ ~ rrrrrrrrrrrrr CONTRACT ~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr TIIELOCATION Oh EXISTING UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE, line of Enterprise road (An 80 .foot right-of-way) 129.43 feet CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO THE INTENT OF THE to a carver of the Villas at Countryside, a condominium - phasaj n)~.w 42'~NIGH~ arm'°~. C,L.,PENG~ . " " , , r, P: rirrrrrrFrrrrr~Frrrrrrrr ~ rrrr Ptv r r r r r r r r r PLAN, AN. .U„o ° • PLAN. ANY REQUIRED CHANGES OR ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE XXI, as, recorded in plat book 89, pages 98, 99 and 1G0 of said ~ ' ` r ' r Err rr r " r r r r c r R. L. RO( ~ r )1' ~t t rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~rrrrrrrrrrr rrr '':i x. APPROVED ' 4 $ ~ CO NC PAD rrrrrrr (rrrrrrrr i ~ _ 1.36 Enicrprise Anal APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. public retards; Thence along the boundary of said condominium ~ ~ ,~~,„w~ r PJ ~}~1 A~IiV ~ r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i.I (9carwater,F1 :i-1623.1701 ^ T) ~ Srrrrrrrrarrrrr a by the allowing two (2) aourses: 1) S.OOQCO'10"W., 152.00`, ( N 7. ,t rrrrrrrrr _ -i -_rrrrrrr l b'l3'~94°987 4. ALL CONS 17 ~ rrrr ~ rrr ! \ote 1. Allevtetimli~rtingshatlbe ~ , >EE~_9. M1~EICCN .._...5Q~_.,._.... , rrrrrrrr rrrrrrr directed away from the adjacent TE[E MINIIv ALL CONSTRIJC'CION AND MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO 2) N.89 59'50"W. , 127.98' , to the southeast corner of the above ~ THEMIN[MUMSTANDARDANDSPECIFICATdONSOFCITYOF mentiar~ed condominium phase XVII; Thenae PJ.OOo32'36"W. slang the ( VdsR,l C.'~ TraF EC 63.5 EX PAv`En~6,.1'j ErrrCrrrr ~~yy ' .rrrrrrr ~ CondomioniumaandCmm CLEARWA7 R CLEARWATERSUBDIVISIONAND/OR ZONING REGULATIONS.' east boundary of said condominium 152.61 feet to the aforementioned ~*I"" ~ 01 rrrrrrrr k~l ' rrrrrrr ~ . r r r r i EX . ASPH . PARKING pategnise Road. ' ~ " ~ ! _ -I rrr point of beginning, Containing 0.49 sores more ar less. ~ ' I' ~ -u rr rr \~r ",a ; rrrrrrr S, ALL RODE r r tiote rr arianae Heard 'i~' rrrr Actions of the Y GLl32 0 ~ , • • q~ ` rr ~ rrr -rrrrr 1D~ ' Passed: BFab t996with THE RETEI` ALL ROOF DRAINS TO BE CONTROLLED AND DIRECTED TO ~ ~ ( THE RETENTION BASIN. ~ ~ r r r ! ~1 rrrrr -rrrrr ~1° 1'ollowin reatrictiansandcrneaants: rrr rrrrr rrr ~ 5 I G r r r rrr rf S 6~ ~M~rr rrFr I~1 °rrrr, rr A, Vatianaehasbacngtantedbased 6' PEIE RETE~ TCIE RETENTION BASIN SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED PRIOR TO M ;I:~~ a~ ~ r r r -r r I r rrrr ,rrrr, ra NEVd 42 HIGH upaudocwnentsubmisaionsot'the CONSTRUC rrr ' _rrr I, ' ' C. L . F E NG E haant, as deviation from those ( CONSTRUCTION, WI'CH ALL STORM WATER DIRECTED TO IT. ) ~ y THE FINAL Ex, WATER ~ 1~'~ ~1q 1~~~ ~r rrrr rrrrrr ~ I r r r r I rrr ~ docwneuts wit} result io this variance OF SOD. EL. BO t ~ ' ~ r r r . I"lm rrr e THE FINAL 6" SHALL BE FINE GRADED BEFORE PLACEMENT r ~ ~ aF son. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E~< DET RETENTION 9ASIN r r r -rrr ~ bcwgnutlaadvaid. T C~AtN I rrr rrrr ~i ~ .~rrr~•r V~, s G a osen ar 1 'til. ~ ~ rrr rrrr : -rrrrrrr a l+. BuBtlingpemtitsahaubeabtaineain 7, WHEEL-STC _ ~ ~ ~ ,DATER ELr7,91 (4x30 91} r rrrr+~l rrrrr WHEEL-STOPS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL PARKING n ~ j B ~ t~ r t rrr f acwrdauce with the time frame spec- SPACES, v1 I r r r~~~ ~r r r r $ iced by rho Development Revtow hl , a6c~ rrr rrrr f~'~'ppc rrrrrrr ~ Camrnittee. SPACES, ~ i I ns z tGttING DISTRTCTt - - ~ RM-16 = RM-16 RM-h6 I ~ J ~ Gk( ~1~ ha ~ L1 rrr rrrr °°mt ,rrrrrrr .I B, COMPAC'I'I( Afb~ SUR~auNDtN~O A,RE.~ ( ~ ~ ~ t COMPAC'['ION OF PIPE BACKFILL SHALL COMPLY WITH CISLrt Residential Real~en}~q( ~ r ( ql rrr rrrr rrrrrrr C, Priartaissuamceafabuildingpertnit, AASI[TO T-I ~ q r r r r ~ rrrr copies of approved pemut madific- AASH`CO T-99 (I00%) ~ r i~ L' , l~N' Srrrrr rrrrr rrr r r r rrrrrrr ' nn~ atiom SWFWMDandthaD t. of ® 'r rrrrr rrrrrrrr r r r r r r r r1} ~ rrrr r r r Prrrrrrrrrrr rr pp F,mrimnmrntslProtectionsshall6c 9. WR'I'ER PIP LOT AREA (Sq.Pt. and Acres)t ~ ~ ~I [ ~ ~ ~ WA'CER PIPE SHALL CONSIST OF POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE .Cross Area ~(~ithin property lines), 19558 s, F, same ~ ~ I r r r r r r r r r r r r r~ r a ~ Submitted to the City of Clearsvatar's _ ' ~~a1 rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr`rrrrrr r r I VC AS PE I F.mimnmenlai 6taaagement Dept. 0.449 Aares ~ ~ ~ I (PVC} ASPER AWWA C-900-75 AND ASTM D-224[, DR 18 OR LESS .Net Area (Gross atinus BS ~s~. far ~ ~ ~ i~c" ~ IRRIGATION NOTES: ~ EX,TO OF SLOPE »rrr r r r F r r rr rrrr ( } ` ~ tD•rrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr p M7 AND AE PR] AND BE PRESSURE TESTED 1'0 150 PSI FOR 2 HOURS. vehienlar accesws~'s): - ! ~ ~a ,n, I - an under round ~ ~ , EX. EDGE F rrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr ® D~~ ~ D. Build' shall hedas The irrigatidn oontraotor shall provide g OGy 0 ATERl _ 1 QY aF all an site lanting h1 r^'*- 'r rrr rrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrErr ~ e ~ lr~ri atiDn 6y6tam to Cover D P ~ I ^1 ~ rrr r r r rr r r r r r r r r to be architecturally oompatibla I~, ALL GATk, ~ I' rrr rrrrrrrrrrrr withneighbaringcondomiuium area This s stem shall contain but net limited to the 0 ~ t r r r r r r r r r rrrr r y EX. T0'P OF DANK l)v' r r rrrr r rrrrrr' pt ,Q ~'i rrrrrrrr'rrrrrrrrr, Vd t WATER butldmgs, ALL GATE VALVES TO BE RESILIENT SEAT. ~ ~ ~ ~ ` r , , LU7 WIOTBt 129.43 Same _ , ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~u.~ r r r r r r r r -rrr S 1 - I I. SANITARY Fo 11 awing : , I a rrr rrrrr , r r , ° rrr PROPOSED 15 WIDE i e r rrrrr r f ~ ~ ~ ~ SANITARY SEWER PIPES SHALL CONSIST UP POLYVINYL LoT D®PT9t 1S2' same ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ SAFETY RAII,IN® rrr A S°rrr ~titi E. Prope"yshallbeeutirelyeoclosad I 1. Undar^ground piping, PYC sahadula 4O or better. DRAINAGE AND ,bM ~ • ~ { • ~ With an trpayue wall or fence can• I LORIDE CHLORIDE PIPE (PVC) CONFORMING TO AS7"M D-3034 D-[784.. - ~ 2. Seven (7I day programmable time aleck to at:tivata zones, UTIFITY EASEh9ENT,~: , I.P,~ I,' xF' » - E1M D,G.V,A, fomtiogtodleapprm+adplanssnd T[[[: PIPE S 3, Sprinkler heads oompatibla with the type. of planting. 7,5 EACH SIDE OF ~ v ~ the land d~valopmcnt soda prior SPIGOT AS THE PIPE SHALL BE SDR-35. JOINTS SHALL 13E BELL AND DENSITY (@ased an net acr®s)t - - - ~ ~ a SPIGOT AS PF.R ASTM D-3212, USING FACTORY INS"CA! LED ~ 19 2 G ~ ~ ~ t a a'. Eiectria valvaa. EXI INQ 3S x 4 R P C ,P ,Dbl. _p_ I p NEVd 4 SAPd 2.a B® a nvaa¢swm;anafinepriuei al P FLEXIBLE E FLEXIBLE ELASTOMERIC SEALS AS PER ASTM F-477, aulLOl>aG CovERAGE (Sq.Ft. and z of S . G a e 14 OF o tapp a r wire . l.~ I strucluta or to Land imptwetnents. 9 F'dar lass or lastic zone valve boxes. r I a G. i g P ~ ~ 4x4 CoNC PAa ,.,e ' ° , ~ v~p~ Gross Site)t - 3DDD s.F. 15 Y ( ~ 1 ~ ~I ~a s~~ic s 15.sax ~ ~ t GRDSS FLDDR sad F,A.R.a - 9200 s.F. f Jl ~ ' sunder drivawa s and concrete Welke, the pipes ~ Where t in i Y I ! tr o 9 ~ ,r' ' P p g I ~-M~-S PVC. shall be installed in schedule AD sleeves 18" below grade. N~,~I p I SEE SGHEIVIATIG NOTE. 0.479 ~ ~ NOTE: r ~ i r ® WATER C o ~ s a,1 , 5 ~,i;. ONNECTIO SPf'9ACRS (Also iaclude di~anaian® I I"J, [ PROJEGT IS EXEMPT FROM OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL ~ on`-site plan drn~rlag) t ~ ~ I ~ ~ Materiels supplied shall be equal to those manufactured by r ~ 5IR7Al,lk EX.SAN.I#,H. PROJECT IS EXEM a r.. I , _ ,~21 ASSESSMEN Rain Gird ar equal. h~ ~ 0. ~ ~ ~~M al TOPEL.II;4,09(T,EI,M.} T FEES.. 45SESSMENT FEES. ~1 ~ .a , I ~ ~ t~,. ~ ! E 7 M~ I t M INV. L. 5"74(N 31Y} r - ~ a ~ r - 4~ 50°la OF RUNOFF FRI . INV, EL.77,43(!~} o Prantt _ 3A. ~5, ) i0°la OF RUNOFF FROM BOLDING DIRECTED TO RETENTION BASIN #1 ~ ~ t The contractor shall submit a system lay-out along with catalog - € ~ ~r - I V< EL.77> 5 tE' NEW St 5l)/o OF RUNOFF FR( sheets of all oompanent in the system to the owner far approval W ETE T 0 I~ S " " ~ N R N( N A I N ~ ® ~0~'' b~ USING GUTTERS ANI ) 1 s I ~ t iD% OF RUNOFF FROM BUILDING DIRECTED TO RETENTION BASIN t12 Bidet - 12' ~ ) ~ I - I ~ i JSING GUTTERS AND DOWN SPOUTS. ~ . ~ J'~ prior to installation. TOP OF SANK LEV.Q3.5 pNA'[Sr Reart - IS" 1~~ I ~I ~ ~ 5" rt T. F E! SI ELE , t..0 Et0 0 A N V _I Tha entire s stem steall be guaranteed dy the contractor For 1 10LF& UD ®®.0 NEiYG.O, y ~ ~ TOPEL.S4.0 ~ year from the date of acceptance by the owner. I~ INV.EL.75.0 ~ ° _ ` ~ 9etraesn Structa,resr - - - ( 1 a > o~~ , Ml~~~ ~ ~tti11 NOTE TO CDNTR ~ ~ , 1 UDTE TO CDNTRACTDR; ER09IDN CQNTRDI 14EA9UHES ;WATERFRONTt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . Required aroa Sider - - ( ) r E ~ d ~ ~ 9equired erosion control me®suras must remain intact. ~ g 'i;' a EX a w throughout ca EX.CUEsI~LET r 35x24 throughout construction. Failure to in®tall or properly 'Ream - - _ ~ ~ .U~ TOP EL.r~.2 ,C,p ! maintain tnas naintsin thaw barricsd®® will r®sult in snForcament ~ ~ i ;~sl satian which may include cttatians, ss provided by ~ ~ ~`~ii~ ' TOATEL.52.4 aatian wnian INV EL.7,50 ° Ordinepica A90 Drdinepce A90-17, and chsptarq 40f]-4 end ADO-40, F.A.C. 6EIG9Tt - i I I EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL NOTES: r~Dl q: tio7 p~7 initiatitsn of s `aM 373,129 F.A. initiation of atvil panslty procedures pursuant to section ( C t~•- v1 373,129, F.A.C., aan result to s penalty not to exceed With bonus Praeisions(if applicable)a - 21' 30' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ) . fi E X, 5 SAN, S E4Va 1. SEDIMENT TRAPPING MEASURES: Sediment basins and traps, perimeter P $10,000 par o $10,ODD p®r affsnsa; with eech data during which such I ~ 4 ~ ~ i, berms Filter fanoas, berms, sediment barriara, vegetative buffers a violation ooa r violation oaours constituting ® ®epsrats oPfenss. PhVF.D VEBICIILAR AREAS (Sq. Ft, and _ ~ 6 ° ~ ~ - X of sit~I: - lSIZS.F ~~o - ,m ~ ~ ~ and other measures intended to trap sediment and/ar prevent ~ ' the transport of sediment onto adjacent properties, or into .u ~ ~ existing water bodzes, must ba installed, constructed or, in NOTE' TOTE; OPEN SPACE i ~ ~ ~ , ' I ~ ~ ~ ~'z~ tN ING SfEGRESS EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH ` Total for the Lot (Sq.Ft. and l4~lo9f~5F~759~ - etatlva IauFfars rotactad From disturbance ' AN ING S1EGI the Dose of vag p _ _ _ as a`flrst eta In the land alteration process. Such s stems p _ PROPERTY LINE 'ROPERTY LINE WAS GRANTED TO THE VILLAS AT % of 'its)' - 35x ~ r, shall bts fully o arativp and'ins~actad 6,y the En~inear baForc ~ ~ Ek•SAN.IA.Hi COUNTRYSIDE ;OUNTRYSIDE BY FINAL JUDGEMENT DATED ~ ~ • any oth®r disturbance o~ the site begins. TOP EL,93.35 I N V. EL. 7S, S I S E FEBRUARY 29, t ( } 'EBRUARY 29, 1992 AND SIGNED BY JUDGE JOHN S. ~ 'For the Front Yard (Sq.Ft. and t'~ S of required front 7ard)t - % 50X s INV.EL.75.42 !Y ANDREWS,CIRCI 2. PROTECTION OF EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEMS. During construction, EX.S lYATER INV.EL.TEi,St N tNDREWS, CIRCUIT JUDGE. ~ Clenr Spacq (Waterfeont Propsrt1} ~ - - ( ° " ~ all storm sewer inlets in the viainlty of the projaat shall _ _ ba protected by sediment traps suoh as secured hay bales, sod,„ EK.FH. Comm. Na. 9317 atone, ato., which shall be maintained and modiFled as required Ezteriar Perimetae bnfferat - - - by construction progress, and which must ba approved by the GtTEASI; GRIMMER Engineer baFara installation. 6 ,-Tot'EL,1~'_5 , Parkiag Lot Interior Laadscapiag ~ ~ ~o~e ~ {Sq.Ft. and x of Payed Vehicular u ~ areas; also, depict an site plea SCOIe ( ~ Q 3. SEDIMENTATION GASIN: The contractor will be required to prohibit \d 2.ni ~ l BoT OF SLaT EG H 3.2 discharge of silt through the outfall structure during construction rl__ fi NOTE; dra~iag by shadiaglcroas hatchinE)t - - ~ f OTE; ~ ~ ~ DrGwn 8 A. S. aF any detention area and will be required to clean out the Q m y `C - "~"GI}~ )GALLON TRASH RECEPTACLE SHALL BE USED ' n area before installin an ermanent aubdrain i e. --I "~'-E WjF3RnSS 90 GALLONTRASI datentio g y p P P m <Ew PLL,C INSTEAD OF A Dt In addition, permanent detention areas must 6c totally cleaned ISTEAD OP A DUMPSTER. PARKING (Gi®e applicable foeuaila)t - Qr-spaOa6 d,.Spac.~S ~heCked out and o cretin ro erl at final ins action and et the end ` P g p P y P _ _ NI"Fi GRADE Group care facilities: Two (2) parking spaces forlhe first six (6) pchsons, plus of th®' one year warranty period. _ _ _ _ CI a CD PRIOR TO CERTI f i i ~ --1 ~ 1_=_ FIFTEEN (15) FOt ?RIOR TO CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SITE PLAN, A one spnce for each additional six (6) or fraction thereof, plus one space psi - w A. SWALE5, DITCHES ANO CHANNELS: All swales, ditches and channels 6 ~ (;REA5E5kIMMER,lfB' OVER THE EXI. rIFTEEN (15) FOOT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT two (2) nonresident employees or supervisors. ~ .~1 ~s N~ a~,~,: .4 M. r, JVER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PIPE ACROSS THE • ~ 1 , ~ ~ Revisions leading from the site shall be sodded within thr•ea 13I days 2: TNICKGAtv.STEFL WJ of axaavatlon, All other interior swalas, eto,, including detention 4PNCHoRS.HoTDtPa1:1ER~ 4+t NORTHEAST CC " ~ coNCRETE PAD RECORDED. NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE f ~ areas will ba saddaQ prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ~ I TH ~o Atli. Iu~peRwous ~ ON EACH SIDE F tECORDED. THIS EASEMENT SHALL EXTEND 7,5 FEET ~ " ~ 1 5 m C ~ 9 2 I , MEMBRANE ~ ~ 5. PROTECTION AND STAGILIZATION OF SOIL STOCKPILES: Fill material ~ `M1.. ' ~NOSOD- 6" PVC LONG DN EACH SIDE FROM THE CENTER OF THE PIPE: A ~A~ ~ 6 ~ - ~ ~ i; 2 7-~°92~~ ~ , stockpiles shall ba protected st all times by on-alts drainage "1 ` y , ~ . 1, Bo'r. tl., ~2•c "~r RADIUS GEND r controls whloh resent erosion of the stock lied m=.teriel, w r-"~ p P ~ NEW TYPE Control of dust frog suoh stockpiles may be required, depending re" 1 NE1Y TYPE ~b°INLET TOF EL. ,1N'J.EL. ~ ~ . ~ ~ 3 3-30-1994 f _ - I a B" FILTER MEDNM ~ r" annin W/ANE Yf/BARNES SU®t~ERSI®LE kYASTEVdA'IER PIJMP< RE~Y. 10/ 5~ r,~4~~A~,~~@, I:- ~ I A.B.S. upon their iodation and the expected lengtn or time the stockpiles 2 r UNDER DRAIN MODEL 3 MODEL asp 086047 OR E4uA`, v' 1/ 5/9131 1 q Z MAY 1--194 f will be present. In ere case shall an unstabilized stockpile c" PVCPERF.PIPE w/SOCK remain after thirty (30) calendar days. ~NV.EL. RQv / 6. MAINTENANCE: All erosion and siltation control devices shall n PROPOSED BUILDING be checked regularly, especially after each rainfall and will LENGTH THE STRUCU ENOGTH TDNES TIRUICUTRES LWHICHCOURIRENTLY COMPRISE YTHDE VILLA D C y, 110N BASIN be cleaned, out end/or repaired as required. T UNDERDRAIN DETAIL TERMINAL U R A! CL EA OUT AT COUNTRYSIDE CC T COUNTRYSIDE CONDOMINIUM, i Sheet No, CONTROL L STRUCTURE DETAIL N T N.T.S. PROPOSED BUILDIN ~ ROPOSED BUILDING SHALL ALSO INCORPORATE AS MANY r7 o kI RCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE VILLAS AT COUNTRYSIDE AS IS LII - NTcG - ARCHITECTURAL FEA FEASIBLE. EASfSLE, G, j~ n a Certified as a true and c &Tect copy. On January 25, 1996 the Develbp;aunt Revie,,kommittye approved a site plan for AvillS xoup Care F " ty. A?j j Witness my hand and the seal of the Development Code Administrator ?o the-City of Clearwater, Florida on this J Ad ay of April, 1996. v inator, Central Permitting De ment Certification is subject to the following: Before the City can issue building permits the applicant must complete the following actions: 1) Acquire clearing and grubbing and tree removal permits or a no tree verification form from Environmental Management. 2) Obtain and furnish evidence of all applicable permits from other governmental agencies including but not limited to revised SWFWMD & FDEP permits to Clearwater Environmental Management. Before the City can issue a Certificate of Occupancyd the applicant must complete the following actions: 3) Bring all substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps up to standard, including ADA, and install sidewalks where none exist in the street right of way. 4) Pay the Transportation Impact Fee as called for by the Pinellas County Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance with assistance in determining the fee from the Clearwater Traffic Engineering Office. 5) Provide as-builts and an engineer's certification to Engineering Services. 6) Direct lighting from parking lot luminaries and other sources downward and away from residential areas. Applicant must complete the following as indicated: r 7) Obtain the requisite buildingpermits within one(1) year from the site plan certification date to prevent expiration of the site plan certification. g) Obtain the requisite certificate(s) of occupancy within three years of the site plan certification date to prevent expiration of the site plan certification. 9) Obtain review of and permits for signs and fencingtwalls through separate review and permitting procedures.