CHECKLIST AND WORKSHEET

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS HEARING

BA CASE NUMBER: BAA-20-25

DRC MEETING: October 12, 2020 @ 9:00 AM-1st Floor, Housing & Community Development
Department Conference Room

BOAA HEARING: November 4, 2020 @ 9:00 A.M. Magnolia Room, Florida Botanical Gardens

OWNER/ADDRESS: Pinellas County Land Assembly Trust-Oasis Acres

Pinellas Housing Finance Authority Tre
26750 US Highway 19 N, Ste 110
Clearwater, FL 33761-3404

REP/ADDRESS: R. Donald Mastry, Trenam Law, Jacob Stowers, CHAF, Inc

200 Central Ave, Suite 1600
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

PROPERTY ZONING: RMH, Residential Mobile/Manufactured Home

LAND USE DESIG: Residential Urban

TYPE APPLICATION: Special Exception

CASE DESCRIPTION: A request for a Type-2 Use related to affordable housing development to
allow for the redevelopment of a legally-established 36-unit mobile home park
in an RMH zone with a similar nonconforming density of 32 units, for the
property located at 3901 46th Avenue North in Lealman. The proposed
development is also requesting additional affordable housing incentives such
as a zero-lot line configuration along the periphery of the development,
reduced parking requirements, limited landscaping, waiving sidewalk
requirements, etc.

PARCEL ID NUMBER: 03/31/16/51012/025/0030

NOTICES SENT TO: Pinellas County Land Assembly Trust-Oasis Acres, R. Donald Mastry,
Trenam Law, Jacob Stowers, CHAF, Inc, Bcc & Surrounding Owners (See
Attached List)

DISCLOSURE: N/A

Reference #:BA20-00026
From: Levy, Kelli H
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 3:53 PM
To: Washburn, Thomas E <twashburn@co.pinellas.fl.us>; Miselis, Paul <pmiselis@co.pinellas.fl.us>; Crosson,
Gene E <gcrosson@co.pinellas.fl.us>; Lyon, Blake G <blyon@co.pinellas.fl.us>
Cc: Moore, Christopher D <cdmoore@co.pinellas.fl.us>
Subject: OASIS - Comments to the DRC

Good afternoon,

I am not sure who is on the DRC so I am sharing my comments with you.

1. County Attorney may need to weigh in on the legally established density of 36 units. The applicant did
not provide an approved site plan with 36 units; just a note from a former county employee on an
engineering sheet from Florida Power. The topographic survey shows 25; however, lot 23 is missing. As
stated on pg 10 of the PDF, the land use is RU, 7.5 units per acre, which equates to 12 units. The
applicant then requests a density bonus of 20 units.
2. 138.3211 (c) 3.b. The planning dept will assist the applicant in seeking fee waivers, subsidies, expedited
plan review, and other incentives…if: 2. The applicant is not requesting a density bonus and/or
development flexibility. The applicant is requesting both.
3. Applicant is requesting a parking reduction and un-paved/un-stabilized parking surfaces. I do not
support pure grass parking without stabilization such as grass block, or other approved alternatives.
Proposed parking appears to be insufficient for proposed development (1 parking spot per unit). County
code requires that the applicant demonstrates through technical memo or analysis demonstrating
reduction will not impact the surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant did not provide a memo or
analysis.
4. Concurrent site plan review. The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to perform a site
plan review. Does this provision conflict with #2?
5. Applicant states that a zero lot line configuration is consistent with the previous development pattern.
This is not accurate. I support maintaining a setback off the ROW due to existing infrastructure
immediately adjacent to the ROW line. Further, the county is currently in the planning phase of PID
002131A 46th Ave from 49th St. N to 37th St. N. which includes roadway, sidewalk, and drainage
improvements. Setbacks on the unit 3 lots north of the stormwater pond need to be revisited. The
corner of the unit conflicts with the internal road.
6. Applicant proposes to implement the drainage layout previously discussed without proper grading. Pg
20 of the PDF indicates that the lowest elevation on the property is at the NW corner which indicates
that stormwater will run off the property into the ROW and will not be properly routed to the
stormwater system. The applicant needs to meet the provisions of ch 138 and 154 for the grading plan
and drainage plan. I do not support waiving this requirement. Further, the applicant states that the
impervious area on the property is not increasing. This is not accurate. The impervious area is increasing.
The applicant indicates that because the units are off the ground the impervious area is not increasing;
however, each unit will have a concrete pad and stormwater is not permitted to be under the units.
7. Landscaping: prior to proper site plan review, the applicant removed onsite trees and other landscaping
without proper approvals. Therefore, landscaping should, at a minimum, start at what was there before
the unauthorized activities.
8. Page 10 of the PDF.
a. Proposed density interferes with the ability to create a development that aligns with the goals of
the Comp Plan, Lealman CRA Plan, and County resolution 19-53 Health in all Policies.
b. Applicant’s submittal is insufficient for site plan review and may be inconsistent with #2 above.
c. Proposed setbacks interfere with activities in the ROW and a planned CIP project. Recommend
consistency with code, 5’ rear setbacks.
d. No comments
e. No comments
f. No comments
 g. This should have been required given the intention was to redevelop the MHP.
h. No comments
i. No comments
9. Page 12 of the PDF
a. No comment
b. The applicant did not demonstrate adequate separation using screening devices, buffer areas,
and/or other appropriate means. SE corner includes commercial development. No buffering
proposed.
c. The applicant did not demonstrate adequate parking or walkways. Did not provide technical
analysis or memo demonstrating no impact to surrounding neighborhoods. Further, sidewalks
are a critical component of affordable housing. The applicant did not justify the request or
propose an alternative for consideration.
d. No comment
e. The applicant’s statement is not accurate. As proposed, the development does increase
impervious area and does create offsite drainage issues. Reduction in stormwater treatment
requires a variance or administrative adjustment. Do not support waiver on CH 138 and 154 for
grading and drainage plans which are necessary to demonstrate that the stormwater is properly
routed.
f. Applicant did not meet landscaping and buffering requirements or propose alternatives for
consideration. Do not support complete waiver of these elements.

Overall, this proposal significantly deviates from basic code requirements and the submittal does not justify the
request. Further, this proposal does not align with the County’s intent regarding Health in all Policies specifically:

• The health and well-being of Pinellas County residents are critical for a prosperous and sustainable
community.
• Health is influenced by many factors beyond genetics and medical care, including the social, economic,
service, and physical environments, both natural and built, and conditions in which people live, learn,
work, play, and age. These environments and conditions are known as the social determinants of health.
• Policies implemented by the County outside of the traditional health sector – including policies related
to food access, housing, transportation, public safety, land use, education, sustainability, climate
change, parks, air and water quality, criminal justice, and economic development – significantly affect
health inequities and the social determinants of health.
• it shall be the policy of Pinellas County to apply a “Health in All Policies” approach to the County’s
decision-making through the consideration of health, equity, and the social determinants of health in
the development and implementation of policies, projects, plans, programs, budgets, and the delivery of
services.

Lastly, key elements of this proposed project conflict with the Lealman CRA Plan Redevelopment Guiding
Principles which are committed to improving the quality of life for all citizens through socially, economically, and
environmentally sustainable methods to help create a district in which residents and business owners are proud
to invest. This proposal continues the mobile home park development standard of the 1970-1980 era which is
inconsistent with the future vision for Lealman.

If you have any questions let me know. Thank you.

Kelli
Kel l i H a mm er L ev y , M S , M P A, C PM , E NV S P
D i r e c t o r , P i n e l l a s C o u n t y P u b l i c Wo r k s
7 2 7 .4 6 4 .3 3 1 7
klevy@pinellascounty.org

Please click here to tell us how we are doing! All government correspondence is subject to the public records law.
From: R. Donald Mastry [mailto:dmastry@trenam.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:16 AM
To: Lyon, Blake G <blyon@co.pinellas.fl.us>
Subject: BA Case Number: BAA-20-25 Oasis Acres

This message has originated from Outside of the Organization. Do Not Click on links or open attachments
CAUTION:
unless you are expecting the correspondence from the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Lyon,

In response to comments made at the DRC meeting on October 12th, relative to the Oasis project, CHAF, Inc. is
working with its architect to produce a landscape plan using new landscaping for the Oasis Acres project. The
landscape plan will not use the existing landscaping at the site and will attempt to comply with the current code
requirements.

In addition, the architect is modifying the design of the parking spaces utilizing a non-grass, permeable material.

Don

R. DONALD MASTRY | ATTORNEY

Dir: 727-824-6140 | Cell: 727-641-4811 | Fax: 727-822-8048 | email | vcard | bio

200 Central Avenue, Suite 1600, St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Main: 727-896-7171 | www.trenam.com

Please visit our website for the latest in COVID-19 Legal Updates.
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information
that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have
received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, or by telephone at the direct dial number above and destroy the original
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
From: David Lee <davidleeti@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 3:30 PM
To: Bailey, Glenn <gbailey@co.pinellas.fl.us>; Lyon, Blake G <blyon@co.pinellas.fl.us>
Subject: Oasis Acres Application

This message has originated from Outside of the Organization. Do Not Click on links or open attachments
CAUTION:
unless you are expecting the correspondence from the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Glenn & Blake,

Thank you for the opportunity to address the DRC committee last week. I wanted to follow up and make sure
the neighborhood concerns are heard clearly and addressed by staff.

Questions:

• The CRA Board has been outspoken on the redevelopment of mobile home parks. The topic was
discussed at length at the last meeting. Will you factor those comments and seek opinions from board
members as a part of your deliberation process?
• Has the CRA coordinator reviewed and provided feedback on this project?
• The developer completely cleared the site and installed underground utilities for 34 units. Were permits
obtained for this work?
• While conducting this earthwork, the developer failed to follow basic environmental standards. Are you
aware of this?
• Pinellas County environmental inspectors found the site to be out of compliance on 2 occasions. Why
was the work allowed to continue?
• The applicant left question 15 blank. Shouldn't environmental violations and potential site development
without permit violations be disclosed here?
• The applicant has failed to maintain the property since acquisition, forcing code enforcement to
intervene on multiple occasions. Shouldn't this be notated on question 15?
• Developer states that he will "reuse" existing landscaping. How will this possible given that he
completely cleared the site?
• Has staff ever recommended approval for a landscaping exemption on a similar project?
• 10(b) with zero lot lines and no landscaping, how is the applicant able to meet the screening
requirement? If there ever was a case to be made for a 30' visual screening buffer - or an invisibility
cloak - this seems to be it.
• Developer cleared 100% of trees from the site, including many oaks. There is one left at the SW corner
in the easement. The proposed dry pond will kill that tree. Have you considered this?
• While considering the sidewalk exemption, are you aware that Pinellas PAL is 2 doors down? There are
hundreds of children that transit this area on a weekly basis. We are in immediate need of a widewalk
on the northern side of the street right now. Yes, the roadway improvement study is underway which
includes sidewalks, but it could be 10 years before that materializes, even longer if you factor the
timetable for stormwater improvements and impending budget shortfalls. Allowing the developer to
build a sidewalk in another area would not satisfy the immediate need of the neighborhood.
• The entitlement referenced on the application for previously approved density is an old site plan with a
post-it note and handwritten comments. Are you able to provide more concrete supporting documents
on this "approved" density?
• Have grass parking spaces ever been permitted for a new development in Pinellas County?
• What is the code reference that allows 100% permanent grass parking spaces?
 • The applicant is asking for a parking reduction to 1 space per unit and will not be providing visitor
parking. How does that work? Will the tenants be restricted to one car and not be allowed to have
friends over or celebrate holidays?
• 138-100(g) Where is the tenant relocation plan? There were residents at the prior development.
• Has the HiAP coordinator reviewed this plan and provided feedback?
• Have AHD incentives ever been approved for a trailer park in Pinellas County?
• This developer has demonstrated a lack of due diligence on multiple projects. We have a pattern now.
Will you factor the applicant's ability to execute?

We've made so much progress in Lealman over the last six months. Communication with Clearwater is
improving and real trust is being built. We're seeing the tangible results of that improved focus here every day.

The developer is marketing this as a Pinellas County project, complete with your logo. Please look closely at this
one. We all want the best possible outcome for the community.

--
David Lee
727.644.9200
11/2/2020

Pinellas County Planning Department & Board of Adjustment

Via email @ dwhisennant@co.pinellas.fl.us

Case BAA-2025
Project: "Oasis Acres"

To whom it may concern,

I am a resident of Lealman and Vice President of the Lealman Community Association.

It has been brought to my attention that the Oasis Acres Project is requesting special exemptions
that would not normally be allowed due to building and development code.

It is also my understanding that this type of project is not allowable anywhere in Pinellas County
-only- within the CRA boundaries of Lealman. Which is a big concern as there are
approximately 230 acres of mobile home parks in the CRA which, if approved, could create an
open door for other developers in doing the same.

The items of major concern at this time are:

 Zero lot lines- Homes will be sitting right on the property line
 Sidewalk exemption - A sidewalk is needed on that site as required. There are many
factors as to why but the biggest is the amount of children that walk that corridor. The
developer should be required to build that sidewalk on that site where we need it.
 Parking reduction-to 1 space/unit- This does not allow for enough parking for family,
for example: A married couple each have a car, one is able to park at their home where
does the other one park?
 Permanent grass parking spaces- Residents moving into their home deserve more than
a “grass” to park in

If these exemptions are put in place, we are working ourselves back to what was torn down.
Further, we should be working to “better” the community of Lealman and a development
requesting these exemptions right of the bat does not fall within that vision. We should be
moving forward not backward. The Community of Lealman deserves a development to be built
according to code.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Post
Lealman Resident and LCA Board Member
5180 42nd Avenue North
Saint Petersburg FL 33709
11/2/2020

Pinellas County Planning Department & Board of Adjustment

Via email @ dwhisennant@co.pinellas.fl.us

Case BAA-2025
Project: "Oasis Acres"

To whom it may concern,

I am a resident of Lealman and President of the Lealman Community Association.

It has been brought to my attention that the Oasis Acres Project is requesting special exemptions
that would not normally be allowed due to building and development code.

It is also my understanding that this type of project is not allowable anywhere in Pinellas County
-only- within the CRA boundaries of Lealman. Which is a big concern as there are
approximately 230 acres of mobile home parks in the CRA which, if approved, could create an
open door for other developers in doing the same.

The items of major concern at this time are:

 Zero lot lines- Homes will be sitting right on the property line
 Sidewalk exemption - A sidewalk is needed on that site as required. There are many
factors as to why but the biggest is the amount of children that walk that corridor. The
developer should be required to build that sidewalk on that site where we need it.
 Parking reduction-to 1 space/unit- This does not allow for enough parking for family,
for example: A married couple each have a car, one is able to park at their home where
does the other one park?
 Permanent grass parking spaces- Residents moving into their home deserve more than
a “grass” to park in

If these exemptions are put in place, we are working ourselves back to what was torn down.
Further, we should be working to “better” the community of Lealman and a development
requesting these exemptions right of the bat does not fall within that vision. We should be
moving forward not backward. The Community of Lealman deserves a development to be built
according to code.

Sincerely,

Laura Simkanich
Lealman Resident and LCA Board Member
5252 48th Terr N.
Saint Petersburg FL 33709
 Board of Adjustment & Appeals
Case BAA-2025
Re: Lealman Trailer Park

Bibi Sipra, CPA Dear members of the committee,

I purchased my first home in this neighborhood. I

chose the area because it's affordable and close to
everything in St. Pete. I've watched the neighborhood
improve over the last few years, block by block. I
attribute this progress to the implementation of the
CRA combined with the hard work of the residents who
live here.

Allowing an ill imagined trailer park to be developed in

CONTACT this up and coming neighborhood is without support.
Using affordable housing incentives to allow this trailer
Email: park to achieve higher density is downright egregious.
BIBI.SIPRA@EY.COM This entire area is already affordable. If you want to live
in a trailer, we've already got that covered. There are
plenty of options in Lealman at a much lower price
than the developer is proposing.
 
November 2nd, 2020 
 
Board of Adjustment 
 
“Oasis Acres”  
 
BAA 20-25 
 
Committee Members, 
 
I live on the same street as the proposed development. I never thought in a million years that a 
trailer park would be considered an option for a community that’s in the middle of rebuilding 
itself. 
 
Lucky for everyone - the case before you is a complete and total disaster. It’s so bad you could 
blindfold yourself and throw a dart. It would land on a reason not to approve this type 2 use. 
 
I would like to share with you a few items I noticed on the developers application and provide a 
some background on the case. 
 
I ask you to consider these items when making your decision. 
 
 

 
David Lee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Excerpts from the Developers application 
(updated for accuracy) 
Comments in red 
 
 
see next page 
 Isn’t this the attorney you
call when your project’s on
shaky ground? Interesting
choice for a non-profit.

Page 1, Developers application for type 2 use

With zero lot lines, a visual screening buffer

is not possible. This development will be completely visible and degrade the
surrounding neighborhood.

Page 2, Developers application for type 2 use

The parking reduction and lack of curbing

Will lead to cars parked in grass common areas & on the street, at a detriment
to the neighborhood. Without adequate parking, sidewalks become even more
important, yet the developer is requesting an exception.

More density = More cars. Was a traffic study completed?

Grass parking spots… Could it be this project is

Trying to hide a water problem?

Page 3, Developers application for type 2 use

 Page 1, Developers narrative for type 2 use

Developer cleared the roads. How do you reuse a

road that’s already been cleared? The site is
grass now. Application of current standards
should be enforced.

How do you reuse

landscaping that was already
cleared?

Page 2, Developers narrative for type 2 use

False statement. Sec. 58-650 PLDC: Impervious area means hard surfaced areas which either
prevent or severely restrict the entry of water into the soil mantle and/or cause water to run off the
surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from that present under natural conditions
prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, sidewalks,
walkways, patio areas, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, and other surfaces which similarly affect
the natural infiltration or runoff patterns which existed prior to development.
 Page 4, Developers narrative for type 2 use

Not applicable? There was an active community

at the property prior to acquisition. Developer
failed to submit the required plan.

Developer left this section blank. In realty, the

applicant has failed to maintain the site since
acquisition.

(S)

COMPLAINT NUMBER: CL19-01372: Trash & Debris and fence in

disrepair complaint filed anonymously on 06/05/2019
These 2 violations confirmed, written warning notices issued on
06/17/19
Compliance achieved for the debris violation on 08/29/19
Compliance achieved for the fence violation on 08/20/19
Cases closed without citation.
 (S)
Continued...

COMPLAINT NUMBER: CL19-02815 : Trash & Debris complaint

initiated by Code Enforcement Officer Boatwright on 10/24/2019
Written warning notice issued: 11/01/19
Compliance achieved / case closed without citation on 11/25/19

COMPLAINT NUMBER: CL20-00697: Trash & Debris complaint filed

anonymously on 03/27/20
Written warning notice issued 04/02/20
Compliance achieved/case closed without citation on 06/23/20

COMPLAINT NUMBER: CL20-02364: Trash & Debris complaint filed

anonymously on 09/25/20
Written warning notice issued 10/06/20
Compliance achieved/case closed without citation on 10/20/20
 (S)
Continued...

There’s more, but you

get the picture

Ignoring environmental regulations

(while clearing the site without a permit)
 The developer also went ahead and installed
underground utilities [without permits]...for 36 units.

So what normally happens when you

don’t get permits?

...City inspectors sent out to investigate

...The city fined the Life O’Reilly
mobile home park and Miller and
Sons, the company that cut down
trees at the mobile home park on
Gandy Boulevard, a combined fine
of $840,000 for cutting down
grand oaks in August...
quickly issued a "stop work'' order and now
the Isles at Old Tampa Bay is on
hold...“Additional review and investigation
regarding illegal removal of trees will be
pursued,'' officials said in a statement,
‘”and citations will be issued and
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
Code.'’...
 The Magical
landscape plan

Developer produced a landscape plan last week

On the public easement, there

is one remaining shade oak
tree. The proposed pond will
kill it.
How do you plant a visual
screening buffer - and reserve
space for building
maintenance with zero lot
lines?
 The sidewalk exemption

Sidewalks are mentioned 117 times

”Focus on eliminating sidewalk gaps”

“Wider sidewalks and street lighting

are improvements that would greatly
enhance mobility”

”Overall, the number one

comment/concern was the need for
sidewalks”

“Connect gaps around Lealman

prioritizing those that address origins
and destinations”

We need
sidewalks on Pinellas Sheriff's
Police Athletic
THIS property, “Oasis Acres” League Lealman
not “in lieu of” Sports Complex

Children
 June 7th, 2018

Board of Adjustment reviews “Greenway Lofts” project. Same developer / same street.
Residents ask for a 30 day continuance to get questions answered. Developer
refuses, says he’s in a rush to start the project. BOA votes to approve.

2 years & 5 months later...the site remain undeveloped.

One developer, two Pinellas County land

deals raise residents’ eyebrows
November 23rd, 2019

… “Even though the county bought

the land for Greenway Lofts 16
months ago, Contemporary Housing
Alternatives has not started work
because construction bids came in
much higher than expected. The
land is sitting fenced and empty.
Did taxpayers
get a fair deal? In roughly the same time frame, a
different developer started and
completed an 80-unit affordable
apartment community on
county-owned land in Clearwater.”...

Should Pinellas County pay $740,000 for this? Auditor concerned about a "windfall''
profit”
October 28th, 2019

“There are ties between a seller of the property and a top county official.”

...“Pinellas Clerk of Court and county auditor Ken Burke has declined to release payment”...

…”Burke wasn’t satisfied with the county’s response. "Conflicts of interest include the
appearance of a conflict of interest”...

...“The nonprofit paid $300,000 for the property. It deeded it to a related for-profit company
that wants to sell it to the county for nearly $740,000 — a 146 percent profit.”...
 Mark William Stephenson
SPREAD
-.--------------------- License#: AR007691

(.)

,'\
-c..
'

TIE OUTER FRONDS WITH 3116" HEMP

TIE BUD WITH 3116" HEMP

1 1 1 1 4 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TRIM AWAY ONE ROW OF FRONDS

FROM AROUND BUD
·-
..c
1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TRIM AWAY 2/3 OF FRONDS AT TIME OF
(.)
DIGGING AND PLANTING
L..
>-
:I:
(!)
>-
:I:
S2
<(
w UJ i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ALL TRUNKS TO BE SMOOTH AND ALL BURN
:I: :I:
" CJ)
s
-' -' MARKS WIRE BRUSHED AWAY
-' -'
~
UJ
~
UJ
>
0 e; ~~~:--------------20LAYERSBURLAPPADATSUPPORT
'!' CONTACT- NO NAILS IN TREE WOOD

"'z
::::J
0::
WIRE TIE
>- 0
0:: 0 ~
<( 0 ' \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 YELLOW PINE(2"x4" BRACE) .c
s:0:: .!l ....
0 0

z"'
UJ ,g
-'
()
<(
UJ
SPACE 3AT 120" TYPICAL c_
!!
0
~0~
-..-...J..-c;o
Qlou_<D.,...
....
~0
'51~
-' o2 ~~ Ol«(~ /P_o
() N 0
ooQ):;(:;:jv .:;:
©e"
0

IRRIGATION NOTES
N±:: "C:-!::"£l'9m
c:::~._...._co -~~
2- YELLOW PINE (2"x4" STAKE) 3' LONG NOO.$Nt!
<( I (l)r-..C'\1 ~~
"- ....
IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGNED BY IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT
CALIPER
SAUCER RIM
(/)
s: "'"'
~
ii5
"-

SHOP DRAWINGS TO ARCHITECT AND PINELLAS COUNTY FOR APPROVAL.

,, FIN ISH GRADE
THE IRRIGATION SMALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTERS 126, 138, 154, AND 166 OF THE 1-..\'
....... i
'.·,1 6" MIN.
PINELLAS COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CHAPTERS. '.; '·'
1. SHALLOW WELLS, OPEN SURFACE WATER BODIES, OR RECLAIMED WATER MUST BE USED AS A 1\
SOURCE OF IRRIGATION WATER. THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR IRRIGATION MUST NOT BE
CONNECTED TO COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL WATER SOURCES, UNLESS IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED ROOT BALL (ROUND OR SQUARE)
THAT THESE SOURCES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. 16" MINIMUM RADIUS FROM TRUNK
TREE SPECIFICATIONS :::c<C
2. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST UTILIZE LOW VOLUME DESIGN SUCH AS LOW TRAJECTORY HEADS WASHED-IN AND TAMPED NATIVE SOIL
f-0
OR SOAKER HOSES TO PROVIDE DIRECT APPLICATION AND LOW EVAPORATION. SYSTEMS THAT
NO SCALE
c:::-
OVERS PRAY AREAS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE IRRIGATION, SUCH AS PAVED AREAS WILL NOT BE
- - - - - EXISTING SOIL _ _ _/_/_/7/ en en 00:::
ACCEPTABLE. HIGH IRRIGATION NEED AREAS MUST NOT OVERS PRAY LOW NEED AREAS.
ww zg
wLL
0:::~
3. HIGH WATER DEMAND LANDSCAPE AREAS SUCH AS TURF MUST BE SERVED BY A SEPARATE .f
IRRIGATION ZONE THAN LOW WATER NEED AREAS, SUCH AS PLANTER BEDS, OR MULCHED => ~
AREAS WITH TREES. IN NO CASE, SHALL ANY PLANTED VEGETATION AREA BE MORE THAN 50'
FROM A WATER SUPPLY HOSE BIBB.
PALM PLANTING DETAIL
NO SCALE
NOTE: STAKES TO REMAIN IN
PLACE FOR MINIMUM 6 MONTHS.
oo
<(I
z(!)
we:::
>=>
4. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST BE OPERATED BY AN IRRIGATION CONTROLLER
CAPABLE OF DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE SCHEDULES OF HIGH AND LOW WATER DEMAND - - THIN CROWN 1/3 AFTER PLANTING, en LL <Cffi
AREAS. CONTROLLERS MUST HAVE MULTIPLE CYCLE START CAPACITY AND A FLEXIBLE
CALENDAR PROGRAM ABLE TO BE SET TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL OR WATER MANAGEMENT
TRIM NO LEADERS, RETAIN
NATURAL SHAPE
TWICE SIZE OF ROOT Ci)<( :co:::
1-W
DISTRICT IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS. BALL
<(I C.Of-
5. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH A RAIN SENSOR DEVICE OR SWITCH NOTE:
00 vw
WHICH WILL OVERRIDE THE IRRIGATION CYCLE OF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WHEN ADEQUATE ...... a_
RAINFALL HAS OCCURRED.
WHEN TREE OCCURS IN SOD AREA
INSTALL MULCH IN 3' RADIUS
0
Q')
.
AROUND TRUNK.
1-
6. PER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ALL IRRIGATION LINES AND HEADS MUST BE MAINTAINED A /MULCH 2" MINIMUM C'? Cf)
MINIMUM DISTANCE OF ONE FOOT FROM ALL STRUCTURES.
3/4" -2 PLY REIN RUBBER OR PLASTIC
HOSE
CONTAINER BALL
-------13AI_Vfl•NI<~ED TURNBUCKLE WITH 12
GAUGE GALVANIZED STEEL GUY WIRE PLANTING SOIL

nI \ 1-
1--=-llr--'
6~ ....;-;:flJl______ WHITE SURVEYOR'S TAGGING TAPE,
6" LENGTH ··-EXISTING SOIL --7

l l f f i i - - - + 1 - - - - - - - - - B U R L A P WRAP, TIE WITH 3/16" HEMP

2" MINIMUM
MULCH--

SAUCER RIM
FINISH
GRADE
\ I c
2"x3" STAKES DRIVEN INTO GROUND
AT ANGLE THEN TIGHTENED TO VERTICAL
POSITION, 8' MINIMUM LENGTH, 3
STAKES AT 120" ANGLE
SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
~

"E
.c

z"
13
"'-A==r\._:=:--:::=
.,
'
4" MINIMUM IN AND OUT
"
-~

"-
c TYPICAL HEDGE
WIRE BALLED & BURLAP WRAPPED
WHEN NOT CONTAINER GROWN

PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE

MULCH

'
I
PLANT PIT TWICE SIZE
OF ROOTBALL

UJ
MULCH BORDER
MIN. 14" TO EDGE OF PLANT o...CJ)
NOTE: STAKES TO REMAIN IN -SOD EDGE <(_J
PLACE FOR MINIMUM 6 MONTHS. INSTALL MASSED PLANTS IN TRIANGLE PATIERN (..)-
TREE PLANTING DETAIL BED DETAIL C/)~
NO SCALE NO SCALE Ow
zo
<(
_J

This item has been electronically

t>-t~~r.f:~~~ signed and sealed by Mark W. SHEET NO.
~/ •• ..-..., Stephenson, Architect using a
/ MARK W. \ Digital Signature and date.
: STEPHENSON :
~... AR000769l ,/t;
~··. ....~
~.kED 'j..?..~·
Printed copies of this document
are not considered signed and
sealed and the signature must be
verified on any electronic copies
L2.1