CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING July 6, 2017 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Dennis Shelley, Chairperson. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INVOCATION: Dennis Shelley, Chairperson William DeLong, Vice Chairperson Raymond Long Louis Bommattei James Madden Keith Sabiel Brenda Braitling Anna Weaver, Zoning Coordinator Stephanie Scalos, Staff Assistant, Notary Jim Denhardt, City Attorney Louis Bommattei PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 1, 2017 MOTION was made by Mr. DeLong and SECONDED by Mr. Madden to APPROVE the minutes of June 1, 2017 as published. REGULAR AGENDA Mr. Shelley Read the rules and procedures for the Planning and Zoning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 1. CASE NO.: LDC 2017-4 (Legislative) REQUEST: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE), ARTICLE 15 ZONING, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR LOW IMPACT OFFICE AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF LOW IMPACT OFFICE; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE INCLUSION OF SUCH AMENDED PAGE 1
ORDINANCE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; DIRECTING MUNICODE TO RENUMBER OR RECLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ms. Weaver Confirmed that all procedural requirements have been met and presented the staff report into the official record. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF Mr. Madden Why is there this code change? It appears that this code change is specific to a small number of properties. How many properties could this code change affect? What does it mean by adjacent properties? Those adjacent to the CRD? Ms. Weaver We don t define what adjacent means in our code, so it could potentially impact all of R-1 in the City. Mr. Madden This references a specific property 5695 78 th Avenue. There is already a community garden located down the road. What are they providing in addition to that one? Also, I m looking at the property appraiser and they have it listed as three separate lots; none of them meet the half acre criteria so I m not sure if this is going to benefit them or not benefit them. I say this because if you do a Unity of Title with the lots, then you would have.92 acres. I m not sure I can make a decision on this as I have property in the redevelopment district over a half acre. Mr. Denhardt Do you feel like if this ordinance is amended that it would affect your monetary interest in your property and could increase/decrease the value? Mr. Madden Possibly. Mr. Denhardt Do you think this could impact you more than other property owners in the redevelopment district? Mr. Madden That is why I asked staff the number of properties this ordinance change could affect. If there are numerous properties then no, I don t feel comfortable voting on this. Mr. Denhardt My recommendation is that you indicate you have a conflict of interest and that you will not be voting. There is a form that the City Clerk s office has that you will have to fill out. Mr. Bommattei Relative to this, I have made two inspections of the property. The front, side and rear yard is crowded with various objects and trash. They have been operating and doing family counseling services; also the community garden with providing food to families in need. In my observation of the property, the area requires an extensive amount of cleaning. The foundation is providing the counseling services and community garden without any approvals. The counseling services being provided are not fair to the other properties in the R-1 Single Family zoning district. If the City allows these types of services in R-1, then the district is nullified. Again, this will adversely affect the other properties. There are other districts that the foundation can relocate to that allow this type of thing. Mr. Madden What is the status of the property? The property itself is not homestead exempted. The property owner has like four properties in total. The structure that is located there, if it is not a homestead PAGE 2
then is it currently rented out? If it is rented out, who is the applicant for this proposed amendment to the ordinance? I understand it is the City but this had to come from somewhere. Ms. Weaver As far as homestead exemption, it is not relative to this because the property does not have to be a homestead to be approved for a low-impact office. I don t know who is residing in the building right now. We do not have any pending applications for a conditional use at this time because the ordinance has to be approved first. Mr. Denhardt Let me remind the board that you are just looking at an amendment to the ordinance. I realize this references a particular property but that is not relevant. You are simply looking at the ordinance and the proposed change. Having said that, if you feel that other requirements should be added to the ordinance, then that would be appropriate for your discussions. You are sitting here considering the legislative matter and not the quasi-judicial matter. If you feel there are things that need to be added to or deleted from the ordinance, then that consideration is appropriate as well. Mr. Madden That is why I asked the question about how many properties could be affected by this change. If it is only this specific property, then it could be considered spot zoning. The other thing is the ordinance states a half acre or more but the staff write-up states a half acre. Is there an inconsistency? Also, we don t have a definition for adjacent to the Community Redevelopment District. Does that mean it actually have to be touching the district or not touching? Ms. Weaver To answer the first question of how many other parcels in R-1 Single Family district could be affected, essentially any parcel in the R-1 district or anyone that could buy multiple parcels. The question pertaining to the language of the ordinance, I do agree that there are some inconsistencies with the memo and the actual ordinance so you could make that recommendation for it to be changed. The third question as to what is adjacent to the CRD; that is also something you can make a recommendation about for us to define what is adjacent to. Staff cannot change code without the guidance and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Mr. Denhardt That is correct. As the local planning authority, it is your responsibility to review the proposed change to the ordinance and make sure it is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and to make a determination that the ordinance be adopted as proposed or amended. Going back to the inconsistency with the ordinance and staff memo, obviously the ordinance is the one that would control if it is approved. Mr. Bommattei This ordinance doesn t just pertain to 5695 78 th Avenue, it pertains to all R-1 Single Family throughout the City. Ms. Weaver Yes, because we don t have a definition of what adjacent means. Mr. Bommattei That would nullify having an R-1 district. This doesn t just pertain to one street. That is the thing that bothers me the most. Mr. Shelley You still have to have over a half acre property to be considered for the low-impact office. Are you concerned that people will just buy up property so that they qualify? Board discussion Mr. Shelley Is there a way to just rezone that parcel of land? PAGE 3
Ms. Weaver No or the effort would have been made. Mr. Shelley I thought so. I just wanted to make sure. Mr. Madden This just sounds like spot zoning because we don t how many other properties this will affect other than mine. Ms. Weaver This is not spot zoning because the ordinance clearly states R-1 Single Family zoning district. Mr. Denhardt Correct. This is not spot zoning because this would apply to all properties in R-1 Single Family zoning district that would qualify. If we were to rezone that one parcel, then that would be spot zoning. Board discussion Mr. Bommattei This is a dilemma. We could be opening ourselves up to a whole big mess allowing this into the R-1 district. Mr. DeLong I agree with my colleagues. We are opening ourselves up as this proposed ordinance change will affect all of the R-1 Single Family district since we have no definition as to what adjacent means. Mr. Long In my opinion, they need to clarify a lot of what is in the ordinance. PROPONENTS Testimony was given by Ashley Rhodes, from The Foundation for Sustainable Families and Montague Chancey, owner of property located at 5695 78 th Avenue. OPPONENTS PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DISCUSSION MOTION was made by Mr. Bommattei and SECONDED by Mr. DeLong to DENY case no. LDC 2017-4. ROLL CALL VOTE Aye: DeLong, Long, Bommattei Nay: Shelley Abstain: Madden MOTION CARRIED MAJORITY VOTE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 2. CASE NO.: V 2017-4 PAGE 4
REQUEST: LOCATION: Consideration of a request for the vacation of a 15 foot wide and 658 foot long (MOL) portion of 46 th Street right-of-way, adjacent to 9501 US Hwy 19, retaining a general purpose easement over its entirety. 46 th Street ROW north of 94 th Avenue and south of Freedom Lake Park between Bill Jackson s and Mainlands Unit 1 Ms. Weaver Confirmed that all procedural requirements have been met and presented the staff report into the official record. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF PROPONENTS Mr. Terry England 12255 75 th Street and I have been sworn. I am the representative for the Jackson family. When the Mainlands was built, the east half of the right-of-way was vacated. All we are asking is for the right-of-way to be lifted and to maintain the utility easement. We have approvals from all the varying utilities. Ms. Coughlin, with the City, spoke with Mainlands I and there are no objections. OPPONENTS REBUTTAL PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DISCUSSION MOTION was made by Mr. DeLong and SECONDED by Mr. Long to APPROVE case no. V 2017-4. ROLL CALL VOTE Aye: Shelley, DeLong, Long, Madden, Bommattei Nay: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUS VOTE Ms. Scalos Swore in all those wishing to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 3. CASE NO.: PUD 2000-1(R)2/CU 2017-15/MS 2017-27 (Quasi-Judicial) PAGE 5
REQUEST: LOCATION: Consideration of a request to amend a CPUD Commercial Planned Unit Development with B-1 General Commercial underlying zoning to create a new 0.99 acre (MOL) outparcel; along with a Conditional Use to establish a drive-thru restaurant and waivers to eliminate a required tree in an interior island and to reduce the Conditional Use requirement for side yard setback. 7301 Park Blvd Ms. Weaver Confirmed that all procedural requirements have been met and presented the staff report into the official record. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF Mr. Madden Is this a separate outparcel? Ms. Weaver This is a brand new outparcel and the PUD serves as a preliminary plat for the parcel. PROPONENTS Mr. Scott Lincoln P.O. Box 7649 Clearwater, FL and I have been sworn. This parcel is a remote area of the parking lot and basically a useless piece of land. If Lowe s was built today, they would only be required to have 724 parking spaces. They currently have 1093 parking spaces. There will be 56 spaces removed which will leave 1037 remaining. We are not depleting any required parking per the Code. We will plat this as a separate lot when it is purchased. There are currently four outparcels along Park Blvd. The access will be from Belcher that exists today. I m not sure if you are familiar with Zaxby s but it will be a new, nice building and will employ about 70 people. It is a nice addition to the shopping center. Mr. Shelley The access out to Belcher Road, will that remain strictly a right turn out? Discussion of plan and layout of restaurant. The access will remain as existing today. OPPONENTS Mr. Benoit Goulet 7725 Belcher Road and I have been sworn. If you take out the tree, lights will shine on our property and added noise. We already can t sleep from the traffic noise. There will be added traffic because of the restaurant. We already have difficulty getting out of our home. The tree will buffer the lights and noise. There will also be more trash in our yards. We get a lot of trash from Sam s Club already. Mr. Stefan Goulet P.O. Box 965 and I have been sworn. There is already bumper to bumper traffic on Belcher, especially during rush hour. The noise is not pleasant. There are lots of wrecks on Belcher and Park. We have kids that make a lot of noise in the Lowe s parking lot by hanging out and doing donuts. We are losing value on our house as it is. We can t sell our house because no one wants to buy a house next to the Sam s Club. What will be the hours of operation? It is just not peaceful to live there anymore. Trash is everywhere and it gets in our yard. REBUTTAL Mr. Scott Lincoln Both roadways, Belcher and Park, are major arterial streets through the City. Based on PAGE 6
the County Level of Service report, they are operating far below their capacity. There is definitely peak hour traffic like most of our roads in Pinellas County. In regards to trash, all I can say is that it is a clean operation. The dumpster enclosure is far enough removed and located on the back of the property. Per Tony Gunthrop of TGS Enterprises, the hours of operation will be Sunday through Thursday until 10 p.m. and Friday/Saturday until 10:30 p.m. The only other thing I was going to add is if we are taking away some of the parking spaces where kids congregate and do donuts in the parking lot, then I believe that is a good thing for the City. Mr. Shelley The other concern was noise from things like the speaker. It looks like it will be positioned out to Belcher. Mr. Lincoln They positioned it that way for proper queuing of the drive-thru line. Other than that, it will be a state of the art sound board for the speaker but I do not have any data on the volume at this point. Mr. Shelley Just be mindful of that if you could since that seems to be a concern. As for traffic, there is nothing we can do about that. We live in a world where everyone owns a car or two and everyone drives. Trash and kids loitering, we have a police department and neighborhood services, please give them a call with any concerns. That is what they are there for. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DISCUSSION MOTION was made by Mr. DeLong and SECONDED by Ms. Bommattei to APPROVE PUD 2000-1(R)2/CU 2017-15/MS 2017-27 subject to the following conditions: ROLL CALL VOTE 1. Development controls are established through the development order, consisting of the application, staff report and preliminary and final site plans along with any accompanying text or graphics that constitute land development regulations applicable to the subject site. The submitted site plan, prepared by LA Civil, Inc. last revised on June 1, 2017 and as may be directed by City Council to revise as a result of their review, shall be accepted as the controlling site plan for the development. All regulations not addressed in the site plan and supporting documentation shall default to Code in effect at the time of CPUD Commercial Planned Unit Development adoption. 2. Final plat documents must be submitted within six months of Master Plan approval; however, the Zoning Director may approve an extension of up to one year prior to the expiration of the site plan. 3. The Conditional Use for Restaurant, drive-in/drive-thru shall be approved for the outparcel described in Exhibit B only. 4. The hours of operation shall be no later than 11 p.m. Aye: Bommattei, DeLong, Madden, Long, Shelley Nay: PAGE 7
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUS VOTE NEW BUSINESS GENERAL BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT MOTION was made by Mr. DeLong and SECONDED by Mr. Bommattei to ADJOURN the meeting. ROLL CALL VOTE Aye: DeLong, Long, Shelley, Madden, Bommattei Nay: MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS VOTE Meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Dennis Shelley, CHAIRPERSON PAGE 8