CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
June 5, 2014
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Dennis Shelley, Chairperson.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Dennis Shelley, Chairperson
Louis Bommattei, Vice Chairperson
William DeLong
Raymond Long
Peggy Kunda
Robert Pinion
Wayne Davis
ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Joe Aukstikalnis, Zoning Coordinator
Melissa Thrumston, Zoning Staff Assistant, Notary
James Denhardt, City Attorney
INVOCATION: Mr. Bommattei
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 1, 2014
MOTION was made by Mr. DeLong and SECONDED by Ms. Kunda to APPROVE the minutes of May 1, 2014.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
1. CASE NO.: PUD 2014-1/BOA 2014-20 (QUASI JUDICIAL)
REQUEST: Consideration of a request to rezone from “R-2” Single Family Residential District to “R-2” Single Family Residential District with a “RPUD” Residential Planned Unit Development Overlay, or a zoning classification of lesser intensity as identified in Chapter 18, Land Development Code of the City Code of Ordinances; and adoption of a Master Plan to develop a 20-lot single family subdivision with variances to the following subdivision code requirements: block length, number of vehicular access points, intersection design and street length.
LOCATION: 9200 49th St.
QUASI – JUDICIAL
Mr. Shelley – Read the rules and procedures for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Thrumston – Swore in all those wishing to speak.
Mr. Aukstikalnis – Confirmed that all procedural requirements have been met and presented the staff report, application, and map into the official record.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
PROPONENTS
Robert Pergolizzi – Principle Planner, AICP, 13825 Icot Boulevard, Suite 605, Clearwater and I have been sworn. I filed this application for an “RPUD” overlay on a 4.5 acre site currently occupied by a church. It has Residential Urban Land Use and “R-2” Zoning and the church is operating as a conditional use in the “R-2” zone. The Residential Urban Land Use allows 7.5 units per acre, which would allow this site to have up to 34 units; we are proposing 20 units.
The 20 units would be proposed for 55’ wide lots, 135’ deep about 7,425 square feet typical lot size; which is about 99% of the square foot lot size requirement for “R-2”. As Joe stated, to our north we have single family uses on properties zoned “R-1”; those homes are on lots about 5,500 square feet. To our south, are condominiums on property having an “R-5” Zoning; to our east across 49th Street is Crystal Lake Mobile Home Park, which has “T-2” Zoning, and to our west we have single family homes on sixty-foot wide lots on property having an “R-1” Zoning, Residential Urban Land Use. The applicant seeks to develop 20, single family, detached residential units. Using an “RPUD” overlay to modify the side set backs from ten feet to five feet.
In regards to transportation we would have a single access road to 49th Street, which is a County road. It is a six-lane, divided, arterial road operating at level of service “C”. The single family homes would have a minimal impact at about 200 daily trips. Water and sewer are available to the site through the City. The site is located in hurricane evacuation zone “C” so it is not required to evacuate like area “A” or “B” would be. Flood Zone X on the western portion of the property and flood zone AE12 on the extreme eastern portion of the property.
In summary the proposed “RDUD” overlay is consistent with the underlying RU Land Use. Our density is less than 7.5 units per acre, the lot sizes of 7,425 square feet would be larger than many of the lot sizes around it to the north and to the west. The reduced side yard set back from ten feet to five feet, we believe is appropriate given the type of residential product that are coming out now and could fit on this site. Also the elimination of a Conditional Use on the R-2 Zone is another benefit.
Mr. Shelley – You’re not proposing a right in right out on that roadway are you? Basically a turn lane.
Robert Pergolizzi – It would be a right in, right out connection to 49th Street only.
Mr. Shelley – Is there going to be sort of access road for that turn lane?
Robert Pergolizzi – 49th Street is a County roadway and we would need to apply for a Pinellas County right- of-way use permit; based on the traffic projections and I don’t think they are going to require a lane, but if they want it they will ask.
Mr. Pinion – I realize these are preliminary plans, but has there been any thought given to the fact that the retention ponds that are proposed for the east side are very close to 49th Street and very close to the sidewalk? Are those preliminary plans just to sell this property?
Robert Pergolizzi – The church intends to sell the property to a home builder; they have none identified yet. They are going through this “RPUD” process to better position the property for a sale and we have prepared a preliminary plan. One of the reasons for putting those ponds there was to get the homes further away from 49th Street; it is a six lane road. So in our designs we would be able to provide what ever buffers are necessary between the back of the sidewalk and the ponds.
Mr. Pinion – I spoke to the City staff about this and I was just curious about the safety impacts of that. I realize tonight we are not voting on the final plan, but I would appreciate having in the record tonight that you would pass along to a developer the safety impacts of having those retention next to a busy road and next to the side walk. I have looked at the rest of 49th Street to see if we had the same situation otherwise and I can’t see that we do exactly. Most of the retention ponds are set way off so while that is preliminary I would certainly appreciate taking that into consideration moving forward.
Robert Pergolizzi – Duly noted.
Mr. Shelley asked if there were any proponents:
Frank Fernandes – 4933 91st Avenue and I have been sworn. I just have some questions that I would like answered. I have talked to some of the other people in the condominium association and we want to know if there is going to be any kind of dividing wall between us and that property. One of the reasons we live there is the peace and quiet; we would like to keep it that way. If there is going to be a wall will it be before the heavy equipment starts the work? Will the grade level be higher than ours?
Mr. Shelley – They are not allowed to drain water from their property onto yours; that is the reason for the retention ponds I’m sure.
Frank Fernandes – I wonder if it is possible for me to get a copy of that site plan.
Mr. Shelley clarifies this meetings intent is to rezone the property to “RPUD” for the church to be removed and houses to be developed.
Mr. Pinion – Mr. Shelley, may I ask that you clarify to the citizen that after the final plans have gone through the City Departments if there would be a chance for the citizens to voice their opinion relative to those final plans.
Joe Aukstikalnis – No, basically this plan functions as the site plan and the preliminary plat. The level of detail that is associated with this of course just shows generic details in regards to roadway configuration, the location of the lots, elevation levels, and the location of the retention ponds. The final plan that will come into the building department for permitting will be a full set of civil drawings. The basic layout will follow this plan if this plan is approved by City Council. The layout of the property itself will mirror this plan.
Frank Fernandes – Where do the retention ponds drain?
Mr. Denhardt – I just want to clarify that you asked that if you could have a copy of the plans and the answer is yes. Contact the City Clerk, Diane Corna, and you can purchase a copy of the plans; they are public records.
OPPONENTS
Sandra Gregory – 7092 47th Street. I have been sworn. I would just like to state that, not that my opinion counts but, I think it should stay a church. I think we have a lot of residential places in this community that are empty and vacant. There are 13 homes in my neighborhood that are in foreclosure or bankrupt that sit vacant. I think trying to build another residential area is ridiculous. I think that the church has made quite an impact over the past fifty years. It is presently a church that has a Bible Training Institute that is training young people to make a difference in the community. They have done a lot of outreaches for our community, fed homeless, brought homeless in and ministered to them and I think that far out weighs the money that we could possibly get from taxes. I think there needs to be a voice, and I know we have other churches, but I don’t think you can have too many churches.
Mr. Pinion – May I ask a question? Are you a current member of the church?
Sandra Gregory – I am a member and a leader.
REBUTTAL
Mr. Shelley – There were a lot of questions. One was the dividing wall between the properties.
Robert Pergolizzi – We will comply with City requirements for buffers. I believe the City requires a six-foot- high fence, as well as landscaping. The way the property is set out we are showing fifteen-foot building set backs in the rear yards of all the properties, so I believe this gentleman, Mr. Fernandes, who spoke is on the south side of the condominiums. Every one of those homes, the actual structure will be set at least fifteen feet back from the rear property line with a drainage easement in it so that nothing could go within fifteen feet. Also, we would be providing the required buffer fence; it would be a solid fence.
Mr. Shelley – Are you talking a block wall or stockade fence?
Robert Pergolizzi – Material would be determined by the end user. The church does not know who that end user might be right now, but it would be a solid fence. Drainage easements with the ponds out front and also ponds in the rear. Ultimately this drainage would go to 49th Street. That is where it would be picked up by the County storm water system and that would be part of our permit with the County. We have not done detailed calculations on how much drainage is needed, however, we believe the ponds that we show, plus the drainage easement would supply adequate retention; and as you stated they are not allowed to provide post development run off that exceeds any predevelopment run off. In other words, they can’t flood their neighbors.
Mr. DeLong – Who is going to maintain the ponds?
Robert Pergolizzi – The ponds would be maintained by a Homeowners Association. The ponds and the road would be a separate track maintained by the HOA.
Mr. Fernandes – I also wanted to know if there is going to be a solid fence or wall before the heavy equipment moves in.
Mr. Shelley – No. Mr. Pergolizzi is shaking his head no right now. Keeping in mind whatever they do to your property they have to repair.
Robert Pergolizzi – Typically, the ponds are dug first and then the infrastructure is put in afterwards. The fences are usually some of the last things to go up. In regard to Ms. Gregory’s concern about the church, the owner of the property, Pine Grove Community Church is not doing well. They currently are leasing it to New Destiny Church and the situation is that they wish to put the property up for sale to be developed into single family homes, which are consistent with the “R-2” Zoning. The church that is there now and what was previously there is a Conditional Use.
Mr. Pinion – I have a question for Mr. Denhardt. When the property goes on sale does the occupant, the church, have the right to potentially purchase the property without requesting a Zoning change?
Mr. Denhardt – You mean if these plans are approved?
Mr. Pinion – If these plans are approved and the property is put on sale would the church that currently occupies the facility “New Destiny” have to re-appear to the Zoning Commission to continue operating as a church in that facility?
Mr. Denhardt – Not if it is a continuous use. If there are no changes to the site. If these plans get approved and then the owner church wants to sell it and the existing tenant church wants to buy it and they are willing to come to some arrangement, the use would be allowed to continue as long as it is a continuous use as a Conditional Use.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION
Motion was made by Mr. DeLong and seconded by Mr. Long to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of CASE NO. PUD 2014-1/BOA 2014-20.
.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Davis, Pinion, Long, Kunda, DeLong, Bommattei, Shelley
Nay: None
MOTION CARRIES
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
2. CASE NO.: PUD 2014-2/Z 2014-5/BOA 2014-21 (QUASI JUDICIAL)
REQUEST: Consideration of a request to rezone from “RR” Rural Residential Zoning District to “R-2” Single Family Residential Zoning District and the adoption of a “RPUD” Residential Planned Unit Development Overlay, or a zoning classification of lesser intensity as identified in Chapter 18, Land Development Code of the City Code of Ordinances; and adoption of a Master Plan to develop a 29-lot, single family detached dwelling subdivision with waivers to the following Subdivision Code requirements: right-of-way width, cul-de-sac length, number of access points, block length, lot dimensions, and right-of-way improvements.
LOCATION: 11090 60th St.
Mr. Aukstikalnis – Confirmed that all procedural requirements have been met and presented the staff report, application, and map into the official record.