CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
September 4, 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:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Joe Aukstikalnis, Zoning Coordinator
Melissa Thrumston, Zoning Staff Assistant, Notary
James Denhardt, City Attorney
INVOCATION:
Mr. Shelley
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
August 7, 2014
MOTION was made by Mr. DeLong and SECONDED by Mr. Long to APPROVE the minutes of August 7,
2014.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
REGULAR AGENDA
Mr. Shelley addresses the audience in regards to both Vacate cases on the agenda being withdrawn.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
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.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 1
1.
CASE NO.:
CU 2014-16/BOA 2014-30/MS 2014-37
REQUEST:
Consideration of a request for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use for
an “Automobile Dealer—Used Cars” in the “B-1” General Commercial Zoning
District with a waiver to the Conditional Use requirement for a ten-foot-wide
landscaped buffer along the entire right-of-way which provides the primary
access to the site; variances to the side yard setback, maximum fence height
within the front yard, maximum lot coverage and separation between buildings;
and waivers to the landscape requirements for the streetscape buffer, perimeter
buffer and interior green space.
LOCATION:
7550 Park Boulevard
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
None
PROPONENTS
Mr. Ellis Curry – Ah Ha Architecture, 6822 22nd Street North, St. Petersburg, Suite #334. I have taken the
oath. I am here representing on behalf of C & C Cars. We have a set of plans that you should have in front
of you there; Paul Ries, the project manager who did the plans, he was called unexpectedly out of town, so
I am here. I suspect we are going to be spending most of the time looking between the last two pages, the
current conditions and the proposed conditions. I just came from the job site and I am primarily here to
answer any questions you may have regarding the plans, in order to obtain the requested variances and
waivers for C& C Cars.
On the plans, A is the proposed sales building, B is the existing sales building and you can see those in the
center towards the front of the site which is the north being Park Boulevard. C, D, E and F are existing
storage buildings, which are currently on the site. Those are primarily over to the right hand side of the site.
Then G, H, J and K (I is not used), those are existing outdoor covered areas for inspection. Then they
basically have various crosses and hachures to distinguish between the different paved areas and ground
conditions on the site. Does anyone have any questions?
Mr. Bommattei – In order for you to comply with these waivers, which were brought about by not getting the
proper approval prior to making those changes, how long will it take to complete this from start to finish?
Mr. Ellis Curry – Well, it actually hasn’t gone to a contractor to my knowledge. Mike do you know? Mike is
with C & C Cars. Typically, in order to give you a more definitive answer we would get your approval and go
to a contractor and they would schedule a timeline to do it. I would imagine the items of this nature could be
done in a matter of months to get it taken care of.
Mr. Bommattei – I think it should be a condition as to the granting of these variances upon a reasonable
length of time for completion.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 2
Mr. Ellis Curry – Mike, from C & C Cars could best answer that.
Mr. Mike Clark – C & C Cars, 7550 Park Boulevard and I have been sworn. The only thing we have to do is
proposal A, the proposed building.
Mr. Shelley – So, Mr. Bommattei your concerns are length of time?
Mr. Bommattei – Yes, so that they will be in compliance with the request for their variances. We don’t want
it to be a prolonged period of time due to the fact that they went ahead and made these improvements and
the variances. For example the installation to require the buffer will require the removal of the existing
asphalt at a major cost. So we need to know that we will have a property in total compliance.
Mr. Mike Clark – Is there a standard amount of time?
Mr. Aukstikalnis – The Conditional Use has a time frame of one year in which construction must begin.
There is no time frame for when construction needs to end. So within a year they would have to apply for
permits and have the permits issued so they could begin construction. So there is no time frame for the
actual construction.
Mr. Bommattei – There should be. This thing could go on.
Mr. Aukstikalnis – You are free to place conditions on this request.
Mr. Denhardt – You can recommend conditions if you believe they are reasonable and appropriate as far
as completing construction and completing the project within a certain amount of time. It is kind of an
unusual condition. Generally, as long as building permits are issued timely, and as long as they stay active
by whatever is required, like substantial construction, within a six month period of time. Generally people
are able to renew their building permits a time or two or three. But, if you wish to place a condition it is
alright, particularly if the applicant says that is acceptable and you believe you can comply with it.
Mr. Bommattei – Well, who would be enforcing the conditions after one year?
Mr. Denhardt – Code Compliance would always be enforcing any condition on any conditional use or any
other property if there is non-compliance with the Code. As long as there is active construction, unless you
place some outside limitation on it they would be considered to be in compliance as long as they are still
advancing towards doing the construction that would be approved.
Mr. Mike Clark – Do your construction permits expire in six months?
Mr. Aukstikalnis – Without an inspection they expire within six months.
Mr. Pinion – Mr. Denhardt, is it the practice of Code Compliance to only respond to complaints rather than
to actively follow up on such conditions?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 3
Mr. Denhardt – I don’t know that I could say that is true, and I’m not sure it is. They do have specialist that
go throughout the neighborhood and when they see things they investigate it. I don’t think it is just
complaint based Code Compliance.
Mr. Shelley – Mr. Clark, what is your time frame? What are you looking at? I understand you have to get
through the whole permitting process but once you have permits in hand, are you looking at six months to
be done or two years? What is your projected?
Mr. Mike Clark – Six months. We are not going to drag this out.
Mr. Bommattei – That is reasonable.
Mr. Shelley – I would say an average time to get a permit could be two months, so you could be looking at
a completion date in eight months. Are you okay with that Mr. Bommattei?
Mr. Bommattei – Yes.
Mr. Shelley – You are stating before us right now that it is not your intention to start something and not
finish it.
Mr. Pinion – I have a question regarding a comment made on the analysis we receive by the City. Basically
about the size of the service area that is in the enclosed fence relative to the size of the display area. I
believe the owner of the business – well I should ask that – is the owner of the facility the owner of the
business?
Mr. Mike Clark – He is a partial owner.
Mr. Pinion – So he is also involved in other motor sales or service interest, is that correct?
Mr. Mike Clark – Yes sir.
Mr. Pinion – Will this business on this property be servicing vehicles from other business associated with
that owner?
Mr. Mike Clark – No sir.
Mr. Pinion – So the cars that will be sold there will only be from this business?
Mr. Mike Clark – Correct.
Mr. Pinion – A couple other things have to do with the plan. One is, there is no sidewalk on 76 th Street in
between Park Boulevard and 72nd on either the east or west side of 76th Street North. However, if you go to
77th Street and 75th Street there is a side walk, at least on one side of the street, that comes all the way
down onto 72nd Avenue. We can see, if you come down along the medical facility on 75th and you turn onto
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 4
72nd that it ends right at the property that was formerly just a field. It now has a fence that extends down into
the area that normally would be where the sidewalk would go. So, anyone that is riding the bus or walking
along Park Boulevard, first of all they need to avoid 76th Street or they will be in the street. Let’s say they
come down 75th and they want to get down to 76th Street and come across they hit an area again where
they don’t have a sidewalk so they would have to walk out past your property and then they can hit a
sidewalk again on 76th. So, the fact that we have construction that has gone on here and we don’t have a
sidewalk put in, if I understand the Code and my brief discussion with staff, it would be a requirement. The
fact that we are missing one is dire because we don’t have one on 76th. So I would ask you to include a
sidewalk along that bottom perimeter of the property so that we mitigate this issue of not having a sidewalk
on 76th Street.
Dialog with Mike Clark to clarify the location of a proposed sidewalk by Mr. Pinion.
The second thing is a dumpster sitting next to the road. So, I don’t think the Code allows you to leave a
dumpster out in plain view and that’s been going on for some time now. There are some options for you to
have it inside the fence.
Mr. Mike Clark – Yeah, they make a container with wheels all we have to do is get a container with wheels
so we can push it in and out.
Mr. Pinion – It’s an eye sore right now on both sides of the street and we need to do something about it. It
is not a welcome sign to a residential neighborhood. Then there was a comment that was made about
some noise between 3:00 and 4:00 am. Are cars being delivered between 3:00 and 4:00 am?
Mr. Mike Clark – I had a trucker that used to bring cars in from out of town and he would drop them off and
he would put them in the back yard. Where the sidewalk ends we had to put in a gate and that’s where the
truck used to bring the cars into. We moved the truck to the side of the property on 76 th in front of the
dumpster. So, we have moved the truck around the corner to get him away from the residents.
Mr. Shelley enters a petition into the official records.
Mr. Denhardt – You can keep that with the record, but that’s really not sworn testimony unless and until
some body is here to give you sworn testimony of those facts. It can be part of the record, but it’s really not
sworn testimony that independently you could use to base your decision one way or the other.
OPPONENTS
Ms. Laurie Jones – Took the oath. I live at 7120 75th Street and I am here on behalf of the neighborhood
residents who signed the petition and I do apologize for the lateness. I found out about this entire issue
yesterday and only had two or three hours to prepare and to speak to the neighbors who had expressed
concerns. Over a period of years, with the C & C Dealership on the corner of Park Boulevard and 76 th
Street, we have had traffic issues with people test driving the vehicles throughout the neighborhood,
running through stop signs, and speeding. This is a residential neighborhood and we have children and
people have pets, and people walk in the neighborhood.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 5
As Mr. Robert Pinion pointed out we don’t have sidewalks on every street. I can say that within the past
couple of weeks I was almost hit by a car personally from someone test driving a vehicle from his car lot. I
have called the car lot a couple of times and reported to the police a few times. The specific complaints
about 72nd Avenue, my house is almost a block away at three and four o’clock in the morning I’m hearing
the back up noises waking me up. So, it isn’t just the gentleman that lives across the street, Mr.
Drumbroski, and his five year old son being woke up because his bedroom is in the front bedroom of the
house, the entire neighborhood can hear the noise. I will say that Mr. Drumbroski approached the owner
and it has improved and that he has worked with him so that it is not as bad. Also, it was more than one
truck at that time and it was going on for a while.
People on the next block, who also signed this, were having problems with the trucks and the noise in the
morning. So I think there must be some rule or regulation regarding hours that a business can operate and
have that type of noise and have that type of delivery going on. This is why the expansion is such a
concern for the neighborhood, especially if you are going to be placing, in that back corner lot on 72nd
Avenue and 76th Street, a car service area. As it is now it is just storage and if they are going to be
expanding the business to include a car service area apparently I would think and hope it would only be
servicing the vehicles as they prepare them for sale and not continue to be open as a general service area
for vehicles that they have sold. We are not in favor of that at all.
We feel that, if you can look and see the way the cars are, the area where the dumpster is pointed out; the
way the business is right now is certainly not desirable and it is certainly not aesthetically pleasing to see
that. The residents in the area are not approving of this. Some of the other comments that were made – I
will read them, so they will be entered into the record. This one resident family feels the cars are taking
over the street right there on 76th Street. Customers aren’t watching when they are pulling in and out, you
have to be very careful; there is a lot of speeding, they don’t feel their children are safe. I have physically
seen them driving and swerving all over the road. I mean this isn’t their issue and their problem, but my
understanding of the automotive business is that you have routes and you’re insured when people are test
driving your vehicles and you have certain routes that are approved. Well, let’s not approve driving through
the neighborhood. Let them tell their customers that test drive their vehicles not to drive through this
residential neighborhood which is closed off on three sides. The only entrance to the neighborhood is Park
Boulevard. So, those are our concerns.
So, what we’re asking is, you know the fence we like the fence high, we really don’t want to see their
business. The residents are not concerned about the height of their fence. What we would like to ask if C &
C Cars agree to instruct their patrons not to test drive the vehicles through the neighborhood. I thank you
and I hope you take it into consideration, and that C & C Cars will take it into consideration.
REBUTTAL
Mr. Mike Clark – To answer her questions: we do have insurance and I do instruct my customers to test
drive on Park Boulevard, but I cannot control what they do once they leave my property. We send them
down to Park, Park to Belcher to 54th Avenue, 54th to Park Street, and back around to Park Boulevard. It is
only right hand turns and it is a four mile track, so the have plenty of time to drive. I ask them nicely to stay
out of the neighborhood because of the children and because I have children. I have proposed to my staff
and my sales staff to make sure the customers do not drive in the neighborhood.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 6
MOTION
Motion was made by Mr. Pinion and seconded by _________________ to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of
CASE NO. CU 2014-16/BOA 2014-30/MS 2014-37 with added conditions 3 and 4.
1. There shall be no outdoor loud speaker/public address or outdoor phone ringer systems
allowed.
2. Designated signage for customer and employee parking spaces shall be installed.
3. Add a side walk to 72nd Avenue on the southern portion of the property.
4. Ensure Code Compliant dumpster enclosure be included in the revised plan.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND
MOTION
Motion was made by Mr. DeLong and seconded by Mr. Bommattei to RECOMMEND DENIAL of CASE
NO. CU 2014-16/BOA 2014-30/MS 2014-37.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Davis, Kunda, DeLong, Bommattei, Shelley
Nay: Pinion, Long
MOTION CARRIES
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion held on meeting schedule date for January 2015. This was due to the first Thursday of the
month falling on January 1st New Year’s Day, and the January 8th City Council meeting falling on the
second week; making this day also unavailable.
A decision was made to hold the January 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Wednesday
January 7, 2015.
GENERAL BUSINESS
As a result of an election Mr. Shelley has been re-elected as Chairperson and Mr. DeLong has been
elected as Vice-Chair person.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION was made by Mr. DeLong and SECONDED by Mr. Bommattei to ADJOURN the meeting.
ROLL CALL VOTE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 7
Aye: Bommattei, Kunda, DeLong, Long, Shelley, Pinion, Davis
Nay: None
Meeting adjourned at approximately 7:35 p.m.
_________________________________________
Dennis Shelley, CHAIRPERSON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 8