CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
February 2, 2012
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by William DeLong, Chairperson.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
William DeLong, Chairperson
Louis Bommattei
Patricia Karn
Peggy Kunda
Raymond Long
Dennis Shelley
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Joseph Aukstikalnis, Zoning Coordinator
Melissa Thrumston, Zoning Staff Assistant
James Denhart, City Attorney
INVOCATION:
Louis Bommattei
PLEDGE OF ALLEIGENCE:
Louis Bommattei
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION was made by Mr. Long and SECONDED by Mr. Bommattei to APPROVE the minutes of November 3,
2011.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Mr. Aukstikalnis – Confirmed that all procedural requirements have been met and presented the staff
report, application, and map into the official record of this proceeding.
Mr. DeLong – Asked if we need to swear in anyone wishing to speak.
James Denhart – The only matters on your agenda tonight are all legislative reviews of ordinances
that City Council is proposing. Since there is no Quasi Judicial, nobody needs to be sworn in because
you won’t actually be taking testimony. It’s up to you whether you wish to take public comments on any
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 1
of the items. But if you do, nobody needs to be sworn in.
1.
CASE NO.: LDC 2012-01
REQUEST: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE), ARTICLE
6, “SIGNS” OF THE CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SEC. 18-603
“DEFINITIONS,” BY CREATING NEW DEFINITIONS FOR INFLATABLE SIGN, WIND
SOCK AND WALKING SIGNS, AND AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS OF BANNER,
ABANDONED OR DISCONTINUED SIGN OR STRUCTURE, CHANGEABLE MESSAGE
SIGN, FLASHING SIGN, FRONTAGE, INTERMITTENT SIGN, TEMPORARY SIGN,
VEHICLE SIGN AND WIND SIGNS, AND DELETING THE DEFINITION OF GRAND
OPENING SIGN; BY AMENDING SEC. 18-606 “PROHIBITED SIGNS,” TO INCLUDE
WALKING SIGNS, WIND SIGNS AND WIND SOCKS; BY AMENDING SEC. 18-613,
“SIGN PERMIT REQUIRED,” TO INCLUDE FEES; BY AMENDING SEC. 18-614, “SIGN
PERMIT APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF SIGN PERMIT,” TO DELETE CERTAIN
APPLICATION INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS; BY AMENDING SEC. 18-628, “ALL
DISTRICTS,” TO CHANGE REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO FREE EXPRESSION
SIGNS, GARAGE SALE SIGNS, TEMPORARY SIGNS AND VEHICLE SIGNS; BY
AMENDING SEC. 18-629. “RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: F, RE, RR, R-1, R-2, R3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, T-1 A ND T-2,” BY CHANGING THE RESIDENTIAL SIGN
REGULATIONS; BY CREATING A NEW SUBSECTION 18-629(d); BY AMENDING SEC.
18-630, “PUBLIC/SEMIPUBLIC, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS: ROR, CN, GO, B-1, CH, M-1, IH, P, PRES, OS, MXD, MXD-1, MXD-2, AND
TC,” TO DELETE REFERENCES TO MXD-1 AND MAD-2, AND INCREASE SQUARE
FOOTAGE FOR MENU/DISPLAY SIGNS FOR DRIVE-THRU ESTABLISHMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR CERTIFICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THIS ORDINANCE
IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE
INCLUSION OF SUCH AMENDED ORDINANCE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (LDC 2012-01)
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
PROPONENTS
Mr. Steve Lee – Building Development Division Director, City of Pinellas Park. I am coming before you
this evening with a proposed amendment to the Sign Code. This process started with the request from
the City Attorney to update the Code and add a definition to walking signs, to clarify it. Staff has taken
this opportunity to propose changes to the Sign Code to reflect what is actually being enforced in the
City or to relax the Code in order to help local businesses in these hard economic times. We have also
made minor changes throughout the Code to make it easier to use and or help clarify it. We have
workshopped this with City Council, we have met with the committee of the Chamber of Commerce,
each with no changes as it is written. Following is a synopsis of the changes we have made.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 2
Section 18-603 – “Definitions”:
 Abandoned sign – considered abandoned after 12 months and not 6 months.
 Balloons and Pennants were eliminated in the banner definition to clarify and agree with what
is enforced.
 The balloon definition was changed to inflatable thus anywhere balloon was used it was
changed to inflatable.
 Frontage definition was changed to include alleyway.
 Grand opening sign was eliminated as it is considered a temporary sign.
 Intermittent sign frequency was changed to 10 seconds from 2 hours.
 Vehicle sign definition was changed to agree with what is enforced.
 A definition for “Walking” sign was added to clarify the code.
 A definition for Wind sock was added to clarify the code.
Section 18-606 – “Prohibited Signs”:
 Walking, wind and wind sock signs were added.
Section 18-613 (b) – “Variance”:
 A fee of $50.00 was added for a variance and a fee of $100.00 was added for an appeal of
the sign variance committee decision to City Council.
Section 18-614 “Sign Permit Application and Issuance of Sign Permit”:
 Some Permit information was eliminated due to it being detailed in other sections.
Section 18-628 “All Districts”:
 Free expression sign requirements were relaxed and expanded from one to two signs and
three square feet to six square feet.
 Garage or yard sale signs were moved from only residential districts to all districts.
 Signs in which the intent is not to be read from the right-of-way were added to the section.
They are to be 20’ from the right of way and not exceed six square feet.
 Temporary signs were revised to allow 4 / 30 day periods for businesses in lieu of 2 / 30 day
periods and combined both profit and nonprofit.
 Temporary window signs were relaxed to match what is enforced which eliminated the
maximum square footage and allows 100% coverage.
 Vehicle signs were added to be allowed within their normal unaltered lines of the vehicle.
Section 18-629 “Residential zoning districts”:
 Added clarification to this section for freestanding signs and attached signs. .We
noted that these signs are for Apartments, Condominiums and Churches.
 Added section to allow for fence signs in “F”, “RE”, and “RR”. They are permitted a possible of
two signs if the pertinent criteria is met, a maximum of 32 square feet of sign face depending
on their frontage, a maximum of 6 feet in height, and 0 foot setbacks. A permit and fee are
required.
Section 18-630 “Public/semipublic, zoning districts”
 Revised attached signage to be allowed on 4 elevations instead of only 2.
 Increased the size of menu boards from 25 sq. ft. to 50 sq. ft. which now is closer to what is
seen in the industry.
 Due to alleyway added to the frontage definition, an alley may have a free standing sign as
long as it follows the freestanding sign criteria.
I would be glad to answer any questions or concerns you may have.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 3
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
Ms. Karn – Is this the whole ordinance?
Mr. Lee – No. It is only the parts that were changed.
MOTION
Motion was made by Mr. Long and seconded by Ms. Kunda to APPROVE CASE LDC 2012-01 as
read.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Bommattei, Karn, Kunda, Long, Shelley, DeLong
Nay: None
MOTION CARRIED
2.
CASE NO. : LDC 2012-02
REQUEST: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF
PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 15, ZONING, SECTION 181537 VARIANCES, BY CREATING A NEW SUBSECTION 18-1537.5, APPEAL OF
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISIONS, BY INCLUDING A PROCESS FOR APPEAL
OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE DECISIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL,
PROVIDING FOR THE INCLUSION OF SUCH AMENDED ORDINANCE IN THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR
PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH
CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(LDC 2012-02)
PROPONENTS
Mr. Aukstikalnis – Zoning Coordinator, City of Pinellas Park. On October 10, 2011 staff received
direction from City Council, at the conclusion of a workshop session, to prepare an amendment to the
Land Development Code to provide for the appeal of Board of Adjustment decisions to City Council.
The proposed ordinance allows “qualified aggrieved persons,” defined as any person owning real
property located within 300 feet of the subject property to request an appeal of the decision in writing
to the Zoning Director. Appeals may be requested by the City Manager or City Council as well. The
appeal fee is set at $250 nonrefundable with the City Council and the City Manager being exempt from
the fee. The request must state the reasons for the appeal. The appeal hearing shall occur within 35
days of the request or as soon thereafter as possible. The appeal hearing will be conducted de novo,
allowing for the parties to present new evidence and testimony into the official record. City Council’s
decision is appealable to the Circuit Court.
The advantages of this are the proposed shift to City Council will provide for a timely and cost effective
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 4
process for appeal decisions. The disadvantages are that the Board of Adjustment decisions will not
become final until the expiration of the appeal period rather than immediately. I wish to introduce the
case file of LDC 2012-02 into the official records of this proceeding.
Mr. DeLong – Joe, has there been a problem? Is there a reason this is being brought up?
Mr. Aukstikalnis – Jim, would you like to answer that?
James Denhart – I can probably provide some justification and reason from my perspective what this
might do. The current situation, if the Board of Adjustment makes a decision and either grants or
denies, of course generally the Board of Adjustment decisions are final as of right now. If they make a
decision and they grant or deny a request, say for a variance, any aggrieved party, the applicant if
they lose, or any surrounding neighbors that might be objectors, if the applicant wins, can go into court
which can take six to twelve months and cost a lot of money, both for the applicant and for the City,
and for having me attempt to defend the decision, one way or another of the Board of Adjustment.
Certainly this process would give the applicant or the abutting neighbors a quick appellant remedy to
another body other than the Board of Adjustment, without having to pay the filing fees in court, without
having to get a lawyer, and it would certainly make it easier for the City if there was a problem that
came up in a case where the Board of Adjustment ruled one way and it did not appear the City did not
have a good chance of upholding the case on appeal. It would provide the aggrieved party with the
opportunity to have that decision challenged or reversed without having to go into court.
So, from my perspective this would certainly allow any aggrieved party to include the City officials if
they thought a decision was wrong or incorrect to have in effect an intermediate appeal. The decision
of the City Council that would be sitting in effect as an appellant court, that decision would still be
subject to judicial review if someone didn’t agree one way or the other with City Council decision, it
could still go into court. I don’t want you to think this will terminate somebody’s right to go to court, it
wouldn’t. Now, the time period of filing an appeal is ten days and so, yes, it might delay the finality of
the Board of Adjustments decision but not for very much. I don’t think it is anticipated that there will be
many, if any appeals, but there would be that process that would be set up.
Mr. DeLong – “Within 35 days or as soon thereafter” sounds like an open ended deal. How long is as
soon thereafter?
James Denhart – The reason for that was normally the City Council meets twice a month. As soon
thereafter would mean the next meeting. It couldn’t just stay in limbo.
Mr. DeLong – Would this have to be advertised?
James Denhart – Would the ordinance have to be advertised?
Mr. DeLong – Say I wanted to appeal and I wanted to come before City Council, and I paid my
$250.00 do the other neighbors have to be notified?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 5
James Denhart – The same people that would be notified in the initial notification would have to be
notified again. It indicates an appeal hearing will be conducted as de novo, which means a new trial
and new hearing. Either side or both sides could bring in evidence they felt was appropriate.
More discussion on process of the ordinance.
Mr. DeLong – I was on Code Enforcement Board for a long time and their appeal went to the Circuit
Court. Personally I have a bad feeling about this. You are entrusting this board to make an informed
and hopefully educated decision and then you’re saying “well if you don’t like their decision, well just
go over here and do it again”. I am saying the flip flop of that is City Council is going to have go back
and review these decisions again, why have this board?
James Denhart – First of all, Code Enforcement Board, that process is established by Chapter 162,
F.S. which specifically provides that in the appeal from the process of the Code Enforcement Board
would be the Circuit Court. So, there could not be an intermediate right to council by that board. The
Board of Adjustment is purely set up by City Council. It is not required by Florida State Statute. It is
purely discretionary with City Council whether there is a Board of Adjustment and if so, whether they
will be a recommending board or a final board.
Mr. Aukstikalnis – I have also heard, at some of these meetings, when the applicant states his case
and the opponent gets up and then the applicant gets up to do a rebuttal, sometimes things are said at
that time and the opposition doesn’t get their chance to get back up again. This, since it would be a
brand new hearing, would bring in that new evidence, maybe they just thought of something else to
say and they can’t speak their mind, they can bring it forward. I have heard a lot of grumblings where
people want to get back up and we have to tell them the public hearing is closed. So, it may be a good
thing for them.
James Denhart – Also you mentioned if there were 100 appeals or a lot of appeals, Frankly, I don’t
think that is going to happen. I don’t think the City Council anticipates that is going to happen. I don’t
think the City Council wants to rehear everything the Board of Adjustment hears. They do feel where
some items where maybe they as members of the City Council, have an overview of the entire City as
opposed to just something that is decided as a neighborhood issue. Where consistency throughout the
whole City they felt they have that overview. This was discussed at the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. DeLong – We are all volunteers. We do this voluntarily and I know in some of the other programs I
have been involved in, you know you put in your time and effort and it gets turned around and you say
“why do I bother”. Sometimes when you put a lot of blood sweat and tears into something and City
Council goes off in another direction.
Mr. Shelley – This meeting is going to be held during the City Council meeting, is there going to be a
time restriction on those?
James Denhart explains.
OPPONENTS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 6
Mr. Silcott – Good evening. I am currently on the Board of Adjustments, and I was just recently voted
as the Vice Chairman of the board. As you are, the Board of Adjustments is also an all volunteer panel
of seven citizens of Pinellas Park. We consider six basic criteria set down by City Council, and in the
ordinance, in deciding whether or not to grant or deny a variance to the zoning for a particular case.
Most of these cases are based on neighbor disputes and become somewhat emotional from time to
time. We all perform site visits, using our own vehicles and gas, review meeting packages; supporting
materials from staff, and attend meetings at our own expense, and on our own time. I am here to
speak for myself and myself only. I ask you to think twice about voting for the ordinance, regarding the
Board of Adjustment that is before you. It is a slap in the face of the civic minded citizens that sit to
serve on the board. In every case that the board has considered, since I was appointed by City
Council, it has been a unanimous decision, except for one. That one decision had only one dissenting
vote, all the other board members saw it the same way.
The City Attorney has stated that the decisions of the majority of the board left something to be
desired and I suspect that other people in high places feel the same way. He has also passed along
his lack of eagerness to defend our decisions, should they be challenged in court. This case is not just
about having an appeal process outside of the courts, it is also about the fact that some people in high
places disagreed with the majority of the board, on one case, or maybe more than one case. That
brings us to this case tonight, in my opinion. The quasi judicial decisions of this Zoning Commission
and our Board of Adjustment should remain in force, as they currently are. They serve the community
well, and to my knowledge, have never been challenged in the court system, until Mr. Denhart brought
this up this evening.
I feel that the volunteer board members perform a great service to the City, and at no cost to the City.
The Board of Adjustment also frees up the City Council to consider more important decisions than
refereeing neighborhood disputes. If you wish to vote for this ordinance, I ask you to consider
changing the name from the Board of Adjustment to the Board of Recommendations, because that is
what it will be. Thank you very much.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
Mr. DeLong – Any more questions?
MOTION
Motion was made by Mr. Shelley and seconded by Ms. Kunda to DENY CASE LDC 2012-02.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Bommattei, Karn, Kunda, Long, Shelley, DeLong,
Nay: None
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 7
3.
Comprehensive Plan Water Element
REQUEST: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINELLAS PARK,
FLORIDA, PERTAINING TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING; AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 3736; AMENDING THE WATER ELEMENT TO REVISE LEVEL OF
SERVICE STANDARDS; SUPPORT WATER CONSERVATION; PROVIDE FOR
INFILL DEVELOPMENT; REMOVE REDUNDENT LANGUAGE; PROVIDE FOR
RENUMBERING POLICIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
CERTIFICATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
PROPONENTS
Bob Bray – Planning Director, City of Pinellas Park. I would like to introduce our new principle planner
Joe Incorvia.
Joe Incorvia – Mr. Chairman and Commission. As each of you know, the State of Florida requires a
comprehensive plan, one part of that comprehensive plan is a water element that projects out to the
year 2025 what our water needs are and how they are to be provided. That water element, as required
by the State of Florida, has to be updated once every five years or after the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) updates their plan. That plan is to be consistent with Tampa Bay
Water, SWFWMD, the County and the City of Pinellas Park, which we have certified that it is, and we
projected it out through the year 2025, what the water needs are for our community. This
commission’s recommendation is the first step in the process updating our Comprehensive Plan.
The City has used, for over the last twenty years, what is called a level of service standard of 80
gallons a day for each resident. With water conservation, improved plumbing codes and especially
reclaimed water, we are now using a whole lot less water than we used to. In fact, in 2000, all the
residents and businesses used 5.6 million gallons per day; last year we used 4.6 million gallons per
day, and even with the growth that we project through 2025, we still only project we will use 4.4 million
gallons per day.
So, we’re proposing a change in the Level of Service of 80 gallons down to 60 gallons per day for
each resident and 30 gallons per day for each business, which will change the design standards. This
is important, because what is happening is that we are using so little water, that the water is staying in
our supply lines too long and becoming stale; then despite everyone hearing about water conservation
they see our utility department flushing the water, because they have to drain the stale water out and
put in new water. The hope is, over time, as we change these design standards down, the amount of
water, the 4.4 million projected, will be used quicker because the pipes are smaller and therefore stay
fresher. Even at this point, it is projected through the year 2025; we are still only projecting to use 60
% of the water the County has contracted to supply us through the year 2025. We’re of course a
wholesale purchaser from the County. The total supply is from SWFWMD. So, with that, hopefully you
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 8
will see the logic to this change, certainly the utility department concurs with the change, and consider
the recommendation.
Ms. Kunda – This element is strictly on consumption and distribution of the water, because, I didn’t see
anything in here about the quality.
Joe Incorvia – Consumption, distribution and quality. The quality of water has diminished when it
stays in the pipes too long. That is the reason for the change. The chloramines sort of dissipate over
time.
Ms. Kunda – I read that part. It says that the City is a wholesale purchaser and is limited to storage
and distribution. It does not say anything about adding things to our water. We’re supposed to be
buying it from the County already treated.
Joe Incorvia – But we can put additives into the system, like chlorine or anything else and fluoride,
which you know Council has decided to do.
Ms. Kunda – The other thing is on page 24, the fourth paragraph down, it says that the County is
putting fluoride in and they are not, so that should be changed to say the City. Improving the pipes and
distribution is fine, but every time we do anything in the City whether it is zoning or what we have to
advertise it, we have to have a public hearing, that’s the things that involve certain areas and certain
people. I’m talking about fluoride now; I am very much against it.
I read so many things. It’s not good for young children and formula shouldn’t be made with water that
is treated with fluoride in it. Older people, I have a list of things also. I have also read 11-15 different
countries or cities in Europe have discontinued it because they found it to be harmful. It doesn’t seem
to me that something that is affecting the health of every single person in the City should be done so
easily without having at least a vote where people could come in and have a say, majority rule whether
you like it or not. Five people to be able to say they are affecting the health of everybody in the City I
don’t think is right.
If you couldn’t get fluoride anywhere else, maybe, but it is in toothpaste, it is in all kids of things and if
you get too much fluoride it is very bad for you. If it is in your water you have no choice. You have to
have water to live. We are going to have to drink this water.
Discussion on contents of Water Element.
Mr. DeLong – Any more questions?
MOTION
4.
Motion was made by Ms. Kunda and seconded by Mr. Long to APPROVE Comprehensive Plan Water
Element
.
ROLL CALL VOTE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 9
Aye: Bommattei, Karn, Kunda, Long, Shelley, DeLong,
Nay: None
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUS
NEW BUSINESS
Board training
Mr. James Denhart, City Attorney – I have been the City attorney out at Redington Shores for 33 was
at Treasure Island for 17 years and been here at the City of Pinellas Park 7 years so that’s 57 years all
together and many times over the years I have been asked to make presentations to boards on legal
requirements. Sometimes I am met with hostilities, not always. In this situation the City Council has
requested that I address not just you, but the Planning and Zoning, Code Enforcement Board and
probably City Council too just as a refresher on a number of the legal issues involved for the particular
boards. I am not here to fuss, criticize or complain, but just to go over some of the issues involved in
serving on a municipal board.
Items discussed 




The Sunshine Law – (Florida Constitution)
o
Meetings of a board must be open to the public
o
Reasonable notice must be given
o
Minutes must be kept
o
Communication between members, what is acceptable and what is not.
o
The penalties for violating the Sunshine Laws
Public Records
Ethics
Quasi-Judicial
Roberts Rules
Discussion and questions among commission members and City Attorney.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Discussed business for next month
Discussed applications for open position
As a result we will be advertising again for the position.
Mr. DeLong congratulated the commission on the attendance for the year.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 10
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION was made by Ms. Kunda and SECONDED by Mr. Long to ADJOURN the meeting.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Bommattei, Kunda, Karn, Long, Shelley, DeLong
Nay: None
Meeting adjourned at approximately 8:49 p.m.
__________________________________________
William DeLong, CHAIRPERSON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 11