CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
November 1, 2012
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
Patricia Karn
Raymond Long
Peggy Kunda
William DeLong
Jillian Connolly
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Joseph Aukstikalnis, Zoning Coordinator
Melissa Thrumston, Zoning Staff Assistant
James Denhardt, City Attorney
INVOCATION:
Ray Long
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 6, 2012
MOTION was made by Mr. DeLong and SECONDED by Mr. Long to APPROVE the minutes of September
6, 2012.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Mr. Shelley – Read the rules and procedures for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Thrumston – Swore in all speaking.
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
November 1, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 1
1.
CASE NO.
PUD 2004-3(R) 7 / BOA 2013-01 / MS 2013-01 - (QUASI JUDICIAL)
REQUEST:
Consideration of a request for a Major Amendment to a previously approved PUD
with an underlying “B-1” General Commercial Zoning District, Shoppes at Park
Place Master Plan, for the development of a 108-lot, single family attached
dwelling (townhomes) subdivision; with variances and/or waivers to the following
Code requirements: creation of a substandard private right-of-way, double fronted
lots, street alignment, intersection design, fence/wall height, block length, sidewalk
provisions, right-of-way improvements, dead end street/cul-de-sac requirements
and the requirement for an onsite meeting hall for the homeowner’s association.
LOCATION:
Generally located at the northeast and southeast corner of 70 th Avenue and 41st
Street.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
Ms. Connolly advised the Board of her association with one of the members of the audience, Mr.
Harmon, and that it will have no effect on her voting.
PROPONENTS
Bob Pierro P.E. – Avid Group, 1585 Virginia Avenue, Palm Harbor and I have been sworn. Also
with me is John Gilbert with Beazer Development, Pete Pensa, a planner with Avid Group and
Jane Caldera who is a Traffic Engineer with Truck and Traffic. I want to start from the beginning of
the project. This project started in 1973. In 1973 the State, City and other regional agencies
approved a DRI for the development of the old mall. That old mall was 780,000 square feet of retail
area and other entitlements. Over the years, there have been changes and, what I call evolutions,
to the mall.
We have gone through a lot of processes over the years. When the mall first started in 2003 / 2004
we had to go back through the development of regional impact process, and a process now called
Substantial Change. As we went through this process we were able to successfully demonstrate
that for all the ways of evaluating the impacts of redevelopment the new development was less;
less traffic, less water, less sewer demand and more green space, all positive things. Because we
were doing less, which is rare these days that a developer does less than what was previously
approved; we were able to go through the project in a fairly quick process. City staff was very
helpful along the way.
At that time driveways were an issue ten years ago. This is not the first time we have talked about
driveways. Reading a clause out of the DRI process from 2003 it says “While many driveway
access points will remain unchanged, the applicant has proposed a closure of three US 19 and one
70th Avenue north access points currently serving the project, in exchange for one additional US 19
drive way and one additional 70th Avenue access point. Both being further away from the US 19
and 70th Avenue intersection; which was the intersection of main concern ten years ago. So, we
have pulled the driveways further away from US 19 and 70 th Avenue. This is not the first time that
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 2
City staff, transportation officials, and FDOT have looked at driveways. The driveways we are
proposing tonight are basically where they were ten years ago in the Master Plan. So this is not a
brand new request. As we went through the documentation from ten years ago, transportation had
the total number of trips being generated from that project was going to be ten percent less, and
we are still meeting this criteria.
The water was five to six percent less, waste water was less, and solid waste was less. All the
major evaluating factors to determine if this is more of a substantial impact or less of a substantial
impact, we were less substantial. This is the last piece of the redevelopment and evolution parcel.
We are still less and we are here to present what we want to do.
Pete Pensa – AICP, Planner with Avid Group, 2300 Curlew Road Palm Harbor. I have been sworn
in. In the last DRI process this project went through it was approved for 124 Townhome multifamily
units. The project that is proposed and presented before you tonight is 108 units; which is less
than what was previously approved. Therefore, all the impacts (traffic, water, and sewer) will be
less than what was originally approved.
This is the way the project was laid out. The north half of the site is a little over 3.64 acres. There
are 50 units proposed there, for a total of twelve buildings. On the south side of the property is a
total of 58 units, plus the large pond, which is the master storm water system for the mall. When
that pond was permitted, it was designed to accommodate the storm water for the residential on
the north half at the same time. The water from the northern portion will drain into the storm water
pipe then go across and into that large pond. The portion on the south west side is not part of that
master storm water system, so it will have its own storm water (extra pond shown). One of the
reasons for that was in order to avoid raising the site significantly for water to go over the banks of
that pond and drain into, it was more efficient to maintain a lower elevation on that site and drain
into a separate pond that will sit lower than the one that handles the mall.
There are a number of variances, and basically what that boils down to is that a typical townhome
development doesn’t meet your typical subdivision standards. There are sidewalks throughout the
development. There are some places where it doesn’t make sense to have a sidewalk so that is
why there is a variance for that occasional location where there would be a gap. There is always
going to be sidewalk on at least one side of the street and the vast majority of the cases there are
sidewalks on both sides within it. The orientation of the buildings is set partially due to the
geometry of the site, but also for secondary reason to have the side of the units facing towards 41 st
Street which is the street that runs down the west side of the property. That affords maximum
privacy for the residents that are on the other side of 41st Street. Their front yards and garages are
facing towards 43rd Street. We do have a landscape buffer that runs along the length of all the
street frontages and it is a six-foot high, PVC, privacy fence. The units proposed here are very
similar to Sawgrass townhomes.
Peter displays a color concept visual and gives a description of the proposed buildings.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 3
The primary access to the site is on 70th Avenue. We have lined driveways so that they are across
from each other to maximize traffic safety. There will be a secondary access point on the north end
of the site and will come out to the last street and then another on down on the south on 68 th
Avenue. We have anticipated that the majority of the traffic will be on 70 th Avenue where they will
have access to the light as opposed to traveling through the neighborhood.
Mr. Shelley – You had a north / south elevation, but not an east / west elevation.
Pete Pensa - I don’t have them with me.
Jane Caldera – I am with Truck and Traffic and I reside at 721 Gulf Boulevard, Indian Rocks Beach
and I have been sworn. I‘ve been practicing traffic engineering in the Tampa Bay Area and
specifically in Pinellas County for about 23 years. I am very familiar with the policies and
expectations of different types of land development projects. I was contacted about three weeks
ago, after the neighborhood meeting by Avid Group, to talk to the City about some traffic issues
that were brought up at that meeting, put together a traffic study, and to find out what is going on
out there plus have some actual evidence with new traffic counts. We did a traffic study and I am
here to give you the highlights.
So, we went out and did some data collection during the peak hours, between the morning peak
from 7 am – 9 am, the lunch time peak from 11 am – 2 pm, and then the late afternoon peak from 4
pm – 6 pm. We found that the section of 70th Avenue, adjacent to our site, doesn’t have any
operational problems there; that section is level of service B. As you go down towards the east
approaching the signal at US 19, as well as what is the main driveway to the mall, and the WalMart / Walgreens driveways, there is a high volume of traffic there trying to turn in and out; and
there is congestion especially in the afternoon peak hours.
The Parklane Townhomes project itself with 108 units split about half and half on the north and
south side of the roadways, is anticipated to generate 633 new trips over a 24 hour basis. That’s
about 316 trips in and 316 trips out. During the peak hours that would be 56 trips in the P.M peak;
78% of that 56 trips are coming back home.
Jayne Caldera describes the traffic patterns in further detail, the design of the proposed driveways
and new traffic demands using area photo.
It is a 4% increase to the existing volume and a 1.5 % increase of the capacity that this project
would use. This level of traffic increase, in my professional opinion, is not going to exacerbate the
operational things that go on 2000 feet away because of the commercial businesses and the
existing conditions that are already out there.
This project is vested and they don’t have to pass traffic concurrency. In this case they are not
responsible to fix that location. We feel the two driveways proposed exceed the Code requirement
by about 100 feet. The driveways are between 150 and 160 feet apart from the existing driveways,
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 4
which is far above your Code requirement.
Mr. Shelley enters a letter explaining concerns into the official minutes. The letter was from a
resident unable to attend.
OPPONENTS
Brian Scott Hayse – Sworn in. I own two rental homes at 4100 72nd Avenue and 4240 71st Ave and
what I have a problem with is this entrance on 41 st Street; it is going to be right directly in front of
my home that I rent. There is already enough traffic there. People have run into the ditches, and it
is ridiculous. That entrance is going to create more traffic in front of my home and it is going to
bring the rental value down. I just made major improvements and now there is going to be a
driveway in front of my home?
Mr. Shelley explains the hearing process.
Cynthia Bilheimer – 4121 67th Avenue, Pinellas Park, and I have been sworn in. My concern is the
mention of 70% of the traffic using 70th Avenue, well, where is the other 30% going to go? When
Pete spoke about the two entrances onto 70 th Avenue and that they expect that the residents will
use the light. The light is on 43rd Street and the other one is down at US 19, so I wasn’t sure what
light you were talking about. Are they going to put a light there?
Even though Code says that they can put these driveways there within 160 feet together, I live
there and I drive it, and even now to get out you sometimes wait like we do all over the City
because the City has had a lot of growth; but, putting three driveways in that one little section is an
accident waiting to happen. As far as the secondary driveways, I am just wondering how many
residents are going to opt to go through the neighborhoods rather than try to get out onto 70 th
Avenue. We are talking 200 cars a day.
Then, they don’t want to have a meeting house for the association. Another concern is that
homeowners associations aren’t exactly set in steel and some people have problems with their
homeowners association with paying dues and getting people to step up and take for the
chairmanships of these committees. My concern is, who is going to make sure this place stays up
and that it doesn’t turn into a lot of rentals? Then, when he was talking about the sidewalks, are
those just the sidewalks that are inside the development that they are talking about, and not the
exterior?
Muriel Bruno - 4121 69th Ave. I am two houses in from the proposed development. I have been
sworn. I first have to thank Beazer and the engineers for holding the neighborhood meeting. That
was very worth while and especially Dean Neal who took the time to attend the meeting as well. I
did have the opportunity, as a resident within so many feet, to go in and talk to Joe Aukstikalnis
and he answered a multitude of questions that I shared with the neighborhood people. I am not
going to go on record to say I’m against it, but I have a question that needs to be answered.
Currently, and Joe assured me, that the swale on 41st Street between 69th Avenue and 70th Avenue
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 5
the swale on the east side, that it will be closed. I have also been assured that the sidewalk in our
neighborhood, they neglected our block, to put a sidewalk there. My last question is on the west
side on 41st Street there is no curbing. There is curbing on 68 th Avenue for that property and there
is not curbing on the other side of the major lake, we call it a lake it sounds better. I want to be
assured that there will be curbing all around that development as it should be. Thank you.
Michael Swedish – 4141 66th Avenue, Pinellas Park. I have been sworn. My main concern is we
have been in a water shortage in the last decade and Bob Pierro said each unit is going to take an
average of about 200 gallons per day. So that comes out to a half a million gallons of fresh water
every month. I am a resident here and I would like to have water pressure when I take a shower.
My other concern is the drainage of the whole system. They said the north is going into the pond,
but the south is going to go down into the ditch (the PPWMD drainage system). I am scared of
flooding. So I would like SWFWMD, since their license hasn’t been renewed since 2006, to take a
look at this project.
Mr. Shelley – They have looked at it. It is in our stipulations. The site plan has to be approved by
SWFWMD.
Michael Swedish – What about all the extra water being used in our neighborhood? Why can’t they
put single family homes, which is what our neighborhood is designed for?
Mr. Shelley – Public Works had no comments in the staff report about the extra water consumption.
REBUTTAL
Bob Pierro P.E. – To clarify some of the items brought up. First there was concern about the traffic
around the existing surrounding residential streets. I want to go back to ten to fifteen years ago.
The project as originally approved was 100% commercial, a much larger project. As we redevelop
the property, we worked with the City ten years ago we realized there should be a better solution.
We talked about buffers, and transitioning from an intense commercial to surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
What we came up with is what we are presenting tonight. It is a townhome development. It is not
single family, but it is not a high intense commercial. It is a transitional development and it is
residential. The only driveways that will be on the residential streets are residential driveways. Yes,
the people live in a townhome, not a single family lot, but it is the same type people. They are living
in a single family home, they own their own home, they pay City taxes, and they have just as much
right to drive on a City residential street as any other resident in the City. The way the project is
designed, most of the traffic will be to 70th Avenue, which is a major road. Yes, there will be
residents driving on residential streets.
To clarify on sidewalks. On the south side of 70th Avenue, there is a segment of sidewalk that is
missing and we have agreed to complete that sidewalk. There is a segment in there with an open
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 6
ditch and we agreed to pipe in that ditch. There is also a question on curbing. Several streets do
not have curbing. That I cannot agree to. When you have a street designed and built without
curbing, it is designed to flow onto the grass shoulder. It is extremely difficult and un-desirable to
add curbing to a street for a different type purpose. We will improve the drainage, but by allowing it
to continue to drain into the grass is actually better for the environment. It keeps the standing water
off of the street. If you put curbing on there, if the road does not have the proper grade, and this
one probably does not, then the water is going to pond against the curb. It will look nice in dry
weather and it will be a complaint in the wet season. But, we will pipe the ditch and we will
complete the sidewalks.
The north side of 70th Avenue along 41st Street there is no sidewalk on the east side of the road.
We are not proposing a sidewalk on that side of the road because we don’t see any one using it.
There is a sidewalk on the west side that serves the residents, but there is no access to the
sidewalk on the east side. We will take a look at that ditch, and if that ditch needs to be piped, we’ll
pipe it. If we have drainage next to us that needs to be improved, we will do it.
There was a question on water consumption. We are using less water than what was originally
approved for the site. Also we are fortunate that there is reclaimed water in the area. The irrigation
system for this area will use the City’s reclaimed water system. There were questions on drainage.
Both projects there are SWFWMD permits and are exemptions for both projects today. The north
half was granted an exemption during the original redevelopment of the mall ten years ago. The
south half of the project was granted a SWFWMD permit five or six years ago on the original
development. We have worked with SWFWMD and we have renewed that permit for another five
years. So, has SWFWMD looked at this? Yes. Have the previous plans addressed all of the
SWFWMD concerns? Yes. We will continue to do so.
Pete Pensa – A comment was made about the homeowners association, I believe the term was
“not set in stone” and that is actually not true. Both the City and SWFWMD require homeowners
associations. The association will own the common area outside of the units. These are fee simple
townhomes, which means they own their unit and some of the ground underneath it, and the
ground in front and behind it, basically where the driveway and the back patio are located. The
buffer is around the perimeter, the parking lot, the drive aisles, the storm water ponds (including the
large pond), which is currently owned by the bank who had taken possession of that from the
master developer of the shopping mall will be owned by the association.
The reason why Beazer is purchasing that property is because it is an aesthetic amenity. It has
seen better days in terms of maintenance, but they are going to clean it up making it look nice and
having a safety fence installed is part of the project. There are four buildings that have their view
looking out over that pond. So that will be an amenity to the development. By State Law SWFWMD
has tasked, in this case, the homeowners association to do the maintenance of that facility.
Therefore, as a property owner and as an entity required to maintain it there has to be an
association. The City also requires an association, which by City Code has to have an annual
meeting at a minimum. In your Code there is a provision for the meeting to be held off-site. There
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 7
are a number of churches and there is a community center. That youth center is a perfect location
to have it, so there will be a binding commitment to have an off-site meeting.
As Bob and I mentioned, these are fee simple townhomes they are not rentals. Beazer sells homes
to individuals and to families. Beazer does not sell to investors who are looking to rent them out,
that is not the type of client they have. They have a proven track record both throughout the City
and Tampa Bay. That’s all unless there are any questions.
Ms. Kunda – The garages, are they one car garages? The driveways going into each was is a
double driveway, is that correct? So they have a double driveway plus a garage.
Mr. Pete Pensa – Yes. That is correct.
Ms. Kunda – I have a question about that visibility triangle. I didn’t quite understand. I read it didn’t
meet Code. Are you saying what they are doing is okay or it is isn’t?
Mr. Aukstikalnis – No. There are no waivers or variances for the visibility triangle concern.
Joe explains the visibility triangle and the area of the violation. The fencing, as drawn, encroaches
into the visibility triangle by a minute amount. They will be required during the review process to
move that fence so it stays out of the visibility triangle. It is basically a life safety concern when a
car pulls into the intersection you want to be able to make sure they can see a vehicle or
pedestrian that may be coming and that they are not blocked. We put it into the staff report that it
will have to be adhered to. We did not feel it needed to be added as a condition of approval
because it is Code.
QUESTIONS
None
MOTION
Motion was made by Mr. Long and seconded by Mr. Bommattei to recommend APPROVAL of
CASE PUD 2004- 3(R) 7 / BOA 2013-01 / MS 2013-01.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Long, Kunda, Bommattei, Karn, Connolly
Nay: DeLong, Shelley
MOTION CARRIES
NEW BUSINESS
None
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 8
GENERAL BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION was made by Mr. Long and SECONDED by Ms. Connolly to ADJOURN the meeting.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Connolly, Shelley, Kunda, Long, Karn, Bommattei, DeLong
Nay: None
Meeting adjourned at approximately 7:45 p.m.
__________________________________________
Dennis Shelley, CHAIRPERSON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 9