CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
August 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
Dennis Shelley
Jillian Connolly
ABSENT:
Raymond Long
STAFF PRESENT:
Joseph Aukstikalnis, Zoning Coordinator
Melissa Thrumston, Zoning Staff Assistant
James Denhardt, City Attorney
INVOCATION:
Dennis Shelley
PLEDGE OF ALLEIGENCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 5, 2012
MOTION was made by Mr. Shelley and SECONDED by Ms. Kunda to APPROVE the minutes of July 5,
2012.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Mr. DeLong – 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.
1.
CASE NO.
LDC 2012-05
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 1
REQUEST:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY
OF PINELLAS PARK, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 16, PINELLAS PARK
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, BY REPEALING SECTION 18-1610,
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES CONCURRENCY PROCEDURES, AND
REFERENCES THERETO THROUGHOUT ARTICLE 16 AND RENUMBERING
AS APPROPRIATE; 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 AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.(LDC 2012-05)
Mr. Aukstikalnis - The proposed amendment deletes references in the Land Development Code to
public school concurrency management consistent with the companion Comprehensive Plan
Amendment on the same subject that was heard last month. The State legislature made public
school concurrency optional for local governments and the County has eliminated this requirement.
Therefore, the proposed Code amendment will eliminate this system to remain consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The City will be relieved with the administrative tasks related to public school concurrency
management and developers of future residential projects in the City will not be at risk or be
burdened with required mitigation of their potential impacts on school enrollment.
None perceived as the responsibility for the provision of adequate public educational facilities rests
with the State of Florida and the Pinellas County School Board. The County has experienced
declines of enrollment in public schools in recent years.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
None
PROPONENTS
None
OPPONENTS
None
MOTION
Motion was made by Mr. Shelley and seconded by Mr. Bommattei to recommend APPROVAL of
CASE LDC 2012-05.
ROLL CALL VOTE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 2
Aye: Connolly, Shelley, Kunda, Karn, Bommattei, DeLong
Nay: None
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUS
2.
CASE NO.
PUD 2004-2(R)2/MS 2012-31/BOA 2012-27 (QUASI JUDICIAL)
REQUEST:
Consideration of the adoption of a revised Master Plan for an existing “CPUD”
Commercial Planned Unit Development (“B-1” General Commercial underlying
zoning) with waivers to landscape requirements and variances to width of drive
aisles, size of parking spaces, and distance of paving to property lines.
LOCATION:
South of 6901 49th Street (RaceTrac)
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
None
PROPONENTS
Mr. Henry Hart – H30 Design, 5447 Haines Road, Suite 301 St. Petersburg, FL 33704. I have
been sworn. I am here to answer any questions the Planning and Zoning Commission would have
on the proposed car wash on 49th Street. It is a .0886 acre project within a 1.47 total ownership
out parcel of the remaining pieces of the PUD. It is located on 49th Street and north of 68th
Avenue.
We are proposing a 4,016 square foot automated car wash with several lanes that will stack cars
and go into an automated kiosk. A computer generated ticket will be given to the patrons to drive
through the facility.
Mr. DeLong – Is this going to be totally automated? It isn’t going to be manned.
Mr. Henry Hart – Yes, there will be an employee in the office.
Mr. DeLong – Why all the parking spaces?
Mr. Henry Hart – The parking spaces are really for vacuuming. The intent is to provide free vacuum
service. Once someone comes out of the car wash, they can turn to the right and go into
designated vacuum stations. The hoses will be at the center of the parking stalls and will be used
to vacuum their car for free.
Ms. Connolly – Is this going to be a 24-hour car wash?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 3
Mr. Henry Hart – No, it will not be.
Ms. Connolly – Does the car wash have any alarms where it speaks to you or anything like that?
Mr. Henry Hart – It will be audible in the sense that it will tell you “Are you confirming this type of
car wash”. What it will have is a selection of car wash types and you would put your credit card in
or pay cash and an arm goes up and the system knows who paid for what.
Ms. Connolly – To prevent the noise from bothering anyone, you’re saying it isn’t a 24-hour wash,
but what if someone tried to pull in and use the facility, would they be able to access any of it?
Mr. Henry Hart – The system would be closed down. I am not sure of the hours of operation, but it
probably would be 8:00 am to 8:00 pm.
Ms. Connolly – Where they pull in, it looks like there are little toll bars there, what happens if they
pull in and they realize they can’t pay?
Mr. Henry Hart – That is why they have a manned operation. There will be a call button at the kiosk
that will summon the person on duty to come and let them go through, and that is why the bailout
lane is there.
OPPONENTS
Denise Ramora - 4624 66th Place in Sawgrass Village – I have been sworn. I have multiple
concerns for this car wash. (Photo shown from cell phone of flooding after T.S. Debbie). We
already have multiple car washes in the area. At a time when the economy is not doing well we’re
going to add another car wash when others in the City are closing down. There are a lot of eye
sores. One on 66th Street that is closed down, one on 54th Avenue that competes with another
one on 54th Avenue. There is one on 49th Street and there is another one on 49 th Street that is
currently in default. Do we really need another car wash? You are going to line up cars behind my
neighborhood till 8:00 pm at night when we already have a concern with children and cars.
We are out there trying to get people to slow down and stop cutting through our neighborhood
with Race Trac. Now we’re going to add a car wash with more cars that are not going to respect
our community. Because it is private property, only board members can act on some of these
acts.
We have problems with vandalism, people cutting through, trying to control the drug situation and
I feel like this is an infringement on our community. I would like to keep our neighborhood nice.
We didn’t have a choice with Race Trac. I moved in after the fact. Had I known, I would have been
standing right here. I want to keep the value of my home up.
Edward Ernest - 6781 48th Street. What the issue is they built Sawgrass Village as high above our
land so now we flood. You put the Race Trac in, you put this in here. There are no entrances. You
put one on 70th Avenue for Sawgrass and one coming out our little dead end road. We already
flood. I have been there fifteen years. Every time it rains there is standing water in my yard after
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 4
they built Sawgrass Village. You have trash and noise.
Sawgrass is private property, so when I have to leave I have two options to leave my home. Well,
all of Sawgrass Village and Race Trac use it, too. If you want to go north on 49th Street in the
morning I have to go around to US 19 and come back up 62 nd Avenue or go up to 49th Street and
sit there for thirty minutes. You guys have taken our houses and shook us upside down, the five
houses that are back there. Now we have a flooding issue. I have already talked to the City.
Sawgrass Village has a pond at the end of the road and it floods out into our ditch. I disagree with
it, but then again you put Race Trac there and built 27 acres of five foot high land around us too.
We’re in a pond. I’ve been there fifteen years and had no flooding. I have to buy flood insurance
now because everything is built up so high around us.
Frank Cinnella - 6707 46th Lane in Sawgrass Village. Sworn in. I walk passed the house of the
gentleman that just spoke and anytime we have any kind of rain there is standing water,
mosquitoes, and all kinds of other effects that he is feeling. The road is almost impassable at
times. I don’t know where the water from this car wash is going to go. It looks to me like a giant
parking lot with a circle. It looks like there are three lanes and a whole bunch of parking spaces
that people are going to park in 24-hours-a-day because they have no place else to go.
You’re going to have people there that are having drug deals; all kinds of illicit activity going on in
those parking spaces. We had to light our entire circle at Sawgrass, because we were finding
people selling drugs in the circle, and it wasn’t occasional. Pinellas Park, for years, has gotten a
bad wrap for the type of City that it is. I always thought it was a bad wrap. Pinellas Park starts to
look like a laughing stock again if you allow things like this into our neighborhood. I think what
your going to have here is people hanging out, selling drugs, and as the young lady mentioned
before about all of the current local car washes; which I have gone through and have never had to
wait. So it is obvious, they are not that busy. If this opens and six months later it closes, we have
this lovely sight coming into our neighborhood. As a business man, I think its crazy, but as a
neighbor and somebody who will have to look at this I think it is horrendous. Thank you.
Philip Dean - 4624 66th Place. I’ve been in the car wash business since 1979. Pinellas County car
washes are not doing well. We have seen serious decline in revenue over the years. I am at my
business all day long and I see what goes on at these car washes. You have a big parking lot.
You will have loud music playing. You have to stay on top of it. One man isn’t enough.
Also mentions local car washes.
There is too much competition.
REBUTTAL
Henry Hart – I can certainly try to address the issues. I am not certain about the drainage issues
right now. I have looked at the SWFWMD permits for Sawgrass Village and it appears on paper
that the system is built according to the approved permits that SWFWMD and the City of Pinellas
Park approved. It would have to be looked at on a Code compliance issue, or a complaint issue
dealing with the drainage department of Pinellas Park itself. The system appears to work
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 5
correctly. Race Trac chose to put their own retention pond in there. By the looks of it, on the
surface, it appears that they are not contributing any drainage. It is Sawgrass Village situation by
itself.
More discussion on drainage.
Tropical Storm Debbie was in fact a weather event where you had anywhere from five to ten
inches of rainfall per hour, which no drainage system is designed, in Florida, to handle.
As far as the noise, it is as far away from the Sawgrass property line. There is a décorative
masonry block wall that is separating this commercial parcel from the residential parcel. It is lower
than the Sawgrass project. It is around 17-18 in elevation in Sawgrass and our proposal is about
16.5 to 17. We are going to match the finished floor at about 18-19 in elevation. With the wall and
some trees and buffers I don’t know that noise would be an issue.
The potential for loud music and drug selling is really an issue. This particular car wash is not an
eye sore (photo shown). We are proposing lights to deter transients. As far as the run-off we are
going to generate will be taken care of within the requirements of the drainage ordinance of the
City of Pinellas Park and SWFWMD.
QUESTIONS
None
MOTION
Motion was made by Mr. Shelley and seconded by Ms. Karn to DENY CASE PUD 2004-2(R) 2/MS
2012-31/ BOA 2012-27.
Mr. Shelley – My recommendation, I don’t think it is going to be an eye sore, but I don’t think we
need another one. I’m concerned about some of the issues from the residents; the noise and the
drainage. We were all kids at one time we would find any place we could to hang out.
Ms. Kunda – I’m against it because I am concerned about flooding having all that space. There
was a lot of discussion when the Race Trac went in and they are still having problems.
Ms. Karn – I agree there is a potential for problems. The drainage issue needs to be addressed.
Mr. Bommattei – I’m opposed to the motion. I think the applicant has presented and substantiated
that the drainage would not be a problem and that SWFWMD would take care of that. As for the
noise and congregation of people, in the report the Police did not report with Race Trac that they
have any type of problems in that area.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Karn, Kunda, Connolly, Shelley, DeLong
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 6
Nay: Bommattei
MOTION CARRIES
3.
CASE NO.
PUD 2011-02(R) / BOA 2012-20 / CU 2012-12 / CU 2012-13 / MS 2012-25
(QUASI JUDICIAL) (tabled case)
REQUEST:
Consideration of a request to approve a major amendment for an existing, but unbuilt, residential PUD, substantially amending the layout and requesting
conditional uses for structure height greater than 40 feet in the “M-1” Light
Industrial District and height greater than 50 feet in the “B-1” General Commercial
District and requesting a variance to the required number of parking spaces; and
to amend the Gateway Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions to provide for
building height greater than 50 feet.
LOCATION:
Generally located at the southwest corner of Gateway Centre Boulevard and
Gateway Centre Parkway
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
None
PROPONENTS
Robert Pergolizzi – Robert Pergolizzi, AICP, PCP, Principle with Gulfcoast Consulting 13825 Icot
Boulevard. I have been sworn. With me tonight is Mr. Peter Creighton who is with Huntley
Properties and current owner, and Mr. Damon Cole with the Richman Group of Florida, the
contract purchaser of the property and would be apartment developer.
As Joe stated, the request is to amend a previously approved RPUD overlay on a 39-acre property.
It is an amendment to amend a previously approved PUD from October last year, which approved
432 units. This amendment seeks to modify the building configuration, the building height, the
location of the amenities, and internal circulation pattern of the RPUD to create a more compact
building arrangement, achieve greater setback from the Progress Energy power lines, which abuts
the western side of the property, and reduce the amount of asphalt and increase the open space
within the RPUD. The number of buildings has been reduced from 18 buildings to 14 buildings and
the buildings are located on the northern two thirds of the property.
Enlarged photo shown to the commission depicting the plans.
The plan shows we have a lot of open space to the west and to the south. In comparison to the
previous plan, where the buildings were spread out, we have moved our buildings to the northern
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 7
portion of the property. The Land Use is Commercial General and Industrial Limited; and the
Zoning is B-1 and M-1, are within the Gateway Centre DRI, which has multifamily residential as an
approved use within the DRI.
Since the number of the apartment units remain at 432, the traffic impacts, water and sewer
impacts, solid waste collection impacts, and fire protection impacts are unchanged from the prior
approval. All building setbacks are equal to or greater than the previously approved plan. The
applicant seeks to increase the setback requirement from the western boundary to have a greater
buffer from the Progress Energy power lines. As a result, the distance between the proposed
buildings and the Sunshine Mobile Home Park will be increased, which we believe is a great
benefit.
The progress Energy power lines are 200 foot wide, and the prior plans had the tot lot by the power
lines. We thought it better to move the tot lot further away from the high tension distribution lines.
Generally speaking, the nearest building to the property line is about 226 feet away, and then there
is another 200 feet to the power lines; so we are quite a distance away from the Mobile Home Park
to the west.
The previous RPUD granted the maximum height at 50 feet to provide a more proficient building
layout. We are requesting the building height be increased to 58 feet. These buildings are
proposed to be four stories. The slight increase in height from 50 feet to 58 feet is mitigated by the
revised building placement where the buildings are relocated further away from the western
property line.
Minimum required open space is 25%. The previous plan had over 60% open space and this plan
has about 66% open space; which increases the open space, as a result of reducing the parking
through the variance we are seeking. We seek to modify the parking requirement. Code would
require 864 spaces and we are requesting 770 spaces. The reason is, when we look at the
previously approved plan, we took a more detailed look into the number of bedrooms. The
previously approved plan had one, two, three, and four bedroom apartments. Now we have only
one, two, and three bedroom apartments. We are also looking to have bike racks next to the
buildings and sidewalk connections to PSTA.
Discussion on bedrooms versus ratio to parking.
A rendering of what the development would look like was shown to the commission.
Summarizes the plan.
QUESTIONS
Ms. Kunda – My concern is the parking. Bedrooms aren’t necessarily what drive the number of
cars. Bedrooms sometimes are a bunch of little kids. Even in a one bedroom apartment you could
have a couple. Most families today have two cars. Plus visitors, where are they going to park? Less
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 8
buildings you have taken away laundry, a volleyball court and taken away parking too. That is what
causes problems is that people park where they shouldn’t park.
Robert Pergolizzi – We do have plenty of open space and if need be we could provide additional
parking in other areas adjacent to the parking area if that were to be the case. Given the statistics
we’ve looked at through, ITE Parking requirements for a multifamily unit are about 1.2 to 1.3. In this
case we have basically taken our plans so we could provide less asphalt to have more green
space.
I am thinking about the calls to the Police Department from people complaining parking their cars
where they shouldn’t.
Peter Creighton – 7801 Park Boulevard – I have been sworn. – Aside from the approval that you
would grant, the Gateway Centre has deed restrictions that require, within all of the properties in
the Gateway Centre, to self-park or contain all parking on site. You are not allowed to park off-site.
We would step in as an association and require them to put more parking. If Poly Pack or the
Military facility or Regional Planning Council had parking problems where they could not self
contain their parking, we, as an association, through the deed restrictions, make them increase
their parking.
Ms. Connolly – Are you assigning parking spaces to the residents?
Mr. Pergolizzi – We are not looking at assigned parking. Some of the parking spaces are in garage
units, and I believe those would be for specific units.
Ms. Connolly – I also saw in the staff report that you were looking to build greater than 50 feet.
Mr. Pergolizzi – The maximum height is 58 feet. However, we pulled the buildings further away
from the exterior of the property.
Mr. Shelley – The 58 foot height, that’s not an overall height. Your buildings are not going to be 58
feet tall. Don’t you have towers?
Mr. Pergolizzi – That is to the peak of the towers. (Drawing shown). The building elevation is like
55 feet, and we are asking for 58 feet just in case.
Mr. DeLong – Do you know what type of income bracket you are trying to target?
Mr. Pergolizzi – These would be more upscale. They are going to have laundry hook up inside
rather than a central location. Class “A” premium project. I’m not sure of the rental structure. I don’t
believe they have gotten that far.
Ms. Karn – That brings up a parking issue for me. I have three daughters and when they have
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 9
boyfriends come over with cars. Higher scale people are going to have more cars.
Mr. Pergolizzi – Well, the maximum bedrooms we have are three bedrooms.
Ms. Karn – That’s all we had.
Damon Cole – 477 South Rosemary Avenue, Suite 301, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. I have
been sworn. Thank you for taking the time for letting us explain this project. It is one we are very
excited about. It is a unique sight surrounded by existing roadway network, and it’s perfect for the
product we are proposing. This was a previously approved PUD and we have chosen the more
difficult path of coming back through the approval process to deliver what we think is a better
project. We have a lot of experience developing and managing apartment complexes all over
Florida with several in Tampa Bay.
Our internal research, even at worst case scenario, is at 1.5 spaces per unit. You have to keep in
mind that, probably including all of your daughters, don’t all work 9:00 to 5:00 jobs and are not all
on site at the exact same time. You have public safety personnel, you have of medical
professionals in these type of developments, retail jobs, I mean there are so many different types
of jobs. There is never a time when every resident is home. Not even during the holidays. We
have the ability to accommodate more parking spaces. We are just trying to give our future
residents, our development, 150-foot-wide buffer. Your typical two-way parking aisle with parking
spaces on both sides is 60 feet wide. We could provide two, double wide 90%, angled parking
spaces all behind the little garages. It is not our preference because we want to emphasize the
open space.
As Mr. Creighton stated, there is this policing mechanism. The burden is not just on the City of
Pinellas Park. The apartment complex is professionally managed. There are decal opportunities.
There are many ways for us to control parking. We are comfortable with the number we are
providing. There are limited three bedroom apartments which would limit the issue you mentioned.
Mr. Bommattei – Is this a gated community? 24-hours-a-day?
Damon Cole – Yes, it is.
OPPONENTS
None
MOTION
Motion was made by Mr. Bommattei and seconded by Mr. Shelley to APPROVE CASE PUD 201102(R) / BOA 2012-20 / CU 2012-12 / CU 2012-13 / MS 2012-25 subject to the following conditions:
1.
The development shall be limited to 432 dwelling units on the 39.006 acre (M.O.L.) parcel.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 10
2.
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 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. and last revised by the
applicant on 06/28/2012, 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 “RPUD” Residential Planned Unit Development adoption.
Mr. Shelley – I would like to add an amendment that if there is a parking issue that it will be taken
care of.
Ms. Kunda – I would like to second the amendment.
Mr. Bommattei – I accept the amendment.
Mr. Denhardt – In light of that condition and that motion I guess I have a question of the developer.
It is going to be tough to comply with that condition. Is that fine with you if this is the same decision
of the City Council? Are you willing to have the approval with that little proviso that if the parking is
a problem you have to add some more spaces.
Mr. Pergolizzi – Yes, we accept.
Mr. Creighton – There will be a decision communicated to the City prior to the Council meeting.
Mr. Denhardt – Because I anticipate the same questions to be asked.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Bommattei, Karn, Kunda, Connolly, Shelley, DeLong
Nay: None
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 11
4.
CASE NO.
V 2012-02 (QUASI-JUDICIAL)
REQUEST:
Request to vacate an approximately 830-feet-long, 15-feet-wide right-of-way
located north of 62nd Avenue and south of the CRX Railroad, west of 49th Street.
LOCATION:
5191 62nd Avenue
Mr. Aukstikalnis - The applicant is requesting to vacate an approximately 830-feet-long right-of-way
located between 62nd Avenue and the CRX Railroad west of 49th Street. Florida Power was granted
approval of Conditional Use, Case CU 2011-03 on December 9, 2010. With that approval came a
condition that the remnant right-of-way described be vacated. Florida Power, along with the City’s
assistance, completed the application for vacation. The new substation is built over the remnant
right-of-way; therefore, it serves no useful purpose and should be vacated. No City Divisions or
private utilities have raised objections to the proposal provided that easements are retained.
After the staff report was written and after my introduction was written I spoke to Mike Smith from
Pinellas Park Water Management District. That was the only concern with PPWMD was (and you
can’t really see them on this) now that all the trees are cleared, there are ditches that run through
the site. He was concerned with the fact that they don’t have any tree easements over any of those
ditches at this point. With this small portion of vacated right-of-way, all I could do is retain
easements in my right-of-way. I can’t force Progress Energy/Duke Energy to provide PPWMD with
easements over the remaining ditches. Mr. Smith said he will be in contact with Florida Power to
discuss this issue and to get those easements created if they are indeed not out there yet. He sent
me an e-mail that basically said they have no objection. If we didn’t want to keep those easements
we didn’t need to. At this time, I didn’t see where it really hurt anyone. When they do get their
easements straightened, at that point and time, we can just vacate. We don’t really have a true
legal description where their ditches run. We are going to keep in the resolution the south 100 feet
that encompasses all of their ditch area. It doesn’t interfere with any of the proposed construction
on the plan.
Ms. Kunda – What you just said about the “Findings of Fact” Condition 2 it says as long as
easements are retained.
Mr. Aukstikalnis – You can keep that condition.
Mr. DeLong – Yeah, they may want to have their water management, because now that it has been
cleared you can see where everything is. They have a nice area of wetlands that they have
reserved. That new road over on the west may be a good ingress for them to get into their ditches.
They have done a nice job on it.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
None
PROPONENTS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 12
None
OPPONENTS
None
MOTION
Motion was made by Ms. Kunda and seconded by Ms. Connolly to recommend APPROVAL of
CASE V 2012-02 including the two Findings of Facts:
1.
The vacation will be consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2.
The various utility agencies and City divisions have no objection to the vacation provided
that an easement is retained. (PPWMD)
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Connolly, Shelley, Kunda, Karn, Bommattei, DeLong
Nay: None
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUS
NEW BUSINESS
None
GENERAL BUSINESS
Mr. Denhardt addresses the board regarding decisions and reasons for those decisions.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION was made by Mr. Shelley and SECONDED by Mr. Bommattei to ADJOURN the meeting.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Aye: Connolly, Shelley, Kunda, Karn, Bommattei, DeLong
Nay: None
Meeting adjourned at approximately 8:23 p.m.
__________________________________________
William DeLong, CHAIRPERSON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2012, REGULAR MEETING
PAGE 13