Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pinellas Park council approves land‑use and zoning changes for parcel near 8th Avenue N. and 60th Way N.
Summary
The Pinellas Park City Council voted unanimously March 13 to adopt companion ordinances amending the city’s future land‑use map and zoning map for a parcel northeast of 8th Avenue N. and 60th Way N. (parcel ID 20301641724).
The Pinellas Park City Council voted unanimously March 13 to adopt companion ordinances amending the city’s future land‑use map and zoning map for a parcel generally located northeast of the intersection of 8th Avenue North and 60th Way North (parcel ID 20301641724).
The action consisted of second and final readings of Ordinance No. 20‑25‑08, which amends the official land‑use plan map from Residential Suburban (RS) to Residential Urban (RU), and Ordinance No. 20‑25‑09, which rezones the same parcel from Single‑Family Residential Estate (RE) to Single‑Family Residential (R‑1). Bob Bernhardt, senior planner for the city, presented both items together and said the two amendments are companion pieces needed to allow the requested change.
The change clears the way for future development under R‑1 standards, city staff said. Bernhardt said the subject parcel is in FEMA Flood Zone X (shaded) and that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval on Feb. 6, 2025. He told council the P&Z recommendation carried the same condition that had been added previously: “all vehicles are removed from the property until the primary structure is built.”
Council member Butler made the motion to pass Ordinance No. 20‑25‑08; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously by voice vote. Vice Mayor Seville (motion maker for the companion rezoning) moved approval of Ordinance No. 20‑25‑09; that motion also carried unanimously on second and final reading.
The record shows the applicant or agent was not present at the March 13 hearing. City staff entered the prior P&Z record and exhibits; Bernhardt said the presentation mirrored the materials the council had seen five to six months earlier and that the item was reintroduced to correct minor errors in the recorded ordinances.
Because these were quasi‑judicial proceedings, council applied existing code and comprehensive plan policies to the evidence presented at the hearing. The adopted ordinances amend prior ordinance language (to remove the phrase “subject to change” from a prior exhibit) and include standard effective‑date and appeal provisions.
Council did not discuss development timing, building design, or a specific developer agreement at the March 13 meeting; the only explicit condition in the record is the vehicle‑removal requirement tied to construction of the primary structure.
