Council rezoned 7908 Rutillio Court to Light Industrial for a metal fabricator, denied an R-2 split at 5406 Cotee River Drive as spot zoning, and tightened yard debris rules.
20 items on the agenda · 12 decisions recorded
On the agenda
- 1Call to Order – Roll Call▶ 0:00
- 2
Pledge of Allegiance
Pledge of Allegiance recited followed by a moment of silence for servicemen and women.
▶ Jump to 0:21 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:21] I ask that you all stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance, [00:00:24] followed by a moment of silence in honor of our servicemen and women at home and abroad. [00:00:29] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:34] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, [00:00:38] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 3
Moment of Silence
Brief procedural moment with the Mayor joking about a local bar offering a 10% discount to attendees who participated in the Pledge of Allegiance. No substantive action taken.
▶ Jump to 0:47 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:47] Thank you. [00:00:48] You may be seated. [00:00:57] I do not see anybody from our local establishment taking the names of the people in the audience, [00:01:02] as we had requested. [00:01:07] One of the bars was going to have a game based on tonight's meeting, [00:01:13] and everybody that was either here or there for the Pledge of Allegiance should qualify. [00:01:19] I believe it's a 10% discount. [00:01:20] I believe so, off your entire ticket. [00:01:24] We'll talk to you after the meeting if you want to. [00:01:28] We'll vouch for you. [00:01:32] Ordinance one. [00:01:35] Next is the approval of the September 24th meeting work session and special meeting minutes.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 4
Approval of September 24, 2019 Work Session and Special Meeting Minutes
approvedCouncil approved the minutes from the September 24, 2019 Work Session and Special Meeting.
- motion:Motion to approve the September 24, 2019 Work Session and Special Meeting Minutes. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:37 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:42] Move for approval. [00:01:43] Second. [00:01:45] Any questions? [00:01:46] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:01:48] Aye. [00:01:49] Opposed?
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 6Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 1:50
- 7.a
Library Advisory Board Minutes - August 2019
approvedon consentCouncil approved the Library Advisory Board minutes from August 2019 on a voice vote with no discussion.
- motion:Motion to approve the Library Advisory Board minutes from August 2019. (passed)
▶ Jump to 6:36 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:06:37] Move for approval. [00:06:39] Second. [00:06:40] Any discussion? [00:06:42] Hearing none. [00:06:43] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:06:45] Aye. [00:06:46] Opposed, like sign. [00:06:47] Motion passes. [00:06:49] Mr. Mann, it's my understanding, Mr. Davis, that we defer the next item on the agenda.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.b
Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval
approvedon consentCouncil approved the purchases/payments item on consent with a unanimous voice vote.
- motion:Motion to approve purchases/payments for City Council approval. (passed)
▶ Jump to 6:36 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:06:37] Move for approval. [00:06:39] Second. [00:06:40] Any discussion? [00:06:42] Hearing none. [00:06:43] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:06:45] Aye. [00:06:46] Opposed, like sign. [00:06:47] Motion passes. [00:06:49] Mr. Mann, it's my understanding, Mr. Davis, that we defer the next item on the agenda.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.c
Consideration of Amendments to the FY19 Adopted Budget
approvedon consentCouncil approved amendments to the FY19 adopted budget on a voice vote with no discussion.
- motion:Motion to approve amendments to the FY19 adopted budget. (passed)
▶ Jump to 6:36 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:06:37] Move for approval. [00:06:39] Second. [00:06:40] Any discussion? [00:06:42] Hearing none. [00:06:43] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:06:45] Aye. [00:06:46] Opposed, like sign. [00:06:47] Motion passes. [00:06:49] Mr. Mann, it's my understanding, Mr. Davis, that we defer the next item on the agenda.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.b
You arrived here from a search for “Debbie Manns” — transcript expanded below
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2019-2168: Rezoning of 7908 Rutillio Court
approvedCouncil held the second reading of Ordinance 2019-2168, rezoning approximately 0.93 acres at 7908 Rutillio Court (east of Congress Street, south of Orchard Lake Road) from C2 Commercial to Light Industrial to accommodate a metal fabrication business. The Land Development Review Board had recommended approval on September 19th. The motion passed on a voice vote.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2019-2168
- motion:Approve second reading of Ordinance 2019-2168 rezoning 0.93 acres from C2 Commercial to Light Industrial. (passed)
7908 Rutillio CourtAltmanMs. ManceC2 to Light Industrial rezoningLand Development Review Board recommendation (September 19)Ordinance 2019-2168▶ Jump to 6:58 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:06:58] Hopefully he'll get here before we run out of other things on the agenda. [00:07:02] So let's go to the second reading of Ordinance 2019-2168, the rezoning. [00:07:10] That's Ordinance 2019-2168, an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.93 acres of property [00:07:16] generally located east of Congress Street and south of Orchard Lake Road from C2 Commercial District [00:07:22] to Light Industrial, further described herein, and in Exhibit A, providing for an effective date. [00:07:29] Ms. Mance. [00:07:30] Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, as I'm certain you'll recall from the first reading of this item, [00:07:36] the property is located south of Orchard Lake Road and east of Congress Street. [00:07:41] It is, as the mayor indicated, situated in a C2 zoning class. [00:07:47] The request is to rezone the 0.93 acres to Light Industrial, [00:07:53] the purpose of which is to accommodate a metal fabrication business [00:07:58] and the Land Development Review Board recommended in favor of this rezoning [00:08:04] at their meeting on September 19th. [00:08:07] You conducted a first reading on October 1st, [00:08:10] and we are asking that you approve the rezoning at the second reading. [00:08:15] Very good. Open it up for public comment. [00:08:18] Is the applicant in the house? Okay, very good. Thank you. [00:08:24] Seeing no one, come forward to bring it back to Council. [00:08:29] Move for approval. [00:08:31] Second. [00:08:32] We have a motion and a second to the maker. [00:08:34] No, I discussed my opinions on this during the first reading, and I'm in favor of it. [00:08:39] Second. [00:08:40] No, we've already discussed it, and I did have one question, [00:08:43] but it is going to be a metal fabricating business? [00:08:47] That's all I have. [00:08:48] The applicant indicated yes for the benefit of the people watching this. [00:08:54] Mr. Altman. [00:08:55] Right, and just to restate the reasoning, that area already has a number of uses, [00:09:02] some of which are perhaps being used without going through the changes, [00:09:09] and they seem to be an appropriate area for us to have businesses that will employ the people of our city [00:09:17] in a manufacturing area, and we have not much of that around. [00:09:22] So for that reason, I will support it. [00:09:25] Okay. [00:09:26] I have no additional comments, so if there's no further discussion, all those in favor, [00:09:30] please signify by saying aye. [00:09:31] Aye. [00:09:32] Opposed, like sign. [00:09:34] Motion passes.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.c
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2019-2158: Amendments to Police Pension Ordinance RE: IRC Changes
approvedCouncil held second reading and approved Ordinance No. 2019-2158, amending the police officers' retirement system provisions in Chapter 17 to conform with Internal Revenue Code changes. No public comment was offered and the motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2019-2158
- motion:Motion to approve second reading of Ordinance No. 2019-2158 amending the police pension ordinance. (passed)
Chapter 17, Article 4 - Police Officers' Retirement SystemDeferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP)Ordinance No. 2019-2158Section 17-65Section 17-65.13Section 17-65.2▶ Jump to 9:35 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:09:35] Next is second reading ordinance 2019-2158. [00:09:39] Ordinance number 2019-2158, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:09:43] providing for amendment of Article 4 of Chapter 17 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of New Port Richey, [00:09:48] pertaining to police officers' retirement system, [00:09:50] providing for amendment of Subsection H of Section 17-65, pertaining to the $10,000 maximum pension, [00:09:57] providing for amendment of Section 17-65.2, pertaining to miscellaneous provisions, [00:10:02] by adding Subsection J there, too, providing for missing benefit recipients, [00:10:07] providing for amendment of Subsection F of Section 17-65.13, [00:10:12] pertaining to general provisions in the deferred retirement option plan, [00:10:16] providing for repeal of Paragraph 8 thereof, pertaining to a sheet of dropped benefits, [00:10:21] providing for codification, providing for severability of provisions, [00:10:24] repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith, and providing an effective date. [00:10:28] Thank you. [00:10:29] Open it up for public comment. [00:10:32] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [00:10:37] Move for approval. [00:10:38] Second. [00:10:39] To the maker. [00:10:40] No. [00:10:41] We discussed it last time. [00:10:43] To the second. [00:10:45] No. [00:10:47] Deputy Mayor? [00:10:48] I have nothing further on this one. [00:10:49] Same here. [00:10:51] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:10:54] Aye. [00:10:55] Opposed? [00:10:56] Like sign. [00:10:57] Motion passes. [00:10:58] Next is First Reading Ordinance 2019-2170.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.d
First Reading, Ordinance No. 2019-2170: Rezoning of 5406 Cotee River Drive from R-1 Residential District to R-2 Residential District
deniedCouncil considered first reading of Ordinance 2019-2170 to rezone 5406 Cotee River Drive from R-1 to R-2 to allow a second house on the property. The applicant was not present, and staff noted the Land Development Review Board recommended denial as it would constitute spot zoning surrounded by R-1. Council moved to deny the rezoning, with discussion about pursuing a future ADU/ancillary dwelling unit ordinance.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2019-2170
- motion:Motion to deny the rezoning of 5406 Cotee River Drive from R-1 to R-2. (passed)
5406 Cotee River DriveLand Development Review BoardAllmanDriscollMurphyThomas LloydADUs (accessory dwelling units)Ordinance No. 2019-2170R-1 to R-2 rezoningspot zoning▶ Jump to 11:00 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:11:01] Ordinance number 2019-2170, an ordinance rezoning approximately 0.3 acres of property [00:11:07] generally located east of U.S. Highway 19, south and west of Cody River Drive, [00:11:11] north of Cedar Lane, from R1 Residential District to R2 Residential, [00:11:16] further described herein, and in Exhibit A, providing for an effective date. [00:11:20] Is the applicant in the room? [00:11:24] Mr. Thomas Lloyd, who is the applicant, is not in the room. [00:11:28] In that case, open it up to the general public. [00:11:30] Any public input on this? [00:11:34] Seeing none, bring it back to Council. [00:11:38] Actually, do we have a presentation on this? [00:11:40] We don't, Mr. Mayor. [00:11:44] But I can speak to it if you'd like me to. [00:11:47] I'd be more than glad to do so. [00:11:48] Thank you for the opportunity. [00:11:50] The property, as the city attorney indicated, is located west of Cody River Drive [00:11:57] on the north side of Lark Lane. [00:11:59] The purpose of the proposed rezoning from R1 to R2 is to accommodate [00:12:05] the establishment of a second house on the property, [00:12:10] and the Land Development Review Board, at their meeting on September 19, [00:12:16] felt that a downgrade from R1 to R2 would be injurious to the neighborhood, [00:12:22] and therefore they recommended that the rezoning not be approved. [00:12:29] I'd just like to point out for the record, Mr. Mayor, that if you look at the zoning map, [00:12:33] this R1 would not be or this, if it was changed to R2, [00:12:38] would not be adjacent to any other R2 or higher intensity use. [00:12:44] The entire area consists of mostly R1. [00:12:48] So I would suggest to you that that could conceivably be considered spot zoning, [00:12:53] given that increase in intensity, even though they're both residential uses. [00:13:01] Entertain a motion? [00:13:02] I would move that we do not approve this rezoning. [00:13:05] I'll second that. [00:13:06] To the maker? [00:13:07] I agree. Thank you, Mr. Driscoll. [00:13:08] This would be spot zoning. [00:13:09] I'm familiar with this property as well. [00:13:11] I'm looking at the map. [00:13:12] It's completely surrounded by R1, [00:13:14] and I just don't see how we would try to fit another dwelling on that particular piece of property. [00:13:21] So I'm against it. [00:13:24] Councilman Murphy? [00:13:26] Yeah, I agree. [00:13:27] I just think that the people around it probably like the way it may have been why they moved there [00:13:31] because it was spread out a little bit, and now we're going to try to clutter it, I guess. [00:13:37] So, yeah, I'm up for it. [00:13:40] Mr. Allman? [00:13:41] Yes, I'll support the motion for the purposes cited by the city attorney, [00:13:46] and I would say that for the discussion to look at what we're seeing in our memo, [00:13:54] the purpose going from a lot which is 13,000 square feet, where R1 allows a 7,500-square-foot lot, [00:14:07] that's 15,000 square feet. [00:14:10] We could make two R1 lots, and this is only a wee bit shy of that. [00:14:16] So, A, it is a larger lot. [00:14:18] It's a neighborhood that has larger lots. [00:14:20] I understand all that logic. [00:14:22] Dividing it, I would agree, doesn't make sense. [00:14:25] However, it's been over a year since we heard some of the talk about the mother-in-law houses [00:14:33] and some of these other ancillary houses and properties, [00:14:36] and that discussion has not gotten to the city council at this point. [00:14:40] I know there's been attempts to have it discussed by some of our boards [00:14:45] who are maybe not familiar with some of the new sort of zoning and land use opportunities. [00:14:54] So I'll vote against this, but if we could have a discussion about allowing [00:15:00] single lot owners to have that ancillary facility, it's a little bit different than what's being asked. [00:15:07] But it could, you know, as I think the mayor has stated, that there's a number of properties on those larger lots [00:15:13] that have that place where that kid who graduates from college might come back to stay at home [00:15:20] and have an over-the-apartment garage, a granny flat, whatever you want to call it. [00:15:25] I think that's a valid potential use, but it certainly doesn't fit our existing code. [00:15:33] So I will agree with the motion, but hope that we can see some, [00:15:38] have an opportunity to discuss some of these other ideas that have been percolating around town for quite a while. [00:15:46] I'm more than happy to have the discussion during a meeting if you want to put it as an agenda item. [00:15:50] Very good. Do we have a proposal that is percolating in our direction at this point on ADUs? [00:15:56] A presentation has been made to the Land Development Review Board on a couple of occasions, [00:16:01] and we did have a proposed ordinance which we are refining, and so yes, it is coming in your direction. [00:16:09] I would think the property owner here would be well advised to look at that at such time as it comes to pass. [00:16:17] Okay. [00:16:18] So I will support the motion as well. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.e
First Reading, Ordinance No. 2019-2165: Amendments to Firefighters' Pension Ordinance RE: IRC Changes
approvedFirst reading of Ordinance No. 2019-2165 amending the Firefighters' Pension Ordinance (Article 3, Chapter 17) to address changes required by the Internal Revenue Code, litigation, a typographical error, and the firefighter cancer presumption law effective July 1, 2019. Staff reported no financial impact and recommended adoption; Council approved on first reading.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2019-2165
- motion:Motion to approve Ordinance No. 2019-2165 on first reading. (passed)
Councilman MurphyMr. MerrillMs. ManceArticle 3 of Chapter 17Deferred Retirement Option PlanFirefighter cancer presumptionFirefighters Retirement SystemOrdinance No. 2019-2165Section 17-43Section 17-50Section 17-50.17Section 17-50.2▶ Jump to 16:25 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:16:25] Aye. [00:16:26] Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. First reading ordinance 2019-2165. [00:16:32] Mr. Merrill, for the record, I'd like to state that the denial on the first reading of the rezoning would provide that there be no second reading, [00:16:42] so there will be no second reading on that ordinance. [00:16:45] This is ordinance number 2019-2165, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:16:49] providing for amendment of Article 3 of Chapter 17 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of New Port Richey [00:16:53] pertaining to the Firefighters Retirement System, providing for amendment of Section 17-43 pertaining to disability, [00:17:00] providing for eligibility criteria for members no longer employed by the City, [00:17:03] providing for amendment of Subsection H of Section 17-50 pertaining to the $10,000 maximum pension, [00:17:09] providing for amendment of Section 17-50.2 pertaining to miscellaneous provisions by adding Subsection J thereto, [00:17:15] providing for missing benefit recipients, providing for amendment of Subsection F of Section 17-50.17 [00:17:21] pertaining to general provisions in the Deferred Retirement Option Plan, [00:17:25] providing for repeal of Paragraph 8 thereof pertaining to a sheet of dropped benefits, [00:17:30] providing for codification, providing for severability of provisions, [00:17:33] repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith, and providing an effective date. [00:17:37] Ms. Mance. [00:17:38] Mr. Mayor, as the City Attorney indicated, the purpose of this amendment is to advance changes in the Firefighter Pension Ordinance, [00:17:50] and the majority of which are a result of changes in the Internal Revenue Code as well as litigation, [00:18:00] in one case it's a typographical error. [00:18:04] Lastly, we are advancing a benefit that was not anticipated at the time the ordinance was adopted, [00:18:13] and that relates to firefighter cancer presumption, which is in essence a law that recognizes 21 different forms of cancer. [00:18:28] If a firefighter is impacted by any of those after the date of effectuation, which was July 1st of 2019, they are entitled to benefits. [00:18:42] The changes specifically relate to the Board of Trustees, disability, maximum pension, miscellaneous provisions, [00:18:51] and the Deferred Retirement Option Plan. [00:18:55] There is no financial impact associated with any of the proposed changes. [00:19:03] The staff has reviewed it completely, and we feel comfortable recommending its adoption to you. [00:19:08] Thank you. [00:19:09] Open it up for public comment. [00:19:11] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [00:19:14] Move for approval on first reading. [00:19:20] Do we have a second? [00:19:21] Second. [00:19:22] Thank you to the maker. [00:19:25] This is being recommended to us by our city manager. [00:19:29] I think that's her daily wig, so I'm going to go with her recommendation. [00:19:36] Move it to the second. [00:19:37] No comments, thank you. [00:19:38] Councilman Murphy. [00:19:39] No. [00:19:41] In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:19:44] Aye. [00:19:45] Opposed, like sign. [00:19:46] Motion passes.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.f
First Reading, Ordinance 2019-2173: Amendments to Placement of Yard Debris Ordinance
approvedCouncil passed first reading of Ordinance 2019-2173 amending the yard debris ordinance to clarify placement rules, prohibit relocation of yard debris (illegal dumping), restrict placement to sunrise-to-sunset, require contractors to be licensed/bonded with vehicle ID and proper traffic maintenance, limit cut lengths to 6 feet, and prohibit debris from trees with trunk diameter over 8 inches. An amendment was added prohibiting piles in city public parks.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2019-2173
- motion:Move approval of Ordinance 2019-2173 on first reading, as amended to add language prohibiting yard debris piles in city public parks. (passed)
6041 Florida AvenueJasmine ParkRiver RoadCity of St. PetersburgKJV Baptist ChurchBoothDebbie MannsJohn CainMurphyRobert RiveraVictor McCluskeyOrdinance 2019-2173Section 10-4 of Article I of Chapter 10, NPR Code of OrdinancesVox Pop▶ Jump to 19:48 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:19:48] First reading ordinance 2019-2173. [00:19:52] Ordinance number 2019-2173, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:19:57] providing for amendment of section 10-4 of Article I of Chapter 10 of the New Port Richey Code of Ordinances [00:20:02] pertaining to yard debris, providing for clarification of provisions, [00:20:05] providing for the prohibition of the relocation of yard debris, [00:20:08] providing for limitation on placement of yard debris for collection from sunrise to sunset, [00:20:13] providing for limitation on placement of yard debris from trees having trunks larger than 34 inches in diameter, [00:20:20] providing requirements for contractors, providing penalties for violation hereof, [00:20:24] providing for enforcement, providing for conflict, severability, and an effective date. [00:20:29] Ms. Vance. [00:20:30] Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. [00:20:31] The purpose of this ordinance is to advance more specific standards [00:20:37] as it relates to the placement of yard debris [00:20:40] and to minimize opportunities for abuses of the city-provided services. [00:20:46] In that respect, Mr. Rivera has prepared a PowerPoint presentation, [00:20:51] and I'd like him to handle the presentation. [00:20:54] Thank you, Mayor and Council. [00:20:56] I just wanted to let you know that the draft that you're looking at was not the final draft. [00:21:01] There were two items that are in there that are not in the final draft. [00:21:06] What we did was the city attorney added where you see vegetation, he added vegetative yard debris, [00:21:15] and then where we talk about the 34-inch diameter measurement, that's actually a circumference. [00:21:22] We changed that to an 8-inch diameter. [00:21:26] So if we do go to a second reading, those items you'll see changed, and I'll explain those in the PowerPoint. [00:21:34] So while we know that all of these changes are not going to correct all the issues that everyone knows about, [00:21:40] I believe that it will go a long way for us to be able to clarify some of the items that we continually deal with, [00:21:46] as well as help code enforcement and the police department be able to maybe do a little more efficient enforcement [00:21:56] because they'll have some more tools in their toolbox. [00:21:59] The items that we looked at were illegal dumping, unlicensed contractors, safety concerns, yard debris size limits, [00:22:07] and pile location guidelines. [00:22:09] And again, these were all items that we pretty much deal with on a day-to-day basis, [00:22:14] and a lot of them you all are very familiar with. [00:22:17] Now, when we looked at the illegal dumping, we went ahead and added some language in Section 10-4A, [00:22:25] Disposal of Yard Debris, and I'll read that real quickly. [00:22:28] The language that was added was, [00:22:30] All vegetation and vegetative yard debris collected and removed from a property shall remain for pickup at its designated location. [00:22:38] The location by any person of vegetation or vegetative yard debris collected and removed from a property to any public [00:22:45] or private property other than the public right-of-way adjacent to the property from which the same was collected [00:22:51] and removed shall constitute illegal dumping and a violation of this section. [00:22:56] And then we go on to say that the city manager may designate a community pickup location for vegetation [00:23:02] and vegetative yard debris as deemed in the best interest of the city. [00:23:06] Trying to deal with two issues that we have here on a consistent basis where we have contractors that will do work. [00:23:14] They will claim that when they're at a location, they will start unloading their trailer, [00:23:19] and they'll say that they've been working all day in the city. [00:23:22] This will help try to eliminate that, meaning you can still have your contractor work in your yard, [00:23:28] but he's not unloading what's on his trailer. [00:23:31] The other item that we have in here as well is the designated community pile. [00:23:37] There are some areas of the city where community piles were designated years ago. [00:23:43] Some of them work efficiently, and everyone agrees on those locations, [00:23:48] but also some of them now don't really work well because a new generation of property owners have moved in, [00:23:56] and a lot of people don't want to see their neighbor's yard to be dragged over to their yard, [00:24:01] especially if they're paying a contractor to haul that stuff away. [00:24:04] So we felt like this language would help address some of that. [00:24:10] We also added 10.4b that states that the placement of vegetative yard debris as provided in this section [00:24:18] shall only be permitted between sunrise and sunset. [00:24:23] I don't think anybody's really going to be watching the sun go down and try to grab somebody right at that moment, [00:24:29] but this is a tool that would help us with the illegal dumping at night where you have these unlicensed contractors, [00:24:36] especially down the alleys that will show up at the end of the day, [00:24:40] trimming outside the city and will come in and try to dump. [00:24:44] So we added that language in there. [00:24:46] And then on section 10.4c, we deleted it. [00:24:50] This language stated that the city manager was authorized to pay any person that provided the city with information [00:24:57] that led to a conviction $100. [00:25:01] We found out that that really hasn't helped us in the way we thought it would. [00:25:08] Actually, it's been really detrimental to a lot of the residents. [00:25:12] We've gotten several calls where some of the residents have actually gone out and tried to take a picture of the contractor [00:25:18] or tried to take and write down a license plate or this or that and have actually been threatened with bodily harm. [00:25:25] So it didn't work the way we thought it would. [00:25:29] We don't think that it needs to be there, so we have deleted that. [00:25:40] And so that ties directly into the next one where we have unlicensed contractors. [00:25:45] We went ahead and added some language in 10.4e stating that all private contractors removing vegetation [00:25:55] and vegetative yard debris from properties within the city limits shall be licensed, bonded, [00:26:01] and have sufficient company identification on all vehicles and equipment used for such activity. [00:26:07] Two rhyming reasons for this. [00:26:09] Number one, if you have a legitimate company that is giving proposals for this type of work [00:26:17] and they're having to compete against unlicensed contractors, that's really not fair. [00:26:23] The other thing that we wanted to address with this was it's really not helpful to our residents [00:26:30] because they're taking all the burden. [00:26:32] If they end up using an unlicensed contractor, they are 100% at risk. [00:26:37] And when we talk about cutting trees down and doing these types of activities, [00:26:41] people can get seriously injured or death. [00:26:45] And so we felt that that's very important, and we wanted to address that. [00:26:54] Safety concerns, that was part of it, what I've just said. [00:26:59] We also added some language in here that says all private contractors removing vegetation [00:27:06] and vegetative yard debris from properties within the city limits shall set up proper maintenance of traffic [00:27:12] whether a permit is required or not and shall not block public sidewalks [00:27:18] when performing work within the city's right-of-way. [00:27:21] We have several incidences where we show up and we've got a contractor that has all of his equipment, [00:27:28] he has his tools, everything, men working, he's got debris everywhere, [00:27:32] and a lot of the residents are having to walk out into the road [00:27:37] or they're having to try to meander in between the activity to continue on, [00:27:43] and it really presents a safety concern for us. [00:27:48] And I think some of you have seen that situation where it's been like that. [00:27:52] I know that I've arrived at a couple of them along River Road, and it just did not look good. [00:27:57] We added the language about whether a permit is required or not [00:28:01] simply because of the new legislation decision that said that as long as you have an arborist [00:28:06] that you can go ahead and remove a tree without a permit, [00:28:11] so we figured that this type of language would cover both instances. [00:28:17] And then we wanted to call out the yard debris size a little bit more in detail, [00:28:23] and we did that in Section 10-4A by inserting some language [00:28:29] stating that cut lengths shall be six feet or less, [00:28:33] and basically we're stating that the leaves shall not be placed in plastic bags, [00:28:38] boxes, or any other type of container. [00:28:41] We addressed it in 10-4C, which states that the yard debris generated [00:28:48] from the substantial or total removal of vegetation from trees [00:28:52] having a trunk diameter greater than eight inches [00:28:56] shall not be placed in any right-of-way or other public or private property. [00:29:00] And what we mean by that is you take a measurement from four and a half feet up [00:29:05] from the bottom of your grade of the trunk of the tree, [00:29:08] and then you measure from left to right from one point to the end of the tree, [00:29:13] and that gives you your limits. [00:29:15] We went ahead and attached a picture so that you would see about an average size tree. [00:29:21] This tree is 7.73, and it's at our public works complex, [00:29:25] so this is the type of tree that we would select. [00:29:28] Anything other than that we would consider more than just regular yard maintenance, [00:29:32] and a contractor would have to take care of that. [00:29:35] We didn't just come up with this number. [00:29:37] The city of St. Petersburg has a yard debris collection program as well, [00:29:42] and so we went ahead and took this guideline from them. [00:29:46] Robert, didn't we replace the eight-inch diameter with the 34-inch circumference? [00:29:55] Isn't that what the proposal is? [00:29:57] The proposal is to change it to eight-inch. [00:30:00] So we'll take the 34 out, so you can still get there. [00:30:06] So you want an 8-inch diameter, not a 34-inch circumference? [00:30:09] Correct, we want an 8-inch diameter. [00:30:11] So it's easier, we just measure it from one point, [00:30:14] and that's what we had changed it to and it didn't get to you. [00:30:16] Okay. [00:30:19] So the final item that we looked at, and we've pretty much gone [00:30:23] over that, is the pile location guidelines that basically call [00:30:28] out if you can either have it adjacent to your house, [00:30:31] in front of your house, you can either choose [00:30:33] to have your contractor haul it away, or if you have an alley, [00:30:37] you can put that, your pile in the alley and we'll pick it up. [00:30:41] But it basically tries to eliminate those incidents [00:30:44] where people are taking in and putting their stuff in front [00:30:48] of somebody else's yard [00:30:49] or a contractor is just unloading it wherever he [00:30:52] would like, and that's all we have. [00:30:57] Open it up for public comment. [00:31:01] Mr. Cain, if you would please give us your name [00:31:03] and address for the record. [00:31:06] Used it aptly, didn't he? [00:31:09] John Cain, 6041 Florida Avenue. [00:31:12] I would just like to get a little more clarification [00:31:15] on the location. [00:31:19] That's what I'm not understanding of the yard debris, [00:31:22] because as it stands now, what happens is it goes in the alley, [00:31:28] usually adjoining properties, you make agreements [00:31:31] with your neighbors so that, and you also have to look [00:31:34] at where you place it because when they come to pick [00:31:37] up this yard debris, that forklift, [00:31:40] it has to be able to swing around. [00:31:42] And if you have a nice privacy fence that you take the time [00:31:45] and trouble to stain every year and keep in good condition, [00:31:49] you really don't want that forklift swinging and knocking into it. [00:31:53] So these are all the things [00:31:55] that responsible homeowners take into consideration. [00:31:58] So I would just like a little more input to know, you know, [00:32:00] is there going to be a limitation as to does it have to be directly [00:32:06] in back of your property, on the side of your property? [00:32:09] What limitations are we having here with that? [00:32:12] Basically, the way it's written now, we didn't change a whole lot [00:32:16] of that except for add a few key words. [00:32:19] It's adjacent to your property. [00:32:20] In other words, if you have an alley, you have to put that pile anywhere [00:32:26] on the right of way, up against your property line [00:32:30] from point A to point B, whatever the width of your property is. [00:32:35] Now, if you and your neighbor agree that you want to put your pile [00:32:40] in one pile and you want to put it on the two property lines, [00:32:43] half and half, we're not going out there with a tape measure [00:32:47] to measure anything like that. [00:32:49] We're going to go ahead and pick it up [00:32:50] and everything is going to remain status quo. [00:32:52] But what we're trying to have spelled out, and we do this verbally [00:32:57] and it's on our website now and some of our brochures and some [00:33:00] of the articles that we've written, is that if we have a dispute, [00:33:05] that's when someone says, well, I want to see it in writing [00:33:09] and I want to see why you're making the decision or you're making [00:33:12] that decision because you know this person or all kinds of excuses. [00:33:17] This just spells it out and says, okay, it's got to be adjacent. [00:33:20] If you have an alley, most people put it in their alley. [00:33:24] It doesn't exclude you from utilizing the front of your yard [00:33:27] if it's more feasible and that's what most of the people already do. [00:33:32] It's just calling out those guidelines. [00:33:34] Right, because I set mine on the other side of the alley actually [00:33:38] because it's a big space there and I was asked to do [00:33:41] that by the forklift driver that's since retired. [00:33:45] But he said it was just easier for him to swing around and grab it that way. [00:33:49] So, I mean, that's what I've been doing. [00:33:52] And the other thing, just for clarification, [00:33:54] eight-inch diameter meaning from one side of the log to the other, eight inches. [00:34:01] Correct. You go four and a half feet up from the ground [00:34:05] and then you take your ruler and you measure. [00:34:08] That's where I'm losing you with the four and a half feet up from the ground. [00:34:11] Because that's what the Arborist Society call out as guidelines and the foresters. [00:34:15] They don't want you to measure a tree, say, ten feet up [00:34:19] where you know the diameter is going to be smaller. [00:34:23] They don't want you to measure it down at the base where it's going to be wider. [00:34:27] So, for whatever reason, they've picked the 4.5 feet of where you do your measurement. [00:34:33] Okay, and that's where I had a question because if I cut a tree [00:34:39] and I'm cutting it within six-foot segments because that's, you know, anything, [00:34:44] I usually do less than that, but six-foot segments is what you're asking for. [00:34:49] To me, any of those pieces has to be no more than eight inches the way you're explaining it. [00:34:54] I don't know how you would differentiate if I have, now, I have four or five eight-inch pieces [00:35:03] of trunk laying there, how do you know which one is four feet up [00:35:07] or which it's all just laying there in pieces? [00:35:10] Do you understand or am I missing something? [00:35:12] I mean, I just, maybe I'm not that swift with it, but I'm cutting it up in pieces [00:35:17] and I'm laying it there to be picked up. [00:35:20] So, to me, it doesn't matter where I've measured as long as none of it is over eight inches, [00:35:25] whether it's from the bottom or from the top. [00:35:28] You can't deal with anything more than eight inches to try and mulch, is what I'm thinking, right? [00:35:33] Mr. Mayor, I would suggest you talk with Mr. Rivera afterwards for specific details on... [00:35:42] Yeah, I just thought it might be good to clear it up so everyone would understand, too. [00:35:46] Nice try. [00:35:48] Nice try. [00:35:52] Anyone else? [00:35:53] Pastor Victor McCluskey, KJV Baptist Church, New Port Richey, Florida. [00:36:04] Psalm 2 of the Holy Bible. [00:36:07] Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? [00:36:12] The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together [00:36:16] against the Lord and against his anointing. [00:36:18] Mr. McCluskey, this discussion on a tree mulch ordinance, [00:36:22] this is not general... [00:36:24] I thought it was open to... [00:36:25] No, sir, it is not. [00:36:26] This is specific to this subject. [00:36:27] When is the time? [00:36:28] That would have been Vox Pop. [00:36:30] Oh, that's the first one. [00:36:31] Yes, sir. [00:36:32] All right, thank you. [00:36:32] Thank you. [00:36:36] Mr. Mayor, if there's no others, I'll move approval on first reading. [00:36:41] Let me ask, is there anyone else? [00:36:43] Hearing none, I'll bring it back to council. [00:36:45] Yes, sir, move approval. [00:36:46] Second with a question. [00:36:48] Go ahead, go to the maker. [00:36:49] Yeah, I think just to go back to the tree, the language in the ordinance [00:36:57] states that you can't put a tree that's bigger than the tree that [00:37:02] would be measured. [00:37:03] So he's not talking about measuring every piece. [00:37:06] He's talking about if there's one piece that's over eight inches across, [00:37:09] it probably reflects a tree that's too big. [00:37:12] So the smaller you go up the tree, you can't put your six-inch pieces [00:37:17] on there either. [00:37:17] Basically, we've got one point that we're looking for, which is if it's a [00:37:22] big tree, you can't put any of the branches into the cities, so that [00:37:28] particular tree has to be hauled off, if I'm understanding what's been said. [00:37:32] Correct. [00:37:32] So we don't have to measure with this piece is good and that piece isn't. [00:37:36] If you find that that tree started big at the bottom or at the trunk, then we [00:37:43] can't put it out for you to pick out. [00:37:46] Correct. [00:37:47] To the second. [00:37:48] Mr. Booth looks like he's enjoying a tree discussion there in the audience. [00:37:53] A question that I have, Mr. Rivera, is there anything in this ordinance that [00:37:58] prohibits dumping of vegetation and vegetation debris in public rides away [00:38:05] in front of city parks? [00:38:06] Because the Jasmine Parks, the neighbors there at the Jasmine Park, have taken [00:38:12] it upon themselves to start a debris pile right there between the sidewalk and [00:38:16] the road in front of Jasmine Park. [00:38:18] We haul it away, and it's right back there two days later. [00:38:21] There's nothing in this ordinance that addresses that. [00:38:23] Would it be okay with counsel if we added that to the ordinance for second [00:38:26] reading, or how would we go about doing that? [00:38:28] As I understand it, the ordinance requires that you put it in front of [00:38:31] your property, so there would be no allowance for somebody to put their pile [00:38:35] out there in a park, unless you designate the area yourself as being a [00:38:40] good place to put it, right? [00:38:41] Chief. [00:38:42] Yeah, so it couldn't be allowed, I think. [00:38:44] We, I didn't mean to interrupt you, I thought you were done, we're running [00:38:49] into this problem routinely, especially at that particular park, and the [00:38:56] individual we're dealing with, because of the shape of that lot that the [00:39:01] house is on, isn't quitting doing it, and I very much like that suggestion. [00:39:10] It would make it very clear to anybody, because they look at it like it's [00:39:14] city property. [00:39:16] I understand what you're saying, if you read the ordinance, it's [00:39:18] interpreted that way, but maybe we could just make it extra clear by adding [00:39:22] that verbiage now? [00:39:23] Yeah, if you feel like belt and suspenders is in order, then put them on. [00:39:31] I'm good, I'll change it. [00:39:33] Well, if it's already there right now, why are we not enforcing it? [00:39:35] I mean, that's my point. [00:39:37] This new ordinance allows them to designate where they can put it, where [00:39:41] before folks were not really being restricted that way, perhaps, but I'm [00:39:45] happy. [00:39:46] Do you have some proposed language? [00:39:48] I would, may I suggest? [00:39:50] I'm sick of talking about trees, but the bottom line is, this is a service [00:39:55] that's very much abused. [00:39:58] We've been talking about this since I've been on council. [00:40:01] This gives us a little more leverage, it's a start, I think there's still some [00:40:05] things that we need to add to this, because it's a huge problem throughout [00:40:09] our city. [00:40:10] It draws rats to neighborhoods in front of people's homes. [00:40:14] Stop interrupting me, please, I'm not done speaking. [00:40:16] Okay, I have, I've got help. [00:40:18] Okay, go ahead. [00:40:19] I propose an amendment, do you second it, that would say, add an additional [00:40:23] line in there that would say the city's public parks are not available for [00:40:34] putting a pile on them. [00:40:35] Sure, we'll do the belt and suspend, I'm good with that, yeah. [00:40:38] Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt. [00:40:40] It's okay, I was ready to go. [00:40:41] Anything else, Deputy Mayor? [00:40:42] No, nothing else, thank you. [00:40:43] Mr. Murphy? [00:40:44] No, I'm good with that. [00:40:46] Mr. Rivera, my personal situation is a little bit odd, is there anything in this [00:40:52] new rule that would preclude me from putting my yard brush on the back of my [00:40:59] driveway just like I always have on the north edge? [00:41:02] No, sir. [00:41:04] Nothing, you're allowed. [00:41:05] Okay, you're good then. [00:41:07] In that case, if there's no further discussion, all in favor, please signify [00:41:11] by saying aye. [00:41:12] Aye. [00:41:13] Aye. [00:41:14] Opposed? [00:41:15] Like to sign? [00:41:16] Motion passes. [00:41:17] Ms. Manns, have we heard anything from Mr. Davis? [00:41:23] I do not keep my cell phone at the meetings, so I have not heard anything. [00:41:27] In that case, we will go back, we've gone through all the other public readings. [00:41:33] I don't think the other two are going to take more than a couple minutes anyway, so
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.a
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2019-2166: Standards for New and Used Auto Dealerships
Council held the second reading of Ordinance No. 2019-2166, which amends the Land Development Code to establish development standards (size, display area, landscaping, screening, inoperable vehicles, and a 1,000-foot separation requirement) for new and used vehicle sales dealerships in the Highway Commercial Zoning District along US Highway 19. Existing nonconforming dealerships would have one year to come into compliance, with a hardship deviation available through the city manager. Staff (Ms. Manns) presented and recommended approval; the transcript excerpt ends as public comment is opened.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2019-2166
U.S. Highway 19Councilman DavisMs. Manns1,000-foot separation requirement between dealershipsHighway Commercial Zoning DistrictMoratorium on building permits for new/used car dealershipsOne-year compliance period for nonconforming usesOrdinance No. 2019-2166Section 7.09 of Chapter 7 of the Land Development CodeSubsection 7.09.09▶ Jump to 41:35 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:41:37] it probably doesn't matter. [00:41:39] Let's go to second reading ordinance 2119-2166. [00:41:44] Give me just one second, Mr. Mayor. [00:41:50] This is ordinance number 2019-2166, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, [00:41:55] Florida, providing for amendment of section 7.09 of chapter 7 of the Land [00:41:59] Development Code pertaining to the Highway Commercial Zoning District, [00:42:02] providing for a new subsection 7.09.09 thereof, providing for development [00:42:07] standards for vehicle sales dealerships within said zoning district, providing [00:42:11] for a definition thereof, providing for non-conforming uses, providing for [00:42:15] compliance with certain standards by existing non-conforming uses no later [00:42:19] than one year from the effective date hereof, providing for conflicts, [00:42:23] severability, complication, and an effective date. [00:42:26] Ms. Manns? [00:42:27] Sure. [00:42:29] As indicated to you at your first public hearing on this matter, the new and used [00:42:38] car dealerships are the purpose of the ordinance, and specifically that is [00:42:46] defining some of the development elements of them. [00:42:52] They appear exclusively on U.S. Highway 19 in the city, which I know that you [00:42:59] are all aware we have 3.2 miles of U.S. Highway 19 within the boundaries of the [00:43:07] city, in which we have 13 dealerships located. [00:43:14] Their treatment of development features vary from site to site. [00:43:21] Some have the presence of customer parking. [00:43:23] Some don't for customers or employees. [00:43:27] Some overcrowd their display areas. [00:43:31] Many of them do not have appropriate landscape standards in place. [00:43:40] And so 180 days ago, I presented myself to you and asked for a moratorium on the [00:43:47] issuance of building permits as it relates to new and used car dealerships. [00:43:52] The purpose of that was, first of all, to assess existing conditions. [00:43:57] Secondarily, to solicit input from the owners of businesses that would be impacted [00:44:06] by the ordinance. [00:44:08] And lastly, it was to establish standards. [00:44:11] In respect to the input solicited of the existing business community, two public [00:44:18] meetings were held. [00:44:20] In addition, the property owners received copies of a proposed ordinance and then [00:44:28] the ordinance, which is for consideration by you this evening. [00:44:35] And some changes were made along the way to reflect the preferences of the business owners. [00:44:42] One relating specifically to the height of landscape requirements. [00:44:48] A second, which I'm sure you will recall from first reading, was an opportunity for [00:44:55] deviation from strict adherence to the landscape. [00:45:00] standards by the city manager in the instance when an undue hardship is [00:45:05] presented to a property owner as a result of the ordinance standards. The [00:45:14] design standards are, as I indicated to you at your meeting on October 1st, [00:45:19] dealing principally with minimum size and display area, landscaping, screening, [00:45:28] inoperable vehicles, and it also called for a distancing requirement to be put [00:45:36] in place between car dealerships and that was a thousand feet. The last [00:45:45] part of the ordinance is that the property owners are provided one year to [00:45:52] come into compliance with the standards that are advanced in the ordinance. With [00:45:59] that being said, we are hopeful that you will approve the second reading of the [00:46:03] ordinance. Thank you. I'll let the record reflect that Councilman Davis has joined [00:46:09] us. At this time, I want to open up for public comment. Anyone wishing to address
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9.a
Approval of Agreements with Southern Road and Bridge RE: Stormwater Erosion Control and Culvert Replacements
discussedThis transcript segment appears to be misfiled — it contains attorney Booth speaking on behalf of his client Mr. Montana regarding a landscape buffer ordinance affecting used car lots on US 19, not the listed agenda item about Southern Road and Bridge stormwater agreements. Booth argued the ordinance unfairly singles out car lots and imposes significant cost burdens including required irrigation and loss of ~38% of usable property.
7510 Ridge Road in Port RicheyUS 19 and Luna VistaEdwards TexacoBoothMr. MontanaMs. Manns3.2 miles US 19 corridorUS 19 landscape buffer ordinance▶ Jump to 46:10 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:46:14] Council on this particular issue, please come on down. Mr. Booth, if you would give [00:46:20] us your name and address for the record, please. [00:46:23] Booth, 7510 Ridge Road in New Port Richey. I represent Mr. Montana and his partner [00:46:33] that own the property on US 19 and Luna Vista that has been used as a similar a [00:46:42] car lot, truck rental place, or whatever going back to the days of awards Texaco [00:46:47] back in the 70s. One of the things that that I have been puzzled about after I [00:46:57] was learned of this ordinance and drove up and down looking at the various areas [00:47:02] is that the same issues that apply the visual concerns that you obviously have [00:47:10] for the car lots are the same as or similar to a lot of the other properties [00:47:16] up and down 19. And I wasn't sure why this, just the car lots, were singled out. [00:47:22] For instance, there's a garage, there's restaurants that park right, have their [00:47:27] parking right up next to the right-of-way just like these used cars do, [00:47:33] used car dealerships do. And so it seems to me like I understand why you're [00:47:39] trying to address the issue, but I think where you are not addressing the entire [00:47:45] issue for all of US 19 for those 3.2 miles. The other thing that is [00:47:52] significant, in my opinion, is that what you are requiring my client to do as far [00:48:01] as the buffers are concerned, it is very, very significant because you can't [00:48:09] put in landscape buffer and a landscape island like are called for in there [00:48:15] without putting in irrigation, otherwise it's pointless. So in my client's [00:48:21] instance, he would have to have about 8,400 square feet of landscaped [00:48:30] perimeter. All of the asphalt that is there that is adjacent or on that area [00:48:37] that the buffer would go in would have to come out and then you would have to [00:48:42] also put in irrigation. Now the ordinance does not mention irrigation in any [00:48:47] fashion, but can you imagine the expense that an existing business that has been [00:48:53] there for all these years would have to go to go to to put in the irrigation as [00:48:59] well as the landscaping. And when you add the islands in, then that landscaping, I [00:49:06] mean that irrigation system, has to extend to those 20 by 20 islands that [00:49:13] are every so often. That 8,400 square feet, counting the islands and the [00:49:22] perimeter buffers, is approximately 38% of my client's property that would no [00:49:29] longer be available for the for the inventory to be put in there. That [00:49:36] doesn't take into account, which I wasn't smart enough to calculate it, that with [00:49:42] each individual car and truck having a certain square footage that would have [00:49:49] to be allocated for those vehicles. I haven't calculated that in to know how [00:49:55] much more that's going to restrict the amount of vehicles that can be can be [00:50:03] placed on the subject property. I understand that there is a provision in [00:50:11] the ordinance that Ms. Manns pointed out that there would be some discretion with [00:50:17] the city manager to relax some of the requirements, but when you read that, the [00:50:23] requirements are only relaxed if you can't put the buffer in, which after [00:50:29] you've torn out the concrete and or asphalt that's already there, you [00:50:34] put the landscape area in there. If she determines or any city manager
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9.b
Consideration of Disposal of Surplus Property for Auction
Transcript excerpt does not match the stated agenda item (surplus property auction); instead it captures an attorney representing a client (auto dealer) arguing against a landscaping/perimeter ordinance, citing hardship, expense, and percolation/drainage concerns if grassed inventory areas had to be asphalted, and requesting the matter be continued for further compromise.
▶ Jump to 50:36 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:50:42] determines that it's an undue hardship, the only thing the ordinance allows is [00:50:47] that you put the landscaping off the perimeter and in the interior. So in [00:50:52] effect, you're still, you still are utilizing that much space for the [00:51:00] landscaping. It doesn't say that the landscaping can be eliminated in the [00:51:04] city manager's discretion, and so I think that overall when you recognize [00:51:11] that this is a very significant issue in terms of expense to these existing [00:51:18] businesses, and it seems like they're being singled out, that's the way they [00:51:24] feel anyway, that they're being singled out. And for those reasons, and there's [00:51:30] some other minor things that that I personally would have brought forward at [00:51:36] some of these other meetings, but I wasn't involved until just a few days [00:51:41] ago, but I think if this were continued that perhaps some of these issues could [00:51:47] be addressed, and I'd be glad to sit down and just offer my input to see if [00:51:52] we could reach somewhat more of a compromise. The other thing is that part [00:51:59] of my client's dealer's inventory is on a grassed-in area, and if you had to have [00:52:08] it asphalted, then that's the percolation issue, you'd have to probably have [00:52:14] drainage issues that would be addressed. It's just creating a very, very
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9.c
Three Minute Report: Parks and Recreation
discussedDuring public comment on a landscaping/dealership ordinance, dealership owners Mr. Booth and Robert Calo raised concerns that the ordinance unfairly targets used/new car dealerships and imposes significant expense, and Calo asked whether the policy could apply only to dealerships with direct frontage on US 19. Staff responded that irrigation is already required under the city's landscape ordinance and defended the regulation as appropriate stewardship for prominent commercial corridor businesses.
52 Unaloueta Vista DriveUS 19Mr. BoothMr. RobinoliRobert CaloCity of New Port Richey landscape ordinancedealership landscaping ordinancehighway commercial zoning▶ Jump to 52:18 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:52:20] significant expense that I think is going to put some of these people out of [00:52:25] business, and I just think that's unfortunate. I don't think that was the [00:52:29] intent of the ordinance. I'm sure it wasn't, but I think there are some things [00:52:33] that could be done to address this in a better fashion. Thank you, Mr. Booth. [00:52:37] Anyone else? [00:52:45] I'm Robert Calo. I have the dealership on 52 Unaloueta Vista Drive, and I was here [00:52:51] with the last City Council meeting, and we talked about my property not being [00:52:56] have frontage on US 19. It is zone highway commercial, but it's on a side [00:53:01] street. I had tried to talk with the Planning Development Director and was [00:53:06] unable to get a hold of the gentleman, trying to find out if there's any way [00:53:10] that the way this is worded that we could have it not apply to businesses [00:53:15] that are not frontage on US 19, such as mine. Many dealerships are in the city [00:53:20] that are not on highway commercial, they're zone commercial, and they're not [00:53:24] conforming to this policy. Can a policy be written in a manner that it only [00:53:28] applies to dealerships that have direct frontage on highway US 19? Thank you. [00:53:35] Anyone else? Seeing no one else coming forward, bring it back to Council. [00:53:45] I could address the comments advanced by Mr. Booth and Mr. Calo, and I'd be glad to do so. [00:53:53] The issue related to irrigation. Irrigation is required for all [00:54:01] landscaping. It is not specifically stated in this ordinance, but it is [00:54:06] stated in the landscape ordinance of the City of New Port Richey. So I hope that [00:54:15] that clears up any misconception that the buffers would not be appropriately [00:54:20] watered. The argument that Mr. Booth presents in regard to the fact that it [00:54:31] feels like used and new car dealerships are being targeted somewhat is just [00:54:41] untrue. They are, though, very prominently located along the commercial corridor in [00:54:52] the city, and as such, they have a responsibility to present themselves in [00:55:00] an appropriate, or to an appropriate degree of stewardship, and that just [00:55:04] isn't the case. There hasn't been reinvestment in many of these lots for [00:55:10] decades. The time has come for that to be the case. And the reason [00:55:19] that they're first, and I'm going to say because it's not uncommon for us to have [00:55:25] landscape standards attached to any development, is related to the fact that [00:55:32] their business is much different. They have display. They're drawing attention [00:55:38] to the aesthetics. They have customers. They actually have to provide for [00:55:42] customer parking and employee parking. They can't hang out into the public [00:55:48] right-of-way as if they own it. And those are in large part some of the [00:55:55] reasons that we are forced to regulate, and why we're using an ordinance as a [00:56:04] tool to do so. In respect to Mr. Cato, I apologize that Mr. Robinoli wasn't able
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 10Communications▶ 56:09
- 11Adjournment▶ 1:42:27
- 5
Approval of October 1, 2019 Regular Meeting Minutes
Approval of minutes from the October 1, 2019 regular meeting.