On the agenda

1. 1Call to Order – Roll Call▶ 0:00
2. 2

   Pledge of Allegiance

   The Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance and held a moment of silence in honor of Ed White, a U.S. Navy petty officer and longtime commander of Paradise Post 79 of the American Legion, who recently passed away.

   🏢Paradise Post 79 of the American Legion👤Ed White

   ▶ Jump to 0:21 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:21] Thank you. [00:00:22] I'm going to ask you all to rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. [00:00:23] Remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of Ed White, who was a petty officer [00:00:26] U.S. Navy and served for many years as the commander of Paradise Post, 79 of the American [00:00:32] Legion. [00:00:33] He recently passed away. [00:00:35] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for

   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. 3

   Moment of Silence

   A moment of silence was held in honor of Ed White, a U.S. Navy petty officer and longtime commander of Paradise Post 79 of the American Legion, who recently passed away. The Pledge of Allegiance followed.

   🏢Paradise Post 79 of the American Legion👤Ed White

   ▶ Jump to 0:23 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:23] Remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of Ed White, who was a petty officer [00:00:26] U.S. Navy and served for many years as the commander of Paradise Post, 79 of the American [00:00:32] Legion. [00:00:33] He recently passed away. [00:00:35] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for [00:00:42] which it stands, one nation, under God, 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.

4. 4

   Approval of November 17, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approved the minutes from the November 17, 2020 regular meeting.

   • motion:Approve the November 17, 2020 regular meeting minutes. (passed)

   #November 17, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes

   ▶ Jump to 0:58 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:58] Didn't they already have something for him at the post? [00:00:59] Yeah. [00:01:00] They had a memorial service for him Saturday. [00:01:01] The next item on the agenda is the approval of the November 17th regular meeting minutes. [00:01:13] Move for approval. [00:01:14] Second. [00:01:15] Discussion? [00:01:16] Hearing none. [00:01:17] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:01:21] Aye. [00:01:22] Opposed? [00:01:23] Like sign. [00:01:24] 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.

5. 5Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 1:26
6. 6.b

   Police Pension Board Minutes - October 2020

   on consent

   Receipt of the Police Pension Board minutes from October 2020 as part of the consent agenda. The transcript fragment provided does not contain substantive discussion of this item.

   #Police Pension Board Minutes - October 2020

   ▶ Jump to 8:40 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:08:41] This is ordinance number 2020-2215, ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, providing

   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. 6.c

   Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

   on consent

   Agenda item for Council approval of purchases/payments. The transcript excerpt provided does not contain substantive discussion of this item; the captured audio appears to reference a separate moratorium ordinance.

   #Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

   ▶ Jump to 8:42 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:08:46] for a 180-day moratorium on the permitting, construction, or installation of multifamily [00:08:50] residential buildings having more than four dwelling units within the city, providing

   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. 7.a

   First Reading, Ordinance No. 2020-2215: Moratorium on Multi-Family Residential Buildings

   approved

   Council held first reading of Ordinance 2020-2215, establishing a 180-day moratorium on building permits for residential dwelling units exceeding four units, to allow staff time to develop design and construction standards for multifamily projects. The moratorium would not affect projects already under construction, including a townhouse project at Central and Madison. The motion passed unanimously on first reading.

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2020-2215

   • motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance 2020-2215 establishing a 180-day moratorium on building permits for residential dwellings exceeding four units. (passed)

   📍6041 Florida Avenue📍Post Office Box 1415 Newport Richey📍corner of Central and Madison📍corner of Main and 19🏢Arbor Valley Communities🏢Bay Area Apartment Association👤Councilman Murphy👤Councilman Peters👤George Romanioli👤Jimmy Chestnut👤John Cain👤Mr. Altman👤Mr. Rudd👤Ms. Mabs#Burt Harris Act#Community Redevelopment Agency#Ordinance 2020-2215#Regional Planning Council#US-19 redevelopment#old hospital site

   ▶ Jump to 8:53 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:08:55] for enforcement, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. [00:08:59] Ms. Mabs. [00:09:00] Certainly, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. [00:09:04] As the city attorney indicated, the purpose of this agenda item is to establish a moratorium. [00:09:10] The moratorium would relate to the issuance of building permits for residential dwelling [00:09:17] units exceeding four units in size. [00:09:22] It would not relate to any residential dwelling unit projects currently under construction [00:09:30] and being initiated in multiple phases. [00:09:34] The reason that we are requesting 180 days is to study the matter related to design elements [00:09:45] and construction standards so that the city can put in place a set of design and construction [00:09:56] standards, the purpose of which would be to protect the value of our existing neighborhoods [00:10:02] and to ensure that future developments are a complement to existing neighborhoods. [00:10:09] We do believe that we could achieve the draft document in less than 180 days, and we'd like [00:10:19] to be able to bring it back to you in less time, but we wanted to err on the side of [00:10:24] caution and provide ourselves with an ample amount of time to study this very important [00:10:30] issue. [00:10:31] Thank you. [00:10:32] I did get one comment from a Jimmy Chestnut, who is the president of the Bay Area Apartment [00:10:39] Association. [00:10:40] I think each of you also got copies. [00:10:42] I replied to him essentially what Ms. Mance just said, which is we're going to try to [00:10:46] get this done a lot faster. [00:10:52] We've got some projects I think you're going to be interested in looking at New Port Richey [00:10:56] here in the not too distant future, and we want to be ready for them. [00:10:59] Any comments from the public? [00:11:07] John Cain, 6041 Florida Avenue. [00:11:11] Would this affect the project that's on the corner of Central and Madison where there's [00:11:18] a big sign that says that there's a town home coming soon? [00:11:28] I would like to know one way or the other. [00:11:30] I think it's good to go slow. [00:11:34] Come up here and I sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. [00:11:37] I was just up here telling you how I want the environmental committee to come in and [00:11:41] how we're going fast, but now I'm kind of reluctant to punish. [00:11:46] While the momentum is going, if it's four units and if they qualify for what we have [00:11:54] going on in our city, meaning lot size set back and all that, I don't know if I want [00:12:03] to set them back 180 days. [00:12:06] I think I might like that. [00:12:08] As much as I like greenery, and I've always kind of liked years ago that lot that I'm [00:12:15] discussing, I have to tell you that lot's become nothing but troublesome anyway, so [00:12:20] to see it go is going to be bittersweet for me, but it makes perfect sense if there is [00:12:25] a nice town home, something presentable there that's put there. [00:12:32] So I guess I had a question and a comment with that. [00:12:35] Mr. Mayor, if you'll allow me to respond. [00:12:38] This moratorium would not impact the construction schedule related to the townhouse project [00:12:44] proposed for Central and Madison. [00:12:50] That's the good part, but it's still something to consider, I guess. [00:12:53] Thank you. [00:12:54] Anyone else? [00:12:55] Hello, George Romanioli, Post Office Box 1415 New Port Richey. [00:13:07] Good to be in front of you all again, and Councilman Peters, congratulations on your [00:13:12] selection. [00:13:14] I'm here less as a resident of New Port Richey and more as an apartment developer. [00:13:20] I'm a regional director of development for Arbor Valley Communities, which is an apartment [00:13:27] developer throughout the southeast. [00:13:28] In fact, I invite you to visit our beautiful apartments in Dade City and Zephyr Hills that [00:13:33] we have. [00:13:34] I applaud the decision to look at the land development code. [00:13:37] It's right to look at every major zoning classification individually, and I hope after you look at [00:13:42] the multifamily ones, you look at residential and commercial. [00:13:46] There needs to be standards, and these standards also need to have some less rigidity. [00:13:52] Sometimes I found the land development code was like a straitjacket, settling creativity [00:13:58] and facing possible required special exceptions, variances, and rezonings. [00:14:04] So that was a problem in the land development code throughout. [00:14:07] I currently have contracts pending in the city and just outside of the city, which we [00:14:13] would like to have eventually annexed into the city. [00:14:16] The six-month moratorium does not bother me, because it takes at least a year for plans, [00:14:22] approval, and financing to be in place. [00:14:25] What does concern me are the things that could affect the unit count, density, floor-to-air [00:14:31] ratios, setbacks, parking regulations. [00:14:34] We need to be careful when we change those things, particularly in light of the Burt [00:14:38] Harris Act that we have in this state. [00:14:40] We do need design standards. [00:14:43] That's absolutely true. [00:14:44] It's something the city manager and I discussed many, many times for the new buildings going [00:14:48] in the city. [00:14:49] I hope we look at both inside and outside for those standards that you all create, and [00:14:56] I'm happy to assist in that process however I can. [00:14:59] Thank you. [00:15:00] Thank you very much. [00:15:01] Anyone else? [00:15:04] Seeing no one else coming forward, [00:15:06] I'll bring this item back to council. [00:15:10] Move for approval. [00:15:13] We have a motion. [00:15:13] Second. [00:15:14] And a second to the maker. [00:15:15] I just think if it's came to this point [00:15:18] where it's come in front of us that there must be things [00:15:20] that the staff has already looked at [00:15:21] and wants to take a closer look at. [00:15:24] So I have no problem with this at all. [00:15:27] Thank you. [00:15:28] To the second. [00:15:29] Yeah, I don't feel like 90 or 180 days [00:15:32] is going to be the worst thing in the world [00:15:34] for a building that potentially could be there for 100 years. [00:15:37] So I mean, once we get it, we're stuck with it. [00:15:40] So I'd rather see what we can do ahead of time [00:15:43] to make sure it's right fit for the community. [00:15:47] Mr. Altman? [00:15:48] Yeah, I think a couple of things. [00:15:50] It was commented that we maybe do it faster, [00:15:52] but the document in front of me says it's 180 days. [00:15:55] So I think that I don't know whether it's possible [00:15:59] to reflect within the document an up to 100 days [00:16:03] or no more than 180 days. [00:16:09] As I count the days till the next election [00:16:12] with potentially new council members, [00:16:14] it's about a little over 120 days. [00:16:17] So if you want to do this with the folks of us [00:16:19] that are sitting up here and bring back [00:16:21] some kind of resolution within a timely period [00:16:24] for us to vote on it, if we choose to still participate [00:16:27] in the election and get fortunate enough to be elected, [00:16:32] it seems that the termination of this time [00:16:36] could see new members up here [00:16:38] who haven't followed the process as closely [00:16:40] as those of us that are here. [00:16:41] So I'd like maybe some response to that. [00:16:46] Secondly, with respect to the arguments behind it [00:16:52] and the issue itself, [00:16:55] as someone who represents the city [00:16:59] or is your delegated member [00:17:00] of the Regional Planning Council, [00:17:03] it's critical to me that new development [00:17:07] meet resiliency standards that are outlined by the state [00:17:12] in terms of the peril of flood, et cetera. [00:17:14] So a good number of the properties [00:17:16] that remain undeveloped in the city [00:17:17] are probably a little lower. [00:17:20] I would suspect that's an element [00:17:22] of what you're going to be looking at. [00:17:25] The importance of us to build something, [00:17:28] as Councilman Murphy said, [00:17:29] may be around for 100 years [00:17:30] is to make sure that it will be dry for 100 years. [00:17:34] And also with respect to standards [00:17:38] related to environmental impact, [00:17:41] those sorts of things that we have [00:17:42] on our sensitive coastal areas. [00:17:45] So perhaps there's an answer to the 180 days. [00:17:50] It doesn't look that it has any wiggle room. [00:17:53] There's one third comment to make, [00:17:56] and I'd like to get some response, [00:17:58] which is that some of the development [00:18:01] that may be contemplated is also waiting [00:18:03] and are looking for the results of our planning exercise, [00:18:08] which I think is going to take us a little while as well. [00:18:11] But when it comes to, [00:18:14] there's been discussions up here by my colleagues [00:18:16] to talk about looking at what is the downtown area, [00:18:20] what are the densities in different areas. [00:18:22] We've had a lot of discussion about increased densities [00:18:25] west of the bridge and historic properties [00:18:29] this side of the bridge. [00:18:30] So I'm guessing that what we're going to hear [00:18:34] will incorporate works in progress during this time [00:18:39] to try to sort these issues out [00:18:40] so that when we get to the end of this period, [00:18:43] whether it's 180 days or 120, [00:18:45] that we've contemplated some of the other issues [00:18:47] that will hold back development. [00:18:50] So, you know, to tell someone who's interested in a, [00:18:53] for example, the study that's going on right now [00:18:56] in the corner of Main and 19, [00:18:58] it's been contemplated in what we've seen so far [00:19:02] as having some multifamily element to it. [00:19:06] A few months down the road, [00:19:09] obviously nothing's going to be built within this timeframe, [00:19:12] but the process of working with developers [00:19:18] along this process, [00:19:19] rather than telling everybody wait till we finish [00:19:22] and then come talk to us, [00:19:24] I think follows up with Mr. Kane's comment [00:19:27] about some momentum. [00:19:29] So a little bit of concern about the momentum, [00:19:32] but agreement that nothing happens overnight [00:19:35] and hoping that this moratorium [00:19:38] can resolve a number of the issues [00:19:41] that we've been waiting for a couple of years to attack, [00:19:44] whether it's the density in our downtown, [00:19:47] the overall goals for the city, those sorts of things. [00:19:50] So I'll support the motion, [00:19:54] but I would like to know what happens [00:19:56] if it gets done quicker [00:19:58] and whether or not we should incorporate that [00:20:00] into the document. [00:20:03] Mr. Almond, it is actually in there in section four. [00:20:07] This moratorium shall remain in effect for 180 days [00:20:10] from the effective date [00:20:11] or until such time as repealed by the city council, [00:20:14] whichever occurs first. [00:20:16] So I think- [00:20:18] To repeal it? [00:20:19] Can we do that by vote [00:20:20] or is that going to be a multiple meeting? [00:20:23] No, we could just- [00:20:24] So any ordinance that we bring before you [00:20:26] to adopt these new changes [00:20:29] will have a repealer provision in it [00:20:31] if the 180 days has not expired. [00:20:34] Which will only require one action? [00:20:36] No, it'll require two. [00:20:37] Whatever that ordinance is will require two, [00:20:40] but the effective date of that new ordinance [00:20:42] will automatically repeal the moratorium simultaneously. [00:20:48] So it could take a month to do it or two meetings? [00:20:52] Well, any new ordinance will take the two readings. [00:20:55] So that's built into the 180 days. [00:20:57] That's contemplated within that. [00:20:59] As will the repeal? [00:21:01] Correct. [00:21:04] And that's the best or only way to do that? [00:21:07] Correct. [00:21:08] Nothing can be stated in it that allows a repeal [00:21:11] of the date timeframe or conditions the date. [00:21:14] It has to be a set number of- [00:21:17] No, because it's an ordinance. [00:21:19] So you want to be able to have the two readings [00:21:22] for a repeal. [00:21:23] But as I said, you're going to be presented [00:21:25] with a new ordinance that's going to provide new standards. [00:21:28] And in that ordinance, it's going to automatically, [00:21:30] as soon as that ordinance becomes effective, [00:21:32] this one becomes ineffective. [00:21:33] Thank you. [00:21:34] So that explains it. [00:21:36] Councilman Peterson. [00:21:38] So yes, I think George made some great points [00:21:41] about getting things right. [00:21:43] We've seen, there's all kinds of examples [00:21:48] along US-19 and other parts of the city [00:21:50] where it was developed not necessarily the way [00:21:56] we would have liked to have seen it developed. [00:21:58] And it's always more costly and more difficult [00:22:01] to go in and redevelop and change those things. [00:22:03] So I think it makes sense to take pause [00:22:06] and make sure we do things the best we can going forward [00:22:09] so we're not faced with that. [00:22:11] So I'd be in support of the motion. [00:22:13] We got the same letter that you did, Mayor, [00:22:17] regarding suggesting we may go ahead [00:22:20] and without a moratorium and work on this [00:22:25] and then they could make adjustments to plans [00:22:28] according to the ordinance. [00:22:29] But I'm thinking that if there's a developer [00:22:33] that's interested that they could go ahead [00:22:35] and start their plans basically [00:22:38] and knowing that we've got it underway to review [00:22:41] and they can choose to see how far [00:22:42] they want to go with their plans [00:22:44] if they want to speed things up. [00:22:48] Thank you. [00:22:50] And I agree with those comments exactly. [00:22:53] The thing that occurs to me, [00:22:58] we've got a few parcels that are, [00:23:01] for lack of a better term, ripe for redevelopment right now. [00:23:05] I can think of a couple of them along Main Street. [00:23:09] We've obviously got the old hospital site [00:23:12] which potentially could host [00:23:15] a fairly large apartment community. [00:23:20] There are any number of parcels along US 19 [00:23:26] that realistically, they're not being used [00:23:31] to their best right now. [00:23:34] And for lack of a better term, the buildings are tired [00:23:39] and there might be something said to somebody coming in [00:23:45] that wants to develop a nice residential property [00:23:50] or mixed use property coming in [00:23:51] and demolishing that old stuff [00:23:55] and basically doing a clean sheet redevelopment. [00:23:59] I think as part and parcel of this, [00:24:02] we also want to keep Mr. Rudd and his office [00:24:06] thinking in terms of what sort of financial incentives [00:24:10] the community redevelopment agency [00:24:12] might want to consider offering [00:24:15] for some of these redevelopment efforts as well. [00:24:18] And that's all going to take some time. [00:24:20] So I don't have a problem with the six months. [00:24:24] If we can wrap it up faster, that's great. [00:24:28] But I would very much like to see us do this right. [00:24:31] And I think this is a good step in the right direction. [00:24:35] Any further discussion? [00:24:38] Hearing none, all those in favor, [00:24:39] please signify by saying aye. [00:24:41] Aye. [00:24:42] Opposed, like sign. [00:24:43] Motion passes. [00:24:44] Next, first reading ordinance 2020-2193.

   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. 7.b

   First Reading, Ordinance No. 2020-2193: Outdoor Display Ordinance (C1, C2 and Highway Commercial)

   approved

   Council held first reading of Ordinance No. 2020-2193, an outdoor display ordinance regulating displays in C1, C2, and Highway Commercial zoning districts (downtown to be addressed separately). Staff presented standards including size limits (15% of floor area, 4 ft height, etc.), exemptions for vehicle/boat dealers, nurseries, vending, and propane. Council directed staff to add language allowing limited promotional/special-event displays (similar to yard sale exceptions) and to verify impact on businesses like Cracker Barrel before second reading. Motion to approve on first reading passed.

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2020-2193

   • motion:Motion to approve Ordinance No. 2020-2193 on first reading, with staff to bring back revised language for second reading allowing limited promotional/special-event displays and review of impact on businesses like Cracker Barrel. (passed)

   🏢Coastal Rental🏢Cracker Barrel🏢Land Development Review Board🏢Pottery Barn🏢St. Petersburg College🏢Wade-Trim Associates👤Brad Cornelius👤Councilman Altman👤Debbie Manns👤Judy👤Lisa Shippey-Gonzalez👤Mr. Murphy👤Mr. Peters👤Nathan#C1 Light General Commercial#C2 General Commercial#HC Highway Commercial#Land Development Review Board#Ordinance No. 2020-2193#Section 7.22.00 of Chapter 7, Land Development Code#Subsection 7.22.05

   ▶ Jump to 24:45 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:24:49] This is ordinance number 2020-2193, [00:24:51] an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida [00:24:53] amending section 7.22.00 of chapter seven [00:24:57] of the Land Development Code [00:24:58] pertaining to general district regulations [00:25:00] by adding subsection 7.22.05 thereto, [00:25:04] providing for outdoor display areas [00:25:06] in the C1 light general commercial, [00:25:08] C2 general commercial, [00:25:10] and HC highway commercial zoning districts, [00:25:12] providing for standards for such displays, [00:25:15] providing for temporary seasonal displays, [00:25:17] providing for exemptions, [00:25:18] providing for definitions of terms, [00:25:20] providing for severability, providing for codification, [00:25:23] and providing an effective date. [00:25:25] Thank you. [00:25:26] Mrs. Manns. [00:25:28] City staff has been working [00:25:29] with the Land Development Review Board [00:25:32] for several months on the important topic [00:25:35] of an outdoor display ordinance. [00:25:38] In November, this draft was approved by them, [00:25:43] and it is now being forwarded to you [00:25:46] for your consideration. [00:25:49] And thank you very much, Nathan. [00:25:53] As indicated by the city attorney, [00:25:55] it applies to three zoning classifications in the city, [00:26:00] the highway commercial zoning classification, [00:26:03] the C1 and the C2 zoning classification. [00:26:09] The purpose of the discussion [00:26:11] of the outdoor display ordinance [00:26:14] is in large part to allow commercial retailers [00:26:18] who rely on it as a method of promotion [00:26:22] and a method to communicate with their consumers [00:26:26] by displaying a sample of their products [00:26:31] to minimize any potential adverse impacts [00:26:34] that might occur on the part of their property [00:26:38] or adjoining property or public rights of way. [00:26:43] The question commonly is [00:26:48] why should the city regulate outdoor display? [00:26:52] Quite obviously, some of the reasons [00:26:56] are that unregulated outdoor display [00:26:59] can play a role in the deterioration [00:27:02] and decay of a business district. [00:27:05] Additionally, that it can serve as a deterrent [00:27:09] to positive economic development investment. [00:27:12] Regulations have been determined to be an effective means [00:27:17] to achieve appropriate standards [00:27:19] for both the location and design [00:27:21] of outdoor display areas and outdoor ordinances [00:27:26] are the only tool that a city really has [00:27:29] to fight the fight of reversing unfavorable conditions [00:27:34] and abating blight. [00:27:35] What I'd like to show you next [00:27:38] are some conditions that exist in the city [00:27:42] that are just examples of excesses [00:27:47] that exist in respect to outdoor display. [00:27:53] This particular retailer frequently [00:27:57] not only lines the front of the building [00:28:02] with hospital equipment, [00:28:06] they also typically occupy some of their parking spaces [00:28:12] on US Highway 19 with hospital beds, [00:28:15] with mannequins in them and other such things [00:28:20] that don't necessarily lend great credibility [00:28:23] to our business community. [00:28:25] Next, Nathan. [00:28:27] This is another example of outdoor display, [00:28:29] kind of kitschy in nature, [00:28:32] but again, stacked very high [00:28:37] and could be considered by some to be an eyesore. [00:28:45] Another example of outdoor display [00:28:49] at a local pawn shop [00:28:53] that I thought that you should take a look at [00:28:56] in your deliberation of this very important matter [00:29:02] the Land Development Review Board [00:29:05] has proposed an ordinance which has three components to it. [00:29:10] The first component in large part [00:29:14] advances both a purpose and a definition. [00:29:18] And the purpose of the ordinance, as I indicated earlier, [00:29:23] is really just to provide for an appropriate location [00:29:27] for outdoor displays. [00:29:30] And the definition sets forth a definition [00:29:35] for what an outdoor display ordinance is [00:29:37] and what a business is. [00:29:40] And typically that's just a single enterprise. [00:29:45] The next section, which is currently displayed for you [00:29:50] provides the criteria by which displays are permitted. [00:29:55] And principally an outdoor display is. [00:30:00] permitted only as an accessory use to a permitted principal use. Merchandise on display shall [00:30:08] be wholly located along a single facade wall. The merchandise on display shall be sold or [00:30:18] rented by the business, which is the principal use of the parcel. No outdoor display area [00:30:27] shall be rented or utilized by any business or person other than the principal business [00:30:34] use. All merchandise within an outdoor display ordinance shall only remain during the hours [00:30:45] of operation of the business that is the principal use. We have restricted the outdoor display [00:30:56] ordinance, I'm sorry, the outdoor display area to 15% of the total floor area of the [00:31:03] business that is the principal use. The outdoor display area shall extend no more than one [00:31:10] third of the length of the facade of the building and shall not extend any more than five feet [00:31:19] in depth. The outdoor display area shall not block sidewalks or parking areas or impede pedestrian [00:31:27] or vehicular circulation. Also, you can't place display in designated fire lanes, emergency [00:31:38] exits, loading or unloading zones, or public rights-of-way. To continue, the outdoor display [00:31:48] area can't rely on open space, parking space, public sidewalks, landscape areas, or buffers, [00:31:58] cannot be located within five feet of a building entrance, and cannot be located within five [00:32:05] feet of any fire department connection. The merchandise located within an outdoor display [00:32:13] area shall not exceed four feet in height above the surface upon which items are located. [00:32:22] Outdoor display areas in general shall be kept free of garbage and debris. No business [00:32:27] shall have more than two outdoor display areas. We have allowed for the short-term sale of [00:32:35] agricultural products that are seasonal in nature and we have not permitted for the acceptance [00:32:48] of payments for goods or services within an outdoor display area. We do not permit outdoor [00:32:55] display areas located on rooftops or balconies. We do not permit appliances to be located [00:33:03] within an outdoor display area. We require outdoor display areas to be located on a hard [00:33:10] and durable surface, and storage racks are allowed on outdoor display areas unless the [00:33:23] same are displaying merchandise, unless they aren't displaying merchandise on less than [00:33:29] 80% of the rack. And those are the conditions upon which the Land Development Review Board [00:33:39] thought it was appropriate to regulate the outdoor storage of displays. The third element [00:33:52] of the ordinance is an exemption, and the exemption relates to motor vehicles, golf [00:34:01] carts, vessels, and large construction equipment. It also, and that relates specifically to [00:34:10] those that are involved in dealerships for those types of vehicles or equipment. It also [00:34:21] permits the sales of plants and trees by businesses engaged in the sale, like a nursery, for instance. [00:34:33] And lastly, it permits vending machines and propane gas displays. With that, I'm prepared [00:34:45] and we have Brad Cornelius of Wade-Trimmon Associates who has assisted me in the draft [00:34:51] of this document. I'm prepared to respond to any questions that you may have of us in [00:34:58] regard to this draft document. [00:34:59] Thank you very much, and we'll open up for public comment. Judy, do we have a comment [00:35:05] that you're going to read on this one? [00:35:08] Yes, I did. Excuse me. Yes, I did receive a comment from Lisa Shippey-Gonzalez. She's [00:35:14] a student in the Public Policy Administration program at St. Petersburg College, and she [00:35:20] said that she commends your consideration of the ordinance for outdoor displays recommended [00:35:26] by the Land Development Review Board. The aesthetics of the city are especially important [00:35:30] to tourists and residents. I would like to recommend the Council to consider the formation [00:35:35] of a separate committee to address outdoor display regulations. The commercial outdoor [00:35:41] display can be particularly important to the success of small businesses. A committee [00:35:46] would provide inclusion of business owners, residents, and various stakeholders, allowing [00:35:52] for not only universal buy-in, but avid support. The collaborative efforts could help to provide [00:36:00] marketing and uniformity in decoration and cross-promotion. The adoption of themes, acceptance [00:36:06] of arts, and promotion of beautification can benefit property owners and constituents [00:36:11] alike. The City of New Port Richey has worked extremely hard to attract proud business owners [00:36:16] and residents. The most successful way to keep them is to include them in planning. [00:36:21] The success of many downtown areas is supported by committees such as these to adopt and enhance [00:36:27] the beauty of the properties. These committees serve not as regulation boards, but provide [00:36:33] the community with recommended regulations for the Council to consider, support, and [00:36:38] approve or decline. These also serve as sounding boards for people to address new ideas and [00:36:44] become informed of things happening in other small towns. This can be a voluntary committee [00:36:49] and cost to the City minimum administrative time to record. I appreciate your time and [00:36:54] thank you for your consideration. [00:36:56] Thank you. Anyone in the attendance wish to address Council on this issue? Seeing no [00:37:04] one come forward, I'll bring it back to Council. I had one question before we entertain a motion. [00:37:12] What was the logic in having the equipment in the down and locked position? I'm specifically [00:37:19] thinking of Coastal Rental, which does some really, rents some unusual items. And I quite [00:37:29] frankly wouldn't know what they were if they weren't in the extended position. They've [00:37:33] got lifts, scissor lifts, and stuff like that. It's just an aesthetic. So if it's something [00:37:39] you don't like, that certainly can be removed. But that's just an aesthetic issue of having [00:37:44] those things all the way up in the air above the building and all that. So it's up to you [00:37:48] obviously as to whether or not you find that to be necessary to regulate that. I'm not [00:37:54] sure I'm too excited about it one way or the other. I do know when it came time for me [00:37:58] to re-glaze the second floor windows at my house, I knew exactly where I needed to go [00:38:04] because I'd seen the silly lifts way up in the air. Any other comments or I'll entertain [00:38:11] a motion? I'll make a motion to approve for the purpose of the discussion. Okay, we have [00:38:17] a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Very good. To the maker? Just from reading [00:38:23] the outdoor display number one purpose, the purpose is identified to provide for the design [00:38:33] and location of the displays and mitigate the adverse impacts of adjacent properties. [00:38:39] And so that's outdoor displays purpose. But when you get to the standards, the third [00:38:47] standard is outdoor display area standards and it says they shall be permitted in the [00:38:52] highway commercial C1 light general commercial and C2 general commercial zoning district. [00:38:58] So my question really goes also partly to the letter that was talking about the downtown [00:39:03] area. So if this is saying outdoor displays are allowed and then it says they're allowed [00:39:08] in those places, then what are we going to do for that energy we want to create with [00:39:14] the artist and the downtown and perhaps even the sale of items to attract people to the [00:39:19] city? Thank you. Interesting question. Ms. Mans? If you'd allow me to respond to Councilman [00:39:28] Altman's question, I should have introduced this more fully to begin. As we worked with [00:39:35] the Land Development and Review Board on this matter, originally we had introduced [00:39:41] an ordinance that would have included the downtown district. What we determined as we [00:39:49] moved along in our drafts was that downtown really was a different animal than some of [00:39:58] the other zoning districts of the city and deserved to be treated differently than what [00:40:06] would exist in the commercial areas of the city. And so we are going to draft an ordinance [00:40:16] independent for the downtown area. And we have a draft document now. The Land Development [00:40:25] and Review Board, I expect, will view it in conjunction with their December meeting schedule. [00:40:34] So you should see it very soon into the new year. So really the question is one of the [00:40:46] sort of definitional question. If we've identified them and said this is where they're allowed, [00:40:51] by omission it sounds as if the others aren't allowed. So is there any additional language [00:40:56] we should put into number one, which also quantifies that this ordinance applies, that [00:41:01] is allowed in those areas covered by this ordinance or something like that, so that [00:41:06] it doesn't seem to just override everything and say this is what our outdoor displays [00:41:11] are if somebody reads it? Well, it really doesn't prohibit displays in other areas that [00:41:17] would be allowed to display commercial products. What this does is it sets up those areas where [00:41:25] in these particular zoning districts, these are the only types of displays you'll be able [00:41:29] to have. And then when the downtown ordinance is enacted, that will cover that area as well. [00:41:37] So it doesn't prohibit anything in the downtown currently. [00:41:42] Second? [00:41:45] First of all, I can imagine the Land Development Reboard, I'd first like to thank them. I know [00:41:53] some of the people on that board and some of them are businessmen in the community, [00:41:56] so they're reviewing their own businesses as well as they're giving us a hand trying [00:42:00] to move ahead. And I just think that some of these displays are more comical than actually [00:42:12] an advertisement tool that I would use. So that's the reason that I'm in favor of this. [00:42:17] And again, thank the review board. [00:42:20] Mr. Peters? [00:42:22] So I appreciate the explanation about the downtown, because I think that a pedestrian [00:42:30] area, which I can kind of consider the downtown core area to be more pedestrian, the type [00:42:35] of displays that one would expect or would be beneficial in a pedestrian area is different [00:42:41] than that of the highway and driving by the C1. So that makes a lot of sense to me. [00:42:50] It's just, you know, the way the ordinance is written, and I'm going through my mind, [00:42:56] going, well, all right, is there even going to be any displays? So, and it's going to limit it, [00:43:02] I know that's the purpose of that, and I think it makes sense to get things cleaned up. So the [00:43:09] only question I would have is, does it make sense to have, or does, I don't think the ordinance [00:43:16] provides for, if a business wanted to have a particular promotion that might be allowed [00:43:22] a weekend or a week out of the year, and limited to how they might have a promotional item where [00:43:31] they could maybe display their wares on that one special promotional day or week. You know, [00:43:38] if it, as a question I have in my mind, if that makes any sense to have something like that worked [00:43:44] in the ordinance where they can make an application and get approved for this day or this weekend to [00:43:50] have a, some type of promotional, that would, a display that would be expanding outside that ordinance. [00:43:55] Annual sale type of thing? Yeah, something like that. I think that's a great idea. I wouldn't have a problem with that. [00:44:02] Mr. Murphy, comments? It would just need to be something that they'd have to apply for. Like an exception for a week? Or even like a, you know, I don't want to say an event, but, you know, something they're doing. Sort of like what we do for yard sales? [00:44:17] What is the yard sales? It's like, what, three, two times a year? Three times a year? Two times a year? [00:44:23] That would be easy enough to add. Yeah, let's add it for two times. Okay, and let's, then, who's got, who had the proposal? [00:44:32] I made the motion. Would you add, would you be able to add two times a year, no more than two days? [00:44:39] This is a two-reading ordinance, so I would say let's leave it and get the language right. Otherwise, if we try to add language on the fly here... [00:44:46] Oh, no, but this, okay, but this is the idea. We're trying to come back, guidance with us, come back with it on second reading. [00:44:51] Yeah, it sounds reasonable. I mean, certainly. I can bring back the changes you're talking about for second reading. [00:44:57] All right. Mr. Murphy? I'm fine with that. [00:45:00] Anything else? No. Mr. Allman? Yeah, just back to the, as an example, the Pottery Barn, [00:45:07] one example. I know when you walk by the Pottery Barn at Southgate Shopping Center, they would [00:45:12] have bins of, I don't know what's in them, but you know, apparently it attracts somebody [00:45:18] to stop, not pottery, maybe a little bit, but that is a bin that's rolled out and rolled [00:45:26] back in, and under this, it sounds like you could display them for the purpose of showing [00:45:33] what you have inside, but you're not going to sell it, where people are now pulling it [00:45:38] out of the bin and taking it inside, so I'm not sure the implications for some of the [00:45:44] existing things that we might see. Well, it seemed like to me, doesn't it allow a certain [00:45:48] amount of feet on their front frontage, isn't that, it controls them out, wouldn't be the [00:45:54] whole frontage of the Pottery Barn only 20 percent, something like 20 percent of that [00:45:59] would they be able to? Yeah, I guess unfortunately for me, I come from a family of lawyers, so [00:46:05] when I look at the definitions of what something is or what something can be done, it shall [00:46:10] be permitted as long as they're allowed only as the merchandise on display shall be wholly [00:46:17] located, I'm not going to read it outside, I just saw it a second ago, but in any case, [00:46:24] just brushing through this and looking at a few of the outdoor display areas that are [00:46:28] kind of commonly occurring, we're going to have a new, I guess a new shop also in that [00:46:36] plaza for the discount clothing store there that's going in at Southgate, the name is [00:46:45] escaping me, but the other provision, just to make sure I understand, and I know we just [00:46:51] talked about the hot dog stands recently and how we can't regulate them, but according [00:46:55] to this, nothing can be sold, no merchandise or sales can occur on that site that's not [00:47:03] related to the business, and so I don't, I'm going to just try to hold myself back, but [00:47:11] for example, I know there was just an overabundance of Trump paraphernalia on the corner of Ridge [00:47:18] and, I don't know, Embassy or something like that, those kinds of pop-up sales will not [00:47:26] be occurring in the city, as I understand it, if this is done in those kind of locations. [00:47:31] Yes, those would be banned. [00:47:35] A question I have, and it sort of ties off what Mr. Allman was talking about, how would [00:47:43] this affect Cracker Barrel? [00:47:47] Those are outdoor displays with their chairs and things that they have up front, so it [00:47:51] may affect them. [00:47:52] The rocking chairs and stuff like that. [00:48:00] I'm not sure those rocking chairs would take up 15, would account for more than 15 percent [00:48:05] of their square footage. [00:48:06] I don't know, I just want to, it's sort of a kitschy thing that that particular business [00:48:11] does, it's not obnoxious in any way, unlike some of the examples that this man showed [00:48:17] on the screen. [00:48:20] The social distancing, just kidding. [00:48:22] Well, I think that's kind of the problem, too, because some businesses do actually do [00:48:27] good displays, and it's tasteful, and it actually looks good, and others don't, but how do you [00:48:32] not make it the same for everybody? [00:48:36] I can look at that business, between the first reading and the second reading. [00:48:40] I don't think there would be a problem, but I'll report back to you. [00:48:46] I can't think of a Cracker Barrel I've ever been past anywhere in the country that hasn't [00:48:51] had that sort of outdoor display. [00:48:54] I mean, the rocking chairs are almost a trademark of the front of Cracker Barrel. [00:49:04] Any other discussion? [00:49:07] We have a motion and a second. [00:49:11] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:49:15] Aye. [00:49:16] Opposed, like sign. [00:49:17] Motion passes. [00:49:19] Next is second reading of Ordinance 2020-2204.

   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.

10. 7.c

    Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2020-2204: Sale of Surplus Property RE: 6605 Madison Street

    approved

    Council adopted Ordinance 2020-2204 on second reading, approving the sale of surplus city property at 6605 Madison Street to Dr. James V. Stelnicki for $18,000. The sale includes a development agreement requiring a parking lot to be developed within three years, with a right of reverter clause if not completed.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2020-2204

    • motion:Approve Ordinance 2020-2204 on second reading authorizing sale of 6605 Madison Street to Dr. Stelnicki for $18,000. (passed)

    📍6605 Madison Street🏢James V. Stelnicki, DPMPA👤Allman👤Debbie Vance👤James V. Stelnicki👤Peters#City landscaping ordinance#Development agreement with right of reverter clause#Ordinance No. 2020-2204#Three-year development timeline

    ▶ Jump to 49:21 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:49:23] This is Ordinance Number 2020-2204, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:49:28] providing for the sale of surplus city property, providing for the sale of the property generally [00:49:32] located at 6605 Madison Street, as legally described herein for the purchase price of [00:49:37] $18,000 to James V. Stelnicki, DPMPA, providing authorization to the city manager to execute [00:49:44] all documents in accordance herewith and providing for an effective date. [00:49:48] Ms. Vance. [00:49:49] Yes, sir. [00:49:50] Mr. Mayor, as was indicated to you at the first reading, the city acquired this parcel [00:49:55] through foreclosure. [00:49:57] We announced the sale of the property as surplus property and established a minimum bid of [00:50:07] $18,000. [00:50:09] The adjacent property owner indicated an interest in the property for the purpose of the development [00:50:16] of a parking lot, and the minimum bid, I think I indicated, was $18,000. [00:50:23] And we think that the offer should be accepted, and if you do so, we will execute a purchase [00:50:33] and sale agreement with Dr. Stelnicki. [00:50:37] Thank you. [00:50:38] As I mentioned at the previous meeting, Dr. Stelnicki's office is a client of mine. [00:50:44] I have no vested interest in this one way or another, no remuneration plus, minus, or [00:50:52] otherwise, whichever way this goes. [00:50:55] It's my understanding from the city attorney that I am not required to exempt myself from [00:51:02] this. [00:51:03] Right. [00:51:04] I do not believe you have a voting conflict on this matter. [00:51:06] Very good. [00:51:07] Thank you. [00:51:08] We'll open it up for public comment. [00:51:10] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [00:51:14] Move for approval. [00:51:17] Second. [00:51:19] I just want to reiterate my comments from two weeks ago, is that I really want a landscaping [00:51:26] so it doesn't look like a parking lot. [00:51:31] Second. [00:51:32] Yeah, I was going to say with our landscaping ordinance, it'll have to be up to that standard, correct? [00:51:39] It will be implemented in concurrence with our ordinance. [00:51:42] Mr. Allman? [00:51:44] No, sir. [00:51:45] Mr. Peters? [00:51:46] So, yeah, I've looked at property and it obviously could be improved. [00:51:50] Yes. [00:51:51] In our negotiations on city property such as this, I think that's, number one, I think [00:51:58] he's getting it for a fair price, would be my opinion, very fair price. [00:52:03] But is there, you know, is the city ever considered, like in this case, we know what his purpose [00:52:08] is, if we could ask him in our working negotiations, you know, a time frame. [00:52:13] It might be a parking lot, but it could be a year from now or two years from now or three [00:52:18] years from now. [00:52:19] And if it's not going to be, you know, I'm just saying, are we able to negotiate when [00:52:24] we have opportunities like that to make sure what we want to happen happens in a reasonable [00:52:31] time frame that would suit the city? [00:52:34] Negotiate. [00:52:35] I'm sorry. [00:52:36] Go ahead. [00:52:37] It was part of the consideration, and I believe the city attorney put a right of reverter [00:52:43] clause in the contract if he failed to go forward with the performance indicators that [00:52:53] we put in the contract. [00:52:55] Yes, as part of the agreement, there's a development agreement, and that's a rare [00:53:00] opportunity that you have as a result of it being property that's owned by the city. [00:53:04] You don't have to convey it to anyone, and if you do convey it to someone, you can convey [00:53:08] it with the encumbrance of a development agreement. [00:53:11] So there is a development agreement. [00:53:13] It does allow him three years to develop the parking lot, and if he doesn't do so, it [00:53:17] can be reverted back to the city. [00:53:19] From a practical standpoint, his current parking is horrible. [00:53:22] I can't imagine him waiting anything close to three years to develop it. [00:53:28] Any other discussion? [00:53:30] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:53:33] Aye. [00:53:34] Opposed? [00:53:35] Like sign.

    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.

11. 8.a

    Variance Application: G&H Partnership for Impervious Surface Ratio

    approved

    Council held a quasi-judicial hearing on a variance request from G&H Partnership/Creighton Development to allow an 81% impervious surface ratio (versus the 70% commercial standard) on a 0.82-acre site at the northeast corner of US 19 and Main Street, where four existing buildings would be demolished and replaced with a 3,490 sq ft building (a 7-Eleven convenience store/gas station). The Land Development Review Board and staff recommended approval, and council approved the variance.

    • motion:Motion to approve the variance application from G&H Partnership for an 81% impervious surface ratio (variance of 9% from the 70% commercial standard). (passed)

    📍2240 First Street, Fort Myers, Florida📍6041 Florida Avenue📍6119 Illinois Avenue, Newport Richey📍Northeast corner of US Highway 19 and Main Street🏢7-Eleven🏢Boost Mobile🏢Creighton Development🏢F.I. Gray & Sons Coldwell Banker Residential Realtor🏢F.I. Gray & Sons Commercial Realtor🏢FDOT🏢G&H Partnership🏢Kaiser University🏢Tampa Bay Planning Council🏢Wade-Trim🏢West Pasco Spine & Injury👤Brad Cornelius👤Jacob Mossholder👤John Cain👤Marilyn Deschant👤Mr. Altman👤Mr. Murphy👤Mr. Peters👤Mrs. Vans#Gateway monument sign concept#Impervious Surface Ratio variance#Land Development Review Board recommendation (Nov 19, 2020)#Landscape ordinance#Resilient Cities Committee#SWIFT model

    ▶ Jump to 53:36 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:53:36] Motion passes. [00:53:37] Next is variance application by G&H Partnership for impervious surface ratio. [00:53:42] Mrs. Vans. [00:53:44] Yes, sir. [00:53:46] The request before you this evening is to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing related to [00:53:53] a request for a variance from the impervious surface ratio for a development which is proposed [00:54:00] to be located on the northeast corner of US Highway 19 and Main Street. [00:54:05] Jacob Mosholder is the applicant for the variance. [00:54:13] The variance is on a parcel of property which is .82 acres in size. [00:54:21] It consists of four parcels. [00:54:24] The following commercial businesses are currently situated on the property, Boost Mobile, F.I. [00:54:33] Gray & Sons Commercial Realtor, F.I. [00:54:37] Gray & Sons Coldwell Banker Residential Realtor, and West Pasco Spine & Injury. [00:54:46] The current impervious surface ratio on the property is 100%. [00:54:55] The proposed impervious surface ratio after the redevelopment of the property which calls [00:55:04] for the demolition of the four buildings and the establishment of a new 3,490-square-foot [00:55:13] building in its place is 81%. [00:55:18] The standard for commercially zoned property in the city is 70%. [00:55:27] So, therefore, they are asking for a variance of 9%. [00:55:35] The city's parking and landscape requirements make it very difficult to achieve a 70% ISR [00:55:44] in any commercial development in the city. [00:55:49] In reviewing other commercial developments in the city, I think it is highly unlikely [00:55:56] that there is any commercial development that meets a 70% standard. [00:56:03] With that being said, the staff recommended to the Land Development Review Board at their [00:56:10] meeting on November 19, 2020, in favor of the variance to the 81%, and the Land Development [00:56:21] Review Board recommended in favor of approving the request for the variance. [00:56:28] And if you have any questions related to this request, I'm prepared to respond to those. [00:56:37] And we also have Brad Cornelius of Wade-Trim in attendance, our planning consultant. [00:56:42] Thank you. [00:56:43] This is a quasi-judicial matter, so it is appropriate if any member of the Council has [00:56:48] had any ex parte communications regarding this matter, they need to declare them at [00:56:52] this time. [00:56:55] Seeing none, we'll go forward. [00:56:59] Open it up for public comment. [00:57:09] John Cain, 6041 Florida Avenue. [00:57:12] I just wanted to point out, although never thought of before, this is kind of exactly [00:57:18] the kind of stuff I'm talking about. [00:57:21] environmental committee involvements. [00:57:23] I realize it's not a park. [00:57:25] I realize we're not talking about butterfly gardens. [00:57:28] But I would like to extend into these things, you know, we did have something to do with [00:57:32] the reclassification of impervious materials within one of our ordinances in this city. [00:57:38] It really was reading wrong until we got it straightened out. [00:57:41] And so when you start dealing with impervious material, it's kind of a big deal here in [00:57:47] Florida, because we kind of live, you know, when you go up in the air, you notice we kind [00:57:51] of live on a sponge. [00:57:53] And so it's a good idea to have this thing done right. [00:57:57] As George had pointed out, as I pointed out earlier, easier on the onset than hindsight. [00:58:03] There is no hindsight. [00:58:04] Once it's built or it's built wrong or it's in the wrong spot or there's not enough impervious [00:58:11] material to it. [00:58:14] I understand many of our businesses don't perhaps meet the 70, but that's because our standards [00:58:20] over the years have changed. [00:58:22] Our development department has changed. [00:58:24] The state has changed. [00:58:25] And so regulations have changed. [00:58:27] And I would rather than hindsight look at that as an example. [00:58:31] I'd rather move forward, because we're going to have to make a lot, a lot of changes to usher in [00:58:37] this climate change that some of us don't want to believe in, but it's here. [00:58:41] So that's my only comment. [00:58:44] It's neither here nor there on this actual passing of this. [00:58:47] Thank you, Mr. Cain. [00:58:48] Anyone else? [00:58:56] Good evening. [00:58:57] Jacob Mossholder, 2240 First Street, Fort Myers, Florida. [00:59:00] I am the applicant for this request and the developer with Creighton Development. [00:59:06] Just want to speak to a couple of items first and foremost. [00:59:10] Some things that I've heard tonight already. [00:59:13] Working with the city of New Port Richey and their staff has been an absolute pleasure from a [00:59:19] developer's perspective. [00:59:21] I work in the majority of the state of Florida. [00:59:23] I have over 70 projects moving right now. [00:59:25] And from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you have a different response and a different return. [00:59:30] I've been able to partner with the staff. [00:59:33] We've been able to achieve a look and a static, I believe, that will complement the city in the long run [00:59:39] and what it's going for as a character for the city. [00:59:43] And that's something that I think is very unique to see the two sides of the table be able to sit down, [00:59:49] have conversations, negotiate where we can go with the development that benefits everybody in the equation. [00:59:54] So I wanted to thank the staff as well as you. [00:59:58] Thank you for being here. [01:00:00] Thank you for serving in your roles. [01:00:02] The next item, speaking to environmental, which many people may not know or they may [01:00:09] know, whenever you redevelop a site, you cannot discharge more water from that site than was [01:00:15] previously being discharged from that site. [01:00:19] As far as a stormwater management condition to develop in any water management district [01:00:24] in the state of Florida, we cannot increase that discharge from our site. [01:00:29] We are greatly reducing that discharge from our site by coming down from the current impervious [01:00:35] ratio and opening up a pervious ratio at all here. [01:00:41] The second thing, which is interesting about the code, is we only read into what's within [01:00:46] the lot lines. [01:00:48] We're doing a lot of off-site improvement here at the request of FDOT and transportation [01:00:52] planning with staff. [01:00:55] There are multiple curb cuts and driveways that right now, if you've been around there, [01:00:59] this whole corner, this whole section, half a block for all intents and purposes, it has [01:01:05] full access out to all three roads. [01:01:08] We are greatly reducing that. [01:01:09] There will no longer be an access out to 19. [01:01:12] We finally get to actually bring in some grass and some landscape and meet that landscape [01:01:18] ordinance. [01:01:19] I just want to remind you, we are not asking for any variance from landscape ordinance [01:01:23] tonight. [01:01:24] We are meeting and exceeding. [01:01:25] We are going to be bringing in some Washingtonian palms to complement the other palms in place [01:01:32] at the gateway of New Port Richey on the east side. [01:01:36] At any rate, I'm here for questions. [01:01:37] I also have my civil engineer here. [01:01:39] If you want to dive into the technical details, I'm not going to get my boots too muddy in [01:01:43] that, but if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. [01:01:48] Thank you very much. [01:01:49] Thank you. [01:01:50] Any other comments? [01:01:52] Please come on down. [01:02:04] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [01:02:05] Marilyn Deschant, 6119 Illinois Avenue, New Port Richey. [01:02:12] I'm here to make comment about this project more than to address issues of whether it's [01:02:20] proper or a good idea or not, but I'm a new member now of the LDRB and I'm very happy [01:02:27] to be on that. [01:02:29] As you know, I have served with the city on a variety of projects and committees and such. [01:02:38] What I wanted to say in regard to the specific item regarding impervious, I voted against [01:02:47] that, but primarily because I also recognize what Mr. Kane said about the oncoming global [01:02:57] warming onslaught, but I do understand that I think our mayor is still on the Resilient [01:03:04] City Committee. [01:03:05] Actually, it's Mr. Altman. [01:03:06] It's Mr. Altman now, but the Resilient Committee or Cities Committee with the Tampa Bay Planning [01:03:14] Council, right? [01:03:15] Well, I'm sure that all cities, small and large, will have to take into consideration [01:03:22] how they're going to be treating their future developments and the services upon which those [01:03:27] developments. [01:03:28] Now, I recognize I've come right in the middle, if not the end, of this particular project. [01:03:34] The other comment I would have said about all of this, too, is that having been part [01:03:40] of the downtown redevelopment and revitalization back from the 80s, 90s, et cetera, it was [01:03:47] our great vision to one day improve that area at Main and 19 all the way down the Palm District [01:03:57] over into the historic downtown. [01:04:01] At many levels, we've been doing great. [01:04:03] The city's been doing fabulous with the signage and palm trees and the beautiful downtown, [01:04:09] but in my mind, I had a greater hope for what would take place at Main Street and US-19, [01:04:17] and I did not ever once envision a convenience store and gas station pumps. [01:04:24] In fact, isn't there an existing gas station on the southwest corner? [01:04:28] I believe there is, unless the city has plans for that area, too, for the future. [01:04:35] But what I'm getting at is that what I want to say for the purposes now, because I'm not [01:04:41] going to comment on whether I personally would want that thing there or not, but rather let [01:04:46] us take into consideration services and buildings and where we're putting them for the future [01:04:54] of our downtown, because once we get through the COVID, I'm hoping we see a tremendous [01:04:59] resurgence and that area will be very important. [01:05:03] As you know, as many of you know, that there was a time I used to hope that there would [01:05:08] be a big arch welcoming the 80,000 to 100,000 cars that go through that intersection daily. [01:05:15] Well, we continue to work on these things. [01:05:17] We continue to hope. [01:05:19] I just always want the best for New Port Richey and its downtown. [01:05:23] Thank you very much. [01:05:24] Thank you, Ms. Cushant. [01:05:25] Anyone else? [01:05:28] Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to council. [01:05:34] I'll make the motion to approve. [01:05:36] Do we have a motion? [01:05:39] I'll second it. [01:05:40] To the maker? [01:05:41] Yes, I think I do have a few questions, but I think maybe now that we have a motion, it [01:05:51] may be a bit late, but I am confident that the gasoline pumps and the engineering and [01:06:03] the design of the cleaning of any spilled gas, et cetera, even though the property has [01:06:09] the, under the SWIFT model, it's been described the right to continue to exist in the way [01:06:16] that it always has with its impervious surfaces. [01:06:20] We've got a condition in that part of our town to the 19 where a lot of the water and [01:06:25] the drainage goes directly into our river, untreated. [01:06:30] So my goal for redevelopment has been to try to promote us being the infrastructure guide [01:06:41] for our businesses to allow for more density and for more activity, and so I'm going to [01:06:47] continue to be promoting our environmental issues and the city's commitment to that because [01:06:55] I think that's also key to us attracting the residential community that we want to develop [01:07:01] who are environmentally conscious and want to preserve our environment. [01:07:07] So I'm confident that the regulations with respect to gasoline, knowing all that goes [01:07:12] into the tank replacements and everything else, are very strict with respect to that, [01:07:17] but having been one who's spilled a few drops in filling up my own car tank, I'm just relying [01:07:28] on the professionals that that is all being considered, and I'm sure that it is. [01:07:32] I just wanted to make that comment, and, you know, otherwise, the elimination of traffic [01:07:41] going onto those sites from 19 is a huge benefit for that right turn, and we now have [01:07:49] a right turn arrow out there. [01:07:50] I don't know what other improvements to the intersection are being made. [01:07:54] I saw the light was put out there now with the right turn arrow. [01:07:57] I'm not sure that it's all been figured out how that all works because I was surprised [01:08:03] that it wasn't letting me turn right when I wanted to, but I suspect that this development [01:08:09] will help that intersection to function better as we allow what is a continued increase in [01:08:15] traffic volume on Main Street to get out and move. [01:08:19] So the removal of people going out and in and turning, I think, will improve the safety [01:08:27] of the intersection, and has been suggested by the Gray family in the past. [01:08:32] This was a gas station. [01:08:33] It's a historic location, and it's a corner, and none of that's in the request before us today. [01:08:43] So I appreciate the extra effort that's been done for the landscaping, and to give us the [01:08:50] best 7-Elevens this side of Fort Myers. [01:08:56] To the second. [01:08:59] I did a little research into convenience stores now, and I think about living on one of them. [01:09:08] It's nice as they're being presented nowadays, and also, if I'm correct in my numbers, they're [01:09:13] going from 100% down to 80%. [01:09:16] So I think that landscaping and handling of their own discharge, I think that's a great [01:09:22] step forward for that whole corner. [01:09:24] So that's why I'm in favor of it. [01:09:26] Mr. Peters. [01:09:28] So the question of the impervious about the surface is that, you know, I'm glad there's [01:09:35] improvement. [01:09:36] I don't, you know, it sounds to me like if 70% is tough, we might need to look at that [01:09:41] going forward. [01:09:42] But I don't have a problem with the 80%. [01:09:45] I do recall, though, a meeting, I think it might have been the second reading, or the [01:09:53] first reading on the zone, I don't recall because I was sitting out there rather than [01:09:56] up here, about there was, I think there was one or two councilmen that had made comments [01:10:03] or suggestions to have some space available for a gateway type sign on this property of [01:10:10] some sort, a monument gateway sign. [01:10:13] And when I saw the plan, I was kind of disappointed I didn't see that in the plan. [01:10:20] Would you like me to respond, Mr. Mayor, to Councilman Peters' question? [01:10:26] We have had discussions with the property owner about a gateway feature in respect to [01:10:35] the discussions that we've had with landscaping, and I think we will be able to work something [01:10:41] out with them. [01:10:43] They are very responsible stewards of property. [01:10:49] The Gray family has great affinity for the community and has been supportive, and I believe [01:10:54] we'll be able to work something out. [01:10:56] Thank you. [01:10:57] Mr. Murphy? [01:10:58] Yeah, I was looking on there also. [01:10:59] I didn't really see anything labeled on there for the archway or anything. [01:11:03] I mean, I'd like to, I mean, I'd really like to see something solid in there that would [01:11:11] be there. [01:11:12] We're working on it. [01:11:14] I understand that, I understand that, but before, you know, before everything is finished, [01:11:20] because that was definitely a big thing for our city. [01:11:23] And I'm sure the Grays understand that, too. [01:11:25] You know, this is something, this is an entrance for our city, and there has to be a space [01:11:30] for that, you know, with what they have proposed here for the landscaping, things like that. [01:11:37] It's definitely going to be a nice-looking, nicest-looking one around for sure, and it [01:11:42] has to be. [01:11:43] For the entrance to our city, I mean, it's important, and I mean, I just really would [01:11:48] like to see something more firm saying, yes, we got that spot, or we have a spot that we [01:11:55] will be able to use, other than we're, you know, sorry, I'm a little leery with the working [01:12:00] on it part of it. [01:12:01] Yeah, and I wish I could be more definitive, but we don't have a completed design yet. [01:12:06] We're still working on that, so we can't present construction documents or specifications at [01:12:13] this time. [01:12:14] Okay, I just wanted to make my opinion known. [01:12:17] I understand your position fully. [01:12:21] Thank you. [01:12:22] Thank you. [01:12:24] There were a fair number of comments on Facebook when the information on this first became [01:12:30] general public knowledge. [01:12:32] A lot of folks, including a lot of folks that don't live in New Port Richey, interestingly [01:12:36] enough, railing against the proposal for any number of reasons, and I'm not sure that [01:12:47] any of them necessarily hold water. [01:12:52] The City Council has the opportunity to address things like impervious surface ratios and [01:13:01] things like the setback of monument signs, which is the next item on the agenda. [01:13:07] Within a zoning district, we do not have the authority to tell you what specific business [01:13:16] that you can have on a specific site that is zoned in a specific way that allows that [01:13:24] business, and for the benefit of anybody that might have been part of that discussion on [01:13:29] Facebook and is watching the meeting tonight, I just want to point that out, again, to be [01:13:37] crystal clear. [01:13:38] That is not our job. [01:13:40] It's not our responsibility, and quite frankly, it's not our right. [01:13:45] People can, within a zoning district, build anything that fits inside that zoning district. [01:13:57] Since it was mentioned, I will comment something that I had thought about with this particular [01:14:08] proposal. [01:14:10] This may very well be the very last gas station that is ever built in the City of New Port Richey. [01:14:20] If I were going to build that, there's no way on God's green earth I would be spending [01:14:27] hundreds of thousands of dollars on tanks and pumps for a product that's going to be [01:14:34] not wanted in five or six years, but that's not my money, and if you guys want to spend [01:14:40] your money on it, knock yourself out. [01:14:45] Any further discussion? [01:14:46] Yes, Mr. Mayor. [01:14:48] Just from previous experience, the idea of the gateway, which is an idea that I favor, [01:14:58] I believe [01:15:00] in the past that this property may be too close to Highway 19 for the DOT to even allow [01:15:08] such a structure so close to all of its signage on right turns and left turns, etc. [01:15:12] So from a standpoint of being able to see it, if it's prominent enough to be seen, when [01:15:18] you look at the entire area, it's my belief there are some cement pillars that hold some [01:15:25] of the existing signage that says right turn, left turn, establishing the lanes, I think [01:15:30] that may be the closest that we would ever be able to get to put any kind of structure [01:15:37] such as that. [01:15:38] And perhaps our engineer would know, but to the degree it hasn't been designed yet, and [01:15:43] that it may be able to be built with minimal use of ground surface area, and what we've [01:15:50] heard about cooperation, that is different than putting obelisks or standards or something [01:15:55] right at the corners, which may or may not make any sense. [01:16:00] But we will, as we did with Kaiser University, I think be trusting that we've been brought [01:16:07] a good partner who has expressed a willingness to work with us to see the best outcome for [01:16:12] us. [01:16:13] So that's why I'm making this motion, although not why I'm making this motion, because it's [01:16:18] only about impervious surfaces, and we've kind of wandered off the reservation here. [01:16:22] So to the motion itself, I would call the question. [01:16:27] I'm very good. [01:16:28] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:16:32] Aye. [01:16:33] Opposed, like sign.

    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.

12. 8.b

    ↳You arrived here from a search for “G&H Partnership” — transcript expanded below

    Variance Application: G&H Partnership for Setback of Monument Signs

    approved

    Council considered a variance application from G&H Partnership for two 6-foot monument signs at the northeast corner of US Highway 19 and Main Street, requesting reduced setbacks (6 feet on Main Street and 0 feet on US 19/Bridge). The Land Development Review Board had recommended approval, and council approved the variance unanimously, viewing the shorter monument signs as a significant aesthetic improvement over the allowed 25-foot pylon signs.

    • motion:Approve variance for G&H Partnership setbacks on two monument signs (6 ft on Main Street, 0 ft on US 19/Bridge). (passed)

    📍2240 West 1st, Fort Myers, Florida📍6041 Florida Avenue📍7510 Ridge Road, Port Richey📍northeast corner of US Highway 19 and Main Street🏢7-Eleven🏢FDOT🏢G&H Partnership🏢Land Development Review Board👤Altman👤Brad Cornelius👤DeChant👤Gray👤Jacob Mossholder👤John Cain👤Murphy👤Peters👤Steve Booth👤Ullman#Land Development Review Board Nov 19, 2020 meeting#Monument sign setback variance#Quasi-judicial hearing

    ▶ Jump to 1:16:35 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:16:35] Motion passes. [01:16:36] Next is a variance application to G&H Partnership for the setback of monument signs. [01:16:43] The request before you is to conduct a quasi-judicial review related to the establishment of two [01:16:51] monument signs to be located at the northeast corner virtually of US Highway 19 and Main [01:17:01] Street. [01:17:02] Again, the applicant for this request is in attendance this evening and has been introduced [01:17:12] in conjunction with the last agenda item. [01:17:16] There are two proposed monument signs that will be established in conjunction with the [01:17:24] proposed development. [01:17:26] The two monument signs will be six feet in height. [01:17:32] I think that's an important point to make. [01:17:36] Monument signs in the city of New Port Richey can be up to 25 feet in height. [01:17:45] The applicant has proposed a six-foot sign, which is much more palatable to at least the [01:17:56] staff and much kinder on the eye. [01:18:02] The variances relate to the setback. [01:18:07] A required setback for a monument sign is 15 feet. [01:18:13] The location of the two proposed signs, the first being at Main Street, the required setback [01:18:24] again is 15 feet. [01:18:25] They are requesting to establish the sign at six feet. [01:18:31] The second sign is requested to be established at US Highway 19 and Bridge Street. [01:18:38] The required setback, I'm sorry, the requested setback is at zero feet. [01:18:46] The principal reasons that the applicant is unable to comply with the required setbacks [01:18:55] relates principally to the fact that they're only six feet signs and the landscaping blocks [01:19:03] them. [01:19:04] So we're projecting them a little further out so that they're visible. [01:19:09] In addition to that, the curb cuts that currently exist on US Highway 19 will be removed as [01:19:19] part of the project. [01:19:22] So any opportunity for a view corridor along 19 is eliminated and that's why they're proposing [01:19:33] their signs on Main Street and at Bridge. [01:19:38] And with the landscaping, then they needed to request a variance from those two setback [01:19:50] requirements. [01:19:52] The Land Development Review Board considered this at their November 19th meeting and they [01:19:58] voted in favor of approving both setbacks on the monument signs. [01:20:06] In my packet communication to you, I provided the application from G&H Partnership, a location [01:20:16] map of the signs and the specifications which contain the detail related to the appearance [01:20:29] of the proposed sign. [01:20:31] And if you have questions, we have Jacob Mossholder as well as Brad Cornelius and I prepared to [01:20:41] respond to any questions that you may have related to the agenda item. [01:20:46] Thank you. [01:20:47] This is a quasi-judicial hearing and as such, I need to request that if anyone has had an [01:20:54] ex parte communication on this matter, they bring that forward at this point. [01:21:00] I have not seen nobody. [01:21:05] We'll open it up for public comment. [01:21:13] John Cain, 6041 Florida Avenue. [01:21:16] Before I make a comment, can we get a clarification on what we mean when we say a monument sign? [01:21:22] I'm not real... [01:21:23] I mean, what are these signs' purpose? [01:21:25] What is the purpose of the sign and what will it, in this case, and what will it be? [01:21:32] We know it's six foot, but I mean, what is a monument sign? [01:21:34] Do we have a picture of that that can be put up on the screen? [01:21:38] I don't. [01:21:39] Here we go. [01:21:41] Thank you. [01:21:42] Brad will help Mr. Cain. [01:21:43] I'd like everyone to know, people that are watching, whatever. [01:21:44] That's a monument sign. [01:21:45] That's a monument sign. [01:21:46] Why it's a monument sign? [01:21:47] It doesn't have a pole. [01:21:48] It has a base that sits on the ground. [01:21:49] I see. [01:21:50] That's why it's called a monument sign. [01:21:51] So that would be coming in closer as opposed to being set back. [01:22:03] It's typically an identification sign on pylons. [01:22:08] And this doesn't have pylons. [01:22:09] It's actually right on the ground. [01:22:11] That makes it much less obnoxious than the big signs. [01:22:16] Anyone else? [01:22:17] Hi. [01:22:18] Jacob Mossholder, 2240 West 1st, Fort Myers, Florida. [01:22:30] For clarification, a monument sign is pretty easily defined as a sign with a base. [01:22:35] You're a little taller than John. [01:22:37] Sorry. [01:22:38] A monument sign is a sign that has a base that is fully constructed contiguously to [01:22:44] the ground instead of being lifted on a single riser pole or pylon as they're referenced [01:22:52] as a pylon sign versus a monument sign. [01:22:56] To kind of go back to where I started in the previous item, these monument signs came about [01:23:03] through a partnership and discussion and negotiation with staff. [01:23:08] As you know and as you said, we could go 25 feet in the air with this, it's within code, [01:23:13] completely allowable. [01:23:15] In order not to do that, in order to preserve the aesthetic and the character that we're [01:23:18] trying to put forth in the city of New Port Richey, what we're asking is to remove the [01:23:23] setback so we can actually push that sign out so it's at eye level with traffic as those [01:23:29] are the individuals we're targeting. [01:23:31] Additionally, it's interesting that the state of Florida actually has a state statute that [01:23:36] protects the right of every convenience store with fuel to be able to advertise their pricers [01:23:43] to the price of fuel so you don't get stuck in a scam paying $10 a gallon, right? [01:23:49] We have to be able to advertise them. [01:23:51] We want to be able to advertise it responsibly. [01:23:53] We want to work with the city and the aesthetic and the character of the city. [01:23:57] I think we're doing that and then just to help Councilman Altman come back to the reservation [01:24:02] on a previous statement, as far as the easement is concerned is what I'm imagining, Councilman [01:24:10] Murphy as well, I'm imagining some type of non-exclusive easement on the south side of [01:24:14] the property that's pretty much going to have to stretch the extent of the property at this [01:24:18] point. [01:24:19] I think it's a pretty quick sketch in legal to cover that rectangle from our survey or [01:24:23] enter into that non-exclusive easement with the city so that then, no matter what's designed [01:24:29] on the south, because we don't know what yet we're trying to match and what area, at least [01:24:33] the area would be there, right? [01:24:35] I think that's probably going to be the best vehicle to do that with. [01:24:40] As far as environmental concerns and fuel and tanks, this is always the debate of space [01:24:47] markets versus capital markets. [01:24:48] Right now the space market is needed and wanted and who knows, maybe one day they'll take [01:24:53] all these fuel tanks out and they'll put electric generators down there and we'll all be able [01:24:57] to plug in our Tesla as long as we can find the rare earth minerals available. [01:25:03] With that said, back to the reservation. [01:25:05] I think the variance request is very feasible and it allows us to meet the landscape ordinance [01:25:10] to the T and exceed. [01:25:14] Thank you. [01:25:15] Thank you. [01:25:16] Any other comments? [01:25:17] I didn't get to make my comment, I just didn't know what it was, so I'd just like to make [01:25:22] a comment. [01:25:23] The only thing I could see with this, when you change the setback, and I'm imagining [01:25:29] that a study was done, whether it's 25 feet or whether it's 6 feet, if it's coming out [01:25:35] further and this is a gas station where people are coming in and out, is it going to obstruct [01:25:41] any vision at night? [01:25:42] That's my only concern at this point. [01:25:44] Thank you. [01:25:45] It seems like it will be low. [01:25:49] It's low and there's other stuff between the street and the signs, so it's not going to [01:25:55] obstruct the vision. [01:25:56] I agree, Mr. Mayor. [01:25:57] The site triangles do have to be considered and preserved for FDOT standard as well as [01:26:02] city standard site triangles. [01:26:04] That's why on the FDOT side, on the Highway 19 side, we're asking for that zero foot setback. [01:26:08] The site triangle is preserved at Bridge Road. [01:26:11] FDOT's also actually taken the opportunity to have us help them improve their conditions. [01:26:18] We have agreed to help on that side too, so Bridge Road's good. [01:26:22] And then the site triangle for Main Street, that's why we're going with the 6 feet. [01:26:25] It preserves the site triangle so that you have safe ingress and egress from all sides. [01:26:29] Thank you. [01:26:30] Any other comments? [01:26:31] I was going to move approval, but I'm not too sure. [01:26:43] I just wanted to thank you for moving for approval. [01:26:47] Now, Steve Booth, 7510 Ridge Road in New Port Richey, I just want to make the comment that [01:26:52] for whatever it's worth in the county, they're doing away with the pylon signs wherever they [01:26:57] can and are requiring the monument signs. [01:27:00] That's in keeping, I think, with the modern trend on that. [01:27:04] Thank you. [01:27:05] Thank you. [01:27:06] Any other comments? [01:27:07] Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to council. [01:27:11] Move for approval. [01:27:12] Second. [01:27:13] To the maker. [01:27:14] Yeah, I think this is a win-win. [01:27:15] I mean, I'd much rather have a 6 foot sign a little closer to the road than a 25 foot [01:27:20] sign a little further back. [01:27:22] So, I mean, I think everybody wins with this one and it just looks a lot better. [01:27:28] So yeah, I'm definitely in favor of this. [01:27:30] To the second. [01:27:31] I think just, you talked about the county moving in that direction. [01:27:35] There's a lot of cities across Florida that are going in that direction, too, to the monument [01:27:39] signs. [01:27:40] And that with the landscaping has just redirected the whole looks of the city, so I think that [01:27:47] we need to take a step forward, not only on this particular lot, but in the city and take [01:27:52] a look at the monument signs for the future. [01:27:56] Boca Grande is a great example of a beautiful city that uses monument signs and landscaping [01:28:01] and it's a very welcoming situation. [01:28:04] Mr. Peters. [01:28:05] Yeah, I agree. [01:28:07] I might have shared Mrs. DeChant's comment about that was not the ideal thing that you [01:28:15] might picture being there. [01:28:16] However, I think the developers done an excellent job there. [01:28:19] I don't know if you've got an extra square inch on that property to do anything or not, [01:28:24] but it looks like you've utilized it all to its maximum capability. [01:28:29] But I think it will be probably the nicest looking 7-Eleven in the county. [01:28:35] So I like the monument signs. [01:28:38] Mr. Ullman. [01:28:39] No, thank you. [01:28:41] Yeah, the monument sign actually was my favorite part of the whole thing. [01:28:47] I think they're just going to look really, really good. [01:28:50] It's very modern, very clean, and would encourage you to reconsider your rare earth comments. [01:29:03] Two of us have cars sitting outside that don't use gasoline ever. [01:29:08] And there's a third person in the audience that I think is planning to replace the one [01:29:15] he had that didn't use gasoline ever until he ran over a tire and wheel and totaled it. [01:29:24] But that being said, I think this is a great, it's going to really look a lot better. [01:29:31] With all due respect to Mr. Gray in the back, it's going to look a lot better than his office [01:29:36] sitting up there right now. [01:29:39] It's going to be a big improvement for that whole block. [01:29:45] Thank you, sir. [01:29:46] Any other comments? [01:29:48] Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. [01:29:52] Aye. [01:29:53] 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.

13. 8.c

    2020 Jasmin Park Seawall Improvements Project Bid Award

    approved

    Council awarded the 2020 Jasmine Park Seawall Improvements Project to SC Signature Construction Corporation in an amount not to exceed $347,400, funded by Penny for Pasco dollars. The Jasmine Park seawall was identified in the 2016 Seawall Assessment Report as beyond repair; the new seawall will be similar in style to those at Cotee River Park, Sims Park, and Grand Boulevard Park.

    • motion:Approve and award the 2020 Jasmine Park Seawall Improvements Project to SC Signature Construction Corporation in an amount not to exceed $347,400. (passed)

    📍Cotee River Park📍Francis Avenue Park📍Grand Boulevard Park📍Jasmine Park📍Sims Park📍Sims Park Boat Ramp🏢SC Signature Construction Corporation👤Baker👤Jeff Starkey👤Ms. Mann👤Murphy👤Robert👤Ullman#2016 Seawall Assessment Report#Capital Improvement Program#Penny for Pasco

    ▶ Jump to 1:29:54 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:29:54] Like sign. [01:29:55] Motion passes. [01:29:56] Next, 2020 Jasmine Park Seawall Improvements Project. [01:30:00] Thank you, Ms. Mann. Mayor and Council, this item for your consideration for approval is [01:30:06] an attached bid in the amount not to exceed $347,400 and award the Jasmine Park Seawall [01:30:14] Improvement Project to SC Signature Construction Corporation. This project is in the city's [01:30:21] current capital improvement program and is identified as the final seawall facility in [01:30:28] need of remediation in the 2016 Seawall Assessment Report. Unlike the other seawalls that are [01:30:36] owned by the city, the Jasmine Park Seawall was determined by the engineer of record to [01:30:44] be beyond repair and in need of replacement. The seawall replacement that we're proposing [01:30:50] is similar to the existing styles that you have located at the Cody River Park, Sims [01:30:56] Park, Sims Park Boat Ramp, as well as the Grand Boulevard Park Seawalls. There were [01:31:05] three bids that were submitted. We had a high bid of $747,204. The engineer verified the [01:31:14] references of the contractor. He actually talked with the contractor about the contract [01:31:20] requirements, the schedule of values, and he is satisfied with the contractor's ability [01:31:27] to perform this project and has attached an engineer's recommendation memo. SC Signature [01:31:35] Construction has worked with the city in the past. An example of one of their recent projects [01:31:41] is the Francis Avenue Park Restrooms, as well as the Incubator Roof Replacement. All of [01:31:48] the projects that they have performed for the city has been completed on time, and they've [01:31:53] been at budget or below budget. The funding is identified as penny-for-Pasco dollars, [01:32:00] and we would recommend approval and award of the project. Thank you. I'll open up for [01:32:04] public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. Move for approval. [01:32:14] Second. Thank you. Mr. Baker? I just want to say for Jeff Starkey's benefit, when it [01:32:22] came at one other meeting, I don't know how many years ago, five years ago, he wondered [01:32:28] about Jasmine Park, because it was in his neighborhood, and they said, well, they have [01:32:32] a priority as far as a need, and so Jeff was happy, and I'm sure he's happy now that it's [01:32:39] being done, but he's also moved out of the neighborhood. It's getting done, Jeff. It's [01:32:45] just a little later than you thought. A second. Yeah, it's a nice little park. Question, Robert, [01:32:53] is the seawall going to be at, what height is it going to be at compared to the existing [01:33:00] seawall? I need to get that information for you. It is going to be higher, but I'll get [01:33:05] that information. That'll require some additional fill in the park area, too? Not really, because [01:33:11] what we're going to do is we're proposing to do some stormwater improvements as we approach [01:33:16] both sides of it at the ends, so you'll have your caps like you have with the other seawalls [01:33:22] that you have, but then you'll have a section that will start to come down to meet the existing [01:33:27] seawall, and then we'll have some stormwater improvements to be able to channel that water [01:33:32] back over to our side. Mr. Murphy? So would it kind of look like Grand Boulevard, like [01:33:42] that way that seawall is? It'll be just like Grand Boulevard, except for the ends will [01:33:46] be different. Okay. Mr. Ullman? No. I'm thrilled to see that park finally get some love. If [01:33:54] there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. [01:33:58] Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. Next is a request to purchase an aerial lift truck [01:34:03] for streets and right-of-way maintenance. It's time to replace a 2000 aerial lift truck [01:34:12] that is 21 years old. We'd like to declare it a surplus property and purchase a new aerial [01:34:21] lift truck with unit pricing in accordance with source well contract number 012418-ALT [01:34:32] in an amount not to exceed $157,707. And the equipment purchase is currently budgeted in [01:34:45] the 2020-2021 Capital Equipment Improvement Plan Street Right-of-Way Maintenance Division [01:34:55] budget and the funding is being provided for through the Penny for Pascoe tax dollar funds. [01:35:04] Thank you. And the equipment is used principally for street light maintenance and tree trimming [01:35:14] and other functions of Mr. Rivera's department and he can respond to any questions that you [01:35:20] may have in respect to the equipment if you have any. Thank you. Open it up for public [01:35:25] comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. Move for approval. Second. [01:35:32] The maker? Be approved by approving the budget. Second. No, we're good. Mr. Ullman? No. Mr. [01:35:38] Peters? Does this truck have any more capabilities than the one that's replacing as far as, it's [01:35:43] got a 58-foot boom to it, right? It'll be their replacement in kind. Very good. There's [01:35:52] no further discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, [01:35:57] like sign. Motion passes. Next, request to purchase a front-end payloader for streets

    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.

14. 8.d

    Request to Purchase Aerial Lift Truck for Street & Right of Way Maintenance

    approved

    Council approved the purchase of a 2020 John Deere front-end loader for the Street & Right-of-Way division at a cost not to exceed $93,882.40, via the Florida Sheriff's Association contract. The new equipment replaces a 2006 and a 1997 payloader, with the 1997 being declared surplus and auctioned. Funding comes from the current fiscal year budget supported by Penny for Pasco tax dollars.

    • motion:Move for approval of the purchase of a 2020 John Deere front-end loader not to exceed $93,882.40. (passed)

    🏢Florida Sheriff's Association🏢John Deere👤Altman👤Peters👤Robert#Florida Sheriff's Association contract bid award #18, vehicle 16.0, spec 32#Penny for Pasco#Yard debris collection program

    ▶ Jump to 1:36:03 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:36:03] and right-of-way division. This piece of equipment is principally used in conjunction [01:36:13] with our yard debris collection program. It is a 2020 John Deere front-end loader that [01:36:22] we are interested in purchasing. It's listed on the Florida Sheriff's Association contract [01:36:31] bid award number 18, vehicle 16.0 spec number 32, in an amount not to exceed $93,882.40. [01:36:49] And it would replace two existing payloaders in service, a 2006 and a 1997. No, the 1997, [01:37:04] help me out Robert, will be taken out of service. Yes, ma'am. And declared a surplus property [01:37:11] and auctioned off to the highest fitter if you approve the expenditure of funds, which [01:37:16] is budgeted in the current fiscal year, and also being supported through use of penny [01:37:25] for PASCO tax dollars. Thank you. Open it up for public comment. Seeing no one come [01:37:32] forward, bring it back to council. Move for approval. Second. To the maker? Nothing. Second? [01:37:38] Nope, we're good. Mr. Altman? No, sir. Mr. Peters? About to ask, you know, new kid on [01:37:44] the block, so to speak. So, Robert, how many hours a year do we put on this equipment? [01:37:50] I'd have to get you that information. I can tell you that the piece of equipment that [01:37:55] we use now, we're basically using eight hours a day, five days a week. Is that the one you [01:38:01] use for debris pickup along the road? Correct. Do you do any analysis to lease equipment

    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.

15. 8.e

    Request to Purchase Front End/Pay Loader for Streets and Right of Ways Division

    approved

    Council approved the purchase of a mid-size front-end/pay loader for the Streets and Right of Ways Division. Staff explained the equipment would still be needed for tree trimming, storm events, road material loading, and water/sewer break responses even if yard debris pickup were discontinued.

    • vote:Approve the purchase of a mid-size front-end/pay loader for the Streets and Right of Ways Division. (passed)

    👤Peter👤Ron#Front End/Pay Loader purchase

    ▶ Jump to 1:38:03 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:38:08] versus purchasing it? We do sometimes. I know that we are leasing some of our equipment, [01:38:15] or the majority of it, but some of our heavy equipment that we know we're going to keep [01:38:20] for a very long time, we go ahead and purchase. If for some reason we didn't have a need to [01:38:25] pick up the yard debris in the future, what would this equipment be used for? We would [01:38:29] still need it because you're still going to have tree trimming on the right-of-ways, you're [01:38:33] still going to have the storm events that we have, we still have to load road material, [01:38:38] we still have water and sewer breaks, so the piece of equipment is utilized, you know, [01:38:44] constantly. Thank you very much. This is a full-size front-end loader, not one of those [01:38:49] little bobcats like the ones you unsuccessfully tried to use with the manatee coffins? Correct. [01:38:55] It's not the full-size large one that you see, it's a mid-size, what they call a mid-size. [01:39:03] Mr. Peter's benefit, when they removed the concrete baby manatee coffins, or the benches [01:39:11] on the bridge, they tried using a bobcat, and when they went to lift them, the back [01:39:17] end of the bobcat came out of the air instead of the bench. Manatee coffins? Yeah. Yeah, [01:39:25] my mother-in-law was instigated to paint any of those coffins, and I participated in that. [01:39:31] I'll be sure to tell her what they're called. I didn't know they were manatee, I just thought [01:39:36] they were coffins. Yeah, well, better than that used to have my name on it. Yeah. There's [01:39:44] no further discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, [01:39:50] like so. Next is a three-minute report from Public Works. Thank you, Mayor. Our departmental [01:39:56] status report is basically going to focus on administration and what we're planning [01:40:02] on doing in the future this current year. As you know, we have over 45 capital projects [01:40:09] that are listed that are either in design or construction that we will be working on. [01:40:15] That does not count reactive projects that we have to deal with. An example would be [01:40:21] flooding issues, those types of things that would require a design of a larger project. [01:40:29] Our second item that we're going to be working on is we have several utility interlocal agreements [01:40:34] that we want to redo. One of them that we're working on right now with Pasco County is [01:40:41] the wastewater treatment and the water, I'm sorry, the wastewater, yes, wastewater treatment [01:40:46] and the water sale. That's directly related to the FGUA acquisition. As you know, we're [01:40:55] part owners of the wastewater treatment plant with Pasco County. We already have language [01:41:00] in an interlocal agreement that needs to be updated. While we've been dealing with [01:41:06] them and talking with them on those two interlocal agreements, we also have brought up the reclaim [01:41:12] interlocal agreement that we have with them, wanting to try to change some of the language [01:41:16] in that. That basically switches the disposal terminology of reclaim and the ability for [01:41:24] them to charge the city for disposal to change that definition to a commodity and work out [01:41:30] some type of methodology, true up, to where the city wouldn't have to worry about either [01:41:37] paying for that disposal or if we did, it would be minimal. The other thing that we're [01:41:44] going to be working on is we're going to reach out to New Port Richey. We sell water to them. [01:41:51] We also treat wastewater as well. We performed our rate study for bulk water and wastewater [01:41:59] last year. Now that we have a rate, we want to reach out to them and see what the possibilities [01:42:06] would be if we could increase our treatment and sales of potable water to them. We've [01:42:13] got several utility analysis that we're going to be performing this year. The first one [01:42:17] would be our utility master plan that will identify our capital projects and the priorities [01:42:23] of those projects over the next 10 years. We'll be working on the utility rate structure [01:42:30] and that will be directly related to our revenue sufficiency analysis. The idea would be that [01:42:37] the information that we can get from the cost as well as projected revenues with these interlocal [01:42:44] agreements that we're going to be working on, we'll be able to get an idea of where [01:42:51] the utility will be at the next three to five years as far as the revenues that it would [01:42:57] project. We're also going to perform a water loss audit to where we can figure out how [01:43:06] much water we're losing in our system that's unaccounted for to where we can maybe change [01:43:13] some of our standard operating procedures to where we can reclaim some of that revenue [01:43:17] that we're losing. We're going to be working on our utility risk and resiliency analysis [01:43:23] that basically will identify cyber threats as well as facility threats, whether they're [01:43:29] man-made or whether they are storm events. We will be updating our reactive plans to [01:43:38] those identified threats. And then we are going to complete our negotiations hopefully [01:43:44] with FDEP this year on the wastewater treatment's new operating permit. That's a 10-year permit. [01:43:52] We just completed our year-long Bayou study to where we're able to get that information [01:43:59] over to them and hopefully we'll be able to close that permit out. And then finally we've [01:44:03] got a couple of Tampa Bay water workshops that we're going to be working on with staff [01:44:10] and the other members that we're all part of. And they would be the reclaim water cost [01:44:16] and rate structure as well as the water quality analysis that would review obviously the potable [01:44:25] water that we're supplying to the residents and what improvements we can do for that. [01:44:31] And that concludes my report. [01:44:33] Thank you. Any questions for Ron? [01:44:34] I just want to make a reference that I'm a PE teacher and that was a lot of material [01:44:41] so I just wondered if you might just do a little summary and get that to Debbie to put [01:44:47] into her weekly report so it can, you know, can I absorb it all, you know, three minutes [01:44:53] there, it's a little more than I can handle. [01:44:54] Okay. [01:44:55] Thanks. [01:44:56] I feel like breaking out a fire hose, right? [01:44:58] Yeah. [01:45:00] Very good. Now we're coming to one of my favorite parts of the meeting, which is communications [01:45:06] and reports, which is our opportunity, our only opportunity actually, to communicate [01:45:12] between each other because we're not allowed to talk about city business outside of public [01:45:16] meetings. I'll kick it off. I had a couple of items. First of all, Reagan Weiss and some [01:45:25] of his colleagues put together a program to set up a whole bunch of Christmas trees [01:45:33] in Sims Park. There's well over a hundred of them there now, and they're being decorated [01:45:39] by various businesses. It's really cool. In a year when we can't have big parades and [01:45:44] gatherings for Christmas, we can still do something that looks good and it gives people [01:45:51] something they can go walk around and enjoy the season. So, if you haven't been to Sims

    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.

16. 8.f

    Three Minute Report: Public Works Department

    discussed

    During council three-minute reports, members discussed the new 19-foot Christmas tree at the park, a citizen cited under the Land Development Code for keeping bees (referred to the Environmental Committee, staff, and city attorney to review state requirements), the library's Amazon Smile partnership benefiting Friends of the Library, and a suggestion to explore expanded windrow composting/mulch operations for yard debris rather than hauling to Shady Hills. Mr. Allman also suggested a historic-town billboard idea inspired by Clayton, Georgia.

    • direction:Refer the bee-keeping citation issue to the Environmental Committee, with staff and city attorney to review state requirements for hives. (none)

    📍Pine Hill🏢Amazon Smile🏢Friends of the Library🏢Shady Hills🏢Wimpy's dump👤Andy👤Chopper👤Del Deschamps👤Dixie👤Jim👤Mr. Allman👤Mr. Murphy👤Mr. Peters👤Ms. Vance#Chapter 15 / Article 15 of the Land Development Code#Environmental Committee#Tasty Tuesday#Tree City USA#Urban Gardening Ordinance#windrow composting program

    ▶ Jump to 1:45:56 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:45:56] Park, I believe they're all supposed to be decorated by tomorrow night, so be sure to [01:46:02] check it out. My wife and I actually went by Sunday when they first turned them on. [01:46:07] It was very impressive. Ms. Vance? [01:46:09] The city added a 19-foot Christmas tree to the collection, which might be of interest [01:46:17] to folks. It's a great photo moment for families as well. [01:46:20] I haven't seen that one yet, so we'll be back down there. The other one that I wanted [01:46:25] to bring up, we had a citizen got cited under Article 15 or Chapter 15 of the Land Development [01:46:39] Code, of all things, which talks about construction debris, but he got cited for having bees. [01:46:52] That's what I tossed off to the Chairman of the Environmental Committee. I asked Del Deschamps [01:46:59] to give me a call and said that I thought that really probably ought to be something [01:47:07] that the Environmental Committee ought to weigh in on. Bees are endangered. We need [01:47:13] bees for pollinating various plants, trees, vegetables, and all of that stuff. We are [01:47:22] a tree city USA, and we do have an Urban Gardening Ordinance. An Urban Gardening Ordinance and [01:47:29] tree city don't do us any good if they don't ever bear fruit or reproduce. I wanted to [01:47:38] bring my colleagues up to speed on that. I think the citation was a little screwy, quite [01:47:44] frankly, because it's an odd place to get cited for as a nuisance. I understand the [01:47:52] guy's neighbor must not like bees. There are some state rules for where you can have [01:47:59] hives, and I would suggest that we might ask the Environmental Committee to look at it [01:48:06] and have staff and our city attorney look as well as to what the state requirements [01:48:12] are. Personally, I think we ought to be encouraging the things within the state guidelines, because [01:48:22] that's the only way we're going to be having the sort of produce that we celebrate every [01:48:28] Tuesday with Tasty Tuesday. Off my soapbox. Chopper? [01:48:35] Back to me being a PE teacher, I was educated enough to know that if I needed help to go [01:48:41] to the library, so I needed to find some books for my sister-in-law and my brother, [01:48:48] and I went to Andy, and not only did she help me find the books that I wanted to buy, but [01:48:54] I found out something else while I was there. That if you purchase these books at the library, [01:49:00] that they're hooked up with, help me out with the term? [01:49:06] Amazon Smile. [01:49:08] Amazon Smile, and one ends up there. If you buy it through the library and get them sent [01:49:13] to your house or to the library, anyhow, some of the proceeds, the Amazon Smile will donate [01:49:21] to our friends at the library, so you're giving money back to the city. And there's no extra [01:49:26] charge, and actually you saved me $3, so I got some discount for $3.59 or something. [01:49:31] But anyhow, I just want not only people sitting here, but the public at home, if you're looking [01:49:36] for a book, and we're getting in them a couple days, so look at your library for a possibility [01:49:42] of buying your books and contributing in a sense to the friends of the library. [01:49:48] Mr. Peters? [01:49:49] I had nothing tonight. [01:49:51] Mr. Murphy? [01:49:52] I'm definitely enjoying the cool weather. It's been a nice change of pace. I know it [01:49:59] doesn't stay very long here in Florida, but it's nice to enjoy it for a little while anyways. [01:50:04] Haven't had a chance to go down to the park and check that out yet, but looking forward [01:50:07] to that, especially our 19-foot tree. So just looking forward to a festive park. [01:50:14] Mr. Allman? [01:50:17] On a recent trip from the mountains of North Carolina coming through, I believe it was [01:50:22] Clayton, Georgia on 441, there was a large billboard that had a photograph of the historic [01:50:32] town if you just turned to the right and went a block that you could see. And it was [01:50:38] really pretty cool to see. I was with Dixie who said, man, that's something you need to [01:50:46] bring back to the city. So as I've tried to learn to begin to follow some directions, [01:50:53] I'm bringing it back to you. But it was pretty cool. And often people say they drive right [01:50:59] down and they don't see it. It was an actual photograph that looked historic and it was [01:51:05] just it. Maybe visit our downtown or downtown. [01:51:09] You take a picture of it. [01:51:10] I will take a picture. I was apparently going too fast, which is another story. [01:51:16] You don't want to do that in Georgia. [01:51:18] Just kidding. I wasn't. But anyhow, that was interesting. I'll try to get a photograph [01:51:25] of that from them, from their chamber or whatever. [01:51:29] A couple of other things that were brought up tonight, I just want to reply to. One, [01:51:36] the issue of yard debris. If we need yard debris in the future, I know this has been [01:51:40] a longstanding debate. It's come in front of the city many times. It's always been sort [01:51:45] of jumped back down. I know there's a lot of opinions about it and there's a lot of [01:51:50] options. And it's unsightly and other people use our city and it's a constant problem. [01:52:02] But that's maybe, some of that goes along with having trees and having to figure out [01:52:07] what to do with them. [01:52:09] We spoke a few weeks back, or I spoke a few weeks back and suggested that the windrow [01:52:16] composting that we're doing now with our yard debris is a very good way of reinserting [01:52:21] the carbon that is depleting our air and getting it back into, filing it back into the earth [01:52:33] where it came from many years ago. That's the whole thing about burning coal and all [01:52:37] of that sort of thing. [01:52:39] We're doing an environmental favor by saving trips of our garbage companies and or our [01:52:49] community of large batches of trees during a big cleanup event, taking it all the way [01:52:56] to Shady Hills. So I'd suggested before the possibility that we look at what is really [01:53:02] a good program. And to the urban farmers in the city, Jim, who sells the most produce [01:53:08] here on Tasty Tuesdays, all he does is use the mulch from our city's mulch facility. [01:53:14] No fertilizer, no anything else. He grows some incredibly good and healthy vegetables. [01:53:21] So in the spirit of something I proved before to make us one of a few cities that are trying [01:53:27] to work towards this sort of self-sustaining, I really would like to see who or how we can [01:53:34] examine our land or partner's land or somebody else's on Pine Hill in Congress. I saw a clearing [01:53:44] on what was the old Wimpy's dump. I don't know if that's been sold or they're clearing [01:53:48] it to sell it. We had talked one time about acquiring that for the ball fields. And we [01:53:54] talked about trading the ball fields for the bank. And as with many things that have the [01:54:00] county involved, they don't seem to be going anywhere fast. But I will reiterate what he [01:54:07] told me, which is that is a great product that comes out of there. It's available to [01:54:13] our residents for free. And those that are urban farmers in the city are using it. He [01:54:18] also said that if you ran it through the mulcher one more time, it would become almost commercial [01:54:24] grade. Not that we want to get into the Milwaukee black cow fertilizer business or anything, [01:54:31] but I really believe that whatever process is done to eliminate these yard debris piles [01:54:41] or whatever we can do to help commercial folks who are dumping it here to avoid going to [01:54:46] Shady Hills, that it's a worthwhile effort for us to identify whether we could play a [01:54:54] role. Again, if you take your debris in a trailer to the county and drive that 20-minute

    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.

17. 9Communications▶ 1:54:56
18. 10Adjournment▶ 1:59:55
19. 6.a

    Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - October 2020

    on consent

    Receipt of the October 2020 minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.

    #Parks and Recreation Advisory Board