On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance and moment of silence honoring servicemen.

   ▶ Jump to 0:19 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:19] I'd like to ask you all to please stand, join me in the Pledge of Allegiance, [00:00:23] remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our servicemen at home and abroad. [00:00:29] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:33] and to the republic for which it stands,

   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

   The council observed a moment of silence and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

   ▶ Jump to 0:36 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:36] one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [00:00:46] Thank you. You may be seated.

   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 January 5, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approved the minutes from the January 5, 2021 regular meeting.

   • motion:Approve the January 5, 2021 regular meeting minutes. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 0:50 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:50] Next item on the agenda is the approval of the January 5th regular meeting minutes. [00:00:56] Second. [00:00:57] Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:01:02] Aye. [00:01:03] Opposed? Like sign. 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. 5

   Presentation - Police Pension Board Annual Report

   discussed

   Bill Phillips of the Police Pension Board presented the annual report, noting the fund has grown to approximately $31.1 million from $29 million the prior year, with strong performance (11 of 12 solid quarters and an 8.82% funded composite return). He reported on retirees, vested members, and the Board's decision to end its relationship with value manager Jackson Creek and move to a new investment manager.

   • direction:Pension Board decided to end its relationship with Jackson Creek as value manager and move to a different investment manager. (passed)

   🏢FOP🏢Garcia🏢Jackson Creek Investments🏢Logan Equities👤Bill Phillips👤Chief Bogart👤Chief Botner👤Lieutenant Hackett👤Mr. Driscoll👤Ms. Manns👤Officer Anderson👤Officer Jay👤Officer Lloyd👤Scott Baker#13th check for retirees#Annual investment rate of return#DROP program#Police Pension Board Annual Report#Police Pension Fund

   ▶ Jump to 1:05 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:05] Next, we have a presentation on the Police Pension Board Annual Report. [00:01:10] I will not be saying anything about it because we have Mr. Bill Phillips present this evening [00:01:15] to make the presentation to you this evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. [00:01:19] Good evening, Council. Good evening, Madam City Manager and my good friend, Mr. Driscoll. [00:01:25] How are you, sir? [00:01:26] Good. [00:01:27] Great to see everybody this evening. [00:01:28] You got a pass to be in Pasco County? [00:01:30] I'm still legitimate in Newport. [00:01:33] Oh, okay. [00:01:34] You haven't taken away my card to cross the county line until the 31st, but I appreciate that. [00:01:40] I didn't want to disappoint Ms. Mann, so she said, I understand you have a PowerPoint. [00:01:45] I said, yes, but I didn't want to disappoint you guys either. [00:01:49] But I did want to take this time to talk to you a little bit about the Police Pension Fund. [00:01:55] Many of you know that the Board oversees that fund, and you'll see, as you've read through your agenda package [00:02:06] and as you've gone through things, that fund is now in excess of $30 million, [00:02:13] which is not pocket change anymore. [00:02:16] It's obviously escalated over the years, and so it's very important for you to know that. [00:02:22] But I wanted to extend a thank you to you from the Pension Board, to the City Council, [00:02:28] and obviously to Chief Bogart and the Police Department. [00:02:33] Wanted to let you know how thankful they were, and the Board worked hard last year [00:02:39] in your approval in getting the retirees a 13th check, [00:02:45] which was a one-time situation when they understood, but obviously it hit right before COVID. [00:02:52] And so after that, it was very much appreciated by the retirees and the dependents that you see. [00:02:59] What I've done for you tonight is just to give you a brief overview. [00:03:03] There's only three slides, just three. [00:03:08] I did want to let you know that the Pension Board and the Pension Fund [00:03:12] has experienced 11 out of 12 solid performance quarters. [00:03:18] It only had one in the fourth quarter of 2018, where it took a little bit of a dip, [00:03:24] just like everybody else's 401ks and everything in that time. [00:03:29] Since I've been on the Board, when I got on the Board, it was about $28.5 million [00:03:35] at the close of business on 10-31. It was at $31.1 million, and you'll see that on a couple of slides. [00:03:43] The reason it was important for me, and the reason I enjoyed serving on the Board, [00:03:47] is many of you know the Pension Fund is pretty much a funded mandate [00:03:52] because of your agreement and your FOP and your collective bargaining agreement with the Police Department [00:03:57] and with their officers and their staff. [00:04:02] With that, any shortfalls that happen in that fund, not only short-term and long-term, [00:04:10] have to be made up by city revenue. [00:04:13] As it performs the way it has, and thank God it has done that, [00:04:19] it's allowed the city to not only recapture some money that they had put into the Pension Fund, [00:04:26] but over and above that, it also allows you to not have to take additional city revenue dollars into that fund. [00:04:42] What I wanted to share with you is that as of the end of this quarter, in this cycle, [00:04:57] that as of right now, you have 44 retirees and dependents. [00:05:04] Three of your retirees passed away within the last year. [00:05:11] Chief Botner, Lieutenant Hackett, and Officer Lloyd. [00:05:20] Chief Botner did not have any additional options, so his pension payments have completed themselves. [00:05:28] Both Hackett and Lloyd had beneficiaries. [00:05:32] There are two people that are in your drop program. [00:05:35] Not knowing exactly when they'll go out, but those are Officers Anderson and Jay. [00:05:40] Just so you can anticipate as you go about your business this year, [00:05:45] and any negotiations you have in the future coming up, [00:05:49] you have four officers within the next three years that qualify for retirement. [00:05:55] Then you have five additional ones that are vested that have 10 years, but haven't reached retirement age. [00:06:04] The other thing that also comes into play in the plan, and it'll come up as you see it later on, [00:06:11] there are six terminated vested members. [00:06:15] They're entitled to a retirement benefit at some point in the future. [00:06:21] The way it lays out, they become eligible between 2021 and 2037. [00:06:29] You can see the breakout, two next year, three in 2025, two in 2037. [00:06:35] Then, basically, those members have 10 years of experience, or 10 years of service, [00:06:41] but haven't reached their retirement qualifications. [00:06:44] Can you go to the next slide? [00:06:48] This is on page 19 of the auditor of the overview package. [00:06:55] The thing that I really wanted to point out to you is where the fund started last year. [00:07:00] It started at $29,005,000. [00:07:04] There were $1,077,000 contributed by the city. [00:07:10] There were $1,008,000 in distributions. [00:07:14] That includes, obviously, the pension fund, which is indicated on the page before. [00:07:20] Your annual outlay is about $1,004,000. [00:07:24] The fund also, obviously, has management fees because we have four different category managers. [00:07:32] There were other expenses. [00:07:34] Overall, what you needed to see was after all those expenses, [00:07:38] with the income and the capital gains and loss, [00:07:42] that the fund now sits at about $31.1 million. [00:07:47] Then you received a letter from Scott Baker, [00:07:50] who acts as our trustee and works with the other appointments. [00:07:54] If you go to the last page, and it's in the letter form, [00:07:57] there's a couple of different composite elements to the plan. [00:08:03] From your funded composite, it had an 8.82% return. [00:08:10] The equity side had an 11.6% return. [00:08:15] Then you'll see the four different fund managers. [00:08:18] That's because these funds are broken up strategically to maximize not only benefit, [00:08:24] but also to meet certain criteria that are set up by ordinance, state law, all those things. [00:08:30] As you can see, Jackson Creed Investments had a less than stellar year. [00:08:35] You had Logan Equities, Garcia. [00:08:38] Then we also have a REIT that we're in. [00:08:40] The board last year, through about a series of four meetings, [00:08:45] decided to analyze Jackson Creek as our value manager. [00:08:52] At our last meeting, we decided to end that relationship [00:08:55] and move to a different investment manager [00:08:58] so that we could experience a little better return. [00:09:02] On their behalf, Jackson Creek had a little bit of a corporate change, [00:09:07] partnership movement, all that. [00:09:09] After we went through all of our due diligence as a board, [00:09:14] it became apparent that it was time for us to let them move on, [00:09:19] for us to move in another direction. [00:09:22] There is an evaluation report that will come out in February. [00:09:28] Overall, when you look at everything, blend it out. [00:09:33] Because of where we set the annual investment rate of return, [00:09:38] the performance for the pension fund reported a 1.5% increase [00:09:45] over what the investment return was stated at. [00:09:48] It's performing well. [00:09:51] I just wanted to bring that to your attention [00:09:54] as you do it in your budget cycle, [00:09:58] and then also as you deal with the FOP and the other things like that. [00:10:04] If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. [00:10:07] If I can't, Ms. Manns will be happy to put it in her weekly report [00:10:12] that Mr. Phelps didn't know what he was talking about. [00:10:15] Any questions? [00:10:17] Bill, thank you very much. [00:10:19] Thank you. [00:10:20] Don't be a stranger. [00:10:22] I'll be around, guys. [00:10:24] Just bring up the Great Preserve again. [00:10:26] I'll be around. [00:10:28] Thank you.

   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.

6. 6Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 10:30
7. 7.a

   Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the consent agenda item for Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval without discussion.

   • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 13:27 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:13:27] Seeing no one else coming forward, [00:13:29] we'll close Vox Pop and bring it back to Council. [00:13:32] Consent agenda? [00:13:34] Move for approval. [00:13:35] Second. [00:13:37] Any polls? [00:13:39] Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:13:42] Aye. [00:13:43] Aye. [00:13:44] Opposed, like sign. [00:13:45] Motion passes.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

8. 7.b

   Firefighters' Pension Board Annual Report

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the consent agenda by unanimous voice vote.

   • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 13:27 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:13:27] Seeing no one else coming forward, [00:13:29] we'll close Vox Pop and bring it back to Council. [00:13:32] Consent agenda? [00:13:34] Move for approval. [00:13:35] Second. [00:13:37] Any polls? [00:13:39] Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:13:42] Aye. [00:13:43] Aye. [00:13:44] Opposed, like sign. [00:13:45] 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.

9. 7.c

   Consideration of Amendment to the FY21 Adopted Budget

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the consent agenda, which included consideration of an amendment to the FY21 adopted budget.

   • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda including the FY21 adopted budget amendment. (passed)

   #FY21 Adopted Budget Amendment

   ▶ Jump to 13:27 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:13:27] Seeing no one else coming forward, [00:13:29] we'll close Vox Pop and bring it back to Council. [00:13:32] Consent agenda? [00:13:34] Move for approval. [00:13:35] Second. [00:13:37] Any polls? [00:13:39] Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:13:42] Aye. [00:13:43] Aye. [00:13:44] Opposed, like sign. [00:13:45] 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.

10. 8.a

    First Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2221: Vacation of Right-of-Way for Tasmin Lane

    denied

    Council considered a first reading ordinance to vacate the Tasman Lane public right-of-way between Oleander Avenue and the Pithlachascotee River, requested by abutting property owner Elizabeth Colligan. Staff, the Development Review Committee, and the Land Development Review Board all recommended denial, noting the vacation would split the 15-foot right-of-way and create hardship for the neighboring Burdicks who built a home and shared driveway on it. Council voted to deny the request.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2221

    • motion:Motion to deny the request to vacate the Tasman Lane public right-of-way under Ordinance 2021-2221. (passed)

    📍6049 Oleander Avenue📍Acorn Street📍Tasman Lane👤Allen👤Donald Burdick👤Driscoll👤Elizabeth Colligan#Development Review Committee#Land Development Review Board recommendation December 17, 2020#Old Grove County subdivision number one#Ordinance No. 2021-2221#Plat book 2, page 37, Pasco County

    ▶ Jump to 13:46 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:13:46] Next, first reading ordinance 2021-2221. [00:13:50] This is ordinance number 2021-2221, [00:13:53] an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:13:55] providing for the vacation of the right-of-way running between [00:13:57] Oleander Avenue and the Pithilakootsee Rivers, [00:14:00] mispronounced that, [00:14:02] and lying between and adjacent to lots 5, 7, 26, 27, [00:14:06] Old Grove County subdivision number one, [00:14:09] recorded in plan book two, page 37, [00:14:11] of the public records of Pasco County, Florida, [00:14:14] and commonly referred to as Tasman Lane, [00:14:16] providing for reservation of an easement in the subject right-of-way, [00:14:19] providing for conflicts, severability, and an effective date. [00:14:22] The applicant of this request is Miss Elizabeth Colligan, [00:14:29] who resides at 6049 Oleander Avenue. [00:14:33] Her property abuts Tasman Lane, [00:14:36] which is a 15-foot public right-of-way. [00:14:39] The right-of-way also abuts Mr. Donald Burdick's property, [00:14:47] and Mr. Burdick, along with his wife, [00:14:51] have constructed a single-family home on the public right-of-way. [00:15:00] The public right-of-way contains a driveway, which is to be shared by the two property owners. [00:15:07] Ms. Elizabeth Colligan is not interested in sharing the 15-foot right-of-way [00:15:15] with her new neighbors, and so, therefore, she has initiated a request to vacate the public [00:15:23] right-of-way. In consideration of the vacation of a public right-of-way, one of the primary [00:15:32] considerations is typically whether or not there is any public benefit in vacating the public [00:15:42] right-of-way. The staff, which is the Development Review Committee, determined that there was [00:15:52] no public benefit in vacating the right-of-way, and they recommended denial of the request to [00:16:03] the Land Development Review Board, who, in turn, on December 17th of 2020, recommended denial of [00:16:16] this request to you. If the request were to be approved, then the property would be split in half, [00:16:25] and each property owner would have received seven and a half feet of the 15-foot right-of-way, [00:16:33] making it virtually impossible for either of them to use it as a private driveway. [00:16:41] Therefore, it was recommended that it not be approved. [00:16:47] I'm prepared to respond to any questions that you have. The applicant is not present. [00:16:51] Mr. Driscoll, does this one count as a quasi? [00:16:55] No, this is a legislative matter, so you have complete discretion when we're talking about [00:16:59] the vacation of a public right-of-way. [00:17:01] Very good. Open it up for public comment. [00:17:05] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [00:17:11] Mayor, I happened to attend that LDRB meeting when the applicant was there and gave her [00:17:23] request and reviewed by the board, and I would agree with the board's decision [00:17:31] after hearing her request. [00:17:33] So that's a motion to deny. [00:17:36] Also, I'll move to deny. [00:17:37] Do we have a second? [00:17:39] Second. [00:17:40] To the maker. [00:17:42] Anything else? [00:17:43] Nothing else to add. [00:17:46] No, it just wouldn't make sense to try to split up that driveway and the other person's built [00:17:51] their house with that purpose intended, so it just really wouldn't work out either way. [00:17:56] So. [00:17:57] Mr. Allen? [00:18:00] So I would like to understand the issuance of a permit for someone to build on our right-of-way. [00:18:07] Is that just because they were building a public facility on public land? [00:18:14] Actually, the previous owner to Mrs. Colligan did obtain a permit from the city to construct [00:18:25] a driveway on the right-of-way. [00:18:29] It, though, was done, I think, almost 20 years ago, if I remember correctly. [00:18:40] When Mrs. Colligan purchased the property, she mistakenly thought that the driveway was [00:18:47] her property, though was not included as part of the deed. [00:18:53] She was surprised to learn that it was not her property when she purchased it in 2010. [00:19:01] The city did give a permit, which is sort of unusual on a right-of-way, [00:19:08] to allow something more permanent, like a driveway, but it was done. [00:19:16] So to answer my question, is it a public driveway on public right-of-way? [00:19:20] It is a public driveway. [00:19:21] Public right-of-way that the owner of the property has no right to, and we would be [00:19:28] within our rights to remove it if we wanted to? [00:19:31] Correct. [00:19:33] I'll let the attorney say time, but correct. [00:19:37] So does the driveway, as it's built, serve the needs of the person who purchases the land after? [00:19:45] The way the property looks is, let's say, there's 15 feet there. [00:19:50] She comes in on her own property, then uses some of our property, and then gets herself [00:19:54] in her garage. [00:19:55] That's kind of what happens. [00:19:56] So if we told her to move, she would have to expand her driveway to the west to get [00:20:05] to her garage. [00:20:06] My question is, if she comes in on the driveway that the neighbor has, which is a driveway [00:20:14] which is on our right-of-way, does it serve her purposes so that she could remove her [00:20:19] driveway altogether, come in on that driveway? [00:20:21] No. [00:20:23] So... [00:20:24] The neighbors have got to work it out, basically, on the property that we're allowing them to [00:20:29] build, to access. [00:20:33] This is a neighborhood thing. [00:20:35] Yeah, and there's a number of those little 15-footers that are in between these lots [00:20:40] that have any real purpose from us. [00:20:42] I know. [00:20:42] I happen to be on one. [00:20:44] Yeah. [00:20:44] So if we vacated it, it gave 15 feet, or 7 feet to both sides, does that cure it? [00:20:51] Is that what she's asking to do? [00:20:52] That is what she's asking to do. [00:20:56] That would create a hardship for Mr. and Mrs. Burdick, though. [00:21:03] They're in on that 7 foot a little bit, too. [00:21:05] They are, and there's the utility easement, and there's a grade difference. [00:21:12] As I remember, as well... [00:21:14] Correct. [00:21:17] Okay, there's a... [00:21:18] Yeah. [00:21:18] Yeah, and if I remember correctly from the meeting, there was an issue where, of course, [00:21:22] we'd given him a permit to build the house, and I did. [00:21:25] If it was to happen, he could not access his garage. [00:21:29] He would actually have to tear down his garage and move it back in order to make the term. [00:21:34] Yeah, there's a diagram of the property in the packet. [00:21:38] It's basically a mess. [00:21:42] So, if we tear it apart, or split it, then they can't get in and out of the garage. [00:21:48] Nobody's happy. [00:21:51] Both of them have a problem. [00:21:54] You know, I reviewed this case, and my empathy went out to her, because she bought the property [00:22:00] as it was, always believing that was the situation, and I certainly understand it, and I felt for [00:22:08] her. [00:22:08] The issue comes in, you know, as I've learned a little bit more about how our city's platted [00:22:14] out, and there's a lot of these things throughout the city, and people are going to have to pay [00:22:17] attention when they buy and sell property, and so you get those proper surveys, and, [00:22:23] you know, I'm sure this is not the last one like this we'll hear. [00:22:26] Well, my only comment is that, at the time, the appropriate action probably would have [00:22:31] been to divide the... to come before us and divide it and give that land back if we had [00:22:35] no reason obtaining an easement or whatever. [00:22:39] So, this is a real right-of-way, real property owned by the city, and even as we were looking [00:22:46] earlier today at the Acorn Street property next to our right-of-way, our road, Acorn [00:22:53] Street down to the river, there's an easement, an agreement to allow the developer to use [00:22:59] that for drainage purposes, which gives full benefit to the one side, really, you know, [00:23:06] and I'm... I wasn't involved in that, but I think that we have to be real cautious, [00:23:13] and particularly, and hopefully, with the right-of-way, like the setbacks that we have [00:23:19] in place, which I'm believing we're going to be re-examining all of that as we go through [00:23:26] our code, but, you know, to the degree that I also am sympathetic to the new owner, except [00:23:32] from my father, real estate lawyers, reminding folks, get a survey, get title insurance from... [00:23:40] and know what you're buying. [00:23:41] I mean, that's a... but this kind of thing happens, and then you try to cure it in reverse, [00:23:47] and then you find out, you know, looking at the overhead, the drawing, the house could [00:23:52] have easily, that's existing there, could have easily reconfigured itself and not had [00:23:59] to use that land, but for the desire, probably, for more yard or whatever the case was, so... [00:24:07] I can't disagree with the motion, but it's unfortunate. [00:24:10] I think the neighbors have to work out with the property, [00:24:11] and I don't think we should vacate the property. [00:24:14] All right, we have a motion and a second to deny the request to vacate the property. [00:24:20] Any further discussion? [00:24:22] Hearing none. [00:24:23] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:24:26] Aye. [00:24:27] Opposed? [00:24:27] Like sign. [00:24:29] 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.

11. 8.b

    ↳You arrived here from a search for “Future Land Use Policy 1.8.3.c” — transcript expanded below

    First Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2222: Small Scale Future Land Use Amendment for 6120 Congress Street

    discussed

    First reading of Ordinance 2021-2222, a small-scale future land use amendment to change 6120 Congress Street (Grand Villas ALF) from LMD (low-medium density residential, 10 units/acre) to HD (high-density residential, 30 units/acre). Staff and the DRC recommended denial citing inconsistency with surrounding land uses and the city's intent to focus density downtown; the Land Development Review Board recommended approval 4-3. The applicant argued the property has been zoned MF30 since 1985 and the change would simply reconcile zoning with land use without altering the building footprint.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2222

    • vote:Land Development Review Board motion to recommend denial based on DRC recommendation. (failed)3–4
    • vote:Land Development Review Board motion to recommend approval of the land use amendment. (passed)4–3

    📍6120 Congress Street🏢Grand Villas of Newport Richey🏢McFarlane, Ferguson, McMullen🏢VSNP Ritchie LLC🏢Waytrim👤Brad Cornelius👤Brian Ungst👤John Mosner👤Mr. Mettler👤Mr. Peters👤Mr. Starkey👤Ms. Mance👤Robert Pergolizzi#Development Review Committee (DRC)#Florida Growth Management Act#Future Land Use Policy 1.8.3.c#HCR30 / HD high-density residential#LMDR10#Land Development Review Board (LDRB)#MF30 zoning#Ordinance 2021-2222#Policy 1.1.3#R30 zoning district#Table 1.1.3 future land use element

    ▶ Jump to 24:30 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:24:30] Next is first reading of ordinance 2021-2222. [00:24:34] This is ordinance number 2021-2222, an ordinance of the city council for the city of New Port Richey, Florida, providing for a small-scale amendment of future land use map of the [00:24:45] comprehensive plan, providing for a change in the land use designation from LMD, [00:24:49] low-medium density residential, to HD, high-density residential, for a 1.97-acre property [00:24:57] located at 6120 Congress Street, as shown on the map attached here to Exhibit A, [00:25:02] and legally described herein, providing for conflict, severability, and an effective date. [00:25:07] Thank you. [00:25:07] Ms. Mance. [00:25:09] The subject property is located at 6120 Congress Street, and it is the Grand Villas. [00:25:24] It's commonly referred to as the Grand Villas. [00:25:27] It is a non-conforming zoning use. [00:25:34] The subject property is 1.97 acres, which equates to 39 beds being allowed on the property. [00:25:45] It is an advanced, an ALF facility, and they currently have 126 beds at the facility. [00:25:55] There's quite a history with this property, dating back to 1985, when the building was [00:26:06] originally constructed, and the building was constructed in advance of the city adopting [00:26:13] a comprehensive plan and establishing a future land use map that was done in 1989, and that's [00:26:22] why it bears a non-conforming zoning status. [00:26:29] It, though, is unique in that it is one of the non-conforming zoning statuses that would [00:26:45] be allowed to be perpetuated under certain circumstances. [00:26:48] That being said, they're interested in changing the zoning designation to, [00:26:57] as the city attorney presented, high-density residential. [00:27:03] From the staff's perspective, and Mr. Cornelius will be presenting this evening more fully [00:27:09] the agenda item, we are not in favor of a rezoning of the property for several reasons, [00:27:18] including that an increase in density is not consistent with the surrounding land uses. [00:27:26] It's not consistent with the comprehensive plan as it relates to where we want to grow [00:27:33] density in the city, and the future land use also does not determine zoning, and this is [00:27:45] something that there have been many opportunities since 1989 that it could have changed. [00:27:53] It has had a long tradition in the city of being at its current land use and zoning, [00:28:02] and we think it's appropriate to stay so. [00:28:04] Mr. Cornelius, if you want to come up and talk a little bit more about this application. [00:28:16] Yes, ma'am. [00:28:17] And its legal non-conforming use. [00:28:19] Yes, ma'am. [00:28:21] As you all know, my name is Brad Cornelius with Waytrim, and I serve as a consulting [00:28:24] planner for the city of New Port Richey. [00:28:28] I will go through a brief presentation about this request and the staff's recommendation, [00:28:33] as well as the review of the Land Development Review Board and their recommendation. [00:28:37] So again, just to make sure everything is clear, and as Ms. Mann says, this property [00:28:41] is located at 6120 Congress Street, and it is 1.97 acres. [00:28:46] As Ms. Mann says, this was originally assigned to the future land use classification of low, [00:28:51] medium, and residential, which is 10 to 100 units per acre, which would allow a maximum of 39. [00:28:58] It also has an R30 zoning district on it, which is the high-density multifamily zoning. [00:29:03] So it has a disconnect between the future land use and the zoning. [00:29:08] So the city council is aware, and I think you are aware, this is not an uncommon situation [00:29:12] here in the city. [00:29:14] There's many instances where the zoning and land uses are different. [00:29:18] But I will also say, your codes are set up for that situation. [00:29:23] You have that address within your codes. [00:29:25] So, and I will present that as we move on. [00:29:28] Again, as Ms. Mann said, this existing there is a 126 dwelling unit, [00:29:34] or bed, and assisted living facility. [00:29:36] In terms of what we look also, is what are the surrounding land uses? [00:29:39] What are the surrounding permitted uses? [00:29:42] So in this situation, to the east, which is the wilds, it has a high-density 30 land use [00:29:49] and an MF30 zoning. [00:29:50] So it does have what they are requesting for their property. [00:29:55] So the wilds is to the east of the subject property. [00:29:58] To the west, which is... [00:30:00] On the other side of the road, it has an LMD10 land use, [00:30:07] which is what this subject property has, [00:30:10] with an MF30 zoning, which like this property has. [00:30:13] So we have a common situation. [00:30:15] And against the west, it's a mix of duplexes, residential, [00:30:18] and a church. [00:30:20] To the south of the property is an unincorporated piece [00:30:24] of property. [00:30:24] It's in Pasco County. [00:30:25] It is also one of the public housing complexes. [00:30:29] The density that Pasco County has on the property [00:30:32] immediately to the south is 12 dwelling units [00:30:34] per acre, which is very similar to what [00:30:37] the city has on this property, 10 dwelling units per acre. [00:30:41] And then to the north, there's a mix of LMDR10 land use, [00:30:45] as well as public facility with an MF30 zoning. [00:30:49] And to the north is another assisted living facility, [00:30:53] as well as the post office. [00:30:54] And then right at the corner is a small retail center. [00:30:58] So that's what we have around this property. [00:31:03] And again, the property is located on Congress Street, [00:31:06] south of Main Street is where the location of the property [00:31:10] is. [00:31:12] If this were to be approved, what [00:31:15] the potential total number of beds [00:31:17] that would be allowed on this property, [00:31:19] it would go from 126 that they have today to 177. [00:31:25] I will say, and it was provided at the LDRB hearing [00:31:28] and they will testify to this as well, [00:31:30] that is a maximum potential. [00:31:32] It also would be limited by parking limitations [00:31:34] and other limitations. [00:31:35] So it may not get to that 177 if they [00:31:38] were to redevelop or add units if this were to be approved. [00:31:45] When we look at this in consideration [00:31:49] of that surrounding land use, what [00:31:53] we see from a staff perspective is [00:31:55] we see basically a piece of high density getting pushed out [00:31:59] to Congress Street. [00:32:00] Because right now, along Congress Street in the city, [00:32:03] you have the commercial at the corridor, [00:32:05] you have low medium density residential. [00:32:07] This is low medium density residential. [00:32:10] Into the south, you have the county [00:32:11] at 12 units per acre, which is consistent with our 10 [00:32:14] units per acre. [00:32:15] And then as you go down Congress, [00:32:17] it's pretty much 10 units per acre. [00:32:20] The only place where we have the 30 units per acre [00:32:22] is in the wilds, which is to the east. [00:32:24] So if this were to be approved, it [00:32:27] would then extend out that high density land use out [00:32:30] to Congress Street, which would not be, in staff's opinion, [00:32:33] consistent with that existing development [00:32:35] pattern along Congress. [00:32:40] This is also important, as Ms. Mann mentioned. [00:32:42] There is quite a bit of historical context [00:32:45] to this request. [00:32:48] As she said, this was originally built in 1985 [00:32:50] prior to the comp plan. [00:32:52] And what's important, though, is through the years, [00:32:55] and I won't go through all of them, but through the years, [00:32:57] there have been many inquires to the city regarding [00:33:00] this property and what the land use and zoning were. [00:33:04] And we do have it in your staff report. [00:33:06] And we have many, many letters that [00:33:09] do verify that this was intended. [00:33:12] The 10 unit per acre land use was intended by the city. [00:33:16] And it verifies the position today [00:33:19] that that is the right land use on it, [00:33:22] on that property, and absent any kind of amendment. [00:33:27] So there is a history that this wasn't an accident. [00:33:29] This wasn't a mistake. [00:33:30] This was something the city did, and there [00:33:32] was a purpose behind it. [00:33:38] The other part to give a little bit more to [00:33:40] is the idea of the vesting. [00:33:42] And this is important. [00:33:44] So in your future land use element, [00:33:46] which drives your land uses and your densities and intensities [00:33:49] that are allowed, you have a land use policy 1.8.3.c. [00:33:55] And what that policy does, it provides [00:33:58] for vesting of projects that were [00:34:01] built prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan. [00:34:04] So this does fall under that policy. [00:34:07] They are vested at the 126 beds that are currently there. [00:34:11] I will also say, the full policy also has a procedure. [00:34:17] So they do have to go back to council [00:34:19] to get that vesting to be recognized. [00:34:21] So there's a process to that. [00:34:23] But there is a path, and they have the ability [00:34:26] to come to the city to have that to continue on if it's destroyed, [00:34:31] and to come back at the 126. [00:34:33] So there is that ability to do it within the city's [00:34:37] comprehensive plan. [00:34:40] One of the arguments that the applicant [00:34:41] did make as part of their application [00:34:45] was an argument of, well, this property has an MF30 zoning, [00:34:49] so we need to make the land use to be [00:34:51] compliant with that MF30 zoning that's on the property. [00:34:55] However, that is not the way land use works in the city [00:34:58] or in the state of Florida. [00:35:00] The city's comprehensive plan, which [00:35:02] is a very common policy throughout the state of Florida, [00:35:05] is when you have a conflict between your future land [00:35:09] use and your comprehensive plan and your zoning on a property, [00:35:13] your comprehensive plan will always prevail. [00:35:17] Your zoning has to be consistent with your adopted land use, [00:35:20] not your land use has to be consistent with your zoning. [00:35:23] So your land use drives your zoning. [00:35:26] Your zoning does not drive your land use. [00:35:28] And you have a policy 1.1.3, which [00:35:30] talks about when there's a conflict, [00:35:32] the more restrictive would apply. [00:35:36] Also in table 1.1.3 of your future land use element [00:35:40] under note number two, it's also very specific there. [00:35:43] And this is where I said the city's code is set up [00:35:46] where we have this disconnect in some areas [00:35:48] between the land use and zoning. [00:35:50] Your comprehensive plan addresses that. [00:35:52] And what your comprehensive plan says is, in all cases, [00:35:55] the more restrictive regulation shall prevail. [00:36:00] So we have a situation, as the council's aware, [00:36:02] where you have industrial land use, [00:36:03] but you have C2 zonings. [00:36:05] I will tell you, when I first started working here, [00:36:07] I thought that's kind of strange. [00:36:08] But now when I read that and I saw [00:36:10] that there's a reason and a purpose behind that that's [00:36:13] completely legitimate, is it gives you more regulation [00:36:17] under that land use. [00:36:18] So you have that within your code. [00:36:20] And I'll say within your comprehensive plan. [00:36:28] The other part, too, just to make it clear, [00:36:30] is under Florida statute, under the Florida Growth Management [00:36:33] Act, it does say that zoning must [00:36:35] be consistent with your comprehensive plan. [00:36:37] And that when we have that conflict, [00:36:39] the comprehensive plan does prevail within that. [00:36:44] In terms of looking at the overall consistency, [00:36:47] as I said earlier, when we look at this in relation [00:36:50] to the surrounding development pattern, [00:36:52] we believe it's not consistent with the overall development [00:36:55] pattern within the surrounding area. [00:36:58] We see this as a potential significant increase [00:37:00] in density compared to these adjacent properties [00:37:03] to the north and to the south and to the west. [00:37:05] We also did an analysis on the wilds. [00:37:08] And the wilds is actually developed at much less [00:37:10] than the 30 units per acre. [00:37:11] So they're not even built at the max [00:37:13] that they could under their land use. [00:37:18] Also, the staff came up with the position of, [00:37:21] it's really been the city's intended focus or intent [00:37:25] to focus your densities and intensity of development [00:37:28] here in your downtown. [00:37:29] You have great redevelopment activities happening here [00:37:31] downtown with new projects coming up, [00:37:33] projects being completed. [00:37:35] And that really is where the focus of the density is, [00:37:39] and I believe should be, as the city, [00:37:41] as you look to bring more people to your downtown [00:37:44] to support your businesses and your growth [00:37:45] within the core of your city. [00:37:48] And where we use the proof that we have on that [00:37:52] is just the fact that at the end of last year, [00:37:56] the city council, you adopted a comprehensive plan amendment [00:37:59] that significantly increased your densities [00:38:01] within your downtown, which really sends that signal [00:38:03] that we want to densify and really attract [00:38:06] that development here into downtown New Port Richey. [00:38:10] This property, the subject property we have, [00:38:13] is not within your downtown or your downtown core. [00:38:16] It's about 4 tenths of a mile east of your downtown. [00:38:21] So we don't find that consistent with the direction [00:38:24] that the city has been going in terms of the densities [00:38:27] with the city. [00:38:29] The development review committee, we did review this request. [00:38:34] And we recommended denial based on three factors. [00:38:36] Number one, the future land use of a property [00:38:38] determines the appropriate zoning. [00:38:41] Number two, the increase of density at HCR 30 [00:38:44] is not consistent with the surrounding land uses [00:38:46] to the north and south and west. [00:38:50] And the increase of density outside of the city's downtown [00:38:52] and downtown core is not consistent [00:38:55] with the stated intent of the city [00:38:56] to promote increased density within the downtown [00:38:59] and the downtown core. [00:39:01] So that was DRC's recommendation for denial [00:39:03] based on those three reasons. [00:39:06] This case then went to the Land Development Review Board. [00:39:09] And I will say there was quite a bit of discussion [00:39:12] at the Land Development Review Board about this case. [00:39:16] The initial motion on a recommendation [00:39:19] was to recommend denial based on the DRC recommendation. [00:39:23] However, that motion failed by a vote of three to four. [00:39:28] There was then a second motion by the LDRB [00:39:31] to recommend approval of the amendment. [00:39:34] And that second motion passed with four [00:39:36] in favor for a recommendation of approval [00:39:38] and three in opposition. [00:39:41] I will say, and Mr. Peters was there, [00:39:43] so he can add from my listening to the discussion, [00:39:48] the support was based on that they like the project. [00:39:51] They think it's a good project there [00:39:53] and want it to be successful and to continue on. [00:39:55] So it was more in support of the project itself [00:39:58] of what's there today, is how I read [00:40:02] what the LDRB's message was. [00:40:04] I will also say there was a discussion [00:40:05] that's somewhat outside of this request, [00:40:07] but something to consider in the future [00:40:09] as you look at your zoning regulations, [00:40:11] is how we do the conversion factor [00:40:13] from dwelling units to beds. [00:40:16] Right now in your code, [00:40:17] under the Low Medium Density Residential 10, [00:40:21] you get two beds for each dwelling unit of density. [00:40:25] Under the LMDR 30, you get three beds [00:40:28] for each dwelling unit. [00:40:29] So there was just a general discussion [00:40:31] about maybe that's something the city [00:40:32] should look at in the future, [00:40:34] of looking at those ratios that may also address [00:40:37] this issue under another way. [00:40:39] So I just wanted to make that full disclosure [00:40:41] to you what that discussion was at the LDRB. [00:40:45] With that, that finishes my presentation. [00:40:47] I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. [00:40:49] And again, the applicant and their representatives [00:40:51] are here this evening for a presentation as well. [00:40:53] Any questions? [00:40:55] Not yet. [00:40:56] Thank you. [00:40:57] Thank you. [00:40:57] I'll open it up for public comment. [00:40:58] I believe the applicant is coming up to address us. [00:41:04] Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members, [00:41:06] City Manager, City Attorney, and City Staff. [00:41:08] My name is Brian Ungst, McFarlane, Ferguson, McMullen. [00:41:11] I'm an attorney for the applicant VSNP Ritchie LLC, [00:41:14] doing business as Grand Villas of New Port Richey [00:41:17] at 6120 Congress Street. [00:41:19] I also have our planning expert, Robert Pergolizzi, AICP, [00:41:22] who will give a brief presentation, [00:41:24] and the operator, John Mosner, [00:41:25] who we'd like to ask to close out the show. [00:41:28] I will try to be as concise as possible. [00:41:29] I do have a quick PowerPoint, [00:41:31] mostly pictures to provide to the council. [00:41:36] But I wanted to point out first and foremost, [00:41:38] this is a small-scale land use amendment. [00:41:43] This property was developed in 1985 [00:41:46] before land use existed in the city of New Port Richey. [00:41:50] We had a zoning. [00:41:51] The zoning is the same now as it was in 1985, [00:41:54] which was MF30. [00:41:56] That allowed 30 units per acre. [00:41:58] In 1989, when the city adopted its first comprehensive plan, [00:42:03] the first ever land use was put onto this property, [00:42:05] and that was LDR10. [00:42:07] Now, it's very likely that the owner at the time [00:42:10] wasn't even aware that their density [00:42:13] was going to basically be downzoned, [00:42:15] because this was a citywide adopted plan. [00:42:18] There was really no reason for this particular owner [00:42:21] to know that that might be a possibility. [00:42:23] Well, my client bought this property in 2016. [00:42:27] And when my client brought the property in 2016, [00:42:29] they did do their due diligence, [00:42:30] and they immediately sent a letter to Mr. Mettler. [00:42:33] I want to read just a portion of that [00:42:35] as I show you some of these pictures. [00:42:37] And I'm not going to read the whole thing, [00:42:38] just a portion of it. [00:42:39] Grand Villa has created a friendship roommate [00:42:41] accommodation. [00:42:42] This lifestyle will allow seniors an opportunity [00:42:45] to receive the care and services they need at affordable costs [00:42:48] by sharing a room with another resident. [00:42:50] We are anticipating 102 single private occupancy rooms [00:42:54] and 24 friendship roommate semi-private rooms. [00:42:57] Therefore, total residents at 100% occupancy [00:42:59] would be 102 private residents and 48 semi-private residents [00:43:03] for a total of 150 residents. [00:43:05] Now, that's important to note, because as Mr. Cornelius said, [00:43:08] we are limited. [00:43:09] Even if this passes tonight, we're [00:43:11] limited by the parking restraints. [00:43:12] And the parking restraints would only ever get us to 150 beds. [00:43:18] The friendship roommate semi-private rooms [00:43:20] would be primarily located on the memory care floor. [00:43:23] So we're not talking at all about increasing [00:43:27] the size of this building. [00:43:28] We're not touching the building. [00:43:30] We're not doing anything to it. [00:43:31] We're not changing the footprint, [00:43:33] not changing the height. [00:43:35] We're using space we already have, [00:43:37] and space that we've already used in the past. [00:43:39] And I'll get into that in a second. [00:43:41] But another thing I wanted to point out in this letter, [00:43:44] Grand Villa currently has three residents [00:43:46] that maintain vehicles on site. [00:43:47] That was in 2017. [00:43:48] Mr. Mosner tells me now it's two. [00:43:51] So we don't have a lot of residents [00:43:53] that are driving in and out. [00:43:55] We have visitors, and we have 46 employees. [00:43:58] My client invested $4 million in improving this property. [00:44:02] My client provides exceptional memory care and assisted living [00:44:07] care that is sorely needed in this community. [00:44:10] There are three bases for the staff recommendation of denial. [00:44:13] One of those bases was you have a comprehensive plan that [00:44:16] says you should be incentivizing more density [00:44:18] in downtown core. [00:44:19] But with respect, nothing about allowing [00:44:22] us to use the space in this building [00:44:24] is going to in any way have any detrimental impact [00:44:28] on your ability to draw density downtown. [00:44:30] And Mr. Starkey recognized that and said as much [00:44:33] as one of the biggest boosters of downtown [00:44:35] that this request before you today [00:44:38] really has nothing to do with downtown [00:44:39] and isn't going to have any detrimental impact on downtown. [00:44:43] The other point that Mr. Cornelius pointed out [00:44:46] was that you do have a future land use policy, 1.8.3, [00:44:54] which talks about nonconformity. [00:44:56] So what we're asking, all this request does is make a [00:45:00] property that was developed as a conforming density, conforming [00:45:03] today, as it was in 1985. [00:45:06] What Mr. Cornelius points out is that in the event [00:45:09] of a natural disaster, an assisted living facility [00:45:12] may be able to be rebuilt to its non-conforming density. [00:45:16] Now, first off, it has to be a natural disaster. [00:45:18] It's specific that it cannot be a purposeful or illegal act [00:45:22] of any person. [00:45:23] So God forbid there was an arson or something, which God forbid [00:45:27] would never, ever happen. [00:45:28] The point is, this is not a guarantee. [00:45:30] Secondly, you have to apply with a site plan [00:45:34] within 180 days of the natural disaster. [00:45:38] If there's a natural disaster that [00:45:40] is sufficient to destroy this building, [00:45:43] we're all going to be in a bad situation. [00:45:45] 180 days is not a long time. [00:45:48] Thirdly, even if it's in the city council's discretion [00:45:52] whether to permit the building, even if the city council [00:45:57] permits it, you only have 180 days from the approval [00:46:00] to begin construction, which again, [00:46:02] trying to get financing after a natural disaster [00:46:04] of that magnitude, the point is, it's very uncertain. [00:46:09] Respectfully, our position is that there [00:46:12] is nothing about this request tonight, if you approve it, [00:46:14] that changes the city's position. [00:46:16] The city holds all the cards. [00:46:18] We can't touch this property in terms [00:46:21] of the footprint, the structure, the size of it [00:46:24] without your approval. [00:46:26] Anything would have to come back to site plan approval. [00:46:29] So if you talk about the zoning, this is the zoning, MF-30. [00:46:32] I think I'm doing this right. [00:46:34] All of these properties are zoned MF-30 for the most part. [00:46:38] The yellow is the land use. [00:46:39] You can't really see it well here, but this is the wilds. [00:46:42] Currently, we are LDR-10, and we're asking to be yellow. [00:46:46] So this is not a spot land use amendment. [00:46:49] This is entirely consistent with the abutting properties. [00:46:53] And the fact that this property cannot be redeveloped in any [00:46:58] way without your approval, without the LDRB's approval, [00:47:02] without the city staff looking at it through DRC, [00:47:06] means that you have all the cards. [00:47:08] So if the concern is, well, they're [00:47:10] going to get their higher density, [00:47:11] and they're going to tear it down and build a condo, [00:47:14] we could never do that. [00:47:16] We could never do that unless we came back through the process [00:47:19] and had your approval and showed that we could meet the parking, [00:47:22] could show that it met the infrastructure, [00:47:24] could show that it met the process for approval. [00:47:28] I will tell you, Grand Villa has never, ever bought a property [00:47:33] and sold it to a developer. [00:47:36] They certainly haven't put $4 million [00:47:38] into this property to flip it or sell it to a developer. [00:47:42] All they want is the security, and their lenders, [00:47:49] their financers need to know that this property, [00:47:51] if, God forbid, something happens to it, can be rebuilt, [00:47:55] and that it's not going to be a non-conformant. [00:47:59] This property has 90 full-time employees. [00:48:03] This property has a $2 million a year payroll. [00:48:06] If this is approved, again, we will [00:48:07] use the space that's already there, [00:48:10] and we anticipate we would add 10 employees at that point. [00:48:15] And I did want to point out, the city staff [00:48:17] was extremely helpful to us in this process, [00:48:21] and they sent us all the historical documentation, [00:48:23] which you have. [00:48:24] We have a letter from March of 2000, [00:48:28] which is a zoning verification letter, [00:48:30] and this is back when it was called the Remington. [00:48:32] And it says, as of this date, the Remington House [00:48:34] has 160 beds. [00:48:37] So we know at a certain point in time, we have 126 beds today. [00:48:41] There were 160 beds there in 2000, [00:48:43] and it apparently wasn't a problem for the city. [00:48:45] So this is, in our opinion, a very small-scale request. [00:48:49] It is very specific to the current use. [00:48:52] Nothing bad could be redeveloped or happen [00:48:54] on this site without the city staff review, LDRB review, [00:48:59] and your final approval. [00:49:00] It would have to meet all your codes, [00:49:01] and that is not the plan. [00:49:02] The plan is to become conforming, [00:49:04] which we were in 1985. [00:49:06] I'd ask Mr. Purgolizzi to provide just a little bit [00:49:08] of testimony from a planning perspective. [00:49:10] Thank you. [00:49:14] Good evening, Mayor and Council. [00:49:16] Robert Purgolizzi. [00:49:17] I'm an AICP certified planner with Gulf Coast Consulting, [00:49:20] 13825 Icut Boulevard in Clearwater. [00:49:25] Brian said a lot of what I was going to say, [00:49:27] so I'll try to be brief. [00:49:29] As you know, the building was constructed in 1985 [00:49:31] when it had MF30 zoning. [00:49:33] There was no comp plan back then. [00:49:35] When the comp plan was adopted in 1989 [00:49:38] and an LMDR10 was placed on this, [00:49:42] it created a non-conforming use. [00:49:44] We are seeking to eliminate that non-conformity. [00:49:48] Actions over the last decade or so [00:49:52] that have perpetuated the non-conformity and denial [00:49:55] of a change of land use to the requested HDR [00:49:58] would continue to perpetuate the non-conforming, [00:50:00] and that creates a problem. [00:50:02] First of all, we do have an inconsistency [00:50:04] between the land use and zoning, and we're [00:50:05] trying to straighten that out. [00:50:06] We're trying to get them consistent with one another. [00:50:09] Second of all, financing of improvements. [00:50:11] Banks will not lend if you're looking [00:50:14] for a loan for improvements if you are non-conforming use. [00:50:18] It becomes very difficult, and the owner [00:50:20] can explain more about that. [00:50:25] Basically, the city staff report refers to policy 1.8.3 [00:50:28] as justification for the recommendation for denial, [00:50:30] stating that it guaranteed the ability [00:50:32] to reconstruct up to 126 beds. [00:50:35] We respectfully disagree, and we made that point [00:50:38] at the LDRB meeting, and they understood that [00:50:40] and agreed with us. [00:50:42] There are many restrictions to limit that, [00:50:44] and policy 1.8.3 said only in accordance with the following. [00:50:48] And 1.8.3b is you must use the plan development process, [00:50:52] which Brian explained. [00:50:53] It's got a site plan. [00:50:54] It's got to come back through the process, the staff, LDRB, [00:50:58] and then, of course, the city council. [00:51:01] A new site plan must be submitted and approved. [00:51:04] Reconstruction must adhere to current codes, height setbacks. [00:51:07] There's no guarantees or variances [00:51:09] that may be necessary to rebuild. [00:51:13] Grand Villa is in a mixed-use area, [00:51:15] and I know Brad mentioned about extending the HDR-30 out [00:51:19] to Congress. [00:51:20] Well, that little panhandle, so to speak, of the property [00:51:23] is just like the entrance road and some parking spaces [00:51:25] out there. [00:51:26] The bulk of the property is well-eased adjacent [00:51:29] to the wilds, which has the HDR land use. [00:51:33] We've got C1 zoning in a retail center [00:51:36] up on the corner of Congress and Main Street, [00:51:38] and then next to it, we've got the post office with MF30 [00:51:41] zoning. [00:51:42] Directly along Main Street, MF30 zoning with HDR land use [00:51:46] to the east is the wilds. [00:51:48] To our south, we've got Res 12 in unincorporated Pasco County. [00:51:53] So in our opinion, the HDR-30 land use that we seek here [00:51:57] creates a density transition from north to south, [00:51:59] from the more active uses along Main Street [00:52:01] down to 12 units per acre in unincorporated Pasco [00:52:04] County south of us. [00:52:06] As we stated, the HDR-30 land use [00:52:09] would theoretically allow up to 177 units, [00:52:13] although parking is going to restrict us to an expansion [00:52:15] to 150 beds. [00:52:17] I should have said 177 beds, not units. [00:52:20] 177 beds. [00:52:22] That 150 beds is 24 additional beds [00:52:25] over what currently exists. [00:52:28] So we are consistent with several policies [00:52:31] in the comprehensive plan. [00:52:32] 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and several others. [00:52:39] I won't belabor it. [00:52:41] Essentially, our impacts are minimal. [00:52:45] We're changing the color on the map, [00:52:47] and we're not making changes to the site. [00:52:49] All of the addition of 24 beds would [00:52:53] be done with interior renovations. [00:52:56] And Mr. Moshner, the owner, can explain a little bit more [00:52:59] about that. [00:53:03] Thank you. [00:53:09] Good evening, everyone. [00:53:10] John Moshner, the president of Granville Senior Living. [00:53:14] And thank you for taking the time [00:53:16] to listen to our requests. [00:53:17] Thank you to the city for walking us [00:53:19] through this process over the last few years. [00:53:23] Both gentlemen shared a lot of information with you, [00:53:26] and I just want to leave you with two thoughts. [00:53:28] As Brian said, we employ 90 employees today. [00:53:33] As we continue to grow, that number [00:53:34] will exceed 100 employees. [00:53:38] Our payroll last year was $2 million, [00:53:40] and another $400,000 in payroll costs and benefits. [00:53:43] This year, it's going to be $2.2 million, and probably [00:53:45] almost half a million dollars in wage costs and benefits. [00:53:48] And so we feel we're a significant employer [00:53:52] within the city limits that's going [00:53:54] to continue to provide jobs to those employees. [00:53:57] In addition to that, we pride ourselves [00:53:59] in providing good quality care to our seniors [00:54:01] of our community and middle income residents and families. [00:54:08] And so with that, today we're maxed out at 126 residents. [00:54:12] That's with our license with the state of Florida. [00:54:15] And part of the process of being able to rent [00:54:18] 20 empty apartments, when we reach 126 residents, [00:54:21] we have 20 empty apartments that we cannot rent, [00:54:23] because we're locked in at 126 residents. [00:54:27] So I ask you to consider that in your decision tonight, [00:54:31] because when we purchased the property, [00:54:33] we did some informal questioning as to, well, [00:54:35] how do we increase the beds? [00:54:36] And we had a pretty good feel that this process [00:54:38] was going to be successful. [00:54:40] If it wasn't, and we anticipated this hurdle, [00:54:43] we certainly wouldn't have purchased the building [00:54:45] or put $4 million into the property, which [00:54:47] included an elevator. [00:54:49] That was a problem not only for the residents that lived there, [00:54:51] but also for the fire department. [00:54:53] It didn't have a stretcher access, and it was slow. [00:54:56] And so that was part of our commitment to the city [00:54:59] and to our residents, to go ahead and add the elevator, [00:55:02] as well as adding a generator that not only met [00:55:05] the requirements that the state put in, [00:55:07] the governor put in a couple of years ago, [00:55:09] but it exceeded that. [00:55:10] The whole building is powered. [00:55:12] And so that was part of that investment as well. [00:55:15] And so I ask you to consider that we would have 20 empty [00:55:18] apartments, and that just isn't what we planned on. [00:55:23] It was certainly a big surprise on our part [00:55:26] not being able to do that. [00:55:29] Thank you. [00:55:30] We want to continue to serve the community of New Port Richey [00:55:34] and be a partner with the city. [00:55:37] And we feel that, again, we're not [00:55:39] making any physical changes. [00:55:41] This is all inside the building, just [00:55:43] trying to provide good care to our seniors in our community. [00:55:47] Thank you. [00:55:48] Any other comments from the public? [00:55:54] Come on, Bill. [00:55:58] Bill Collins, 5500 Rivadel Place, apartment 339. [00:56:04] It's interesting sitting back and taking in that, [00:56:07] and sitting and seeing you guys, and Ms. Manns, [00:56:11] looking at what's going on with this process. [00:56:15] It's interesting that when the city makes their presentation, [00:56:19] that they tell you about the downtown density. [00:56:22] And the gentleman tells you about his investment. [00:56:25] He's got 20 units. [00:56:26] But the city didn't take into effect [00:56:28] that if he's able to put 20 or those, if they're cohabitated, [00:56:32] if there's one or two, that's 40 more residents there. [00:56:37] His non-conforming use is what's killing him. [00:56:40] He's trying to do renovations. [00:56:41] As many of you know, if it doesn't conform, [00:56:44] your lender's not going to give you any money. [00:56:46] And over and above that is, please [00:56:48] look at the economic impact. [00:56:50] The 10 employees, you gave away a bunch of money [00:56:53] downtown to a bunch of businesses, [00:56:55] including some that still haven't put up their sign yet. [00:56:58] Even though you give them a half a million dollars [00:57:01] and give them criteria, haven't seen that updated. [00:57:04] But more important is, it really doesn't create a pocket use. [00:57:08] It's an extension. [00:57:09] The building sits so far back, he's [00:57:11] put a lot of money to make it conform. [00:57:13] And then the other drive for me is, [00:57:16] if there are 40 more people there and 10 more employees, [00:57:21] and you continue to do all the dynamic things you're [00:57:23] doing on the east and west side of Main Street down, [00:57:27] those people are going to have to spend money [00:57:29] and go to the restaurants. [00:57:30] They may be able to take their resident out to there. [00:57:33] They may have all those things. [00:57:34] So economically, to me, this creates a net benefit [00:57:39] to the city of New Port Richey, and not [00:57:41] anything that you're spot zoning and you're creating. [00:57:44] Unfortunately, they're caught up [00:57:46] and they're sitting next to Pasco County property, which [00:57:49] still should be economically, not gerrymandered, [00:57:54] but ought to be conformed around to where [00:57:57] it squares off our borders. [00:57:58] And that's another discussion you've had in the past. [00:58:00] So in my past experience, my recommendation to you [00:58:05] is to approve them and allow them [00:58:07] to increase their investment in the city of New Port Richey, [00:58:10] and not over the aspect of your millennial housing downtown, [00:58:15] and recognizing that you're benefiting [00:58:17] your senior population that are much closer to the hospital [00:58:21] by being there and sticking them out on Rowan Road. [00:58:24] Thank you. [00:58:24] Thank you. [00:58:26] Anyone else? [00:58:28] Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to council. [00:58:31] I'll move approval of the requested. [00:58:33] Second. [00:58:35] To the maker. [00:58:36] Yeah, I mean, it's pretty compelling. [00:58:39] And I'm not putting any disrespect [00:58:42] to the staff for following the letter of the law. [00:58:44] That's what you do. [00:58:45] That's what you're expected to do. [00:58:47] And it was nice to see there was no argumentative aspect to it. [00:58:52] But certainly, looking at the housing [00:58:58] that the county has next to it, and looking [00:59:00] at the surrounding neighborhood, this [00:59:04] is not a place in our town that something that's [00:59:07] existing there, completing their business plan, [00:59:11] is going to have any negative effect on. [00:59:14] Mr. Murphy, I believe you had the second. [00:59:16] Yes. [00:59:17] I mean, it's kind of tough on both sides. [00:59:19] Both sides make a good argument. [00:59:22] But at the end of the day, they were kind of there [00:59:24] before all this. [00:59:26] And they're sitting there with a business with 20 extra rooms [00:59:29] they can't use. [00:59:30] So I kind of eared toward the side [00:59:32] of you've got a business trying to make money, [00:59:35] and they were already there. [00:59:37] They've obviously made a huge investment in the property. [00:59:41] I can't see them investing $4 million [00:59:44] and knocking it down to build some condos. [00:59:47] That just wouldn't make financial sense. [00:59:50] And the whole assisted living really [00:59:52] seems to add to the quality of life [00:59:55] of the city of New Port Richey. [00:59:57] It's an aspect we need. [01:00:00] that we could keep residents here if they go to the facility. [01:00:07] I understand staff's thoughts on this, and they're not wrong. [01:00:13] I just think that, in this case, we should gear towards a business, an investment, an [01:00:19] opportunity. [01:00:20] Nothing's changing outside the building, it's just inside. [01:00:23] Thank you. [01:00:25] Mr. Peters. [01:00:27] So, you know, I don't underestimate, you know, following the comprehensive land use. [01:00:37] I mean, I spent a year and a half on the county's Citizen Advisory Committee as Pasco County [01:00:42] developed their comprehensive plan. [01:00:44] So the decisions were made, and that was set up for very good purposes. [01:00:50] I don't take lightly to move anything against that. [01:00:54] But as Brad said, I was in, having to be at the LDR meeting and listen to the discussions [01:01:03] that board made, that committee made, and I think they made the right decision. [01:01:10] In this case, we have a very good property owner, very well maintained, manages property [01:01:17] throughout the state at a high level, and I think they're a good neighbor, and I get [01:01:24] that they're just trying to fix the financing. [01:01:26] If the banks would be a little bit easier on them, this wouldn't be an issue. [01:01:34] We get some great pictures of the place, you know, and I'm getting old enough, maybe I'll [01:01:38] walk down the street and move in. [01:01:40] If we had any problems with the fire department, with that facility at all? [01:01:46] No, not at all. [01:01:53] I think the chief was going to indicate, as he has in discussions with me, that we [01:01:59] do have more calls for service at Grand Villas than at some of the other locations in town, [01:02:06] but they're much larger than many of our other facilities. [01:02:10] So it just makes sense that they would call for service more. [01:02:13] But it's more of a health call than... [01:02:15] No, they're real calls. [01:02:17] It's not we're understaffed and we can't pick people up. [01:02:19] No, no, I'm saying it's more of a health call. [01:02:21] Yeah, they are. [01:02:22] Health call, not a fire call. [01:02:23] No, they're health calls. [01:02:24] Oh, yeah, that's okay. [01:02:26] That's what I'm asking, because I saw the pictures look great. [01:02:28] Right. [01:02:29] No, I just wanted to get an idea from the fire department, you know, their situation. [01:02:35] I'm in favor of this. [01:02:36] You know, if we hire 10 more people in this town, that's 10 that's going to bother Robert [01:02:43] because he can't get them to come to work for him. [01:02:49] I think this is a question of consistency and whether the consistency ought to be based [01:03:01] on the zoning or on the land use. [01:03:08] Looking around that parcel, you've got the post office. [01:03:14] You've got a skilled nursing facility sitting right in front of it. [01:03:18] In fact, the reason they've only got a keyhole type driveway is because the nursing home [01:03:23] is taking up most of the space. [01:03:25] You almost can't see the building from Congress. [01:03:32] In a previous lifetime, I was a licensed nursing home administrator. [01:03:39] And so I recognize good facilities and bad facilities when I walk into them. [01:03:47] And I have been into this particular building on a number of occasions, helping some of [01:03:53] my clients. [01:03:57] The building has never failed the sniff test as I've walked in the front door. [01:04:03] It's a nice facility. [01:04:05] It's well maintained. [01:04:08] They're doing a nice job. [01:04:11] I wish all the ALFs in New Port Richey were as nice, quite frankly, because it is. [01:04:19] I would guess at five stories, it's probably the tallest building we've got in the city [01:04:25] right now. [01:04:27] Not quite sure how that happened back in the day, but it hasn't been a problem. [01:04:33] The chief doesn't have a problem with it. [01:04:37] I think the better part of Valor is to follow the recommendation of the LDRB and say, let's [01:04:45] make this thing consistent. [01:04:47] So heaven forbid there's a problem going forward, it'll be easy enough to get the financing [01:04:53] to do what they need to do. [01:04:56] This just makes sense. [01:04:58] Mayor, one more comment, if I may. [01:05:01] Just for the record, I was a city councilman in 1988, so I recall, not very well, but well [01:05:14] enough to still be on the outside here, that we had our first comprehensive plan. [01:05:22] I recall the way that it all went. [01:05:26] We hired an outside consultant. [01:05:29] All counties and cities in Florida were under the gun to get these things in. [01:05:34] We had a couple of hearings, but I'll guarantee there was no discussion about this property [01:05:39] or how much look at it we did. [01:05:47] So in my mind, I don't want to say it's a Scrivener's error or anything, but I think [01:05:52] that when that plan was adopted, if more effort could have been taken to see where we had [01:06:00] nonconformity uses and we had a big facility like this, the original comprehensive plan [01:06:05] land use probably wouldn't be the same if we'd had this discussion then. [01:06:10] So in that regard, just in terms of what the intent of the city was, I was one of the five [01:06:15] people that voted on that. [01:06:18] I'm sure it didn't come up in that conversation, and I feel comfortable that we're not undermining [01:06:24] the intent of the overall plan. [01:06:27] Any further discussion? [01:06:30] Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:06:33] Aye. [01:06:34] Opposed? [01:06:35] Like sign. [01:06:36] Motion passes. [01:06:37] Thank you, gentlemen. [01:06:39] Next is first reading ordinance 2021-2219.

    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.c

    First Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2219: Amendments to Chpt. 3 RE: Alcohol Sales Hours on Sundays

    approved

    Council held first reading of Ordinance 2021-2219, amending Chapter 3, Section 3-2 of the city code to allow alcoholic beverage sales between 8 a.m. and 2 a.m. every day including Sundays, to be consistent with Pasco County's recently adopted ordinance. The motion for approval passed on a voice vote; a second reading will follow.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2219

    • motion:Move for approval of first reading of Ordinance 2021-2219 amending alcoholic beverage sales hours. (passed)

    🏢Pasco County Board of County Commissioners👤Altman👤Mrs. Smith👤Murphy#Chapter 3, Section 3-2 of Newport Richey Code of Ordinances#Ordinance No. 2021-2219

    ▶ Jump to 1:06:42 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:06:44] Mr. Mayor, I'd like to remind the public that there will be a second reading on that ordinance [01:06:47] as well. [01:06:49] This is ordinance number 2021-2219, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, providing [01:06:54] for amendment of Chapter 3, Section 3-2 of the New Port Richey Code of Ordinances pertaining [01:06:58] to allowed alcoholic beverage sales hours, providing for allowance of alcoholic beverage [01:07:03] sales between the hours of 8 a.m. and 2 a.m. the following day, every day of the week, [01:07:08] including Sundays, providing for enforcement, providing for conflict, severability, and [01:07:12] an effective date. [01:07:13] Thank you. [01:07:14] Mrs. Smith? [01:07:16] In December of 2020, the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners adopted an ordinance [01:07:22] that specifically amended the hours of sales of alcohol on Sundays. [01:07:29] The change that was made to the sales on Sundays was that sales could commence at 8 a.m. [01:07:39] Previous to that, they weren't allowed to commence until 11 a.m. [01:07:44] In order to be consistent with the sales time in the county, our recommendation to [01:07:50] you is to allow sales to commence at 8 a.m. on Sundays. [01:07:57] In that respect, the City Attorney has drafted an ordinance which amends the City's Code [01:08:01] of Ordinances to reflect that change and to be consistent with the county's ordinance. [01:08:07] Thank you. [01:08:08] I'll open it up for public comment. [01:08:11] Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to Council. [01:08:14] I move for approval. [01:08:15] Second. [01:08:16] To the Maker? [01:08:17] I've already discussed it. [01:08:18] I'm happy. [01:08:19] Second. [01:08:20] Does it make sense to fold in for the county on this one? [01:08:26] Mr. Altman? [01:08:29] Mr. Murphy? [01:08:30] I'm good. [01:08:34] This is another example where we just, for simplicity, need to be consistent with what [01:08:39] the county is doing, and so I have no problem with this either. [01:08:43] There is no further discussion. [01:08:44] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:08:47] Aye. [01:08:48] Opposed? [01:08:49] 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.

13. 8.d

    First Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2220: Amendments to Chpt. 2 LDC RE: Restricted Personal Service Uses

    approved

    Council held first reading of Ordinance 2021-2220, which amends the Land Development Code to add cannabidiol vendors, smoke shops, and nicotine dispensing device businesses to the list of restricted personal service uses, subjecting them to the existing 1,000-foot distancing requirement. Council members discussed a preference for policy-level discussions before ordinances are drafted, and the motion to approve passed.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2220

    • motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance 2021-2220 amending Chapter 2 of the Land Development Code to add cannabidiol vendors, smoke shops, and nicotine dispensing device businesses as restricted personal service uses. (passed)

    👤Starkey👤Ullman#Ordinance 2021-2220#Section 2.01.00 Chapter 2 Land Development Code#restricted personal service uses

    ▶ Jump to 1:08:50 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:08:50] Motion passes. [01:08:51] Next, First Reading Ordinance 2021-2220. [01:08:54] This is Ordinance Number 2021-2220, an Ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, amending [01:08:59] Section 2.01.00 of Chapter 2 of the Land Development Code, pertaining to definitions of terms, [01:09:05] providing for amendment of the definition of restricted personal service uses, providing [01:09:09] for definitions of cannabidiol vendors, cannabidiol oil vendors, and smoke shops, providing for [01:09:15] designation of cannabidiol vendors, smoke shops, and nicotine dispensing device businesses [01:09:20] as restricted personal service uses, providing for severability, providing for conflicts, [01:09:25] providing for a codification, and providing an effective date. [01:09:28] Thank you. [01:09:29] I'll open it up for public comment. [01:09:32] Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to Council. [01:09:39] I just want to ask a question. [01:09:44] What are we bringing up here that we didn't already have? [01:09:47] Well, we have, if you'll allow me, Mr. Mayor. [01:09:52] Please. [01:09:53] We have current restricted personal service uses, which are defined as blood plasma centers [01:10:02] and piercing establishments and fast cash establishments and pawn shops and day labor [01:10:12] establishments and instant loan stores. [01:10:17] One of the reasons that we define them is because we find that a concentration of them [01:10:25] threatens a perception of having a poor quality of life in a community, and so we have established [01:10:34] distancing requirements for these uses of 1,000 feet from each other so that we don't [01:10:41] have a concentration of these type of uses at any one location within the city. [01:10:48] We're asking you tonight to add to the definition of restricted personal service uses three [01:10:58] new types of businesses, and we're talking about smoke shops, cannabidiol vendors, and [01:11:07] nicotine dispensing device businesses as also restricted personal service businesses [01:11:19] so that we can continue to limit the concentration of these businesses as it relates to blight [01:11:28] and the perception of the community. [01:11:31] Thank you. [01:11:32] Then I move for approval. [01:11:33] Second. [01:11:34] For the Mayor? [01:11:35] No. [01:11:36] I was here when we did the first part, and I just didn't really know that those three [01:11:41] weren't in there. [01:11:42] Second. [01:11:43] No, I'm good. [01:11:44] Mr. Ullman? [01:11:45] Yeah, I think the question I have is, you know, it would be my preference if we had [01:11:50] this with the bathhouse ordinance and others. [01:11:59] It would be my preference if, as a council, we were to discuss ordinances before they're [01:12:03] presented to us. [01:12:04] I think ordinances should come from policy from us, not from within. [01:12:09] So it would probably have the same output, but when I see an ordinance and we haven't [01:12:14] even talked about it, I don't know if that really fits the model that we should be following. [01:12:23] The other thing I would say is I would trade this for the body-piercing establishments. [01:12:31] I don't know. [01:12:32] We've got them outlawed in downtown particularly, and I know it was Councilman Starkey who had [01:12:36] objected or suggested maybe we ought not limit them in the past. [01:12:42] We don't need body-piercing everywhere, but apparently it's becoming quite common. [01:12:50] And also, we have issues with the legality of some of these things that they should be [01:12:57] outlawed anyway. [01:13:00] So I'll go along with the motion. [01:13:03] I think we should from time to time look at whether some of the items that are on that [01:13:07] list remain on it. [01:13:10] Although 1,000 feet is a pretty reasonable distance, we could still have a lot of these [01:13:14] things in town. [01:13:15] So it's not like we're eliminating them. [01:13:18] I know with the adult use ordinance, we limited them to the commercial industrial zone, which [01:13:27] was a smart move to get those out. [01:13:31] Keeping them at a distance may not even be enough. [01:13:35] We have other options, and so if we had this discussion before the ordinance came to us, [01:13:39] we might have some recommendations for you to create the ordinance. [01:13:44] For example, the smoking devices, the nicotine dispensing device businesses, those are super [01:13:58] destructive and they've really been in the news a lot. [01:14:02] Yeah, I'll vote for it, but did we discuss this and ask for it? [01:14:10] I don't recall. [01:14:11] No, this is brought to you as a result of the fact that we are seeing a proliferation [01:14:22] of these types of establishments in the city. [01:14:27] We're considering it a problem, so we're bringing it to you for action. [01:14:33] My only request is just to have a simple mother may I for these things. [01:14:36] It doesn't take much under your discussion or an item, just ask us to produce them. [01:14:41] It catches me off guard when I see ordinances already produced and moved down the road. [01:14:46] That's my personal opinion. [01:14:47] I'm just going to say I appreciate the work that you guys have been doing and staying [01:14:51] on top of it. [01:14:52] I'm not out there every day of the week and keeping an eye on things. [01:14:56] I can do that a couple of different ways, I get to meet with you. [01:15:00] every week so I can put it on our agenda or we can bring it up at a meeting whatever your preference is as a [01:15:06] group. [01:15:09] Yeah, the [01:15:10] you know [01:15:12] I've got a family member that's been in the [01:15:15] business both in medical marijuana and and just strictly CDV for example and [01:15:22] some of those [01:15:23] shops you thought you might be walking into an Apple store. They're so high-tech and [01:15:30] just blow you away like didn't even know this was going on. So while that's on one side [01:15:36] then there's there's also just like any other businesses there's [01:15:40] you know just throw up a shingle and it doesn't necessarily operate the same way so [01:15:47] you know a third of a mile you can put one up. I don't see an issue so I'm in favor. [01:15:52] And I'll vote for it. Just a comment not [01:15:57] just to share my thoughts that's all. [01:16:00] And since you brought it up Mr. Altman about piercings [01:16:03] I don't want to know if any of you have piercings or what you had pierced. [01:16:09] I'm going to go along with this. [01:16:12] There's no further discussion. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. [01:16:16] Opposed, like sign. [01:16:18] Motion passed. [01:16:20] Next is business items cottage at Oyster Bayou final plat approval.

    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. 9.a

    Cottages at Oyster Bayou Final Plat Approval

    approved

    Council considered final plat approval for the Cottages at Oyster Bayou, a 58-lot RV/cottage subdivision on Green Key Road previously approved as a planned development in 2019. Staff recommended approval conditioned on the city surveyor resolving a technical issue regarding the depiction of Heaven's Way, a Pasco County-maintained roadway. A motion was made to approve in substantial form subject to clarification of Heaven's Way.

    • motion:Approve the final plat for Cottages at Oyster Bayou in substantial form subject to clarification of Heaven's Way by the city surveyor. (passed)

    📍Green Key Road📍Heaven's Way🏢Pasco County🏢Precision Surveying👤John Robbins👤Mr. Cornelius👤Mr. Dumas👤Ms. Mance#Chapter 177 Florida Statute#Chapter 9 City Land Development Code#Cottages at Oyster Bayou#Planned Development (2019 approval)#Plat-build process

    ▶ Jump to 1:16:23 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:16:24] Mr. Cornelius will present the item which is a final plat approval for a 58 lot subdivision pursuant to chapter 177 of Florida statute and chapter 9 of the city's land development code. [01:16:31] Final plat approval for a 58 lot subdivision pursuant to chapter 177 of Florida statute and chapter 9 of the city's land development code. [01:16:46] Thank you Ms. Mance. Mayor and Council, Ms. Mance I'll present this item to you. [01:16:51] What you have before you is a request to approve the final plat for the cottages at Oyster Bayou. [01:16:57] For the council's recollection and for our new member, this is a planned development project that the city council approved back in 2019. [01:17:07] It's on Green Key Road and it is a development that is an RV development with cottages. [01:17:15] So there's cottages which will have an RV parking space adjacent to them. [01:17:19] The developer will be selling the lots as part of this project. [01:17:23] It is important to note too that the approval that the city gave them was for 66. [01:17:29] So they're actually developing a few lots less than what was actually approved under the PD. [01:17:34] A quick history on this project, they started down the path of doing what's called a build plat process. [01:17:44] And what that is, is they would build the infrastructure in the project first, get it all done, get it approved, and then come to the city for the plat to be approved. [01:17:54] They're down that path. And if you go out there today, you'll see there's quite a bit of infrastructure that's already been constructed, a lot of activities already occurred there. [01:18:03] However, recently they made the decision to, they wanted to go ahead and get the plat done. [01:18:08] And so they switched over to what's called the plat build process. [01:18:13] And what that is, is when a developer comes forward with a financial guarantee to the city that the infrastructure will be completed. [01:18:21] And that allows the city then to approve the plat, which allows them to begin to sell the properties while they construct the development. [01:18:30] Still at the end of the project, the city will have to do all the final inspections on all the infrastructure and everything will have to get approved before they can get COs and people can actually live there. [01:18:40] So that's what's before you this evening. They've made the decision to go through that process. [01:18:44] We've been working with the applicant for some time. [01:18:47] For this, they have provided the financial guarantee to the city. [01:18:52] The city attorney has reviewed that, which is required by your code. [01:18:56] There is one wrinkle that has occurred as of yesterday. [01:19:01] And the developer is here, Mr. Dumas, and he is aware and understands. [01:19:06] One of the requirements also is the city has to hire a surveyor to review it, to sign it on the city's behalf, to assure compliance with Florida statute and the requirements for platting. [01:19:17] So the city does have a surveyor that they use, John Robbins with Precision Surveying. [01:19:23] And when Mr. Robbins reviewed the plat that you have before you this evening at your spots, and I'll back up real quick. [01:19:32] The way I gave that to you, that is the one that the surveyor has reviewed that actually has been signed by the applicant. [01:19:38] So I want to make sure you have the most recent version for this evening. [01:19:42] But an issue has occurred related to Heaven's Way. [01:19:45] There's a small roadway piece on the west side of this project that actually provides the only access point to an unincorporated neighborhood adjacent to Oyster Bayou, there on the west hand side. [01:19:59] Initially, when this went through the process, there wasn't much thought about Heaven's Way. [01:20:05] However, when they came to the plat, initially they were dedicating that to the city. [01:20:10] However, we determined very quickly that that is a county roadway. [01:20:15] Heaven's Way from Green Creek Road all the way to its end is a Pasco County maintained roadway. [01:20:23] And we have that confirmed by Pasco County. [01:20:26] What the surveyor found yesterday in reviewing the plat you had before this evening is he's concerned about the depiction of Heaven's Way now that we know it is a Pasco County roadway. [01:20:36] And so it is a technical issue. [01:20:39] It is not one that impacts anything related to the city in terms of obligations, requirements. [01:20:45] And it won't really change anything substantial on the plat. [01:20:48] It's just to make sure that the right-of-way is appropriately shown with the plat and a slight tweak. [01:20:55] Because what they changed on the plat is they did now a dedication to Pasco County. [01:20:59] However, the city attorney as well as a surveyor said they don't have to dedicate it because it's already a county roadway. [01:21:05] So they're going to remove that dedication and just have another one. [01:21:09] So what we're asking and requesting of the council this evening to help continue to move this forward is that the council, if it's your pleasure, [01:21:17] to approve the final plat with the condition that your approval is conditioned upon the city surveyor to work with the developer [01:21:25] to resolve the outstanding issue related to Heaven's Way on the plat and make the appropriate corrections. [01:21:31] The city surveyor then would sign the plat that they are consistent with statute as well as with standard survey practice. [01:21:40] Once that occurs, we will then have all the city signatures occur, which will then allow them to plat. [01:21:46] And the city signatures would be the mayor, the city manager, the city clerk, and the public works director. [01:21:52] So we're asking, if it's your pleasure, and it would be helpful for this project, [01:21:56] if you would approve the plat this evening with that condition related to the city surveyor doing his final approval. [01:22:04] And with that, that's my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. [01:22:08] Does the county get involved in any of this? [01:22:11] I had discussions directly with the county about this issue. [01:22:14] They're not concerned in any way. They just want to be sure that it's properly reflected before this is recorded. [01:22:21] And once it's recorded, the developer can go forward and start selling lots? [01:22:27] Yes. And I will say the developer did just tell me this evening that his survey is already in discussion with the city surveyor, so this should happen fairly quickly. [01:22:36] Thank you. Open it up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:22:42] Move approval in substantial form subject to the clarification of the Heaven's Way.

    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. 9.b

    Board Re-Appointment: David Schrader, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

    approved

    Council reappointed David Schrader to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.

    • motion:Motion to approve the reappointment of David Schrader to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. (passed)

    👤Baker👤David Schrader👤Peters#Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

    ▶ Jump to 1:22:45 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:22:49] Second. [01:22:51] Is that sufficient? [01:22:53] Yes. [01:22:55] Motion? [01:22:57] No. [01:22:59] Mr. Peters? [01:23:01] No, I'm good. [01:23:03] In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. [01:23:07] Opposed? Like sign. Motion passes. [01:23:10] Next is board reappointment. David Schrader to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board. [01:23:14] Move approval. [01:23:16] Second. [01:23:18] Mr. Baker? [01:23:20] No. [01:23:22] Mr. Mayor, do you want to open that up to the public? [01:23:25] Anybody in the public? Mr. Schrader is not here to run screaming out saying no. [01:23:33] Mr. Peters? [01:23:35] No. [01:23:37] Hearing nothing from the public either. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. [01:23:44] Opposed? Like sign. 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.

16. 9.c

    Board Appointment: David Dorsey, Police Pension Board

    approved

    Council appointed David Dorsey to the Police Pension Board for a four-year term ending January 19, 2024. Dorsey, a CPA, will continue to also serve on the Firefighters Pension Board.

    • motion:Appoint David Dorsey to the Police Pension Board for a four-year term ending January 19, 2024. (passed)

    👤David Dorsey👤Mr. Altman👤Mr. Murphy👤Ms. Manz#Firefighters Pension Board#Main Street Board#Police Pension Board

    ▶ Jump to 1:23:46 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:23:46] Next is board appointment. David Dorsey to the Police Pension Board. Ms. Manz? [01:23:51] Mr. Dorsey currently serves on the Firefighters Pension Board. [01:23:59] There is an opening on the Police Pension Board. Mr. Dorsey has indicated an interest in serving. [01:24:08] I have no doubt that he would serve as a valued member. Therefore, I'm recommending that you consider an appointment for a four-year term. [01:24:21] If you appoint Mr. Dorsey to this position, his appointment would span through January 19th of 2024. [01:24:33] I'll open it up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to Council. [01:24:39] I just have one question. Would he be resigning from the other board? Or would he be on both? [01:24:44] He would not be resigning from the Fireman's Pension Board. [01:24:49] I like him. He's a CPA. I think he'd be an asset to both boards. [01:24:58] Do we have a second? [01:25:00] Second. [01:25:02] Anything else to make or a second? [01:25:05] Mr. Altman? Mr. Murphy? [01:25:08] I'm good. David's been a good person helping out the community for years, including for almost forever. [01:25:18] He was on the Main Street Board and did their finances. A very public-spirited gentleman. [01:25:26] Mr. Dorsey, if you're watching, thank you very much for agreeing. [01:25:31] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, the like sign. [01:25:36] Motion passes. [01:25:38] Next, Professional Service Agreement, City Services for 2021. [01:25:42] Mr. Matt Ivey is in attendance this evening representing Aaron Associates. [01:25:49] They have been serving as the City Engineers since 2016. [01:25:55] I received a proposal from them to continue to provide services to the city [01:26:05] in the amount for basic services not to exceed $40,000 without some written authorization of the city to exceed that money. [01:26:17] They provide basic services in the areas of transportation, civil, environmental, structural, and water resources disciplines. [01:26:28] They also provide services in the area of architecture, landscaping, planning, and grant writing.

    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. 9.d

    Professional Service Agreement RE: City Engineering Services for 2021

    approved

    Council approved a professional service agreement with the city's existing City Engineer firm for engineering services running through December 31, 2021. Councilman Altman expressed interest in eventually engaging a consultant to help the CRA understand engineering and overall costs for capital improvement planning.

    • motion:Move to approve the professional service agreement with the City Engineer through December 31, 2021. (passed)

    👤Altman👤Peters👤Vance#CRA capital improvement plan

    ▶ Jump to 1:26:37 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:26:38] The city has enjoyed a very good relationship with them as the City Engineer, [01:26:44] and we are recommending that you allow us to go forward with a contract with them to run through December 31st of 2021. [01:26:55] Thank you. Open it up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [01:27:00] Move for approval. [01:27:02] Second. [01:27:04] Nothing more. [01:27:06] Mr. Altman? [01:27:07] I've made my comments felt before that I would much like to have a project-related sort of engineer up at the dais from time to time, [01:27:18] but I've really kind of changed my thought process to say I'm looking to see if perhaps in the CRA, [01:27:25] which is apparently going to take on a lot of potential projects, including ones we talked about tonight, [01:27:29] that perhaps at some point in the future when the time is right, [01:27:35] Ms. Vance, we could consider having a consultant to help us to understand engineering costs and overall costs [01:27:43] as we make our capital improvement plan for the CRA. [01:27:47] More for providing us for planning for our city's expansion than for providing the necessary engineering services for staff. [01:27:58] Thank you. Mr. Peters? [01:28:00] In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. [01:28:05] Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. [01:28:08] Next, 2020 Grand Boulevard Drainage Improvement Project Closeout. [01:28:11] Mr. Rivera? [01:28:13] Thank you, Ms. Vance. [01:28:15] This item for Council's consideration for approval is a change order number one in the amount of $10,450 [01:28:22] and a pay request in the amount not to exceed $179,732.50 from Southern Road and Bridge. [01:28:33] This is for the completion of the Grand Boulevard Drainage Project. [01:28:37] The project location is on Grand Boulevard just south of Homecrest. [01:28:43] There was an existing drainage system that was undersized. [01:28:46] We took and removed 180 feet of 18-by-36 elliptical reinforced concrete pipe, [01:28:54] and we upsized it to 38-inch-by-60-inch ERCP pipe. [01:29:01] It also included elements, the other elements of inlets and other structures that needed to match the increased size. [01:29:10] You'll notice that the change order was attached to this project. [01:29:14] The original project cost was $328,565. [01:29:20] The change order increased it to a final price of $339,015. [01:29:27] The reason for it was the site conditions. [01:29:31] Once we got out there and we removed the existing headwall, [01:29:35] the engineer of record had proposed that we replace it with the standard FDOT index headwall, [01:29:40] which is already prefabricated, delivered to the site. [01:29:45] Once we got to the site conditions and saw the boulders [01:29:49] and the close proximity to the two house structures, [01:29:54] we determined that we were going to have to do a pour-in-place, [01:29:57] and that pour-in-place caused the original project to collapse. [01:30:00] caused the additional cost. It caused us to go ahead and have to pour a floor in before [01:30:05] we constructed the headwall. All of the funding for this as well as the change order is under

    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.

18. 9.e

    2020 Grand Blvd. Drainage Improvements - Project Close Out

    approved

    Council approved the project close-out for the 2020 Grand Blvd. Drainage Improvements, including a change order final cost of $10,450 against a $10,000 owner's contingency, with the remainder requested from council. Staff explained the drainage system collects stormwater originating in Pasco County (Cassin Heights/Washington Street area) and flows through the city's stormwater system to the river.

    • motion:Motion to approve the 2020 Grand Blvd. Drainage Improvements project close-out and change order. (passed)

    📍Candlelight📍Grand Blvd.📍Washington Street🏢Italian American Club👤Murphy👤Peters👤Rockland#2020 Grand Blvd. Drainage Improvements#Cassin Heights

    ▶ Jump to 1:30:08 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:30:12] the miscellaneous stormwater. You'll notice that there was a difference. The change order [01:30:17] final cost was $10,450. We did have an owner's contingency of $10,000. We utilized some of [01:30:25] it for some site survey work and then took that balance, applied it to the $19,000 poured [01:30:32] in place headwall, and this is the remainder that we're coming to request from you. With [01:30:38] that, we'd recommend approval. [01:30:40] Open it up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:30:45] Move for approval. [01:30:46] Second. [01:30:47] Maker? [01:30:48] Nothing. [01:30:49] Second. [01:30:50] Nothing. [01:30:51] Mr. Rockland? [01:30:53] Late at night. Lucky Robert. [01:30:55] Mr. Peters? [01:30:56] So this drainage goes, can you tell us where the water is collected from and where it goes [01:31:03] to? [01:31:04] In this type of situation here, this is the downstream outfall portion of a system that [01:31:11] actually begins in Pasco County, Cassin Heights over there by Washington Street. It also [01:31:18] ties into the New Port Richey area over by Candlelight that historically floods. It flows south [01:31:27] and goes under the old Italian American Club where that S-curb is off of Washington Street [01:31:33] and then ties in and comes over into our system. [01:31:39] Okay, so this goes into our wastewater system right there and carries on, right? [01:31:44] It goes into our stormwater system. [01:31:46] Right. [01:31:47] Which goes to the river. [01:31:50] This has been problematic for a long time, so it's good to get it done. [01:31:55] There's no further discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:31:58] Aye. [01:31:59] Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. [01:32:02] Next, increase in capitalization threshold for assets. [01:32:06] This relates to the Florida Administrative Code. Crystal Misfeast, if you could present. [01:32:13] Good evening. You have before you a request to increase the city's capitalization threshold [01:32:19] of items purchased from $1,500 to $5,000. [01:32:25] Effective October 1, 2020, the Florida Administrative Code requires that all items purchased [01:32:31] with a value of $5,000 or more and a useful life of one year or more be considered property [01:32:37] and be capitalized. [01:32:40] Capitalization by its nature is a financial statement reporting matter. [01:32:45] So it simply establishes a depreciation threshold for our assets and how they are presented. [01:32:52] So the impact that this change will make on the city's financial statements is that now [01:32:57] these purchases that are less than $5,000 will be considered an operating expenditure [01:33:03] and those $5,000 and more would be considered an asset and a small portion would be expensed each year. [01:33:13] Just a little bit more to add. [01:33:15] So from a budgeting perspective, the impact would be that purchases now under $5,000 [01:33:22] would be considered an operating expense and no longer a capital purchase. [01:33:29] So lastly, although the Florida Administrative Code just made this change, [01:33:37] best practice for municipalities has been that they capitalize items over $5,000. [01:33:44] For years now, they've been doing that. [01:33:46] So we would be considered following best practices and be in compliance with the Florida Administrative Code. [01:33:52] Thank you. [01:33:53] Open it up for public comment. [01:33:55] Move approval. [01:33:57] Okay, we have a motion. [01:33:59] Second. [01:34:00] To the maker. [01:34:02] Yes, well described and it makes a lot of sense. [01:34:06] And sure, when you mentioned that it doesn't depreciate for the purposes of our budget [01:34:13] and our regular fund accounting, we always write off the costs of these things [01:34:20] except on the citywide financial statements, correct? [01:34:23] Correct. [01:34:24] So it really doesn't have any effect on our budget in terms of how much money we're spending [01:34:29] and what we have to spend. [01:34:30] Nor does it change our purchasing policy. [01:34:33] So staff will follow the same policy that they always follow to purchase items. [01:34:37] It's just from a reporting standpoint that changes. [01:34:40] Second. [01:34:41] Mr. Peters. [01:34:42] Okay. [01:34:43] Mr. Murphy. [01:34:44] I'm good. [01:34:45] This is basically housekeeping as far as I can see. [01:34:48] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:34:51] Aye. [01:34:52] Opposed, like sign. [01:34:53] Motion passes. [01:34:54] Mr. Murphy, any communications tonight? [01:34:56] Yeah, I just had one I was going to bring because I've had, I guess, three people now talk about it [01:35:02] and I guess tell me everything that's going on in this project and what's going to be done. [01:35:07] And that's the bridge on Grand Boulevard. [01:35:09] So I just kind of laugh when they tell me stuff. [01:35:11] And, you know, enough and nothing is for sure a thing. [01:35:16] But I know we've had some talk about it. [01:35:18] I know Ms. Baines is talking to the county.

    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.

19. 9.f

    Increase in Capitalization Threshold of Assets

    discussed

    Despite the agenda title referencing capitalization threshold of assets, the transcript covers council member updates including county negotiations on raising a bridge, planned communications with County Commissioner Oakley, annexation concerns near a memory center, FRA board membership, and a reminder about golf cart registration.

    📍the bank building there downtown in the parking lot📍the property next to that memory center👤Bernie👤Dave Schrader👤David Dorsey👤Mr. Allen👤Mr. Peters👤Oakley👤Pete#Bridge raising project (multi-year county payment plan)#CRA activities#Citizens' Advisory Committees#FRA (Florida Redevelopment Association) board#Golf cart registration/inspection

    ▶ Jump to 1:35:19 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:35:21] So is there any more developments on that? [01:35:23] At this point, I can report to you that we've had recent communications with the county. [01:35:30] They have committed to a multi-year payment plan to allow the city an opportunity to finance the raising of the bridge by five feet. [01:35:47] And once we commit to some more specifics, we'll bring that back to you, [01:35:51] and you can determine whether or not that's of interest to you or not. [01:35:55] Thank you. [01:35:56] You're welcome. [01:35:57] Mr. Allen. [01:35:58] Yes, just to let you know, because it had been suggested before that some of us on the council could talk to our big brothers [01:36:10] in the county on the county commissioner from time to time. [01:36:14] And so I've made an appointment to speak to Mr. Oakley, and I'll be speaking to him. [01:36:19] So if there's any comments you would like to share, I've got an appointment to speak to him. [01:36:25] We didn't have our city-county discussion, which in the past has been New Port Richey and New Port Richey and the county. [01:36:35] And generally those discussions don't really let us get into much. [01:36:39] But if you all are with me on it, I know that we've talked for a long time about some real estate, [01:36:47] and particularly the bank building there downtown in the parking lot, which we have pending design on. [01:36:56] And there doesn't seem to be quick reaction on their part for some of those things, annexation being another one. [01:37:05] The property next to that memory center. [01:37:12] Oh, that's it. [01:37:19] Are there any extra rooms available? [01:37:22] They're going to have some extra spots. [01:37:25] Well, I hope they take their time making them. [01:37:27] But that's in the county was a potential for us to enclave, if I remember, that we could have gone with the Wilds on one side, [01:37:38] and it's kind of boxed in. [01:37:40] I know it's a housing project for low-income housing, I think, right, that's kind of next to the thing. [01:37:48] But they really have been slow, as I can see, in their annexation. [01:37:52] So I'm not going to criticize, but I would encourage and then also try to help continue to get his commitment [01:37:59] that he recognizes we pay county taxes and would love to have their assistance [01:38:04] and support for all of our CRA activities that we're about to embark on. [01:38:11] Any comments I'll share? [01:38:13] Tell me. [01:38:15] I'm going to pass tonight. [01:38:17] I just have two things. [01:38:19] First of all, that's a weird way to take a vacation, Bernie. [01:38:24] Welcome back. [01:38:29] But the other question I have for you, Pete, you mentioned two weeks ago, I think, you were on the FRA. [01:38:35] Do you represent the city, or is it just something you got on? [01:38:39] If you are, I'd like to get reports from you on it. [01:38:42] Because we never like the city. [01:38:45] There's two seats on that board for the entire state from elected officials. [01:38:51] I was on it way back in the 80s. [01:38:54] So they invite board members back. [01:38:56] So when they saw me get elected, they invited me back. [01:38:59] It's not an appointment. [01:39:00] We don't have a seat on that board. [01:39:02] It's just something that I've – [01:39:04] Sometimes prepare maybe next week or a couple weeks from now what it's all about. [01:39:07] I'd love to. [01:39:09] I didn't even know anything about it. [01:39:13] I'd be happy to. [01:39:16] Mr. Peters. [01:39:17] Yeah, Peter. [01:39:18] So, you know, big brothers and big sisters. [01:39:21] Right. [01:39:22] The county commission there. [01:39:23] So it's important to have. [01:39:26] Hey, just, you know, make a point to remind everybody, I know it's time to register your golf carts. [01:39:32] I happened to have an opportunity to do that this Saturday, [01:39:34] and the folks there at the police station were what I'd call professional friendly. [01:39:40] I was there for several inspections and had to be talking to people, and they did a wonderful job. [01:39:45] So it's time for us all to get our golf carts inspected, right? [01:39:52] The – you know, appreciate the – Dave Schrader and David Dorsey to agree to serve on citizens' advisory committees.

    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.

20. 10Communications▶ 1:39:56
21. 11Adjournment▶ 1:41:04