Council took up first readings on front-yard fence limits (3 feet, 50-70% open), downtown outdoor display rules, and cosmetic tattooing in beauty shops; adopted the 6120 Congress Street land use amendment.
22 items on the agenda · 15 decisions recorded
On the agenda
- 1Call to Order – Roll Call▶ 0:00
- 2
Pledge of Allegiance
Pledge of Allegiance led with a moment of silence in honor of Black History Month.
▶ Jump to 0:15 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:15] of you to please stand. Join me in the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing [00:00:18] for a moment of silence in honor of the Black Month we've got in February [00:00:25] recognizing our black citizens. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United [00:00:32] States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under [00:00:37] God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. You may be seated. Next item on the
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 3
Moment of Silence
A moment of silence was held in honor of Black History Month, recognizing Black citizens, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
▶ Jump to 0:18 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:18] for a moment of silence in honor of the Black Month we've got in February [00:00:25] recognizing our black citizens. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United [00:00:32] States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under [00:00:37] God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. You may be seated. Next item on the
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 4
Approval of January 12, 2021 Work Session Minutes
approvedCouncil approved the minutes of the January 12, 2021 meeting by voice vote.
- motion:Motion to approve the January 12, 2021 meeting minutes. (passed)
▶ Jump to 0:38 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:49] agenda is the approval of the January 12th meeting minutes. Move to approve. Second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Next, approval of the January 19th work session and
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
Approval of January 19, 2021 Work Session and Regular Meeting Minutes
approvedCouncil approved the minutes from the January 19, 2021 Work Session and Regular Meeting.
- motion:Approve the January 19, 2021 Work Session and Regular Meeting minutes. (passed)
▶ Jump to 0:58 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:03] regular meeting minutes. Move for approval. Second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. Next is Vox Pop. This is for
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 6Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 1:12
- 7.a
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - December 2020
approvedon consentCouncil approved the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from December 2020.
- motion:Motion to approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from December 2020. (passed)
▶ Jump to 29:52 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:29:52] Move for approval. [00:29:54] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:29:57] Aye.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.b
Police Pension Board Minutes - November 2020
approvedon consentCouncil approved the Police Pension Board minutes from November 2020.
- motion:Approve the Police Pension Board minutes from November 2020. (passed)
▶ Jump to 29:52 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:29:52] Move for approval. [00:29:54] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:29:57] Aye.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.c
Environmental Committee Minutes - October through December 2020
approvedon consentCouncil approved the Environmental Committee minutes for October through December 2020.
- motion:Approve the Environmental Committee minutes for October through December 2020. (passed)
▶ Jump to 29:52 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:29:52] Move for approval. [00:29:54] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:29:57] Aye.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.d
Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval
approvedon consentCouncil approved the purchases/payments item on the consent or routine agenda by voice vote.
- motion:Motion to approve the purchases/payments for City Council approval. (passed)
▶ Jump to 29:52 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:29:52] Move for approval. [00:29:54] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:29:57] Aye.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.a
First Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2224: Amendments to Chpt. 12 LDC RE: Front Yard Fences
approvedCouncil heard first reading of Ordinance 2021-2224, which amends Chapter 12 of the Land Development Code to consolidate and clean up fence regulations, limit residential and commercial front yard fences to 3 feet (50-70% open) with specified permitted/prohibited materials, allow 6-foot side/rear yard fences (4 feet adjacent to streets/river), and preserve existing fences via grandfathering. Council moved approval with a revision clarifying the 4-foot limit also applies to commercial fences along streets/river, with additional clarifications (river setback, fence material gauge) to be addressed before second reading.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2224
- motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance 2021-2224 with revision adding the 4-foot limit for commercial fences adjacent to streets or river. (passed)
6041 Florida AvenueDented KegWade TrimBrad CorneliusHeather FerentinoJohn CainMr. BokarMr. DavisMr. PetersMs. VanceChapter 6 Article 7Development Review CommitteeFront yard fence moratorium (August 2020)Land Development Review Board (LDRB)Ordinance 2021-2224Section 12.05.00 of Chapter 12▶ Jump to 30:00 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:30:00] slide sign. Next is the Mr. Mr. Bokar. Can we have this plated [00:30:10] removed? She's gone. She's gone. Next item is first reading [00:30:13] ordinance 2021 dash 2224. [00:30:23] 2021 2224 an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida [00:30:28] providing for amendment of section 12.05.00 of chapter 12 [00:30:33] of the land development code pertaining to fences, providing [00:30:36] for design standards for fences providing for specific design [00:30:39] standards for the various yard areas and zoning districts [00:30:42] within the city, providing for recodification and amendment [00:30:46] offense standards provided in article seven of chapter six of [00:30:49] the code of ordinances, providing for severability [00:30:51] providing for conflicts providing for codification and [00:30:54] providing an effective date. [00:30:56] Mr. Brad Cornelius of Wade Trim will be presenting the agenda [00:31:00] item to you this evening, Mr. Mayor. [00:31:02] Thank you, Ms. Vance. As Mr. Vance, I'm Brad Cornelius of [00:31:05] Wade Trim and I serve as consulting planner for the city [00:31:08] of New Port Richey. As the city attorney read for you have your [00:31:12] first reading for the ordinance for revision to your fence [00:31:16] ordinance and I have a short PowerPoint to go through this [00:31:18] with you to help help describe it. [00:31:22] As you may recall, back in August, the city did put in [00:31:26] place a moratorium on front yard fences to allow staff the [00:31:30] opportunity to go back, look at opportunities to improve the [00:31:33] design requirements and standards for those kinds of [00:31:35] fences. So that's what staff did. Your staff did do research, [00:31:40] came up with some proposed standards, but also as part of [00:31:43] that effort, we also did identify that there was a lot of [00:31:47] duplication, inconsistencies between your code related to [00:31:51] fencing. So not only does the ordinance you have before you [00:31:54] this evening deal with front yard fences, but it basically [00:31:57] cleans up the code to make it consistent and remove [00:32:00] duplications and inconsistencies as well. So it's an overall [00:32:03] update of your fence ordinance. [00:32:08] One of the issues that we came across is in your current code, [00:32:12] the fence ordinance or fence requirements are in two sections [00:32:14] of your code. It's in Chapter 6 and in Chapter 12. And some of [00:32:19] the provisions in both of those chapters conflict with each [00:32:21] other. So there was some difficulty in its implementation. [00:32:25] So what the recommendation you have before you in terms of [00:32:28] making the change, one of the big ones is we're taking all the [00:32:30] fence parts out of Chapter 6 and putting it all in one place, [00:32:35] Chapter 12. So for staff and for the public, they can find it all [00:32:39] in one place. It'd be much easier for folks to see what [00:32:42] they can or can't do with a fence. So that's kind of an [00:32:45] overall structure change that's being proposed. In terms of the [00:32:50] highlights of what you have before you in this ordinance, [00:32:55] what we've done in this is we've separated residential and [00:32:58] commercial fences into two separate sections because they [00:33:00] are different. We also, when we look at the standards on a [00:33:05] residential property, we're addressing front yards, side [00:33:08] yards and rear yards, having standards for all three of [00:33:11] those. We are not changing anything in the downtown [00:33:14] district. None of the fence standards that are currently in [00:33:17] place are being recommended to be changed. We're keeping them [00:33:19] as they currently exist without any changes. The only thing [00:33:23] that's happening is we're just moving them around where they [00:33:25] are located in the code, but they are not changing for the [00:33:28] downtown. The way this is structured is there are general [00:33:34] design standards that apply to all fences. There are things [00:33:37] like how we measure the height, just general kind of standards. [00:33:40] So those will apply to all fences, no matter where they [00:33:43] are. We're also identifying permitted and prohibited [00:33:47] materials for these fences, both in commercial and residential [00:33:52] areas. And as I said earlier, we're also clarifying how we [00:33:56] measure the height of the fence. One of the issues that came up [00:33:59] and actually in the Land Development Review Board was, [00:34:02] you know, what do we do in a situation where somebody may put [00:34:04] a fence on top of a retaining wall or on top of a berm and one [00:34:08] side is much higher than the other side? So the standard way [00:34:11] to deal with that, and as I deal with other jurisdictions, is [00:34:14] you'll take that measurement from that lowest grade adjacent [00:34:17] to the fence on either side of the fence. So basically, you're [00:34:20] looking at whatever that maximum height is. So we don't have that [00:34:23] discrepancy in how we measure the height. So that clarifies [00:34:26] how to measure the height. So with the residential front yard [00:34:31] fences, we'll hit that one first, because that's what your [00:34:32] moratorium was specifically about. What is before you this [00:34:36] evening is a recommendation that front yard fences are [00:34:39] limited to three feet in height. So just so everybody's clear, [00:34:42] the front yard is basically in front of the face of the house [00:34:45] towards the street. That's your front yard definition. It also [00:34:49] requires those fences to be open between 50 and 70 percent. So [00:34:53] we're not calling for like a solid fence in the front yard. [00:34:56] There will be openness between 50 and 70 percent in terms of [00:35:00] openness. With the fence posts, we have a limitation that they [00:35:06] can't rise more than a foot above the top of the fence, [00:35:09] again, to avoid just gigantic statues on the fence posts. And [00:35:14] we also call out colors of the fencing, black, white, metallic, [00:35:17] stained wood, or some color that's complementary to the home [00:35:21] that's there. Again, so we have a consistent design standard for [00:35:25] that property, that residential property. In terms of the [00:35:29] permitted materials, we have identified permitted materials, [00:35:34] and those will be wood, metal rod, iron, or aluminum, PVC [00:35:38] panels or pickets. I will tell you that was a Land Development [00:35:41] Board code and recommendation. Initially, we just said PVC, and [00:35:45] they had a great comment and said, you don't mean the pipes, [00:35:48] right? I said, no, we don't mean the pipes. So it's got to be [00:35:50] panels or the pickets, and also allow for masonry in the front [00:35:54] yard. And then we also have prohibited, and this is for [00:35:58] residential, barbed wire, electric fencing, corrugated [00:36:02] metal, sheet aluminum, wire chain link, and steel rebar [00:36:05] that's not encased in concrete. So those are the prohibited and [00:36:09] permitted materials for the front yard fencing. Now we're [00:36:14] going to move to the side and rear yards. So with the side and [00:36:17] rear yard, those fences can be six feet in height, which is [00:36:21] what your current code does have already. It already allows it [00:36:24] six feet. But they are limited to four if they're adjacent to a [00:36:28] street or the river. So they are required to be a little bit [00:36:32] smaller, a little bit lower next to a street or the river. [00:36:37] The color of it needs to, you know, it's going to match your [00:36:39] front yard fence, so you'll have a consistency there. The [00:36:43] permitted materials and prohibited materials are the [00:36:46] same as we have in the front yard with the exception of [00:36:49] chain link. This does allow chain link in your side or rear [00:36:53] yard. It only prohibits it in the front yard. But your side and [00:36:56] rear yard, you could have a chain link fence. Now we'll move [00:37:03] to the commercial office and industrial. For this, we're [00:37:07] recommending or have proposed that commercial office and [00:37:10] industrial fences can be in the front yard, but they're still [00:37:13] limited to that three foot height in their front yard. But [00:37:18] they can have a six foot fence on their side and the rear, same [00:37:21] as residential. And again, the color limitations are the same [00:37:25] as the residential. [00:37:26] Stop your right for a second. [00:37:27] Yes, sir. [00:37:27] If it's on the side street or the river, is it going to be the [00:37:30] four foot? You're going to have a four foot put in there also? [00:37:35] That will be, I think we'll need to make a clarification that for [00:37:38] the commercial because we don't say that specifically in there, [00:37:40] but that's a very good point. So I think that could be a good [00:37:43] revision that we can make that to clarify that. Because I think [00:37:45] the intent would be exactly what you said, Mr. Davis. So that [00:37:49] would be a revision we can make to clarify that. Thank you. [00:37:55] For commercial office and industrial, we're allowing wood, [00:37:57] metal, wrought iron, aluminum, PVC, chain link, and masonry [00:38:00] again. So those are the permitted materials. And that's [00:38:05] the overview of the fence ordinance to have before you. So [00:38:08] this did get reviewed by the Development Review Committee. We [00:38:10] did recommend approval. This went to your Land Development [00:38:13] Review Board at their meeting earlier this month. They did a [00:38:16] thorough review of it, had several recommendations. Those [00:38:20] recommendations have been incorporated into the ordinance [00:38:22] you have there this evening. They're called out in your staff [00:38:24] report. And so they did recommend approval of the [00:38:28] ordinance as presented to you this evening. So that is my short [00:38:32] presentation. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you [00:38:34] have. [00:38:36] I have one question. I don't have a dog in this hunt. But why [00:38:42] the prohibition of chain link in the front? [00:38:45] Part of it is because we're looking for basically an [00:38:48] enhanced design feature in the front. And that's not an uncommon [00:38:52] standard in other local governments to have the front be [00:38:56] more what's considered more aesthetically pleasing. Again, [00:39:01] it's the city's option. It's your city council, your option [00:39:05] as well. If you feel that's appropriate, it's okay. But from [00:39:10] our review and our recommendation, LDRB as well, is [00:39:13] we feel like we want to maintain a very aesthetic, attractive [00:39:19] front yards in the city. And we think prohibiting the chain link [00:39:23] fence will help that to occur. So there's no technical reason [00:39:28] for it. It's more of an aesthetic kind of provision. [00:39:33] Questions? Opened up for public comment. Anyone? [00:39:37] John Cain, 6041 Florida Avenue. Just two concerns. In the past, [00:39:54] according to the development code, we kind of grouped in [00:39:59] side and backyard together. It's always been that way. And it was [00:40:04] six foot. And it didn't matter if you were, you know, if you're [00:40:10] on a corner, you may be by a street, it calls for uniformity [00:40:15] for your fence. So if you have a backyard fence, it's six foot, [00:40:20] and it goes around. And will there be a grandfather clause? [00:40:26] Because I do know of some old chain link fences where in the [00:40:31] past, I mean, they were there forever. They were there when I [00:40:34] first started delivering mail here, they were old chain link. [00:40:37] And they were short, they were about three feet, and they were [00:40:41] in the front yard. Would we be going to those people to make [00:40:47] them take down something that's been there forever? So, so those [00:40:50] are my concerns is that I think the front and backyard should [00:40:54] stay as written. I don't think there should be any changes to [00:40:59] that. And if you're going to change to the front yard, I don't [00:41:04] know that it's proper to put our aesthetic opinions on other [00:41:09] people. I don't necessarily view a chain link as being [00:41:13] unattractive, especially if it's vinyl covered or something. I [00:41:17] mean, I it serves a purpose. It keeps people off your front lawn [00:41:22] with their pets, defecating and all some of the problems that [00:41:25] people have within the city. And, you know, wire is another [00:41:31] case and barbed wire and all that, but that's always been [00:41:33] outlawed front door or rear, not supposed to have barbed wire in [00:41:37] the city or electric. So some of it seems kind of redundant to me [00:41:41] and some of it seems kind of excessive to me. I think there [00:41:45] should be a little balance struck in there. Thank you. [00:41:48] Anyone else? [00:41:52] I'll bring it back to Council and just comment with the [00:41:57] existing ordinances that we have now. I've got, I don't have [00:42:04] to measure it, on the front yard, a decorative fence that is [00:42:07] somewhere in the three to four foot range. On the backyard, [00:42:11] I've got a four foot fence. On the west side, I've got a four [00:42:17] foot fence. But on the east side, I could only have a three [00:42:21] foot fence because it came up against the street in spite of [00:42:25] the fact that there is a privacy wall that's five feet tall [00:42:29] sitting between the fence and the street. So it was all sort [00:42:34] of mishmashed and it depended on where you read it in these two [00:42:39] chapters as to what was allowed and what was not. It was not [00:42:43] clear at all. [00:42:44] Yes, sir. Mayor, if I may, the issue about the grandfather, I [00:42:47] can address that as well. The way the ordinance proposal will [00:42:50] not require people to tear down their existing fence and meet [00:42:53] this code. This is for new fences that are going up. Now [00:42:56] where it would apply if somebody were to, on their own, tear down [00:42:59] their fence to build a new fence, then they would be subject [00:43:01] to the new code. But unlike when we did, say, the automobile [00:43:06] ordinance part that made existing ones come into [00:43:09] compliance, this does not do that. Existing fences, they can [00:43:12] stay as they are until they come down. Then when, you know, if [00:43:16] they're going to be rebuilt, then they come into code. So the [00:43:18] city will not be going out to people and say, your existing [00:43:21] fence is uncompliant, you need to tear it down and bring it [00:43:24] into compliance. [00:43:25] Very good. Thank you. Any other questions? [00:43:27] Yes. [00:43:29] Yeah. [00:43:30] I'm sad to say it was around when a lot of this stuff [00:43:33] happened way back in the day. And the big emphasis then was, [00:43:38] and this is the second time she'll be brought up today, [00:43:41] Heather Ferentino was talking about the safety in swimming [00:43:45] pools, and the need to make sure that there were six foot fences [00:43:48] were allowed to encircle the swimming pool. A lot of them [00:43:52] now have cages or other ways to stop. And the other issue, of [00:43:58] course, is that we have dogs and people with dogs and they can [00:44:01] hop over a three foot fence. So when you talk about front yard [00:44:05] fences, and I thought, and wrongfully so, that backyard [00:44:11] fences started at the front of the house. [00:44:16] That's correct. [00:44:17] And so if the front of a house is on a major road, and then [00:44:21] you have a side yard, are we allowed? [00:44:28] If you're on a... [00:44:29] That worked. [00:44:30] Right, I understand. So if you're at a corner, the front [00:44:33] and the side yard, the way this ordinance is that side yard on [00:44:38] the corner, that would be limited to four feet in that [00:44:40] location, because it is along the street. [00:44:43] So you can't let the dog off the side or the front. You have [00:44:47] to go from to the interior and box it in. At some point, you [00:44:54] got to box that dog in, I guess is my point. [00:44:56] So what could the way you can work... [00:45:00] with that is that if that fence on that side yard is in line with the building [00:45:05] line, because now... Same as the front. Right, so there you're not actually in the [00:45:10] side yard, you're on the rear yard at that point if you're there. So [00:45:15] there is a way, the way the code is written, if somebody were to do it that [00:45:18] way that would be acceptable. So we could put the puppies in the side yard and the [00:45:22] big dogs on the other side of the house. Right. Okay. We had exactly that problem [00:45:28] when we were hosting my son's dogs. I'm going to move with approval with my [00:45:33] additional thing about commercial and fourth foot. We have a second? Second. [00:45:41] When we talked about this before, the whole thing was just try to get it more [00:45:47] standardized because it was in different places. So I mean I think this is a good [00:45:50] start. You know as we go there's always things that we can change or tweak along [00:45:53] the way, but I think we've got a good start here anyways. Mr. Peters. I'm fine [00:46:03] with it. One thing I was was quizzing about is you indicated what some, how the [00:46:09] fences would be constructed off and then you turn around and listed also [00:46:13] prohibited materials. Yes sir. So I think that's because you allowed metal fences [00:46:19] but then you said it couldn't be. It's listed as different types of metal. [00:46:23] There's different types, right. Corrugated metal, you know. So that's why. And did you [00:46:27] list it also that same way in in the commercial fences? Yes sir. Because I, okay. [00:46:32] Yeah I didn't have in the PowerPoint but they are the same same type of standards. [00:46:36] Yes sir. And just as the board is aware, the council is aware, you know, if someone [00:46:42] wants to do something different they always have the ability to go through a [00:46:44] variance process with the city to request something different than what the [00:46:48] standard is. So one question, one clarification in my mind, the side yard [00:46:53] fences can be how tall? Side yard, if you're not abutting a street, they can be [00:46:58] six feet. Okay. So if you're on a side yard, say someone's on the river, so the [00:47:06] back fences starts at the rear of the house, right? In other words, I'm thinking of [00:47:11] the side fences for the backyards to the river. Right. So you can be six feet [00:47:18] on the side, but as you approach the river you've got to reduce that to four, [00:47:23] right? You got to come down to four, yes sir. And that would be at equal to the [00:47:28] rear of the of the house structure? Or is it going to be designated how many feet [00:47:33] back from the river? It would be four along the river. It would be... the ordinance [00:47:42] is not clear on that and that's a good point. Here's what I'm saying is, yeah, [00:47:45] so I'm thinking of the side fences. You know, I've got I've got a neighbor, it's [00:47:49] I've got two neighbors, matter of fact, one on the left and one on the right, but they have fences on both sides. [00:47:53] And so if the side between the houses is six feet would be fine, but if that's [00:47:59] six foot carried all the way to the river, I think current ordinances [00:48:04] prevents that because to try to protect the river views from the neighbors. My [00:48:11] suggestion would be possibly, if you're comfortable, is to say at the back [00:48:15] building line where the building stops from that point [00:48:18] towards the river would go down to four. I think it's always... some have long [00:48:23] backyards, so wasn't it like 25 feet or something from the river's edge or [00:48:27] something? There was a... there was a... Pardon? Yeah, because I think it's to help [00:48:32] balance that out. I think there was a previous ordinance gave so many feet [00:48:37] back from the river, so I don't know that's something we want to maybe take a [00:48:41] peek at and kind of review. And as Pete indicated, that some houses are a lot [00:48:46] closer to the river than others. And you know, I know for one, you know, if I was [00:48:52] carrying a six-foot fence to the back of my house, I would knock some of the vision [00:48:56] out of one of my neighbors. Yes, sir. Set back from the river? From the rear, yes. [00:49:03] We can get that figured out for separate reading. Yes, sir. Any other discussion? Yes, just one. [00:49:11] You listed a lot of materials and I may have been thinking and missing something, [00:49:17] but at the dented keg, for example, he's created something with some strong [00:49:23] square metal grid, not chicken wire, but something, and then he's framed it out [00:49:31] with wood. Right, and that is accessible because that's in the downtown [00:49:35] district and we're not changing the fence standards for the downtown district. I'm not asking [00:49:39] about him. Somebody said that'd be nice for you, and it's like, okay, [00:49:43] would that be allowed in residential? No? Yes? Can you explain it again to me, please? [00:49:48] Okay, so it's this strong metal, I think they're three by three squares or two by two squares, [00:49:54] and they're framed out in wood and stained, and so you can see through them, so it needs to see [00:50:02] through, and it's metal. It could be, if it was black and wood combined, it's okay. Yes, as long as it's wood, [00:50:08] it's metal, it's not wire, it's metal, as you're describing, and it meets the 50% to 70% openness, [00:50:15] that would be permitted, absolutely. Perhaps we should look at the gauge of wire, because I don't [00:50:20] know that that's called wire, or what you call that. Where are the cables? The kegs are behind there, [00:50:28] so nobody can get into them, and it's like... Oh, that's inside his building. I'm talking about the [00:50:33] material, I don't want to take his fence, that's his already. Okay, I'm looking outside of it, that's why I couldn't figure it out. [00:50:40] The code would not allow, the way this is written, would not allow cabling or thin wire to be there. [00:50:46] Right, it would be metal bar, and the code calls for like rebar, or rebar in the concrete, but [00:50:53] metal bars is what it would be. Right, so I'm going to take a picture of that, and when we go [00:50:59] through, is there a second reading? Yes, there is. I'll present that picture to you, because I'm [00:51:05] wondering if there's a gauge to which you could put, so that you don't get that skinny wire, [00:51:11] cheap stuff, but if you had something nice, I don't know, maybe it doesn't look good. [00:51:15] If it's okay to ask, if you could send that to us before the second reading, and we can be prepared to give you an answer. [00:51:24] Let's go get a beer at the Dunn and King. I can't find it now, I should have marked it, but I didn't think of it the first time reading, but as you went through it, [00:51:34] is the materials have to match front and rear in any ways? There's not a requirement for the [00:51:40] matching of the materials, so you could have multiple materials with your fencing. [00:51:47] There's not that requirement to say all the materials have to be the same within your property. [00:51:54] That would match what we've got with the decorative wrought iron fence up front, and chain link [00:52:00] back on the sides. Let's go a little bit further on that. As we put the ordinance into use, [00:52:13] and let's say there's some fence that is damaged, so we then would replace that fence, [00:52:22] we'd have to follow the ordinance, correct? Right, you have the ordinance in place related to [00:52:27] non-conforming structures, which is we would follow that guidance, and when it would have to [00:52:33] be fully replaced with the code. So when that would trigger it would be subject to your [00:52:41] code that deals with non-conforming structures. So in that case, let's say we have a non-conforming [00:52:48] fence, and a section gets blown out, right? So now does that require the owner to replace that [00:52:58] entire run of that fence, say side or back, or they'll replace that? At what point in time, [00:53:04] again, you know, I'm thinking the flood has a 50% rule, the whole house has, what about [00:53:09] the fence for non-conforming? And what I'm thinking of particularly are those six-foot [00:53:13] panel fences that would not maybe come into play, need to be four feet, but now they get [00:53:18] blown over or apart because they're most subject to wind. Right, right. The way your code is written [00:53:23] for the non-conformity is that, say just a section, not the entire fence, just a part of the fence. [00:53:30] The way your code is written for non-conforming, you can replace as long as you're not creating [00:53:34] a new non-conformity or expanding the non-conformity. So if you're just replacing that [00:53:41] section, now if you take down the entire fence, like the entire run, then you're going to be [00:53:45] required to come back to code. But if it's just a piece of it, the code does allow as long as [00:53:50] you're not creating a new or larger non-conformity. So there is a provision for that. [00:53:58] Any other questions, comments? Hearing none, we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor,
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.b
First Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2216: Outdoor Display Ordinance (Downtown Zoning District)
First reading of Ordinance 2021-2216 establishing outdoor display regulations for the downtown zoning district, including permit requirements through the DRC, frontage and height limits, material standards, and revocation provisions. Council discussed concerns about bicycle displays for an incoming bike shop, restrictions on outdoor transactions, and the prohibition on attracting animals/insects, and directed staff to revise some language before second reading.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2216
Congress and Main Streetjust west of Bennett CakesAstro CyclesBennett CakesBradMr. PittMr. RuddDevelopment Review Committee (DRC)Downtown Zoning DistrictLand Development Review Board (LDRB)Ordinance No. 2021-2216Outdoor Display OrdinanceSection 7.22.05 of Chapter 7 of the Land Development Code▶ Jump to 54:04 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:54:04] please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. Next is first reading [00:54:10] ordinance 2021-2216. This is ordinance number 2021-2216, an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, amending subsection 4 of section 7.22.05 of chapter 7 of the land development code [00:54:23] pertaining to outdoor display areas in the downtown zoning district, providing for purpose, [00:54:27] permitting display standards, and revocation of permits for said displays, providing for [00:54:32] severability, providing for conflicts, providing for codification, and providing an effective date. [00:54:37] And this as well. Thank you. I have a short PowerPoint, this as well. As the city attorney [00:54:45] read and the mayor announced, this ordinance is dealing with your outdoor display within your [00:54:50] downtown district. Again, as you may recall, in December, you adopted an outdoor display ordinance [00:54:56] for all your other commercial districts in the city. So that's been adopted, that's put in place, [00:55:02] and when that went through, the council did ask us to come back quickly to you with one for the [00:55:07] downtown district as well. So we had all the areas within the city covered. So that's why we're [00:55:12] before you this evening with the proposal for the downtown area. And I won't go through this part [00:55:18] very much, but you're very aware, you know, if it's unregulated, we don't want it to create a [00:55:22] safety hazard, we don't want to create visual blight, so that's the importance for us to have [00:55:26] this put in place. You know, and by doing this, we'll make sure we maintain a good pedestrian [00:55:33] friendly environment in your downtown, just improve the look of your district, and have a [00:55:40] vibrant storefront and vibrant downtown. This can help make that happen, we believe. [00:55:46] So again, I'll hit the highlights of the code. The first important part is this requires a permit. [00:55:52] So to do an outdoor display within the downtown area, it will go to the development review [00:55:57] committee for approval of a permit to assure that it does meet all the required standards for its [00:56:02] location and operation. So it will go through a permit process with the city. And what may be [00:56:11] part of that as well, if it's in a sidewalk, it also may require a license or insurance, you know, [00:56:15] for it to protect the city with it being within the city right away. So that's the first point. [00:56:20] So in terms of the standards, what the standards are, is that you're limited to a maximum of two [00:56:25] display areas along your building frontage. That's the maximum you could have. And then we limit the [00:56:31] area. So your area where you can display within the front of your property is 40 percent of your [00:56:36] building frontage, or of your store frontage, if we have a multiple business. But we max it at 20 [00:56:44] feet, because we do have some fairly large frontages out there. So we max it at 20 feet, [00:56:48] is the maximum width along the building frontage you can have for your display. [00:56:53] And we also limit you to go no further than three feet away from your building frontage, [00:56:58] so we don't get too far out into the sidewalk and cause a potential issue with pedestrian access. [00:57:04] We also have standards in terms of making sure we have appropriate clearance around the doors [00:57:08] and around the end of the buildings or the storefront. So we require a three-foot separation [00:57:13] from each side of a building entry to make sure we don't block access in and out of the building [00:57:18] or in and out of the store. And also three feet away from the ends of the store frontage or the [00:57:23] building frontage, again, because we don't want to have spillover onto adjacent store frontages [00:57:27] and other buildings. So that just makes sure that this is in front of the business that's using it. [00:57:34] In terms of the height of the display, what is proposed is, I'll start with the wall. So if [00:57:40] it's adjacent to a wall, it can go up to five feet. And that's the display unit, the table, [00:57:45] and whatever's on top of it, or whatever else may be out there. So it's limited to five feet. [00:57:50] Now, in front of a window, the way the code is proposed is the initial standard is three feet. [00:57:56] However, it does allow it to go to five feet when it goes through the Development Review Committee [00:58:01] review if we find that there's no issue with public safety or hazard with it being in front [00:58:07] of the window and having the greater height. So they can do it. It just would be part of their [00:58:12] DRC review, and we would just have to make a finding, or the DRC would make a finding saying [00:58:17] going that additional two feet would not cause a hazard. So it has that ability. [00:58:22] In terms of the display material, what you're using to display, it would be compatible with [00:58:27] the building. We want to maintain the character and look of the downtown. In terms of signage, [00:58:34] as long as you don't exceed what's permitted for your total signage on that building, [00:58:38] or for that business, you could have signage, but generally most of the businesses here in [00:58:43] downtown are pretty much at their max. So you can have signage, but you can never exceed the total [00:58:49] allowed allocation for signage for that property. In terms of pedestrian, we want to assure that [00:58:55] we maintain adequate pedestrian accessibility, ADA accessibility along the sidewalks. [00:59:02] Also, we felt it was very important at the end of the close of business day, [00:59:05] all the display materials, all the display equipment need to bring inside for the evening, [00:59:12] come back out again the next morning at the start of their business day, [00:59:14] so they're not sitting outside overnight in the downtown. [00:59:21] Some more standards here. We have, as a general, we have to assure it doesn't create a public hazard, [00:59:28] whether that's the location, whether that's the size. We just have to assure it does not create a [00:59:34] public hazard. It also says that all the sales transactions have to take place inside of the [00:59:41] business unless there is a city-approved special event, and then there it's okay to have the [00:59:48] transactions outside as part of that special event. But just on a day-to-day operational [00:59:52] business, all the transactions would happen inside the store. They, in terms of what they're [01:00:00] The code does say that they can't be primarily [01:00:03] just like a plastic cart. [01:00:05] You know, it can't be primarily done of plastic. [01:00:07] Plastic can be part of the display, [01:00:09] just can't be the primary material of the display. [01:00:11] So we're looking for like metal and wood [01:00:13] and those kinds of things for the display pieces. [01:00:19] Just kind of a sanitation part. [01:00:22] We can't attract animals or insects. [01:00:25] And it does have a provision for revocation. [01:00:28] So how this could be revoked is basically [01:00:31] if they're in violation of any of those standards [01:00:33] or they violate any conditions that are put [01:00:35] on their permit from the DRC. [01:00:37] So there is the ability, if it's not going the way [01:00:40] the city wants it to go based on your code, [01:00:42] it can be revoked for that outdoor display. [01:00:47] So as with your other ordinance, [01:00:49] the Development Review Committee, we did review this [01:00:51] and we did make a recommendation of approval. [01:00:54] This went to your Land Development Review, [01:00:57] can't talk, Land Development Review Board [01:00:58] earlier this month. [01:00:59] They did make some revisions, [01:01:01] which are in front of you this evening [01:01:03] within the ordinance that you're looking at. [01:01:05] The main changes that they recommended [01:01:09] were one was related to the height. [01:01:11] Initially what was proposed to them [01:01:13] was just a three foot max height in front of the windows. [01:01:17] They felt there should be the ability to go to five. [01:01:20] So we added that in there, the ability to go to five feet [01:01:22] like you're on a wall. [01:01:24] The other part that they added was the 20 foot [01:01:27] maximum allocation of frontage that you can use. [01:01:31] Initially the proposed ordinance just said 40%. [01:01:35] They felt because some of the larger building frontages [01:01:37] that are out there, that could be too large of an area. [01:01:41] So they put the max of 20 feet for the maximum area. [01:01:47] With that, that is my brief summary of the ordinance. [01:01:49] I'd be happy to try to answer any questions. [01:01:55] Open it up for public comment. [01:02:00] Seeing no one come forward, [01:02:01] I'm gonna bring it back to council. [01:02:05] I'm trying to imagine what sort of outdoor displays [01:02:09] we would be putting up there. [01:02:13] In my business, if I was gonna do an outdoor display, [01:02:16] I would bring a plastic six foot table out. [01:02:22] Probably dress it up with some covering, [01:02:25] but still, it's plastic. [01:02:28] Metal legs, though. [01:02:29] Yeah, it does have metal legs, [01:02:30] but what are we envisioning these things being? [01:02:35] Yeah, what we're primarily envisioning, [01:02:36] things like the market. [01:02:38] They could put out fruits and vegetables [01:02:42] and wooden cart crates out front. [01:02:46] Some of the other retail, they could actually bring out [01:02:49] a clothes rack, that's a metal thing, have it out front, [01:02:52] as long as we meet the height limitation, [01:02:54] the five and the three. [01:02:57] Just a retail person, they could put a little table [01:03:00] out front with some of their wares and goods [01:03:03] so people can see what they have. [01:03:05] So it's very much geared towards [01:03:07] type of a retail type of operation [01:03:09] for them to kind of display a sampling [01:03:12] of what they have to sell and to provide [01:03:15] to attract people to come to their store [01:03:16] and come inside and buy something. [01:03:19] So that's kind of the thought. [01:03:20] And we did walk the downtown district, [01:03:24] and as you all know, pretty much all the businesses [01:03:27] have significant window frontage there, [01:03:29] so most cases, we're gonna have the three or the five [01:03:33] as they come through. [01:03:34] Yeah, mine started about a foot up from the ground [01:03:37] and go all the way up, way up over my head. [01:03:41] So, question, I think one of the things [01:03:45] that might have initiated this ordinance at one time, [01:03:49] we had a retailer downtown that's no longer there, [01:03:52] unfortunately, threw up a couple kayaks up in the wall. [01:03:56] They're a lot taller than five feet. [01:03:59] I'm sure that was probably discussed, right? [01:04:01] Yes, sir. [01:04:02] So I just was kind of, see the background of that, [01:04:05] I mean, I can see that's, you know, [01:04:08] not that, you know, maybe we'll get more kayaks again [01:04:10] someplace else, and I didn't find that [01:04:14] to be offensive, personally, and I understand that, [01:04:19] you know, if I'm the art store, I'm not gonna have [01:04:24] eight feet of paintings and easels going up, [01:04:27] but is there provision for something like that [01:04:31] where it makes sense? [01:04:32] And Mr. Pitt, that was discussed at DRC, [01:04:34] as well as the LDRB, and the response that we have is, [01:04:39] you know, it could be done, as long as they stay [01:04:42] under that height, so for, like, the kayak folks, [01:04:44] because I was working here when those were out there, [01:04:46] they would have to, you know, lay them down flat. [01:04:49] They wouldn't have them standing up. [01:04:50] Now, they'd still be subject to the maximum frontage, [01:04:53] so it would be, you know, they would have to have [01:04:56] pretty large building frontage to make that work. [01:04:58] So it could work if they had a large enough storefront [01:05:00] to make that work. [01:05:04] Part of their signage. [01:05:06] Okay. [01:05:08] I'm gonna bring it up, since he didn't come down and talk, [01:05:10] but Brad's sitting back there in the back. [01:05:13] He's got the bicycle shop on Congress and Main Street, [01:05:16] and he's interested in moving downtown, [01:05:19] just west of Bennett Cakes, [01:05:22] since that place was brought up. [01:05:25] If you're familiar with his store, [01:05:26] he's got plenty of room in front of his store now, [01:05:29] and he puts all his bicycles out there [01:05:31] as kind of an advertisement. [01:05:32] I asked Rod to look into it. [01:05:34] Did you talk with Brad? [01:05:37] You're with Charles? [01:05:37] Okay. [01:05:39] One of you two, I can't remember which one I talked with. [01:05:43] And we did bring that up, [01:05:45] whether the height that came up, [01:05:46] because the bicycles are taller than three feet, [01:05:48] to make sure there'd be room for the bicycle [01:05:51] across the storefront. [01:05:53] Okay, well, he has a lot more bicycles out in front [01:05:55] than just a couple of them along the sidewalk. [01:05:58] You know, I mean, I could foresee him wanting to [01:06:00] take a parking spot and put, you know, [01:06:03] 15 bicycles in a parking spot. [01:06:05] So that's ruling that out. [01:06:08] And we've talked about, [01:06:09] he just doesn't have that kind of room. [01:06:10] He wouldn't be able to do the same kind of display [01:06:12] that he did at his current location. [01:06:14] And the way we did structure the code, [01:06:16] he would be able to come through, [01:06:18] and when he got his permit from DRC, [01:06:19] we could approve it to go to five [01:06:21] to accommodate the height of the bikes. [01:06:24] But as Mr. Rudd said, you know, [01:06:26] it is limited on how much he can put out there. [01:06:30] Because when you come downtown, [01:06:31] you don't have, like he has currently, [01:06:33] the large area in front of his business. [01:06:35] I drive by that every morning when I come here. [01:06:39] You know, it's limited in how much room is there. [01:06:42] Because we have to assure we maintain the pedestrian access [01:06:45] and we don't overall congest the sidewalk and make it difficult. [01:06:49] My thought more is, and not the sidewalk problem, [01:06:51] he would want to take a parking spot, [01:06:54] you know, in front of his store, [01:06:55] and put bicycles in the parking spot. [01:06:57] So none of that's being addressed in this? [01:06:59] That is not being addressed. [01:07:01] I can leave that to the city manager. [01:07:03] I mean, what my thought is on that, [01:07:05] that would be a separate agreement, [01:07:06] an issue that they would work out with the city [01:07:09] to allow them use as like a vendor [01:07:12] within a city parking lot. [01:07:14] So it would fall outside of this ordinance, if that's. [01:07:16] I don't think that's a city parking lot, [01:07:17] it's a private parking lot, right? [01:07:18] Right, but it's, but so is the one out on 19 [01:07:22] with the medical place. [01:07:24] You know, that's a private parking lot too, [01:07:25] but we moved that guy off the 19 frontage. [01:07:30] Is that correct? [01:07:32] Take the hospital bed. [01:07:33] Yeah, right, but that's a private parking lot, [01:07:37] but we moved him off there. [01:07:39] By enacting the ordinance for outside display, yes. [01:07:45] We specified where on the property it was appropriate. [01:07:50] So I'm asking, I'm asking for Brad, [01:07:53] has he had the opportunity to take a parking spot [01:07:55] in front of his store to put in a future? [01:07:57] No, the way this ordinance is, no, [01:07:58] it would have to be right in front of the store, [01:08:00] not in the parking lot, [01:08:01] because it's a private parking lot. [01:08:03] Okay, I'm just trying to. [01:08:04] Thank you for coming down, Brad. [01:08:06] He's got, let's hear what he has to say. [01:08:12] Good evening, council, I'm Brad from Astro Cycles. [01:08:17] So I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to fit into this, [01:08:21] because my new building is not a freestanding building, [01:08:24] either, it's part of a plaza. [01:08:27] Granted, there is a sidewalk there, [01:08:29] but any bike I put within three feet of the building [01:08:32] was probably going to impede normal pedestrians. [01:08:36] So, and I know being part of a plaza, too, [01:08:42] taking a parking spot there is going to affect [01:08:45] all the other vendors in that plaza, too. [01:08:48] So maybe a parklet is where I'm headed. [01:08:54] I mean, on city roads, so I don't know. [01:08:59] I don't know, we're in the planning stages here, so. [01:09:06] I know you can't get in your store now in the morning [01:09:09] because all the bikes are in there, [01:09:10] you got to put them outside. [01:09:12] So I'm just, I know you're here because of this, so. [01:09:15] So I'm glad to not bring the bikes out. [01:09:19] That's a good thing for me, that's labor spent. [01:09:22] I had to do it where I'm at now, [01:09:25] just to be able to work inside. [01:09:27] So now, with all the space inside, I don't have to do that. [01:09:31] But it would be nice to have a bike or two outside, still. [01:09:35] You don't think you'd be able to put bikes [01:09:37] outside along the wall? [01:09:39] I don't think so. [01:09:40] It would probably still impede, [01:09:43] like especially wheelchairs, too, so. [01:09:47] Definitely not. [01:09:48] With a wheelchair, you can dangle it from the, [01:09:49] just, man. [01:09:50] Yeah. [01:09:51] Hold on, so currently, the main issue is [01:09:56] the height of the bikes? [01:09:58] Is that what people were complaining about? [01:10:04] No, no, no, it's just, there's not a complaint. [01:10:06] It's just we wanted to open it up to businesses [01:10:09] that might have a bicycle versus a tabletop. [01:10:12] And you're in a situation where it's a little higher [01:10:14] than three feet, you need it. [01:10:15] Yeah, yeah. [01:10:16] Well, I think there's ways we can get around it, so. [01:10:20] The issue there you've got is, [01:10:22] I don't think your sidewalk, quote, in front [01:10:25] is as wide as the sidewalks [01:10:27] that we have downtown on the street, [01:10:29] which is how the ordinance was envisioned, right? [01:10:33] And so it's different. [01:10:38] So it's, you know, I don't know of any bike shops. [01:10:45] Well, I saw one in Miami Beach. [01:10:46] Well, yeah, well. [01:10:47] Didn't have any bicycles outside, [01:10:48] but every other bicycle shop I've ever seen [01:10:50] has had a couple bikes out front, you know? [01:10:51] Well, you know, I just, you know, [01:10:53] I'm sure you're here to see what's going on with this, [01:10:55] so I wanted to bring your situation up [01:10:56] and get you up here and speak. [01:10:58] Yep. [01:10:58] So if you think you can work with that [01:10:59] and, you know, be happy with your bikes inside. [01:11:02] Yeah, anyone can reach out to me, too. [01:11:04] I want to be a part of this, so I'm there. [01:11:09] Thank you. [01:11:10] Anything else? [01:11:11] Thanks. [01:11:11] Yes, sir. [01:11:12] A couple things. [01:11:13] But on the bike issue, yeah, it seems clear [01:11:19] that with a thin sidewalk, your strategy doesn't work [01:11:24] where you're going to have six feet [01:11:26] and then something in the middle. [01:11:28] So it's tricky whether you call out bicycles directly [01:11:39] if that's the only thing we can think of [01:11:42] that doesn't seem to fit the ordinance, [01:11:44] but, or you could allow, as allowed by some of them. [01:11:48] Motor scooters, you know? [01:11:49] Yeah, I mean, well. [01:11:50] There are any number of things, right? [01:11:51] If somebody owns the property [01:11:56] and they want to designate an area [01:11:58] where it is impossible to do that [01:12:02] with the agreement of the center owner [01:12:06] to give a spot, provided it doesn't violate [01:12:09] our parking code, blah, blah, blah, [01:12:11] you might be able to work something out. [01:12:13] So just a thought. [01:12:15] The couple things that struck me. [01:12:19] You can't attract flies or insects. [01:12:21] So butterflies, are we against butterflies in the city? [01:12:26] We are not, and I will say right now, [01:12:29] if you're not comfortable with that, [01:12:30] we don't have to have that in there. [01:12:32] Yeah, I mean, I understand, but couldn't we say, [01:12:36] well, like one of my favorite points [01:12:38] by Ogden Nash is called the fly. [01:12:41] God in his wisdom invented the fly, [01:12:44] but then forgot to tell us why. [01:12:46] And we can cover the concern that's trying to address. [01:12:49] We don't want to create an issue [01:12:51] with insects we don't want. [01:12:55] We have the provision you can't create a public hazard. [01:12:57] So if it gets to a level where it's a public hazard, [01:12:59] we have the code already established that way. [01:13:02] So I- [01:13:03] I think we could dispense with that part or animals. [01:13:07] I mean, but the other question, [01:13:12] transactions outside prohibited. [01:13:15] Yes, sir. [01:13:16] And then you say, unless it's a city event. [01:13:19] Yes, sir. [01:13:20] So private properties can also hold events. [01:13:25] And I don't know they have to go through the city permit. [01:13:27] I know we've had like little markets [01:13:29] and things on outside sales. [01:13:32] So not to mention, you know, [01:13:37] so the terminology kind of, it seems restrictive. [01:13:40] And I don't know, as example, [01:13:46] if somebody is selling stuff outside, [01:13:49] why is it that we don't want people [01:13:52] to sell something outside? [01:13:55] Is there a reason to be afraid that they'll be robbed [01:13:57] or that we think it's unseemly [01:14:00] to see people doing transactions? [01:14:03] Like cash registers being brought out. [01:14:05] Right, it's kind of the concept behind that. [01:14:08] I'll go back. [01:14:09] The intent is we're not necessarily trying [01:14:11] to create another area [01:14:12] for a commerce transaction to occur. [01:14:15] God forbid. [01:14:16] What we're trying to create is an area [01:14:19] for businesses to be able to display what they have, [01:14:21] to attract business, [01:14:22] to get people interested in what they're doing. [01:14:25] So one of the concerns would be [01:14:27] if you have the transactions, [01:14:29] potentially you could have a congregation, [01:14:33] a large congregation in front of a store [01:14:35] that can cause blocking of the sidewalk. [01:14:38] You can have other kind of issues related to that. [01:14:41] So I think that's the intent behind why we say that [01:14:44] is we don't want to create a situation [01:14:47] where now all of a sudden, [01:14:48] we have the cash register outside, [01:14:51] we have a line of people down the sidewalk, [01:14:54] which I would hope would happen, [01:14:55] and I want them to be successful. [01:14:57] So let me interrupt. [01:14:58] So an outdoor cafe. [01:15:00] Somebody's sitting there, they pay their bill at the table, [01:15:03] they're brought back with the money, a transaction occurs. [01:15:06] That is absolutely okay. [01:15:07] They're a sidewalk cafe, they're an outdoor cafe, [01:15:10] that's how they're approved to be. [01:15:11] So they would not fall under this limitation. [01:15:14] They have weekend events that, it strikes nutrition. [01:15:18] And there's different vendors out in front, [01:15:20] they have their own little 10 by 10s. [01:15:22] And it's not a city event, that's what I'm getting at. [01:15:24] There are times when that kind of behavior [01:15:27] is helpful to a business to bring, [01:15:31] we've got food trucks, we've got out-of-towners [01:15:33] that don't have permits or pay much to the city at all, [01:15:37] who are in here making a good bit of money. [01:15:39] So I'm just thinking on behalf of the store owners, [01:15:42] whether or not that's really, you could say discouraged, [01:15:47] or I don't know. [01:15:48] Well, I think typically you can get, [01:15:51] now with the little squares, people doing it on the phones, [01:15:53] it's really done that. [01:15:55] Can we do something in the ordinance [01:15:56] where kind of like public nuisance, the same thing, [01:16:00] it creates in such a way that it blocks the sidewalk, [01:16:07] or creates a crowd or something like that. [01:16:11] We're not gonna know until it happens. [01:16:12] And then we go to the store owner and say, [01:16:14] hey, you can't do that anymore, right? [01:16:15] Because it does this. [01:16:16] And that way it's not quite so restrictive. [01:16:21] It's hard to get what you want without, [01:16:23] it's harmless to rules. [01:16:25] And along those lines, we would still have the permit. [01:16:29] That would be part of the request. [01:16:30] We would have that in the permit documentation [01:16:33] where we could have that very specific condition to say, [01:16:36] if you're doing the outside transactions, [01:16:39] you can't create a public hazard, [01:16:40] you can't block the sidewalk, [01:16:42] those nuisance concerns that we have. [01:16:44] Do rights get a permit? [01:16:45] I would prefer that. [01:16:47] Does rights get a permit, Debbie? [01:16:48] No, they do not. [01:16:51] Yeah, so I think you've solved it [01:16:54] for my benefit. [01:16:55] And I think the only other thing, [01:16:57] the three foot back, three foot forward, [01:17:00] two steps forward, one step back. [01:17:04] Flower boxes or items on a fence. [01:17:07] I've been to many cities where they try [01:17:09] to make the city look good. [01:17:12] If you've got a flower shop and their display [01:17:16] may be putting some nice flowers out. [01:17:18] So where do we get between making the city look nicer [01:17:22] and then saying, oh, but you can't put flowers [01:17:24] out on your front because, I mean, [01:17:28] isn't it really just about making sure [01:17:30] that the pedestrians can move forward? [01:17:32] Absolutely, right. [01:17:33] I mean, the other concern is we want to make sure [01:17:35] we don't block the entryway to the businesses [01:17:38] for fire and ADA issues. [01:17:39] So in terms of the separation from the building, [01:17:44] I am pretty, I think that is important [01:17:47] to make sure we don't block it. [01:17:48] In terms of the separation from the ends of the building, [01:17:51] I think that is not as critical [01:17:53] because if we've got a spillover, [01:17:55] that becomes property owner versus property owner. [01:17:57] You know, you're in front of my business, work it out. [01:18:00] So yeah, you know, what I would say to you all [01:18:05] is I would recommend to maintain the three [01:18:07] around the entryway so we don't block it, [01:18:10] but maybe eliminate the outside [01:18:13] at the ends of the building, three feet. [01:18:16] Yeah, and the last one. [01:18:21] When there are multiple businesses [01:18:22] in a single building, like storefronts, [01:18:25] we're talking, this is designed per storefront, [01:18:29] per business, not per building. [01:18:31] This is actually per building. [01:18:33] This is per building. [01:18:34] So similar to signage, what would happen [01:18:36] in that situation is it's ultimately [01:18:39] going to be up to the landlord to determine [01:18:41] how that allocation gets distributed [01:18:44] between the different businesses. [01:18:46] Because, you know, we as a city, [01:18:47] we're not going to tell a landlord [01:18:48] or a particular business, this is how you have to allocate it. [01:18:51] We will say, just using an easy number, [01:18:55] you have 100 foot building frontage. [01:18:58] So 40% is 40, but we're maxing you at 20. [01:19:01] So you have 20 feet on that 100 foot building frontage. [01:19:05] Mr. Landlord and, you know, business owner, [01:19:08] you work it out to figure out who gets how much of that 20. [01:19:12] That doesn't make sense to me. [01:19:15] It's, I mean, we can look at it [01:19:17] from a per business standpoint, [01:19:20] if that's what the council would prefer. [01:19:22] We can do that when we have a multiple unit business. [01:19:25] I was looking at a business, 5600 Main Street, [01:19:30] or 5800, I never can remember which, [01:19:33] has a whole bunch of businesses. [01:19:35] The building I'm in has half a dozen. [01:19:38] And I don't know that any of us [01:19:40] will put outdoor displays up, but it is possible. [01:19:43] And to suggest that our building, [01:19:46] which literally goes almost one city block, [01:19:48] could have one little tiny area [01:19:51] makes no sense whatsoever. [01:19:54] I mean, your percentage per business [01:19:57] would still restrict that you couldn't have [01:19:59] more than maximum 40% of the coverage of a building. [01:20:05] The 20 foot would be the maximum for any single business. [01:20:08] That makes sense to me. [01:20:10] So I think you can use both of those parameters. [01:20:13] Right, right. [01:20:15] Or make the parameter smaller. [01:20:16] If you think that 20 feet is too much, [01:20:18] make it 10 feet or 12 feet to achieve your goal. [01:20:22] I can think of multiple businesses in the downtown [01:20:26] that are sharing common buildings with others. [01:20:30] Right, right. [01:20:32] They're probably more the reality than the exception. [01:20:37] Right. [01:20:38] So I think we need to think about those. [01:20:40] Yeah, from what I'm hearing, [01:20:42] so it sounds like I do have consensus [01:20:43] to look at it at the business front [01:20:45] as well as to the building, [01:20:47] working with the 20 and the 40%. [01:20:49] Is that? [01:20:51] For business. [01:20:51] For business, for business. [01:20:53] Okay. [01:20:55] Thank you. [01:20:57] Mr. Murphy, anything? [01:21:01] Well, there's a lot going on with this. [01:21:04] I guess I'm looking at, you know, [01:21:06] some of these sidewalks, [01:21:07] I guess we don't know how small they are. [01:21:09] So literally they could put something on display [01:21:11] and it could be in an accessible area. [01:21:14] I don't know if we needed to find that. [01:21:17] There's a certain, you know. [01:21:18] Well, that's why we have the limitation [01:21:21] initially of you can't be more than three feet away [01:21:23] from your building frontage. [01:21:25] So we limit you from going way out to the sidewalk. [01:21:28] But when it will come to DRC, [01:21:30] we will look at the width of the sidewalk [01:21:31] and make sure what's remaining open [01:21:34] meets the requirement for ADA, [01:21:35] which is basically four or five feet. [01:21:37] Make sure we don't ever get below that ADA requirement. [01:21:41] Okay, so that would be a specific number? [01:21:43] That would be a specific number, right. [01:21:45] Yes, sir. [01:21:46] I don't know if I ever got a motion in a second on this. [01:21:48] I think we just went into discussion. [01:21:52] Before you do that, can I just summarize [01:21:54] what changes I think are being requested? [01:21:56] And you might want to just go ahead [01:21:58] and include those within your motion. [01:22:00] Number one, in section C2, [01:22:04] you're talking about eliminating the three foot requirement [01:22:07] that the display area not extend to the end of the building, [01:22:11] but keeping the requirement that it not interfere [01:22:14] with the entrance of the building. [01:22:17] On number three, section C3, [01:22:20] you want to eliminate the, [01:22:22] you want to change the 20 foot requirement [01:22:24] to make that per business rather than per building. [01:22:27] And in subsection 10, [01:22:30] you want to eliminate entirely the restriction [01:22:34] on displays that will attract animals or insects. [01:22:38] And then finally, with subsection 14, [01:22:42] you want to place, change the restriction [01:22:44] on sales conducted outside to allow sales conducted outside [01:22:48] so long as they don't impede the sidewalk [01:22:52] or create some type of public safety hazard or nuisance. [01:22:54] Is that to summarize the changes? [01:22:56] Move approval with those exceptions. [01:22:58] Do I have a second? [01:22:59] Okay, to the maker, anything else? [01:23:00] Nothing more. [01:23:01] Second? [01:23:04] Only, as to the butterflies, again. [01:23:08] That may be your business, the butterfly garden. [01:23:11] Damn. [01:23:12] Those plants that draw blood.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.c
First Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2224 Amendments to Chpt. 2 LDC RE: Cosmetic Tattooing
approvedFirst reading of Ordinance 2021-2224 amending the Land Development Code to add definitions for cosmetic tattooing and beauty shop, and to amend personal service definitions, allowing cosmetic tattooing as a permitted use in beauty shops. The ordinance was prompted by a local business doing permanent makeup that didn't fit existing tattoo parlor restrictions. Motion passed on first reading.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2224
- motion:Move for approval as written of Ordinance 2021-2224 on first reading. (passed)
7329 Heather StreetJessica LongMr. CorneliusMr. MurphyMr. RuddGulf High SchoolMF30 high-density residential zoning districtOrdinance 2021-2224Section 7.06.02.2f Land Development CodeSubsection 2.01.00 Land Development Code▶ Jump to 1:23:14 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:23:14] There was alternative language on that as well. [01:23:17] No antenna in your flower box. [01:23:19] Health hazard. [01:23:20] So you didn't just eliminate it, [01:23:22] but we did say so long as it didn't create a health hazard. [01:23:25] A public health hazard. [01:23:30] In that case, I think we beat this one up pretty good. [01:23:32] Thank you. [01:23:33] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:23:36] Aye. [01:23:37] Opposed, like sign. [01:23:39] Motion passes. [01:23:40] Next is first reading ordinance 2021-2224. [01:23:45] This is ordinance number 21, okay, 2021-2224. [01:23:54] An ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida [01:23:55] providing for amendment of subsection 2.01.00 [01:24:00] of the Land Development Code [01:24:00] pertaining to definitions of terms [01:24:02] to amend the definition of personal service [01:24:05] and to add the definitions of beauty shop [01:24:07] and cosmetic tattooing. [01:24:10] Providing for amendment of section 7.06.02.2f [01:24:14] of chapter seven of the Land Development Code [01:24:16] pertaining to service type special exceptions [01:24:18] in the MF30 high-density residential zoning district [01:24:22] consistent herewith, providing for severability, [01:24:24] providing for conflicts, providing for codification, [01:24:27] and providing for an effective date. [01:24:30] Thank you. [01:24:31] Mr. Cornelius. [01:24:32] I got to get another one with you. [01:24:34] Again, as the city attorney said, it's 2021-2224. [01:24:39] This actually came to us [01:24:40] from Economic Development, Mr. Rudd. [01:24:41] There is a business here that is doing, [01:24:44] that wants to do cosmetic tattooing. [01:24:47] Just a very brief description, [01:24:49] what that basically is is permanent makeup [01:24:51] that's done through a tattooing method. [01:24:54] Why this is coming forward, the city's code prohibit, [01:24:58] it doesn't prohibit, but it restricts tattoo parlors, [01:25:01] tattoos, so tattoo licenses. [01:25:03] So we had an issue in terms of the folks that do this [01:25:07] have to have a regular tattoo license, [01:25:10] so it didn't quite meet the code. [01:25:13] But we do recognize, understand, [01:25:15] cosmetic tattooing is not the same. [01:25:18] You know, that it's its own entity, its own type of thing. [01:25:22] So what the request is, is we're just simply [01:25:25] adding a definition for cosmetic tattooing [01:25:30] to make clear that it's not a standard tattoo shop, [01:25:32] it's cosmetic tattooing, making it clear [01:25:35] that it's allowed in a beauty salon, beauty parlor, [01:25:39] in terms of where it can be, and it's also allowed [01:25:41] under your personal services use. [01:25:42] So it would be allowed here in the city, [01:25:44] in the appropriate district. [01:25:45] So that is all this ordinance is doing, [01:25:48] is making cosmetic tattooing to be allowed use [01:25:51] within a beauty shop, and it removes any concern [01:25:55] that it's something other than what it actually is. [01:25:58] So that's their primary business, is it? [01:26:00] Primary is cosmetology. [01:26:01] So they also, they have a cosmetology license, [01:26:03] so their primary business is cosmetology. [01:26:06] Okay, now what if I wanted to put an office in that place [01:26:09] and do regular tattoos? [01:26:12] That would not work, because now, [01:26:13] if you're doing regular tattoo for artistic purposes, [01:26:17] not for cosmetology, that would not be allowed. [01:26:21] Open it up for public comment. [01:26:23] I just have a question, actually. [01:26:26] You could come up to the mic, please, [01:26:29] and give us your name and address. [01:26:34] My name is Jessica Long. [01:26:35] I reside at 7329 Heather Street. [01:26:37] I'm a teacher at Gulf High. [01:26:39] I have a question as to why are we not allowing [01:26:43] tattoo parlors downtown? [01:26:45] I never really got a clear answer for that. [01:26:48] And what is the difference in your guys' eyes [01:26:52] from tattooing artistically to cosmetically? [01:26:56] Because sometimes, let's say, [01:27:01] I have an aunt that had double mastectomy, [01:27:04] and she has a beautiful tattoo [01:27:08] that was recommended to cover her scarring, [01:27:13] and it was done cosmetically. [01:27:16] So it's not an artistic thing, it was cosmetic. [01:27:18] So my concern is, I have tattoos, I'm not a bad person, [01:27:24] so why are we restricting this? [01:27:27] That's it. [01:27:28] Thank you. [01:27:30] Anyone else? [01:27:36] Bring it back to council. [01:27:39] Say anything about that? [01:27:40] I'm not even sure where to start. [01:27:42] You want to? [01:27:42] Well, all I can say is it's not an isolated business. [01:27:47] There's a whole group of those businesses. [01:27:49] Yeah, there are a number of current [01:27:52] restricted personal service uses. [01:27:56] Tattoo parlors is one of them. [01:27:59] So it's not an isolated business. [01:28:03] They're allowed, they're just... [01:28:05] There are distancing requirements. [01:28:08] Just not in the downtown. [01:28:09] But they're not allowed in downtown, correct. [01:28:11] But they are not allowed in the downtown, that's correct. [01:28:14] That's right. [01:28:16] Well, I for one, the answer is [01:28:18] it takes three votes to change that. [01:28:20] I'm one of them. [01:28:22] I don't have any tattoos yet, but you know, [01:28:25] anything could happen. [01:28:26] I've got a butterfly in mind, really. [01:28:28] You're getting married, you're gonna get tattoos. [01:28:32] Move for approval as written. [01:28:34] We have a motion. [01:28:36] I'll second. [01:28:37] To the maker. [01:28:39] To the second. [01:28:41] To the butterfly man. [01:28:42] I'll vote for it. [01:28:43] Start. [01:28:44] It's a good start. [01:28:47] Mr. Murphy. [01:28:48] No, I'm good. [01:28:50] Yeah, it's... [01:28:52] I've seen these, you know, [01:28:54] it's like eyebrows and stuff like that. [01:28:56] So it's... [01:28:59] I don't have a problem with it. [01:29:01] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, [01:29:03] please signify by saying aye. [01:29:05] Aye. [01:29:06] Aye. [01:29:06] Opposed, like sign. [01:29:07] Motion passes. [01:29:08] Next, second reading. [01:29:10] Ordinance 2021-2222. [01:29:14] This is ordinance number 2021-2222, [01:29:17] an ordinance of the city council [01:29:19] for the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [01:29:20] providing for a small-scale amendment [01:29:22] of future land use map of the comprehensive plan, [01:29:25] providing for a change in the land use designation [01:29:27] from low-medium density residential [01:29:29] to high-density residential [01:29:30] for a 1.97 plus or minus acre property [01:29:34] located at 6120 Congress Street, [01:29:37] as shown on the map attached here [01:29:38] to as Exhibit A, and legally described herein, [01:29:41] providing for conflict, severability, and an effective date. [01:29:46] Mr. Mayor, as the city attorney read, [01:29:48] this is your second reading of the ordinance [01:29:49] for a small-scale future land use amendment [01:29:51] at 6120 Congress Street, [01:29:53] as you recall from your first hearing. [01:29:55] This request is to change the future land use [01:29:57] from the LDR 10 to the... [01:30:00] MDR 30, basically coming, bringing it into compliance with the underlying zoning. [01:30:06] As you recall, the city council, under your first reading, unanimously
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.d
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2222: Small Scale Future Land Use Amendment for 6120 Congress Street
approvedCouncil adopted on second reading Ordinance 2021-2222, a small scale future land use amendment for 6120 Congress Street. Staff recommended approval and there was no public comment.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2222
- motion:Motion to approve Ordinance 2021-2222, small scale future land use amendment for 6120 Congress Street, on second reading. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:30:08 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:30:09] recommends approval of this request. [01:30:10] I have no additional information to provide you, [01:30:12] unless you have any questions for me. [01:30:15] Good. [01:30:15] Open it up for public comment. [01:30:19] Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to council. [01:30:21] Move for approval. [01:30:23] Second. [01:30:23] To the maker. [01:30:24] Nothing. [01:30:24] Second. [01:30:25] No, sir. [01:30:26] Mr. Murphy. [01:30:28] But at length, Mr. Peters. [01:30:31] Yeah, it just makes everything consistent. [01:30:33] So I can go for it. [01:30:37] There's no further discussion. [01:30:38] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:30:40] Aye. [01:30:41] Opposed, like sign. [01:30:43] Motion passes. [01:30:44] Next, second reading, ordinance 2021-2219. [01:30:48] This is ordinance number 2021-2219, an ordinance [01:30:51] of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, providing for amendment of chapter [01:30:54] three, section 3-2 of the New Port Richey Code of Ordinances, [01:30:58] pertaining to allowed alcoholic beverage sales hours. [01:31:01] Providing for allowance of alcoholic beverage [01:31:03] sales between the hours of 8 AM and 2 AM the following day, [01:31:07] every day of the week, including Sundays. [01:31:09] Providing for enforcement, providing for conflict, severability, [01:31:12] and an effective date. [01:31:14] Mr. Mayor, members of the council, as you [01:31:16] recall from the discussion that took place at your last meeting, [01:31:20] the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners [01:31:24] adopted an ordinance to amend for the hours of the sale of alcohol [01:31:32] on Sundays. [01:31:33] Specifically, they allow for the sale of alcohol [01:31:42] to begin at 8 o'clock AM. [01:31:44] The ordinance before you amends the city's code of ordinance [01:31:48] to reflect the change from 11 AM to 8 o'clock AM [01:31:53] in order to be consistent with the county's ordinance. [01:31:57] I'll open it up for public comment. [01:32:01] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:32:03] Move for 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.
- 8.e
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2219: Amendments to Chpt. 3 RE: Alcohol Sales Hours on Sundays
approvedSecond reading of Ordinance 2021-2219 amending Chapter 3 regarding alcohol sales hours on Sundays. The motion passed with light discussion referencing the upcoming Super Bowl.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2219
- vote:Adopt Ordinance 2021-2219 amending Chapter 3 regarding alcohol sales hours on Sundays on second reading. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:32:04 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:32:05] Second. [01:32:05] To the mayor. [01:32:06] You've got to get this done before the Super Bowl. [01:32:08] Second. [01:32:13] Mr. Murphy? [01:32:14] Good. [01:32:15] Mr. Altman? [01:32:16] No, sir. [01:32:17] I hope you're not planning on drinking quite that early [01:32:19] in the morning for the Super Bowl. [01:32:21] That's on Monday, anyway, isn't it? [01:32:23] Sunday. [01:32:24] Sunday? [01:32:24] OK. [01:32:27] He's thinking about March Madness. [01:32:31] That's on Monday. [01:32:32] Yeah, well, we were watching the cat bowl at home last night, [01:32:36] so that's a whole other issue. [01:32:39] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, [01:32:41] please signify by saying aye. [01:32:43] Aye. [01:32:44] Opposed, like sign. [01:32:46] Motion passes. [01:32:47] Next is second reading ordinance 2021-2220. [01:32:50] This is ordinance number 2021-2220, [01:32:53] an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [01:32:55] amending section 2.01.00 of chapter 2 of the Land [01:32:58] Development Code pertaining to definitions of terms. [01:33:01] Providing for amendment of the definition [01:33:03] of restricted personal service uses, [01:33:05] providing for definitions of cannabidiol vendors [01:33:08] and smoke shops, providing for designation [01:33:10] of cannabidiol vendors, smoke shops, and nicotine dispensing [01:33:14] device businesses as restricted personal service uses, [01:33:18] providing for severability, providing for conflicts, [01:33:20] providing for codification, and providing an effective date. [01:33:24] Open up for public comment. [01:33:28] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:33:35] We have a motion. [01:33:38] Second. [01:33:39] Thank you to the maker. [01:33:41] Second. [01:33:42] OK with it. [01:33:43] Second, second. [01:33:45] That'll get it. [01:33:45] Mr. Allman? [01:33:47] No, sir. [01:33:48] In that case, all those in favor, [01:33:49] please signify by saying aye. [01:33:51] Aye. [01:33:51] Opposed, like sign. [01:33:53] Motion passes. [01:33:55] Next, we go to business items. [01:33:57] Board reappointments, Dell, Deschamps, and Rosemore [01:34:00] to the Environmental Committee. [01:34:03] 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.
- 8.f
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2220: Amendments to Chpt. 2 LDC RE: Restricted Personal Service Uses
approvedThe transcript segment labeled as the second reading of Ordinance 2021-2220 actually covers a board reappointment item: reappointment of Ms. Deschamps and Ms. Moore to two-year terms expiring February 2, 2023. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2220
- motion:Reappoint Ms. Deschamps and Ms. Moore to two-year terms ending February 2, 2023. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:34:05 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:34:05] Deschamps' term expired on January 8th of 2021. [01:34:12] Ms. Moore's term expired on March 6th of 2020. [01:34:18] Both of them have indicated an interest [01:34:22] to continue to serve and have submitted their application [01:34:26] seeking reappointment. [01:34:28] Therefore, we are asking and recommending [01:34:33] that you appoint both of them to two-year terms [01:34:38] if the recommendation meets with your approval. [01:34:42] Their terms would span through February 2nd of 2023. [01:34:48] Any public comment? [01:34:50] Seeing none, we have a motion. [01:34:52] Move for approval. [01:34:53] Second. [01:34:54] Second. [01:34:55] To the maker. [01:34:57] Thank you for serving. [01:34:58] Second. [01:34:58] Thank you. [01:35:00] Mr. Peters? [01:35:01] Do we know how many years they have served on the committee? [01:35:04] I do not, but I can look that up for you. [01:35:08] I'm just curious. [01:35:09] Those are, I know, many years. [01:35:12] Mr. Altman? [01:35:14] Their terms expired at different times, [01:35:17] but they're going to last to the same amount now. [01:35:20] So what, are we resetting their term then? [01:35:22] Because didn't you say? [01:35:25] Yes, I did. [01:35:26] And that is the way we typically do it [01:35:28] when they resubmit their application to us, [01:35:35] instead of making it just for the remaining [01:35:40] amount of the term that's left. [01:35:44] OK. [01:35:45] There's no further discussion. [01:35:46] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:35:48] Aye. [01:35:48] Aye. [01:35:49] Opposed, like sign. [01:35:51] Motion passes. [01:35:52] Next, board appointment of Alfred Renato [01:35:54] to the Police Pension Board.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9.a
Board Re-Appointments: Dell deChant and Rose Mohr, Environmental Committee
approvedCouncil re-appointed Dell deChant and Rose Mohr to the Environmental Committee by unanimous voice vote with no public comment.
- motion:Motion to approve the re-appointments of Dell deChant and Rose Mohr to the Environmental Committee. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:35:55 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:35:57] It's Renato. [01:35:58] Renato, thank you. [01:35:59] It's Alfred, too. [01:36:00] I know that name. [01:36:00] Move approval. [01:36:02] Second. [01:36:02] Second. [01:36:03] Third. [01:36:04] Public comment? [01:36:07] Anybody wish to go screaming out of the building saying, [01:36:09] no, I don't want it? [01:36:11] I guess not. [01:36:12] OK. [01:36:13] In that case, all those in favor, [01:36:14] please signify by saying aye. [01:36:16] Aye. [01:36:17] Aye. [01:36:17] Opposed, like sign. [01:36:19] Thank you for being here. [01:36:20] Thank you very much for your service to our city. [01:36:24] Next is agreement with People Places, RE Land Development [01:36:27] Code Review and Advisory Services. [01:36:32] Yes, sir. [01:36:33] The Land Development Code is the guide [01:36:38] that the Planning and Development Department relies [01:36:42] on to address matters such as zoning and building densities [01:36:48] and setbacks and parking requirements. [01:36:52] And the city staff does update that code [01:36:58] to assure compliance with state and with federal regulations, [01:37:03] although we don't regularly update it [01:37:09] so that it's as responsive to the land use [01:37:12] issues of the city as it should be. [01:37:17] And as such, I have solicited a proposal from People Places LLC [01:37:25] to work with the city to redraft the city's land development [01:37:31] code. [01:37:32] It was originally adopted in 1990. [01:37:39] And the intent of the redraft is so [01:37:46] that it better represents the intentions and purposes [01:37:51] of the city and will enable more progressive development to occur [01:37:58] and will lead to some efficiencies in the development [01:38:02] review process as well. [01:38:05] People Places has submitted a proposal [01:38:09] to conduct the work for $10,000. [01:38:14] The fee being requested for the work to be performed [01:38:20] is consistent with local industry standards [01:38:25] for this type of work. [01:38:27] There is an additional services provision [01:38:31] included in their contract.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9.b
Board Appointment: Alfred Renedo, Police Pension Board
Transcript content appears mismatched to the agenda item title (Board Appointment: Alfred Renedo, Police Pension Board); the excerpt actually discusses a $3,500 appropriation for additional consulting services from People Places LLC, led by Frank Starkey, to support smart growth code drafting.
People Places LLCFrank Starkey$3,500 appropriation for additional consulting servicessmart growth / walkable community code drafting▶ Jump to 1:38:32 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:38:33] And I have indicated an appropriation of $3,500 [01:38:39] to cover those additional services. [01:38:43] People Places LLC, as most of you are aware, [01:38:48] is led by Mr. Frank Starkey. [01:38:53] And Mr. Starkey, in addition to having a great working knowledge [01:38:57] of the community, has experience as a developer in the city. [01:39:02] And I think that will bring great insight to us [01:39:07] in drafting codes that truly will support smart growth [01:39:14] and additionally will help us create a vibrant, walkable community, [01:39:20] which is a goal that you all have collectively indicated a taste for.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9.c
You arrived here from a search for “comp plan” — transcript expanded below
Agreement w/People Places, LLC RE: Land Development Code Review & Advisory Services
approvedCouncil discussed and approved an agreement with People Places, LLC for Land Development Code review and advisory services, with consultant Gary Starkey explaining a two-phase approach: first reorganizing the code for clarity, then making substantive changes to align with the comp plan and lay groundwork for a future form-based code. Councilmember Bridges abstained due to renting from 6106 Partners, in which Starkey has ownership interest. The motion passed.
- motion:Motion to approve the agreement with People Places, LLC for Land Development Code Review & Advisory Services. (passed)
6106 PartnersPeople Places, LLCBridgesDavisGary StarkeyMurphyLand Development Codecomp plandowntown core designationform-based codeparking requirements▶ Jump to 1:39:25 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:39:25] I'll open it up for public comment. [01:39:29] Seeing none, I'll bring it back to council. [01:39:31] I would ask Mr. Starkey if he could come up. [01:39:33] I do have a question for him. [01:39:35] Mr. Mayor. [01:39:36] To what extent will this move us towards a form-based code? [01:39:43] I want to lay the groundwork for that to come along. [01:39:52] But it will still be in the standard format [01:39:54] of a standard land development code. [01:39:59] The status of the code is that it's [01:40:03] The status of the code currently, codes are like filing cabinets [01:40:08] that you put new things into, and you occasionally take some things out. [01:40:11] But every once in a while, you just have to go in and just take everything out [01:40:15] and stack it aside, look at it all together, [01:40:18] and figure out what makes sense, what's overlapping. [01:40:21] For example, the fence thing this evening, [01:40:24] there are things that are covered in two places, [01:40:27] other things that aren't covered at all. [01:40:30] So you just have to go through and look at it all holistically [01:40:33] and straighten it all out. [01:40:34] So the first phase of my recommendations [01:40:37] will be to reorganize it into a cleaner structure [01:40:44] without really making any substantive changes. [01:40:47] Of course, when you run across two things that conflict with each other, [01:40:51] you have to decide which one you're going to keep. [01:40:53] So there will be some substantive discussions in that. [01:40:56] And that will all come through staff, through DRC, through LDRB, and to you guys. [01:41:03] The second phase of that process would be to make some recommendations [01:41:08] about substantive changes that will move more in the direction of getting [01:41:18] the comp plan goals incorporated into the zoning. [01:41:23] That's not really been done to the extent that it needs to be. [01:41:27] There are a lot of things that are talked about in comp plan [01:41:29] that are not permissible under the zoning that are supposed to be in the zoning. [01:41:33] So all that's a long answer to say that in that phase two, which [01:41:39] I have, let's get it straightened out first and then look at those things. [01:41:44] I think it should be a goal to lay the groundwork so that a form-based code can [01:41:49] be overlaid or introduced into that code without making the whole thing fall apart. [01:41:56] So they sort of operate at two different levels, [01:42:00] but the structure should be the same. [01:42:03] This is basically clean it up and make it ready to do the other. [01:42:08] Yeah. [01:42:08] And I think the effect will be that it will shorten it significantly, [01:42:13] make it much clearer and cleaner and easier for staff to find. [01:42:16] Staff and the users, the general public and developers, [01:42:21] but people doing an addition on their home. [01:42:25] It'll make it easier for everybody to find what the regulation is for, [01:42:31] say, fencing, for example. [01:42:33] And apply those things more cleanly, more equitably, and more efficiently [01:42:41] so it doesn't take as much staff time, not as much back and forth, [01:42:44] not as much grade, not as much interpretation that's required, [01:42:48] and things like that. [01:42:50] That's just a matter of, it just happens with just having a more finely tuned engine. [01:42:57] It just runs better. [01:42:59] Questions? [01:43:02] Let me make a motion to approve first. [01:43:04] OK. [01:43:11] That's good. [01:43:12] I just want to mention that earlier in our, I can't even remember at this point [01:43:18] if it was our workshop or what, yeah, it was when we were talking [01:43:21] about the parking lot and parking spaces and developers [01:43:27] and whether the spaces might be used by a developer or not. [01:43:31] It's causing me to think, as we're sitting here, [01:43:34] it's been three years since I've been on the council. [01:43:37] And it was many years before that when we first [01:43:40] started being told that we have too many requirements for too many parking [01:43:46] spaces for us to follow our strategy. [01:43:50] And now, earlier today, we learned we've got 30 days, 40 days, whatever's left, [01:43:57] in order to try to at least envision how things are going to work. [01:44:01] I noticed around the circle a lot of cars parked on the public parking spaces. [01:44:07] And the city has a ton of public parking. [01:44:09] And many of our resident businesses are lot line to lot line with no parking. [01:44:17] Others have had to put in parking. [01:44:20] Parking has been a big issue. [01:44:22] So I would love to see the city's planner or somebody come back to us [01:44:29] and address the actual parking numbers and restrictions. [01:44:32] So I appreciate cleaning up the file cabinet. [01:44:35] That's what I usually do, you know, and clean everything up [01:44:39] but never get to the job that I wanted to get because I spend all the time cleaning. [01:44:42] So I guess my point is that's why many of my reports in college [01:44:47] were done through the middle of the night because I spend all the time [01:44:50] cleaning my desk off and getting my drink in the right place [01:44:53] and anything I could think of not to do what I intended to do. [01:44:58] So bottom line. [01:45:00] I'm just saying thank you for that, but it's a little disappointing to know that we're [01:45:06] not going to, I don't know when we can get to addressing some of these parking requirements. [01:45:12] In response to that issue, the land development code regulates two things about parking. [01:45:17] One is how much parking is required, the other is the design standards for the provision [01:45:25] of the off-street parking spaces themselves. [01:45:30] The former of those is in the form of a chart that lists every use that people in 1990 could [01:45:38] think of. [01:45:41] There are a lot of uses that now exist that didn't exist in 1990, and there are a lot [01:45:46] of uses that just are needlessly detailed out that all have the same freaking numbers. [01:45:52] So just simplifying that and straightening that out will just provide a lot of clarity, [01:46:01] and when you look at it, you can look at those numbers and go, well, those are patently ridiculous. [01:46:06] Right now it's so confusing in such a kind of a messy format that it doesn't just jump [01:46:14] out off the page at you at how silly some of the things are, and it's not because people [01:46:19] who wrote them were silly. [01:46:20] It's just that things were written at different times, and they end up being contradictory [01:46:25] or outdated. [01:46:26] For example, there's still a very detailed section on regulating satellite dishes, which [01:46:33] goes back to the 1980s when satellite dishes were the size of VW buses, back when they [01:46:40] still had VW buses. [01:46:43] People don't even know what VW buses are anymore, and so those kinds of things need to be taken [01:46:48] out. [01:46:49] So I've been going through this thing, and as I've looked at it, when you put it into [01:46:57] a table form and you just look at the numbers, it's much more evident how silly the numbers [01:47:02] are or how contradictory they are. [01:47:04] So just that exercise will be helpful for us to see that, and this kind of goes back [01:47:13] to the mayor's question about form-based code. [01:47:15] I think if we start to think about the zoning of the city more explicitly relative to the [01:47:24] different types of neighborhoods and different types of areas of the city, there's still [01:47:28] a real gap between the comp plan designation of downtown and downtown core, which doesn't [01:47:34] exist on any map, but it's referred to in the comp plan. [01:47:38] It's not a zoning category. [01:47:40] So those things need to get synchronized so we can know what we're talking about when [01:47:44] we say downtown or downtown core, and we also ought to take another look at the map [01:47:51] and make sure that you guys and the city as a whole recognize, yes, this is what we mean [01:48:00] when we say downtown. [01:48:01] Right now, if you say downtown, that means three different things between the comp plan [01:48:05] and the zoning, none of which comports with what anybody probably thinks of as downtown [01:48:10] in their head. [01:48:11] So we can get those things straightened out, and then that becomes the basis for what can [01:48:22] become form-based code, and then structure by which you can have different parking standards [01:48:28] for highway commercial than you do for downtown, than you do for neighborhoods, et cetera. [01:48:34] Rejected again. [01:48:35] To the second. [01:48:36] I live at 61, or I rent from 6106 Partners, which Frank has a major ownership of. [01:48:47] So I'm going to, you know, bow out, abstain from this. [01:48:51] But I want to say that in your explanation stuff, I think you earned your 10 grand. [01:48:55] I'd ask for more. [01:49:01] Yeah, I think we're fortunate to have an individual with such expertise, with such an interest [01:49:09] in our city, and who is a part of it. [01:49:13] I think that will pay us dividends much more than what we're paying for. [01:49:18] Mr. Murphy? [01:49:20] This has been talked about for a long time, and I think this is a great initial step in [01:49:25] getting the changes and updating that we need. [01:49:27] I think having someone from the outside who's invested in the community, and not necessarily [01:49:32] wearing that government umbrella over them, will be very helpful. [01:49:36] So I'm looking forward to see what happens. [01:49:40] Thank you. [01:49:41] And this is a much-needed housekeeping for the code, so I am very happy to see us in [01:49:52] a position to go ahead and get this taken care of. [01:49:54] It's going to make it a lot easier for everybody that has to deal with it going forward. [01:49:59] As I've sort of implied, I do look forward to the day where we'll see this morph into [01:50:06] a form-based code that actually makes a lot of sense for the city going forward. [01:50:12] Any further discussion? [01:50:13] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:50:18] Aye. [01:50:19] Aye. [01:50:20] Opposed, blank sign. [01:50:21] Motion. [01:50:22] One extension. [01:50:23] Thank you. [01:50:25] And next is a request to purchase a fire hydrant bicycle rack. [01:50:34] That's right. [01:50:35] It is a fire hydrant sculpture bicycle rack, and it is a recommendation to you, which has [01:50:46] been submitted by the Cultural Affairs Committee. [01:50:51] They voted on this matter at their meeting on December 16, 2020, and I attached a drawing [01:51:00] of their proposed bicycle rack to your communication in your council packet. [01:51:09] The cost of the fire hydrant sculpture bicycle rack is $2,500. [01:51:19] They are proposing a red hydrant with a yellow hose, and the funding for this item is available [01:51:29] in the city's public art fund if you approve the expenditure of the funds. [01:51:37] Do I have a public comment? [01:51:40] Move approval. [01:51:41] Second. [01:51:42] Back to council. [01:51:43] We have a motion and a second to make it. [01:51:46] It's green in the picture, but you said red, right? [01:51:50] I think that it was debated by the Cultural Affairs Committee, and the final recommendation [01:51:58] was red hydrant with yellow hose. [01:52:01] Yeah. [01:52:02] Mr. Murphy? [01:52:03] I'm good. [01:52:04] Mr. Davis? [01:52:05] People walking their dogs are going to love it. [01:52:10] So will the bicycles, hopefully. [01:52:13] Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:52:18] Aye. [01:52:19] Opposed, like sign. [01:52:20] We're now to communications and reports. [01:52:23] Do we have anything from the city attorney? [01:52:25] No, nothing from me, Mr. Mayor. [01:52:27] City manager? [01:52:28] Nothing from me. [01:52:29] Just evening, Mr. Mayor. [01:52:30] Mr. Davis? [01:52:31] For the League of Flower Cities, coming up, I think, a month from today, people in Tallahassee [01:52:41] will be convening to open up a sausage factory up there. [01:52:47] So one of the things that the League of Flower Cities is looking at is legislation. [01:52:59] Let me get back to my notes here. [01:53:01] I just want to share with you that legislation they'll be monitoring is sales tax fairness. [01:53:11] Of course, the sales tax will result in some passed-down revenue through two cities, short-term [01:53:17] rentals, drinking water, excuse me, not drinking water, but surface water, drainage to surface [01:53:25] water, and affordable housing. [01:53:28] And also, maybe to us, is annexation, so they'll be supporting facilitation of annexation, [01:53:36] keeping private property. [01:53:37] So we'll keep an eye on any legislation in Tallahassee about that. [01:53:41] Mr. Davis? [01:53:42] I just want to bring up, there's some concern about the, and some interest in the scooter [01:53:48] rental place extending its hours, and I think they're already in violation because I've [01:53:53] seen scooters out after dark. [01:53:55] Also, I've got numerous examples of my own viewing of them not obeying the traffic laws [01:54:01] in the city. [01:54:03] I'm just really concerned about somebody getting hurt, seriously getting hurt. [01:54:08] And I just want to let you all know that I don't like it, I don't like it at all. [01:54:13] Thank you. [01:54:14] I'd like to welcome Chief Bogart back. [01:54:17] It's good to see you again, and yes, if I do take offense and take it personally when [01:54:23] somebody unjustly attacks you or members of your staff, so be it. [01:54:29] It's my honor to defend you guys against some really scurrious nonsense that's been [01:54:37] posted all over the place, and if they don't like it, well, that's basically too bad because [01:54:43] they were wrong, and the people that did that were absolutely, horribly wrong. [01:54:49] I had an opportunity to sit through a webinar back on last Wednesday from the Environmental [01:55:00] Law Institute, of all things, talking about gas stations, and it was interesting, particularly [01:55:09] in light of our approval a couple months ago of the 7-11. [01:55:14] One of the comments that was made by one of the presenters is that they expect to see [01:55:21] half of the gas stations in the country closed by 2030, so my response back was my comment [01:55:32] that I had made during the meeting, which was that the gas station we approved may well [01:55:37] be the last one that is ever approved in New Port Richey. [01:55:41] Things are going to change very, very quickly, and this was a national group that put this [01:55:46] on with half a dozen presenters. [01:55:48] It was excellent. [01:55:49] Mr. Allman. [01:55:50] Yes, sir. [01:55:51] Okay, so my report relates to a field trip that the downtown New Port Richey Main Street [01:56:01] took last week to Safety Harbor. [01:56:05] I think Anne Graffey was instrumental in helping to make that happen. [01:56:13] I would like to report to you that it was a very good conversation. [01:56:20] They treated us well. [01:56:22] We had some speakers who were part of a nonprofit art center that's in Safety Harbor. [01:56:31] I would encourage everybody to get over and look at that, if they've not been. [01:56:34] I know we also had staff there. [01:56:36] Charles went as well as Jacob, and we got a tour. [01:56:44] Some takeaways, though, a lot of discussion about murals, and I know that the Main Street [01:56:49] group has been talking about expanding the, you know, palette of murals and the type of [01:56:57] art that we have in our town. [01:57:00] There was a lot of discussion about, there was a mural artist there who did a lot of [01:57:05] the mural work there, and talked about her experience in many cities around, and some
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.d
Request to Purchase a Fire Hydrant Sculpture Bicycle Rack
discussedCouncilmember discussed observations from Safety Harbor's public art program, comparing it to New Port Richey's current historical/nature-based mural theme, and suggested opening up the city's art guidelines to allow more variety and color. No formal action was taken on the fire hydrant sculpture bicycle rack request in this transcript excerpt.
▶ Jump to 1:57:08 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:57:11] of the common restrictions. [01:57:13] So basically, I guess there's two kinds of art in the city, art in public places, and [01:57:19] art on private buildings, murals. [01:57:23] As to the murals in Safety Harbor, the murals, as in our city, I think the murals cannot [01:57:29] be interpreted as having to be signage, because we want to limit that. [01:57:36] So if it was a barbecue, it couldn't be a pig, you know. [01:57:42] So that was a typical type of thing that I think is out there. [01:57:50] So the theme had to be something other than what was related to the business, which, a [01:57:57] little counterintuitive if you have a business, kind of, but just to make sure that nobody [01:58:02] gets away with slipping a little extra subliminal message in, I guess, to encourage sales. [01:58:10] But at any case, in our city, there was discussion among that group and among the team of the [01:58:18] three major people that ran that art program, had about 30 volunteers, incredible place, [01:58:26] you have to see it. [01:58:27] I would show you pictures, but my phone is dead. [01:58:34] The takeaway was, for us, we have historical or nature-based. [01:58:41] And so we've got a lot of just sort of pictures of manatees, alligators, stilt houses, because [01:58:48] we wanted to really highlight our own city. [01:58:52] But I think that there is a desire to open that up to make the city a little more fun [01:58:57] and let us have a little more color and a little more art, not just have it be a historical
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 10Communications▶ 1:58:58
- 11Adjournment▶ 2:03:35