On the agenda

1. 0.aRoll Call▶ 0:00
2. 0.b

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

   ▶ Jump to 0:36 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:36] Can we all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? [00:00:41] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

3. 0.cApproval of Minutes: February 18, 2016▶ 0:59
4. 1

   Comprehensive Plan Amendment CMP2016-01 – Urban Agriculture

   discussed

   Staff presented Comprehensive Plan Amendment ordinance 2016-2074 to add urban agriculture as a permitted use across multiple land use categories, defining it as cultivation/processing/distribution of plants and food products (livestock prohibited, fish only in aquaponic indoor systems in light industrial). The LDRB raised concerns about odors, on-site sales clarification, machinery storage consistency, and enforcement, with mixed views on scope. The item was discussed alongside the companion LDC ordinance 2016-2073.

   Ord. Ordinance #2016-2074

   • direction:Board suggested clarifying that wholesale/retail sales prohibition applies to on-site sales only, and harmonizing machinery storage rules between sections. (none)

   📍6119 Illinois Avenue📍Georgia and Grand📍Virginia Avenue🏢Environmental Committee👤Chris Mettler👤Dale Deschamps👤Dr. Cato👤John👤Stan#Aeroponics#Aquaponics#CMP2016-01#City Council first reading scheduled April 5#Community gardens#Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Urban Agriculture#Hydroponics#Land Development Code Amendment#Ordinance 2016-2073#Ordinance 2016-2074#Zoning districts R-1, R-2, R-3, MF-10, MF-14, MF-30, C-1, C-2, Highway Commercial, Office, Downtown, Light Industrial, Government, Residential Office

   ▶ Jump to 1:19 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:19] First thing we're discussing is the case of the comprehensive land plan amendment, urban agriculture. [00:01:28] Coordinates number 2016-2074. [00:01:32] Can we hear from the staff? [00:01:37] Thank you. [00:01:38] I'm Chris Mettler, and I would like to present these first two together, both the comprehensive plan amendment, ordinance 2016-2074, and the amendment to the land development code, ordinance 2016-2073. [00:01:54] The Environmental Committee has requested that the city amend our regulations to allow urban agriculture as a permitted use. [00:02:01] There are a number of benefits that are associated with urban agriculture, including health benefits with increased access to nutritious and locally grown food, social benefits with increased opportunities for social interaction, economic benefits with increased economic opportunities, [00:02:20] and as well, environmental benefits with decreased runoff and increased biodiversity. [00:02:32] Here we have a picture of agricultural use in an urban setting. [00:02:38] This is a picture of the currently existing community gardens located at Georgia and Grand in the city of New Port Richey. [00:02:46] This is specifically a community gardens use, and there's a difference between community gardens and urban agriculture, whereas this community garden is more of a recreational use, not for profit. [00:03:00] Urban agriculture would be intended to be more commercial use and a for-profit venture. [00:03:07] This is a picture of an urban farm that I picked up as an example. [00:03:12] This is an example of indoor crop production showing hydroponics with artificial lighting. [00:03:20] I think we've got a lot of that going on. [00:03:23] This is a graphic showing hydroponics indoor crop production with accessing natural light. [00:03:30] This is a diagram of a hydroponic system, soilless with nutrient solution providing nutrients to the plants, an aquaponic system which marries a system for growing plants along with growing fish, [00:03:47] and an aeroponic system where the nutrient solution is provided with a mist solution. [00:03:53] The proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan provides a definition of urban agriculture as agricultural activity, including the cultivation, processing, and distribution of plants and other food products. [00:04:08] This use may also include horticulture, indoor crop production such as aeroponic, aquaponic, or hydroponic systems, and wholesale and or retail uses. [00:04:18] The raising and processing of livestock is prohibited. [00:04:21] There were concerns about the impacts of having livestock and animals in the city on relatively small city lots. [00:04:30] The proposed amendments add urban agriculture to multiple of the land use categories, including low-density residential, low-medium density residential, medium-density residential, high-density residential, downtown, downtown core, residential office, residential office retail, general commercial, highway commercial, light industrial, recreation open space, and public semi-public. [00:04:55] Also with the amendments, there are a goal, objective, and policies that are provided. [00:05:02] The goal is stated in the comprehensive plan that the city shall allow urban agriculture as a use in multiple future land use plan categories as a strategy to make New Port Richey a more sustainable urban community, [00:05:13] to provide additional economic opportunities, and to address residents' access to fresh, locally grown food. [00:05:19] The objective is to allow urban agriculture as a use in multiple future land use plan categories and zoning districts. [00:05:25] And the two policies state that the city shall amend the land development code to allow and regulate urban agriculture as a use in multiple zoning districts, [00:05:34] and the city shall address the compatibility of urban agriculture activity with existing and future development by limiting associated wholesale or retail sales and other activities with potential negative impacts. [00:05:45] Currently, the comprehensive plan doesn't address agriculture at all. There hasn't been much of an agricultural tradition in the city, [00:05:53] and as a result, in order to accommodate urban agriculture, we needed to have this addressed in the comprehensive plan. [00:06:00] The second ordinance, 2016-2073, amends the land development code. [00:06:08] It amends the code to allow urban agriculture in multiple zoning districts, including R-1, R-2, R-3, MF-10, MF-14, MF-30, C-1, C-2, Highway Commercial, Office, Downtown, Light Industrial, Government, and Residential Office. [00:06:26] Is there anything you left out? [00:06:28] It did leave out a few. It left out conservation, because that would contradict the intent of the conservation district, which is intended to maintain the natural foreign fauna. [00:06:39] It doesn't include public-semi-public as a zoning district. There are no designated properties in the city that are designated public-semi-public. [00:06:47] The city properties, be it City Hall or the parks or even the schools, are all designated as government. [00:06:54] We did not amend the planned development district or residential office retail districts, because the uses that are allowed in those districts are already designated from the other established districts, [00:07:05] and we didn't allow it in the mobile home park because we felt the development standards would be inconsistent with the proposal. [00:07:13] The purpose and intent of the regulations are to establish appropriate standards which allow for urban agriculture while mitigating any associated undesirable impacts. [00:07:24] Urban agriculture may create impacts which can be detrimental to the quality of life of adjacent property owners. [00:07:30] And so we've provided a number of operational requirements which address property maintenance, equipment and material storage, machinery and equipment operation, chemical use, accessory uses, parking, and trash. [00:07:43] With the definition, we have prohibited livestock or animals associated with the use of urban agriculture, and sales are limited. [00:07:53] Sales are limited to the districts that currently allow retail or wholesale sales, such as the commercial districts and the light industrial district, [00:08:01] with the exception that we're allowing for garage sales twice a year in the residential districts. [00:08:07] This is also what's indicated for the community gardens regulations. [00:08:11] What about the overlay district? [00:08:14] The overlay district. [00:08:17] Are commercial sales allowed in that? [00:08:20] This refers to all the underlying zoning, so we're addressing here the established zoning districts. [00:08:29] Also... [00:08:32] If you mean the downtown redeveloped residential overlay district, this doesn't have any impact on that. [00:08:39] What we're looking at is the underlying zoning of that area, which is R3 or office, so it would be applicable in those zoning districts. [00:08:48] The overlay district is just an overlay that talks about how business is regulated, but it doesn't really get into the details of what the two ordinances are, so it would be permitted under the underlying zoning of that. [00:08:59] As I recall for the mapping, the downtown overlay district, the draw, covers zoning districts that would allow for urban agriculture. [00:09:14] The short answer is yes, it's permitted. How's that for an answer? [00:09:17] That's good. That's what he was looking for. [00:09:22] Also with the indoor crop production would be limited to light industrial. [00:09:27] That would be the only district that would allow for the indoor crop production, be it hydroponics, aquaponics, or aeroponics. [00:09:33] Lastly... [00:09:34] You say there's no animals. Does that include fish? Because we talked about fish as being one of those issues. [00:09:39] Fish would only be allowed in concert with the aquaponics system in an indoor crop production, urban agriculture use, and light industrial district. [00:09:48] That would be the limit of the animals that would be allowed. [00:09:50] What about beekeeping? [00:09:52] That would not be allowed. The idea is that there would be no animals. It would strictly be either no animals or fish in an industrial setting. [00:10:03] Lastly, the Environmental Committee would be responsible for reviewing and approving applications for urban agricultural uses. [00:10:11] They would maintain a registry of the urban agricultural uses and keep the Code Enforcement Department informed of the approved uses. [00:10:19] They would also be responsible for renewing the applications, which would need to be renewed on an annual basis. [00:10:27] The amendments to the Land Development Code provide a number of definitions. [00:10:31] Again, the urban agriculture definition is the same as we're putting into the Comprehensive Plan, and I'll state it again. [00:10:37] Agricultural activity, including the cultivation, processing, and distribution of plants and other food products. [00:10:43] This use may include horticulture, indoor crop production, including aeroponic, aquaponic, or hydroponic systems, and wholesale and or retail uses. [00:10:51] The raising and processing of livestock is prohibited. [00:10:54] Livestock is defined as domesticated animals kept and raised in an agricultural setting. [00:10:59] Indoor crop production is defined as the growing of produce using soilless, aeroponic, aquaponic, and hydroponic systems, [00:11:06] or soil or other organic material within greenhouses, warehouses, and other buildings. [00:11:12] Hydroponic system is defined as the propagation of plants using a mechanical system designed to circulate a solution of minerals and water with limited use of growing media. [00:11:21] Aquaponic system is defined as the symbiotic propagation of plants and fish in an indoor, constructed, and recirculating environment. [00:11:29] And lastly, an aeroponic system is defined as the process of growing plants in an air or mist environment without the use of soil or an aggregate medium. [00:11:37] The City Council is scheduled to review the ordinance on April the 5th. [00:11:43] Because we're amending the comprehensive plan, after that first reading, the two ordinances will go to the State for review, [00:11:49] and then they'll both be scheduled for a second reading before the City Council. [00:11:54] And lastly, the Environmental Committee has reviewed and endorsed the proposed ordinances, [00:12:00] and a member of that Environmental Committee likely will like to have some words to share with you after the presentation. [00:12:08] And that's the conclusion of the presentation. [00:12:12] I could just add, we're looking at two separate ordinances with two separate votes, [00:12:17] both tied together under the same subject matter, which is urban agriculture. [00:12:23] And as Mr. Mettler mentioned just a moment ago, the chair of the Environmental Committee is here, Mr. Del Deschamps, [00:12:31] and I'm guessing he's here because he wants to talk to you. [00:12:34] So if you have questions for staff, we'd be happy to address them. [00:12:37] And if we can't answer them, I'm sure he would, because he is the reason we're before you today with these two ordinances. [00:12:46] All the ponics you're talking about, are they only allowed in the industrial zone? [00:12:51] Correct. [00:12:54] Any questions anybody else has? [00:12:57] I have one question, Stan, where it says wholesale and retail sales prohibited. [00:13:07] What does that exactly mean? [00:13:09] Does that mean that if somebody grew produce on their property, they could not go and sell it somewhere? [00:13:16] They could go sell it off-site, they couldn't sell it on the site if that's so designated. [00:13:22] It may need to be clarified a little bit then, because if you just have a blanket statement like that, [00:13:27] that kind of takes away the whole intent of what you're talking about. [00:13:31] All you would have to do is add on-site, and then that would clear that up. [00:13:35] But I think that should be clarified, because otherwise if you read it, then you would say, [00:13:39] well, if you can't sell anything wholesale and retail, why are you doing it? [00:13:44] Then you're back just to community garden again. [00:13:48] That's helpful. Thank you. [00:13:52] I have a question. When it comes to watering, machinery, what types are we talking about? [00:14:03] In terms of the equipment that we're discussing, and the regulations, on page 507. [00:14:18] I'd say in terms of equipment, mechanical equipment used in the operation of an urban agriculture use [00:14:25] shall be limited to the following. [00:14:28] Riding and push mowers designed for personal outdoor use, and heavy machinery. [00:14:32] And then, if you're going to have a garden, you're going to have to have a lot of machinery. [00:14:36] So you're going to have to have a lot of machinery. [00:14:38] You're going to have to have a lot of machinery. [00:14:40] The regulation of an urban agriculture use shall be limited to the following. [00:14:44] Riding and push mowers designed for personal outdoor use, [00:14:47] handheld tillers and edgers that may be gas or electrically powered, [00:14:50] and other handheld equipment designed for personal household use [00:14:54] that creates minimal impacts related to the operation of said equipment, [00:14:57] including noise, orders, and vibrations. [00:15:00] And how much of the land would become agricultural as opposed to the front [00:15:10] yard, backyard? That's, we're not necessarily limiting the amount of space [00:15:18] that could be used on a lot. I guess I would fall back on the impervious [00:15:22] surface ratio limitations of 60% in a residential district and 70% in a [00:15:28] non-residential district. I would, so I guess that's the only limitation I can [00:15:37] think of. There's a little confusion under three if you look at maintenance. [00:15:43] It says large power tools, example mowers and tillers, shall be stored at the rear [00:15:49] of the property. And then down here we say handheld tillers. That doesn't mean [00:15:56] the same to me as number three up there that has to be stored at the back of [00:16:01] the property. We could certainly marry those two so that... I think we need to make sure [00:16:07] that we, you know, start small here. Yeah, the other concern I have is odors. I mean [00:16:17] I think that's going to be the main concern that a homeowner would have if [00:16:21] he has something like this next to him and you have large amounts of fertilizer [00:16:27] and or dead fish, whatever. Noise. Well, or noise. But I can ground out the noise. I [00:16:38] can't ground out the smell. If I'm sitting in my backyard in my pool, I don't want [00:16:42] the smell manure next to me. That's my main concern about opening this to all [00:16:49] the areas that you just mentioned. We basically have a free-for-all. Anybody [00:16:54] that wants to do anything... Don? I can speak to that. I personally do organic [00:17:00] farming and we use manures, we use fish products, we use all of that. If it's used [00:17:06] properly, it's composted properly, you can go sniff the pile and there's no odor at [00:17:11] all from it. That's the if. If, if, if. Well, yeah, that would be right, that would be [00:17:16] regulated through the city. I think we need to write into this regulations [00:17:21] about odor, very strong regulations about odor, that if indeed there are some [00:17:26] odoriferous problems that those have to be addressed immediately and I would say [00:17:33] within 30 days they have to be taken care of. I can tell you right now I smell [00:17:39] worse lawn sprays that go on right now than you do fertilizers and those are [00:17:44] definitely more potent and damaging than what organic fertilizers are. I have [00:17:51] personally seen a lot of urban gardens, different places we viewed it. [00:17:58] Landscaping, the way the people that do urban gardens keep it, are much nicer [00:18:03] appearance than most of the landscaping you'll see in town right now because [00:18:07] they're green, they're beautiful, they're maintained. They're doing it to make [00:18:11] money off of it. They're doing it to make a profit, so they've got to take care of it, [00:18:16] maintain it, but the ones that I've seen are very well kept. Some of those [00:18:21] properties actually increased property value of that property, that adjoining [00:18:27] property. If you look, if you look at Virginia Avenue right now, there are [00:18:32] several places right there that the property values are increasing just [00:18:36] because of people, what they're doing with farming and I think that that's [00:18:40] what you need to look at. This is not, this is something new. That's already allowed in the [00:18:45] community garden thing we had, what they're doing. That's a community garden, [00:18:48] that's not a, that's not an urban garden, that's not urban. I'm saying you're [00:18:53] relating to something that's already allowed. I'm not sure if it's allowed or [00:19:00] not, it's being done. There's quite a few gardens and as a homeowner you can plant [00:19:04] your vegetables and do as you may with them, you're not upsetting your neighbors. [00:19:11] True, you can do that. Why do we need an amendment? To me it opens up a can [00:19:20] of worms. I think this is way, way, way overreaching and it's, I, and the zones, [00:19:27] and the zones that it's, it's in all these different zones are one, I mean [00:19:31] virtually there's hardly anything it's not allowed in, based on what you said. [00:19:35] Correct. Does this mean we can have a greenhouse structure property? Indoor [00:19:45] crop production using a greenhouse would only be allowed in the industrial [00:19:49] district. So you could have a greenhouse with your home use for your own personal [00:19:57] hobby, but to have an urban agriculture commercially oriented for-profit venture [00:20:03] with a greenhouse, you would need to be in an industrial district. And this, this [00:20:07] is the part that bothers me, is that it's, it is basically commercial. You're [00:20:13] selling your goods, whether it's on a small scale or a large scale. So it's, [00:20:18] it's giving open field, open field for people to just become farmers and this [00:20:26] city turning into a something, you know, a commercial city. So it's intended to [00:20:33] If I may answer, I think that maybe we're closed-minded on that because there are [00:20:39] numerous other communities that already have this, large and small communities. [00:20:43] There are communities that have it in large cities where they actually are [00:20:47] growing on top of apartment buildings for commercial use. I mean, and there are [00:20:54] other cities that allow the growing in your backyard, your front yard, side [00:20:58] yards, wherever it would be. I think we're closed-minded. Actually, I think we're [00:21:02] closed-minded in trying to cut down hydroponics and the other type of growth. [00:21:07] I could see that as potential for a place that somebody could start in their [00:21:15] garage, incubator type of thing, learn how to do it and become proficient and [00:21:20] then actually set up a place of business along a lot of the vacant properties [00:21:26] that we have right now, storefronts. You could sell commercially in the back and [00:21:31] sell commercially in front of it. You can do wholesale from the back and [00:21:35] retail from the front. And I think that we're missing a boat even not going as [00:21:39] far as including hydroponics. I think that should be included to open up the [00:21:44] eyes to what can be done and where you can go with the city and what can be [00:21:47] done to help it develop. [00:21:50] I think cleaning up the city other than agriculture. [00:21:52] I guess we do, but I think I thought this would be more widely accepted. [00:21:57] What about pesticides? Is it clear then that the pesticides are basically not allowed at all? [00:22:14] Specifically, it indicates that the agricultural use shall be designed and [00:22:18] maintained to prevent any chemical pesticide, fertilizer, or other garden [00:22:23] waste from draining off of the property. Pesticides, fertilizers, and other such [00:22:27] chemicals are prohibited within 200 feet of an existing or designated wellhead. [00:22:31] For the health and safety of all area residents, synthetic chemical fertilizers, [00:22:35] herbicides, wheat killers, insecticides, and pesticides are not permitted on the [00:22:40] property. Herbicides and insecticides made from natural materials are permitted [00:22:44] but are to be used sparingly and with caution. Pesticides and fertilizers may [00:22:49] only be stored on the property in a locked building with proper [00:22:53] site plan and building permit approval and must comply with any other [00:22:57] applicable requirements for hazardous materials. [00:23:01] Who's going to go check all this? [00:23:03] Yeah, who's monitoring this? [00:23:05] We have somebody on staff that can go check these all over the city? [00:23:10] Certainly, if there's a complaint, then code enforcement. [00:23:13] There's a complaint, but if it's a regulation, who's going to be checking it? [00:23:18] I mean, is that another job for code enforcement? [00:23:22] It would have to be. [00:23:24] I would say also that the Environmental Committee is going to be reviewing and [00:23:28] approving the applications, so they'll look at the initial site plans that are provided. [00:23:34] An application, true, and most people do follow the rules for the application process. [00:23:40] And then after the fact... [00:23:42] They all follow the rules for the application or they don't get it. [00:23:46] I'm ready to hear from Mr. McConnell. [00:23:50] Anybody else have anything else to say? [00:23:52] Any more questions of staff? [00:23:54] If not, Dale, do you want to speak? [00:24:03] Thank you, John. [00:24:05] Hello, everyone. [00:24:08] I don't know that I'll be able to convince everyone of the merits of this. [00:24:17] Sir Deschamps, do you want to give your name for the record? [00:24:20] Oh, yes. [00:24:22] My name is Dale Deschamps, a city resident. [00:24:25] I live on Illinois Avenue. [00:24:27] And as a matter of fact, adjacent to my dwelling at 6119, there's a community garden there. [00:24:33] I would welcome anyone to come by and take a look at just how that works. [00:24:37] The model, just as a note, this is not about my community garden, the community garden that I'm facilitating, [00:24:45] but more to give an example of just what urban agriculture looks like. [00:24:50] For the most part, my experience with urban agriculture has been that it actually improves the appearance of a city. [00:24:58] Rather than in any way being detrimental, it actually makes the city look better, feel better, and make the city more livable. [00:25:06] That's just my experience and also my experience from the literature that I've consulted. [00:25:10] In practice, what this ordinance would do is essentially create a permitted use where one does not exist. [00:25:19] So as of right now, essentially what we have in place is a prohibition on this sort of activity. [00:25:27] The ordinance, and I certainly would defer to staff on this as far as the clarity of my expression here, [00:25:35] the ordinance would then allow folks to grow food on their property [00:25:40] and make the property not only productive in terms of the food that's being produced, [00:25:47] but also as a rule to make the properties much more appealing in terms of the aesthetics. [00:25:56] Dr. Cato mentioned the Virginia Avenue stretch of property. [00:25:59] That's one example of what growing might look like. [00:26:05] If this ordinance were in place, then rather than folks being hesitant or fearful or concerned [00:26:12] about perhaps moving in the direction of creating an aesthetically satisfying environment with vegetables [00:26:20] and other seasonal produce, including fruits, rather than moving in that direction or even considering it, [00:26:26] folks are discouraged from doing so because there's just nothing in place that would allow for it. [00:26:31] As far as the concerns about ongoing maintenance and essentially policing of the operation, [00:26:39] these permits are designed to be for one year and one year only, so they are renewable. [00:26:44] So if there is a challenge with the property, then the property would not be renewed for that use. [00:26:50] As the community garden ordinance, which is already in place, has revealed, [00:26:55] we had one property already that was removed and not approved for use as a community garden [00:27:01] after it had been in place for one year. [00:27:03] So the committee has lived up to its charge to be responsible for policing the community gardens, [00:27:13] and I see no reason why it would not also live up to its charge for policing and maintaining the quality [00:27:19] of the Urban Agriculture Ordinance as well. [00:27:22] I think that staff did a terrific job on this. [00:27:25] I have reviewed numerous, dozens of Urban Agriculture Ordinance from around the country, [00:27:36] from cities large and small, and quite frankly, this one, to my mind, is a model. [00:27:41] This one is better and is more, I guess you would say, user-friendly than any that I've seen. [00:27:47] And I'm not just saying that as kudos to the staff, but on the basis of my experience in reviewing these [00:27:57] in the context of my research and my academic work at the university. [00:28:02] This is close to a model ordinance. [00:28:04] I think there's a couple little areas that could be tweaked. [00:28:07] I talked to Lisa and Chris about that right before the meeting, but as it stands right now, [00:28:12] the committee likes it. [00:28:13] I do appreciate the modification that we had about not restricting sales entirely, [00:28:20] but restricting them on-site. [00:28:22] And I do have a little caveat that I'd like to add to that, but I've probably said enough. [00:28:27] The Environment Committee is behind this 100%. [00:28:30] We'd be catching up with some of the larger cities to the south, Tampa, St. Petersburg. [00:28:38] Pasco County right now is moving affirmatively on an Urban Agriculture Ordinance. [00:28:42] So all around us, we're going to see cities and counties that have these types of ordinances in place, [00:28:48] and we could step out and, as a point of pride, probably have the very best one in the entire region [00:28:53] if we went with this. [00:28:54] That's my guess. [00:28:56] Does anybody have any questions? [00:29:09] Are there any limitations to the size, large or small, that these can be? [00:29:16] No, there's no limitation on the size. [00:29:21] What about limitation in front yard? [00:29:27] There is no specific limitation on size. [00:29:29] I think we need limitation on front yard. [00:29:34] I don't see that. [00:29:36] I mean, I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of we have all kinds of regulations, [00:29:41] and there's a lot of people in the city that aren't following them. [00:29:45] If we make it hard and fast that at least the front yards don't have this situation, [00:29:52] and I know, Don, you want it everywhere, but I do not. [00:29:55] I do not want to drive down, and I know that you could use it as an or... [00:30:00] ornamental type of situation. [00:30:02] You could also have an overgrown, terrible looking front yard [00:30:06] if you don't take care of it. [00:30:08] And we're permitting that for a year. [00:30:11] And I don't want to see that throughout the city personally. [00:30:15] If you want to plant eggplant in your flower bed [00:30:18] and you want to do that from an ornamental standpoint, that's fine. [00:30:22] But I don't want it to be everywhere in the front yards [00:30:26] and we go down the streets and half the yards are overgrown [00:30:29] and they're not being taken care of. [00:30:32] And I believe that Dell's people will be looking at it. [00:30:35] But this could be a nightmare to police. [00:30:38] If it's in the backyard, just like RVs and boats [00:30:42] should be in the backyard, I don't have a problem with it. [00:30:45] But I do have a problem with the way the city looks [00:30:48] when we drive down the streets. [00:30:51] And we need to clean it up if we're going to be a successful city. [00:30:55] That's all I'll say. [00:30:56] Well, I strongly disagree with you on that, Danny. [00:30:59] I have seen numerous front yards, Tallahassee, other cities [00:31:05] that I have visited that have it. [00:31:07] And it's in the front yard. [00:31:09] Those are more pretty than most of the streets [00:31:11] you'll ride on in New Port Richey. [00:31:14] They are not overgrown. [00:31:15] They're well-maintained. [00:31:17] They're kept up because the people are growing those with pride. [00:31:20] I don't think you're going to see a lot of people [00:31:22] jumping in and saying, all of a sudden, you're [00:31:24] going to have the whole city turn into a farm. [00:31:26] Most people are not cut out to do that in the first place. [00:31:30] It's the people that are going to do that, that have an urge to do it, [00:31:34] that will be the ones that follow through with it. [00:31:36] But I will assure you that having nice, beautiful green vegetables, [00:31:41] having nice, beautiful green trees in a front yard, [00:31:44] is more attractive than having run-down palm trees that [00:31:47] are fraggly, ugly, with vines growing off of them and everything else. [00:31:53] I disagree. [00:31:54] I think we're missing the boat on this. [00:31:56] And there are other communities that you [00:31:58] can look at for models that are beautiful where they do this. [00:32:02] And the people that do it take a lot of pride and care in it. [00:32:05] And I just think I'm kind of flabbergasted [00:32:09] that we're not more in favor of it, because I [00:32:12] think it's a great move for the city to look prettier, to be beautified. [00:32:18] I also disagree with you for a lot of different reasons. [00:32:23] But I agree that if you want to try this, put it in the backyard. [00:32:29] Most of the areas that you see run down in the city, [00:32:32] I would probably venture to say 75% of them are rentals anyhow. [00:32:37] You're not going to have urban gardening in rentals. [00:32:39] So that's not going to change the appearance there. [00:32:42] And most homeowners do take pride in their front yards. [00:32:46] And we do have a lot of restrictions for the front yards for that reason. [00:32:51] And to start planting in the front yard, I just don't agree with you. [00:32:59] I will say the language we have provided regarding maintenance. [00:33:02] It states that the property shall be maintained [00:33:05] in an orderly and neat condition consistent with city property [00:33:08] maintenance standards. [00:33:09] No trash or debris shall be stored or allowed to remain on the property. [00:33:13] Vegetative materials, such as compost, additional dirt [00:33:16] for distribution, and other bulk supplies [00:33:19] shall be stored to the rear or center of the property, [00:33:21] shall be kept in a neat and orderly fashion, [00:33:23] and shall not create a visual blight or offensive to voters. [00:33:27] Can you come down Francis Avenue and take a ride? [00:33:31] Because what you just read is going on right now. [00:33:35] And it can go on worse if we pass this in the front yard. [00:33:39] I am not in favor of it at all in the front yards. [00:33:43] That's just my personal. [00:33:45] Ornamentally, yes. [00:33:47] Plant anything you want. [00:33:49] For profit, no. [00:33:53] It would be, the whole front yard could be tilled and planted [00:33:57] if we don't put something in place. [00:33:59] And I'm not saying it would happen everywhere. [00:34:01] And I think most people, like Don said, would be very proud of their stuff [00:34:05] and take care of it. [00:34:06] But it doesn't take many of those other situations [00:34:09] to go very wrong very quickly. [00:34:15] I think another good point that Miriam made [00:34:18] was the fact that the biggest problem we have with places in town that [00:34:23] look bad are rental properties. [00:34:25] And I doubt that you're going to have any of this going on in front [00:34:29] of duplexes and triplexes and where we have rental property problems. [00:34:33] Because number one, they wouldn't have any place to park. [00:34:38] Unless they're going to straddle the cabbage. [00:34:40] There's another problem. [00:34:41] Let's talk about that. [00:34:44] That does impact parking. [00:34:46] Call for the question. [00:34:48] We haven't got a motion yet. [00:34:50] So we want to have a motion, and we can finish the discussion. [00:34:54] Anybody want to make a motion? [00:34:57] All right. [00:34:57] Can I remind you, we have two separate ordinances. [00:34:59] One is an amendment to the comprehensive plan, which [00:35:02] is kind of the big picture policy document that [00:35:04] needs to be amended to make allowances for the use. [00:35:06] And then the other is the ordinance that [00:35:09] would address the land development code and those specific development [00:35:12] regulations. [00:35:14] The first thing we want to have a motion on is. [00:35:18] I have a comment before we do that. [00:35:21] Well, I feel very ignorant about this. [00:35:25] I think certainly Del and you all have been studying this. [00:35:30] The doctor has experience with it. [00:35:32] I don't have any experience with this. [00:35:34] I don't know anything about it. [00:35:36] It scares me, but I'm ignorant. [00:35:38] I'm pleading ignorance here. [00:35:40] And I think maybe some other people here may be in the same boat. [00:35:45] They just won't plead it. [00:35:46] Yeah. [00:35:46] Yeah, exactly. [00:35:48] So. [00:35:49] I'll take exception to that last comment, but that's OK. [00:35:53] Anyway, I would like to see further education on this. [00:35:58] I think it's something that probably has a heck of a lot of merit [00:36:03] if it's done properly. [00:36:05] But I just don't know enough to make an intelligent vote right at this point. [00:36:10] No, I do. [00:36:12] Well, the only other thing that I have a concern about [00:36:17] is that it's virtually allowed everywhere in the city. [00:36:21] And I think that certainly in R1 zones, I'm not in favor of it. [00:36:33] I know that Don won't like that either, but that you got an R1 zone. [00:36:40] But I mean, you can do what you're doing now. [00:36:43] But I mean, I think we've got enough problems in some of these areas [00:36:47] where you have higher end zones, and right across the street [00:36:54] you have donkey duplexes and problems with tenants all the time. [00:37:00] So I mean, we've got enough of that that's been allowed over the years. [00:37:03] I don't think we need to add to it. [00:37:09] That's one thing I don't like. [00:37:12] I just think it's too overreaching. [00:37:15] And we're just going to saddle this wild horse up and get on it, [00:37:22] hope we can ride it. [00:37:23] That's what it sounds like to me, instead of trying to see what works first. [00:37:30] But if there's any more discussion, we can have someone [00:37:38] make a motion, if they'd like. [00:37:40] I'll make a motion to approve the comprehensive plan as presented [00:37:44] by staff, with the exception of front yards. [00:37:50] The exception of allowing in the front yard? [00:37:52] The exception of not allowing it in the front yard. [00:37:54] OK. [00:37:56] The motion is made and seconded. [00:37:59] Is there any further discussion?

   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. 2

   Code Amendment COD2016-02 – Urban Agriculture

   denied

   The Land Development Review Board considered ordinances 2016-2074 (comprehensive plan amendment) and 2016-2073 (land development code amendment) regarding urban agriculture. Amendments were adopted to prohibit urban agriculture in front yards, but both underlying ordinances as amended failed on 3-3 votes.

   Ord. Ordinance #2016-2073

   • motion:Amendment to ordinance 2016-2074 to prohibit urban agriculture in front yards. (passed)3–3
   • vote:Approve ordinance 2016-2074 amending the comprehensive plan regarding urban agriculture, as amended. (failed)3–3
   • motion:Amendment to ordinance 2016-2073 to prohibit urban agriculture in front yards. (passed)4–2
   • vote:Approve ordinance 2016-2073 amending the land development code addressing urban agriculture, as amended. (failed)2–4

   👤Dr. Cahill👤Dr. Cato👤Lisa👤Mr. Gray👤Mr. Masellas👤Mr. Perrello👤Ms. Michael👤Ms. Moran#COD2016-02#Ordinance 2016-2073#Ordinance 2016-2074#Urban Agriculture

   ▶ Jump to 38:00 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:38:03] Roll call vote. [00:38:05] Mr. Misalis? [00:38:09] Yes, to the motion. [00:38:11] Dr. Cahill? [00:38:12] No, to the motion. [00:38:14] Mr. Gray? [00:38:15] No, to the motion. [00:38:17] Ms. Moran? [00:38:18] A little confused on how we're voting, right? [00:38:22] Voting for the ordinance with it amended. [00:38:25] Yes, to the motion means as presented by staff, without front yard. [00:38:30] Point of question first. [00:38:31] Urban agriculture, but not in front yard. [00:38:34] Point of question first. [00:38:36] Couldn't we vote on the amendment before we're voting on a whole comprehensive [00:38:40] thing here? [00:38:41] Well, there's two votes. [00:38:42] One on the comprehensive plan, and one on the amendment. [00:38:45] You made an amendment to it by striking, adding the front yard. [00:38:49] I'll make the same amendment to the other one when we get to that. [00:38:52] Technically, if we're going to follow Robert's rules of order, [00:38:57] we'll vote on the amendment first. [00:38:59] We'll vote on the amendment first, then we'll vote on the motion as amended [00:39:01] if it passes. [00:39:03] All right? [00:39:04] So this is a vote on the amendment. [00:39:05] The amendment. [00:39:06] The comprehensive plan. [00:39:07] No, the amendment. [00:39:08] The amendment is that urban agriculture will not [00:39:12] be allowed in front yards. [00:39:15] All right. [00:39:16] Now, can we have a roll call vote? [00:39:19] Well? [00:39:20] Can you vote on that? [00:39:22] On the other one? [00:39:25] All right. [00:39:26] So we have an amendment to the motion. [00:39:28] It's been made and seconded. [00:39:29] Amendment has been made and seconded. [00:39:31] Now, we'll have a vote on the amendment. [00:39:34] We'll have a roll call vote on the amendment. [00:39:36] Yes. [00:39:37] Ms. Norhan? [00:39:39] Yes to the motion. [00:39:41] Mr. Masellas? [00:39:42] Yes to the motion. [00:39:44] Ms. Michael? [00:39:46] No. [00:39:47] Not in. [00:39:49] OK. [00:39:50] Dr. Cato? [00:39:52] No to the motion. [00:39:53] OK. [00:39:55] Mr. Perrello? [00:39:56] No to the motion. [00:39:57] OK. [00:39:58] Mr. Gray? [00:39:59] Yes to the motion. [00:40:00] OK. [00:40:02] OK. [00:40:03] What's the count? [00:40:04] 40. [00:40:05] 42? [00:40:06] OK. [00:40:07] So now we can have a motion as amended. [00:40:12] So made. [00:40:13] Is there a second? [00:40:15] Motion made and seconded to approve. [00:40:19] Could I, for the record, state that it's ordinance number [00:40:22] 2016-2074, the amendment amending the comprehensive plan. [00:40:28] Very good. [00:40:29] Thank you. [00:40:31] All right. [00:40:32] The motion's made and seconded. [00:40:34] Is there any further discussion on the motion as amended? [00:40:37] I'll have a roll call vote. [00:40:40] Mr. Masellas? [00:40:41] The motion. [00:40:42] Dr. Cato? [00:40:43] Yes to the motion. [00:40:45] Mr. Gray? [00:40:46] No to the motion. [00:40:48] Ms. Moran? [00:40:49] No to the motion. [00:40:51] Mr. Perrello? [00:40:52] Mr. Perrello? [00:40:53] Yes to the motion. [00:40:59] So what is it? [00:41:00] 3-3. [00:41:03] 3-3, that would be defeated. [00:41:05] It's a no motion. [00:41:10] We have one more ordinance. [00:41:13] I'll make the same motion. [00:41:16] For the record, this is ordinance number 2016-2073, [00:41:21] and an ordinance amending the land development code [00:41:24] addressing urban agriculture. [00:41:29] And this is the amendment to not allow it in front yards? [00:41:32] Not in front yard. [00:41:33] Same thing. [00:41:37] All in favor? [00:41:38] Any further discussion on the amendment? [00:41:40] All in favor of the amendment? [00:41:42] Aye. [00:41:43] All in favor of the amendment? [00:41:45] Aye. [00:41:46] Can we have a roll call, I guess? [00:41:49] Mr. Masellas? [00:41:50] Yes to the motion. [00:41:51] Mr. Masellas? [00:41:52] Yes to the motion. [00:41:54] Ms. Michael? [00:41:55] Yes to the motion. [00:41:56] Dr. Cato? [00:41:57] No to the motion. [00:41:59] Mr. Perrello? [00:42:00] No to the motion. [00:42:02] And Mr. Gray? [00:42:03] Yes to the motion. [00:42:05] OK. [00:42:06] We have a motion made and amended. [00:42:10] We need to have a roll call vote on the amended motion. [00:42:17] We just amended the motion for the front yards. [00:42:20] Now we're voting on it. [00:42:21] Voting on it as amended. [00:42:24] Are we clear, Lisa? [00:42:25] Yes. [00:42:26] OK. [00:42:27] Yes to the motion. [00:42:28] Dr. Cato? [00:42:29] Yes to the motion. [00:42:30] Ms. Michael? [00:42:31] Yes to the motion. [00:42:32] Yes to the motion. [00:42:33] Dr. Cato? [00:42:34] Yes to the motion. [00:42:36] Mr. Gray? [00:42:37] No to the motion. [00:42:39] Ms. Maria? [00:42:40] No to the motion. [00:42:41] Ms. Michael? [00:42:42] No. [00:42:43] Mr. Perrello? [00:42:44] No. [00:42:55] OK. [00:42:56] What was the count on that? [00:42:58] That was a 42 defeat. [00:43:00] OK. [00:43:03] So thank you for your patience in that activity.

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

6. 3

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “Ms. Moran” — transcript expanded below

   Code Amendment COD2016-04 – Front Porches

   approved

   Staff presented Code Amendment COD2016-04, a Land Development Code amendment to encourage front porches on single-family homes in R1, R2, and R3 zoning districts by allowing them to encroach into the 25-foot front yard setback (as close as 10 feet from the property line) provided they meet specified design criteria (covered, unenclosed, minimum 50% facade width, minimum 10-foot depth, architecturally integrated, etc.). A board member raised a concern about the inconsistency with fence height limits in front setbacks. The board approved the amendment by roll call vote.

   Ord. Ordinance #2016-2077

   • motion:Motion to approve Code Amendment COD2016-04 establishing front porch regulations allowing encroachment into the front yard setback in R1, R2, and R3 districts subject to design criteria. (passed)5–0

   👤Cato👤Gray👤Lisa👤Melis👤Michael👤Moran👤Perillo#COD2016-04#Front porch setback encroachment#Home improvement grants#R1 zoning district#R2 zoning district#R3 zoning district

   ▶ Jump to 43:05 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:43:07] We have one more. [00:43:08] We have one more. [00:43:09] Ah, OK. [00:43:15] Lisa, do we have a quorum? [00:43:17] I have a plane I have to catch. [00:43:19] Do we still have a quorum? [00:43:20] We do. [00:43:21] That might help the voting. [00:43:23] I'm going to excuse myself. [00:43:25] And there won't be an even number. [00:43:27] So I apologize for this. [00:43:29] I really thought we could get through this before I would have to mention anything. [00:43:33] Or I would have pulled staff earlier. [00:43:35] But I've got to. [00:43:36] Thank you all very much. [00:43:38] Sorry about that. [00:43:39] You're welcome. [00:43:44] This is a land development code amendment addressing front porch regulations. [00:43:49] This is intended to encourage front porches to be added to single family homes. [00:43:55] It would allow front porches to encroach into the front yard setbacks [00:43:59] as long as it meets certain design criteria. [00:44:05] Specifically, it would allow front porches on single family properties [00:44:08] in the R1, R2, R3 zoning districts. [00:44:12] Currently, there's a front yard setback of 25 feet. [00:44:15] But if front porches are provided meeting certain restrictions, [00:44:18] they could go as close as 10 feet to the property line. [00:44:22] The intention is to improve property values, improve neighborhood appeal, [00:44:26] encourage social interaction, and discourage criminal behavior with eyes on the street. [00:44:34] Here's an example of a front porch located not far from City Hall, [00:44:37] about a couple of blocks away. [00:44:39] This is a front porch that covers the entire building width. [00:44:45] And from the appearance of the car, [00:44:49] the porch is located within closer than 25 feet to the road, [00:44:53] but farther away than 10 feet from the property line. [00:44:58] This is another example of a front porch. [00:45:00] desired front porch covering over 50% of the front building facade with a [00:45:05] sufficient space on the porch to allow somebody to linger on the porch and to [00:45:11] watch the activities on the street and to watch the neighbors. Here's another [00:45:16] example of a porch that has design elements that are consistent with [00:45:20] the existing building and would be deep enough to allow somebody to linger on [00:45:26] the porch and to spend time. This is another example of a porch that covers [00:45:30] the entire building width. In order to have a front porch that extends into the [00:45:40] existing 25-foot building setback, the front porch would have to meet certain [00:45:45] design criteria. It would have to be a covered structure attached to the front [00:45:49] of the building or the side facing the street, also known as a second front yard, [00:45:54] provides primary access into the dwelling, has a separate roof, is [00:45:58] unenclosed except for roof balustrade and flooring, extends a minimum of 50% of [00:46:03] the building facade width, excluding garage bays if applicable, has a minimum [00:46:09] 10-foot depth, and has a maximum depth that's no greater than 50% of the [00:46:13] dwellings in order to keep the porch proportional with the existing building. [00:46:18] The floor must be above the finished horizontal lot elevation, must have a [00:46:23] design consistent with the dwelling, not closer than 10 feet to the front [00:46:28] property line, shall not be enclosed, must maintain at least 80% openness [00:46:33] except for columns or rails, shall not be screened. One front porch setback [00:46:39] encroachment is allowed per lot with the exception of a wraparound porch and the [00:46:43] porch must be architecturally integrated with the dwelling. The Development [00:46:48] Department is currently offering grants for home improvement and a property [00:46:52] owner may be eligible for home improvement grants to provide for a [00:46:55] front porch meeting this criteria and allowing them to encroach upon the front [00:47:00] yard setback without having to get a variance. Here are some visual examples [00:47:06] of the criteria that we're providing. This would be included in the Land [00:47:10] Development Code's definition of front porch. This shows a front porch, a [00:47:15] minimum of 50% of the building width excluding the garage bay, the porch is a [00:47:20] minimum of 10 feet deep and the setback is it's located at least 10 feet from [00:47:25] the property line. This is another example showing a porch that extends the [00:47:29] entire building facade with with the exception of the garage bays. This is an [00:47:35] example of a single-family dwelling that does not have a garage attached and the [00:47:40] unenclosed porch is allowed to extend the entire length of the building, has a [00:47:44] minimum 10 foot depth, and is a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. This [00:47:49] is a corner lot showing a front porch located on the second front overlooking [00:47:53] a street, has a minimum 10 foot depth, and is a minimum of 10 feet from the [00:47:58] property line. And lastly this is an example of a wraparound porch on a [00:48:02] corner lot, again a minimum 10 feet and a minimum of 10 feet from the property [00:48:08] line. And again the intention here is to encourage front porch additions in the [00:48:13] R1, R2, R3 single-family districts allowing folks to encroach upon the [00:48:18] front yard setback if they meet certain design criteria. [00:48:22] Any questions of staff? [00:48:27] I have a question. If we're going to allow 10 foot encroachment into the 25 [00:48:35] foot setback, then are we, is any provision being made for someone that [00:48:43] would want the fence the same way? No, this is strictly about front porches. If [00:48:49] you have a front porch meeting this criteria, then you would be allowed to do [00:48:53] so without requesting a variance. But if you want a fence within the front yard [00:49:00] setback that is greater than three feet, you would still need to get a variance. [00:49:04] So this is strictly about front porches and encouraging front porches. So someone [00:49:09] wanted to connect a fence to that front porch that couldn't be more than three [00:49:14] feet because it's in the 25 foot, but they can build a big structure. [00:49:21] Right. Those kind of fight each other, don't they? [00:49:26] The intention here is to encourage front porches. I don't disagree. I got front [00:49:33] porches all around my house. I got porches everywhere. This has to be completely open, right? [00:49:39] Correct. Can it be screened or anything? Correct, because we're trying to encourage the social [00:49:44] interaction. The folks sitting on the front porch, looking at the neighbors, [00:49:47] watching activity, interacting with neighbors. [00:49:51] Which pleasure? Yes. Approved. Is there a second? Motion is made, seconded. May I have a roll call vote, please? [00:50:04] Mr. Perillo? Yes, for the motion. Ms. Michael? Yes, to the motion. Mr. Gray? Yes, to the motion. Dr. Cato? Yes, to the motion. [00:50:16] Mr. Melis? Mr. Melis is absent from voting, as he had to excuse himself early. Ms. Moran? Yes, to the motion.

   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. 4

   Adjourn

   The meeting was adjourned with the next meeting scheduled for April 21st.

   ▶ Jump to 50:25 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:50:31] That's unanimous approval. Okay. Anything further to come before the board? No. [00:50:40] We'll see you April 21st and thank you for an important discussion about urban

   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.