On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

   ▶ Jump to 0:15 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:17] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, [00:00:21] and to the republic for which it stands, [00:00:24] one nation, under God, indivisible, [00:00:27] 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. 3

   Moment of Silence

   Moment of silence.

   ▶ Jump to 0:33 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:33] Thank you.

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

4. 4

   Approval of December 3, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approved the minutes from the December 3, 2024 regular meeting.

   • motion:Motion to approve the December 3, 2024 regular meeting minutes. (passed)5–0

   ▶ Jump to 0:39 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:39] Move over to December 3, 2024, regular minute meeting. [00:00:42] Any minutes? [00:00:42] Mr. Mayor, I move to approve. [00:00:44] Second. [00:00:44] All those in favor, say aye. [00:00:47] Aye. [00:00:47] Aye. [00:00:48] Those opposed, 5-0.

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

5. 5

   Special Recognition of Library Reading Challenge Winners

   The library recognized seven youth participants in the Beanstack reading challenges for reaching milestones (1,000 books before kindergarten, 500 books before middle school, and 100 books before graduation). Each recipient received a certificate and a book of their choice.

   👤Leonardo Cintron👤Lexi Wagner👤Lincoln Prescott👤Nicholas Joas👤Rosalie Wagner👤Sadie Traurig👤Sawyer Traurig#1,000 Books Before Kindergarten#100 Books Before Graduation#500 Books Before Middle School#Beanstack Reading Challenge

   ▶ Jump to 0:50 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:50] Special recognition of the library reading challenge [00:00:53] winners. [00:00:57] I bet they read more than that. [00:01:12] Yeah, this is it. [00:01:14] This is the whole bunch. [00:01:17] Yeah, so thank you, council. [00:01:18] I just wanted to come and show off for you guys tonight. [00:01:22] As many of you know, we started our beanstack challenges [00:01:26] that include a variety of things for all ages. [00:01:30] We do 1,000 books before kindergarten, [00:01:32] 500 books before middle school, and 100 books before graduation [00:01:36] are the ongoing challenges that we [00:01:38] have for youth to reach those milestones [00:01:40] and keep them reading and promoting literacy [00:01:42] all throughout the years. [00:01:44] You may remember in the past, I've [00:01:46] had two other little ones up here [00:01:48] that have reached benchmarks. [00:01:49] I'm very excited to say that today we have seven that [00:01:52] are getting awards. [00:01:53] That's awesome. [00:01:55] In a variety of the different benchmarks [00:01:58] all the way through middle school as well. [00:02:00] So I wanted to call them up one by one to recognize them. [00:02:03] They're getting a certificate and a book of their choosing [00:02:05] that they get to keep forever and ever, [00:02:07] but library books you do have to bring back. [00:02:09] So I would like to call up Nicholas Joas, who [00:02:17] completed 1,000 books before kindergarten. [00:02:19] Wow. [00:02:22] Wow. [00:02:26] I'm shy to look at them. [00:02:34] We're going to have everyone stand up here, [00:02:35] and then we'll just take one big group photo. [00:02:37] Next up, I would like to call up Lincoln Prescott, who [00:02:40] completed 500 books before middle school. [00:02:42] Congratulations, Lincoln. [00:02:47] He's a little overwhelmed. [00:02:49] He's a little overwhelmed by all of it. [00:02:51] Lincoln was here last time when his little sister [00:02:53] got the award. [00:02:54] So there you go, Lincoln. [00:02:56] This must be you, because it's got your name on it. [00:02:58] Great job. [00:03:00] Next up, I'd like to call Sadie Traurig, who also completed [00:03:03] 500 books before kindergarten. [00:03:05] Before middle school. [00:03:10] Or before middle school. [00:03:11] She's like, I'm not in kindergarten. [00:03:13] She's like, ooh. [00:03:16] Her book was hiding. [00:03:17] You look a lot more than a kindergartner. [00:03:20] She's a really big kindergartner. [00:03:23] Next up is her brother, Sawyer Traurig, who also did 500 [00:03:26] books before middle school. [00:03:34] This guy outdressed me. [00:03:36] You look good, young man. [00:03:39] Next up, we have Lexi Wagner, who also completed 500 books [00:03:43] before middle school. [00:03:44] Good job, Lexi. [00:03:58] And Rosalie Wagner, who also completed 500 books before [00:04:02] middle school. [00:04:05] She picked a scary book, so she's very brave. [00:04:08] Thank you. [00:04:13] And I would like to point out, these two girls have been [00:04:15] coming to the library since they were how old? [00:04:18] Since Lexi was three. [00:04:19] So I've had the pleasure of witnessing them kind of grow [00:04:22] into these wonderful girls that they are. [00:04:23] And last but not least, I have Leonardo Cintron, who [00:04:26] completed 100 books before graduation. [00:04:35] So thank you all for everything that you do. [00:04:38] Thank you guys for your support. [00:04:39] We're going to take one big group photo. [00:04:42] Parents get behind them. [00:04:43] They get in the front row. [00:04:46] And I just wanted to add, while everyone's coming up to [00:04:49] this stage for one, to the dias for one picture, these great [00:04:53] readers are our next great leaders. [00:04:58] So thank you for being an incredible [00:05:02] model for all of them. [00:05:08] I've got a couple more, but mostly Lexi's not dead. [00:05:10] I'm fine. [00:05:11] OK. [00:05:19] Got it? [00:05:20] All right, squeeze in. [00:05:27] Good job, guys. [00:05:27] All right, awesome. [00:05:28] Thank you, guys. [00:05:38] Thank you.

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

6. 6Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 5:54
7. 7.a

   Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the consent agenda containing purchases/payments by a 5-0 voice vote.

   • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda (purchases/payments for City Council approval). (passed)5–0

   ▶ Jump to 10:00 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:10:01] We have a consent agenda. [00:10:03] Move to approve. [00:10:04] Second. [00:10:05] All those in favor, say aye. [00:10:07] Aye. [00:10:08] Those opposed. [00:10:09] 5-0. [00:10:10] Moving on to the first reading of ordinance 2024-2314, [00:10:14] amendment to the floodplain ordinance. [00:10:17] This is ordinance number 2024-2314, [00:10:20] an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:10:22] providing for amendment of section 220900 of article 2 [00:10:26] of chapter 22 of the land development code pertaining [00:10:29] to definitions of terms in the flood damage prevention code, [00:10:33] providing for amendment of the definition [00:10:35] of substantial improvement, providing [00:10:37] for reduction of the review period [00:10:38] for substantial improvements from five years to two years, [00:10:42] providing for conflict severability [00:10:44] and an effective date. [00:10:46] Mr. Mayor, members of the council, [00:10:48] I'm asking you at this time that we table this agenda [00:10:51] item until your next meeting. [00:10:54] Oh, fine by us. [00:10:56] So this will be on January. [00:11:00] Help me out. [00:11:01] 7th. [00:11:01] 7th. [00:11:02] 7th. [00:11:02] 7th. [00:11:03] Do we need a motion? [00:11:04] No, you can just table it. [00:11:06] OK. [00:11:07] If you want to, let's do a motion for the record [00:11:09] since we've read it.

   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. 8.a

   Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2310: Small Scale Amendment of the Future Land Use Map (23.69 Acres)

   approved

   Council held the second reading of Ordinance 2024-2310, a small-scale amendment changing the future land use designation for approximately 23.69 acres along Marine Parkway east of Grand Boulevard from residential office and public/semi-public to medium density residential 20. The site, formerly a hospital, is proposed for development by Grady Pridgen/Villa del Sol with 453 apartments and single-family townhomes. After public comment raising concerns about flooding and traffic, the ordinance was approved 5-0.

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2310

   • motion:Approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 2024-2310, the small-scale amendment of the future land use map for ~23.69 acres to medium density residential 20. (passed)5–0

   📍5108 Alamanta Drive, New Port Richey📍Beach Street📍High Street📍North and south sides of Marine Parkway east of Grand Boulevard🏢Gulf High School🏢Gulf Middle School🏢Marlowe School🏢Richey Elementary🏢Villa del Sol👤Councilman Butler👤Grady Pridgen👤John Legg👤Matt Murphy👤Nicole Smith👤Patricia Allen👤Robert#Comprehensive Plan#Future Land Use Map amendment#Grand Boulevard Bridge construction#Land Development Review Board recommendation#MPO#Medium Density Residential 20#Ordinance 2024-2310#Ordinance 2024-2314 (floodplain, tabled to Jan 7)#Planned Development District Residential

   ▶ Jump to 11:10 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:11:10] OK. [00:11:12] Table ordinance number 2024-2314, [00:11:16] amendments to the floodplain ordinance until next meeting. [00:11:18] A second. [00:11:19] January 7th for the record. [00:11:20] Excuse me, until January 7th. [00:11:22] Thank you. [00:11:22] Second. [00:11:23] All those in favor? [00:11:25] Aye. [00:11:25] Aye. [00:11:26] Aye. [00:11:26] All right. [00:11:27] Moving on to the second read of ordinance 2024-2310, [00:11:31] small scale amendment to the future land use [00:11:33] map of the city's comprehensive plan. [00:11:37] This is ordinance number 2024-2310, [00:11:39] an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:11:42] providing for a small scale amendment of the future land [00:11:44] use map of the city's adopted comprehensive plan, [00:11:47] providing for a change in the land use designation [00:11:49] for approximately 23.69 acres of property generally located [00:11:54] along the north and south sides of Marine Parkway [00:11:56] east of Grand Boulevard, as shown on the map attached [00:11:59] here too, as exhibit A and legally described herein, [00:12:02] providing for the amendment of the land use designation [00:12:04] for said property from residential office [00:12:07] and public semi-public to medium density residential 20, [00:12:10] providing for conflict, severability, [00:12:13] and an effective date. [00:12:14] And for the record, mayor, you've [00:12:15] been handed out, the council has been handed out an exhibit that [00:12:18] goes with this ordinance and the one that's coming up next. [00:12:22] This is just the legal description and the surveys [00:12:24] of the property that are encompassed by this ordinance. [00:12:27] It will be part of exhibit A in each of the ordinances. [00:12:31] So when you approve it, you'll be approving it [00:12:34] with this revised, corrected legal description. [00:12:43] You prepared? [00:12:44] Yes, ma'am. [00:12:49] Thank you. [00:13:02] This PowerPoint will address, it's [00:13:05] the staff report for the next three ordinances, the land use [00:13:09] amendment, the rezoning, and the vacation of right of way. [00:13:18] Thank you. [00:13:21] Mr. Mayor, if I may, as a point of inquiry, [00:13:24] I see Villa del Sol on the actual application. [00:13:27] Does the applicant have to be present for the small amendment? [00:13:31] It's their right to be present. [00:13:33] They don't have to be, though. [00:13:34] Small amendment? [00:13:35] Yeah. [00:13:35] OK. [00:13:49] The applicant is Grady Pridgen. [00:13:55] This is located along the north and south sides [00:13:57] of Marine Parkway. [00:13:59] It's just east of Grand Boulevard. [00:14:02] The zoning is, there's a mix of zoning, [00:14:06] as there are multiple parcels in this application. [00:14:10] So the zoning is office, CR3, and government. [00:14:14] The future land use is residential office [00:14:17] and public and semi-public. [00:14:20] It's currently vacant and was the site of a hospital [00:14:23] some years ago. [00:14:26] The request is to amend the future land use [00:14:28] map to medium density residential 20, [00:14:32] to rezone the property to a planned development district [00:14:36] residential. [00:14:37] And the proposed use would be residential [00:14:40] with 453 apartments and single family townhomes. [00:14:48] As you can see, the outline in black [00:14:50] is the subject property that does contain several parcels. [00:14:56] And you'll see one out parcel on this property. [00:15:00] The future land-use map shows the mix of residential office and public semi-public. [00:15:13] And the zoning shows the office, the CR3, and the... I think that's public. [00:15:23] The proposed site plan for this property on the northern part, you'll see apartment buildings. [00:15:30] And then on the southern part, where Marine Parkway bisects the property, [00:15:36] you've got single-family townhomes on the north and south side of Marine Parkway. [00:15:45] Development standards are established for this development since it's a planned development district. [00:15:51] We work with the developer to establish standards specific to this property. [00:15:58] So there would be 20 units per acre would be the maximum. [00:16:04] The owner is seeking a vacation of right-of-way for High Street, and that is coming before you tonight. [00:16:12] The impervious surface ratio would not exceed 80%. [00:16:16] They have depicted landscaping on the site plan, and the landscaping should be consistent with what is shown. [00:16:25] Also, we're looking for the entry at Marine Parkway to have a nice grand entrance defined with nice landscaping. [00:16:35] And the architectural style will be reflected as what is depicted as an example in Exhibit C. [00:16:50] For the apartments, the development standards setbacks are established specific for the apartments. [00:16:58] The parking would be a minimum of 1.7 spaces per unit. [00:17:03] The height of the building would not exceed 75 feet. [00:17:07] And then they would provide a minimum of three amenities for the residents at the apartments, [00:17:15] and that may include a dog park, a pool, clubhouse, or gym and offices. [00:17:24] For the single-family attached homes, the setbacks are established, which would be different than the apartments. [00:17:31] The parking would be a minimum of two spaces per unit, and the height of the building would not exceed 60 feet. [00:17:38] And they would also provide a minimum of three amenities. [00:17:43] And again, that could be clubhouse, pool, dog park, pickleball. [00:17:49] So the developer would offer amenities that would be suitable for the type of clients that are going to live there. [00:18:00] May I stop you? [00:18:01] I heard you say three spaces per unit. [00:18:03] I see it says two. [00:18:04] Oh, two. [00:18:05] I'm sorry. [00:18:06] I meant to say two. [00:18:07] It is two spaces per unit. [00:18:08] Thank you. [00:18:09] Yes, sir. [00:18:12] This is architectural style of what single-family homes could look like. [00:18:17] This is representative. [00:18:20] And the next slide shows the architectural style of the apartment buildings. [00:18:29] The land use amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, [00:18:35] and there are several policies promoting housing, variety of housing, and the density. [00:18:42] So it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. [00:18:50] And staff did utilize the criteria for rezoning in reviewing the requirements for rezoning. [00:19:02] For concurrency, this site was previously a hospital, so all the utilities were in place, [00:19:08] the infrastructure was in place, [00:19:10] and so the city manager has determined that there would not be an increase on the impact to the city's infrastructure. [00:19:18] So concurrency will be met. [00:19:24] The Land Development Review Board did hold a public hearing, [00:19:27] and they found that the future land use map amended to medium-density residential 20 [00:19:34] and rezoning the subject property to plan development district is consistent with the comprehensive plan, [00:19:41] and it does meet criteria for rezoning. [00:19:44] Therefore, the Land Development Review Board recommends approval of the future land use map amendment [00:19:49] to medium-density residential 20 and rezoning request to plan development district residential. [00:19:58] And that completes my report. [00:20:02] Is there any public comment? [00:20:06] Come on down. [00:20:15] State your name and address. [00:20:17] Patricia Allen, 5108 Alamanta Drive in New Port Richey. [00:20:21] I am the second street in from Marine Parkway, [00:20:27] and I am really excited to see the growth that's going on here in New Port Richey. [00:20:31] I've been here since 2004, I think, 2003, and there was only one place to go at that time, [00:20:37] and now there are so many places to go. [00:20:39] People talk about how beautiful it is. [00:20:41] We have people moving up here because the taxes are so much nicer and it's a golf cart community, [00:20:47] but I'm very concerned about this. [00:20:49] I would love to see it developed, but I would really like to get some more information on it. [00:20:55] My street floods, and there are times I cannot get home, [00:20:59] and that's just in a normal rainstorm, not in a hurricane or anything. [00:21:02] You guys put a retention pond there, but it's not working. [00:21:09] There is a fire station going in there, and I'm thinking, and then let's say we have 800 more people. [00:21:17] If there's going to be 453 units, let's just round it to 800 more people in that area. [00:21:24] Today, when I came here at 540, the traffic was backed up to Cecilia at the light at Marine and Grand. [00:21:32] So I would just like to know if you guys did anything to figure out what you're going to do about the traffic [00:21:38] that's going to be there and what you're going to do about the flooding that's on my street. [00:21:44] And it's bad. [00:21:46] You guys have to come out there and put barricades up all the time, [00:21:50] so I'm sure you have heard of it or know of it. [00:21:54] It's not a flood zone. [00:21:55] My house is up, but that ditch there on the south side, it's like kind of a ditch. [00:22:04] It fills up with water. [00:22:05] Where is that water going to go now? [00:22:09] So that's what I would like to know if someone could fill me in on it. [00:22:12] It looks gorgeous. [00:22:14] It looks kind of like Central, but do we have the infrastructure for it? [00:22:20] Those roads are narrow, and I'm still trying to figure out how the fire department is going to get out of there. [00:22:27] That's all. [00:22:28] Thank you. [00:22:30] Would anybody else like to speak? [00:22:34] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [00:22:38] Mr. Mayor, I'd like to motion to approve the second reading of ordinance number 2024-2310, the small amendment. [00:22:48] Second? [00:22:50] Yes, I'll second that motion. [00:22:53] Quick clarifying question for staff. [00:22:56] When the hurricanes came through here, was one of those roads near this development one for barricades? [00:23:04] I know there was like eight roads, or excuse me, I might be misspeaking, [00:23:07] maybe three roads that had to be closed down in anticipation for some of the hurricane events this season. [00:23:13] Was any in that neighborhood or area? [00:23:16] I would have to verify that. [00:23:20] And I'll just speak more. [00:23:22] That's the only really staff-based question I have. [00:23:24] The reason why I motioned to approve is because this area is prime for moving forward with that idea of inviting people to live here. [00:23:35] And I spoke to school enrollment. [00:23:37] I do want to clarify for the record that Nicole Smith was able to email me, [00:23:42] and she clarified some incorrect information I had given to the public. [00:23:46] So I am going to walk that back and say that Marlowe is an application-based school, [00:23:51] but that does not take away from the point that Marlowe, Ritchie, Golf Middle School, Golf High School, [00:23:56] all abutting this rezoning, they are de-enrolling. [00:24:00] We are losing enrollment at those schools. [00:24:02] So this is the perfect opportunity to invite more residents in. [00:24:05] Hopefully those that are graduating from Golf High School who want to stay here locally to try to find affordable housing [00:24:11] by an increase of inventory stock. [00:24:14] And so for those reasons, I think this is pertinent that we do it. [00:24:17] It's the right spot to do it, right near a school, right near a fire station. [00:24:21] And so the small-amendment rezoning, I think it's the right thing to do. [00:24:30] As a second, I think I have to agree with the comments that were made. [00:24:35] And I'd like to add to the discussion related to the schools. [00:24:39] A week ago, I attended a breakfast at 7 with John Legg, the new superintendent of schools, [00:24:46] and he made those same comments that you made about the loss of population of school children on this side of the county. [00:24:56] Well, the east side is growing very fast, and that's just the expansion of the Tampa market. [00:25:02] But to the points that were raised, when we have a plant unit development like this [00:25:10] and we have the ability to create a tax base that will allow us to do some of the improvements that are necessary, [00:25:22] there's a spring back in there, maybe not too far from your property. [00:25:29] Yes, ma'am. [00:25:30] And you heard earlier at the meeting our discussion about stormwater and how important it is. [00:25:38] We have a huge stormwater project that is coming up soon on Beach Street, [00:25:43] which is leading stormwater away from that section that is south of Gulf Drive. [00:25:51] But if you're on the other side of Grand in a tricky area back there, [00:25:56] and that was the focus of a lot of stormwater just to keep Marine Parkway from flooding, which it normally did. [00:26:06] And a lot of stormwater projects have been done. [00:26:08] So hopefully we'll get some response when we get the chance to hear back from Public Works about your problems. [00:26:17] The road problems are the other major issue. [00:26:21] We did receive some documentation that showed that when the hospital was there, those kind of daily trip counts were there. [00:26:28] So to the degree that the housing is being put in place, [00:26:35] it's a change of the historical nature of the parking and the traffic at that spot. [00:26:44] But it is the case that we have more traffic everywhere. [00:26:48] And also the construction of the Grand Boulevard Bridge, when it goes into effect, [00:26:54] will undoubtedly move a lot of that traffic over to Madison. [00:26:58] We've had the discussion up here about Madison Street and when that happens and how we deal with it. [00:27:03] So I'm sure Matt Murphy is our representative on the MPO, [00:27:07] and I'm imagining that we're speaking at the county level in terms of what are we going to do, [00:27:14] because the county is lead of construction of that bridge. [00:27:20] But there's going to be a beautiful bike path, [00:27:23] and the goal is that the people that move in are part of this new millennial, as has been discussed, [00:27:29] walkability and alternative modes of traffic. [00:27:34] And so, boy, it would be great when we do our bicycle trail to see some folks that could ride their bikes to the parking garage [00:27:43] and then take their cars once we figure out how to manage the security on that [00:27:49] and use it full round clock if it's possible. [00:27:53] But we have parking spaces, and I think bike and ride is one option. [00:28:00] We've got to do everything we can to lower the amount of traffic in our city now that we're experiencing such popularity. [00:28:08] So it's on our minds. I just wanted to say that. [00:28:11] I agree what Councilman Butler said. I totally agree with that, too. [00:28:17] And with the comment about renters and the millennials renting, [00:28:21] we do have a lot of people looking for rental property right now, [00:28:25] and there isn't that much rental property, and what we have is expensive because there's not much. [00:28:30] And I do think that we need that to be available for our residents, [00:28:34] and that's going to bring people in who are going to go to our schools. [00:28:37] It's going to build up our schools, but it's also going to be they're going to shop here. [00:28:41] They're going to eat here. They're going to do everything here. [00:28:43] We will have traffic to deal with, and I think that we have to really do have to take a look at the flooding over there. [00:28:49] But other than that, I think that it's definitely the right thing to do. [00:28:54] Yeah, I would say as far as the infrastructure for our roadways, [00:28:58] it's something we talk about on the NPO every month with different cities in the county [00:29:02] and how they intersect each other and butt up to each other to make sure that we're not creating bottlenecks and things like that. [00:29:11] So there's an issue. So those things are very prevalent as far as how we're working together on those things. [00:29:17] So the county is very receptive of that, and even when it gets into the state roads with FDOT, they're all working together. [00:29:24] So we kind of tackle those things as they come, but it's something in the forefront for sure to make sure we're good. [00:29:30] I did have one question about the amenities, and maybe I just need to understand more. [00:29:37] You have a list of, like, say, six amenities, and they had to do a minimum of three. [00:29:43] And so my thing is when you see the renderings and things like that, you see a nice clubhouse and a pool, [00:29:48] but that could be one of the amenities that is not in there. [00:29:51] So my thing is, you know, of course we're building something. [00:29:55] I want it to be nice. I want to be able to draw people in and look really good. [00:30:00] We kind of regulate that, you know, obviously there's some other amenities [00:30:05] that are cheaper and easier to put in and obviously like a clubhouse and a [00:30:09] pool, that's, that's a little more, you know, um, intensive as far as, you [00:30:15] know, money and upkeep. [00:30:17] So I guess what is, how, how are we helping with that decision? [00:30:21] Our multifamily, um, ordinance, um, specifies the number of amenities that [00:30:31] have to be provided based on the size of the development. [00:30:37] And there is latitude available in the ordinance as to what type of amenities [00:30:43] are programmed into the space that really is at the developer's discretion. [00:30:49] Those decisions though are typically solidified during the design process. [00:30:55] At the point in the zoning approval process, like we are this evening, the [00:31:06] developer has already made those decisions, a good number of those [00:31:11] decisions related to the development. [00:31:14] And those are portrayed in the site plan as they are, as was demonstrated [00:31:22] this evening when the site plan was shown and they are planning a clubhouse [00:31:27] and a pool and some of the higher level costs, pickleball courts, um, [00:31:34] amenities, dog parks, which isn't a high cost item, but a well sought after [00:31:40] amenity by the apartment dwellers and certainly, um, and we look for balance [00:31:49] based on the type of, um, customer that they'll be seeking and the type of [00:31:57] amenities that they would be interested in. [00:32:02] Good. [00:32:02] Those are not skimping on the pool and clubhouse. [00:32:04] I want to address a couple of things, I don't know, a lady mentioned about [00:32:11] rentals, um, I've been in this town almost 45 years and one of the statistics [00:32:15] that I've been very interested in my time here is that we're 45% rentals. [00:32:21] So somebody to speak up against rentals is speaking up basically against half [00:32:25] the town where most towns are somewhere between 10 and 15%. [00:32:29] So we support the rentals here and we support the landlords that are here. [00:32:32] So I'm kind of questioning that a little bit, whoever never said that, [00:32:37] that I would, if I had known it, I would have spoke up and said something about it. [00:32:41] Um, this, this, um, another thing that when it comes to Ms. [00:32:45] Allen's comment is that, uh, when development comes in, it has [00:32:49] to take care of its own water. [00:32:50] It can't dump it on its neighbors. [00:32:52] So when they go in there and they build that area up, they'll end up handling [00:32:58] on our own water, dealing with their own water, they won't be able to dump it [00:33:01] into the city, you know, so, so, so, so, um, the problems that you have now [00:33:06] need to be addressed and I agree with that a hundred percent. [00:33:08] And so, you know, I think Robert heard that and he'll keep [00:33:11] an eye on your, on your neighborhood. [00:33:13] But, um, otherwise I'm looking forward to this thing. [00:33:15] And, uh, you know, if, if this area, if this area is, um, you know, other [00:33:20] areas where they limit, um, the rentals, it's, it's an HOA that limits rentals. [00:33:25] It doesn't, it isn't the town that limits the rentals. [00:33:28] So anyhow, um, all those in favor signify by aye. [00:33:32] Those opposed? [00:33:33] Five, nothing. [00:33:35] Okay.

   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. 8.b

   Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2311: Rezoning of 23.69 Acres from CR-3, Office (O), and Government (GOVT) to Planned Development District (PDD)

   discussed

   Council held the second reading of Ordinance 2024-2311 to rezone approximately 23.69 acres along Marine Parkway east of Grand Boulevard from CR-3, Office, and Government to Planned Development District (PDD) with site plan. After extended discussion regarding traffic, drainage on the northeast corner, Ridgewood Drive conditions, and the adequacy of the traffic study, a motion to approve was made and seconded.

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2311

   • motion:Motion to approve second reading of Ordinance 2024-2311 rezoning 23.69 acres to Planned Development District.

   📍Grand Boulevard from Grand to Cecilia📍Madison Street and Cecilia📍Orange Lake📍Ridgewood Drive📍School Road and George Street📍north and south sides of Marine Parkway, east of Grand Boulevard🏢Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)🏢Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)🏢Pasco County👤Altman👤Grady Pridgen👤Jeff Cruz👤Kelly👤Matt Butler👤Robert#CR-3 zoning#Central Apartments application#Comprehensive Plan#Former community hospital site#Land Development Code Section 5.01.11#Land Development Code Section 7.16.3#Ordinance 2024-2311#Planned Development District (PDD)

   ▶ Jump to 33:37 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:33:37] Now the second reading of ordinance 2024-2311, a rezone 23.69 acres of [00:33:43] property from CR3 office and government to plan development, um, district PDD. [00:33:51] This is ordinance number 2024-2311, an ordinance of the city of [00:33:54] New Port Richey, Florida, providing for amendment of the land development [00:33:57] code zoning district map, providing for rezoning of approximately 23.69 [00:34:02] acres of property generally located along the north and south sides of [00:34:06] Marine Parkway, east of Grand Boulevard, as shown on the map attached here [00:34:09] to his exhibit A and legally described herein, providing for amendment of [00:34:14] the zoning district designation for said property from office, government, [00:34:18] and CR3 to plan development district with site plan, providing for conflict [00:34:23] severability and an effective date. [00:34:25] And once again, Mr. [00:34:26] Mayor, I'd point out for the record that you have a handout that will be [00:34:30] added to exhibit A in the attachments to this particular ordinance. [00:34:35] All right. [00:34:36] Do we have any public comment or you want to address? [00:34:40] Okay, go ahead. [00:34:40] I'm sorry. [00:34:41] It's the same thing. [00:34:42] So I didn't know. [00:34:44] Uh, yeah, sorry. [00:34:45] It was the same presentation. [00:34:47] Um, this is just companion and the future land you set up for the [00:34:52] rezoning of the property. [00:34:55] We have any public comment? [00:34:57] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for a public comment, I mean, [00:35:07] for voting, um, move, move in the vote. [00:35:12] I'll make that motion on, on this second reading of ordinance number 2024. [00:35:18] A second. [00:35:19] 2311. [00:35:21] Anything else? [00:35:22] Uh, yes, Mr. [00:35:25] Okay. [00:35:25] Matt. [00:35:26] I'm good. [00:35:27] Go ahead. [00:35:28] Uh, yes, Mr. [00:35:28] Mayor. [00:35:28] I want to start by declaring my ex parte on November 6th, the evening [00:35:34] thereof after our city council meeting. [00:35:36] Uh, Jeff Cruz and Grady Pridgen and I met, uh, briefly outside of city hall [00:35:42] just to introduce each other. [00:35:43] And I learned a little bit more about, uh, Jeff Cruz's background, uh, as a [00:35:48] former golf high alumni and, uh, his role in the project. [00:35:53] That's all I got for ex parte. [00:35:54] I do have a couple of questions for staff. [00:35:57] First, I want to start off by, uh, extending my appreciation to, uh, the [00:36:02] city manager's office for taking the time to meet with me and answer some questions. [00:36:06] Uh, my specific concerns were on the land development code section 7.16.3, [00:36:12] uh, the fourth point and the fifth point. [00:36:15] Uh, I think staff, uh, were able to answer my questions as it related [00:36:18] to the fourth point, which was adequate public facilities necessary [00:36:21] for health, safety, and welfare. [00:36:23] Uh, we discussed some of the, uh, drainage that they would be [00:36:28] providing as a developer, but in addition to that, we discussed [00:36:31] potential for a three-way stop for school road and George, uh, George [00:36:35] street, uh, and I'm putting emphasis on potential, uh, the potential for [00:36:39] a bus stop, uh, on the east side of grand because the next bus stop [00:36:44] is north almost to the bridge. [00:36:46] And so you need, you need some way. [00:36:48] You don't want people crossing over grand to Marine [00:36:51] Parkway just to get on a bus. [00:36:53] Uh, the amenities we spoke about the six plus amenities, uh, and then [00:36:59] jumping to, uh, so that relinquished all my concerns for that point. [00:37:04] But I do have some questions that I feel are unanswered that hopefully [00:37:07] either the applicant or staff can help answer here tonight, uh, on the [00:37:11] fifth point, which was, uh, in the land development section 7.16.3, it [00:37:17] talks about that this development or this rezoning will not degrade the [00:37:21] level of service beyond acceptable standard. [00:37:24] And this is where I have, uh, several questions. [00:37:27] And so I'm just going to lay them all out. [00:37:28] And if you want to address them one by one, that's fine with me. [00:37:31] Uh, first and foremost, we had a resident speak here tonight and, uh, [00:37:35] present anecdotal facts to the matter of, uh, road, uh, excuse me, uh, [00:37:41] traffic volume on grand and Marine Parkway. [00:37:46] And to that end, our comprehensive plan does point out that the volume to [00:37:50] capacity for that road, uh, from grant to Cecilia is 0.752. [00:37:55] So it's, it's getting pretty far up there. [00:37:57] And my concern is with fire station going there with the units of [00:38:01] development going there, are we going to run into an issue where we don't [00:38:04] have, we have a two lane road. [00:38:06] Do we have the necessary infrastructure there to support this development? [00:38:09] One, uh, two, uh, if you look at Ridgewood drive where the town, the [00:38:15] town homes to the South, uh, but this property, you have single family on [00:38:21] the South side, on the North side, this is where this development would go. [00:38:25] You can't drive down that road. [00:38:26] I mean, you really can't, when you drive down it, you're going into potholes. [00:38:30] And so, and quite frankly, the, there's no one, there's no way for [00:38:34] the developer to, uh, expand it because it's already a residential road. [00:38:38] It would just be cumbersome on the city to then take on that role. [00:38:42] And so we're inviting a developer in who in my mind, now we're taking [00:38:47] on the responsibility and having to repay that road to support it. [00:38:51] Uh, additionally, uh, we talked about draining. [00:38:55] Uh, there was an anecdotal fact that the Northwest corner does [00:39:00] drain on the other side of the road. [00:39:02] However, excitingly, the developer wants to put in drainage there. [00:39:06] So I'm satisfied by that. [00:39:08] And I think that will satisfy the requirement. [00:39:10] My question is, and this is my third point on the Northeast corner, we [00:39:15] hear residents all the time talking about drainage on that end. [00:39:17] I took a tour with a member of our public works who said that's one of [00:39:22] our largest areas for draining. [00:39:23] That's a concern. [00:39:24] And, and so to, to that point, I did not see if you pull up the map, it's [00:39:30] blocked, it's block number two. [00:39:33] I do not see drainage there. [00:39:34] It's a, it's an empty field and you're putting housings on it. [00:39:37] So where is that water going? [00:39:39] Does the topography support it going to the Southeast where this, excuse [00:39:43] me, to the Southwest where some of this, uh, draining is, and then. [00:39:49] Oh, last point, uh, to address what Councilman Altman brought up, which [00:39:54] was Madison street and the potential, uh, raising of our, our bridge on [00:39:59] Grand and that shifting traffic over our comp plan says that Madison and [00:40:03] Cecilia is our number three road for cat or for, for, excuse me, for car accidents. [00:40:08] What is the future of this project and that road going to do for that [00:40:13] intersection and are we prepared for it? [00:40:15] And so these are all questions that I did raise to staff. [00:40:18] I did not get the answers that were satisfactory. [00:40:21] I'm giving an opportunity here for the applicant or staff [00:40:23] to answer those questions. [00:40:29] You want to address them tonight or you want to try my hand at the questions? [00:40:34] Um, some of which are new to me, um, of which, um, Councilman Butler [00:40:42] has raised with me, um, in the past. [00:40:46] The first related, um, to the traffic volume on Grand, there was a traffic [00:40:55] study, a very, um, simplistic traffic study conducted in conjunction with the [00:41:06] project, which compared the community hospital data with what would be the [00:41:16] experience with the residential subdivision. [00:41:20] And it was determined, um, based on the comparison of the two developments [00:41:27] that there wouldn't be any measurable change in traffic volumes, um, that [00:41:35] would warrant any infrastructure changes in the roadways, um, to accommodate [00:41:43] the traffic volumes that would be generated as a result of the project. [00:41:50] Um, Ridgewood Drive is not, which is the second point that was raised by [00:41:57] Councilman Butler, is not a road that is contained within the project boundaries. [00:42:04] So it's not one that we've looked at. [00:42:06] It's something though that he introduced to me today, and it's something that I [00:42:10] will look at, um, and come up with some type of a recommendation on. [00:42:18] The drainage detail has not been completed for the project yet, just [00:42:25] because we're not all the way through engineering, and so the calculations [00:42:29] haven't been developed, and so we can't test the calculations yet, um, because [00:42:36] they haven't been submitted for our review. [00:42:38] Once having done so, they will all be tested to determine the adequacy of the [00:42:44] calculations, um, to support that the water can be retained and will flow [00:42:50] properly on the site, and although it, it may currently say that Madison and [00:43:00] Cecilia in the comp plan is the number one location. [00:43:07] Number three. [00:43:07] Number three location. [00:43:09] Number three, I want to say, yep. [00:43:11] Um, I don't know that that's still the case, um, and that's what we operate on. [00:43:20] I, and I'm sorry, I didn't understand you said number three, um, we will have [00:43:29] to research further whether that's the case or not, um, and we are currently [00:43:36] redoing our comp plan now, so we should have some better data available within [00:43:42] the next six months as to whether or not that is still the case, and whether or [00:43:48] not that warrants any type of changes in our traffic flow or evaluation of the [00:43:55] subject area. [00:44:03] You could add anything. [00:44:04] Thank you. [00:44:05] Um, the Ridgewood Drive and the surrounding streets in that [00:44:09] neighborhood are in the county, so while they are in our service area where we [00:44:14] supply water, the roads that are in that neighborhood belong to Pasco County. [00:44:20] Thank you, Robert. The entirety of Ridge Road, or Ridgewood Drive? [00:44:26] Ridgewood Drive, yes, sir. [00:44:29] Anything else? [00:44:31] May I jump in before you follow up so I can get in on the conversation? [00:44:38] It's, uh, first thing I want to say is that as a, as a body, the five of us are only as [00:44:47] good to watch over what's happening as long as we're here in office to do it, so [00:44:52] when someone says what are we going to do, we have to rely on our plans and on [00:44:56] our, our strategy. [00:44:58] It's my understanding... [00:45:00] Understanding that our, let's say, more well-heeled brother organization, the CRA, may be called [00:45:08] upon to provide some support if this is, in fact, a project that it determines to be of [00:45:16] importance. [00:45:19] And often in those agreements, the developer is given a tax relief of the property values [00:45:25] that they grow for themselves. [00:45:27] If you'll bear with me, I just want to say that that negotiation, when it's done, could [00:45:32] allow, if there are anticipations that the city would provide more support than just [00:45:37] approving it in its bill, and it turns to the CRA to do it, then our task as a CRA, [00:45:45] which is a separate entity, is to make sure that we are providing for long-term resilience [00:45:53] of our community and to affect the blight. [00:45:56] So A, there's no doubt that a potentially, or in large part, vacated large parcel property [00:46:05] that came off our tax rolls at least 15 years ago needs to have something go there. [00:46:13] And the second part is that once this kind of a development goes in, it's going to create [00:46:18] a substantial amount of tax increment. [00:46:21] That increment all goes into the CRA. [00:46:23] It doesn't come back into the general fund until the CRA is over. [00:46:28] So the city has the ability to grow primarily through a healthy downtown business and commercial [00:46:35] business environment, communication taxes, and all the other things that are related [00:46:40] to our population. [00:46:41] We didn't grow last year, but by, I think, 30 people or 40, according to the census. [00:46:46] So in order for our city to fulfill its plan, it has to grow, and then it has to slowly, [00:46:54] you know, work very carefully the economics to make the best city we can with the revenue [00:46:59] flows that we have. [00:47:01] So I would suggest that at the point of contact with someone asking us for incentives, that [00:47:10] is our point to make sure that those capital items are done for the benefit of that project, [00:47:16] even if it means giving up some increment to do it so as to hold the rest harmless. [00:47:23] Florida built, most of Florida's been built in the last 15, 20 years through community [00:47:28] development districts and other things that build infrastructure and build the people [00:47:33] who live there. [00:47:34] In the case in our city, when something new comes in and it creates a tax increment, allowing [00:47:42] them to make the project work is a beneficial part of that tool that we have in our toolbox. [00:47:49] So for those reasons, I just want to say, if I'm fortunate enough to be around when [00:47:54] all this stuff comes back to discuss, that I'll be happy to make sure that I put whatever [00:48:03] influence I have in favor of holding that developer to making improvements that are [00:48:09] necessary. [00:48:10] So it's not to harm someone else, but hopefully to benefit them by improving that. [00:48:16] Cities are really becoming smart cities. [00:48:20] Traffic signalizations that we've talked here before, we need a strategy to use all the [00:48:25] technological advances to make sure that whatever is happening in the city is happening in the [00:48:32] most efficient manner. [00:48:33] And I think there's room for some improvements in that end as well. [00:48:37] So for that reason, I have moved to approve this and I'll support it. [00:48:44] Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. [00:48:47] And to the Mayor, to Mr. Councilman Altman's points, I do not question it. [00:48:54] It's why I voted for the small amendment, is that I think this area is prime for residential [00:48:59] development. [00:49:00] And if we do it right, if we have smart growth, and if we are able to capitalize on the CRA [00:49:06] in that manner. [00:49:07] But I think going back to my points, I heard a bit of staff discussion, I appreciate you [00:49:13] bringing those points up. [00:49:14] On the point of Ridge Road, thank you for that. [00:49:17] My mind still goes back to the land development code 5.01.11, which says that point eight [00:49:23] zoning shouldn't be premature. [00:49:25] So maybe annexation of that roadway should come before this development in what would [00:49:31] be, in my mind, a legislative decision of this council. [00:49:34] But at the end of the day, we're deciding this based on, we make these, Mr. Mayor, Councilman [00:49:42] Altman has made the point in the past that we don't need more studies as it relates to [00:49:46] the rec fees. [00:49:47] Well, we did this study, we did this comprehensive plan, and it ventures for us to stick by it. [00:49:53] And in my mind, there are several points where we aren't sticking by it. [00:49:58] The traffic study, the traffic study that was presented, it was characterized as simple [00:50:02] tonight. [00:50:04] My question with that, and I wasn't going to raise this publicly because I was waiting [00:50:07] for an answer in private, it didn't come. [00:50:10] Square feet versus beds, what was the rationale behind the traffic study being with square [00:50:15] feet instead of the number of beds being serviced? [00:50:18] And how does that relate to this project? [00:50:22] Had we used the number of beds being serviced in those calculations, would the number of [00:50:26] volume have been larger? [00:50:28] Because I want to say it was like 30,000 square feet or something like that, or 29,000 square [00:50:34] feet, or 20. [00:50:38] There's a, Robert, help me out. [00:50:41] There's a organization, Institute of Traffic Engineers, ITE, okay. [00:50:49] So they do studies of traffic, that's all they do, they count cars. [00:50:56] And they have different methods of how they count cars, and so they provide those estimates [00:51:03] of number of parking spaces, number of trips, based on the different types of uses of land. [00:51:11] And so the developer in presenting that used square footage based off of the ITE. [00:51:18] The ITE would offer different methods of measurement, but that's the method they chose to present. [00:51:26] And when I looked at the ITC, I mean, you submitted it here, and so the formula only [00:51:31] calls for square feet, there isn't supplemental formulas that can use that number of beds? [00:51:37] We can look at beds. [00:51:39] So my question goes to, were presented this one page, I mean, the major point of conversation [00:51:45] here when the first reading, and the second reading, and just from driving the streets, [00:51:49] if we're being honest here, is the traffic. [00:51:50] It's one lane roads. [00:51:53] And that's the major point, my major point's drainage, which I'm about to get back to, [00:51:57] but if the major point is traffic, and we got a one page study on driving, and to be [00:52:05] clear here, I presented these in private hoping to get these answers, and I was hoping an [00:52:09] applicant would be here tonight to speak to them too, but at the end of the day, I'm not [00:52:13] satisfied that this development can be supported by the infrastructure that exists on these [00:52:18] roads, especially since just in the south, we don't even own the road to be able to make [00:52:22] sure it's maintained. [00:52:23] Matt, will you? [00:52:24] I just want to speak next, that's all, just getting in line. [00:52:29] Okay, and then back to the point of drainage, I was told, so we have to vote for this, we [00:52:39] have to know if there's concurrency, but we can't know if drainage is adequate until [00:52:43] after the fact. [00:52:45] So I'd like to know if drainage is adequate now to be able to vote for it. [00:52:53] So without that information, I can't, I love the idea of bringing residents here, and hopefully [00:52:56] this developer can work with the city to get those things done so that we can vote for [00:53:00] it, but as it stands right now, I don't see what I need to see to make sure that we can [00:53:04] support that in that location. [00:53:05] Like I said, he has to maintain his own water. [00:53:07] He can't dump it on the city, he can't dump it into another neighborhood. [00:53:11] Mayor, I'm glad you brought that up because there was an application that was submitted [00:53:16] some time ago with the central apartments where it directly references in the application [00:53:22] that the Orange Lake is where some of that water is going to be off-let on, and so I [00:53:28] agree with you, a developer should have to use, should be responsible for his own water, [00:53:33] but we have applications that we've approved that quite literally argue the opposite of [00:53:38] that philosophy, which is that public drainage will account for some of the off-let of water. [00:53:43] So if that's true, if that philosophy is true and I agree with it, the developer needs to [00:53:50] be responsible for their, the water they produce, prove that so that we can vote in favor for [00:53:54] this. [00:53:55] Did you, do you see what you need to see to be able to say that they're going to hold [00:54:00] their water? [00:54:01] I'm just going to go with the information I have. [00:54:02] Okay. [00:54:03] Kelly, do you want to speak? [00:54:06] Yeah, just I guess going back to the whole traffic, and I mean, I think we have to remember [00:54:12] too what that used to be there. [00:54:14] It was a hospital and high volume of cars going in and out all the time for different [00:54:19] businesses and medical offices. [00:54:22] So I mean, that area's already been kind of battle tested. [00:54:25] It already had, it's already had high volumes of traffic in there, probably more so than [00:54:29] what a development would be. [00:54:30] I'm just guessing. [00:54:31] I don't, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but that was already a zone for something [00:54:35] and we've already had the big amounts of traffic in there. [00:54:39] So I think it's, you know, it's probably more based on the volume of traffic it was designed [00:54:44] for and had compared to what the development would be, which I don't, I mean, to me, I [00:54:50] don't, I would think it would be even a little less, maybe I'm wrong to be corrected, but [00:54:56] so I mean, it's already, it's already an area that had high volumes. [00:54:59] It's not like brand new, just, you know, adding on, it used to be very robust and busy [00:55:05] area with the hospital and everything in there, it was, it was jam packed and the roads, you [00:55:10] know, the roads, you know, probably could be better, you know, but it did support it. [00:55:16] So I mean, that's, that's something I look at, what it was before. [00:55:20] So it's not really new traffic being introduced. [00:55:23] It's, it was, it was there already when it was a thriving area. [00:55:28] Also, also the doctor's offices to the north of it. [00:55:31] Right, all that whole area. [00:55:32] They were all, they were all busy too. [00:55:34] I was here then. [00:55:35] And then the... [00:55:36] I think actually it might be, might help if there was a turn lane onto Marine Parkway [00:55:41] if you were coming north to go left, you know. [00:55:44] Yeah. [00:55:45] That, that, I could see something like a turn lane, you know, to help out that, that intersection, [00:55:49] but, or even turn lane if you're going south, you know, to get into the, into that complex. [00:55:57] And then also, I mean, I guess talking about the drainage, which is very important. [00:56:03] These things aren't going to be built like next month. [00:56:06] There's going to be a process to go through, right, correct? [00:56:09] Correct. [00:56:10] So, so we'll have time to be able to get the data and the, and the developer will have [00:56:15] to compensate for something we find that needs more drainage or has to additionally do something [00:56:19] and that'll have to be tasked to the developer to do it. [00:56:23] So, I mean, we're just kind of like, we're not, we're not building today. [00:56:27] It's going to take a long time. [00:56:29] So I don't think there'll be getting out of anything if it comes back and say, [00:56:33] we've got to have additional drainage, this or that, you know, it's part of the process. [00:56:38] But correct me if I'm wrong. [00:56:40] So I think, again, this is the first reading. [00:56:43] So some of the questions that we have, this is the first reading of the, [00:56:47] of what we're talking about right now, it's just the first reading. [00:56:50] This is the second reading. [00:56:52] First step. [00:56:53] Right, right, first step. [00:56:54] So, but my concern is what you brought up about the bridge, [00:56:58] the timing that it's going to take, the timing of the bridge on Grand [00:57:02] and having to send that traffic over to Madison, [00:57:05] that's my biggest concern is that I think that the traffic on Marine Parkway [00:57:09] and Grand, again, with the hospital being there, [00:57:12] I don't think that that's as big an issue as it's going to be for the amount of time [00:57:15] it takes to do that bridge and making sure that we're able to handle that traffic [00:57:20] on Madison, I think that's going to be our biggest concern. [00:57:24] To add to that, I think that we'll be probably done with the bridge, [00:57:28] the bridge before he's done with the whole complex. [00:57:35] Anything else? [00:57:36] Mr. Mayor, I would entertain the motioner to pull his motion and amend it. [00:57:41] We already have a first and a second. [00:57:43] Mr. Mayor, if you would allow me to pull the motion and amend it to say let's [00:57:48] approve this and continue on certain drainage standards to be met. [00:57:53] That's what we're at, sir. [00:57:55] Do you want to bring that up? [00:57:56] It would require a second if he wants to make that. [00:58:01] A second. [00:58:03] I just don't know how you could set a standard for that. [00:58:06] So this project still has to go through SWFMUD review, [00:58:09] and that's part of the drainage calculations as well. [00:58:11] I assume that hasn't happened yet, right? [00:58:14] No, that would be the next step. [00:58:16] They would submit their construction plans for site plan review, [00:58:19] and part of that is obtaining SWFMUD permits, [00:58:23] also any county permits for their right-of-way if that's involved. [00:58:31] You could make it contingent on a SWFMUD permit. [00:58:34] How you could set up an objective standard to judge that amendment, [00:58:39] that's my only concern. [00:58:41] Understood. [00:58:43] Mayor, final point, and then I'm done. [00:58:46] The application we were presented here tonight essentially says that [00:58:50] our city manager says it reaches concurrency standards, [00:58:55] yet several of my questions have remained unanswered [00:58:58] from the city manager's office, and the applicant's not here tonight. [00:59:01] So my mind goes to I'm not working when I need to [00:59:05] to be able to vote for this based on the land development code, [00:59:09] based on how it is written, and that's where I'm at. [00:59:12] All those in favor signify by aye. [00:59:14] Aye. [00:59:15] Those opposed. [00:59:17] Nay. [00:59:18] Four to one. [00:59:19] Okay, moving on to the next one.

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

10. 8.c

    First Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2313: Vacation of Right-of-Way for High Street

    approved

    First reading of Ordinance 2024-2313 to vacate a 35-foot portion of High Street right-of-way between Aspen Street and Grand Boulevard, with five conditions including title acquisition, development per site plan, certificates of occupancy, utility relocation, and ingress/egress easement for Fire Station #2. Council discussed the CO condition's implications and the city attorney clarified the road title remains with the city until the project is substantially complete. Motion to approve on first reading was made and seconded.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2313

    • motion:Motion to approve Ordinance 2024-2313 on first reading, vacating a portion of High Street right-of-way with five conditions. (passed)

    📍Fire Station Number Two📍High Street between Aspen Street and Grand Boulevard👤Unknown City Attorney#C.E. Craft subdivision number 5#Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use 1.1.4#Development Review Committee meeting August 22, 2024#Ordinance 2024-2313#Rush Brothers Palm Haven addition#TRA 1.2#TRA 1.2.6

    ▶ Jump to 59:20 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:59:22] First reading of ordinance 2024-2313, [00:59:26] vacation of right-of-way on High Street. [00:59:29] This is ordinance number 2024-2313, [00:59:31] an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:59:33] providing for the vacation of a portion of the right-of-way known as High Street, [00:59:37] running between Aspen Street and Grand Boulevard, [00:59:40] and shown on the plat of Rush Brothers Palm Haven addition to New Port Richey, [00:59:44] recorded in plat book two, page 11 of the public records of Pasco County, Florida, [00:59:48] and C.E. Craft subdivision number five, [00:59:51] recorded in plat book two, page 62 of the public records of Pasco County, Florida, [00:59:56] providing for conditions of approval, providing for conflicts, severability, [01:00:00] day. The request before you this evening is to vacate a 35-foot portion of the [01:00:07] right-of-way on High Street as described by the city attorney spanning from Grand [01:00:14] Boulevard to Aspen Street. We have proposed five conditions be attached to [01:00:25] this approval. The first condition is that the applicant title, obtain title to [01:00:36] all properties adjacent to High Street, the applicant develop all of the [01:00:43] properties in conformance with the site plan, obtain certificate of occupancy on [01:00:50] all of the properties, maintain the responsibility to relocate all of the [01:00:58] utilities, and convey the right and title and interest in all properties. I'm [01:01:07] currently subject to ingress and egress in the city's favor related to fire [01:01:13] station number two. In considering this matter, the proposal is consistent with [01:01:23] goals, objectives, and policies of the city's adopted comprehensive plan to [01:01:30] include future land use 1.1.4. The city shall promote the efficient [01:01:37] use of natural resources and public facilities and services by encouraging [01:01:43] the use of innovative land development techniques such as planned developments [01:01:48] and the use of mixed-use developments. TRA 1.2 promote efficient and safe [01:01:55] traffic circulation through transportation planning and [01:02:00] administration of land use controls. TRA 1.2.6 the city shall preserve the [01:02:08] connectivity of the street grid which facilitates traffic circulation between [01:02:14] neighborhoods and commercial districts and provides alternatives to travel on [01:02:21] US Highway 19. The Development Review Committee met on this matter on August [01:02:28] 22nd, 2024 and determined that the right-of-way vacation was consistent [01:02:35] with the city's comprehensive plan and therefore recommended that the vacation [01:02:43] of the easement application and be approved and therefore we are [01:02:51] recommending to City Council that you conduct your first reading as submitted [01:02:55] with the five conditions as noted. Any public comment? Seeing no one can [01:03:02] vote for we'll move bring it back for discussion and vote. I'll make the [01:03:09] motion to approve on first reading. Do I have a second? Second. To Maker. The only thing I [01:03:16] heard which I'm not sure I understand was that one of the conditions is that [01:03:22] the owner should receive certificates of occupancy on all units and that would [01:03:29] almost mean that this would not happen until the project was complete in all [01:03:36] aspects so I don't know what that means. A certificate of occupancy is the very [01:03:42] last thing that would happen so surely we can't be talking about every unit of [01:03:46] the facility before the road is built and the right of the right-of-way is [01:03:52] excluded. So the way that condition will work is that the developer will be able [01:03:59] to develop the road but title to the road will remain in the city until the [01:04:03] city manager signs off that he has completed the project essentially. All [01:04:08] units? Yes the main structures yes there'll be certificate of occupancy for [01:04:14] the main structures correct but that's just a title transfer he'll be able to [01:04:18] use the road develop it in accordance with his plan but if for some reason [01:04:23] this development fails you will be able to retain ownership of that roadway. [01:04:28] He'll revert back to the city basically. And move the building that he's built on it. [01:04:33] May have to if it comes to that point correct. Well if he's accepting it that's [01:04:39] fine with me but it seems like it would be a point of contention if it were me [01:04:43] but not to benefit the developer but it just was odd. Is that a common provision? [01:04:53] Well it's just to protect the city's interest in that roadway if for some [01:04:57] reason this project fails you always have to plan for that you hope it [01:05:01] doesn't happen but you need to plan for it. I think it would be more like [01:05:05] substantial completion than every single unit you know but can use some [01:05:12] discretion in that regard it wouldn't be like you know there was a wall plate [01:05:15] missing in one of the units and so you don't have your road yet so it's gonna [01:05:20] be a substantial completion that is that is the standard for a CEO anyway so [01:05:25] basically if somebody smashes into it they'll be on an actual road they [01:05:29] probably have a good defense with me no I'm just kidding anyway never mind thank

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

11. 9.a

    Recommendation for In-Kind support for Special Events

    approved

    Council approved the city manager's recommendation for in-kind support for four annual special events, totaling $85,000 (with a $10,000 budget transfer added to the $75,000 budgeted): Chasco Fiesta $40,000, Cotee River Bike Fest $17,000, Christmas Street Parade (Holiday Rotary Club) $13,000, and 4th of July fireworks $15,000. Discussion included a councilmember's recurring request to reconsider how Chasco Fiesta is treated given its size and history, and support for the events' benefit to downtown businesses.

    • motion:Move to approve the recommendation for in-kind support for special events totaling $85,000, including a $10,000 budget transfer. (passed)5–0

    🏢Carl Reef🏢Chasco Fiesta🏢Cotee River Bike Fest🏢Holiday Rotary Club🏢Jilly's👤Joe Carl#$10,000 budget transfer#4th of July fireworks#Chasco Fiesta#Christmas Street Parade#Cotee River Bike Fest#In-kind support matrix

    ▶ Jump to 1:05:35 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:05:36] you for all those in favor signify by aye. Aye. [01:05:44] It's 5-0. Nay. Okay nay. Sorry 4-1 misunderstood. Okay recommendation for [01:05:55] in-kind support for special events. This agenda item comes before you each year [01:06:04] and it is related to the not-for-profit organizations of recognized annual [01:06:14] large-scale special events that the city sponsors with some in-kind support and [01:06:23] the organizations that we we do support for events are the Chasco Fiesta, the [01:06:32] Cody River Bike Fest, the Christmas Street Parade put on by the Holiday [01:06:37] Rotary Club and the 4th of July fireworks. I've included in your agenda [01:06:46] memo a listing of the 2024 requests for funding assistance and as you can see [01:06:55] the requests total $118,000 and for the current budget year we budgeted [01:07:08] $75,000 to support the events. I've attached to your agenda item applications [01:07:20] for all of the events with the exception of the 4th of July fireworks which is a [01:07:29] city-sponsored event so that you would have an opportunity to review them and [01:07:37] evaluate the impact of them to the community and their specific economic [01:07:45] impact to the business community and any charitable benefit that they may have to [01:07:52] our residents to determine how we should disperse that funding. I had a [01:07:59] particularly difficult time in coming up with a recommendation so this year I [01:08:06] have asked you in addition to the $75,000 to approve a budget transfer in [01:08:15] the amount of $10,000 so that we have a total of $85,000 to work with to [01:08:24] support Chasco Fiesta in the amount of $40,000, Cody River Bike Fest in the [01:08:32] amount of $17,000, the Christmas Street Parade in the amount of $13,000 and the [01:08:40] 4th of July fireworks in the amount of $15,000 which brings the total 2024 [01:08:48] recommendations to $15,000 and there was supposed to be an in-kind matrix there [01:09:00] as it's the last last of the attachments which indicates the amount [01:09:07] of actual expenditures I'm sorry actual requests for 23 and 24 that were [01:09:21] requested by the groups and the budget amendment as well for your review and [01:09:31] with that I can respond to any questions that you may have related to the [01:09:35] recommendation. Public comment? Seeing no one come forward bring it back for [01:09:42] discussion and vote. I'll move to approve. Second. I think events are the greatest [01:09:50] way to complement our downtown businesses and get residents excited and [01:09:54] in a way it trickles back to these are not-for-profit organizations except in [01:10:02] the case of the I would say except in the case of the fireworks and so you [01:10:07] hear great things about the fireworks displays and you it's worth the [01:10:11] investment is worth the payoff what you get out of it and so I'd like to see [01:10:16] some more micro based maybe not large just large-scale but see some more [01:10:22] micro based in kind of revenue excuse me revenue offsets for some of our [01:10:30] smaller events I know there's several organizations that want to use our parks [01:10:34] that want to utilize spaces downtown to be able to do their events but the [01:10:39] problem they run into is sometimes they're not getting the same in kind [01:10:43] shape that some of the larger events get but I don't want to take the [01:10:45] spotlight off of these four great organizations and programs because they [01:10:50] do wonderful things for the city so. These are all great events and I think [01:10:55] that our city definitely benefits from all these events. Yeah I definitely think [01:11:00] maintaining this and helping them with what they need is a benefit for the [01:11:06] city so glad we're doing it. I guess this is probably the fifth or sixth year [01:11:14] that I've suggested that the Chasco Fiesta is a little different from the [01:11:17] rest of the events it's over a hundred and some years old it was a city event [01:11:21] started for the library and it does not raise money for charities it raises [01:11:26] enough money to put the show on and so I know we've had discussions in the past [01:11:33] about having a little discussion the problem that I think that it creates is [01:11:40] that it's such a big event and so many days that it has the potential of being [01:11:47] washed out and so there's no safety provisions in there for it being a [01:11:51] favorite event for the city if somebody decides not to bring back the bike fest [01:11:56] or bring back one of the other festivals that's on them but after a [01:12:03] hundred and some years the Chasco must go on so I appreciate the 40,000 it's [01:12:08] all in kind it's also not consistent with the original ordinance in the city [01:12:13] that called for any civic organization doing something to do not have to pay [01:12:19] for crowd control. I certainly support anybody that sells alcohol having to [01:12:25] have police there to monitor it that event hires its own security and has not [01:12:31] had any real expenses so I would plead with the city staff to be you know [01:12:39] respectful of what cost it puts in we had over $60,000 worth of police costs [01:12:46] and if you look at the city's budget for management and patrol of the downtown [01:12:52] over the course of a year and divided by the number of weekends what I see in [01:13:01] terms of police which is required on a regular week as part of our part of our [01:13:05] business part of what we do I know it brings an excessive amount of traffic I [01:13:11] support you putting as many police as you think you need but I don't want to [01:13:18] sit here and debate whether or not we need them respect the city's you know [01:13:23] decision on that but I think that imposing the same process doesn't [01:13:33] recognize that this one organization is solely formed for the purpose of putting [01:13:37] that organization on and all of its funds just go on into making it the next [01:13:42] year rotary clubs give money away you know and they need support in order to [01:13:48] make continue to do projects and those are shorter shorter events that the [01:13:54] budget for the Chasco if it is reflected against the budgets of these [01:13:58] other events is well over 300 closing in on 400 I don't know the number in front [01:14:06] of me today but it's a massive event and it does require that kind of support [01:14:12] it doesn't require it on weeknights to the level that we just don't have the [01:14:18] crowds on those nights it's really two weekends anyway I appreciate the fact [01:14:24] that you've allocated it I'll just continue to suggest that it's worthy of [01:14:30] discussion maybe this next year when we get into budget if I'm fortunate enough [01:14:34] to still be here we can bring it up again but I'll support it because it's [01:14:39] what's offered but I'm hopeful that when many of us have been on that board for [01:14:47] many years are no longer there that the city fully embraces that event because it [01:14:51] is our signature event in the city I don't know how much money the city of [01:14:57] Pinellas Park puts into its Street Parade or [01:15:00] puts that on, but it was a massive event, just a Christmas parade, and we keep getting [01:15:06] bigger crowds. [01:15:07] So I know the need is there for the enforcement and all the expenses, and we'll make it work [01:15:13] one way or another. [01:15:14] So thank you. [01:15:15] I want to say a couple of things. [01:15:28] My support for this is for the commercial businesses downtown, and I'll just give you [01:15:33] two examples. [01:15:34] One, myself, when I owned Jilly's, which was at the end of the parade, I did a month's [01:15:38] business in one day. [01:15:40] So if the businesses take advantage of that, it's up to them to utilize it. [01:15:47] We're bringing the people to town with these events, and Joe Carl, when he owned Carl Reef, [01:15:52] he said, if I had a bike fest once a month, I wouldn't open up the rest of the month. [01:15:57] So there's an indication, at least from two businesses, what goes on downtown, at least [01:16:01] with two of the events. [01:16:02] So needless to say, I'm 100% behind the commercial business, and that's what this is all about. [01:16:08] So all those in favor, signify by aye. [01:16:10] Aye. [01:16:11] Those opposed? [01:16:12] So we have five nothing.

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

12. 9.b

    ↳You arrived here from a search for “10% franchise fee” — transcript expanded below

    2025 Waste Hauler Special Permit Applications

    approved

    Council approved the 2025 waste hauler special permit applications for J.D. Parker & Sons (residential, commercial, and C&D), and Waste Connections, Republic Services, and Peterson Service Corporation (C&D only). One councilmember voted no, citing concerns that the single waste hauler ordinance was developed without sufficient public input or a referendum.

    • motion:Approve the 2025 waste hauler special permit applications for J.D. Parker & Sons, Waste Connections, Republic Services, and Peterson Service Corporation. (passed)4–1

    🏢J.D. Parker & Sons🏢Peterson Service Corporation🏢Republic Services🏢Waste Connections👤Ms. Vance👤Rivera#10% franchise fee#2025 Waste Hauler Special Permit Applications#Construction and Demolition (C&D) services

    ▶ Jump to 1:16:15 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:16:15] Okay. [01:16:16] Approval. [01:16:17] 2025 Waste Hall Special Permit Applications. [01:16:24] This is the time of year that we ask you to consider the waste hauler permit applications, [01:16:34] and it also includes construction and demolition services for the calendar year, and I think [01:16:42] we had four companies this year submit applications, and Mr. Rivera will tell you about this process. [01:16:49] Thank you, Ms. Vance. [01:16:51] As you had said, this is for a calendar year 2025. [01:16:55] The companies were J.D. Parker & Sons, Waste Connections, Republic Services, and Peterson [01:17:01] Service Corporation. [01:17:03] As you are aware, J.D. Parker is the only authorized waste hauler operating in the city. [01:17:10] Their special permit application includes residential, commercial, as well as the C&D [01:17:16] services. [01:17:18] The other three waste haulers' application includes solely C&D, as that's protected under [01:17:24] the Florida statutes to where we cannot not allow them to operate in our city. [01:17:30] The companies have to still pay their 10% franchise fee based on the amount of business [01:17:38] that they do in the city, and with that, we would recommend that you approve the applications. [01:17:42] Do we have any public comment? [01:17:46] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion and a vote. [01:17:55] I will move approval. [01:17:57] Second. [01:17:59] I'll second. [01:18:03] No, sir. No comment. [01:18:05] Excuse me. [01:18:07] No. [01:18:09] I mean, I have spoken, and I won't speak to the... [01:18:12] First off, is there any representatives from any of the waste haulers? [01:18:16] If we have one. [01:18:18] Which waste hauler is that? [01:18:20] I would guess J.D. Parker. [01:18:22] Waste Connections. [01:18:23] Waste Connections. [01:18:25] Thank you for showing up and being a representative. [01:18:29] I mean, if this is approval, and I've made my comments known, [01:18:35] that I feel like much of the process as it relates to the single waste hauler [01:18:40] I think could have been more civically engaged and involved perhaps a referendum [01:18:45] to get more input from the community, and to that end, not to discount the C&D part of this, [01:18:50] but I just, I really think that the existence of some of this ordinance [01:18:55] was thought out from a city staff perspective, [01:19:00] but I don't know if it was necessarily the most engaging in terms of public input. [01:19:07] So I'm going to vote the way, based on comments I've made in the past, [01:19:11] and based on just the fact that I think this, how this new system came about, [01:19:19] in my mind, should have been done differently. [01:19:24] There's a lot to what you don't know, then, I'll have to say that. [01:19:27] All those in favor, signify by aye. [01:19:30] Aye. [01:19:31] Those opposed. [01:19:32] Nay. [01:19:33] It's 4-1. [01:19:34] Moving on to the next approval, the 2025-2029 combined law enforcement mutual aid agreement [01:19:41] with the city of Tarpon Springs. [01:19:43] Chief Cochem reports that our current agreement for mutual aid with Tarpon Springs is due to expire, [01:19:51] so he would like to present an agenda item related to this matter. [01:19:54] Thank you, Ms. Madsen.

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

13. 9.c

    Approval of the 2025-2029 Combined Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement w/City of Tarpon Springs

    approved

    Council approved the 2025-2029 Combined Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement with the City of Tarpon Springs, replacing the current agreement expiring January 31, 2025. The agreement allows cross-jurisdictional law enforcement assistance for events like the Christmas parade and Chasco, and has no budget impact.

    • motion:Move to approve the 2025-2029 Combined Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement with the City of Tarpon Springs. (passed)

    🏢City of Tarpon Springs🏢Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV)👤Tim Driscoll#Chasco#Christmas parade#Florida Mutual Aid Act#Florida State Statute 23.1225

    ▶ Jump to 1:19:55 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:19:55] Mayor, council members, so the request before you is to approve the 2025-2029 [01:20:01] combined law enforcement mutual aid agreement with the city of Tarpon Springs. [01:20:05] That was five, yeah. [01:20:07] That me? [01:20:08] Too close? [01:20:09] I don't know. [01:20:13] How about now? [01:20:15] We good? [01:20:16] Okay. [01:20:17] Request for the council is to approve the 2025-2029 combined law enforcement mutual aid agreement [01:20:23] with the city of Tarpon Springs that will expire January 31st, 2029. [01:20:27] The current mutual aid agreement with the city of Tarpon Springs does expire on January 31st, 2025. [01:20:33] We had an amendment before you with the rebel decision. [01:20:37] That amendment is in the new agreement, so everything is up to snuff, if you will. [01:20:42] The Florida Mutual Aid Act is defined in Florida State Statute 23.1225, [01:20:46] authorizes law enforcement agencies to enter into mutual aid agreements for operational and other types of assistance. [01:20:52] We absolutely need these mutual aid agreements to work effectively with other agencies. [01:20:57] I spelled that out in the fourth paragraph. [01:21:01] We assist each other across jurisdictional lines with law violations, natural disasters, man-made disasters, [01:21:08] arrest, traffic hazards, parades, special events, city events, et cetera. [01:21:12] As most of you know, we could never do the Christmas parade or Chasco or some of these other events [01:21:18] without assistance from these other agencies, and this mutual aid agreement allows Tarpon to send people up here to do just that. [01:21:24] City Attorney Tim Driscoll reviewed the mutual agreement before you and approved it as the form, [01:21:28] so our recommendation is that you approve the 2025-2029 combined law enforcement mutual aid agreement [01:21:34] with the City of Tarpon Springs that will expire on January 31, 2029, and there is no budget impact. [01:21:40] I'm hearing any questions you may have. [01:21:44] Any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [01:21:50] Move to approve. [01:21:52] Second. [01:21:53] I think the Chief of Police said it, the nail on the head, it's well laid out in the mutual agreement, and so I'm in support of it. [01:22:02] We're good. [01:22:04] Teamwork, so it's all about all those in favor signify by aye. [01:22:07] Aye. [01:22:08] Aye. [01:22:09] Aye. [01:22:10] Aye. [01:22:11] Aye. [01:22:12] Aye. [01:22:13] Aye. [01:22:14] Aye. [01:22:15] Aye. [01:22:16] Aye. [01:22:17] Aye. [01:22:18] Aye. [01:22:19] Aye. [01:22:20] Aye. [01:22:21] Aye. [01:22:22] Aye. [01:22:23] Aye. [01:22:24] Aye. [01:22:25] Aye. [01:22:26] Aye. [01:22:27] Aye. [01:22:28] Aye. [01:22:29] Aye. [01:22:30] Aye. [01:22:31] Aye. [01:22:32] Aye. [01:22:33] Aye. [01:22:34] Aye. [01:22:35] Aye. [01:22:36] Aye. [01:22:37] Aye. [01:22:38] Aye. [01:22:39] Aye. [01:22:40] Is there any discussion to approve the new requirement set forth by the state, which [01:22:41] the Chief will tell us about in respect to this agenda item. [01:22:42] Thank you, Ms. Manz. [01:22:43] I'm up again. [01:22:44] Mayor, councilmembers, so as the City Manager said, there is a new requirement by the state [01:22:45] DHSMV that we report, or that you approve the annual report that we must submit to the [01:22:51] state. [01:22:52] The police department does submit annual red light camera traffic safety program reports [01:22:56] to DHSMV, which outlines a number of violations issued, contested, upheld, and dismissed, [01:23:02] as well as a number of violations that issue what we call uniform traffic citations. [01:23:08] State of Florida now requires counties and municipalities place the annual red light [01:23:12] camera traffic safety report to DHSMV on the agenda of the governing body as a single reporting [01:23:17] item. [01:23:18] Moreover, the statute requires that the county's or municipality's annual reporting document [01:23:22] includes that the governing body considers the report at a regular or special meeting. [01:23:28] The recommendation, staff recommends that the City Council accept the City of New Port Richey red light camera traffic safety program annual report for the period covering July [01:23:38] 1st, 2023 through June 30th, 2024, as requested, so it may be submitted to DHSMV. [01:23:46] There is no budget impact, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. [01:23:50] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [01:23:55] Move to approve. [01:23:57] Do I have a second? [01:23:58] Second. [01:23:59] To make her?

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

14. 9.d

    Acceptance of the City of New Port Richey Red-Light Camera Traffic Safety Program Annual Report

    approved

    Council accepted the Red-Light Camera Traffic Safety Program Annual Report by unanimous voice vote with minimal discussion.

    • vote:Accept the City of New Port Richey Red-Light Camera Traffic Safety Program Annual Report. (passed)

    #Red-Light Camera Traffic Safety Program Annual Report

    ▶ Jump to 1:24:00 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:24:00] Yep, all good. [01:24:01] Report looks good. [01:24:02] Sounds good. [01:24:03] I'm good. [01:24:04] Pete? [01:24:05] All those in favor, signify by aye. [01:24:06] Aye. [01:24:07] Aye. [01:24:08] Aye. [01:24:09] Aye. [01:24:10] Aye. [01:24:11] Aye. [01:24:12] Aye. [01:24:13] Aye. [01:24:14] Aye. [01:24:15] Aye. [01:24:16] Aye. [01:24:17] Aye. [01:24:18] Aye. [01:24:19] Aye. [01:24:20] So, this is an amendment for the improvement cost, our project close-out. [01:24:25] This is a project close-out and a final request for a final pay request. [01:24:29] Mr. Rivera? [01:24:31] Thank you, Ms. Mance. [01:24:33] We have a deductive change order in the amount of $9,192.28 in a final pay request in the [01:24:41] amount not to exceed $384,603.31. [01:24:47] This is being submitted by QALYS General Contractors, and this is for the Recreation and Aquatic [01:24:52] Center locker room renovations project. [01:24:56] The Recreation and Aquatic Center was constructed in 2006. [01:25:01] Since that time, we've had a couple major renovations, one on the recreation side as [01:25:06] well as the aquatic area, but never with our restrooms and locker rooms like we've done [01:25:14] just now. [01:25:15] The completion elements that were performed in this project were restrooms, floor and [01:25:21] wall tile removal and replacements, shower and toilet partition upgrades, the installation [01:25:27] of a bathing suit dryer, electrical and LED lighting conversions, plumbing upgrades that [01:25:34] included water quality elements, and the replacement of the existing restroom fixtures and hardware. [01:25:41] It was in your CIP program, the approved one that you have. [01:25:46] It was identified funding sources as a penny for PASCO tax dollars, and with that, we would [01:25:51] recommend the closeout of the project. [01:25:55] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [01:26:01] Move to approve. [01:26:02] Second. [01:26:03] To the maker. [01:26:04] Yeah, it's a good closeout. [01:26:05] I can remember the staff over there, probably every day, three or four residents or users [01:26:14] would go to the front desk and say there's a leak in the shower area, or there's some [01:26:19] problem with one of the bathrooms. [01:26:21] This was a necessary renovation and came in a timely manner, and it's just a great job. [01:26:28] They really complement the logo design of the rec center and that vibe, and you can [01:26:33] see they mesh with the marketing to make it all uniform, and it looks great over there, [01:26:37] so if you've got a chance to get over there, it's awesome. [01:26:42] Keeping up and having nice facilities draws people in, so we have to keep up with it for [01:26:47] sure. [01:26:48] Yep, good job. [01:26:49] Looks great. [01:26:50] All those in favor, signify aye. [01:26:53] Aye. [01:26:54] Those opposed? [01:26:55] Right now, discussion regarding screened front porches. [01:27:01] First matter is brought before you, Mr. Mayor, at the suggestion of Councilman Butler, who [01:27:10] initiated a discussion with you about enclosing front porches with screens, and we're looking [01:27:19] for some direction from you as to a proper course of action.

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

15. 9.e

    ITB24-008 RAC Locker and Restroom Improvements Project Close Out

    discussed

    Council discussed amending the Land Development Code to allow screened front porches, which are currently prohibited. Council reached consensus to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance allowing screening for insect protection while preventing enclosure with glass, air conditioning, or use as living/storage space, and addressing architectural standards.

    • direction:Council directed the city attorney to draft an ordinance amendment allowing screened front porches with standards preventing full enclosure (no glass, air conditioning, or storage) and addressing architectural aesthetics. (none)

    👤Butler👤Kelly#Accessory dwellings#Front porch ordinance (2016)#Land Development Code

    ▶ Jump to 1:27:20 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:27:26] What I've done to prepare you for the discussion is put together some information on the legislative [01:27:35] intent that was associated with the enactment of legislation back in 2016, when an ordinance [01:27:53] was effectuated into the Land Development Code to allow for front porches, and what [01:28:01] we were trying to do at the time was to improve the appearance of residential neighborhoods, [01:28:09] and also encourage social interaction among neighbors, create a safer environment, and [01:28:18] improve property values, and we've, as attachments, included readings of the ordinances and minutes [01:28:29] from the public meetings that took place. [01:28:34] And with that, we'll allow you to have your discussion and give us direction as to how [01:28:40] you would like us to go forward with this matter. [01:28:46] Comment? [01:28:47] If not, I'll bring it back and you can start out. [01:28:51] Mr. Mayor, thank you for letting me start out. [01:28:54] I just want to start by saying thank you to the staff for taking the time to look this [01:28:58] over and meeting with me on several occasions to address some of the concerns of residents [01:29:04] who brought this to my attention, saying that they would like to have a screened porch, [01:29:08] but are unable to under the current code, and that we do this right so as to balance [01:29:13] between what is best for our community and sociability and property values, and also [01:29:19] making sure we get the intent of this ordinance down. [01:29:22] You heard the state manager say that one of the elements of the purpose of this ordinance [01:29:26] was for sociability, being able to talk with our residents, being able to talk with neighbors. [01:29:33] We have mosquitoes here, and we just had a presentation not long ago that showed that [01:29:38] nobody's going to be sitting on their porch, especially during the summertime, if it's [01:29:42] not for some sort of barrier to protect from those mosquitoes. [01:29:46] And so staff made the suggestion, and I tend to agree with it, if you're open to the idea [01:29:52] of doing some sort of ordinance, directing the city attorney to draft an ordinance change [01:29:58] that allows [01:30:00] For screened porches, but just to the extent [01:30:02] that you prevent mosquitoes and insects, [01:30:07] but does not essentially create a closed living [01:30:10] space for the setup of air conditioner, [01:30:14] or the city manager raised the point of storage of items. [01:30:18] And so I'm all for that, making sure [01:30:19] that the enclosures are certain. [01:30:23] If that is a concern over someone living out there, [01:30:25] because they can't be seen out there. [01:30:27] The other two things was a resident [01:30:30] brought up the concern of architecture [01:30:33] when it comes to property values, [01:30:34] making sure that we're not just doing walled out screens, [01:30:37] but that there's some sort of aesthetically [01:30:39] a pleasing architecture that comes with it, say, [01:30:44] columns that border the outside and border the trim. [01:30:47] And I hope Kelly can speak more to that, [01:30:49] since you see a variety of housing types. [01:30:53] And those are the main concerns I saw pop up. [01:30:56] I think this is a net benefit for our city, [01:30:58] and that's where I'm at with it. [01:31:01] Anybody else like to speak? [01:31:02] Yeah, so I agree that they should [01:31:05] be allowed to screen in a front porch, because we do have, [01:31:08] I mean, and this area has the outbreak right now [01:31:12] of dengue fever because of mosquitoes. [01:31:14] And I don't have a screened in. [01:31:17] I have a pool that is not screened in, [01:31:18] and so it's difficult to be out there in the summertime [01:31:21] with the bugs that are out there. [01:31:23] And I do think that people would utilize their porch more [01:31:25] if they could screen it. [01:31:26] But we are going to have to set some standards on how [01:31:30] that should be. [01:31:31] And again, allowing it to be screened [01:31:33] is different than allowing it to be enclosed with glass, [01:31:36] because then that makes it a room, [01:31:38] and that's when they air condition it, [01:31:39] and then it becomes additional add-on to the home, [01:31:41] and that's not what we're trying to do here. [01:31:44] So I think that if we have those, [01:31:46] it's specific as far as what they can and can't do. [01:31:49] I do think that we should allow a screened porch. [01:31:53] I think that in today's world, people [01:31:55] aren't going to use it unless it's screened. [01:31:57] Good point on the glass. [01:31:58] Yeah. [01:31:59] Yeah, I agree. [01:32:00] I agree with what everyone's saying. [01:32:02] No reason why you shouldn't be able to screen your porch in, [01:32:05] just to make sure that it's done properly, [01:32:07] set some things in place that make sure it isn't abused, [01:32:11] put it that way. [01:32:16] I also agree and appreciate all the effort [01:32:20] that Councilman Butler has been making, [01:32:24] as demonstrated tonight in all of the hard work [01:32:26] you're doing from meeting to meeting, to explore options. [01:32:30] And so I think this is a good one. [01:32:31] I also would have to add that the accessory dwellings is [01:32:34] an issue that we've been asking for and need [01:32:37] to get some conclusion for. [01:32:39] And with respect to the concerns for affordable housing [01:32:44] or affordable retirement or whatever it might be, [01:32:48] I think that the initial proposal for accessory [01:32:52] dwellings was restricted a little too much

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

16. 9.f

    Discussion Regarding Screened Front Porches

    discussed

    Council discussed allowing screened front porches in residential zones (R1-R4). Current code lets a porch encroach 10 feet into the 25-foot front setback but prohibits screening on front porches (per a 2016 ordinance), though older homes are grandfathered. Council gave staff direction to bring back recommendations allowing higher-end, see-through screening on front porches across all residential categories, with options on mesh types.

    • direction:Council directed staff to develop recommendations allowing screened front porches across R1-R4, with see-through/higher-end mesh options and safety considerations. (none)

    📍Grand Boulevard📍Highway 19 in Maine (Main)👤Mary#2016 ordinance prohibiting front porch screening#Accessory dwelling units / missing middle housing#Front yard setback (25 ft with 10 ft porch encroachment)#Mesh sizes (e.g., 20x20, 20x18, 24x20)#R1, R2, R3, R4 (cottages) zoning

    ▶ Jump to 1:32:55 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:32:55] into the missing middle and should be expanded [01:32:58] where we don't have really stringent platted subdivisions [01:33:01] or HOA-controlled areas to support that. [01:33:07] As discussed earlier with rental properties, [01:33:11] accessory dwellings can give an opportunity for more residents [01:33:17] if it's done properly, that are controlled [01:33:20] by a resident homeowner or to give a young homeowner [01:33:25] the chance to have a home and get the supplemental income [01:33:29] that they might need in order to afford a home. [01:33:32] I think we have a lot of families, too, [01:33:34] or more blended families that would then give them [01:33:36] an opportunity to be on the same property as a blended family. [01:33:39] Kind of in-law apartment or whatever. [01:33:41] I mean, it gives you more opportunity for that. [01:33:43] So I know it wasn't the topic, but I [01:33:45] had to throw that in because it does speak [01:33:48] to having to change our code to look at setback requirements [01:33:52] or density requirements. [01:33:56] I know the density that we approved earlier today at 80% [01:34:00] is pretty excessive. [01:34:02] But when you look at the footprint of that old hospital, [01:34:05] those old impervious surface areas [01:34:09] like we have out at Highway 19 in Maine [01:34:11] where everything was paved, gives a grandfathered right [01:34:16] in some cases to folks to not expand upon whatever [01:34:20] they have had before. [01:34:21] But I'm in favor of it, and you make a good point [01:34:30] with the mosquitoes. [01:34:32] I would like to ask you all what types of screens [01:34:36] you're talking about. [01:34:39] To be part of the discussion. [01:34:41] Not glass. [01:34:42] Yeah. [01:34:43] No, that's what I'm saying. [01:34:44] We're talking about trees. [01:34:46] The black, the black high end screens that are not the old. [01:34:50] No, come on. [01:34:50] There's different kinds of screens. [01:34:51] Well, there's different screens. [01:34:52] There's screens that stop the no-seams, [01:34:54] and there's those that don't. [01:34:55] So you've got to have that. [01:34:56] You've got to set the smaller holes up to get it as close. [01:34:58] Old mesh. [01:35:00] I thought I'd, if you're talking about the texture [01:35:02] of the screens, I'm not sure. [01:35:04] I'd love to see a fleet of options. [01:35:06] But my point was the size of the screen [01:35:09] being able to withstand insects. [01:35:10] But also not be so thin as to create a barrier where [01:35:14] you can't see inside and create a safety barrier. [01:35:16] I know something about screens. [01:35:18] There's fiberglass screen. [01:35:20] There's solar screen. [01:35:24] There's no-seam screens. [01:35:27] There's a Florida glass screen. [01:35:30] There's a bronze screen. [01:35:31] There's an aluminum screen. [01:35:33] There's metal screens. [01:35:35] There's a vinyl polyester screen. [01:35:38] So when you say screens, all of a sudden you think, [01:35:41] but all these have a different type of mesh. [01:35:43] And especially the, which one is it? [01:35:47] The solar screen. [01:35:49] That, if you can look straight forward, [01:35:50] you can see through it. [01:35:51] If you turn to a little bit of an angle, it's black. [01:35:56] And so I'm just saying, you say, yeah, screen. [01:35:59] But you guys don't know enough about screen [01:36:01] to sit there and say. [01:36:03] Which screens are you recommending? [01:36:05] I'm leaving it to you, because my opinion, [01:36:07] I'm not big on the screen. [01:36:09] Oh, you're not for screens. [01:36:11] Well, I just think that not only the screens, but how far, [01:36:15] let's say they've got a 25 foot front yard. [01:36:18] How far are you going out? [01:36:20] I mean, how wide are you going? [01:36:22] You know, from the, are you going, [01:36:24] well, they could build a porch on from one side of the house [01:36:26] to the other side. [01:36:27] That could be 40 feet. [01:36:28] It could go out, what, 20 feet, 10 feet? [01:36:30] I think that's different. [01:36:30] Well, they could already build a porch. [01:36:32] I just can't screen it. [01:36:33] So it would be the same setbacks that we already have in place. [01:36:36] Because that's already set in place. [01:36:37] The only thing we're saying is we can now screen it. [01:36:40] Well, that's what I'm saying. [01:36:41] Where are we going with this? [01:36:43] Well, that goes to the screens. [01:36:44] But you're talking about building all this big porch, [01:36:46] but we already have that in place. [01:36:49] We have four houses right now that are 20 feet. [01:36:52] And that's already in place. [01:36:53] They already have the porch. [01:36:55] Let me finish. [01:36:56] They said, OK, I want to build a porch in my house. [01:36:59] OK, what are the rules on the porches? [01:37:01] We already have that. [01:37:03] OK, then how much of that screen? [01:37:04] You can have it a wall. [01:37:05] You can have a porch across the whole front of the house. [01:37:08] And now is it going to be 6, 8 feet, 10 feet? [01:37:11] I mean, I just want to know, are you going to screen this in? [01:37:14] Because once you decide it, and then [01:37:15] you can decide the type of screen. [01:37:17] So I think this is, you guys are all for it, [01:37:19] but you need to do more work on the screen. [01:37:21] So that's what we're doing here tonight. [01:37:24] This is a discussion to then be presented options [01:37:27] from the city. [01:37:28] I'm saying here, there's options. [01:37:30] There's a types of options. [01:37:32] This is a discussion. [01:37:34] Let me say, there's different types of screen. [01:37:36] There's mesh type thing. [01:37:37] There's types of material that it's made of. [01:37:39] So we need to do a lot more work, [01:37:42] or you need to do your own homework, whichever. [01:37:44] If you want to present which mesh types, I know 100%. [01:37:48] I'm just presenting you a chance to look at the whole picture. [01:37:51] Yeah, that's just your own mesh type that you recommend for. [01:37:53] No, because like I said, there's all different kinds. [01:37:56] Mr. Mayor. [01:37:57] And there's even mesh. [01:37:59] I mean, there's mesh that protects your dog and your cat [01:38:01] from tearing it up. [01:38:04] So I did not think that regulating the mesh [01:38:08] was necessary. [01:38:10] I think that's too narrow, and then we get to HOA territory. [01:38:13] I'm thinking larger picture. [01:38:15] What is sociable? [01:38:16] What is good for property value? [01:38:18] And to your point of, if you have a mesh [01:38:21] that you can't see in at certain angles, [01:38:23] that creates safety concern. [01:38:24] And so if we hit that core philosophy, [01:38:26] then I trust staff's ability to find out which mesh falls in. [01:38:30] Or if the recommendation is you don't [01:38:32] need to regulate the type of mesh [01:38:34] because they all meet those standards. [01:38:36] To your point of porch structure, [01:38:39] though, I would imagine if the porch is [01:38:43] meeting the standards of the code, then all of it's [01:38:45] fair game for screening because it's a porch. [01:38:47] But if we have a disagreement there, [01:38:50] then please let me know. [01:38:51] But I think it should be if you have a porch, [01:38:53] you can screen it. [01:38:54] Mr. Mayor, the point I want to make [01:38:57] is that people are entitled to put a front porch on, [01:39:02] and they're entitled to have screen. [01:39:04] But what has happened is the ordinance, when it was passed, [01:39:07] was allow them to go even farther to the front. [01:39:09] So this was an additional benefit [01:39:13] to be able to move closer out to the street. [01:39:15] And so this isn't part of our normal, [01:39:18] a person can have a screen in the front porch. [01:39:21] This is saying, hey, move out a little closer. [01:39:24] Let's be more of a community that allows that. [01:39:27] Basically, this is a setback discussion. [01:39:29] So if we change our setbacks, [01:39:31] then everybody could have a screen. [01:39:33] We wouldn't have to worry about it. [01:39:34] I don't think there's a prohibition against a screen [01:39:36] on a front porch if it's not part of this additional space. [01:39:42] Am I correct? [01:39:44] May I speak? [01:39:47] You can have a front porch. [01:39:49] The front yard setback is 25 feet for your house. [01:39:52] If you want to add a front porch, [01:39:54] you can encroach 10 feet into that setback [01:39:57] for a front porch. [01:39:59] You cannot screen that front porch. [01:40:01] You can screen your back porch, but not your front porch. [01:40:04] But if I'm 10 foot back from the line [01:40:06] and I want a front porch, [01:40:07] then I'm not into that extra special 10 feet. [01:40:10] Then are you going to restrict me [01:40:12] from having a screen on my front porch still? [01:40:14] Yes. [01:40:15] Because there are many houses in this city [01:40:16] that have screened front porch on Grand Boulevard and around. [01:40:20] So thank you for clarifying that. [01:40:22] I was wrong. [01:40:24] I thought it was just when it went out farther. [01:40:27] Those houses are older. [01:40:28] This is 2016. [01:40:30] They cannot be screened. [01:40:31] Well, they knew what they were talking about [01:40:33] because they used to have all kinds of scarlet fever [01:40:35] and everything else back in the day. [01:40:44] Anyway, I'm with you. [01:40:46] I think we should see what we get recommended [01:40:49] and I think we should have a good discussion [01:40:52] about the higher end screening being allowed, [01:40:57] whatever that higher end might be. [01:40:59] And as a clarifying question, [01:41:00] is that for all R1, 2, 3, and the cottages, R4? [01:41:04] Is that for all? [01:41:05] I think it should be for all [01:41:07] because they all have the same standards [01:41:08] for porches, I'm assuming. [01:41:09] I think it should be all [01:41:10] and I think that you could avoid the screening [01:41:12] regarding something around screening slash mesh [01:41:15] that's see-through. [01:41:18] And to Mary's point, maybe a couple options for the meshes? [01:41:21] I think it's 2018 or 2418, 2420, [01:41:25] something like that as a mesh. [01:41:26] I can't remember what it is. [01:41:27] You're like the Forrest Gump of screens. [01:41:30] 2420, I think it's 20, I think it's 2020, [01:41:33] I think it's 2018. [01:41:39] I think you've given us some guardrails. [01:41:40] We can come up with something. [01:41:42] Thank you. [01:41:43] Okay, communication. [01:41:44] Matt, you want to start?

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

17. 10Communications▶ 1:41:45
18. 11Adjournment▶ 1:47:35