TEMPLE TERRACE — For years, Gaspar’s Patio Bar and Grille has been trying to find more parking for its customers to park.
Last week, after two hours of spirited and contentious debate, the popular Temple Terrace establishment finally got its wish.
The City Council voted 4-1 to approve a site plan that will allow Gaspar’s to demolish two houses it owns on Rainbow Drive to clear the way for 38 new parking spaces.
Council member Erik Kravets cast the lone dissenting vote.
The decision ended years of efforts by Gaspar’s owner Jimmy Ciaccio to solve a parking shortage at his restaurant, a popular Temple Terrace mainstay since 1960.
The city council chose to go against a finding by the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission that the expansion was inconsistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan, particularly policies designed to protect residential neighborhoods from commercial creep.
Gaspar’s, which faces 56th Street, currently has 63 parking spaces, some in the front and others behind the restaurant near Rainbow Drive, in a residential neighborhood.
The approved expansion will increase that number to 101 spaces, including five accessible spaces.
To close the parking lot off from the neighborhood behind the restaurant, the project includes landscaping and a 6-foot vinyl privacy fence, as well as underground stormwater retention, a relocated dumpster and a 908-sqaure-foot storage building.
To make room for the additional parking, the two homes behind the restaurant at 5416 and 5418 Rainbow Dr. will be demolished. County records show Ciaccio purchased the homes in 2017 and 2019 for a combined $298,000, which his attorney said was done with the intention of expanding the parking lot.
One of the primary sticking points in the debate was a city regulation allowing commercially used parking on adjoining residential property but limiting its extension to 100 feet.
Gaspar’s plan extends 175.24 feet into the residentially-zoned property, and the team representing the restaurant sought a waiver for the additional 75.24 feet.
Two other waivers were also requested: one to relocate the dumpster onto residentially zoned property, and another to allow the storage building in an area where accessory structures aren’t usually permitted.
Attorney Clay Mathews, representing Gaspar’s, argued that the expansion would benefit the neighborhood by getting customers’ vehicles off residential streets, a longstanding issue. He has previously said Gaspar’s runs out of parking about three times a week.
His team also said the project would remove two deteriorating homes, eliminate two driveways along Rainbow Drive, improve drainage and provide extensive landscaping to shield the parking lot from neighboring homes.
Mathews told the council the city approved the project on a preliminary site plan basis in 2020, and that Gaspar’s started the final site plan process but never completed it.
The parking expansion has been a long-running effort.
In September 2024, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 against a proposed future land-use change for the two Rainbow Drive properties, citing concerns about allowing commercial development to encroach on single family neighborhoods.
Additional applications were pursued in 2025 before being withdrawn in January 2026.
Under the newly approved plans, only the parking lot would grow. The restaurant would not be expanded or add seating.
Kravets, however, questioned whether the proposed improvements were a fair trade off for waiving the city’s established rules and bypassing the recommendation from the county’s planning commission.
He spent considerable time parsing the language of the city’s regulations and the applicant’s request, grilling Mathews over the meaning of “waiver,”, “injury” and “hardship,” and whether headlights shining into nearby homes could interfere with residents’ enjoyment of their property. The exchanges grew testy, with Mathews at one point telling Kravets he would have to “respectfully disagree” in an effort to move on.
Kravets’ opposition followed an unusually extensive history of involvement with the proposal.
Before the hearing, he spent approximately 12 minutes disclosing contacts dating to 2025, including neighborhood canvassing, numerous communications with Juan Carlos Perez, a leading opponent of the project, and exchanges of information about earlier applications.
Kravets maintained that despite his involvement with the issue, he had not made up his mind and could impartially consider the evidence presented during the quasi-judicial hearing.
Other councilmembers disclosed contacts as well. Mayor Andy Ross said he had spoken with Ciaccio on several occasions over the years, and Council member Alison Fernandez said she spoke with him at Gaspar’s on May 15, though nothing specific. Kravets said Ciaccio approached him at a January charity gala and asked him to broker a meeting with Perez, which Kravets said never happened.
Kravets also submitted for the record an Oct. 29 email Perez wrote to his wife, responding to her notifying him that the item was on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. In it, according to Kravets, Perez wrote that he would not continue to oppose the project and that his family may sell their home if it is approved.
No members of the public spoke during the hearing.
Another dispute occurred over the Planning Commission initially finding the project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in 2020, according to Mathews, before reversing course.
Mathews claims that was the result of a misunderstanding about how the parking extension was measured.
Community Development director Greg Pauley and Planning Commission staff explained that the original measurement of 135 feet did not extend to the farthest point of the proposed parking area. A subsequent measurement established the full 175.24-foot extension.
The revised measurement, rather than a redesign of the parking lot, prompted the change in the Planning Commission’s assessment.
Kravets also objected to a binder, which he called “really big,” that had been distributed to council members during the hearing, arguing that they had not been given adequate time to review the information.
“I don’t like being ambushed with a lot of new information,” he said.
He moved to postpone any decision until Feb. 16, 2027.
The motion died without a second.
Council member Gil Schisler then moved to approve the project, with city attorney Ernie Mueller helping craft the language to explain why the council found the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan despite the Planning Commission’s objections.
Schisler cited the proposed buffering and the benefit of moving vehicles from neighborhood streets and into the expanded parking lot.
Vice Mayor James Chambers also voted yes, though he said he was “a little concerned with only a 6-foot buffer.” He asked how anyone would keep customers off the street once the lot is built. The project’s engineer said the larger lot would be a natural deterrent.
The strongest defense of the project came from Ross.
“The comprehensive plan is an aspirational document that talks about our broad strokes and what we want to do in terms of transportation and types of businesses and the types of housing that we want, and all of that is great,” he said. “But I think that we have to put this in a little context for our city, too.”
The context, he argued, included a longtime local business trying to solve a problem created by its popularity.
Gaspar’s has remained in Temple Terrace for 66 years rather than moving to another growing community.
“As city leaders, we have to understand this is a business that, in spite of their success, didn’t move,” Ross said. “They didn’t go to Wesley Chapel. They didn’t go to Seminole Heights when that was the thing. They didn’t go to New Tampa when that became the thing. They have stuck with the same location, the same roots, from 1960 to today.”
He rejected the argument that expanding the parking lot would damage the neighborhood.
“The damage to the neighborhood is occurring now under the present conditions, with people parking all over the darn place,” he said.
Ross said he has driven through the neighborhood late at night and observed customers parking along the residential streets. Fernandez said she has seen the same thing.
The mayor said the restaurant’s history and success did not entitle it to special treatment but argued that the project was consistent with the city’s broader goal of supporting successful locally owned business.
Kravets pushed back on Ross’ argument. He said in a quasi-judicial hearing, council members were required to base their decision only on the evidence and applicable development rules.
He also questioned the neighborhood support for the project, noting that all 25 letters submitted by the applicant came from Gaspar’ employees rather than nearby residents.
Kravets claimed to have knocked on dozens of doors while investigating the proposal last year and received a far different response from neighbors.
“Of the nine households, six opposed extending the restaurants’ parking onto the residential lots,” he said, adding their concerns were noise, traffic, demolition, and construction next to their homes, and the loss of the street’s residential character.
He also noted that the staff report placed the site in the Community Redevelopment Area, but no CRA review was in the council’s packet. He warned the city was opening itself up to a lawsuit.
While saying he thought Gaspar’s was a “wonderful asset for Temple Terrace,” he reiterated that he felt the council should follow the comprehensive plan.
He made one final attempt at a compromise.
“I think that a reasonable compromise here would be to grant the accessory structure and the dumpster, and not increase the encroachment into the neighborhood,” he said.
No one seconded his motion.
The council approved the expansion 4-1, with Kravets voting no.
He left the dais immediately afterward, before the meeting was over.