Loading...
07-20-2000CITY OF EDGEWATER CITIZENS LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 2000 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Card called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present were: Chairman Pat Card, Ferd Heeb, J. Michael McKay, Dan Holland, Mike Aloise, Dan Sylvester, David Ross, Burt Madewell, Robert Blum, Paul Jenkins, Andy Anderson, Dan Loeffler, Elizabeth Donahue, Ed Bailot, Richard Jones, Ray Jarrett. Don Sanders was absent. Terri Madewell and Bill Schroeder resigned. Also present were City Manager Kenneth Hooper, Planning Director Lynne Plaskett, Building Official Dennis Fischer, and Deputy City Clerk Lisa Bloomer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Due to the minutes just being received, Chairman Card suggested waiving the requirement for the approval of minutes this evening. If the Committee agreed, they would discuss the minutes at the next meeting. Mr. Jenkins moved for approval, second by Mr. Aloise. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Card asked to limit public comment to five minutes and asked that no one from the Committee inquire or make a rebuttal to any statements made by anybody who would like to speak. He would like to give anybody, who has a desire to speak and make public comment, an opportunity to do so without being intimidated. The Committee was all in agreement. Dee Anderson, 1730 Pine Tree Drive, expressed concern about whether or not the new code include vans, S.U.V.s and trucks parked on the City right -of -way. She is asking because they live in area where a lot of homes are built on 80 feet lots and they have vans, S.U.V.'s and trucks parked on the City right -of -way. It gets to a point where the street becomes narrow and children are running in and out of parked vehicles. She was wondering if anybody knows if there is going to be anything in the new code. She knows there isn't anything in the old code. Chairman Card asked Ms. Plaskett to respond if she knows. Ms. Plaskett stated yes, the current code just passed minus the things in this 4 committee. There is provisions in the Code not to allow the storage of parking of commercial vehicles in any City, County, or State rights -of -way or drainage easements. Ms. Anderson stated she is talking about vans, S.U.V.s and trucks that are not commercial vehicles. Ms. Plaskett stated this pertains to any vehicle. STAFF COMMENTS AND REPORTS Chairman Card reminded the Committee not to forget to file their financial disclosure forms with the Supervisor of Elections. Ms. Donahue asked if the source of income includes the spouse or only yourself. Ms. Plaskett informed her it has directions. Mr. Jenkins stated it says it does not include your spouse. Chairman Card informed the Committee they are in a larger area this evening and asked the members to speak up. It will help if they need to refer to tapes. Chairman Card stated they had asked staff to comment on why the revisions of these sections were necessary at this time. He asked Ms. Plaskett to make any comments. Ms. Plaskett presented background information. The City has a Comprehensive Plan which is a guide to growth within a city that the State legislature put into effect in 1987. Each municipality is required to have a Comp Plan. As a result of plan, once it was reviewed by the State and comments were given back to each municipality, they were given a certain amount of time to develop land development regulations, which were supposed to address everything addressed in the Comp Plan. Everything from housing, to traffic control to signage. The new Land Development Code is a result of the legislation upon us. In 1998, we hired a planning consultant to help us develop a Land Development Code that incorporated the Zoning Ordinance, the Code of Ordinances and the Comp Plan. The consultant provided a draft document. Many draft documents came out of the initial consultant. Documents were given to all of the department heads on several occasions as well as private citizens, engineers, architects, the School Board, environmental service people, recreational people, zoning boards, and Volusia County. Just a host of different organizations and groups and any citizen that wanted a copy. They asked that they review the entire document and bring back any comments. This document the Council adopted was the final product of all of those meetings. They held many public hearings. This started with previous Council, who was adamant about making Edgewater a nice place to live and an aesthetically pleasing place to live. As a result, these issues came out of a majority vote based on the comments they received. Everything passed except the items they are dealing with tonight. They have to come to some sort of an agreement as to what they can do to make it acceptable to the majority of the people in Edgewater. Page -2- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt July 20, 2000 Chairman Card stated as he remembers their only limitation was to people in a period of public comment. Mr. Ross stated he hasn't read in total detail all of the documentation but he has read a lot of it starting in 1998 going forward through 1999 and 2000. He found it very interesting going back to January, February, and April of 1999. He referred to portion of the third edition dated April 28, 1999 about watercraft, R.V.'s, trailers, campers, and equipment in Article III of the proposed draft. Mr. Ross stated in having read more than one of these documents it basically said that boats and R.V.'s. somewhere between 24 and 26 feet, could be kept in the front yard. He further read if it is over 26 foot it has to be kept in the side or rear yard and then it says however if you can't park it in the rear or side yard, you will be excused from this strict enforcement. After initiation of this rewrite, boats R.V.'s and trailers were not going to be prohibited. He asked why, when, and who came up with the 6' height restriction. Ms. Plaskett stated she couldn't answer that because there has been so many revisions by so many people. Mr. Heeb stated when you go through this document and look at the historical drafting of this document and especially when the City got into the public hearings with Florida Shores Property Owners Association, etc., you will find that very few boat, R.V., camper or whatever owners, attended those meetings. The people that attended were people that had real concerns about some of the problems that those owners of that type property created in their community. If you read through this and watch as they move through the process. the rules relative to these types of property get more stringent. It's not until they have the Council forum that everyone woke up and says they just outlawed boats, R.V.s, etc. The concern that he has relative to the Committee is that there are a lot of citizens in Edgewater who are unhappy with a lot of their neighbors who keep boats and R.V.'s in their yard. He feels they are going to find that they are not unhappy with the responsible property owner. What they are unhappy with is the irresponsible property owner. He feels once this movement starts, they are going to find that every city has approached this problem and solved it by putting more and more restrictions on people that own boats and R.V.s. One of the things he was going to recommend is that they don't worry about bringing in experts. He feels they are going to find that to a T they have solved it by placing really stringent restrictions. He would like to see this Committee solve the problem for everyone. If they can't solve the problem, Council will solve it and then it will be out of their hands. He feels they have to do this orderly and do it in a straight line. He suggested they divide this issue into five areas. He feels they should separate boats and boat trailers, recreational vehicles, restoration of cars, canopies and business vehicles. He would like to see them take one at a time, and as a full committee go through and resolve that issue. Page -3- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt July 20, 2000 Mr. Heeb feels they need to figure out the solution and draft it and move on. He does not want to divide the Committee into subcommittees. He has received comments from people that this committee is a farce. The only people represented, in their minds, are those that own boats and R.V.s. and that there are not enough who don't. If they don't do their job, everyone will be unhappy. Ms. Plaskett stated in addition, the consultant was also asked to look at other counties and other cities and try to come up with a model type ordinance. He went outside the county looking for codes that would be appropriate for Edgewater. Mr. Ross asked if the Code that was presented to Council was the recommendation of this consultant. Ms. Plaskett explained the consultant was hired to come up with the first drafts. Mr. Ross asked his date of tenure and when it ended. He is trying to relate who said what, when and why. Ms. Plaskett stated in 1999. She didn't know the exact date but would provide it. Mr. Ross would like to know the recommendations in detail. Ms. Plaskett stated the draft ordinance was presented to the Planning & Zoning Board and to the previous Council. It wasn't a recommendation to adopt it because there was still additional work that needed to be done. She agreed to get that information for him. Mr. Jenkins stated going through chronological sequence and the meetings with the homeowners associations he noticed, mostly Mr. Anderson spoke and there was a letter from Dee. The major things there were not so much the boats and R.V.s but the parking in the front yards or parking in the rights -of -way. It wasn't the boat itself being in the yard. Ms. Plaskett stated they to take into consideration, when went to public they talked about the entire Land Development Code. They didn't target any specific area. They tried to present the whole code but in a way where they weren't there for two or three days. They went through the topics and opened it up for discussion. Mr. Fischer and Ms. Kinney- Johnson addressed their concerns. Everybody, depending on where they live, has different areas of concern. Mr. Jenkins stated most of it seemed to be aimed at front yard parking and right -of -way parking. Ms. Plaskett stated there were discussions about all of it. Mr. Jenkins feels there was a little bit of a perception that had to so with something about taking boats out of the driveway. Mr. Ross asked everyone to look in the 2/24/99 comments, the opinions from the Florida Shores Property Owners Association. These people weren't there complaining about boats and R.V.s. Chairman Card stated this was a letter from the representative of the Florida Shores Homeowners Association to the people who had the open meetings. This is included in their materials. Page -4- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Ms. Donahue doesn't think it is just boats and R.V.s, she also thinks it is the size of the vehicles that is upsetting people. Some of them are so large they can't put them on the side of the house or bring them into the back yard. The only place is on the driveway. In some instances they are on driveways and out so far that you have to walk in street to get around them. She also spoke about kids on bicycles. Chairman Card stated that is against the law now. Mr. Jarrett feels the issue homeowners don't consider is the driveway doesn't all belong to them. It is up to the proposed sidewalk property line. Their vehicle may intrude beyond that and they all assume if they are in the driveway, they are within the guidelines. Mr. Fischer presented a history of what happened. He was involved in January of 1999, when he was given the Code Enforcement Department under his duties and responsibilities. He spoke about a goal setting session held by the Council where they brain stormed. They covered a lot of topics. Out of that came some ideas about what they can do to benefit the area. They set up a program at the Florida Shores Homeowners Association where he made a presentation about property values. At the same time they were going through the consultant who was working on the complete Land Development Code. He took a section of it and worked on the areas that were going to be his responsibility. He feels if they are going to have a code they need something that is understandable, easily enforceable, and easily understood by all. That was the goal he set. He asked himself what would he expect the community to look like. The first thing is curb appeal, what does it look like from the street. He came up with the idea of imposing some kind of outlook on a community where they could drive down the streets, they are pleasing to the eye and not very restrictive but with some restrictions so those places look uniform and appealing. He spoke about the front door to front door approach. He tried to pay attention to the areas that caught his eye when he made revisions to the Code and sent them in for approval. He spoke about his comments he drafted from the original he got from the consultant where he made revisions that are understandable and easily enforceable. The current Code the way it is written has provisions to allow you if you can't park on side or rear to park in front. The excuses they were receiving were frivolous. The exemption was they allowed a lot of boats under the old Code to be allowed in the front of the house, even though the Code said you couldn't put them there. If he had boat and it was neat and it was a size that could be kept on the driveway, it should be able to be there in that condition. That is when they started looking at the footage rules. From the front door to the property line is thirty feet. They used 26 feet as an average length. That is what they installed in the first draft. It could be on the driveway or parallel to the driveway. They had feedback that 26 feet was too big. One of revisions drops it to 24 feet, which would be an average overall. In April, the revision was still at 26 feet. Page -5- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Mr. Fischer went on to explain there was some controversy regarding R.V.s. and visitors. There is a 36 hour maximum law. A lot of feedback came in from people that said they needed more time than that. In the April through July edition, that rule changed to seven days and exemption telling you you can't be hooked up was removed. The April edition called for 24 feet in the front or parallel to driveway. If it was exceeding 24 feet, it could be kept in the rear or on the side. If you couldn't get it in the side or rear, you had to take it to a storage yard . July 15 edition. From there, the final draft edition he proposed was in November 10, 1999 for change. Additional language was added to where they got present Code at. Chairman Card asked if they know where the 6' fence came from. City Manager Hooper stated there is a requirement of an existing, you can only limit a 6' high fence in the front yard right now. Chairman Card asked when this was introduced as a requirement of a boat or R.V.s height. City Manager Hooper explained the fence was to make it screened so couldn't see it. Chairman Card asked where did that come from. City Manager Hooper stated after public input it came to him to put it together in final format. Chairman Card asked City Manager Hooper if he added the language regarding the 6' fence and limiting the vehicle to only those that could not be seen behind an opaque 6' fence. City Manager Hooper stated that is a correct, fair statement. Chairman Card asked where the input was from that led him to believe that would be an appropriate thing to put in here. City Manager Hooper explained probably nothing more than the fact that they are trying to screen it Chairman Card stated at that point, until he introduced it, there had been nothing about screening that had been brought forward in any of the public meetings. Mr. Fischer commented on what he did. It was compiled with the final being drafted by the City Attorney secretary. Mr. McKay stated Chairman Card already asked the questions he was going to ask. Mr. Jenkins stated since that issue about the 24' -26' thing in front yard, he knows there are properties that have a less than 30 foot setback. There are also properties that have a more than 30 feet setback. Most driveways are usually at one side of the house or the other. He presented a scenario if someone has a 30 or 35 footer that he couldn't get in his back yard but he could back the extra footage alongside the house parallel to the driveway and still stay out of the front right of way, he asked if there was a problem why they couldn't write it that they couldn't extend into the right -of -way over the property line. Mr. Fischer stated the bottom line is, the overall look was to drive down road and on have your eyes taken off wheel for some unusual vision as you are passing down street. That unusual vision would be something out of the ordinary, such as a big motor home blocking the vision. The property line is the line of demarkation and it should not be crossed. It should stay on your property. Page -6- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Mr. Fischer further explained the older part of town has a 20 foot setback. He feels 99 out of 100 homes here have at least a 25 foot setback, most of them have 30. If you take a 24 foot boat and put motor on back and tongue on front, you've got 30 foot. You would have to keep the prop in the garage, to keep it on property. On a trailer, it will be equal to or greater than gutter height. Mr. Jenkins stated a boat over length could be kept from the house to property line and then put the extra length on the side parallel to driveway. Mr. Fischer stated this is what makes code enforcement so hard. Mr. Jenkins feels they should give people both options who can't get around to the back yard or the side yard. Mr. Fischer explained it is up to the Code Enforcement officer to say someone is in violation. Those type of gray incidents may be acceptable in some instances. Mr. Jenkins feels boats and motor homes should have the same limits. If you use the property line and the total length and say either it's in the driveway and clears the property line or on the side of driveway and still clears property line, the guy who can't put it all the way back along the side could still get it as far back as the guy with the 24' boat or motor home. Mr. Fischer explained there will be an appeal process when they get into those gray areas. Mr. Jenkins feels it is not gray if you say the property line. Chairman Card is concerned with getting too far on this. He feels they should get into the specifics a little bit later. Mr. Holland spoke about uniform and curb appeal. He feels it is way too late to get Edgewater uniform. There is no such thing as architectural continuity in Edgewater. He feels Code Enforcement is used so much and if it was used as much as it should on derelict properties and over run properties, they will be looking at taking on more tasks for Code Enforcement when they can't keep up with ones already existing. Mr. Fischer explained it is not architectural, nothing was directed at any building. He has taught Code Enforcement officers in the past to drive down the street and see what catches their eye and to make a mental note. He further spoke about the Code Enforcement process. He spoke about Code Enforcement being used as a club for people to beat their neighbor with. Mr. Holland asked how many Code Enforcement officers the City has full time. Mr. Fischer stated right now they have two. City Manager Hooper explained they now have a support secretary. Two will be out on the street that will be alternating hours. There will also be weekend coverage on Saturday. Mr. Heeb asked Mr. Fischer what types of calls they get relative to boats, R.V.'s, and canopies in Code Enforcement. Mr. Fischer explained they were getting basically size complaints and parking in the rights -of -way. Page -7- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Mr. Heeb asked what in the new Code will help clean up derelict boats and what are the penalties that allow you to cause something to happen. Mr. Fischer explained it has to have a valid sticker and be in operable condition. It has to be a physical observation by the person on the site. Just because it has a sticker on it, doesn't make it legal. City Manager Hooper stated most of what they did is, junk doesn't have sticker. Someone may have good intentions to fix a boat within the next year. Chances are they haven't bought a sticker for it. Mr. Heeb stated he is talking about you have to get rid of that boat or else what. Mr. Fischer stated he would take an overall look at. He suggested taking it out of public eye. Mr. Heeb stated this is my house, my property, you aren't going to tell me to get rid of my boat. Mr. Fischer presented scenario of what he would do. City Manager Hooper stated Code Enforcement can fine up to $250 per day. Mr. Heeb stated he is trying to find out when you have bad situation, what is the penalty imposed to make a person abide by the Code. Mr. Fischer explained at first it is a friendly approach. As long as there is conversation between two parties, usually things will progress slowly. If conversation ceases or work ceases, there is no progress. Then they shift from the friendly part of Code Enforcement to the unfriendly part. City Manager Hooper explained There has been a fine of $250 at making graduated fines for explained Titusville went thr instead of using a lien, they pay a fine to get it out. He what they have been doing lately. normal number but they are looking a lot of these smaller amounts. He Dugh and created an ordinance where will use towing. People have to is currently looking into this. Mr. Aloise asked how the codes are enforced. Is it by complaint only or onsite as Code Enforcement Officer sees it. Mr. Fischer stated in the real world it's both. You should have observations and phone calls. When Code Enforcement actions become retalitory towards a neighbor, you get more phone calls. Some cities go to the extreme and say they want a signed complaint because people wanting to know who turned them in. A few years ago in Edgewater you had to come in and sign a complaint against violator before they would act. Years later the Code Enforcement Officer could ride down the street and see it and they would receive a summons to the next Code Board meeting. City Manager Hooper explained it is about 50/50. They have two officers now. They are trying now to make response to the complaints and actual patrols. He doesn't know if they are at 50/50 but they are headed towards there. Number of complaints issued coming from the patrols verses what calls in and complains. Page -8- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Mr. McKay spoke about a Code Enforcement issue he has experienced in Edgewater. It went from friendly to white paper with him in five minutes. The issue was junked and abandoned vehicle and what constituted this was a license tag. He proposed to get the City out of that gray area. He felt city in untenable position to require him to have a license tag on the car and he argued his point effectively to the Code Board. They ruled in his favor. There are a lot of derelict vehicles around the City. It seems as though nothing is ever done but enforcement was right there on his two Corvettes. He thinks the unequal enforcement issue comes into play with regard to signed complaints verses anonymous. He asked what CC means. He was informed concerned citizen. Mr. McKay thought it meant chronic complainer. He has put together pages together to try to alleviate that situation. He feels the Code Enforcement Officer on the property should know what is or what isn't fair. They have an opportunity to articulate ordinances that are fair to the citizens of Edgewater as well as giving Code Enforcement provision for the teeth they need to clean this city up. Mr. Anderson asked what kind of fence the 6' fence would be. City Manager Hooper explained at the time it was opaque so you couldn't see through it. It was supposed to be something to screen an R.V. or boat. Mr. Bailot asked City Manager Hooper when he suggested the 6' fence, was he saying let's do away with motor homes, big boats, and trailers. You can't hide anything behind a 6' fence. City Manager Hooper stated his personal view is if you are going to have a residence, there is a size limit that he thinks ought to be on that house that you can bring home a boat of a certain size and certain height. Anything more than 6' high shouldn't be there. It was getting to the point of looking at all the rules. The rules were coming down to the fact of having control and there being a cut off. Mr. Bailot stated it made reference somewhere it could be up to 35 feet but then they say it will be behind a fence. He doesn't know of anything that is 35 feet that you can hide behind a 6' fence. Why is stipulation in there? Chairman Card stated City Manager Hooper's intent was to do away with them. Mr. Loeffler disagrees with the 6' high. He feels if you can put a boat behind a house should go behind, if it can go on the side, put it on side. If all else falls, it should be able to sit in the driveway as long as it is not in the right -of- way or easement. Chairman Card stated they are 8:02 p.m. They still have to hear from City Manager Hooper and then they will move into a period of Old Business. Page -9- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 City Manager Hooper feels Mr. Fischer defined the problem clearly. Ms. Plaskett did same thing. They hired a consultant who looked into what surrounding cities and counties had. City Manager Hooper's role was to make one consistent code. City Manager Hooper stated they heard from the citizens. When they took this on the road they got a lot of feedback. Compromise is what we are looking for. He doesn't agree with the front yard scenario. Mr. Bailot feels the reason they didn't get a lot of feedback was because nobody knew exactly what was going on. City Manager Hooper stated they had a fair amount of turnout. Chairman Card asked how many people in Florida Shores are members of the association. He was informed there are 120 but only 24 showed up at the meeting. Chairman Card then asked how many people live in Florida Shores. Ms. Anderson stated there are 150 members of the Florida Shores Homeowners Association. City Manager Hooper stated approximately 6,000 people live in Florida Shores. Chairman Card stated they have to keep in mind that the Florida Shores Homeowners Association came forward to speak for 6,000 people with a membership of 150 with only 24 in attendance. Mr. Aloise asked how the information about the meetings sent out to the residents. City Manager Hooper stated they called the homeowners association. Ms. Plaskett stated it was in paper twice in the Observer and News Journal. City Manager Hooper stated usually they put it in the Shorelines, the City newsletter. Mr. Bailot asked if today's meeting was in the newspaper. Mr. Holland feels there are a lot of retirement communities or planned communities in Edgewater, that have when you go in you become a member of their association. Mr. Holland spoke about Florida Shores not being that restrictive and there really not being a need for a homeowner's association. Mr. Jenkins read a letter he received from a gentleman out of town. They feels the restrictions are too extreme. They travel from North Carolina to Florida by motor home. He is concerned that he was not aware of the changes until a neighbor read it in a newspaper and informed him of it. The gentleman's name was Charles Edwin Annas. City Manager Hooper asked Mr. Jenkins to give a copy to Deputy City Clerk Bloomer. Ms. Plaskett went to make a copy. Chairman Card asked City Manager Hooper if he had a chance to talk to the Council in regarding to guidance of this Committee. City Manager Hooper stated it would be coming directly back to City Council first. Chairman Card stated so their authority is to make recommendations directly to the City Council. Chairman Card asked if there was anything else and if he got any numbers. City Manager Hooper stated he is going to get the number of registrations for motor vehicles. Ms. Goins has asked for it. Page -10- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Chairman Card stated then they will know what the size is of this problem. He asked if they would be getting all the ifnormation in regard to the size of boats and registered trailers, R.V. trailers, and motor homes that are residents and registered in this City. They will still not know how many are like the individual from North Carolina. Chairman Card thank staff for the good background they got tonight. They now know where things came from, who and how it was brought forward and the reason. That gives them some idea to work from this point forward. OLD BUSINESS Attendance question to be brought to vote: 'Will attendance be considered as a prerequisite for voting on final recommendations ?' Chairman Card asked if there any objections to the question as it stands. Mr. Jenkins stated they need a percentage figure. Chairman Card asked to pass this first and then amend it. Or amend it now with some percentage. Mr. Ross made a motion that any member who does not attend a minimum of 70% of the meetings will not be permitted to vote on final draft as they present to City Council, second Mr. Holland. Mr. Anderson asked how many meetings they are going to have. He suggested getting a number and take from there. Mr. Ross stated they don't know how long it will take to do this. Mr. Anderson asked if this will wind up in December. City Manager Hooper stated they are looking at 12 to 15 meetings. Chairman Card spoke about the hours they have already put into this. The level of the expertise of the people that are here tonight is probably worth 35 to 50 per hour in the business world. They must come out of this with a result. He would like to think they can do this in 200 hours rather than 400 hours. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Ross - Land use attorney presentation and question Mr. Ross stated he contacted an attorney who specializes in land use. With two or three thoughts in mind, one wanting to be sure that they were proceeding in the right direction and doing things correctly, two being sure that if this Committee did not convince the City Council to provide relief as the code is written. If he is forced to move R.V. off property, he will pursue legal action against the City. If that fails, he will sell his property and move. He is here because of the ability of being able to keep his R.V. on his property in the rear yard. Page -11- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Mr. Ross stated in having investigated this further with Mark Hall, 124 Faulkner Street, New Smyrna Beach, he felt comfortable that he could represent Committee. His feeling is this Committee is not in need of his advice. He feels the Committee is quite capable of reaching a decision. He doesn't see a need to engage this man at this point. His rates are $175 per hour. He is not recommending they talk to him. He also has a $500 retainer. He doesn't feel they need this at this point. Mr. Sylvester - Arrive at a decision for the full or split group to study separate questions of the three sections of the Land Development Code to be reviewed. Chairman Card stated they can start with a motion. It would move things along. Mr. Sylvester moved to make decisions as a group, second Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Ross agreed with Mr. Heeb that they should do this item by item rather than trying to intermix them. He thinks there needs to be consideration given to combining Sections 21.34.04 and 21.34.05 with regard to abandoned and inoperable vehicles and restoration. He feels they can better serve the needs of this community if they incorporate those two sections together. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Heeb - Old and new code review Mr. Ross feels they need to put a limit on what they are saying. Chairman Card requested that they attempt to limit the discussion and questions to three minutes or less. Mr. Heeb stated most of the discussion relative to the old and new has occurred. He feels they should decide how they are going to break areas down. He suggested breaking it into five areas, boats and trailers, R.V.'s and campers, restoration of vehicles, business vehicles and canopies. He would like to see the Committee sit down and say how are they going to deal with boats and trailers in Edgewater. Someone on a corner lot has a different set of problems. He recommended they divide their tasks into those five areas and proceed starting with boats and move forward. Mr. Jenkins feels they should have keep boats and R.V.'s together because if they decide something for boats, they will also have to for R.V.'s as well. Mr. Heeb stated he doesn't own a camper or boat or anything. It seems there are some issues relative to problems in the neighborhood that are different for boats than R.V.'s. He feels they need to address all the problems. Mr. Jenkins feels even though you have different problems, some problems are the same. He feels you can't lock yourself into one without considering the other one at the time. Page -12- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Chairman Card feels they need to address it and come to some conclusion, not necessarily vote on it and at some point look at as whole. Mr. Aloise spoke about some people have R.V.s and some have boats with canopies over them. He suggested overlapping them with two different categories. Mr. Heeb feels canopies are a separate issue. The point of the matter is to get direction they need to get all of them focused on one thing. In order for them to move forward, they have to focus. Focus on boats and trailer and get most of problems resolved. Then focus on R.V.'s and campers and so on. Mr. Aloise feels they should work out the small details later. Mr. Heeb would like to get everyone to focus on one thing so they don't lose sense of direction. He thinks the group will be surprised at how quickly they get together and solve the problem as long as they stay focused. Mr. Jarrett suggested starting with the easier topics first to learn process and everyone get involved. He suggested using a process of elimination for the harder topics. Mr. Bailot suggested sitting down and writing ordinance between now and next meeting. Then they might get an idea of where they are going. He suggested writing one for each subject how they would want to see it written. Chairman Card stated they could, revert to a period in new business and make a decision if they feel they are to that point this evening. He suggested laying something out if they felt the majority of the people would go along with it the way Mr. Heeb laid it out. They could revert to a period in New Business and ask him to restate it in the form of motion and then vote on it. Mr. McKay thinks they should do that. He likes Mr. Jarrett's idea to start with the easier issues first. Mr. Jenkins feels the canopies will be the worst issue because of tie downs. This will be more complicated than boats and campers. Mr. Fischer stated they are all going to be tough. Mr. Fischer referred the Committee to Page 1392 of old code. It covers Section 18.3 and Section 18.4. He suggested they apply this to everything they see to determine if something is a violation or not. Mr. Jones spoke about starting out with what they are going to do and they end up discussing how they are going to do it. They are discussing old and new code review. He feels they need to take input and massage it into a new document altogether. Chairman Card asked Mr. Heeb to respond. Mr. Heeb doesn't suggest using the old code as a guide. They need to come up with a solution. What kind of code do they want to deal with these issues? Mr. Jones suggested a brainstorming session. Chairman Card thinks they have a consensus this point. Mr. Ross doesn't disagree wit he feels they need to go around the table. decide how to do this next week. He feels to set procedures on how they are going to agreed with Mr. Ross. Page -13- for a majority vote at h Mr. Heeb's ideas but He suggested they they don't have time do this. Mr. Anderson Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Chairman Card asked for a straw vote. All those in favor of moving to a period of new business. There were none. He asked for a straw vote of all those in favor of going one person around the room for ideas and then making proposal. All in favor. Mr. Heeb stated he has said his peace. Mr. Sylvester stated he thinks Mr. Heeb is describing a structure to keep them in focus with a step by step procedure to let them solve each of the problems. He feels they should outline the problems and take one step at a time. Mr. Madewell concurred. He also feels they need to take each item one at a time. He doesn't feel any of them are going to be easy. Mr. Blum agreed with Mr. Heeb. He also feels they should discuss one topic at a time. Mr. Jenkins also agreed but feels they need to keep in mind they will have to merge some of the overlapping issues, even restoration and refer to the boats as well as the cars. He feels they should take them in the order they exist. Mr. Anderson stated some of them may want to address the whole problem together instead of breaking up into individual issues. Mr. Aloise concurred with a one -on -one basis. Mr. Holland stated everyone has their own personal interest. He has been looking into buying storage units. He is in favor of Mr. Heeb's proposal. Mr. McKay stated he was ready to vote ten minutes ago. Mr. Jones agreed with Mr. Heeb. Mr. Jarrett also feels they should be broken down individually and he feels there are some easy issues. Mr. Bailot was ready to vote. Ms. Donahue stated they are here for the City, not for their own individual ideas. Feels one thing at a time. Mr. Loeffler one problem at a time. Mr. Ross agreed with Mr. Heeb that they should talk about the items individually. He is concerned there are many inter - lapping issues between various sections. If they are going to talk about what they are going to do with a junked car or a junked boat or a 33 foot motor home or 26 foot boat, they need to be sure what they are saying about individual items doesn't get locked out from consideration when they get to these other sections. He feels canopies have a great impact on a lot of things beside someone covering up junk. He also feels the issues are separate but they are not separate. He feels they could combine junk and restoration in one. Mr. Heeb made a motion to divide the issues into five areas: boats and boat trailers, R.V.'s, motor homes, campers, etc, junk cars and restoration vehicles, business vehicles on residential property, and canopies, second by Mr. Aloise who included they address the items one at a time. Mr. Heeb included at the end they will come back and take look at the total package to make sure it is consistent. Mr. Ross stated when they vote on these items, he wants it understood that they are not voting this is what they think the Code should read. This is a recommendation that they take it to a Code format in the format as given to them by City Council to follow. They are not rewriting the Code in five separate items. Page -14- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 City Manager Hooper commercial vehicles in residential areas is not one of areas they took out of the Code. Mr. Heeb amended his motion to include four areas. Mr. Ross asked where trailers fit into the scenario. Mr. Heeb feels they should include utility trailers with boat trailers. Mr. Ross disagreed. Mr. Heeb had no problem making it a separate item. He amended his motion to make the fourth item, instead of business vehicles, make it utility trailers and other trailers, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Ross explained they are trailers not otherwise covered by the Code. Mr. Madewell stated as they take each individual item, they will do what they need to do but at the end go back and apply it with the one to four. Chairman Card stated that was part of Mr. Heeb's motion. He amended his motion and made it a part of his amended motion. Mr. Jenkins feels they could also consider what he calls major and minor by size. Chairman Card stated as part of their discussion they have agreed to look at it that way. There was no further discussion. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. Mr. Jenkins - Staff presented specific problems that were brought up to the Council and Staff that will affect the decisions and recommendations. Review specific comments from previous meetings with the public conduction by the staff. Mr. Jenkins stated this has been taken care of but he would like to bring up another issue with regard to their schedule. Chairman Card asked him to do that under setting the next agenda. Mr. McKay - Questions of restoration concerns Mr. McKay stated he couldn't bring up his item due to time restraints tonight. Chairman Card based on the fact they have now laid this out to when they will be going through these one at a time. He asked Mr. McKay if he would prefer to discuss this at this the start of next meeting so he will be able to give them any background they might need. Mr. McKay stated he would bring it up when they discuss it. Set next agenda and administrative items that remain Mr. Jenkins talked about Committee's meeting schedule. He has a problem with the last Thursday of the month. He proposed that instead of meeting in two weeks again, they meet on August 10 th . Chairman Card asked if that puts them on the Thursday of Thanksgiving. Chairman Card asked for a consensus to do this. Mr. Ross stated he has no problem. Chairman Card asked if there were other concerns in regard to this. Mr. Sylvester would like to see a date breakdown. Mr. Jenkins listed the meeting as being August 10 August 24 September 7 th & 21 October 5 th & 19 th ' November 2 " November 16 November 30 December 14 This took care of the Thanksgiving problem. Page -15- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Mr. McKay stated August 24 he won't be here as long as they are not discussing restoration. It was the consensus of the Committee to change their schedule. Mr. Bailot feels they should start at the top of the list made by Mr. Heeb and that could be their agenda each week. Chairman Card stated one of the questions they need to discuss early is do they want to put this in The ShoreLines. The bottom line is they have to sell this to the Council. Mr. Ross feels they should suggest the City newspapers issue the dates and an invitation for the public to attend. Chairman Card agreed. His concern was they have been asked by the Council to inquire with regards to the ShoreLines, in a questionnaire. They have to make a decision as to whether they are going to do that. He feels they should put this on the next agenda. Mr. Jenkins stated he thought they agreed at the last meeting it was going to go into The ShoreLines for public input. He is not sure they were pushing for the questionnaire. Mr. Ross one at last meeting that said don't waste tie doing it. Mr. Jenkins his only concern would be that they are going to have survey, and to keep it fair they have to have a way to know people aren't duplicating responses. Chairman Card feels the signature is best way to do that. Chairman Card asked for a straw vote to put this in The ShoreLines. No one was in favor of this. He wants to make sure s they are publicizing this in such a way that they get all of the input. Mr. Anderson feels it is a good idea to get the questionnaire out. He would feel better if he knew there wouldn't be any monkey business, such as people filling out two questionnaires. City Manager Hooper suggested they are on track with the five areas. He feels the Committee should go through and discuss what they really want to do . That will be in time for the next ShoreLines. He suggested they do a short synopsis and hold a public meeting and let them come in and address the Committee. Mr. Jenkins feels a reason not to do the survey is because people will be responding and not have the information to respond properly. They will end up with a lot of lost time trying to figure out what to ask and what the responses mean. Mr. Madewell feels they have enough to talk about. Mr. Anderson asked how educated you would have to be to fill one of those out. Mr. Jenkins feels they have to know the issues. City Manager Hooper spoke about there being a problem in writing it. Chairman Card asked the Committee for a formal yeah or nay on the basis of will this group send a survey in The ShoreLines. Page -16- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000 Mr. Ross made a motion to not send the survey in The ShoreLines. He suggested they follow City Manager Hooper's suggestion and when they come to a point of consensus about major items that they do issue in The ShoreLines an invitation for the public to appear, hear the presentation and ask for comments at that time, second Mr. Bailot. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. Chairman Card informed the Committee they would be discussing boats and trailers on the next agenda. Mr. Heeb would like to assign some homework. Mr. Bailot made a recommendation that everyone study the material and come back with a recommended proposal. He would like to get everybody's ideas on floor. Maybe they can come up with a solution in one meeting. Chairman Card feels that is a good idea. He asked the Committee to please do that. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Ross moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page -17- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. July 20, 2000