Loading...
08-10-2000CITY OF EDGEWATER CITIZENS LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 10, 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, Dan Sylvester, J. Michael McKay, Elizabeth Donahue, Richard Jones, Ray Jarrett, Ferd Heeb, David Ross, Robert Blum, Mike Aloise, Burt Madewell, Dan Loeffler, Dan Holland, Paul Jenkins, Andy Anderson. Ed Bailot was excused. Don Sanders was absent. Also present were Planning Director Lynne Plaskett and Deputy City Clerk Lisa Bloomer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 6, 2000 Regular Meeting of July 20, 2000 Chairman Card informed the Committee they received copies of two sets of minutes. He entertained a motion for approval. They received the July 6 th minutes at the last meeting. Mr. Heeb so moved, second by Mr. McKay. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Chairman Card entertained a motion for approval. Mr. Holland had a correction on Page 7. There was a point he was bringing up when addressing Code Enforcement to the fact that they were doing something, bringing in new regulations on our citizens whereas Code Enforcement hasn't been able to keep up with the laws that are on the books right now. He thinks that was overlooked. It should be at the bottom. Down towards the bottom it has a question that Mr. Holland asked how many Code Enforcement Officers the City has full -time. There he thinks his point was overlooked. He would like this point in the record and in the minutes. Mr. Ross asked if corrections in the minutes will affect their final vote. He suggested if they do, they should be added. There was a discussion regarding whether the tape is what is being approved or the minutes. There was further discussion regarding if the tapes are available to the citizens, why do they IL have to provide a stenographer or reporter. Chairman Card entertained a motion for approval of the July 20 minutes. Mr. Ross approved them as recorded on the tape, second by Mr. Holland. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Card stated he would limit public comment to five minutes per person with no one on the Committee making a rebuttal. He would like to give everyone an opportunity to say what they would like to say and feel like they are not being intimidated. Mike Godfrey, G & G Marine Center, would like to see the Committee allow boats to be left on a person's property overnight due to the preparation time it takes to get ready. There was a discussion regarding the largest trailable boat on the market. It is generally 30 foot but there are a couple of 32 footers. The average size is generally 22 to 26 feet. There was a discussion regarding residents being able to keep their boats on their property during a long weekend or overnight. STAFF COMMENTS AND REPORTS City Manager Hooper was not present. Chairman Card asked if they had any numbers. Ms. Plaskett stated Mr. Hooper is out of town. Chairman Card asked to put it in the minutes that the Committee requests the number of R.V.'s, trailers, multi -use trailers, boats, boat registrations and trailers for Edgewater. Mr. Madewell rode up and down some of the streets in Florida Shores and presented the numbers of how many boats and R.V.'s he saw. There was a discussion regarding how Code Enforcement works. The Committee further discussed the officers not being able to go on private property to view a violation. Ms. Plaskett discussed setbacks and what they are. Chairman Card spoke about Code Enforcement complaints being 50/50, 50% complaints, 50% patrols. Page -2- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000 Mr. Ross expressed concern regarding definitions. Ms. Plaskett spoke about a Glitch Committee that will be looking for corrections. Mr. Ross feels that anything that affects the other parts of this code have to be looked at by this Committee or pointed out to City Council. He suggested the Committee look at the definitions and enforcements and see what this stuff means in total context. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to be discussed. NEW BUSINESS Presentation of proposals and discussion regarding the storage of boats and boat trailers in residential areas. Chairman Card spoke of coming up with a conceptualization of what they want this to do. At the last meeting the Committee agreed to break it into five areas. He would like the Committee to think about what they really want this Code to do. At the last meeting it was suggested that the members write their thoughts down. Mr. McKay would like to review all of the input from the Committee before he even thinks about voting on a firm proposal. Mr. Heeb spoke about coming to a consensus on line items. Chairman Card spoke about there being many similarities between proposals. Nothing they are doing this evening is final. Chairman Card read comments presented from Mr. Bailot, who could not be at this meeting. Mr. Jarrett stated he did something similar to what Mr. Madewell did and went over what he is proposing. He agreed with allowing people that are taking trips time for preparation. Mr. Jarrett went over his proposal. Mr. Jenkins feels as far as the issue of the differences in the front yards, he thinks if they stick to the issue of right -of -way even if they use what the actual property line is or a certain distance from the edge of a paved road as a safe amount of clearance. He feels this will cover every type of situation. Mr. Ross feels this issue needs to be addressed and the earlier the better. He feels there is going to be a major issue about whether they park anything in the front. Mr. Ross feels inoperable under Item (b) of Mr. Jarrett's proposal needs to be defined as well as side under Item (c). There was a discussion regarding the different sizes of front yards and what people will do if the only place they have is their front yard. Mr. Ross feels they should suggest to Council a grandfather clause for current people who would suffer a hardship from the new Code. Page -3- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000 Mr. Heeb stated every city that has addressed this issue has solved the problem by addressing size of the watercraft and trailers. He spoke about not being able to penalize someone who has an acre of ground by limiting the size boat they can have. He feels one of the major complaints in the City are from people who are neighbors to boat owners and when they are backing out of their driveway, they can't see around their R.V. or boat. He wants to be able to insure a limitation of those complaints by saying where they could put a boat or R.V. He suggested approaching it by describing an area on a piece of property where you could park a boat. He knows they have a consensus on requiring watercraft and watercraft trailers to be registered and licensed. Mr. Jenkins, Mr. McKay and Mr. Jones disagreed. Mr. Jenkins feels putting a tag or sticker on a boat doesn't change one thing from today or tomorrow about whether it is a health safety risk or not. What is the important criteria is whether it is a health and safety issue, and kept in a neat and orderly manner. He feels use should not be an issue so operable shouldn't be an issue. Mr. McKay referred to Page 4 of his proposal. His approach to this was to consider the ordinance and its enforcement with teeth. Code Enforcement could go on a call and know what their guidelines and parameters are. He read from page 4 of his proposal. He doesn't want to put the City in untenable position by stating a boat must run in order to keep it on the property. He also spoke about the health, safety, and welfare issue. How does this body legislate that a person has to have their boat registered when the only time they would intend to use it is in case of emergency. He has heard Florida Shores is low in center geographically and higher on perimeters and would be more susceptible to flooding than others. Mr. Jones feels the same way. There is no reason to have it registered if it is not going to be used. By proposing that requirement it is an unfair burden on people. There was a brief discussion regarding the cost to register a boat. Mr. Anderson feels if there is a current tag on a trailer and a boat is registered it is being used. Ms. Donahue questioned why someone would want a boat you can't use. Chairman Card said the Code person told him the problem boats we have are those that have a problem that are too costly to fix and they feel it is their boat and if they want to they will keep it on their property. Mr. Heeb explained he has approached it from what causes complaints in neighborhoods because someone owns a boat on a trailer. Those are going to be the people shouting. If they don't address the problem in the community of the problem boat with the problem neighbor and give Code Enforcement the ability to deal with that problem, they are wasting their time. Page -4- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000 Mr. Heeb feels if you block their view they are going to be upset. He feels this also needs to be addressed. He spoke about people that own boats backwashing their engines. He feels they need to come up with a time frame to run those engines. He feels they need to address the issues that are problems. If they go through these issues one at a time, they can come to a consensus. The first issue he proposed they address is are they going to require boats to be registered and trailers to be licensed. Mr. Ross feels they have to set a standard that will force people to take care of the problem. Chairman Card stated there is a proposal on the table. He has proposed that they agree to Items (a) & (b) tonight. They can make a motion to agree to Items a & b on Mr. Heeb's proposal. There was a discussion regarding whether residential repairs should exceed three months. Mr. Loeffler asked if the backwashing of engines should fall under the noise ordinance. He also asked if termites fall under a health issue. Chairman Card asked if they are in agreement of Item A of Mr. Heeb's proposal. Mr. Jenkins spoke about how the registration issue can work in reverse. He feels the issue should be health and safety and neat and orderly. Mr. Ross feels there is no health and safety issue. Mr. Anderson thinks anyone that owns a boat or R.V. or a house or has children or has responsibilities of any kind, has got to live up to them. If you've got a boat you can't keep up, you can't maintain it, and you can't fix it, you shouldn't have a boat. Mr. Jarrett made a motion to accept Items (a) & (b) of Mr. Heeb's proposal, second by Ms. Donahue. Mr. Ross has no problem with Item (a). He asked what is the definition of operable condition that the Code Enforcement Officer can enforce. If they can't enforce it without going to court, it should be stricken. Ms. Plaskett asked if there was a definition of inoperable in the Code. Chairman Card stated there is a motion on the floor that has been seconded. Mr. Holland stated he did not see a definition for inoperable. Ms. Plaskett stated it may not be in the definition section, it may be in a different portion of the Code. There was a discussion regarding what a validation sticker is. Page -5- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000 Mr. Ross feels they need to add except as stored in an enclosed garage. Mr. Jenkins feels if it is totally out of view, it shouldn't matter. Chairman Card stated it is apparent to him that at 8:20 they can not get the simplest piece of an agreement with this Committee. They have to move forward one step at a time. He asked if they should go to another proposal and start it. Ms. Plaskett informed him there is a motion on floor. Mr. Aloise spoke about the Code requiring a vehicle to be registered and in operable condition in order to be in your driveway or on your property. If it is in the garage with no valid tag or insurance, nobody knows it. Mr. Heeb stated City Manager Hooper made a statement that they have to look at this from a practicality view. He spoke about the Code Enforcement Officer using judgment. If they carve or etch in stone every detail, they will end up with the internal revenue code. He feels if you have a boat in a garage with no registration and trailer with no tag, it really isn't an issue. Mr. Ross made a motion that they make the statement except in an enclosed, unvisible area. Mr. McKay stated out of view. Chairman Card asked if there was an amendment to the motion. Mr. Ross suggested they include the statement accepting any boat out of view to anyone other than the property owner. Chairman Card stated the motion reads both the watercraft and watercraft trailers stored in a residential area shall have a current and valid boat registration and trailer license tag and to accept any boat and /or trailer out of view to anyone other than the property owner, second by Mr. Aloise. Ms. Donahue feels by using the wording out of view, it could be in your back yard. Chairman Card asked if there was any other discussion. On the amendment, all those in favor. The motion CARRIED 12 -3. Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Heeb and Mr. Jones voted NO. Chairman Card stated they have already approved the amended motion. Chairman Card asked all of those in favor of the motion, now amended, signify by saying I. The motion CARRIED 13 -2. Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Jones voted NO. Chairman Card stated they made their first move. He asked the Committee if they want to go to another one. Chairman Card asked if there are other things in Mr. Heeb's proposal that they agree too. Mr. Aloise suggested going item by item. Mr. Ross feels they should bypass Item (b) for the moment because he thinks there is a lot of conversation about operable and inoperable but he is not against it. Chairman Card asked if they can agree on Item (c). Mr. Jenkins feels this will be a long one. He suggested starting at the bottom with the easy ones. Page -6- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000 Chairman Card went to Item (h). Mr. Jenkins feels they could get Item (h) out of way. There was a brief discussion regarding guests hauling boats. Mr. Jones stated that doesn't involve guests. Mr. Jarrett stated he thinks this section includes R.V.'s and trailers. Chairman Card stated their discussion was supposed to be limited only to boats and trailers. They are not developing the actual language for the final draft. They are attempting to find things they have in common. Chairman Card asked if they have any problems with Item (h). Mr. Sylvester had a problem in a situation with a person who owns land next to house and stores boat there. He asked if this is still considered premises. Ms. Plaskett stated it depends if it is one parcel or not. She further explained they would probably look at it as one parcel. Mr. Sylvester recommended additional property owned by the resident and adjacent to residence is considered to be part of the premises for this purpose. Mr. Sylvester made a motion to amend it to state that. Mr. Ross feels they need to talk about how many they can have on a piece of property. Mr. Sylvester made a motion to modify what Mr. Heeb has written as Item H to include additional property owned by resident and adjacent to residence is considered to be part of premises for this purpose. Chairman Card stated the motion reads: the owner of watercraft or trailer must reside on the premises where item is stored or parked, additional property owned by resident and adjacent to residence is considered to be part of premises for this purpose, second by Mr. Holland. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Mr. Ross feels they need to find a way to place a limit on how many boats can be on a residence including the allowance of visitors for period of time. Mr. Jones suggested no more than three articles described in this section may be parked or stored on the residential premises. Ms. Donahue stated that as being Item I. Mr. Jenkins suggested leaving that for one of the last ones and get rid of the little ones. Chairman Card read Item G of Mr. Heeb's proposal. Mr. Heeb moved for approval, second by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jenkins feels for shrimpers and crabbers, six feet may be a little short. Mr. Heeb stated he was looking at the complaint factor. Mr. Ross suggested using 0 feet. He feels a man shouldn't bring a boat home full of shrimp. Mr. Jenkins suggested using five feet from the neighbor's property line. Mr. McKay suggested working on some verbiage, like they did with Item (a) so the neighbor doesn't have to smell it. Mr. Jenkins stated there is something in the new Code about obnoxious odors. Page -7- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000 Mr. Jarrett asked if they are accepting watercraft to be parked in the front yard. He questioned if they are passing that unknowingly. Chairman Card asked for an amendment. Mr. Ross amended the motion for Item 3 to be reworded to read: the watercraft should be kept clean and not be allowed to give off any obnoxious odors that can be smelled from beyond the owner's property line, second by Mr. Jarrett. Chairman Card asked if there was a second for the amendment, second by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson feels foot high grass is pretty high. Chairman Card informed him they were working on an amendment for Item 3. Chairman Card again read the motion. Mr. Holland made a motion to vote for the amendment, second by Mr. Ross. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Chairman Card asked if there was any other discussion in regard to the rest of section (g). Mr. Anderson feels a foot is too high for the grass. Mr. Anderson made a motion that he would like to see nothing more than 6 11 . There was some discussion regarding the grass height limit. Mr. Jenkins stated there is already existing language that uses 12" and that is pretty much standard in the City. He feels it would be considered unreasonable. The motion DIED due to the lack of a second. Mr. Ross made a motion to accept Item (1) as written, second by Mr. Sylvester. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Mr. Heeb feels they may be establishing a precedent. He would like to make a motion to amend this to say stored on residential property. Mr. Heeb read watercraft and watercraft trailers parked or stored on residential property shall meet reasonable standards of appearance and maintenance as follows, second by Mr. Ross with the amendment. Chairman Card stated the author of the motion can amend it without a vote. Mr. Ross pointed out they hadn't discussed Item 2. Mr. Jarrett feels road worthy should be inflated. Mr. Sylvester feels Item 2 implies watercraft is on trailer. Mr. Ross stated this says trailer tires, it says nothing about boats. He agreed with the suggestion of being inflated. Chairman Card stated the author has amended his motion to change the wording to watercraft trailer tires shall be inflated. Mr. Anderson suggested using the wording watercraft trailers, including tires, shall be road worthy. Mr. Anderson made a motion that a trailer should be road worthy, particularly the tires. The motion DIED due to the lack of a second. Mr. Ross stated when they get to junked or inoperable vehicles they will include boat trailers. This can be covered under inoperable vehicles. Page -8- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000 Mr. Madewell stated for clarification, road worthy has been removed from Article II. Chairman Card stated that was amended by author. Mr. Jenkins stated they still have to vote on the whole thing. Mr. Jones stated it states standards of appearance and maintenance but nothing in the following three items discusses maintenance. Mr. Jenkins feels number two and three do. Chairman Card asked if they are in agreement with Item G as amended by author and the group. Chairman Card read the motion. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Ms. Plaskett asked Mr. Heeb to include the word residential used property. We have some property that may be zoned commercial or industrial but is residentially used. They would be exempt and they would still have a problem. Mr. Heeb amended his original motion to insert the word residential or use between residential property, second by Mr. Jones. Mr. Ross would like to insert the word sole or primary residential use. Mr. Heeb amended his motion to insert primary in front of residential insert use in front of property. Ms. Plaskett explained they would be excluding people that have a house in a commercial or industrial district from these standards. That is not fair. Mr. Jenkins asked why they can't fall under standards for commercial or industrial districts they are in. Ms. Plaskett explained because they are using it as residential. Mr. Plaskett stated there are places on U.S. 1 and Park Avenue that are homes that are used as residential. Mr. Jenkins expressed concern with these people having to live by stricter residential rules than their neighbor next door who might be zoned commercial or industrial. Ms. Plaskett explained that is why she said primarily residential use. She feels everyone should be treated the same. Mr. McKay seconded the motion. Chairman Card read the amended language to be stored on primary residential use property. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Mr. Ross made a motion to accept Item (f) as written, second by Mr. McKay. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Mr. Jarrett made a motion to accept Item (e) with the city noise ordinance from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Chairman Card stated there is an amendment on the floor and asked for a second. Mr. Madewell seconded the motion. There was a discussion regarding 11 p.m. being too late. Chairman Card stated all those in favor of amending the hours to read before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m., signify by saying I. The motion CARRIED 12 -3. Chairman Card, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Heeb voted NO. Chairman Card entertained a motion for Item (e). Page -9- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000 Mr. Ross stated Ms. Plaskett made a statement that anywhere it says residential property it should be amended to read primary use as residential property. He suggested passing that as a blanket certificate amendment. Mr. Heeb made an amendment to the entire draft that residential property should read primary residential use property. Mr. Ross made a motion to accept Item (e) as amended, second by Mr. Madewell. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Heeb if he had trouble with the hours as a boat owner. Mr. Heeb explained he was trying to address the complaint of the non -boat owners in the City. There being no further business, the motion CARRIED 15 -1. Mr. Anderson voted NO. Chairman Card stated the time is 9:04 p.m. and asked the Committee if they would like to adjourn for the evening or continue down this page. Mr. Jones would like to see Item (d) moved to Item 4 under Item (g). Mr. Ross made a motion to agree to extend the meeting until 9:30 p.m., second by Mr. Loeffler. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Mr. Jones made a motion to move Item (d) to Item 4 under Item (g) Mr. Heeb explained his intent was to limit the levels of repairs and maintenance accomplished in the front or side yard of someone's house. Mr. Jarrett feels they should ask Mr. Godfrey what he considers routine repairs and maintenance. Chairman Card called a five - minute recess at 9:07 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:12 p.m. Chairman Card entertained a motion for anything they feel they can have agreement on. He entertained a motion on Item (d). Mr. Jarrett asked Mr. Godfrey to define what is routine for maintenance and repairs. He feels what may be routine to someone may not be to someone else. Mr. Godfrey explained what is routine on one brand motor may not be on another. He would say routine maintenance would be changing gear lubes and spark plugs and that kind of stuff. Chairman Card asked if that definition would be acceptable to 90% of the people. Mr. Jones agreed 100% and feels they should keep it limited to that. Chairman Card entertained a motion. Mr. Heeb commented why he has a problem with that. Page -10- 60 Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000 Mr. Jenkins spoke about someone pulling an engine in a driveway and taking it in the garage. He feels whether it is outboard or inboard there is still no ugliness without the motor on the boat and this doesn't change the appearance. He feels they should come up with something on major repairs that has to do with immobilizing a boat. He feels this has to be in black and white for the Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. Plaskett explained the Code Enforcement Officer would determine what is a minor routine repair outdoors verses major indoor repairs. Mr. Jones stated they have a Code Enforcement Board to resolve these kind of difficulties. Mr. Jenkins stated they also have a noise ordinance to deal with a lot of this. He feels they might be able to say they don't really need this. Mr. Jenkins made a motion to eliminate this and let it be covered under the other sections, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Anderson agreed with routine repairs and maintenance being performed but he doesn't think they should be performed in the front of the house. Mr. Jones disagreed with what the proposal is. He feels it is important to keep it in there. The Code Enforcement Officer inspects and makes a report to the Board who in turn resolves the difficulties. Mr. Ross doesn't agree with putting work routine in the code. It is not the Code Enforcement Officers position to make an interpretation of codes, they enforce codes. When they have to interpret one, the Attorney will advise they don't have the authority. His opinion is if you put the word routine in here it can never be enforced. Mr. Jarrett asked if this would fall under similar guidelines with automobiles. Ms. Plaskett explained this is more specific with vehicles than boats. Mr. McKay stated they still have a motion on the floor. The motion CARRIED 11 -4. Mr. Jones, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Heeb, and Chairman Card voted NO. Mr. Ross feels repairs need to be addressed. Chairman Card suggested that since it is probable that there will be some concern about Item (c) and that they have seven minutes left to set next agenda and any administrative concerns they may have about the Chair's position, that they do so. OPEN DISCUSSION Administrative items and set agenda for August 24 meeting Chairman Card stated the agenda was set previously. He suggested they finish this evening's discussion first as part of Old Business and address R.V.'s and motor homes. The Committee agreed without objection. Page -11- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000 Mr. Heeb stated he would like to make a recommendation on R.V.'s and mobile trailers. He spent a lot of time addressing boats and boat trailers. He has no knowledge of R.V.'s. He feels they should have volunteers who will draft the issues. Mr. McKay feels this is an excellent idea. Mr. Ross, Mr. Jenkins and Chairman Card volunteered. Mr. Ross feels everybody should submit their comments and suggestions. There was further discussion regarding anyone being able to present their suggestions. Mr. McKay agreed the people most interested should try to articulate that. Those people who don't want to address the issue specifically but have items on the agenda that are going to concern them should articulate their specific views. Mr. Ross feels the first thing that needs to happen irregardless of these minor issues, is time for them to settle the question about where they are going to recommend to Council these boats and boat trailers will be stored. He feels they should address this right away. Chairman Card feels Item (c) will do that. Chairman Card asked if there is any concern with the way he is running the meeting. Mr. Anderson feels when the outlines are submitted the name of the author should be at top so they know who wrote them. Mr. Madewell asked if the meeting night would be every second Thursday from now on. Chairman Card informed him that is correct. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Sylvester moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page -12- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 10, 2000