Loading...
08-24-2000CITY OF EDGEWATER CITIZENS LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2000 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER 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, Paul Jenkins, Robert Blum, Burt Madewell, Ray Jarrett, Elizabeth Donahue, Andy Anderson, Dan Loeffler, Ferd Heeb, Richard Jones, Dave Ross, Ed Bailot, and Dan Holland. Don Sanders and Mike Aloise were absent. J. Michael McKay was excused. Also present was Deputy City Clerk Lisa Bloomer. City Manager Kenneth Hooper arrived at 7:20 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000 Chairman Card stated they received the minutes at their desks today. The Clerks office this time of year is swamped. It is difficult to get them done early enough to distribute them. Chairman Card entertained a motion to waive the approval of the minutes until the next meeting. Mr. Holland so moved, second by Mr. Jenkins. The motion CARRIED 14 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Card stated public comment will be limited to five minutes or less and for the Committee not to ask questions unless they ask. Bob Labiak, 2005 the Committee to these folks at a had heard rumors Cameron's. They there and would S. Riverside Drive, Riverview Landings, asked consider the impact they could make on some of small place with a boat out there. They have of what may happen. He is also speaking for are concerned with parking of the vehicles out like to continue doing business here. Mr. Holland asked how many boats are stored at Cameron's and the adjacent property. Mr. Labiak explained it depends on how you defined stored. Because of the salt water they can't leave them in all the time. Mr. Holland asked at any given time how many boats are on the property. Mr. Labiak informed him three to four on their property. Cameron's has about nine. Mr. Holland asked if they had trailers also. Mr. Labiak informed him yes. Chairman Card asked if they are a commercial establishment. He stated this Committee has been charged to deal with boats, trailers, R.V.'s, etc., stored on property in residential areas. Mr. Labiak stated he is in a residential area. Mr. Ross stated on residential property. Mr. Holland stated he is looking at the number of how many people are already using commercial establishments for their boats to see what the impact will be on the community. He feels they have gotten good input from two commercial establishments. STAFF COMMENTS AND REPORTS There were no reports at this time. Chairman Card stated he received communications from City Manager Hooper's office that states that the Motor Vehicle Registration and Boat registration people have not been able to bring that information forward. They do not keep the information by City or zip code. They do it by County in Tallahassee. They can't get the information they need to determine the impact in this community. Our own estimates are as good as it is going to get. Mr. Ross made a motion to hear staff comments at a later date if staff is available at a later time tonight, second by Mr. Sylvester. The motion CARRIED 14 -0. Chairman Card stated he did some checking in regard to how motions can be amended. Motions can be amended by their author without a vote. They did that last week on several occasions. If the amendment comes from someone other than the author, they have to vote on it. The motion will be made, somebody from the floor will be recognized other than the author of the motion, and present the amendment. If the amendment has a second, there will be a period of discussion of the amendment. They will vote on the amendment first and come back to the amended original motion and vote on it as a whole. OLD BUSINESS Discussion of proposals on boats and boat trailer storage in residential areas Chairman Card referred to Item (c) of Mr. Heeb's proposal. Mr. Heeb stated he redid it and tried to rephrase the wording in sections where they had motions that were agreed on by the Committee. Page -2- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Heeb pointed out the corrections he made. They agreed to change residential areas to primary residential use areas or use property. They passed Section A by a vote of 12 -3, Section E passed by a vote of 12 -3, Section F, G & H were passed the way they were written. The open items on his proposal are Sections B, C, and D. Chairman Card stated they have currently had the first round of discussion on B and D and did not come to a conclusion last week. He thought it might be of value to do Item C first and then move on to the others for a second time around, if the Committee feels comfortable with that. There were no objections. Mr. Jones stated he took a slightly different position on Item C. His position is that they have one position. They have boats and trailers that can't be parked in the back yard or side yard. He feels under certain conditions there can be exceptions. He would like to approach this from that position. He proposed that everybody park their boat or trailer in the side or back yard. Then they will discuss the exceptions that can be made to that to accommodate the various configurations of property layouts. Mr.. Holland thinks right off the bat they are telling people anything from the front of your house you can't use except for cars. Mr. Madewell agreed with Mr. Holland. He believes and it is his personal view that every homeowner's right is to park in the front as long as it does not protrude into the right -of -way. Mr. Sylvester agreed. He feels boats should be allowed as long as they don't infringe on rights -of -way or neighboring property. Ms. Donahue stated nobody is bringing up the size of the boats and trailers. As long as it doesn't infringe, it can be any size? Mr. Holland feels they need to leave out the front and they should be on the side or the back. That is not going to fly. He feels if they bring it to the front that is when they have to start working on the restrictions. He feels you can't take away the homeowners right to have something on the front or side of their property. Ms. Donahue stated some people have no way of getting what they have into their back yards, therefore they would have to park it in the front. Chairman Card stated as long as it doesn't go beyond that. If you want to make a length proposal of some sort you ought to do that Elizabeth. She agreed with 26 feet. Mr. Ross asked why. Ms. Donahue stated so there will be some room in the front. Chairman Card stated that would be against the law. Mr. Ross stated it is against the law to hang over the property line. Mr. Loeffler feels it is a safety issue. Mr. Anderson asked if you parked your boat in the front aren't you in the right -of -way. Chairman Card informed him no. They are talking about on the driveway or parallel to the driveway, perpendicular to road. There was a discussion regarding it being against the law to park in the right -of -way now. Page -3- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Chairman Card stated it is not a matter of what they build into this piece of legislation, it is a matter of getting those problems enforced. They have heard Councilman Vincenzi say he will require that this be enforced. They can come back to Council. What they are talking about here is attempting to get out of the 15 feet between the edge of the roadway and the start of your property. That is what they are trying to eliminate. That distance is different in different parts of the City. Mr. Ross agreed in principle that the property owner has quote unquote the right to park his boat in his front yard. This City Council has the right to take that right away from them whether they like it or not. It is a constitutional format that no court in the world is going to overturn. His vote tonight is if this Committee by majority says they want the right to park anything in the front yard up to the property line, he will vote for it but he doesn't think Council will approve of it. He has been listening politically to what has been said and it has been quite clear. There are certain things they are going to approve and not approve and these things are being talked about by people who have the right and ability to talk to individual Councilmembers that the Committee can't talk to. They are prohibited from finding out what the Council thinks. City Manager Hooper has told them what Council thinks. If they take a code before the Council that they won't approve they will be in worse shape then trying to find a modification to it. He is going to agree with a majority of the Committee tonight. He will disagree in principle that it will probably pass Council if they say it is fine to park anything in the front yard forever. He suggested they put limits on the front yard to the effect that if you have something in the side that projects beyond the front building line. If you can't keep it in the side or back you park it out front but it be grandfathered for period of time. His opinion is he thinks this will pass. Five years from now there will be a totally different City Council. He has watched municipalities go through grandfather clauses and keep putting it off. He suggested they grandfather front yard parking, if they can't go to the side or rear because he thinks this will pass. Mr. Heeb feels one of the biggest complaints people have about storing any kind of vehicle on their neighbors property is backing out of the driveway and not being able to see around a boat or R.V. to get out. That is why he wrote that they could not have any part of the boat or trailer in a corridor that reaches from the right -of -way line, property line five feet. Mr. Fischer told them some areas have a 15 foot right of way and some have a 10 foot right of way. In an area where it is 15 feet there will be a 20 foot corridor that will not have anything in it. A person backing out of their driveway will be able to see around a vehicle. Where there is a ten foot right of way they will have a 15 foot corridor. Page -4- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Heeb feels everybody that addresses this problem addresses the size of the personal property. He feels this penalizes somebody that has substantial property. He said Mr. Godfrey informed them it is extremely unusual for anybody to be trailing anything over 31 feet. The current code provides for a 26 foot boat in the front yard. He commented on how Mr. Fischer came up with 24 feet. He thinks if they set limits as to how much of the front area a boat can take up, a guy that has a square hole isn't going to put a round peg in it. If you have a 25 foot yard, the largest boat you could park in front of the house would be a 16 foot boat. He feels this is reasonable. If they have a large piece of property they should have the right to park a boat where they want. Mr. Jones stated when he made the statement that no one will park except in the back or side he also included the fact that there would be extenuating circumstances. He read what he is proposing. Most of the properties in Florida Shores are at least 80 feet wide, some are 120 feet. A lot of the houses on this side of U.S. #1 are not that big. He stated he is making a statement as a position but then there are exceptions to that position. He feels his verbiage is very liberal and should be acceptable to most people. Mr. Jenkins mentioned you can't assume because one Councilmember out of five said they were going to do something that it is going to get done. It takes all five. There was some mention of what City Manager Hooper thinks that the Council is thinking. Having to do with parking in front yards he disagreed with the comments because he spoke to some Councilpeople before the Committee was put together. Their main concern is the right -of -way area itself, not as much the front yard or driveway. He feels the main concern of the Council is that they have the 15 foot from the road for people to see. The five foot extra that Mr. Heeb is wanting isn't necessarily restricting the person who has 30 foot. He feels in his proposal, Items A, B, C, and D solves all the problems. Mr. Jenkins feels they need to define front yard because there could be a problem with corner lots. There is some other language in the Code that is similar to this. He read Section B, C, and D of his first proposal, although he feels feasible may not be the best word to use in Section B. He feels fifteen feet is enough for visibility. If they were to put in the blank 15 feet from the road's edge, it would still allow a person that has fifteen foot in front of their house to not lose another five feet. The problem he sees with Mr. Jones proposal is they get into too many time frame limits and too many different restrictions that the Code Enforcement Officer has to deal with and the resident has to understand. Page -5- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Chairman Card read item (c) of Mr. Heeb's proposal. Mr. Heeb made a motion to adopt his wording for Section C. Mr. Holland spoke about the extra five foot corridor. If someone was pulling out directly next to an object you are going to need that area. He feels they would be taking away an extra five feet of the property owner's right to use his property. Mr. Sylvester agreed with Mr. Heeb's assessment of the five foot extra. He feels it would make Code Enforcement easier. The Code Enforcement Officer is allowed to go on the City's right -of -way without any difficulty if he has to do measuring or estimate how far a boat, trailer or R.V. is away from the edge of the road. Chairman Card feels there is an awful lot of green stuff that grows out there just in that five feet, just inside the fifteen foot line. If they are going to be fair about this they have to think about that too. He asked the Committee to keep in mind that if you get five feet beyond that, then you really have a lot of open area. He is neither speaking for or against the position. He feels it really does open the vision up. There is going to be a lot of vegetation that will block just as badly as a boat or boat trailer would. Mr. Jarrett questioned passing Item C separately from 1 and 2. This will be hard to do because of the phrase subject to the following exceptions. Chairman Card explained the proposal would be Item C including 1 and 2. Mr. Heeb stated this entire proposal hasn't been put into the form of a motion. They have been taking one section at a time. Mr. Jarrett stated when they are talking about the length of the boat is that the tongue to prop. He asked if it should go into this paragraph. Mr. Heeb stated the idea was not to have a length on the boat, but to have a length to the property. Mr. Jones feels subparagraph 2 is not required. Any time you have property it is an automatic to have something in our code saying you must have written permission to use somebody's property. Mr. Jones asked City Manager Hooper if he knew the standing legal position on that. City Manager Hooper explained you can't encroach on someone's property period. This neither hurts or helps that rule. Mr. Holland stated but with permission you can. Mr. Jenkins agreed with Mr. Holland. He was going to propose either they amend Mr. Heeb's or a counter proposal of his. The basics was to amend Mr. Heeb's C to use his A B C, and D and add number his two to it. Chairman Card stated there are two methods of doing that. Mr. Heeb can amend his own motion or Mr. Jenkins can propose an amendment to Mr. Heeb's motion. Mr. Jenkins commented on why he agreed with number two. He feels it should be in there that if they get permission from the property owner they can do it. Page -6- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Ross stated they still have B & D to discuss yet. He feels they need to talk about the number of boats and boat trailers allowed per residential property and feels it should be limited to one. He doesn't disagree with the suggestion that a neighbor allow you to park in his property if it is in the rear yard. He feels it should be limited to the front yard. If it is too big for the front yard you don't need it in your neighbor's yard. Mr. Jenkins stated he was talking about side yards. Mr. Ross agreed with the motion to incorporate at least B of Mr. Jenkins' proposal regarding putting it in the rear or side yard if you can't put it in the front yard. He feels it should be in the rear or side yard and he thinks the amendment to Mr. Heeb's proposal is a good idea. Mr. Loeffler stated if they do decide on one of these are they going to be responsible or expected to make exceptions or will exceptions be left up to Code Enforcement. Chairman Card stated he thinks at least one Councilmember has stated he wants a Code that is enforceable and simple and can in fact be enforced because he will demand that it be enforced. This leads him to believe he can demand it be enforced to the letter of the language they write. He assumed what they write here, if they don't leave language that allows some flexibility, it will be inflexible. It can be enforced that way if the Code Enforcement Officer chooses to do so. The biggest problem they have had is that people have said that it isn't being enforced now. Mr. Loeffler stated he read somewhere you will be allowed a maximum of three and questioned if they are going to stay with that. Chairman Card believes three was proposed. That is not currently the case. Mr. Jenkins feels the number issue should be handled separately. He questioned if utility trailers and small trailers should be limited as badly as the big stuff. Mr. Ross feels it needs to be addressed in this portion of the Code talking about boats and boat trailers. Mr. Jones stated he believes in Mr. Heeb's original submission of Item H. He feels it settled the problem Mr. Ross brought up. Mr. Bailot feels all exceptions such as access to the side or rear shall be addressed to the Code Enforcement Officer or the Board. Mr. Ross stated his belief is that the Code Enforcement Board has one responsibility to enforce a specific code, not make judgments about what the Code says. Mr. Bailot stated he has driven around quite a few times and seen different boats and motor homes encroaching on areas and there is no way to get them in the side or back. Mr. Ross stated the Committee needs to make the decision as to how that will be done, not the Code Board. Page -7- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Heeb doesn't think they need to get into how many boats and trailers a person can have on their property. He would like to see personal watercraft banned from the United States. They have to look at this City and its attractiveness and the lifestyle they have created in this area. He can't see them creating a document that will limit all of their lifestyles by setting rules cast in concrete that will have people saying you can't do that. He spoke about working with your neighbor and coming to an agreement. A lot of what Mr. Jenkins has said makes sense to him relative to setting the limits where you can put a boat in a front yard. He is trying to come up with something that is more measurable and more tolerable for people who don't own boats and trailer and who have neighbors that do to feel comfortable backing out of yards. Mr. Ross doesn't disagree. He doesn't think the objections to boats, R.V.'s or utility trailers parked in front yards if they are not encroaching on the property line is the issue. He feels the objection is people driving down street don't want to see anything other than a front yard. People don't like to see certain vehicles in the front property line. Those are the objections. Mr. Heeb feels a lot of people move to a neighborhood from a different environment and they retire and seek the lifestyle offered in Florida. They want to live in a very structured environment. This has happened in every community in Florida. They can not sit down and say they are going to change this City and make it a very structured city that everyone will conform to this. Mr. Ross stated the City Council can. He was the first one to tell the Council if they outlaw motor homes, he will sue. If he loses, he will move. He asked what.they can pass that the citizens of this community can live with. He feels they need to structure it within reason. Mr. Madewell stated the reason they are here as a Committee is they tried to pass this and the people were outraged because you can't go in and change it. He doesn't agree with the aspect that people are so against their trying to make changes. He doesn't feel they are going to put something in front of Council that is business as usual. They have had four or five meetings and not one public person is outspoken against what they are trying to do. He is not going to be intimidated by the Council. Mr. Ross suggested if there is some leeway that they can give Council to play with, they give it to them. Mr. Anderson concurred with Mr. Ross. He comes from a neighborhood in South Florida where anything goes. When they moved to Edgewater they assumed there were a lot of laws already in place in this town. He feels you have to take pride in where you live. People like to be able to drive down the street and look around and see a nice, neat neighborhood. Mr. Anderson stated he doesn't like to see stuff in the front of the house. He feels his house is beautiful and he feels they encourage other people in the neighborhood to keep their places nice. He goes out there with a weedeater and cuts city property due to it going month after month without being cut. He is not against boats, trailers, or R.V.'s. He feels most people don't own them and aren't interested in them. Ms. Donahue stated Mr. Madewell made mention of the people that were up in arms at the Council meeting but nobody is here now. Some people made the statement they moved here because this was an area where you could do whatever you want. When she moved here she went to City Hall to find out the codes. What is happening is people feel they can do whatever they want. If they let them do what they want, it is going to get worse. Chairman Card called for a ten - minute recess. He told the Committee to think about what kind of proposal somebody is going to make when they get back. They can do this for three meetings unless someone comes through with proposal. The meeting recessed at 8:05 p.m. and resumed at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Jarrett feels if the enforcement in the past had been different, they may not even be here tonight. He spoke about the quantities of the number of vehicles in most people's yards. Personally he thinks if they go with more than one motor home, boat, or R.V. that will run into problems with Council. He doesn't think this topic is probably going to dictate everything they are going to do from this point on. There is no sense pushing for a motion even if it takes another meeting. After they solve this one problem, the rest will go smooth. He suggested between now and the next meeting they take what they have talked about tonight and each person recompile again what they did at the first meeting. He thinks they are much closer to resolving this problem. He suggested they continue discussion and rewrite what they think are the views of everybody in here. Mr. Ross asked City Manager Hooper if they are allowed to write to the other members, a week ahead of time, their written proposals concerning the next meeting. City Manager Hooper stated yes but asked him to send it to Deputy City Clerk Bloomer and let her be the one to mail them out. It eliminates any Sunshine problems. Mr. Ross feels they need the time to read them and think about it. Mr. Heeb asked for a straw vote on whether they should write an ordinance that says boats may be parked in the front yard only if they can't be parked in the side yard or back yard. Mr. Jenkins stated that is in the existing ordinance now. Page -9- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Jenkins explained what his rationale is. He thinks the reason the in the driveway came up as proposed in the new one, is that even though the existing code prohibits it, there are so many people doing it that there is going to be a problem forcing people to go to the back yards. Who makes the decision if it is possible? He thinks they should encourage people to put it in the back or side. If they use the same language as it exists now and try to enforce it it is probably not going to be anymore successful. Mr. Heeb stated he is trying to get to a point of finding out where they stand and he feels the real issue is the front yard. The results of the straw vote were seven members agreed, seven disagreed. Mr. Heeb asked for another straw vote to break the impasse should they go along with what Mr. Jenkins said and use the word feasible. The results of the straw vote were three against it and eleven for it. Mr. Ross stated he doesn't disagree with the philosophy but he doesn't think it is the duty or responsibility or chore of government or a specific code regarding land use, to encourage people to do anything. You tell people what they can and can't do legally, reasonably and fairly. Mr. Ross doesn't feel it is the responsibility of this Committee. He feels they were not given the responsibility of Council to encourage citizens to do anything. They were asked to write a code regarding land use that could be enforced by the Code Enforcement officer. He doesn't think they need intangible abstract ideas written into a land use code. Mr. Jones asked if they were discussing the language or are they just going to try to put together words with limitations. Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Ross. Mr. Jenkins feels it gives flexibility in those situations based on how the yard and house are laid out. When a person can't get it in the back or side yard it is a clean cut draw and he says he is going to keep it in the front. Then there is the other situation that for feasibility and not trying to bother anybody else, it is more feasible to keep it in his driveway or along side his driveway than in the side or back yard. This leaves that flexibility where it is legal to put it in the front but the wording encourages people to put it in the back if they can. Mr. Sylvester disagreed with Mr. Jenkins. They already have a number of people who take advantage of the situation and park it wherever they want. If they just put the wording where it is possible or feasibility in the Code, they will ignore it and take advantage of it again. Unless there is something clear cut and decisive nobody is going to pay attention to it. Ms. Donahue feels if they allow putting it in the front they are going to come up against that 30 feet again. There is a little more leeway in the back and you can have something a little bigger. Page -10- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Jenkins stated you are still limited. In his proposal it says: If necessary to park in the front yard all restrictions in Section C must be met. Then you come back to the property line issue. You are still limited. He feels the old proposed code made it sound like the best way to put it first was in the driveway. Ms. Donahue also feels people will be taking advantage of it. Mr. Jenkins stated but you still have a property line that they can't take advantage of. City Manager Hooper stated what Mr. Jenkins is describing sounds good but it can't be enforced. The Code Enforcement Officers come back with what is feasible and that is nearly impossible. He feels they will have to deal with some concrete areas. He spoke about restricting it. If you can get to the back, you could put any size boat and allow a certain size in the side and front yards or a percentage of the driveway or some formula. He feels they are going to have to limit and give staff something that can be measured and touched. Chairman Card stated like the property line or property line plus five feet. Ms. Donahue stated there are some people who will not let you on their property so you can't enforce it anyway. City Manager Hooper stated since it is now in the Police Department, they can pretty much go on any property. Mr. Heeb stated for two years the people have studied the problem and it has been presented by the Community Development people and the Building Inspection people. They have gone out and talked to the public. If you take Section 21 -34.06 the way they recommended it to Council there are only two paragraphs in that section that really are objectionable, Item D and Item E. If Item E was modified and took what they said and took out a few things. It now reads: The items in Section A exceeding 24 feet in length and less than 6 feet in height shall be stored in the side or rear property behind the front dwelling line in a 6' enclosed opaque fence area or not visible from any abutting property or street. Nothing stored shall be visible above the height of the fence or wall. Mr. Heeb stated when he made his recommendation all he basically did was took out the limit on the size of the vehicle and made it a limit on the size of the property. He feels 90% of the homes in Edgewater would have a 16 foot boat or smaller in their front yard. He suggested taking out: All items described in Section H exceeding 24 feet in length or 6' in height that cannot meet Section D shall be parked or stored in a licensed storage facility. He feels if you can't get in the back, side or front yard within the limitations established in the ordinance, you either can't have it or park it somewhere else. Page -11- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Jarrett stated he has a Ford F150 and it is over 6' tall. Chairman Card stated some vans are also over 6' tall. Mr. Anderson thinks they have to be as firm and precise and exact as they can on the language, it can't be vague. If they are going to be vague they are going to create misunderstanding, confusion and arguments. Chairman Card stated they don't normally entertain public comment during a discussion like this but he asked for the Committee's position regarding someone from the public wanting to comment. There was no objection from the Committee. Larry Loeffler, Travelers Palm Drive, feels the measurement from the edge of the street is easier to figure out because a lot of people don't know where the line is. Chairman Card stated in Florida Shores the majority of them are 20 foot wide with 15 feet on each side so the whole thing is 50 feet. Some areas are 60 feet and some areas are 40 and 45. City Manager Hooper stated it varies quite a bit. Chairman Card stated in some areas 15 feet would work very easily from the edge of road. Mr. Heeb suggested making it 20 feet from the edge of the road. City Manager Hooper spoke about his property. If you measure 20 feet from the pavement, he is still in the city right- of -way. The right -of -way is encroached by 40 feet on the one side of Riverside Drive. He informed the Committee they have to look at the right -of -way line. Mr. Ross feels it behooves the property owner to know where the right -of -way line is. Mr. Sylvester asked City Manager Hooper if the City has any mechanism, if the a citizen requests the City mark their property line. City Manager Hooper informed him a surveyor usually comes out. Mr. Jenkins asked City Manager Hooper to look at Item D of his proposal. He stated usually the water meters are on the property line roughly. He was going to change his wording to: from the driven on edge of the road because then you can determine where the edge of the dirt road is and where the edge of the asphalt road is. He suggested using either /or. Either the property line or a minimum of 15 feet from the driven on edge of the road. Mr. Ross asked what dirt roads have a property line in the center of the road. Mr. Jenkins stated on a dirt road it is nearly impossible to figure out the center. You can go to the edge of the driven on area and say it is either the actual property line or a minimum of, whichever is greater. He feels this covers everything. City Manager Hooper thinks it is clear if it is the property line. There is no debate past that. Everybody will be able to find it. Mr. Jenkins mentioned some property lines being 10 foot from road. Chairman Card stated then you don't have that vision they are looking for to make it safe when people are backing out of their driveway. Page -12- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Heeb again suggested using the property line plus five feet. Mr. Jenkins feels it is very easy that if you know you want at least a 15 foot minimum from where cars drive, it would be easy for the Code Enforcement Officer to measure. Mr. Ross stated not on a dirt road. Chairman Card asked if there are any property lines less than ten feet. He took that back and asked are there any city road and restricted areas less than 40 feet. City Manager Hooper stated yes, on Riverside Drive on the east side the pavement is the property line and there is no setback from it. The edge of South Riverside Drive is someone's private property. Chairman Card asked what percentage of the property. City Manager Hooper informed him very small. Mr. Heeb feels they can't describe every piece of property in the City. That would be an issue he feels would go to the Code Enforcement Board who would decide. Mr. Madewell referred to Staff's Section 21- 34.06, Item C and stated it is referring to recreational vehicles, campers and watercraft. It states in Item C: The items described in Section A not exceeding 24 feet in length may be parked or stored in a driveway or immediately parallel to a driveway but not in the public right -of -way. His point is if the this was good enough to be proposed by the City Manager, right there it is what they are talking about on the driveway. Mr. Heeb feels instead of describing the vehicle, they should be describing the property. Mr. Madewell feels if it is good enough for City Manager Hooper, he doesn't think Council will have a problem with that. He doesn't agree with the 6' height or 24 feet. Mr. Holland concurred with Mr. Madewell. He referred back to Item C and feels the most important issue they are dealing with is not in the public right -of -way. He thinks adding the extra five feet corridor of air space is just taking more property away from the homeowner. The City has never mowed his ditch or cleaned pipes under his driveway. He feels a five foot corridor is excessive. Mr. Jenkins stated the actual property line right - of -way doesn't bother him at all except he is thinking about what Council will say about the visibility issue. He would prefer to use the actual property line. City Manager Hooper feels if someone has a boat that is at the property line and it is a safety hazard, it will apply in other areas of the Code. Chairman Card entertained an amended motion. Mr. Heeb made a motion to adopt his proposal, second by Mr. Sylvester. Mr. Sylvester proposed to amend the motion to eliminate Item (2), second by Mr. Jones. Chairman Card asked if there would be any objection to amending that on Mr. Heeb's part. Mr. Sylvester feels it is not needed because you can't violate someone else's property. There is another section they have already agreed on that it has to be stored on your premises. Mr. Ross stated it is in violation of Section A which they have already approved. Page -13- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Heeb stated it is already a violation except for putting in an exception for written permission from your neighbor. Mr. Ross asked Mr. Sylvester if he is making a motion to make an amendment, second by Mr. Ross. Mr. Jones agreed with the proposal because he feels they should not be interfering in people's lives to this level. The motion CARRIED 11 -3. Mr. Heeb, Mr. Jarrett, and Mr. Holland voted NO. Chairman Card asked if there was further discussion of the motion. Mr. Ross stated the motion being Item C which incorporates the first paragraph and Item 1 of Item C. Mr. Jenkins amended the motion to take his paragraph A, eliminate paragraph B. Chairman Card asked Mr. Jenkins to read his amendment. Mr. Jenkins stated that would be to substitute Mr. Heeb's C and paragraph one of the following: for the purpose of this section A the term front yard shall be defined as a section of yard between the dwelling and the street to which it is addressed. The next section would be B but would read like Section C. Mr. Jones asked for a point of order. He didn't know how they got to this point where they are using Mr. Heeb's as their model. He doesn't remember hearing anything saying they were going to use Mr. Heeb's model for everybody to modify or adjust to their needs. He asked what about the other 13 people here. Chairman Card stated it was suggested by Mr. Jenkins that they go from the bottom and go up to attempt to find things they could agree with in the last meeting. They were still doing that at the end of the meeting. At the end of the meeting there were three sections they had not done. They now have a motion on the floor and approved language. Mr. Jones again asked how did they get to Mr. Heeb's model. He feels it sounds like all the others are going to be ignored unless they go through every proposal. Chairman Card stated the way they got to it was in an attempt last week to find a consensus. He further explained Mr. Heeb suggested it and Mr. Jenkins agreed and stated they should start at the bottom. Mr. Heeb stated his was the most organized. Chairman Card stated it was suggested and then Mr. Jenkins made a suggestion to it and there were no objections from the Committee at the time. Mr. Jones stated he feels he covers things pretty well too. Chairman Card stated if he would like to put that in as a proposal he could propose that at any time in New Business. He informed him he could propose it now also because they are in discussion. Mr. Jarrett asked if they are still in the discussion stage. Chairman Card stated there is a motion on the floor. There was a point of order and a request for information. None of this is in iron at this point. Page -14- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Jenkins again read his motion to read if they were to take and substitute for Mr. Heeb's C the following: A for the purpose of this section the term front yard shall be defined as the section of yard between the dwelling and street to which it is addressed because he feels they need to define that. Eliminate B altogether. Section C the parking storage of any watercraft boat in the front yard shall be restricted to the driveway or immediately parallel to the driveway on the exterior side from the house or dwelling. Section D for visibility and safety purposes. They are going to eliminate D if they just go with the property line. He stated it would be to substitute A & C from his proposal for Mr. Heeb's C and (1), second by Mr. Holland. Mr. Sylvester stated with the exception of the reference to the exterior portion of driveway, he sees no reason to amend something but perhaps change the wording to include exterior. Other than that it's the same thing. Mr. Jenkins stated what he is trying to get at is the way Mr. Heeb's is worded the guy could put it in front of the house off the side of the driveway parallel. Mr. Sylvester stated if they add the word exterior like Mr. Jenkins did in his C to Mr. Heeb's C it is the same thing. Mr. Jenkins stated but that doesn't take care of his A getting in there. Mr. Sylvester stated A is a definition and doesn't know if it needs to be in there. Mr. Heeb asked Mr. Jenkins to read the entire motion with his amendment so everyone has a clear understanding. Mr. Heeb asked Mr. Jenkins to read the amended motion with what the amended text would be. Mr. Jenkins stated the amended text would be for the purpose of this section the term front yard shall be defined as the section of yard between the dwelling and the street to which it is addressed. The next paragraph would be the parking storage of any watercraft boat in the front yard shall be restricted to the driveway or immediately parallel to the driveway on the exterior side from the house. Then D would still need to be in there. For visibility and safety purposes all watercraft boats parked in the front yard area described in Section A above shall be kept out of that portion of the driveway or front yard that extends into the right -of -way, second by Mr. Holland. Chairman Card asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. Jarrett feels they need to stick with the property line in the wording. Mr. Jenkins stated they could add that in as an extra. Mr. Jenkins stated extending to the right -of -way property line or not beyond. Chairman Card asked what the proper terminology is. City Manager Hooper informed him property line. Chairman Card stated the city right -of -way is not the proper terminology. City Manager Hooper stated the city right -of -way is the road. The property line is on your side. Page -15- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Jenkins stated he was trying to get the point across to people that the property line is not at the road, it is set back further. Mr. Sylvester feels the term driveway is too restrictive. He feels it has to be that portion of the parking area that extends or the proposed parking area. Mr. Jenkins read Section D to read for visibility and safety purposes all watercraft and boats parked in the front yard area described in Section A above shall be kept inside the property line and not extending over the property line on that portion of the yard that is actually the City's right -of -way. Chairman Card asked Mr. Jenkins if he was amending his motion. Mr. Jenkins stated yes that was the amendment. Chairman Card asked Mr. Jenkins to read exactly how this thing reads. Mr. Jenkins stated they will substitute paragraph l: for the purpose of this section the term front yard shall be defined as the section of yard between the dwelling and the street to which it is addressed. Paragraph 2: the parking storage of any watercraft boat in the front yard shall be restricted to the driveway or immediately parallel to the driveway on the exterior side from the house. Paragraph 3: for visibility and safey purposes all watercraft boats parked in the front yard area described in Section A above shall be kept inside the property line and out of the portion extending over the property line which is actually the City's right -of -way. Mr. Jarrett stated looking at what Council has given them it is pretty short and precise. If they go into paragraphs and sub paragraphs, they are going to run into the same problems they are. He suggested they work from their proposal and change any wording in that. Mr. Anderson feels when he says it must be kept inside of the property line it should end there. He doesn't feel the language after that is necessary. Mr. Loeffler agreed. Mr. Ross stated regarding the visibility and safety purposes he feels it should read no boat or trailer shall be parked on or protrude into the public right -of -way. Mr. Ross feels number three is not necessary. Mr. Jenkins feels it is good to have it in there because this keeps someone from making the mistake of buying too big a boat. Mr. Ross stated it does not tell them what they can do in side and rear yards, it only tells them what they can do in the front yard. Mr. Jenkins stated they need to add one more thing, that it doesn't define the property line issue on the back and side. That is something they will take care of when they do the final wording. Mr. Holland seconded the amended motion. Chairman Card stated the motion was seconded before he amended his own motion. The motion FAILED 8 -6. Page -16- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Chairman Card stated the time is 9:03 p.m. Mr. Heeb informed Mr. Jones this is his opportunity to amend the motion on the table with his ideas. The whole purpose was to get the discussion going. Mr. Jones stated he has nothing to say right now. He stated City Manager Hooper needs a document with some muscle and leverage that they can rely on that will pass all inspections. He feels they are beating a dead horse. Mr. Sylvester made a motion to extend the meeting until 9:30 p.m., second by Mr. Ross. The motion CARRIED 14 -0. City Manager Hooper stated the way to maybe simplify, if the Committee can come to an agreement on certain points, they are pretty good language crafters. He could come back and put a language in front of them. It doesn't mean they have to accept it. If they come to an agreement on points they are trying to do. His understanding of Mr. Jenkins is in the front yard and a definition of that. He can bring those back and the Committee can work on that. He feels they are going to burn a lot of time doing word crafting. He doesn't have a problem doing that. Sooner or later that will have to happen. His intent is what he wants to get done. He and the Attorney will make sure it is in legal format. Chairman Card stated that was the start of the discussion Mr. Heeb brought forward originally. He stated he is open for anything from the floor. Mr. Loeffler thinks they should go back and define what they consider front yard, side yard, and back yard. He has no problem with Mr. Heeb's proposal except for the 5 feet back from the City line. He feels it should be to the property line as long as it is out of the right -of -way. Mr. Heeb suggested he make a motion to amend it to take the five feet corridor out. Mr. Loeffler so moved using Mr. Heeb's language except the five feet. Mr. Loeffler read no watercraft trailers or any parts therefore may be resting on or occupying the airspace past the property line, second by Mr. Holland. Mr. Ross stated this is already covered in the existing City code. He was not aware regarding boats, campers and trailers the City passed part of Section 21 -34.06 which prohibits any of these items projecting over the City right -of -way or property line. Mr. Loeffler feels they should just eliminate it. Mr. Jenkins suggesting putting a referral to the other code. Mr. Ross stated it would be part of this. Mr. Jenkins feels they should keep everything together. Mr. Ross again stated it is the same code and the same section. They are separating it for discussion purposes. Mr. Jarrett suggested they regroup and type out what they have already approved because it seems to be getting out of hand and confusing as to where they are going. Page -17- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Chairman Card stated he thinks the introduction of the additional code has confused a lot of people. Mr. Ross stated there were several items agreed to as a proposed code at the last meeting. He requested that someone take that out of these minutes, the items proposed by the Committee and list them. Chairman Card believes Mr. Heeb brought that forward this evening with a new proposal. Mr. Ross again suggested the minutes list the items. Chairman Card explained the minutes are supposed to be a synopsis of the meeting. Mr. Ross stated there were certain issues that were not addressed last week and they are not all addressed here. He thinks they need to itemize those issues and come back next week and put their ideas together. He feels they need to talk about what items they have not agreed on. Mr. Holland feels they should work on this one thing. Mr. Ross asked Mr. Holland to define one issue. Mr. Holland stated paragraph C of Mr. Heeb's proposal. He doesn't want them to divert their attention to what they have been working on. Mr. Bailot stated City Manager Hooper is going to take the verbiage and put it together to make it sound right. Chairman Card stated they have eliminated number two. Everything else is as it stands. They still haven't voted on the proposal with the amendments. Chairman Card stated the current amendment is eliminating five feet. The motion CARRIED 13 -1. Mr. Heeb voted NO. Mr. Heeb rephrased the motion as now amended. Watercraft and watercraft trailers may be parked or stored in a driveway immediately parallel to the driveway along the side of a house or in the back yard subject to the following exceptions: No watercraft or watercraft trailer or any part thereof may rest on or occupy air space past the property line. Mr. Ross stated that is already prohibited by Code. Mr. Jarrett asked what comes into play as far as people that can park it in the back or side of the house. Mr. Jenkins stated they can put it anywhere they want. Chairman Card stated it basically says anywhere they want except any watercraft or watercraft trailer or part thereof may rest or occupy airspace past the property line. Mr. Ross feels this is unnecessary because it is already prohibited in the existing Code. Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Heeb if he would be willing to amend that by adding Mr. Jenkins Section A, the definition of front yard. City Manager Hooper suggested putting that in under definitions. It was the consensus of the Committee to do this. Mr. Anderson stated Section 1(c) is saying that the five foot corridor would be eliminated. Chairman Card informed him that is correct. Mr. Madewell stated it has already been done. Chairman Card stated the language has been modified and that has been eliminated. There was no further discussion. The motion CARRIED 13 -1. Mr. Anderson voted NO. Page -18- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Chairman Card stated they still have two items to discuss if they want to do so. Otherwise they can revert to a period of administration and what they are going to do the next time. Mr. Bailot made a motion to save the other two items until the next meeting, second Mr. Madewell. The motion CARRIED 14 -0. NEW BUSINESS Dis cussion of the storage of R V 's motor homes and campers in residential areas This item will be discussed at the September 7 th meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS Se next agenda (September 7) and any administrative items that remain Chairman Card stated they will discuss the last two paragraphs of Mr. Heeb's proposal and move on to a period of new business discussion regarding R.V.'s, etc. Everyone was in agreement. Mr. Jenkins asked if the last two paragraphs were B & D. Chairman Card informed him yes. City Manager Hooper stated when they convene at the next meeting he will take this and put it with the Code adopted and hand out where they are today. He will underline what they will discuss next week and mail it out so everyone has it in advance. Mr. Loeffler asked for Page 17 of July 20 meeting. Mr. Madewell stated reverting back to City Manager Hooper's proposal, it is cut, dry and simple. He is urging everybody not to make as big an issue out of this as it seems to be. They can change what they don't like. Mr. Ross stated they need to remember what they are doing now is not the code they are proposing to City Council. They are agreeing upon the principles of the items that are going to make up that code. That was discussed at the very first meeting. They are agreeing on the principles, not the verbiage. Mr. Jenkins stated Section C that they just worked on of Mr. Heeb's is actually C, D, and E of the proposal. Chairman Card asked for further comment. Mr. Ross feels numbers need to be addressed. It was mentioned in the original proposal as three total of these three items. He feels they need to think about this. Mr. Jenkins stated in addition he would like everybody to consider major and minor when considering the number issue. He spoke about jet skis, a small trailer or a utility trailer. They don't want to restrict a person for something small by putting a blank number out there. Page -19- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000 Mr. Heeb feels they should restrict the number allowed in the front yard. Chairman Card stated the City will do whatever they ask them to do with regard to supporting them on language. What they provide is what will be carried forward to City Council. Mr. Loeffler feels they will reword it. Chairman Card stated what they provide should be in a finished format. They will provide the Committee support to do that. City Manager Hooper stated he is going to rewrite the work. They are going to have to approve it before it leaves this Committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Madewell moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page -20- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. August 24, 2000