Loading...
09-21-2000CITY OF EDGEWATER CITIZENS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 2000 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Pat Card called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present were: Chairman Pat Card, Dan Sylvester, Elizabeth Donahue, Ray Jarrett, Paul Jenkins, J. Michael McKay, Dan Holland, Robert Blum, Dick Jones, Andy Anderson, Burt Madewell, Ferd Heeb, Dan Loeffler and Dave Ross. Ed Bailot was excused. Also present were Planning Director Lynne Plaskett and Deputy City Clerk Lisa Bloomer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 7. 2000 Mr. Ross made a motion to approve the September 7, 2000 minutes, second by Mr. Holland. The motion CARRIED 14 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment at this time. STAFF COMMENTS AND REPORTS There were no staff comments at this time. OLD BUSINESS Chairman Card read a copy of a letter from Diana Willig, 2934 Vista Palm Drive. She has no problem with people parking boats or R.V's in their yards or driveways. Chairman Card explained they have a number of meetings that remain. They have tonight's topic and two other topics. The meetings are October 5 19 November 2 " 16 and 30 They are coming up toward the end. He would like to discuss in some detail what they would like to do in the way of a schedule in the discussion items later in the meeting. He would like the Committee to think about an interim report. He would like to appear at Council to make interim report. They have not heard from the Committee except through the minutes. We are about half way through with five meetings left. He would like to discuss this under discussion items under administrative items. There was no old business at this time. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of proposals for restoration of vehicles Chairman Card suggested they take the first fifteen minutes, recess read Mr. McKay's proposal and group back together. Mr. McKay stated he was going to read it verbatim. There was no objection from the Committee. Mr. McKay read his proposal. (Attached) Mr. McKay suggested they discuss and cover the gray areas. He has been in front of the Code Enforcement Board on at least one occasion. He brought a visual aid of what he considers to be a true junked and abandoned vehicle, a 1972 E1 Camino. He stated they would not want this sitting in their yards or sitting across the street from their house. He stands up for a person's right to have it if they need it but they shouldn't have to watch it deteriorate. If they want to keep it in their yard, have them buy a custom car cover, which costs a couple hundred dollars. Chairman Card informed the Committee Mr. McKay has brought before them a modified Section 21- 34.04. The Committee has a copy of the one that was proposed and then removed. It's in the materials that were originally given to the Committee. As he read it, it basically eliminated everything. Mr. Ross stated he thought they were going to discuss restoration, not Section 21- 34.04. That wasn't on the agenda. Chairman Card agreed but he thinks he did discuss Section 21.34.05 by saying he didn't think it needed that much work. Mr. Heeb feels the phrase restoration vehicles was to describe the whole area. Restoration vehicles are junk vehicles. That is what they are discussing tonight. Mr. Ross stated he is just trying to clarify. He asked Mr. Heeb if he is suggesting they incorporate both of these sections into one discussion. Mr. Heeb stated he hasn't made that recommendation at all. He thinks restoration vehicles is a cottage industry where as R.V.'s, boats, and their trailers are a recreational industry. People rebuild cars and make them nice and sell them, they rebuild cars and use them, they rebuild cars and they become classics and they are collector's items and they rebuild cars and show them but this is a whole different arena. He feels it should be addressed separately. Mr. Anderson stated the material was extremely well done and asked if you can keep a tag after your insurance expires in this State? He was informed no. He thinks a lot of this is going on. Mr. Jenkins stated about two months after your insurance is canceled, the State knows it and they send you a letter requesting you show letter of proof. Page -2- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Mr. Anderson stated he bought a large custom car cover from J C Whitney for less than $80. He doesn't think they are that expensive. Mr. Heeb stated on the tag and the licensing requirement, an automobile is a different animal from a boat and its trailer and an R.V. They are talking about vehicles that are recreational as opposed to transportation. When they say they want a boat and its trailer licensed, that is an indication the owner intends to use it. If it is broken he will fix it because he intends to use it. He doesn't think there needs to be a license while it is being restored but it should be after it is finished. It is a different problem that he feels needs to be addressed separately. Ms. Donahue stated she thinks Mr. McKay is trying to get across that he bought a car for parts, why should he have to put a tag on it. Mr. McKay stated that is one aspect of it. An operable vehicle will need a tag on it. The problem is people have a vehicle being used for parts that stays in the yard forever. She has a neighbor that has two cars that are both registered that are ancient but that is all they can afford. Mr. McKay stated he tried to articulate something that would cover all vehicles that would be junked /or abandoned in the City. He brought the eye candy outside to emphasize point. He commented on when they are talking about automobiles or recreational vehicles that need a license tag. He knows people that restore old mahogany boats. He feels a tag didn't necessarily determine that a boat would float or that an R.V. would run. They need other criteria to go across the board so Code Enforcement can drive up on site where there is a complaint and look at the ordinance and figure out if it meets certain criteria which would consider it abandoned and they will be able to do something about it. Mr. Jarrett asked if they are talking about vehicles in the front yard, side yard or back yard with an opaque fence or what are they talking about. Mr. McKay feels they are talking about any vehicle in a residential area. They could be talking tonight about R.V.'s, boats, and cars. He feels specifically they are talking about a car in a driveway or a back yard or a side yard. He feels they need to have an enforceable ordinance for the driveway, back yard, side yard or front yard. He has yet to see an enforceable ordinance. He has been up against this many times. Mr. Jarrett stated they voted that a person can keep a boat in the front yard. He spoke about eventually people having a boat, a motor home, a camper, a restoration car, and jet skis. He feels they have to limit the number of vehicles in the front yard. He asked if they are going to go down each one and approve each one or start a quantity. Most of them will fall under the same guidelines that were set on boats. Page -3- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Mr. McKay asked Ms. Plaskett if there has ever been an ordinance on the books before that addressed the number of vehicles. Ms. Plaskett informed him no. Chairman Card stated there was one in the proposed regulation of three of any of the above listed. He feels it might be good to go back to the first paragraph to give the Committee an idea of what was originally proposed for the section he addressed. He read what was originally proposed. He feels what that said was that was the most strict that it could get. By saying he can't start it and drive it off, it is gone. They have the right to have it towed off the property. Mr. McKay attempted to address that section and put some sort of meaning into it. Mr. Heeb stated they had some discussion relative to the number of vehicles. A person could own a bunch of vehicles. The problem he has with limiting vehicles is if they are going to limit them it should be done on a square foot basis. Mr. Jarrett stated the biggest thing he is concerned with is in the front yard. Mr. Madewell stated eventually you are going to get into the public right -of -way which will limit you in a sense but common sense will tell you, you are not going to have stuff from the front door of your house to the public right -of -way. Eventually you are going to cross that line. While they are elaborating on this, he feels they need to take into account there are people that have race cars that will never have a tag on them. There are a lot of things they have to allow or incorporate into this. Ms. Donahue feels they should keep it under cover. Mr. Madewell stated he is talking about the tag issue. They will never have to have a tag on a race car. Mr. Jenkins feels the tag issue on a race car or a race boat is a problem. If there is a cover over it, what is the issue about the tag because no one can see the tag. He has the same opinion about the tags. A motor home could be used once a year, insured for the quarter of the year he is going to use it, buy the tag before going to use it and it saves them 3/4 of a year's insurance. Mr. Heeb stated they don't prorate tags. Mr. Jenkins stated the tags are cheap, the insurance can be anywhere from $150 every six months on up. Mr. Heeb stated he doesn't think there is a requirement that you have to have insurance on a trailer. Mr. Jenkins stated on a motor home you have to have insurance. He feels buying a tag will not change anything. He thinks they have a number of things that makes it become an abandoned vehicle to be disposed of and cleaned up. He feels they have to deal with the technicality of it. Mr. Jenkins stated he believes inoperable, abandoned and or wrecked vehicles was not in their charge. Ms. Plaskett informed him Section 21 -34.04 and Section 21- 34.05. Mr. Jarrett referred to the Section 7 -12 of the current zoning code. Automotive vehicles, or trailers of any kind or type without current license plates shall not be parked or stored on residentially zoned property. He feels it will be hard to change it. Page -4- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Mr. Anderson concurred with Mr. Heeb. Four vehicles on an eighty foot lot is not the same as on five acres. He thinks some kind of wording should be in there relating to that. How much land you have to how many vehicles. Chairman Card stated didn't they agree to discuss the number after they finished all of this? Mr. Jenkins.stated yes. Mr. Heeb feels what is happening here is they ake opening the door for problems relative to cars, boats and and R.V.'s. He suggested they go back to the original premise and draft the ordinance dealing with strictly the car "problems. When they get done with everything they should come back and look at the whole thing. He feels what is happening is they are losing sight of the problem. Maybe they don't think -they should have license tags. Let's resolve that and go forward with how they are going to draft this strictly for automobiles. Mr. Jenkins referred to Section 7 -12. He put an asterisk next to the section where Mr. McKay quoted the other old 1995 ordinance, Section 10 -16 and 10 -69 of the Health and Sanitation Code because of Section 7 -12. Mr. McKay had an issue in 1995 or 1996 that came before the Council. At the end of all that, the Council came up with the restoration code to get around the issue of tags, to eliminate the requirement of tags on restoration vehicles. They also had agreed to eliminate the tag issue on everything. The ordinance was written without the mention of tags but somehow at the last meeting there was a reference -stuck back into that ordinance referring back to Section 7 -12. No one went back to look at what it said. The Council voted on it the way was, thinking they were eliminating the tag issue.at that time. He feels Section 7 -12 is an antique ordinance that was supposed to have been eliminated. Mr. Ross thinks they are generating a problem in trying to talk about junked vehicles while they are talking about restoration. He feels it is a different animal that needs to be kept separate. He read,the proposed restoration code, Section 21- 34.05. He made A motion to this as written, second by Ms. Donahue. Mr. Jenkins feels the reason they added Section 21 -34.04 back in is because they are really one in the same. The vehicle being restored "can be called the inoperable, abandoned or-wrecked vehicle. This proposed code was very similar to the old code passed in 1995 except in 1995 it was renewable for five years, one year at a time. This one sought to change it with.a one year limit with a second year possible. Some parts can't be found in three or four years or longer. Some people don't necessarily have the_money. Show cars are never driven not on the street, which he feels they wouldn't need a tag because they are. trailered to where they are going. He has a problem with the whole permit issue to start with. He doesn't know why you.can't have a code written similar to the way Mr. McKay wrote it and enforce that. He doesn't see any need for a tag. He feels you have "to have a law to abide by and enforce the law. Page -5- Citizens Land Dev: Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 . Mr. Holland stated the City will love to have an extra couple of bucks for the permit. Mr. Jenkins stated'the car doesn't become a part of the property therefore it is not a permanent structure. Mr. McKay stated this City operated with a junked and abandoned vehicle ordinance until he got here in 1995 that had no restoration permits necessary. The ordinance the City had in 1995 he found to be archaic. He agreed with Mr. Jenkins. It is obvious they probably won't need restoration issues if they come up with good language for junked and abandoned vehicles. When the restoration permit was first proposed, he sought advice of the Council regarding that. Council advised him to go ahead and do it. They are taxing a recreational use. They are taxing something they have no right to tax. It is unenforceable and untenable. Mr. Ross stated he doesn't have a problem with no charge for the permit. Mr. McKay stated the.restoration permitting allowed Code Enforcement to get a handle on situations in neighborhoods that they otherwise didn't have a handle on. If someone was performing restoration on a car and operating a business out of their home it is not going to take long for Code Enforcement to figure out a business is being run. Mr. Jenkins stated it doesn't let you pull extra permits. He doesn't feel the permit thing changed anything for Code Enforcement. If he is doing something illegal, the law.will allow code enforcement to take care of it. Mr. McKay stated it is eight o'clock now. They have proven junked and abandoned vehicles in that ordinance and the restoration issue are somewhat intertwined. Mr, Ross.stated the motion is to accept City's recommendation of Section 21 -34.05 the way it is written. Mr. Sylvester spoke in reference to permitting in Section 21- 34.05. He thinks it is a good idea for a permit. He doesn't like the two year restriction. You can't accomplish some of' these tasks two years. If they are going to accept it they should modify it to increase the time period. He thinks the permitting is valid. It is intertwined with the number of vehicles. He agrees with permitting but not the number of years and he has some question as to renewing the permit annually. He feels a longer time frame would be better. Mr. Heeb reminded the Committee that they were established to come up with the section of the Land Development,Code that would deal with these problems. Their not incumbent on the Committee to adopt the language. They are looking for a model ordinance for this City. They have got the experts here. There are people here dealing with this day in and day out. He was thinking they would draft an ordinance that would deal with issues and be acceptable to everyone in the City. He would like to see the guys that really do this stuff and know what the problems are, come up with an ordinance to resolve this issue that they can vote on. Page -6 Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Chairman Card asked if he is in error in that what Mr. McKay came to them with said he his happy with this. Mr. McKay stated he is happy with it with the exception of the amount of time involved with it. He feels -it gives Code Enforcement more leverage in a neighborhood but two years is absurd. Mr. Jenkins stated he thought Chairman Card was trying to say to Mr. McKay he was happy with what he wrote, not the existing code. Chairman Card stated what he said was in his seven pages of the first section, inoperable abandoned and /or wrecked vehicles he had big problems with and he thought that should be written and he spent all of his energy on that. He said in effect he believed this proposed Section 21 -34.05 was reasonable. Mr. Jenkins feels there is plenty of language in Mr. McKay's proposal that goes against that Section. Mr. McKay stated he was addressing the junked and inoperable vehicles first. When they got the verbiage under control in that section, the rest would go easy. He didn't expect to get into restoration permits tonight. Mr. Ross stated it seems to him much simpler to say he doesn't care if that piece of junk is restorable and you intend to restore it instead of selling it for parts, then have at it. If they address restoration, the junk is somewhere between driveable vehicles and that and he thinks it helps them define junk. To him a vehicle that is being restored is not a piece of junk. If you are driving it to work every day and it is licensed and operable, it is not junk. There are a lot.of people that can't afford anything else. He doesn't think that to define junk vehicles and then everything else is restoration is the route to go. Mr. Ross disagreed with Mr. Heeb when he said for the City to write the Code. He feels they have the ability to do that. He has no objection to the City folks writing it only if it is reviewed by them with plenty of time to vote on it. He will not accept a code presented by the City officials unless they look at it word for word. Mr. Heeb stated they are not locked into City's verbiage. Mr. Ross amended his motion that the permit be issued at no charge to the applicant, be issued for a two year period with a onetime two year renewal permit if progress is shown in two years, and that one permit per residential use property be allowed per acre of land. Chairman Card stated so instead of saying vehicle restoration permit shall be limited to one per dwelling unit. Mr. Ross one per dwelling up to one per acre or part thereof. Mr. Jenkins stated going back to the permit issue. He thinks what he and Mr. McKay were trying to say is the only reason that it has stood up over the past five years is because nobody challenged the permit issue. He has a court case that dealt with someone peddling door to door where a permit was required. The Appeals Court ruled that they were being taxed for something they had a right to do. They overturned that regulation. It is very similar to what this is because you are doing what you have a right to do on your property. Page -7- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Mr. Jenkins stated there is case law in other states that say you don't have to have a tag on your vehicle. There is even some case law that says you don't have to have a license but not in this State. There is case law in this state that says the reason you have to have a tag on a car or license is you are going down the public's right of way when you are using it. If you're using it for a commercial purpose it is even prohibitable. They don't have to give a commercial hauler an actual permit to do it. It is done as a privilege. In this instance, they are on their own property and not traveling on someone else's. Mr. Jones stated he doesn't see any reason why they have to have a tag or sticker on a vehicle on a piece of private property. He thinks that should be left alone. Mr. Jones stated to Mr. Ross he didn't hear him say anything about a permit being required, he just said it would be renewed. Mr. Ross stated a permit would be required if a vehicle is going to be restored. Mr. Jones stated he would second that amendment. Mr. Loeffler spoke about public input on boats R.V.'s and trailers. He asked if there is something out there so the public knows what they are talking about. He spoke about the crowd that showed up when they were talking about boats but there only being one person here, he would like to make sure the car restoration people are aware they are talking about this so they can get their input. Deputy City Clerk Bloomer stated the agendas are posted in the boxes for the newspaper, the Library, and also at City Hall. Mr. Heeb stated we are the public, that is the whole purpose. This could have been done with five people. They are open to public comment but he doesn't think they need it or have to solicit it to get this job done. Their responsibility is to come up with a code that will be acceptable to this community from all sides. Mr. Loeffler stated a lot of them know more about R.V.'s boats and campers than they do about carports or restoration of vehicles. Mr. McKay stated there is a lot of restoration going on in general. Specifically they are talking about cars. He heard it mentioned when Mr. Ross was talking about the restoration permit issue about the number of vehicles that would be permitted or wouldn't be permitted. He questioned how do they have the right to regulate how many vehicles a person owns. We can't tell them how many vehicles they can restore at one time. Sometimes you have two vehicles on your property to restore one. He doesn't feel they have the right to tell someone they can only restore one car. He feels they have the right to address the nuisance aspect and the number of vehicles in a yard. Mr. McKay feels it may be possible to regulate it by square feet as Mr. Heeb proposed. He feels one vehicle for one acre or half an acre is not going to fly. Here they are again legislating how many vehicles a person has a right to own. Page -8- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Mr. Heeb stated there are sections in the State where it is not uncommon to find three families living in one house. There are as many as six cars parked in front of the house. It is standard procedure and if you drive to these areas there are whole neighborhoods that look like that. Mr. Ross stated the reason he is suggesting restoration of vehicles is there has to be definable between abandoned /junked vehicles restored. That is the simple clear cut way unequivocally. His amendment regarding the per acre is open for amendment. permitting for a separation clearly and vehicles being to define it number of vehicles Mr. McKay stated he did not write the restoration issue. He got stuck in a rut of junked and abandoned. He would like to have the opportunity to write a proposed ordinance as well as Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins stated he could recommend modifying it to what Mr. McKay already wrote that really covers both. Mr. McKay suggested taking a vote now and finding out how many people feel they need to have the restoration permit issue and take it from there. Mr. Jones stated they have a proposal on the floor now. Mr. Ross called for the question. Mr. Aloise stated he had a statement about the proposal. He disagrees with the time limit. Chairman Card stated the question has been called by an individual. It is his understanding there is no discussion. They vote. Ms. Plaskett stated that is right. Chairman Card stated the proposal is to adopt Section 21 -34.05 with the following changes: Paragraph A shall file a permit application with the Code Enforcement Officer without charge. Paragraph C - modify the term of a permit to be two years and additional renewal is available with current photograph representing progress of the restoration for a maximum permit term of four years. The final change being Paragraph E vehicle restoration permits shall be limited to one per dwelling unit up to one acre. All those in favor. The motion FAILED 6 -8. Mr. Heeb, Mr. McKay, Mr. Holland, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Madewell, Mr. Aloise, and Mr. Sylvester voted NO. Mr. Heeb recommended the Committee appoint Mr. McKay to draft the wording of an ordinance that would apply to junked vehicles and the restoration of vehicles in a language they can address item by item. Then they can attack one issue at a time and get it resolved. Right now they are bouncing all over the place. He made that a motion, second by Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Madewell stated Mr. McKay and Mr. Jenkins are representing a lot of people in the restoration of cars that he has no idea what they do. It is not just a personal issue for those two gentleman. Mr. Anderson stated there are people and places in this State where five families live in one house but it is illegal. Page -9- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Mr. Aloise asked Mr. Jenkins his involvement in restoration. Mr. Jenkins stated at this point he doesn't think he is. Mr. Aloise stated he Knows of Mr. McKay's involvement. Mr. Jenkins stated he works on his own cars. He doesn't have a car per say that he is restoring at the moment. Mr. Aloise feels Mr. McKay is most qualified. Mr. Jenkins stated he used to be in that business. Mr. Loeffler asked if they were going to talk about how many vehicles they can restore at a time. Chairman Card stated they are determining whether or not they are going to back away from this issue tonight and allow Mr. McKay the opportunity to write and come back in two weeks with a proposal for Sections 21 -34.04 and 21- 34.05. Mr. Loeffler asked if that will take in whether they are restoring them inside or outside. Chairman Card stated what in effect they are saying is Mr. McKay is more knowledgeable than anyone else in the group and that they would like for him to draft something and they will hack through this one more time, down the list next time. Mr. Jarrett stated if restoration is the issue, to him it is not in the front yard, it should be behind house or beside the house. Chairman Card stated he hopes someone who has this kind of situation would break that into effect. Mr. Sylvester asked Mr. McKay if there is anybody else in that community he could solicit for input. He would like to hear from other people in that business. Mr. McKay stated he was concerned about being the spokesperson. There are several individuals who would sit in attendance and hear his proposals. He asked if this Committee would like to see what the automobile community is thinking about at large. Mr. Holland feels the input is one thing. When they did the boats and R.V.'s there were multiple proposals and they settled on one to work with. They didn't all agree with what that one said but they had to have that one to work around. He agreed with tabling this. He feels they only need one to work with. Ms. Donahue spoke about Mr. McKay being involved with pollution and the environment. When you are working on this restoration, they sand them, they blast them, and they paint them. She asked him to please consider this. Mr. McKay informed her the nuisance covers that explicitly. The motion CARRIED 14 -0. Chairman Card stated they had someone from the public here and offered him the opportunity to speak. Mike McGrath, introduced himself as the new Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. McKay stated he was giving the ordinance some teeth so he could get out in the community. Mr. McKay stated if he Mr. McGrath any input he would like to hear it. Mr. McGrath stated he is learning from the Committee. Page -10- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 DISCUSSION ITEMS Set next agenda (October 5th) and any administrative items that remain Mr. Jenkins stated he would consider Roberts Rules of Order an administrative item. Chairman Card stated they are not following them exactly. Mr. Jenkins stated with regard to the question being called. He has a little problem with the fairness of that when it cuts off someone that may have not had a chance to speak on a subject, especially with an issue that hasn't already been talked about and is not repetitive. He would like to see if they can adopt their own variation of the rules. Mr. Jenkins made a motion that they don't call the question on anyone that has something new to add. Chairman Card stated that discussion had been going on and on and on. Usually a question is called when the same thing is said over and over again. It is very difficult to be able to tell before hand whether something new is being added or not. He should have cut that discussion off and called for a vote so the individual who was attempting to be recognized should not have been recognized once the question was called. Mr. Jenkins stated maybe if they go to a situation where someone calls the question, then the Chairman can say does anybody have anything that is not repetitive. Mr. Aloise felt he had something that wasn't touched on. Mr. Ross feels the whole thing with this issue is that if that motion would have carried or not carried based on what somebody had to say an hour later, it can always be brought back up as a new motion. Because the motion didn't or did carry, doesn't mean you can't make new motions to offset what has been done. He didn't expect that motion to carry. They wanted to vote on it so they could get on track. They can go back and change it. Mr. Heeb stated he doesn't think a person that makes a motion can call the motion. Mr. Ross called the question on his own motion and he doesn't think you can do that under Roberts Rules of Order. Chairman Card asked Ms. Plaskett to comment with regard to Roberts Rules of Order. Ms. Plaskett stated Mr. Heeb is right. The discussion should be on whatever the motion was. After the discussion is over the Chairman calls the question. Mr. Ross stated if discussion never ends, you never get a vote. Ms. Plaskett stated it is up to the Chairman. Chairman Card stated he always understood the chair calls for the vote at the end of discussion or someone from the floor can call the question and that ceases discussion and brings the issue to a vote. Mr. Heeb stated they have been through all this discussion and they have an expert in the room. He asked Ms. Plaskett if she has any comments about how things are going and where they are going. Mr. Heeb made a motion that hereafter they establish a new Roberts Rules of Order for this Committee that only the Chairman can call the question, second by Mr. Madewell. The motion CARRIED 14 -0. Page -11- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Mr. Anderson suggested their names be on both sides of their name tags. Mr. Plaskett stated her question would be what was the objection to Mr. Ross's motion. She asked Mr. McKay because he didn't have a problem with the restoration permit. She wasn't sure what he had a problem with. It may have passed if whatever he had a problem with could have been agreed to. She asked him what his issue was with the restoration permits. Mr. McKay stated his issue was he didn't take it up. He planned on getting through 1- 11 of his proposal with a straw vote. He would like to get a feeling for where this is going. As far as restoration of vehicles he hadn't begun to address that yet. Ms. Plaskett stated that was what the agenda was for tonight. Mr. McKay stated to get into that prior to addressing junked and abandoned vehicles he felt a lot of issues that had to do with restoration would be covered. He felt if they covered junked and abandoned vehicles first then restoration would be easy. Chairman Card feels they were not clear in regard to what the agenda item was. Mr. Heeb stated he voted against it because he felt they were jumping into an issue where they didn't have a chance to get a clear view point. He was hung up on Mr. McKay's comment that maybe these two sections needed to be merged. His position was he was hopeful someone would come up with list of items they could go through. Ms. Donahue asked Mr. McKay if he could get this to them a few days ahead of time so they don't have to go through the hassle of reading it for a half hour and that they can review it before they come in here. To get this at the last minute, it is being thrown at us basically. They didn't have any time to think about it. Chairman Card stated to Mr. McKay he thought he got it in before Tuesday. Mr. McKay stated he got it there on Monday. Ms. Plaskett stated they typed it for him and then they had to have him review it. He brought it in hand written and asked that the secretary type it and they obliged and he had to go back and review for any corrections. That occurred Tuesday. Mr. Jenkins stated they all got called to pick their packets up a week earlier than normal. They don't normally get called until Monday or Tuesday before the meeting. They got called the week before he even had a chance to get it in. Ms. Plaskett stated they didn't know he was going to be bringing it in. Mr. Jenkins stated he thought they talked about that at the last meeting, for him to get it in in time. Chairman Card stated they talked about it out front when he asked him to do so. Mr. Madewell stated when they formed this Committee they were issued these as current and proposed ordinances. He thinks it is worth stating for the record that Section 7 -12 is the current law. Ms. Plaskett stated when they wrote the new Land Development Code and that portion was decided to be taken out for this Committee to discuss, that code is still in effect. It is current in that since there is no new Land Development Code for that section which is what is being discussed, that applies. Page -12- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Mr. Madewell stated the part Mr. McKay is writing will apply to Section 7 -12 also. He asked if this falls under the five points this Committee was set up for. Ms. Plaskett informed him yes. Mr. Ross stated what they are reviewing doesn't pertain to the current code, it pertains to the proposed code. Mr. Jenkins stated but it will change the existing code. Mr. Jarrett asked how Section 7 -12 relates to Section 21- 34.05. Mr. Jenkins stated Section 7 -12 will disappear when the Council adopts what they are discussing. Ms. Plaskett informed the Committee Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance was deleted in its entirety and incorporated into the new Land Development Code minus the sections the Committee is reviewing. Mr. Jones stated he hopes what Mr. McKay comes up with is something that doesn't rely on the business of having a vehicle license tag. Don't give the Code Enforcement Officer a fall out position if it has to have a license tag on it. He would like to have enough detailed explanation in there as to what he can and can not do with his vehicle. He doesn't feel having a license or a tag is a reason why the people would be denied the opportunity to do it. Mr. Jenkins stated he would like to make a point as to why he believes both sections go together. If you cover all the problems, you don't need a restoration section. Mr. Ross feels he is talking about two scenarios. The problem is there are legitimate, should be allowed for all the reasons you can think of restoration products. There are people, like his neighbor, that have junked vehicles sitting five feet from his property line that this code, if it is not being restored there is no way you can keep it there. Mr. Jenkins suggested this could possibly fall under the nuisance section. Chairman Card stated they have five meetings left and because nothing was accomplished tonight that means they have three topics in five meetings. One of those five meetings he would think they need to have as a public forum. He wants the Committee to think about what is going on here. A long time ago, perhaps a month, he was asked by Council and by City Manager Hooper to make an interim report of where they were. Before he does that he needs the Committee's direction of whether they want him to make a report or not. Mr. Heeb recommended he make an interim report merely to tell Council what they have been doing and how far they have gotten. Mr. Jenkins suggested they have two interim reports. One to bring them up to speed now of where they are at. A suggestion being once they have finished roughing out all five sections, they have a public forum so the public can look at what they roughed out and bring up their issues and Chairman Card give them the second interim before the public forum. He suggested they take that input and merge the final things they have to do to clean up what has been taken care of. He made that a motion, second by Mr. Aloise. Page -13- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Mr. Heeb thinks it would be a very grave mistake on this Committee to reveal to the Council in any formal presentation what they have tentatively agreed to. You are now planting the seeds for the Council to take an action on what they may change their mind on before they come up with a final document. Chairman Card stated before the meeting he said what he thought might work out for the rest of the meetings. One of the things that he thinks is important is that at some point after they have completed their final draft and heard input from the public, if there isn't, that they then take their proposal and pass it by staff to be able to get the language they need and then do a final vote after it has gone passed staff to be able to be put into the language that is required for this to be codified and then go to City Council. Mr. Jenkins amended his motion. Chairman Card feels they don't have to tell the public what we have done. Mr. Jenkins feels if they don't give them some idea of where they are going, they may have a reason to speak about it. He is willing to amend his motion to not give it to the Council until after it is finalized. Mr. Madewell stated these meetings are public record and there has been a small response. Chairman Card stated he knows Councilman Brown is reading their minutes. He has suggested to Councilman Brown that the other Councilmembers read the minutes. Mr. Anderson feels they should ask Council if they want an interim report. Chairman Card stated they have told him they would like a report. Mr. Ross feels he should go before Council to say they have gotten this accomplished but don't tell them the details. Regarding the public forum, this is it. They have been welcome here every night. They were not charged with the responsibility or the duty. He feels it would be disruptive after they have beat their brains out to have the public come in here and want changes. Mr. Jenkins amended his motion to take out the part about the public forum. Mr. Jones asked how the motion reads. Mr. Jenkins stated that they give an interim report as to where they are now and then after they rough out the remaining issues, they give another interim report and then get down to the business of merging it all for the final wording and details and then take it to Council. The motion FAILED 6 -8. Mr. Jones, Chairman Card, Mr. McKay, Mr. Heeb, Mr. Sylvester, Mr. Jarrett, Mr. Madewell, and Mr. Anderson voted NO. Mr. Heeb made a motion to authorize Chairman Card to make an interim report to the Council specifying what has been accomplished and what they expect to accomplish and when they expect to have it finalized and that they make no additional reports until the final document, second by Mr. Jarrett. The motion CARRIED 14 -0. Page -14- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Chairman Card would like to have a brief straw vote on Section 21 -34.04 Inoperable, abandoned and /or wrecked vehicles. Is Mr. McKay headed in the right direction regarding 1 -11? Mr. McKay asked if he could read them one at a time and get a vote on them one at a time. Mr. McKay only wants hands on nays. He decided to skip A because they don't have Section 21 -34.05 to deal with right now. He wants to see if his direction is correct. They will go with Number 1 under B. Everyone agreed. Number 2 - Mr. Heeb and Mr. Jenkins voted NO. Mr. Heeb feels it is redundant with one. Number 3 - Mr Ross voted NO and suggested striking the last part. Mr. Heeb also feels this is redundant with number one. Number 4 - Ms. Donahue and Mr. Jenkins NO. Ms. Donahue stated it says negotiable. It should not be left exposed or open at any time. Mr. Jenkins stated he would add without a custom car cover. Mr. Jones feels fifteen hours seems like an arbitrary number. Number 5 - Mr. Ross voted NO. Mr. Jarrett stated if it includes canopies in the front yard, he doesn't agree. Number 6 - Everybody agreed. Mr. Ross made a suggestion to say that any vehicle on your property must be titled to the occupant of the property. Mr. McKay stated the reason he is siting these items is because there is a certain amount of redundancy. He has done this to give Code Enforcement some teeth. Mr. McKay read number 7 - everybody agreed. Chairman Card commented on people out of town for four months. Mr. Aloise stated they are still notified. Mr. McKay read number 8 - everybody agreed. Number 9 - Mr. Jenkins had a problem with inoperable. Mr. Aloise feels they should leave it out completely. Mr. McKay read number 10 - everybody agreed to leave it alone because Ms. Plaskett stated there is already a section addressing it. Mr. Heeb asked if there is a time limit on the right -of -way. Ms. Plaskett stated you are not allowed to park in any drainage easement or anything like that. Parking in the swales disturbs the flow of water and damages them. Mr. Heeb spoke about the lawn people that pull up on the right -of -way. Ms. Plaskett stated there is no time limit if they are on the road. If it is a safety issue, the Police handle it. Mr. Heeb asked again if there is any kind of time limit to park a car in the right -of- way. Ms. Plaskett stated she would have to look it up. Mr. Heeb stated he lives on Riverside Drive and he spoke about a couple of times a year when there are thousands of cars parked all over the right -of -way. Mr. Jenkins stated technically under the Code it is illegal. Page -15- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 Mr. McKay asked Ms. Plaskett about the retention ponds that were put in Florida Shores. He asked if a lot of vehicles are being parked in these areas. Ms. Plaskett stated they aren't allowed to but some have been. Mr. McKay asked if they are there for a long period of time. Ms. Plaskett stated yes, they are storing them. Mr. McKay stated he would love to pull out the part about public right -of -way and make this more specific to those particular areas. Mr. Aloise asked if a swale is a public right of way. Ms. Plaskett informed him yes. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page -16- Citizens Land Dev. Review Cmt. September 21, 2000 I' Amended Proposal of 21 -34.04 I%W As discussed and voted upon at the September 21, 2000 meeting of this Citizens Land Development Review Committee Beginning with (1) 1. A threat to public health, safety or welfare due to its condition or the conditions in, under or around subject vehicle. 2. Any vehicle stored outside with open hood, doors or hatches and compartments exposed to the general public or neighboring properties for any period exceeding twenty -four (24) hours. 3. Any vehicle visible to the general public or neighboring properties, which is obviously wrecked, dismantled or inoperable. 4. Any vehicle for which Code Enforcement Officials cannot establish ownership or responsible party declines to resolve valid issues contained within 1 -6 of this Section will be determined abandoned. Definition: Forsaken, dissolute. 5. Any vehicle violating E.P.A. regulations by leaking hazardous fluids, such as oil, fuel, gear grease, hydraulic fluid, ethylene - glycol or other hazardous anti - freeze `, coolant additives and any other chemicals which pose a threat to public health, safety or welfare by entering the groundwater supply, or significantly running off the vehicle onto surrounding area, creating dangerous /hazardous conditions for passing motorists or persons in the immediate vicinity. 6. Any vehicle with discarded items accumulating in, on or around its immediate area, causing vehicle to meet criteria for "nuisance ". Definition: An offensive, annoying, unpleasant or obnoxious object, odor, noise or practice. A cause or source of annoyance, especially a continuing or repeated invasion or disturbance of another's right, including the actual or potential emanation of any physical characteristics of activity or use across a property line which emanation can be perceived by or affect's a human being. * This definition will be used by Code Enforcement Officials to help them with the task of bringing vehicles into compliance with City Codes. These six (6) amended proposals are intended to be consistent with the sentiments expressed during the "straw vote" of 9/21/00 and would replace 1 -11 as found in my September 21, 2000 proposal on pages two (2) and three (3). CAMy Documents \Miscellaneous \Adhoc letterldoc Page 1 of 1 %W 21 -34.05 VEHICLES - RESTORATION & PERMITS A. Vehicles being restored may be stored in an enclosed area, not visible to the general public or neighboring properties. Any person seeking to openly restore a vehicle shall file a permit application with the City in the Code Enforcement Department. B. The application shall be accompanied by a current photograph of the vehicle, along with a letter describing in detail the restorer's plans for restoration or related activities, accompanied by or containing a timeline for progress. The permit shall be posted conspicuously at the residence at all times. C. The term of the permit shall be one (1) year. Additional renewals will be available provided that progress consistent with proposal is being made. D. When not working on vehicle, it shall be stored from view by fencing, screening, custom car cover or stored inside a garage or carport. Vehicles stored outside of a garage or carport shall be located behind the front dwelling line. 1%W CAMy DocumentsNiscellaneous \Adhoc letterldoc Page I of 1 21 -35.04 Tents /Temporary Carports a. Freestanding Tents /Temporary carports must be a minimum of seventeen (17) gauge metal. b. All joints must be connected by bolts or screws. c. Each corner leg must have an anchor. If more than four legs, there must be one anchor for every two legs. Refer to drawing. d. Anchor must be thirty (30) inch in length mobile home type. e. Must have a minimum 3/16 steel cable from top corner to anchor. Cable must be at a minimum of 30 degree angle. 1%, f. All cables must be fastened with double bolt cable clamps. g. If tents /temporary carports are enclosed they must meet required set back. h. If metal structure is installed in this manner, it will meet 100 -mph wind load. ,%. -0a 1 ) A I/ ).- 0 e 4�F / e ,t. w .4 . ........... i - ---- ------ 46 i s i -,. I fo log u 3 k 0 rrmt I fo log u 3 k 0 i r s d ti. /0 (D Q T 0 (0 J d ti. /0 (D Q T 0 i � 4 r� 0 3 c T' Flo A 44