Loading...
10-05-2000CITIZENS LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 5, 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, J. Michael McKay, Dan Sylvester, Dan Loeffler, Elizabeth Donahue, Ray Jarrett, Richard Jones, Paul Jenkins, Robert Blum, Burt Madewell, Dave Ross, and Mike Aloise. Andy Anderson was absent. Dan Holland and Ferd Heeb were excused. Also present was Planning Director Lynne Plaskett and Deputy City Clerk Lisa Bloomer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meetina of September 21. 2000 Mr. Aloise stated he was present at the September 21, 2000 meeting. Mr. McKay stated on Page 6, in the first paragraph, the 11 line, he sought the advice of Counsel, not the Council. Mr. Jenkins stated he had a correction on Page 7 on the bottom of the first paragraph. It states Mr. Jenkins feels there is plenty of language in Mr. McKay's proposal that goes against that section. He thinks the word applies works better there. Chairman Card called the question. The motion CARRIED 12 -0. Chairman Card stated the minutes were approved as corrected. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Card asked the members of the audience if there was anyone that would like to make a comment. A gentleman in the audience stated he would like to hear what is going on first before saying anything. There was no objection from the Committee to waiting until later for public comment. Chairman Card informed the Committee that included with the minutes this time is something that will not be on the agenda or discussed this evening but that was brought to him by suggestion from Mr. Loeffler who asked that he might give them something to work with for the tents and temporary carports as kind of a starting point. Chairman Card would like them to have as much time as they could to review it. Chairman Card read the resignation of Ed Bailot. STAFF COMMENTS AND REPORTS There were no staff comments or reports at this time. OLD BUSINESS Presentation of proposal for Inoperable, Abandoned and/or Wrecked Vehicles Chairman Card stated he separated the old and new business because they had done a good deal of discussion in regard to the proposal of inoperable, abandoned and /or wrecked vehicles. Chairman Card suggested they had prepared for them prior to this meeting and was enclosed with the minutes material that Mr. McKay has prepared. He turned the meeting over to him to let him read the section that lead into it plus the six other things. That is for the benefit of the people who are interested in this here this evening. Mr. McKay stated two more people walked in. Chairman Card informed them if they were interested in public comment they would be happy to hear their comment. He informed them the people here would like to hear what they are doing first and the Committee would be willing to hear their comment later. Chairman Card asked that public comment be limited to five minutes. No member of the Committee will give comment or rebuttal to what they say. Mr. McKay started with Section 21- 34.04. He read his amended proposal. Mr. McKay went over his proposal for Section 21 -34.05 Vehicles - Restoration & Permits. Chairman Card moved that the Committee attempt to find those things that they have agreement on. He informed the public if anybody would like to make public comment, to put a hand up at a point in which they would like to make public comment. Bill Davage, 2221 Queen Palm Drive, feels abandoned cars doesn't seem to be a problem. Everyone has something that they might not be driving at this particular time. His uncle just gave him a car and it will be in his driveway for two weeks until he gets the tags. He questioned if this would be an abandoned vehicle even though it is a $20,000 Corvette. Chairman Card stated there is nothing stated in regard to plates on the proposal. Mr. Davage feels they should be able to work on a vehicle whether it is hidden behind a fence or driveway and it isn't a hideous eyesore. He presented a scenario regarding car covers. Page -2- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Ms. Plaskett read Item D and stated carports are open on three sides so it is still visible. Mr. McKay stated he may have stolen that verbiage from a previous ordinance without giving much thought to that. A carport with that verbiage would preclude it having a car cover over it. That leaves the ordinance open for someone to be restoring a car in a carport within view. Restoring a car in a carport in this proposal would be permitted in a carport but the activity would be visible to anyone that could see the carport. Chairman Card suggested starting at the beginning and working down through it so they can find out what they can agree on. Mr. Sylvester stated in the first paragraph it stated any person seeking to openly restore a vehicle. He is gray on openly and asked if he was talking about doing it in a driveway. He feels it should be put away when he is not working on it. Mr. McKay stated they are not talking about someone changing spark plugs. He is talking about a major work in progress and there being a lot of activity that goes on. When a person is doing that type of work if it is visible to people passing by it will probably need a restoration permit. Mr. Sylvester asked if it is in a garage with the door open if that is openly. Mr. McKay stated if a person seeking to openly restore a vehicle, he doesn't think a garage would fall under that category. Mr. Sylvester said if he is confused by it then a Code Enforcement officer will be confused. Mr. Aloise stated he believes the meaning is if a car is in a garage and you have the door open on the day you are working on it is not openly restoring a vehicle. Openly restoring a vehicle means you do not have a garage to do this in and you are doing it in your driveway. You are working on it during the day and putting it back together at the end of the day and closing the garage door at night. Ms. Plaskett stated she thinks the intent was meant to be obviously. Mr. McKay doesn't want to have a gray area. Chairman Card suggested they define the term openly. He thinks they should start from the top of the first one in old business and see how much of this they can get through tonight. Mr. Jenkins agreed. Chairman Card feels they should consider Section 21 -34.04 Inoperable, Abandoned and /or Wrecked Vehicles. He read paragraph A. Mr. Madewell asked if they are including the last proposal. Chairman Card informed him except for Sections 1 -11. They have been replaced with Sections 1 -6 of this week's proposal. Chairman Card entertained a motion to accept the language he just read. Mr. Sylvester so moved, second by Mr. Blum. Mr. Jenkins stated he has a problem with the valid tag issue. He feels this still brings up the issue that automatically if it doesn't have a valid tag it becomes an abandoned vehicle. Chairman Card again read Section A. He informed the Committee Sections A & B are from the last proposal. Sections 1 -6 of the new proposal replace Sections 1 -11. Chairman Card called the question. The motion CARRIED 12 -0. Page -2- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Chairman Card entertained a motion for the approval of Paragraph B. He read Section B. Mr. McKay moved to accept the language, second by Mr. Jarrett. Mr. Ross asked if the colon is followed by items one through six. Chairman Card stated they will address them one at a time. Mr. Ross stated so they are not accepting Sections 1 -6. Chairman Card stated no, they are going to move through them one at a time. The motion CARRIED 12 -0. Chairman Card informed the Committee Sections 1 -6 are provided in this packet. Chairman Card entertained a motion in regard to number one. He read Section 1. Mr. Jenkins so moved, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Ross stated he would like to hear Ms. Plaskett and Mr. McGrath. The question he raises is a threat to public health is a subjective, opinionated conclusion. What he deems to affect public safety someone else may not. He feels the objective is to write a code that does not leave verbiage open to opinions of the Code Enforcement Officer and residents. He asked if this is open for interpretation. Ms. Plaskett feels it is open for interpretation. In almost every County and State Code this verbiage is being used for different things. They have to be able to rely on the person that has to enforce the code to be able to objectively view something and make that determination. Mr. Ross asked is there no other language to insert that forecloses that interpretation? Mr. Jenkins stated he could amend the motion to amend number one and add to it as defined below in numbers two through six. Mr. Ross stated if they are going to do that then you don't need number one. Chairman Card stated it is redundant. Mr. Jenkins stated number two through six doesn't use the actual language threat to public safety so you do need it. Mr. McKay explained the reason number one exists is if it weren't for number one they wouldn't be discussing this issue. This Code existed in previous codes. The only reason the City had any right to say anything about junked vehicles is if it is a threat to public health, safety or welfare. If it isn't a threat, there is no reason to be discussing this. Mr. Ross disagreed. He feels this City has the right to pass codes that affect issues other than health and public safety if they meet community standards and are reasonable and fair. This City can prohibit you building a 65 foot garage on your property and it doesn't have anything to do with public health and safety. Mr. McKay stated they are talking about the origin. Mr. Ross stated we have a Code today that can't be enforced that says the same thing. Mr. Jenkins stated two through six will not leave it open to interpretation but you have to have those words. Mr. Jones suggested adding under or around subject vehicle, as follows and then change 2 -6 to small a, b, c, d, e. Mr. Jones made a motion, second Mr. Ross. Chairman Card stated they now have two motions open. They can either withdraw one motion or they can vote on the amended motion and then the motion. Mr. McKay withdrew his proposal. He asked to hear how the amended proposal sounds. Page -4- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Mr. Jones stated: A threat to public health, safety or welfare due to its condition or the conditions in, under or around subject vehicle, as follows: paragraph two becoming Item A going down through Item E. The Committee briefly discussed how the numbering would be. Ms. Plaskett informed the Committee they can fix that. Mr. Sylvester thinks some of the issues , 1 -6, don't fall under the threat of public health, safety and welfare such as visible from a neighbor's property. He feels Item C doesn't belong under that. Mr. Ross agreed and feels they need to be sure the items they include are health and safety issues. There was no further discussion. Chairman Card called the question. The motion CARRIED 11 -1. Chairman Card voted NO. Chairman Card stated under Item C they will renumber one through five. Mr. Jones asked if they are going to pull out items that are not public health and make those new capital letters. Chairman Card asked if they are in agreement that the number two would be the new number 1 under C. He read the language. Chairman Card entertained a motion. Mr. Sylvester so moved, second by Mr. Blum. Mr. Jenkins asked if they are talking about changing the number or accepting the language. Chairman Card stated they are talking about accepting the language as read. Mr. Jenkins stated he has a problem with it. He feels they should add the language that hasn't been covered and also the issue about tires being flat. Ms. Donahue stated this is giving them 24 hours. She feels nothing should be left open during any period of time they are not working on it. Mr. Jenkins agreed. Chairman Card feels they would all agree with that except when you take a hood or door off to have worked on. Ms. Donahue stated it says open. Mr. Jenkins feels it needs to be covered. He suggested getting rid of the language about the hours and put in language about covering it. Mr. Ross spoke about having a vehicle in a rear yard behind a fence and the trunk lid was off and filling with water. Mr. Jenkins feels it should still be covered. Mr. Ross stated this only requires it to be covered if it is visible. He asked if it is a threat to health and safety to have an open trunk filling with water with mosquitoes breeding. Ms. Plaskett stated if it is breeding mosquitoes or rats, it is a health and safety issue. Mr. Ross stated there is another code that addresses that issue. Mr. Jenkins feels they only need to deal with it if it is in sight. Mr. Loeffler feels when someone is done for the day the vehicle should be covered. Mr. Ross feels it seems fine the way it is written. Mr. Jarrett asked what the definition is of outside. Ms. Plaskett stated outside is outside. Mr. Jenkins stated what he was trying to get at was the way it is written it leaves it open to the question of if it is covered is it okay or if it is not covered is it okay. If it is covered the question is still there whether it is legal or not. Page -5- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Mr. Pat Teehan, 1316 Royal Palm Drive, suggested putting in the wording open air which would cover out of a garage and out from underneath a car cover and car port. Open air would be exposed to the public. He spoke about a car being in a back yard with the trunk open and breeding mosquitoes being a safety hazard. If something like that would be passed what you are leading into is giving the City the right to go on your property. Ms. Plaskett stated they can't do that by law. By the same token if your neighbor saw your car had an open trunk with mosquitoes breeding he could give the Code Enforcement Officer permission to go on his property to view the owner's property. By State Statutes, the City is not allowed to go on someone's property and snoop around. Chairman Card stated there are a lot of people on this Committee that would agree 100 %. Mr. Jones stated they continue to talk about going onto a person's property. He asked what the permit provides for the officials of the City to do. He asked if they have the right to inspect work being done. Ms. Plaskett stated they ask them to provide it to staff showing proof that work is being done on the vehicle. Mr. Jones asked about permits, such as a house, what does that allow you to do. Ms. Plaskett explained it has to be inspected which is another State law. Ms. Plaskett again explained the person getting the permit provides information showing the work is being done. Mr. Jones asked if this excludes visitation to the work site. Ms. Plaskett explained the City doesn't have the manpower or time to look at all of the vehicle restoration permits. Chairman Card stated there is a proposal on the table. The proposal was for the acceptance of the language and the numbering one to change from two and the language as specified. He asked if there was further additional discussion. Ms. Donahue stated she is still against the 24 hours. She has seen too many things happen with children. Mr. Jones feels since they are trying to make this bulletproof, when does the 24 hour period start? Ms. Plaskett explained 24 hours from the time the Code Enforcement Officer sees the violation. Mr. Jarrett feels it wouldn't make a difference if it was one hour. Ms. Plaskett stated if they are not aware of it, they are not aware of it. Mr. Jenkins asked for the wording. Chairman Card stated 1. Any vehicle stored outside with open hood, doors or hatches and compartments exposed to the general public or neighboring properties for any period exceeding 24 hours. The motion CARRIED 10 -2. Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Donahue voted NO. Chairman Card entertained a change of number 3 to number 2 and approval of the language. Mr. Jarrett made a motion to accept, second by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jenkins feels they should add and not covered and it will take care of the problem on both of them. Page -6- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Mr. Ross feels you shouldn't be storing wrecked vehicles on your property if you are not restoring them. If you are going to restore it, get a permit. Mr. Jenkins stated this applies both ways. Mr. Ross stated nobody is saying you can't restore a wrecked vehicle. Mr. Jenkins stated the question is, is it visible if it is covered. Mr. McKay stated he wouldn't consider it visible. Ms. Plaskett and Mr. McGrath also wouldn't consider it visible. Mr. Ross stated as a resident he doesn't want a junked vehicle stored on his neighbor's property. Mr. Aloise feels if it is under cover it shouldn't be offensive to someone's view. Mr. Ross spoke about someone using their back yard to store ten wrecked vehicles and all you have to do is put up a six foot fence and put them under a custom car cover then you have a junk yard in residentially zoned property. Mr. McKay stated maybe they need to get into the amount of vehicles that would be allowed on a person's property. No one will be allowed to have ten cars in their back yard. He feels they are all in agreement that they want to put a limit on that type of activity. Chairman Card said after they are done, they will talk about how many of what. Mr. Ross again stated why should they have a junked vehicle on a residential lot that you aren't going to restore. Mr. Jenkins feels the issue is are they going to get the permit right now because then they would be required to restore it this year. Mr. Ross stated he would have to start but he doesn't have to finish it in a year because it is renewable. John Brackin, 2933 Silver Palm Drive, mentioned if you are using a car to supply parts or pieces for a car that you are restoring there may be a time allowance to use that donor car. Chairman Card thanked Mr. Brackin for his comments. Chairman Card stated he would draw people's attention to the audio visual display that was provided at the last meeting. Chairman Card stated his understanding is that it has been happily transferred to somebody who will use its parts. Mr. Jarrett asked if somebody is restoring a car and they get a permit to restore it and they've got a car or two for restoration, do you have to have a permit for those. Ms. Plaskett stated yes they should. The Committee has already voted that they have to have a permit. Ms. Donahue asked about even for the donor cars. Ms. Plaskett explained if there are three cars being used to restore one car, they should all have a permit. Mr. Aloise stated if you have a permit for a vehicle and you buy a donor car for parts, do you have to have a permit also for that vehicle. Ms. Plaskett stated she would say you should have a permit so the Code Enforcement Officer is aware of the fact that you have a permit to restore one vehicle, however you have another permit and you let them know it is a permit for the parts to use for the other vehicle. It is common sense. She suggested letting staff be aware of what you are doing and get rid of it when you are finished. Page -7- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Chairman Card informed the public the recommendation of the Committee is that there be no charge for the permit. He believes that was passed at the last meeting. Someone would simply be providing information and letting the City know they are restoring a car. Mr. Ross asked to make an amendment to the motion on Item 2. Any vehicle visible to the general public or neighboring properties which is obviously wrecked, dismantled or inoperable except for vehicles which are being used for parts for restoration which shall be subject to the same restrictions applied to the restored vehicle herein. He feels this gives a person a right to have a parts vehicle but it has to be covered and out of view and included in a permit issue. Mr. McKay stated the clock starts ticking when someone contacts Code Enforcement and the Code Enforcement Officer views the complaint. Mr. Ross stated he understands the need to have a donor vehicle but he wants them to be subject to the same restrictions the restored vehicle is subject to. Mr. Jones stated Section 21 -34.05 will cover that and they could include those words that Mr. Ross is concerned about into that section. He doesn't want to mix up restoration and junked and abandoned vehicles. Chairman Card asked for a second. The amendment died due to the lack of a second. Chairman Card asked if there was any more new information with regard to number 2. He read: any vehicle visible to the general public or neighboring properties, which is obviously wrecked, dismantled or inoperable. The motion CARRIED 12 -0. There was a five minute recess at this time. Mr. Madewell asked if number 1 is letter C. Chairman Card stated one and two they just passed. They are going to move to the third paragraph which will change from number four to number three. Mr. Jenkins made a motion to accept it as is, second by Mr. Aloise. Chairman Card read number four. Mr. Sylvester suggested they modify the numbers because one of these will not fit under this section. Chairman Card stated there doesn't appear to be a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Mr. Ross asked where in the Code does it say an abandoned vehicle is not allowed? Chairman Card stated they just passed paragraph B. Mr. Ross again asked where does it say you can't have an abandoned vehicle on your property. Chairman Card read vehicles wrecked or abandoned shall not be stored in any zoning area or district except as provided. Mr. Jenkins stated that is on the old proposal. Mr. Jenkins amended the motion to deal with numbers one through five, second by Mr. McKay. The motion CARRIED 12 -0. Chairman Card stated he would refer to them by the old numbers. They still have a motion on the table to accept number four. Mr. Ross asked the writer of this to amend his statement to delete the words definition: forsaken, dissolute. He doesn't feel they have to define the word abandoned. It should be included in the definition section. Page -8- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Mr. McKay explained he wanted to prohibit it and define it. Mr. Ross feels it should go under definitions. Ms. Plaskett read the definition of abandoned. She stated they are adding a definition for abandoned under the abandoned, wrecked or junked vehicle section. Mr. Ross asked if they are allowed to do that without going back to definition section. Ms. Plaskett stated it is okay because they are adding their own definition. Mr. Sylvester feels this should be moved out and become Item D because it doesn't deal with paragraph C which is public health, safety, and welfare. It deals with the definition of abandoned. Chairman Card agreed. Mr. Ross stated he thought that was what they voted on was to talk about these and place them in the appropriate place. Ms. Plaskett stated staff can do that for you. The motion CARRIED 12 -0. Chairman Card read number 5. Chairman Card entertained a motion. Mr. Madewell so moved, second by Ms. Donahue. Mr. Jenkins feels they don't need the whole thing. He feels they should stop at leaking hazardous fluids and pick back up with signficantly running off the vehicle onto surrounding area creating dangerous /hazardous conditions. If it is running off the vehicle, it's a problem. Chairman Card thinks it is good to leave it in because it is specific enough to give the Code Enforcement Officer definite items. Mr. Ross suggested they eliminate the words violating EPA regulations and eliminate which pose a threat to public health, safety or welfare by entering the groundwater supply because they would be placing on the Code Enforcement Officer the requirement that he prove it violates EPA regulations and number two that is it going into the groundwater supply. Why put those additional burdens on Code Enforcement? If it is leaking, it is in violation. Don't make him prove it is in violation of EPA. Mr. Sylvester feels they could solve the problem by including the word or. EPA regulations or by leaking hazardous fluids. Mr. Sylvester said he also included battery acid and lead in the battery among many others that could be included in the list. Mr. Madewell amended his motion to add the word or. Chairman Card read how this now reads. Mr. Jenkins doesn't think they need to refer to it leaking into the groundwater. Mr. Aloise stated if it is leaking into the ground, it is leaking into the groundwater. Mr. Ross stated no it's not. Mr. Jenkins stated if it is under a car it won't go down. Chairman Card entertained an amendment or suggested the person who proposed the motion amend it. Chairman Card asked if they want to eliminate by entering the groundwater supply or it would then read safety or welfare significantly running off the vehicle into surrounding areas. He feels that doesn't make a lot of sense by eliminating that language. Mr. McKay stated there is no reason to have any of that in there. If he takes out, entering the groundwater supply, there is no teeth. If it leaks on the ground and someone has a way to contain it and it is not going into the groundwater supply, there is no issue. It requires the Code Enforcement Officer to establish that it is not being contained and it gives him a right to go in and establish that. Page -9- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Mr. Ross feels it could easily run off into the street and into a retention pond and into the Indian River. It doesn't have to go into the groundwater supply. He suggested they add or by leaking non contained - hazardous fluids. Chairman Card entertained an amendment. Mr. Madewell amended his motion to read what Mr. Ross just said. Mr. Jarrett seconded the amendment. Mr. Aloise asked if they are deleting all the other wording in this paragraph. Mr. Ross stated his suggestion is to. Mr. Madewell stated he likes Mr. MrKay's idea with the teeth and feels it has potency when you leave it in there. Mr. Aloise asked Mr. Madewell to read it. Mr. McKay stated his motion as amended would read: Any vehicle violating EPA regulations or leaking non - contained hazardous fluids such as oil, fuel, gear grease all the way through the end. The only thing that has been changed is they have removed by and added word or instead and between leaking and hazardous they put in non - contained. Mr. Jarrett seconded the amendment. The motion CARRIED 12 -0. Mr. Jones asked if they agreed to a number for that paragraph. Chairman Card stated they will do that later. Chairman Card read Number 6. Chairman Card entertained a motion. Mr. McKay made a motion to accept. He asked Chairman Card how come he didn't go on past the the asterisk. Chairman Card stated he thought that was redundant. Mr. McKay stated he wants it to be a part. He doesn't want it to be lost in translation. Mr. Ross read the definition of nuisance out of the existing code. Mr. Ross feels they simply should put here to meet the criteria of nuisance in the definition section. Chairman Card stated what Mr. McKay has done is gone back and taken the definition from another part of the Code to bring it in for emphasis. The discussion they had was in regard to the verbiage following the asterisk, which is not a part of the original definition but Mr. McKay places it here to emphasize to anyone reading this section of the Code that this will specifically be used by the Code Enforcement Board for compliance. Mr. Loeffler so moved, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Jenkins feels the word object sounds out of place and should be taken out. Mr. Jones stated when you put the word nuisance down here then you define it in words in this particular code also referring to the same word defined in another code. Every time there is a change to the nuisance definition you have to make sure all the codes are updated. Ms. Plaskett informed him they do that anyway. Chairman Card called the question. The motion CARRIED 11 -1. Mr. Ross voted NO. Page -10- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 NEW BUSINESS Presentation of proposal for Vehicles Restoration and Permits Chairman Card read Item A and entertained a motion. Mr. Aloise stated did they not already discuss this about the permits? Chairman Card stated they did but it was not in actual language. Mr. McKay has now put it into language here. Mr. Jarrett made a motion to accept this as is, second by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jenkins stated he still has an objection to permits. The motion CARRIED 11 -1. Mr. Jenkins voted NO. Chairman Card read Item B. Mr. Madewell made a motion to accept this as is, second by Ms. Donahue. Mr. Aloise disagreed with the details of the restorer's plan because it may change continuously in a restoration project. He also has a problem with a time line. Restoration of a home, a business or a vehicle, time lines can be thrown out the window. You have a general consensus but it never seems to happen. Mr. Jenkins stated the permit shall be posted conspicuously at the residence. If there is going to be a permit, he feels that language should have been in Item A. He doesn't like the permit idea at all because the owner has to explain to the City why, what, when and how. He doesn't think he should have to do that. Mr. Ross stated this doesn't say that. It says you will say. He sees no reason with posting a piece of paper. Mr. Aloise stated but they are asking for it in detail. Mr. Ross asked Mr. Aloise if he wanted to eliminate the word detail. Mr. Ross feels you have to make some progress in the first year. Mr. Jenkins feels another problem with posting the permit is where is a person going to post it where it won't look unsightly and the weather won't destroy it. Ms. Plaskett suggested in your front window. Chairman Card suggested it be posted in the same place as if they were redoing a bathroom and visible from the street. Mr. Jenkins stated shouldn't that be in A. Mr. Madewell made a motion to amend what they need to amend. Mr. Ross stated delete in detail. Mr. Madewell made a motion to delete in detail. Chairman Card read the language. Mr. Aloise suggested stating accompanied by a proposed time line for progress. Mr. Madewell was willing to amend his amendment. Mr. Jones stated until the permit is issued it is still a proposed time line. The permit makes it final. Mr. Aloise stated but not contingent on that time line. Ms. Donahue spoke about there being people out there who will say they have worked on a vehicle even if it is as much as putting in a light bulb with no time frame to put in the other one. Mr. McKay stated that is why he had this in detail. He wants to give them rope to hang themselves. He agreed to change that. Ms. Donahue feels there still has to be some time limit. Chairman Card called the question. He read the language. The motion CARRIED 11 -1. Mr. Jenkins voted NO. Chairman Card read Item C. Mr. Aloise made a motion to accept as written, second by Mr. Blum. The motion CARRIED 11 -1. Mr. Jenkins voted NO. Page -11- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Chairman Card read Item D. Mr. Jarrett made a motion to accept as is, second by Mr. McKay. Mr. Jenkins had a problem with if a car is going to be covered, locating it behind the front dwelling line. If it is covered, it shouldn't matter. Mr. Sylvester has a problem with the word screening. He doesn't want to see a guy restoring a car on his pool deck. He feels screening should be defined. He feels it should state opaque screening or be eliminated. Mr. McKay asked if screening is defined. Ms. Plaskett explained screening can deal with plantings. They typically call for an opaque fence. Mr. Jenkins feels if it is stored from view it covers the issue. Mr. Madewell concurred with Mr. Jenkins. When they passed that you can have a boat and RV in the driveway, as long as it is not in the City right of way line, to him as long as that car is covered there is no reason he can't have it in the front yard. Mr. Jenkins feels it comes down to an equity issue. He feels it needs to be equal with the others. Mr. Aloise stated did they not discuss the issue of carports? Ms. Plaskett stated she just brought it to their attention. Mr. Aloise thinks carport should be eliminated because it is in open view. Mr. Jenkins made a motion to amend the motion and stop at garage and leave the rest off, second by Mr. McKay. Chairman Card read the motion. The motion CARRIED 11 -1. Mr. Jarrett voted NO. Chairman Card asked if there are other items to be added in either proposal. Mr. Ross proposed to include the vehicle being restored would be owned by the occupant of the property. Mr. Jenkins stated they haven't voted on the original motion. Mr. Ross amended his motion to add opaque to fencing and screening, second by Mr. Sylvester. The motion CARRIED 10 -2. Mr. Jones and Mr. Jarrett voted NO. There was a brief discussion regarding opaque fencing. Mr. Ross made a motion to include Item E vehicles being restored are to be owned by the occupant of the property, second by Mr. Jenkins. The motion CARRIED 10 -2. Mr. McKay and Mr. Madewell voted NO. Mr. Jenkins asked if they are locked into this only being residential. If they are not locked into residential there is a problem with what they just voted on. Mr. McKay stated you don't need a permit in a commercial area. Mr. Ross stated this is for residential use property. Chairman Card asked if they want to specify under Vehicle Restoration & Permits in residential areas. Ms. Plaskett stated they did that for the rest of the Code as well. They will make it consistent. Page -12- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Mr. Brackin stated he is concerned with saying it has to be owned by the person that occupies the residence. Ms. Plaskett explained if you are renting and you get a permit, you could do that. Mr. Brackin presented a scenario of helping a friend put in a window regulator in his door. Mr. Aloise informed him that is not restoration. Mr. Ross stated he would like to add Item F and made a motion to include that donor vehicles, which they may need to define, stored on property for the use of restoring another vehicle shall be subject to the same permitting and other conditions of this section that applies to restoring vehicles, second by Mr. Jones. Mr. Aloise stated if the permit is going to require a photograph of that vehicle and the progress of that vehicle and it shows a deterioration of that donor vehicle, how will that work. Chairman Card asked Ms. Plaskett how they would feel about this. Ms. Plaskett read Item B to be: The application shall be accompanied by a current photograph of the vehicle along with a letter describing the restoration plans for restoration or related activity. Mr. McKay stated that was his intent. Ms. Plaskett stated the only problem she sees with that is you are requiring the actual vehicle that is being restored that has a permit to be covered and enclosed but not the vehicle being used for parts. She feels Mr. Ross has a good point. If you are going to have a donor vehicle for the purpose of restoring vehicles there should be some provisions. Chairman Card entertained an amendment or a motion. Mr. Sylvester thinks this is the perfect opportunity to limit the number of donor vehicles someone can have at one time. He suggested permitting should restrict to one donor vehicle at a time. Mr. Jenkins commented on certain parts being the same in different cars. Ms. Donahue feels what Mr. Sylvester is trying to say is if you have a donor vehicle use it and get rid of it, instead of more than one in your yard being used as a donor. She feels this shouldn't apply. Mr. McKay stated one of the things he mentioned earlier was they are going to get to a point later that they were going to define how many vehicles a person could have on their property. He commented on the formula of square footage mentioned by Mr. Heeb. He believes they can address how many vehicles will be on a given property for restoration or whatever. They will put a limit on numbers later. He doesn't feel they need to address that now. Ms. Plaskett stated if Mr. Ross would allow her she thought she had his motion. She read donor vehicles stored on property to supply parts for the permitted restoration vehicle shall comply with item D. Mr. Ross made a motion to read as Ms. Plaskett stated, second by Mr. Blum. Mr. Loeffler stated the donor vehicle needs to comply with the restoration vehicle. Ms. Plaskett suggested adding the wording all of the above. Mr. Ross stated anything that is leaking is considered junk. Mr. McKay asked to hear how it reads one more time. Ms. Plaskett stated donor vehicles stored on property to supply parts for the permitted restoration vehicle shall comply with all of the above. Page -13- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 The motion CARRIED 12 -0. DISCUSSION ITEMS Set next agenda (October 19 and any administrative items that remain Chairman Card stated there are two items that remain, utility trailers and carports and tents and temporary carports. Mr. McKay asked at what point do they get to the number of vehicles. Chairman Card informed him at the end. Mr. Jenkins asked if they have a separate item for utility trailers. Mr. Ross stated they are discussing it as a separate item but that is not to say that it won't be incorporated into boats and R.V.s. Chairman Card stated they determined they would discuss utility trailers separately. He proposed to modify this to discuss temporary carports next time instead of utility trailers. Mr. Ross stated if time allows they could continue with utility trailers. Chairman Card stated anybody that has a special concern about utility trailers, say so now. Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Aloise did. Chairman Card asked them if they would feel comfortable in preparing some sort of a model to work from. They agreed. Mr. Jenkins stated he also had a concern about canopies so he will have something extra. Mr. Ross also agreed to make some suggestions. Chairman Card asked if they would be prepared to have it submitted to the Planning Office prior to a week from Monday. Ms. Donahue stated the date is October 13 Ms. Plaskett stated the Friday before the Monday. If they need anything typed, they need a couple of extra days. Chairman Card informed the Committee he will be making a report to the Council at their next meeting. Chairman Card stated if they can complete in the next meeting the two sections on utility trailers and canopies, he would like on November 2 nd to do the final draft revisions and provide it to staff for a two week period with staff to then do some word crafting on what they have done. It would come back to them on November 16th in a final draft. Mr. Ross stated they have three issues; canopies, utility trailers and the total number of vehicles. Mr. Jenkins feels canopies will get into a lot of time. Chairman Card stated he will tell Council they expect to be finished before Christmas. Ms. Donahue asked if they will vote on November 16 and if they will have the papers ahead of time and if she can vote ahead of time because she will not be here on the 16 Chairman Card informed her you can't vote unless you are here. Chairman Card suggested November 30 Mr. Jenkins also has a conflict on November 16 Mr. Jenkins suggesting moving it by one day. Chairman Card stated they would discuss this at the next meeting. He asked if they can get this room on November 15th. Page -14- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Mr. Jenkins suggested if November 15th is notood is November 14th. Ms. Donahue stated anything prior to 16 is okay for her. There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Aloise moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page -15- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 5, 2000 Paul Jenkins Proposal Page 1 of 2 21- 34.06(A) Watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational, recreational vehicle trailers and campers. The purpose of this Section is to establish criteria for the parking and storage of watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, 1, RV's recreational vehicle trailers, utility trailers and campers on residentially used property. A. Both watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, Al RV's, recreational vehicle trailers, utility trailers, and campers stored on residentially used property shall have a current and valid boat registration sticker and trailer license tag except any boat or trailer out of view to any person other than the property owner. B. Watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, al RV's recreational vehicle trailers, utility trailers, and campers stored on residentially used property shall be maintained in an operable condition. Repairs shall not exceed three (3) months. (This item will be discussed at a later date.) C. Watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, feral RV's recreational vehicle trailers, utility trailers, and campers may be parked or stored in a driveway, immediately parallel to the driveway, alongside the house or in the backyard subject to the following exception: 1. No watercraft or watercraft trailer or any part thereof may rest on or occupy �%w airspace past the property line. D. Boat motors of watercraft parked or stored on residentially used property shall not be operated before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m. E. Watercraft stored on residentially used property shall not be used as a dwelling, nor shall waste material be permitted to discharge. F. Watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, r-eer-eabonal RV's recreational vehicle trailers, utility trailers, and campers parked or stored on a residentially used property shall meet reasonable standards of appearance and maintenance as follows: 1. The ground beneath the boat and trailer shall be kept free of debris, including weeds and grass in excess of twelve inches (12 "). 2. Watercraft trailer, RV's, and utility trailer tires shall be inflated. (never voted on) 3. The watercraft shall be kept clean and not be allowed to emit any obnoxious odors that can be smelled from beyond the owner's property line. 4. Only routine repairs and maintenance may be performed on watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, mefeatiOBRI RV's recreational vehicle trailers, utility trailers and campers stored in front or side yards. 10/17/00 Paul Jenkins Proposal Page 2 of 2 '#ft• %W WIM 011 - 11 H. Visitors may reside in their motor homes on residentially used property for a maximum of a two (2) week period with a permit. I. The owner of the watercraft and watercraft trailer, RV, and utility trailer must reside on the premises where the item is parked or stored. Additional property owned by the resident adjacent to the residence is considered to be a part of the premises for this purpose. The vehicle shall not be lived in, except during an emergency or natural disaster. 10/17/00 Adhoc Committee Current Proposal 21 -34.04 Inoperable, Abandoned and / or Wrecked Vehicles. The purpose of this section is to establish criteria for identification and regulation of vehicles determined to be wrecked or abandoned in residentially used property. This section will provide for immediate removal of or disposition of vehicles determined to be junked, discarded, wrecked or otherwise beyond their usefulness as a conveyance. A. Vehicles wrecked or abandoned shall not be stored in any zoning district except as provided for in Section 21- 34.05. B. A vehicle shall be determined or defined as wrecked or abandoned by Code Enforcement officials should it be: 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 violating ERA regulations or leaking non - contained 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. 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 affects 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. 4. Vehicles 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. , %W C. Any vehicle visible to the general public or neighboring properties, which is obviously wrecked, dismantled or inoperable. D. Any vehicle for which Code responsible party declines to determined to be abandoned. Enforcement Officials cannot establish ownership or the resolve valid issues contained within this section shall be 10/17/00 Adhoc Committee Current Proposal 21 -34.05 Vehicle Restoration & Permits - For Residential Properties 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 the restorer's plans for restoration or related activities and a proposed 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 the proposal is being made. D. When not working on said vehicle, it shall be stored from view by opaque fencing, screening, custom car cover or stored inside a garage. E. Vehicles being restored shall be owned by the occupant of the property. F. Donor vehicles stored on property to supply parts for the permitted restoration vehicle shall comply with all of the above. 10/17/00 2 Adhoc Committee Current Proposal 21- 34.06(A) Watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational, recreational vehicle trailers and campers. The purpose of this Section is to establish criteria for the parking and storage of watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational, recreational vehicle trailers, and campers on residentially used property. A. Both watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational, recreational vehicle trailers and campers stored on residentially used property shall have a current and valid boat registration sticker and trailer license tag except any boat or trailer out of view to any person other than the property owner. B. Watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational, recreational vehicle trailers and campers stored on residentially used property shall be maintained in an operable condition. Repairs shall not exceed three (3) months. (This item will be discussed at a later date.) C. Watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational, recreational vehicle trailers and campers may be parked or stored in a driveway, immediately parallel to the driveway, alongside the house or in the backyard subject to the following exception: 1. No watercraft or watercraft trailer or any part thereof may rest on or occupy airspace past the property line. `%r D. Boat motors of watercraft parked or stored on residentially used property shall not be operated before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m. E. Watercraft stored on residentially used property shall not be used as a dwelling, nor shall waste material be permitted to discharge. F. Watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational, recreational vehicle trailers and campers parked or stored on a residentially used property shall meet reasonable standards of appearance and maintenance as follows: 1. The ground beneath the boat and trailer shall be kept free of debris, including weeds and grass in excess of twelve inches (12 "). 2. Watercraft trailer tires shall be inflated. (never voted on) 3. The watercraft shall be kept clean and not be allowed to emit any obnoxious odors that can be smelled from beyond the owner's property line. 4. Only routine repairs and maintenance may be performed on watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational, recreational vehicle trailers and campers stored in front or side yards. \.r 10/17/00 3 Adhoc Committee Current Proposal G. The owner of the watercraft and watercraft trailer must reside on the premises where '`• the item is parked or stored. Additional property owned by the resident adjacent to the residence is considered to be a part of the premises for this purpose. The vehicle shall not be lived in, except during an emergency or natural disaster. H. Visitors may reside in their motor homes on residentially used property for a maximum of a two (2) week period with a permit. 10/17 /00 4