Loading...
10-19-2000CITY OF EDGEWATER CITIZENS LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 2000 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Card called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present were: Chairman Pat Card, Dan Sylvester, J. Michael McKay, Dan Loeffler, Elizabeth Donahue, Ray Jarrett, Richard Jones, Paul Jenkins, Robert Blum, David Ross, Andy Anderson, Dan Holland, Ferd Heeb. Mike Aloise was excused. Burt Madewell arrived at 7:28 p.m. Also present was Planning Director Lynne Plaskett and Deputy City Clerk Lisa Bloomer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 5, 2000 Mr. McKay made a motion to approve the October 5, 2000 minutes, second by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Heeb asked about a section in Mr. Jenkins proposal. He was informed that was not part of the minutes so he withdrew his question. The motion CARRIED 13 -0. Chairman Card asked Mr. Heeb if he had questions in regard to the current proposal Section 21 -34.04 Inoperable, Abandoned, or Wrecked vehicles. Mr. Holland asked which page they were referring to. Chairman Card informed him Page 1 of the Ad Hoc Committee which is also the fourth page from the back. Mr. Heeb stated in reading it, it doesn't seem to him that it flows correctly. He read the second paragraph and Item C. He questioned what this means. Ms. Plaskett stated what they did was went through all of the minutes and motions to provide exactly what was voted on and the language that was voted on so they could see what is really up to date as opposed to what was existing. This is taken directly from their minutes and motions and this is exactly the way it was laid out. At one meeting they were directed to take all of the health and safety issues and put those in order and then C was to stand alone because it wasn't a health and safety issue. Mr. Holland asked if they compiled all of the terminology that had been approved by the Committee. Ms. Plaskett stated from the very beginning. Mr. Holland asked if they used the same terminology approved by the Committee. Ms. �' Plaskett informed him yes. Chairman Card stated he had some additions and corrections. On page 3, Ad Hoc Committee Current Proposal, Number 2 he directed the Committee to August 10, Paragraph 2, Page 8 and read what it said. The motion was all of the materials as they had been shown in the summary received from Deputy City Clerk Bloomer previously. He stated that was the question about inflated tires on watercraft trailers. Ms. Plaskett stated they looked at that but because of the changes made and the motions not being consistent, it was very time consuming. Mr. Heeb made a motion to amend their previously proposed watercraft, watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational, recreational vehicle trailers, and campers proposal to state Paragraph F Item 2 Watercraft Trailer tires shall be inflated, second by Mr. Jarrett. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Heeb to amend his proposal. He doesn't understand what recreational means standing alone. Chairman Card would like to get this one out of the way first and then they can amend any other corrections. Mr. Ross asked if they going to go back and start all over. Chairman Card stated all they are approving is watercraft trailer tires shall be inflated. Mr. Ross stated what they were doing in the course of these meetings was coming up with verbiage correct or incorrect, in order or out of order, and after coming to conclusion on all of agenda items, they would then have a review session that they would then finally vote on the verbiage they passed. It sounds to him like they are starting to do this tonight. Chairman Card stated staff has come forward and attempted to bring them up to date on what has been and has not been passed. They have some scrivener's errors in their work. Mr. Ross stated he is not prepared to discuss these items. He thinks they need to do that but as an item of business set forward for a meeting. Chairman Card asked for further discussion on the motion on the floor. There was no further discussion. The motion CARRIED 13 -0. Chairman Card asked to note for the record that F2 in Section 21- 34.06A has now been passed by a majority of the Committee. He asked if there were other questions or comments in regard to materials included with the packet this time. Mr. Jones again stated recreational doesn't mean anything. He proposed that it be removed from the ad hoc committee current proposal summary, second by Mr. Loeffler. Ms. Plaskett explained in the context of the way they were speaking of it, it referred to RV's and then recreational vehicle trailers. She suggested they could say recreational vehicles and recreational vehicle trailers. Chairman Card stated he had put that language in with the hope that they would cover vehicles that might be recreational vehicles but would not meet the requirements of an R.V. as such. Page -2- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Ms. Plaskett stated recreational, refers to a recreational vehicle and the other one is recreational vehicle trailers. Mr. Jones stated sentence structure wise it is improper. He asked if they wanted him to withdraw his proposal and discuss it later. Mr. Jones withdrew his proposal. Mr. Ross stated all of the RV's that he knows of within the industry are covered if you include the word recreation. If you say motor homes, recreational vehicles and campers , they have included all sources of recreational vehicles. Mr. Loeffler suggested they make it recreational, recreational vehicles and recreational vehicle campers and trailers. Chairman Card asked if they wanted to eliminate recreational. Ms. Plaskett asked if they wanted to add the word vehicle. Mr. Jones also felt they should defer these things until the end. Mr. Jenkins stated in his proposal about utility trailers, he proposed they merge into this document and substitute it for that word. Mr. Anderson stated isn't a camper an R.V.? Mr. Ross stated anything on wheels that is used for recreational purposes. Chairman Card asked Ms. Plaskett for the definition. She stated they could do this later and clean it all up. That is probably the way they should go. Chairman Card agreed. Mr. Anderson stated he thought an RV was classified under recreational. Mr. Ross stated there are a lot of things they need to look at and think about and discuss. Chairman Card stated he would be happy to move on if there is no further discussion in regard to the other materials that were included. Mr. Jenkins said for the record he doesn't expect them to take action on this at this time. Somehow between Mr. McKay's first and second version, he did not realize that the second paragraph was in here saying: this section will provide for immediate removal or disposition of vehicles determined to be junked, discarded, wrecked or otherwise beyond their usefulness as a conveyance. Mr. Jenkins he stated he doesn't believe it is legal to immediately remove without due process. If he voted on that, he voted on it in error. Ms. Plaskett informed Mr. Anderson he was right and read the definition of recreational vehicles. Chairman Card informed the Committee they would move along. Mr. Jenkins suggested they take care of the utility trailer issues and get rid of this real quick. There were no concerns in regard to that. Mr. Jenkins stated he came to the same conclusion as Mr. Aloise. He suggested everything should be uniform and apply to utility trailers. He suggested they substitute that word into the existing language they voted on for motor homes and boats and so forth. Everyone had an opportunity to read through this. Page -3- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Chairman Card entertained a motion. Mr. Sylvester so moved, second by Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Heeb asked if utility trailers come in all sizes and shapes. He asked if there should be a limitation on what is the relative to the ultimate use of the utility trailer. He feels an enclosed 24 foot long trailer is a different situation. He has seen lawn guys pulling trailers that are very substantial. Mr. Jenkins feels from an equity issue, an enclosed trailer, if it fits in the setback without going over the property line is no different to a person who owns a motor home or boat. If they are going to allow a boat or motor home to be kept in the front, the same will have to apply. If there is any odor, it would come under the nuisance section. Mr. Holland stated their lots are small boat, R.V, or utility trailer. Not eve of everything sitting there. They will He doesn't feel by picking and choosing can be, they are discriminating against still fits within the parameters, there restrictions on it. and you can't have a big ryone is going to have one have to pick and chose. how big these trailers a trailer owner. If it is no reason to put Mr. Heeb stated everything they have discussed to date and all of the issues that have been presented to the Committee, basically carry a clear message, recreational. So far, all they have discussed is recreational. A utility trailer can be used to haul motorcycles or a race car and can also be used as a business vehicle. Mr. Jenkins feels he is going after commercial then. Mr. Heeb stated he is not familiar with utility trailers. Chairman Card stated it has occurred to him he has made a blunder. There is a member of the general public who may want to make a statement. He did not call on it earlier. He asked the Committee to allow him to get out from under his blunder and offer him an opportunity to speak. The gentleman stated he was here about the canopies and would wait until they discuss them. Mr. Heeb stated he doesn't want to see them put utility trailers in with boat trailers and recreational vehicles. He would like the Committee to explore the uniqueness of this particular issue. Ms. Donahue thinks what he is trying to get across is someone has a utility trailer with lawn equipment on it and next to it he has another utility trailer with additional equipment. Mr. Jenkins stated that is where they get into the number issue. Ms. Donahue stated there are a lot of people that have businesses out of their homes, and they have two and three utility trailers parked in their yards. Mr. Jarrett asked if they are talking about putting utility trailers under Section 21- 34.06A. It is not listed in the topic but it is listed in almost every paragraph. Mr. Jenkins stated it was supposed to be up there to but it isn't. Page -4- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Mr. Jenkins said utility trailers were included in the same section in the original code as campers and RV's and were in the proposed new code in the same section. He commented on a court case at home where the City went after a guy for a commercial vehicle in his yard, which was a van with ladders. The court ruled it was an incidental use to the fact that he lives there and they said he could keep it there. Even if they tried to get into the issue of it being a commercial trailer with lawn mowers hanging on side, he doesn't think legally they have any power to do that. He spoke about enclosed or open utility trailers and a car trailer being a car trailer. Chairman Card asked Ms. Plaskett read Section 21.34.06 before it was adopted and then unadopted, for the Committee to review. The only one pending verses their review is Item C. It covered all trailers, not just utility trailers. Mr. Loeffler asked for the definition of a utility trailer. Ms. Plaskett stated she didn't think they had one. Mr. Holland feels they are going to run into a situation where you can have a recreational trailer with four wheelers and then you can have someone who has their business trailer with lawn mowers. How will you be able to tell the difference between commercial and recreational if it is enclosed and there is no identification? Ms. Plaskett stated that is the purpose of just saying trailers period so it would cover all trailers. Mr. Jenkins stated in the court case there was commercial writing on the van. Mr. Heeb stated this is an ad hoc committee acting on behalf of Council to come up with a solution. He feels it is too easy to put in without discussing it. He commented on what he feels a utility trailer is. He feels there are a bunch of things that come into play with trailers. Mr. Holland feels the uniqueness of this issue is we are in a community where we have boats, R.V.'s and other utilities that we use. There are also many entrepreneurs, which bring in utility trailers. We don't have industry and it takes it upon the citizen to make his own dollar his own way. He feels it is just as important as boats and R.V.s and should be considered the same. Chairman Card stated an alternative is to eliminate the word utility. Ms. Plaskett stated which was originally proposed. Mr. Ross thinks they have agreed in this Committee that the City of Edgewater is a recreational based community, boats, watercraft and R.V.'s, i.e. that type of vehicle meets the community standards. He is not going to say this is true up and down all sections of Edgewater but he lives in the Shores and there are a lot of other areas he has driven in, that community standard in the City of Edgewater is today that people in business for themselves keep trailers which meet community standards today in Edgewater. If it meets community standards, it is not proper for this Committee to exclude the business community from its own standards. Page -5- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Mr. Heeb feels they should discuss the issues and that is the only point he made. Chairman Card stated Mr. Heeb has done something good for them and that is he had made them examine this and our minutes will reflect this. One thing he will report to Council is how thoroughly this Committee has looked at this from all sides and what a broad spectrum of views have been here. He stated Mr. Heeb has said he neither agrees to disagrees, he has just brought this to our attention. Mr. Jones thinks they should go back and recall some of their earlier meetings where they discussed commercial usage of vehicles and they weren't going to be addressing this. Now they have an item that co- exists under both areas. Chairman Card asked if commercial trailers in residential areas are covered under any other section in the code. Mr. Jarrett stated up to a certain size. Mr. Jenkins thought the definition of a commercial vehicle only pertains to trucks. Ms. Plaskett stated it is not in the definition section. Chairman Card asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Jenkins stated they had a motion on his proposal. He asked if he can amend his proposal. Chairman Card informed him certainly but it doesn't require a second. Mr. Jenkins would like to amend it so that the language at the top and the section reads Watercraft, Watercraft Trailers, Motor Homes, R.V.s, Recreational Vehicle Trailers, Trailers and Campers to match the language below and take out the word utility out of the rest of the language below. Mr. Sylvester asked where they are talking about. Chairman Card informed him Page 1 of Mr. Jenkins proposal and read the sections this pertains to. Mr. Jones stated before they go too far, they have in the main paragraph, expanded the number of the items which are being covered but it doesn't agree with what is included. Mr. Jenkins stated he just added that. Mr. Ross stated they are going to strike wherever it is. Ms. Plaskett read the definition of commercial vehicle. Mr. Ross stated rated at more than one ton. Ms. Plaskett stated that means they can pull more than one ton. She further explained a trailer is not a vehicle. She read the definition of vehicle and commercial vehicle. Mr. Ross stated Ms. Plaskett just said a semi cab or trailer. If it is a semi trailer, it is considered a commercial vehicle. Chairman Card stated that is what it refers to. Mr. Jenkins stated he had put a proposal on the existing code on the proposed code about the one ton because there was language mixed up about the one ton. They never got into that issue about whether it applied to the trailer, he thinks they assumed it didn't. It could only apply to a semi trailer or towed vehicle per say. Mr. Ross asked for an interpretation and asked Ms. Plaskett if it is her opinion that utility trailers used purely and solely for commercial purposes that are towed with a pickup truck either fifth wheel or straight hitch is not a commercial vehicle. Ms. Plaskett stated it depends. Probably most of the Committee would consider a trailer something that is either flat or may not be totally covered. We don't have a definition for utility trailer. Page -6- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Mr. Jenkins asked Ms. Plaskett to look in the commercial vehicle section. There is a 24 foot limit. Ms. Plaskett stated the purpose of the definition section is to identify commercial vehicles in a broad sense because there are certain areas of the City where they are prohibited. She stated semi trucks and semi cabs were a big problem. Mr. Jenkins again stated there is a 24 foot limit in the actual commercial vehicle section. Mr. Ross stated his concern is what they are talking about is totally exclusive of what the commercial code says. He is trying to identify if what they are talking about can be construed to be included within the commercial code. They have a big problem they need to explore before they start passing codes that are contradictory to commercial. Chairman Card asked Ms. Plaskett if a standard utility trailer being used by a lawn guy that is 24 feet long would be excluded from parking in the front yard, it is commercial. Under the existing code that has currently been passed, is it a commercial vehicle. Mr. Holland stated if they have a business license at that address. Ms. Plaskett stated there is a whole lot of things that go along with that besides just would it be considered. If someone has a home occupational license for a lawn business they are not allowed to advertise outside the dwelling unit. It is 100% supposed to be used as an office. Part of the requirement to have a home occupational license is no signage. The exception is if he has a truck in conjunction with a home occupation license that has to bear his name by Florida Statutes. Mr. Holland stated a contractor by law has to have his contractor number on there, he is excluded. He asked if there is anyone else other than state regulated contractors that aren't allowed to have any signs. Chairman Card expressed concern with if they have they already done something that eliminates the problems that people have. Mr. Jenkins stated most of vehicles being described are over 1 ton. Ms. Plaskett stated then it shouldn't be at his house. Mr. Jenkins stated usually trucks used for a tree business are 2 z to 5 ton trucks. He feels what they are dealing with is stuff that is allowed and not disallowed by something else. If it is disallowed under the commercial section, they are not automatically allowing it. It is still disallowed. Chairman Card stated if they are comfortable that commercial trailers like the ones used for a tree business have been covered somewhere else in the Code, then they don't need to talk about it. He suggested looking at other forms of trailers they know are out there, such as horses and motorcycles. He couldn't turn down somebody that had a covered trailer with four Harley's in it worth a total of $95,000. Mr. Jenkins stated not too many people keep horse trailers at their homes because they don't keep the horses there. Mr. Ross feels a vast number of trailers, not semi -truck trailers, are not pleasure vehicles. They are commercially used trailers pulled behind van or pickup truck. Page -7- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Mr. Holland stated they are the working man's trailers. He wants to make sure the working man is protected. Chairman Card stated the City has already passed something they are satisfied with for commercial vehicles. Mr. Ross stated what they are talking about is excluded from the commercial vehicle description. So they are talking about this. Mr. Heeb stated they are excluded from their responsibility. They are not going to deal with commercial vehicles. Mr. Ross stated 90% of the trailers in the City of Edgewater are for commercial application. Mr. Jenkins stated they are not considered under the commercial code. They are exempted from that and they deal with them but they are not dealing with them like they are commercial. He feels they are a personal tool. Chairman Card felt Mr. Ross had a good point. They should either do it or don't do it and they have to consider it and if they limit it, then they limit it on some that are going to be commercial. Mr. Loeffler suggested they write the best code in general and let Code Enforcement decide if they want to enforce commercial or residential. Chairman Card stated the City got a new signage law. He walked up on one of the CAP's at a yard sale and the yard sale guy was bent out of shape. The new signage law was very specific. He feels if they put this in and they leave it to the interpretation of someone else, they could well have someone doing nothing two days a week but going out and kicking butts and taking names. Mr. Loeffler stated what he meant to say is the City knows who is licensed and can have those vehicles. He feels the rest will fall into what they are trying to write. Ms. Plaskett stated the garage sale sign is nothing new, it is just now being heavily enforced. Mr. Holland stated priorities. Ms. Plaskett stated the CAPS are volunteers. The garage sale signs in the right -of -way has been in effect over 15 years. They have never had Code Enforcement to be able to operate on the weekends because there was only one officer from 8 to 4:30 all these years. Now they have CAPS, who aggressively goes out and gets those signs. It is now under the Police Department. Chairman Card stated his point remains the same, the next item could be trailers for three months. Let's be sure of the language they are using. Mr. Jones stated when he referred to misinterpreted he was referring to the individual citizen who reads the ordinance. They have to be clear so the individuals in the City don't misinterpret what the law is. Ms. Donahue asked how would this effect someone that has a utility trailer that is not commercial but he does lawns for family. He is carrying this equipment but it is not commercial. Mr. Holland stated he would be a recreational mower person. Ms. Donahue asked how would they interpret it if it is sitting there with the equipment on it. Mr. Jenkins feels this doesn't affect either one. Page -8- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Mr. McKay asked if the City in the past ever enforced any ordinance on an individual. Has the City in the past gone to an individual's residence who stores his lawn service equipment trailers at home and said you have a commercial vehicle here and it needs to be stored in a commercial area. Ms. Plaskett stated she is not aware of any but that doesn't mean it hasn't. To the best of her knowledge for all the years she was here and Code Enforcement was under the Planning Department, she doesn't remember anything. It is currently under the Police Department so she is not as privy to that information as she used to be. Mr. McKay asked has the City in the past enforced any ordinance that is on the books now in some section on an individual who has a vehicle at home. If someone has a vehicle in a driveway that advertises a plumbing business, has it ever been a problem in the past. Ms. Plaskett stated they have gone out but not on particularly on the sign. It could have been storing equipment outside residence. It would not have been on the signage on the vehicle itself. It could have been the size of the truck or a plumber storing PVC pipe along the side of house. Mr. McKay stated plumbers have trailers that are used for pulling pipe and lawn service guys have trailers for lawn mowers. He wants to make sure the City hasn't gone on site and said they have to remove a trailer. If the City has, they are probably going to have to cover commercial usage. Ms. Plaskett stated what they are proposing is totally different than what they had before. They have never addressed utility trailers. It had to do with the commercial vehicle over a certain rated capacity or outside storage of construction materials. This is new frontier for them. Mr. Jenkins stated out of all the complaints that proceeded all of this, he doesn't believe any of them dealt with the issue of commercial or lawn mower trailers. It was always where the stuff was parked, not the issue of the guy that has a lawn business and shouldn't have his trailer. He thinks they are getting into something in the past that has not been issue. Ms. Plaskett stated and may not be issue in future. Mr. Jenkins stated in the proposed code they didn't spell out utility trailers, they just said trailers like in the previous code. There was a five minute recess at this time. Mr. Jarrett stated they have some laws that govern commercial vehicles and he feels if they separate that from what they are talking about and they have already passed a variance to where you can't park in right -of -ways and the length of the vehicle. He thinks it is narrowing down that utility trailers is non commercial and small enough that it fits within the guidelines they passed with previous vehicles. Mr. Heeb feels he is making a good point. He suggested they add a paragraph that says any trailer that is not a recreational trailer shall be subject to the commercial vehicle section of the code. Mr. Holland stated no. Mr. Jenkins feels that would automatically put a burden on the all of the guys with lawn mowers. Page -9- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Mr. Jenkins asked Ms. Plaskett to read what he found. It puts it back in the Council's hands. Ms. Plaskett read Section 21- 35.05. She explained this has already been approved. Mr. Loeffler asked if this also included in the garage. Mr. Jenkins stated if it is in a garage there is no jurisdiction. Mr. Ross stated by the definition just read, number one a vehicle has to be motorized. If the truck that is towing a trailer is not deemed a commercial vehicle, it says a commercial vehicle and its associated trailers. If the trailer is a 23 footer and it says Jack's Maintenance on it and the truck is not a commercial vehicle that trailer is not covered by the code because it is not associated with a commercial vehicle. He knows it was the City's intent to exclude those trailers. Mr. Jenkins stated it depends on how it is punctuated. Chairman Card feels this is something for the Glitch Committee. He is sure the intent was to eliminate it. Mr. Jenkins stated when that was being proposed, he spoke to Mr. Fischer and he brought that issue up. He asked if they are going to measure 24 foot with the two connected or not connected. He stated Mr. Fischer finally said he guesses if they are together they are connected. Ms. Plaskett stated it doesn't say anything about the trailer. Mr. Ross stated it is a motorized vehicle. Mr. Jenkins stated it means a truck over 24 feet. He stated it doesn't say anything about the combined length. Mr. Ross stated if someone is pulling a trailer with a non commercial vehicle, the trailer is not covered by the code. Ms. Plaskett again read the definition. Chairman Card stated she just read the second definition which does not limit it to being motorized. He asked Ms. Plaskett as defined here a commercial vehicle doesn't have to be motorized. Ms. Plaskett stated you are not going to get a rated capacity on something that is not motorized. Ms. Plaskett feels what would clear this up is when this was proposed by the Building Department, they looked at if a one ton rated capacity is fair. One of the things that was looked at was what was the Division of Motor Vehicles define a commercial vehicle as. She feels they may want to look at some language. If a person has a registration through DMV and it is registered as commercial vehicle, that may clear this all up. The Committee could put that in the definition section. When this was done this language was not referred back to a commercial vehicle. The intent of a commercial vehicle is a commercial vehicle that is registered with DMV as a commercial vehicle and they further defined, if it is over a one ton rated capacity with more than two axles and over 24 feet long, that shall be considered a commercial vehicle. She mentioned maybe putting in language saying the registration says it is a commercial vehicle, that have the rated capacity on them, that may be the key. Mr. Anderson asked Ms. Plaskett if she was saying if it is two axles it is not commercial. Ms. Plaskett stated more than two axles. Mr. Jones stated she keeps referring to the State registration. Registration rates are different for commercial and private. He feels they are beating a dead horse. They are relying on the State definition which he feels thinks has an eternally different meaning. Page -10- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Mr. Ross suggested they vote on this and then he is going to make a separate motion. Mr. Heeb stated Mr. Jenkins motion was to adopt his proposal and take utility out of wherever it appears in the proposal relative to trailers. Mr. Heeb stated his proposal deleted Section G of the original proposal relative to watercraft, watercraft trailers. He asked why he did that. Mr. Jenkins stated I replaced it to show it changing G to I. Mr. Heeb stated so the motion does not include the deletion of Section G. Mr. Jenkins informed him it is the same language in I. He thinks the person that typed this was.trying to show this is going to change. They just redid this as I. Chairman Card stated I is actually G. Mr. Anderson stated a vehicle doesn't have to be motorized. Mr. Ross stated by the definition it does. Mr. Jenkins doesn't believe it is their charge to define what is and what isn't commercial. Chairman Card doesn't think they have. Mr. Madewell asked to hear the motion. Chairman Card read the motion with the changes. Mr. Ross said he was going to make a separate motion. The motion he is going to make is that they define trailers and put it in the definition section that the word trailers means, trailers not otherwise considered recreational or commercial as defined under the commercial vehicle definition. For the purpose of that, they need to keep utility trailer and define utility trailer. Mr. Holland believed they had a decent outline. Nothing they vote on is in stone. He suggested they get started on canopies and temporary carports and come back and go through everything. Mr. Loeffler asked if there is a definition in the City Code now on utility trailers. Chairman Card called the question. The motion CARRIED 14 -0. Mr. Ross requested at the next meeting they think this through. He wants to read the Code and come back at the next meeting and make a motion to clarify what trailers are. Chairman Card asked if there was any further discussion. There was none at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment at this time. STAFF COMMENTS AND REPORTS There were no staff comments at this time. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business at this time. Page -11- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 NEW BUSINESS Presentation of proposals for Temporary Tents and Carports and Utility Trailers Chairman Card entertained a motion. Mr. Jarrett stated he has read this pretty close. He is not in favor of any canopies in the front yard. Chairman Card again entertained a motion. The Committee agreed to hear Mr. Loeffler's presentation first. Mr. Loeffler read his proposal. Mr. Jarrett asked if this came from the manufacturer's guidelines. Mr. Loeffler stated it depends on the size and shape. They can be reinforced in other ways. This is a minimum. Mr. Holland asked if this is strictly metal and doesn't include carbon fiber composite materials that are just as strong as steel. Mr. Loeffler stated some may probably be better because they don't rust. They could include that in there as a particular gauge of a PVC. Mr. Heeb stated he doesn't know what 17 gauge metal is. He put up a carport that is all metal and it was designed and engineered and he got permit for it from the City. It meets the 120 mph windload requirement. It was designed to meet that and passed the City's permitting. The issue in this City is tents that you buy at Home Depot. The real issue is there are a lot of people that buy those and want those. He has a hard time telling people that have the tents that they can't have them. He recognizes the feelings of their neighbors. His thought was for those type of tents have to be registered with the City so the City knows where they are. One of the compliance factors is if they have storm warnings exceeding 40 or 50 mph wind, it would be mandatory to take it down. They will have them registered so if they don't take them down and they do damage, they would be responsible for the damage that tent makes. Chairman Card asked Mr. Heeb if he meant by taking them down, taking the canopy cover off so they wouldn't fly. Mr. Heeb stated he is saying taking them down. He feels the frame can also become a missel. Mr. Loeffler stated not when it is anchored right. Mr. Jenkins stated if it is anchored right, the tarp will tear off and the frame will stay there. Mr. Heeb suggested taking the tarp down. Mr. Jenkins made a motion to read his and argue the issues of both. Ms. Plaskett stated with Mr. Loeffler's proposal he could walk in today and get a permit. It meets the windload and setback requirements. Mr. Jenkins has a problem with the permit process and it becoming a permanent structure. Mr. Jenkins stated Mr. Fischer doesn't want to see the City getting into inspecting and permitting these. A lot of the language tried to deal with that and still put the responsibility on the owner. Page -12- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Mr. McKay asked if it is possible to get a consensus among the Committee members of how many feel they ought to be regulating this or do they have to regulate this. Ms. Plaskett stated it is part of their responsibility. Chairman Card stated it is part of their responsibility to make decision in regard to it but it doesn't mean necessarily mean their decision has to be restrictive regulation. Their decision could be to make no decision. He asked for a straw vote. Mr. McKay, Mr. Holland, and Mr. Madewell voted NO. Mr. Jenkins read his proposal. He added language at the end of B to be as well as to keep them in a state of good repair, clean and orderly. Mr. Jenkins continued reading his proposal. Mr. Jenkins added language to Item G. After possible, he included in the driveway or parallel next to the driveway. Mr. Jenkins continued reading his proposal. Mr. Jarrett referred to Item F. He doesn't think the City is going to keep copies of the manufacturer's installation. He feels as they apply for a permit and it is approved, then they keep it on file. Ms. Plaskett stated there is no way to maintain that type of stuff. Mr. Jenkins stated there is not that many of them. There are canopies being sold, not at Home Depot, with no instructions. Mr. Anderson stated it was mentioned earlier if is tied down right they won't have a problem. How do they as neighbors know it is tied down right? He liked Mr. Heeb's idea. If there are 50 mile per hour winds, it should be disassembled. Mr. Holland questioned if someone is going to risk their welfare to take it down to meet a criteria they have established. You are going to look out for your welfare, not your property. Mr. Anderson feels if you are aware of storm a coming, you have to do something. Chairman Card asked the gentleman in the audience if he would like to speak. He informed him he could speak up to five minutes with no rebuttal from the Committee. Albert Hall, 3327 Willow Oak Drive, stated if he gets wind gusts that are going to be 50 miles per hour, in 10 minutes he can take the cover off. During Irene with the cover on, it didn't go anywhere. Mr. Heeb doesn't think these canopies should be permitted. The City already has rules and regulations for permitting a carport which becomes a permanent structure. These are temporary structures. It is a concern of the community or it wouldn't be an issue now. He feels they shouldn't have to have a permit, just a registration. He spoke of how the City keeps track of alarms. If they register, they know where they are. Chairman Card asked for a straw vote of those in favor of registration of the carports. Mr. Jones voted NO. Page -13- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Chairman Card stated at this point that could be added to either of the proposals. Mr. Jenkins stated that is almost the same as him requiring they come in and get a copy of code which could be accomplished when it is registered. Ms. Plaskett had an objection to Item E -1. She will not let someone anchor it to a tree. Mr. Jenkins feels trees are a better anchor than the hurricane anchors. Ms. Plaskett stated definitely no because they have a tree preservation ordinance and she is a tree lover and ropes destroy trees. Mr. Jenkins again stated a tree is one of the best anchors. Mr. Jones stated he bought one of these. If they are properly installed, they can withstand wind. Mr. Blum agreed with the tree. Mr. Jenkins feels there has to be some common sense. If it is not stable, you are not going to tie something else to it. Mr. Sylvester feels Item A is redundant. In Item B, feels the owners are responsible anyway, which is also redundant and obvious. He also didn't agree with tying to tree. He also doesn't agree with the 3/8" nylon rope because it can be too easily cut. He believes the word possible in Item G is ambiguous. It should be clearly defined or that paragraph eliminated completely. He agreed with the registration. Ms. Donahue stated if a tree in your yard falls on your neighbors yard your insurance does not pay it, their insurance does. Mr. Loeffler spoke about the canopies blowing away. He feels the homeowners insurance should take care of it. Mr. Ross stated he has a big canopy that he took down during the two hurricanes that is tied with 3/16 nylon rope and has held up. It will withstand more wind than people think if it is tied down right. He doesn't object to registration. If it is going to be a non - permitable item, he doesn't think they need to write into the code the building specifications for it. He agrees with not using concrete blocks or weights. He has his tied to a two inch tree. He also feels Items A & B are redundant. He agrees with Item C. He feels Item D is redundant. Regarding the installation, he thinks they need a paragraph that says the owner will properly install and maintain the unit. Item E, he doesn't think they need to worry about the City keeping stuff on file. He doesn't disagree with Item G. He totally disagrees with Item H. He feels they need to include on temporary carports and canopies that during hurricane warnings and /or watches that the cover be removed. Chairman Card entertained a motion with regard to Mr. Loeffler's presentation. Mr. Heeb stated what Mr. Loeffler has in his presentation already exists in the Code. He doesn't think they should go through the exercise of going through Mr. Loeffler's, if that is the case. Chairman Card stated the difference is you must do it on a permanent structure, but you may do it on this. He stated this makes it as strong as permanent a structure. Mr. Holland stated temporary is the word they are dealing with. Chairman Card stated what he has just said is that this would pass the permanent requirements but you don't have to. Page -14- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Mr. Jarrett stated there are some on the market made out of PVC. Mr. Loeffler stated he couldn't get the specifications on those. The canopy he has cost over $800. Mr. Jenkins stated Mr. Loeffler's is built well but most of people aren't buying what he has. It doesn't deal with temporary. Chairman Card asked if they are to a point where there is any proposal that they have for this evening. Mr. Heeb made a recommendation to go through Mr. Jenkins proposal item by item and pass or fail them, amend or adjust them and get this over with. Ms. Plaskett agreed to give this information to Dennis. If there is anything on here that she is telling them is incorrect she would be happy to bring it back. Chairman Card stated they are now at 8:55 p.m. Chairman Card suggested they not complete this tonight and defer it until the next meeting. Mr. Jarrett made a motion to carry this into the next meeting, second by Mr. Ross. Mr. Anderson spoke about some section of the carport being anchored to the house. Mr. Jarrett stated you can't. Chairman Card stated if the proposal before them is approved, they will discuss it again at the next meeting. Mr. Jenkins stated in the mean time, before the next meeting, he will go back into it and amend some of it. Mr. Jenkins again stated he feels a tree is the safest thing out there. Mr. McKay recommended Mr. Ross put together a proposal. Mr. Ross agreed. The motion CARRIED 14 -0. DISCUSSION ITEMS Set next agenda (November 2) and any administrative items that remain Chairman Card stated as a second item could they discuss for the first time the language they will have completed. They will discuss limiting the number of items on the property which they wanted to be sure they have the number of items defined. Mr. Sylvester stated Mr. Ross was concerned about the definition of trailers. Chairman Card stated that will be part of the next meeting. Chairman Card stated they had an open paragraph B on the original proposal of Mr. Heeb. He read watercraft, watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational vehicles, trailers and campers stored on residentially used property shall be maintained in an operable condition. Repairs shall not be more than three months. That needs to be brought up next week. Chairman Card would like to be able to look one more time at the language as it stands. If they can do it next week that would be great. If no they have to do it the week following. That is the final vote before he takes it to legal counsel of the City. Mr. Ross stated he thought Planning was going to work on the wording. Chairman Card stated she has already done a good deal of work on it and he thinks she will help them. Ms. Plaskett stated she got a jump on it so she could keep up. Chairman Card stated after the final vote they can get it to legal counsel to make sure it will stand. Ms. Plaskett stated whatever they vote on, they will just add it to this. Page -15- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Mr. Ross stated he has one concern that what they vote on he thinks this Committee needs to read the final legalized language going to Council. Chairman Card stated once it comes back and they are certain it is codified, they will have the absolute final code coming. He hopes they could get to that before the end of November. The next meeting will be scheduled for November 14 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Ross made a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page -16- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. October 19, 2000 Paul Jenkins Proposal (PASSED) Page 1 of 2 I%W 21- 34.06(A) Watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, 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 vehicle trailers, trailers, and campers on residentially used property. A. Both watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational vehicle trailers, 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 vehicle trailers, trailers, and campers stored on residentially used property shall be maintained in an operable condition. Repairs shall not exceed three (3) months. (To be discussed at 11/14/00 meeting) C. Watercraft and watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational vehicle trailers, 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. 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 vehicle trailers, 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 trailer tires shall be inflated. 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. 10/26/00 Paul Jenkins Proposal (PASSED) Page 2 of 2 4. Only routine repairs and maintenance may be performed on watercraft and �., watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational vehicle trailers, trailers, and campers stored in front yards. G. The owner of the watercraft and watercraft trailer, RV and 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. 10/26/00