Loading...
11-02-2000CITY OF EDGEWATER CITIZENS LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 2000 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Card called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present were: Chairman Pat Card, Dan Loeffler, Dan Sylvester, Ray Jarrett, J. Michael McKay, Elizabeth Donahue, Paul Jenkins, Ferd Heeb, Andy Anderson, Mike Aloise, David Ross, Dan Holland, and Burt Madewell. Richard Jones and Robert Blum were absent. Also present was Deputy City Clerk Lisa Bloomer. Chairman Card gave the Committee time to review the information they received. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 19 2000 Mr. Jenkins had a correction on Page 6, eighth line from bottom. The word that is typed in is towed and it should be tow vehicle. Chairman Card stated on Page 16, the last line before adjournment should read the next meeting will be scheduled for November 2nd. Chairman Card entertained a motion for approval. Mr. Aloise so moved, second by Mr. Ross. The motion CARRIED 13 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT Arthur Johnson, 926 Lake Avenue, asked what the City's policy is on canopies over driveways. When he put his up, he contacted the City ahead of time. He understands the situation may have changed and he would like to know what the policy is. Chairman Card stated no one is here from the City tonight. To his knowledge things have not changed but they may change before the meeting is over. That is the first item on the agenda. Rob Dover, 906 Mary Street, stated he wanted to know what was being discussed. He went to great lengths to make his canopy a secure, permanent fixture in his driveway. If canopies are done away with, his only option would be to park vehicles in his back yard. He wanted to hear what was going on and see if he could do anything to stop it. STAFF COMMENTS AND REPORTS There were none at this time. OLD BUSINESS Continuation of proposals for Temporary Tents and Carports and Utility Trailers Chairman Card stated the first thing on the agenda will be a presentation or proposals for temporary tents, carports and utility trailers. Mr. Ross asked if they should talk about the old business of trailers. Chairman Card stated he would be more than happy to do that if it is the group's desire. Mr. Ross stated he wanted to present to the Committee definitions he thought were inactive upon the Code they passed. Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Ross if he had a problem with leaving that until later. They weren't charged with doing the definitions on commercial vehicles. He agrees with what he is saying in his proposal but there is also a couple other things in the definitions that need to be straightened out. He feels maybe they should deal with this last when staff is here. Mr. Ross stated they were charged with setting codes for trailers. Mr. Jenkins stated but not commercial vehicles. Mr. Ross stated he is trying to define that trailers outside of semi trailers are not commercial vehicles. What they passed last week, unless they identify these two items has no bearing or teeth. It won't mean thing to a Code Enforcement Board or a court of law if you don't identify what the Code currently has up in question. This is old business. Chairman Card stated he had listed it under new business as a discussion of the remaining open questions. They have two people from the community that are interested in the temporary tents and carports and utility trailers. If there is no objection from the group he would like to follow the agenda. There was no objection. Chairman Card entertained a proposal in regard to tents. Mr. Holland made a motion to use Mr. Jenkins proposal as a guide, second by Mr. Jenkins. The motion CARRIED 13 -0. Chairman Card stated they will discuss these one at a time. Chairman Card entertained a motion in regard to Item A, which he read at this time. Mr. Jenkins stated he had one addition to this paragraph. Chairman Card again read Item A. Mr. Jenkins included after the period, as well as kept in a good state of repair. Chairman Card again read Item A with the correction. Chairman Card entertained a motion. Mr. Sylvester move to accept, second by Mr. Holland. Mr. Ross doesn't think it is the responsibility of this committee to acknowledge or to say the property owner is responsible for what is on their property. All they are doing is redundantly stating that what you do on your property is your responsibility. He understands Mr. Jenkins is trying to exemplify to the public that they are responsible for it. That is not part of the responsibility of the zoning code. They are writing zoning ordinances and it is not for them to tell the public at large what their public responsibilities are. In saying that, if we have a 300 mile an hour tornado, you have placed the blame of responsibility of the property owner on that canopy when it is airborne. Mr. Jenkins stated the word itself has double meaning in that position. It can also mean that that person needs to tie it down or secure it. They can change the word if everyone thinks it is necessary to do that and take out responsible and say shall secure a safe tie down. Mr. Ross stated he objects to the word safe. He feels all they should say is it shall be tied down to manufacturer's specifications. He is trying to write a code that doesn't have verbiage in it that can be interpreted ten different ways. Mr. Jenkins stated he is trying to satisfy people's concerns but also emphasize to the people that buy these that don't realize what the possibilities are. Mr. Anderson stated they are saying owners shall be responsible. What if they are not responsible? We have responsible and irresponsible people. What do they do about the irresponsible ones? He thinks there are more irresponsible people than responsible. When these things become flying objects someone is going to get hurt and they are going to do some damage. How do they know these canopies are being put in right? Mr. Loeffler feels they should stick to the way of fastening them down and leave the responsibility on the homeowner. If it is put in to specifications, he thinks that is all you need to tell them. Mr. Holland stated a homeowner is responsible for the actions of their pet. A pet and canopy aren't much different. One word reasonable, responsible. Mr. Aloise stated out of all the canopies in Edgewater does anybody know of any canopy that has done any damage anywhere within the City limits to anything. Ms. Donahue stated yes, but nobody got hurt. There were woods there at that time. The canopy got pulled out of the cement. If there was a house, people or a fence, it would have damaged their property. Mr. Aloise stated this fact of canopies doing damage as a projectile, when they are talking about canopies they are talking about aluminum structures as far as the support beams and a canvas top. If a canvas top in a storm was to be torn off, what damage is that going to do? If it is properly secured, this is not going to happen. Aluminum structures and screen enclosures would do more damage than a canopy. Mr. Heeb asked Ms. Donahue what the wind conditions were. Ms. Donahue stated it was when were getting all of that rain last October from Hurricane Floyd. Mr. Heeb spoke about requiring them to be taken down during hurricane conditions. He referred to the people in Miami that experienced Hurricane Andrew. Mr. Aloise stated he lived there and he knows all about Andrew. A torn piece of canvas in a 200 mile hour wind did no damage to anything. Mr. Heeb doesn't feel the canvas is what they are concerned with. Mr. Aloise stated the biggest factor for these canopies is the wind factor. Wind won't pick up a one inch pole and lift it off the ground unless it is attached to a piece of canvas. Mr. Madewell stated the situations they are talking about are violent acts of nature. They have no control. There are all kinds of things in a yard that could be pulled up with the winds. Mr. Jenkins agreed with a lot of what has been said. The other issue is even if the tarp isn't taken off, as long as the frame is tied down, the tarp will come off on its own. Mr. Jarrett stated he had one when a tornado came through. It lifted the canvas. He had it tied town to manufacturer's specifications with anchor bolts. Mr. Loeffler asked how big it was. Mr. Jarrett stated 12 X 16. Mr. Jenkins asked how long the anchor was. Mr. Jarrett stated about 30 inches. Mr. Jenkins in most cases it will come off if it is tied properly. Maybe manufacturer's specifications aren't any good in some cases. A hurricane warning comes two days before a hurricane is expected which leaves plenty of time to take it down. He stated he can reword this to satisfy both sides. He was trying to aim at satisfying people when he worded this. Owners of canopies, temporary carports and tents /gazebos shall be required to secure the above objects to prevent them from becoming airborne or from leaving the property where installed, as well as to keep in a good state of repair. Mr. Ross stated he doesn't think tents should be allowed in residential or commercial property. He sees no need for tents except for permitted special events by the City. Mr. Anderson stated he had a 9 X 12 shed full of tools move eight inches that was anchored down. Mr. Aloise strongly feels it is the canvas portion of the temporary structures, carports, tents, and gazebos that cause any specific type of damage. He made a motion to accept Item A and approve as written. Chairman Card stated there is currently a motion on the floor. Mr. Jenkins spoke about tents with some of the City's language in the original proposed Code. Mr. Fischer calls the canopies tents. Mr. Ross feels they need to define tents. Mr. Jenkins stated camper tents have the same design. Mr. Ross stated tents are tents and are used for purposes specifically designed for tents not canopies. A tent is a structure made to store or reside totally enclosed, whether it be commercial or residential property, except for a kid or a special event on commercial property. He has no problem with a child pitching a tent in the backyard and sleeping out there. Mr. Jenkins stated some people with boats close them in. Chairman Card read the proposed code at the point in which they were assigned this responsibility. They were going to eliminate all carports in the things that were originally proposed. Chairman Card recognized a gentleman in the audience. Robert Hall, 3327 Willow Oak Drive, stated in certain winds, his Florida room would go before the canopy. There are some things you can't stop. Mr. Ross stated when he thought about this, he presumed there was a clear cut differential between canopies whether they be soft top or metal top and tents. He has a problem with tents and feels they need to define what a tent is. Mr. Sylvester spoke about the kids in the community and people who camp in tents. Mr. Ross stated he doesn't object to that. Ms. Donahue stated that is temporary, not permanent. Mr. Sylvester stated they are talking about installing something in a fashion that is permanent. Mr. Heeb thinks they are getting carried away. They are trying to get too detailed and too critical. Two issues that have to be resolved in this community are where you put them and there becoming a hazard in a storm. He doesn't think they should get into the details. He thinks Mr. Ross is getting too carried away with describing a tent. A canopy is a tent without sides. There are situations in a residential area and they want to put up temporary tents. He feels the critical word is temporary. If it is permanent it has to meet the Code. The Code specifically says it must meet engineering specifications. He feels they should move forward. He doesn't think they need the whole paragraph because it will be addressed later on that they have to be installed in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. Chairman Card asked if there was any new information in regard to paragraph A. Mr. Loeffler according to his proposal he could get a permit. He asked if it would be a permanent structure or temporary. Chairman Card stated what they stated was that you didn't have to go. Mr. Jarrett referred to a letter dated 2/24/99 from the Florida Shores Property Owners Association which suggests carports temporary with one pipe frame and car covering should be banned from front driveways or yards. Other municipalities in the area such as Daytona Beach Shores, Holly Hill, New Smyrna Beach, Ormond Beach, South Daytona and Winter Park doesn't allow them. If they as a group approve this, how are they going to look at this as a liability for a temporary structure. If they approve this and there is a problem that would cause injury to somebody, the Council will have to look at this too whether they can approve it. The Council may or may not go with what they say. He is sure the lawyers will look at it. He is sure this is going to be a topic with the Building Department. Mr. Ross stated he doesn't disagree with the concern that the City may have. He comes back to the word temporary. Temporary and permanent bothers him. If you have a permit for a temporary metal building or shed that is permitted, the City only permits building wise for permanent structures. Mr. Loeffler feels it would then become a permanent structure. Mr. Ross stated he included in his definition canopies which do not meet the Southern Standard Building Code. Does the City have obligations or liabilities because they have allowed citizens to do something that doesn't meet a building code. If it doesn't require a permit, the City has no responsibility. They have not permitted 90% of the carport and patio covers in the City of Edgewater, 90% of which are dangerous. Mr. Jenkins stated he was talking to Dennis Fischer today about this issue and he showed him what he proposed. Mr. Fischer mentioned the portable sheds which are considered portable. They are brought in already built but are anchored down. That is where it comes up about manufacturers specifications. When they inspect them, they verify it is to manufacturer's specifications. They can still give these minimum specifications and they don't have to inspect them or permit them. The same issue with lawn furniture, the homeowner is responsible, not the City. If they start inspecting something on the basis that this meets wind load, they may become liable. He wants to keep all of this out of the inspection end of it. Once inspected the tax man can tax them as a permanent structure on the property then the renter has a problem taking it because it is considered permanent. Mr. Jenkins stated he is going to amend Item A to get rid of that responsible issue. He read: Owners of canopies /temporary carports and tents /gazebos shall be required to secure the above objects so as to prevent them from becoming airborne or from leaving the property where installed, as well as to keep them in a good state of repair. Mr. Anderson feels a lot of these don't look good. He doesn't think they are safe. If they are going to have them, they should require two metal straps running from the temporary frame and anchored to the house itself for more stability. Mr. Heeb asked Mr. Jenkins to change the first sentence to read owners of temporary canopies, carports, tents and gazebos shall be required so this is expressly and clearly a temporary structure. Mr. Jenkins stated the / means they are one in the same. He informed the committee he added the word gazebo, which was not in the original proposed. He wanted to emphasis the language would apply to gazebos as well because of them being a temporary structure. He feels it doesn't change anything by doing what Mr. Heeb is saying. He wants to leave this paragraph in doesn't know what they will do with Item C. Chairman Card called the question. He read A. Owners of canopies /temporary carports and tents /gazebos shall be required to secure the above objects so as to prevent them from becoming airborne or from leaving the property where installed, as well as keep them in a good state of repair. The motion CARRIED 9 -4. Mr. Jarrett, Mr. Ross, Chairman Card and Ms. Donahue voted NO. Chairman Card entertained a motion in regard to Item B. Ms. Donahue asked Mr. Ross on the permitting, did he say carports and cement patios don't have to have a permit. Mr. Ross stated he said most of them don't. Ms. Donahue stated they are supposed to be permitted. Mr. Ross stated now they are but they didn't have to years ago. Chairman Card entertained motion in regard to Item B. Mr. Jenkins made a motion, second Mr. Holland. Chairman Card read Item B. Mr. Heeb stated it seems to him that B ought to be three in paragraph C and it doesn't need any explanation. He feels all it should say is you may not use concrete blocks or weights of any kind as a method of tie down. Mr. Jenkins commented on the reason he put the explanation in there. Mr. Heeb stated once it is in there it doesn't matter what they think. Chairman Card entertained an amendment. Mr. Ross stated he sees no point for it because Item A presents it from going airborne. Mr. Jenkins stated there are people that may think Item B will keep it from going airborne when it won't. He feels B is the most important and only real necessary part to this Code. If they are not tied down, they aren't that dangerous because they don't have anything attached to them. He has seen barbeques blow across yards. He feels the weights are the only real danger with the canopy issue. Mr. Sylvester agreed with Mr. Heeb. He doesn't feel an explanation is necessary and this would fit nicely under Item C as Item 3. Mr. McKay stated if they pass this as Item B, it would probably end up being incorporated as three under C because staff has already said they will take care of the verbiage and placing it where it should be. He felt they should go ahead and take it to vote. Chairman Card called the question and read Item B. The motion FAILED 7 -6. Chairman Card, Mr. Heeb, Mr. Sylvester, Mr. Ross, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Aloise and Ms. Donahue voted NO. Mr. Aloise made a motion that Item C be accepted as written with the provision that paragraph B be revised as number three, second by Mr. Sylvester. Mr. Madewell stated if in fact it does pass, wouldn't this in fact become letter B. They will move everything up one letter. Chairman Card stated yes. Chairman Card read Item C including Item B as three. Mr. Aloise stated as to the polyethylene, is it supposed to be polyethylene or polypropylene. Chairman Card asked Mr. Aloise if he was modifying his motion. Mr. Aloise stated was just questioning that word. Mr. Heeb suggested Mr. Aloise add the word polypropylene. Mr. Jenkins stated cover both words. Mr. Aloise stated he would amend it to not polyethylene or polypropylene. Mr. Loeffler stated he doesn't agree with tying it down with ropes because it rots. Mr. Jenkins stated nylon rope doesn't. Chairman Card called the question and again read Item C. The motion CARRIED 12 -1. Mr. Ross voted NO. There was a recess at 8:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:12 p.m. Chairman Card entertained a motion in regard to Item D. Mr. Holland made a motion to open Item D up for discussion, second by Mr. Jarrett. The motion CARRIED 13 -0. Mr. Jenkins stated the reason he put that in there is there are some manufacturers that sell these that do not give written instructions or details. A lot of people don't know what an anchor is or have expertise on proper way to tie them down. He feels if the City has a file folder with the installation instructions from manufacturers so people know what is available to go by, the City can give them a copy telling them how to ground an antenna system on a house and there is no liability that goes along with it. It is just a custom courtesy service. He asked the City Manager about this and he said he no problem with doing it that way. Chairman Card entertained a motion with regard to Item D. Mr. Jenkins made a motion to approve, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Sylvester thinks they should delete it. Mr. Jenkins stated the City can always delete it. Mr. Heeb feels this is a policy issue rather than a Code issue. He doesn't think it belongs in the City Code. Once you say they have to maintain a file they have to establish standards and then it becomes a permitting process. He thinks it is something they could recommend to City to maintain file but that is a policy issue that should be given to the City Manager then it becomes their decision. Mr. Loeffler feels instead of trying to explain this, they could use his drawings as a blueprint. Mr. Jenkins stated the file would be copies of Mr. Loeffler's drawings and things he provided. He amended the motion that they attach that as a recommendation instead of part of the Code, second by Mr. Heeb. Chairman Card read Item D. The motion CARRIED 13 -0. Chairman Card entertained a motion in regard to Item E and read Item E. Mr. Jenkins made a motion to take public input, second by Mr. Loeffler. There was no discussion. The motion CARRIED 13 -0. Chairman Card again read Item E. Mr. Dover asked if there is a standard setback in Edgewater. Chairman Card stated there is not one standard, there are many difference standards. Mr. Ross stated there are no setback requirements for unpermitted use of property. Chairman Card asked the public if they had any comments in regard to this. Mr. Dover asked.if it is a fact there is no setback requirements for unpermitted use of property. Mr. Ross stated there is nothing to enforce. Mr. Dover agreed. Chairman Card stated unless they are invited to answer questions or to make rebuttal to the people making comments from the community, they have agreed they won't do that. He asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Dover asked if part of this proposal will have a penalty statement. Chairman Card stated they haven't stated anything in that regard. Mr. Aloise stated the setbacks are there already. This is not open for discussion. Mr. Ross stated the only setback requirements involve permitted use property. There is no such thing as enforcement of non - permitted use of property. Mr. Aloise disagreed. Mr. Ross feels it needs to be clarified. Mr. Aloise stated you can not set up a temporary permanent and /or anything over the City's setback line. Chairman Card feels they might be confusing setbacks with property lines. Mr. Ross stated there is a setback requirement of 15 feet from the property line and you can not encroach on City property. Mr. Loeffler feels you run into problems if it was enclosed then it would be a visual safety hazard. He agreed with it. Mr. Dover stated he believes if it is not a permanent structure with no required permit that they can say whether or not it can be in the setback. Chairman Card they will now move to a period of discussion of Item E as it was proposed. Mr. Jenkins feels they have some misinformation that needs to be clarified. We do have a new Code on fences that specifies you have to have a permit and it has to be a certain height in the front yard. The City can allow something to be built, such as a fence in the setback area or on the property line. It can also restrict as it was about to on the size of a boat in the front yard or setback. He feels if it is going to be in the front setback area, that it be positioned as far back as possible and not over the property line. You won't have canopy ten feet from house at the edge of the road. He asked if Mr. Ross was saying they can't regulate them in the front at all. Mr. Ross stated if you are allowed to put a structure on your property that does not require zoning or building permits, there is no restriction possible as to a setback unless you write it in here and say canopies or gazebos can not be built within fifteen feet of the front property line. Otherwise zoning codes will cover the setbacks. Mike was talking about setback meaning city property line, he is talking about building setback requirements in the Code which are non - applicable to non - permitted use. Mr. Heeb moved to adopt Item E as C of 21- 35.04, second by Mr. Madewell. Mr. Jenkins doesn't think they can tell anybody they can have a boat in the front yard or along side it and tell somebody else they can't put a canopy over their driveway to protect their car. He feels it is a matter of equity and it goes along with what the other issues are. He doesn't see how they can prohibit it and not the others. Mr. Madewell commented on when he did his survey and people using the canopies to cover their expensive boats. Mr. Aloise asked what the motion is. Chairman Card read Item E. Mr. Aloise again asked what the motion is. Chairman Card informed him the motion is to adopt this language as Item C. He again read Item E as being Item C. Mr. Ross asked for discussion. Mr. Loeffler feels they need to define what they consider one canopy. Mr. Jenkins feels if it is one frame, it is one. Mr. Ross doesn't know why they should limit where a gazebo should be. A gazebo is an area where you sit down to relax. Here is says it has to be on the driveway or immediately parallel to the driveway. Chairman Card stated in the side yard or back yard. Mr. Ross stated if it is in the front yard it has to be on the driveway or next to it. Then we go to immediately parallel and he doesn't know why it has to be parallel to a rear driveway if it is in his rear yard. It does not exclude rear driveways. He knows the intention was for the front only but it doesn't say that. Mr. Aloise stated it doesn't say that. Mr. Ross stated it doesn't say front, rear or side. Mr. Aloise stated it says it shall be allowed. Mr. Ross stated it goes on to say that it shall be as far from the front property line /street as the yard size or driveway permits. He has no problem with that. It says this location must not cause a safety problem. He feels that is redundant because the Code already prohibits that. Mr. Anderson asked how many Code Enforcement Officers the City has. He was informed two. He asked if they are going to police all of this in the whole City. Chairman Card spoke about the citizens area patrols. We have a signage ordinance that affected Friday and Saturday garage sales. For the last three months, 100% of the job of one individual on that has been to enforce those sign laws. If they determine they want to put one of these volunteers out to do this, that is exactly what they will do. He thinks they have to look at this language and make absolutely sure this is what they want to do. If they don't can enforce it if they want to. Mr. Anderson stated he wonders if they would have the people. Mr. Jenkins stated when he originally wrote this, he left out tents and gazebos in this paragraph because of the gazebo in the front yard issue. Today he went to the language they used for boats and trailers and that is what this is. They can also have that same problem on boats and trailers. If it doesn't prohibit it in the front yard someone could put a boat in the middle of the front yard. Mr. Holland stated the boats have to be parked parallel to the driveway, on the driveway or side of the house. Mr. Jenkins stated he thinks this is the same wording that is in there. Chairman Card stated he bets they didn't use not allowed, he bet they used shall be. Mr. Jenkins stated he could amend that to another word. Mr. Ross stated there is some possible verbiage that may be applicable here that says if erected in the front setback, the canopy must be on or parallel to the driveway and only one such canopy may be installed in the front setback. It doesn't tell you want you can do in the side or rear. It talks about the front specifically. Mr. Madewell referred to their agenda packet, Section 21- 34.06, Item C. Mr. Jenkins stated City staff has a position that if it is not particularly allowed, it is disallowed but by law that would never hold up in court. Unless it is specifically prohibited, it is allowed under the Constitution. Chairman Card asked Mr. Jenkins if he is ready to amend this. Mr. Jenkins stated he wants to amend this but he is trying to figure out how to separate gazebos without rewriting the whole paragraph. Chairman Card suggested eliminating gazebos from this paragraph completely. Mr. Jenkins suggested changing allowed to located. Mr. Loeffler stated change one canopy to one framed structure. Mr. Jenkins read the amendment. Canapes. /emporaarpY sha,141Q the locates m 1 e c ri �aa n a� el y pa 11 dzreway;,te s�ide-..ara:.c+ladlzantmeta extdoverx,thepropyrp�ghtso They {e ,shall„~ =be.a limtfnesucho #pytempoary�t�u�h� theme €ront setback /fr.onaa >rca�:�rteE,s:arfrgi frontq pr-moper-t-yA, linef=s4- eet*vKaxs � ze o dr ewFay pe t t . This,;o-inust not cauleaIroblem =xN�oenclosig?ert siaeta,ps�al -be al °lowednthje�tsetbaaki /front , .yard .,are=a Second by Mr. Loeffler. Ms. Donahue can not see why you have to have a canopy in the front of the house. She feels they end up being a catch all and people use them for storage. The motion CARRIED 9 -4. Mr. Anderson, Ms. Donahue, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Jarrett voted NO. Chairman Card stated we have a motion on the original motion still on the floor. It is now amended. The amendment they voted on was the entire language which now replaces the original language. The motion CARRIED 9 -4. Ms. Donahue, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Jarrett voted No. Chairman Card entertained a motion for Item F. Mr. Madewell made a motion to change Item F to Item D and accept it as written, second by Mr. McKay. Mr. Aloise feels they should include tornado or severe weather conditions. Mr. Jarrett suggested using extreme weather conditions. Chairman Card stated if they do it that way that leaves the individual in the position of defining what an extreme weather condition is. Mr. Aloise stated it is explicit in the weather forecast as to the conditions of the weather. Chairman Card asked the language they are talking about. Mr. Aloise said it states severe weather conditions. Mr. McKay feels one of the problems they will run into if they go into that is that it will be incumbent on the property owner to be aware of weather conditions at all times. He understands the hurricane because generally they have an idea it is two or three days away. If they get into tornado conditions, a person could be in violation and have no idea they are in violation and they are no where near their homes. He feels they should stay away from it. Mr. Jenkins agreed and feels they might as a City be liable. He spoke about inducing someone to take something down and they could get hit by tornado as well as thunderstorm with downspouts. Mr. Aloise amended this to include the phrase if possible, or if time allows. Mr. Aloise stated in the past, they have always gotten preforecasts. Mr. Jenkins stated he was sitting in his driveway when a tornado hit his house and he didn't get any preforecasts. Mr. Aloise feels as far as hurricane warnings go, they would be limiting it. Mr. Jenkins stated if they have a tornado, he doesn't think it is going to matter if it is taken down but it would matter with a hurricane. He feels with a tornado there will be so much damage anyhow there is not much point worrying about it and someone getting hurt. Mr. Holland asked for a straw vote. Mr. Loeffler stated instead of listing a hurricane warning, why don't they say severe storm warnings. Chairman Card asked how many are in favor of the wording the way it stands. Mr. Anderson was the only one opposed. Chairman Card asked if there was further additional discussion. Mr. Anderson stated the newspapers and all of the media, television and radio, will tell you when to expect high winds. Mr. Dover stated he spent a lot of time learning how to tie it down and common sense tells him the only thing that is going to blow it over would be a severe wind. What is the purpose of tying it down in the first place? There is no purpose in tying it down if every time there is a severe wind you are going to have to take it down. The only thing that is going to move it is the canopy. Chairman Card stated they are talking about pulling the tarp only. Mr. Ross stated they are talking about tarps and if it is an unpermitted, temporary metal roof, he feels it should also be removed. Mr. Jenkins stated if it has metal roof, it would be permanent. Chairman Card asked if it would be considered a shed. Mr. Holland stated they are looking at tarps. Mr. Ross feels they should add metal roofs with tarps. Mr. Aloise asked what this panel would consider a destructive wind. Mr. Jarrett stated his canopy is rated by the manufacturer up to 100 mph wind. Mr. Aloise considers 50 mph a destructive wind. He suggested limiting it to tarps shall be removed during hurricane wind conditions or severe winds. Mr. Jenkins spoke about not having the warning time for someone at work to come home and take it off. Mr. Anderson stated the sellers of these structures will rate them about 100 mph but that is one of their selling points. He feels they should include any kind of a roof. Chairman Card asked for other additional comment. He read paragraph D. Chairman Card called question. The motion CARRIED 13 -0. Mr. Sylvester moved to include Item D from Mr. Ross proposal in addition to Mr. Jenkins proposal. In driving around he has seen numerous occasions where these tarps are used to store furniture and other household items. Second by Mr. McKay. Chairman Card stated this will apply to commercial establishments also. Mr. Jenkins stated we already have the litter code which addresses what Mr. Sylvester is talking about. If it is open to sight and it is a bunch of junk, then it comes under the litter code. He disagreed with this motion because people have the right to store other things beside a boat and car under that canopy. Mr. Ross stated if the City wants to let them do that, then let the City tell them to do that. For the purposes of what they, as this Committee should recommend canopies be used for for those four purposes. He is not suggesting Council not allow citizens to do what they want to do if City Council wants to do it. He feels they should restrict the use of canopies if they want this code to have a chance of passing. Mr. Ross asked Mr. Jenkins why he is objecting if it is covered under the litter law. Mr. Jenkins stated he is objecting to other things that you put under there that you are going to automatically eliminate somebody from putting under. He could agree with there shouldn't be other things in the front setback area. If there are other numerous things under there, it should be closed in on the side but that is not allowed in front setback area. Mr. Ross made a motion to amend his recommended paragraph to include other motorized vehicles to include lawn equipment. The motion DIED due to the lack of a second. Mr. Heeb asked Mr. Sylvester to amend his motion that the use of such canopies in the front yard shall be limited to cover watercraft, automobiles, recreational vehicles and trailers. He feels having lawn equipment in the front yard, people are going to get upset. If you have a boat in the front yard, there is no reason to keep you from having a canopy on it. He thinks lawn equipment is going too far. Mr. Jenkins suggested they use the language that they used in the other part about the front setback /front yard they would be consistent. Mr. Sylvester proposed the use of such canopies within the front setback shall be limited to cover for watercraft, automobiles, recreational vehicles and trailers including other motorized vehicles. Mr. Jenkins stated he would add the front yard because a lot of people don't know what the front setback is. Mr. Sylvester stated he said front setback. Mr. Jenkins feels they need to have front yard because a lot of people don't know what the front setback is. Chairman Card asked Mr. Sylvester to read the amended motion. Mr. Sylvester again read the use of such canopies within the front setback /front yard shall be limited to cover for watercraft, automobiles, recreational vehicles, trailers and including other motorized vehicles. The motion CARRIED 10 -3. Mr. Heeb, Mr.--Jarrett, and Ms. Donahue voted NO. Mr. Heeb suggested putting motorized transportation vehicle. Mr. Ross commented on the City definition of vehicle. Mr. Jenkins stated even an endloader is not considered a vehicle by the State. NEW BUSINESS 1) Proposals for limiting the number of items allowed on property This item will be discussed at the next meeting. 2) Discussion of remaining open questions This item will be discussed at the next meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS Set next agenda (November 14th) and any administrative items that remain Chairman Card stated they won't be done by November 14th to vote on final language. This puts them in a difficult situation to get it to Council by December 6th. He told them they would report this to them late in November or early December. They have November 14th and November 30th as meetings. They have to give this to legal staff for at least a week for them to review their language before they do a final vote on it. He asked if they need a special meeting. Mr. Jarrett made a motion to meet again next Thursday night, November 9th, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Jenkins stated he had a conflict on that day. He asked if the only issue they have to deal with is numbers. Chairman Card informed him they have four items that are open. Deputy City Clerk Bloomer informed the Committee there is a meeting already scheduled in the Community Center on November 30th. Mr. Jarrett suggested changing it to next Tuesday. Chairman Card informed him that is Election Day. Mr. Jenkins asked if anyone had an objection to meeting Wednesday instead of Thursday. Mr. Ross suggested Chairman Card go to the next Council meeting and ask them for another 30 days. Chairman Card stated when he made his report the only question they had was when they would report this back. chairman Card stated there is a motion on the floor that they meet Thursday of next week. Mr. Jenkins again stated it is a conflict for him. Mr. Jarrett stated they moved it once for his schedule and he has had problems he has had to work around so he doesn't think they should move it again. Mr. Anderson stated he won't be able to make it on the 9th. The motion CARRIED 12 -1. Mr. Jenkins voted NO. Chairman Card stated if this room is not available next week, would Wednesday evening work. Chairman Card stated they won't be able to get it published in time if they don't get the information to them tomorrow morning in order to get the paper to publish it for next Thursday. Mr. Ross mentioned staying an extra 30 minutes tonight. Chairman Card stated he doesn't think they can finish in 30 minutes. Mr. Heeb stated they also have the issue of once they are finished they have to get put it together and review it one more time. Mr. Ross stated which would be 14th. Chairman Card stated if they finished for a final vote on the 14th' with a week to staff, that would allow them to report to Council on the 20 . Mr. Ross disagreed because it has to come back to them after staff. Chairman Card stated they are going to put it to staff after the meeting on the ninth. They will have a week to bring it back to them. Mr. Ross asked when they are going to go to Council. Chairman Card stated the 20th which would give them the opportunity to fall back on if they didn't pass a final vote on the 14th. Chairman Card stated a week from today they will finish their consensus. The following week, they are having meeting on the 14th rather than the 16 h, what allows city staff four days to review it and get back to them by the 14 The alternative is if they still have a problem with it on the 9th' they could reschedule their meeting of the 14th. That would still leave them the opportunity to move on and be able to get this done within the time frame they are looking at. If they would agree with that they can go ahead and schedule. Our next meeting we will schedule to review the four open questions that remain: 1) language for the operable vehicles 2) language for limiting the number of vehicles in yards. Mr. Ross stated one is the definitions regarding trailers and they have not yet finished passing all of their discussion and making all the motions regarding tents, canopies and temporary carports. Mr. Ross stated if it is unpermitted he recommended any lid to a unpermitted canopy be removed during hurricane warnings. Mr. Aloise stated if unpermitted. Mr. Ross stated if it is unpermitted it is a temporary structure. Chairman Card stated they will discuss this as the first item under old business at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Aloise moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer PROPOSED DEFINITIONS losw 21 -34.06 TRAILERS, DEFINITIONS PREPARED BY: Dave Ross For purposes of clarification and to insure this committee's intentions are understood, I recommend the following changes and additions to Section 21- 20.02, "DEFINITIONS ", as follows: 1) See page U-31 (copy attached), definition of "YEMCLE, COIN ERCIAL ". Reword to read "semi- tractor or semi - trailer" in place of "semi- trailer cab, or trailer ". 2) Add to DEFOMONS: "TRAILER shall mean any non self propelled wheeled vehicle licensed by the state of Florida as a trailer, not otherwise regulated herein as "Commercial ", "Watercraft ", or "Recreational ". `.+ Use, Principal - means 'the primary use of the lot as distinguished`from accessory uses. Pk UTILITIES includes, but is not limited to: water systems, electrical power, sanitary sewer systems, stormwater management systems, gas systems, telephone and television cable systems; and street lighting. UTILITY SERVICE FACILITIES means elements of utility distribution, collection or transmission networks required by their nature to be relatively dispersed throughout the service area. Typical facilities include, but are not limited to, electrical substations, and telephone exchange structures. VARIANCE means a modification of the strict application of site development requirements related to yard setbacks, building height, parking requirements, landscaping and/or signage. VEHICLE means any self - propelled conveyance designed and used for the purpose of transporting or moving persons, animals, freight, merchandise or any substance. more. VEHICLE, ABANDONED means a vehicle that has no appearance of use for 60 days or * #**0*" VEHICLE, COMMERCIAL means any vehicle, beach concession wagon, semi - trailer cab, 04v , or trailer with a rated capacity of one ton or more; is intended or used for the transportation of people or goods as part of a business; is either commercially or privately registered; and does not include rental vehicles designed for temporary personal use. VEHICLE, INOPERABLE means any vehicle which is not currently licensed by the State of Florida and/or cannot be immediately legally driven away on a public street. VEHICLE, MARINE means any vehicle designed for and used on any water body. VEHICLE PAINT AND BODY SHOP See "Automotive Paint and Body Shop." VEHICLE ACCESSORY INSTALLATION means the following: V f (a) Vehicle tuneup shops. (b) Installation, repair or services of vehicle glass, sun roofs, convertible tops, interiors, tinting, audio equipment, alarms and similar items. (c) Installation, repair or servicing of vehicle brakes, shock absorbers, radiators or air conditioning devices. (d) Installation, repair or servicing of vehicle electrical or ignition systems. (e) Washing, waxing, accenting and similar activities commonly known as detailing. ,%W ( PoliciesProcedures /LandDevelopmentCode) II -31 PASSED ITEMS on 21 -35.04 — Canopies / Temporary Car Ports and Tent / Gazebos - PASSED A. Owners of canopies / temporary car ports and tents / gazebos shall be required to secure the above objects so as to prevent them form becoming airborne or from leaving the property where installed, as well as keep them in a good state of repair. B. The below specifications are intended to be minimum only and are no indication or guarantees of fitness for securing the temporary items covered under this section. Quantities and sizing will vary by the size of the item being secured. 1. All tie downs must be secured to solid, immoveable objects such as: mobile home anchors, concrete driveways, buildings, ETC or as per manufacturer's installation instructions or engineer's specifications. 2. All tie down leads must be a minimum of 3/16" galvanized or stainless steel cable or a minimum of 3/8" true nylon rope, (not polyethylene) or sized as per manufacturer's installation instructions or engineer's specifications. Iftw 3. It is forbidden to use concrete blocks or weights of any kind as a method of tie down because attaching weights or other moveable objects to: canopies, temporary carports and tents / gazebos can cause those weights to be catapulted by wind lift. C. Canopies / temporary car ports shall be located in the driveway, immediately parallel to the driveway, in the side yard or back yard, but at no time shall they extend over the property line or into the public right-of-way- There shall be a limit of one such canopy / temporary structure in the front setback / front yard area and shall be as far from the front property line / street as the yard size or driveway permits. This location must not cause a safety problem. No enclosing or side tarps will be allowed in the front setback / front yard area. D. Tarps shall be removed during hurricane warning conditions. E. Use of such canopies shall be limited to cover for watercraft, automobiles, recreational vehicles, and trailers. The City shall keep one (1) file folder with copies of any manufacturer installation instructions or engineering specifications it receives for citizen information purposes only. (Recommendation only not part of the Corte.) Adhoc Committee Current Proposal (PASSED) *tow 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: L 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 rur ing 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 anther'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. C. Any vehicle visible to the general public or neighboring properties, which is obviously wrecked, dismantled or inoperable. D. Any vehicle for which Code Enforcement Officials cannot establish ownership or the responsible party declines to resolve valid issues contained within this section shall be determined to be abandoned. 11 /10/00 In Adhoc Committee Current Proposal (PASSED) 21 -34.05 Vehicle Restoration &t 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. 11/10/00 2 Paul Jenkins Proposal (PASSED) Page 1 of 2 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 traders, 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. 11f10(W `%W 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 o£ 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. i 111 ninn