Loading...
11-30-2000 Nee CITIZENS LAND EIEVELt3PiEll'IlliiikEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 30, 2000 7:00 P.M. SHUFFLEBOARD CLUBHOUSE MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Card called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Shuffleboard Clubhouse. ROLL CALL Members present were: Chairman Pat Card, Dan Loeffler, J. Michael McKay, Elizabeth Donahue, Ray Jarrett, Paul Jenkins, Dan Holland, Dan Sylvester, Dick Jones, Robert Blum, Ferd Heeb, Andy Anderson, David Ross, Burt Madewell, and Mike Aloise. Also present were City Manager Kenneth Hooper, Planning Director Lynne Plaskett, and Deputy City Clerk Lisa Bloomer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 14, 2000 Mr. Heeb made a motion to approve the November 14, 2000 minutes, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. McKay stated he got the minutes but they weren't actually minutes. There were a lot of omissions. Chairman Card stated the minutes are a synopsis of the meeting and the actual record is the tape. Mr. Holland stated he did not receive a phone call that the minutes were ready. Mr. McKay stated he also didn't. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. STAFF COMMENTS AND REPORTS Ms. Plaskett had nothing at this time. Chairman Card asked City Manager Hooper if he would like to present what he had and then they could go into a period of old business. Mr. Holland asked City Manager Hooper what he thought of what the Committee has accomplished. City Manager Hooper stated very good and very close, to the point he could recommend to Council what they have done. He is going to tell the Committee what he has opposition to. City Manager Hooper stated what occurred, the Committee met and made many motions and got through with the changes they want. He took their document and did some word smithing and tried not to change any intent. It was reformatted to look like the rest of the Land Development v.r n,vr Code. The 1 st part of the packet is what the Committee has done to date. The 2 nd part is what City Manager Hooper has done. His intent is to go through and see if they can live with what he has done. He will then place it on the agenda. Chairman Card stated he expected it to be on the December 4 th agenda and have legal counsel here tonight. City Manager Hooper explained he created this document and wants to get the Committee to vote and say this is language they intend or this is the concept they are intending to do. He has sent this to the Attorney and had him review it and tell him there is nothing that sets off any alarms and bells. The attorney informed him there is nothing here that bothers him. He will have some more creative wording just to clean it up. They haven't stepped on anybody's toes. He can recommend his version to the Council. He has the Committee scheduled on December 18 th for Chairman Card to present what is finalized tonight and for Council to say they like it. The Attorney will finish it for adoption in the new Land Development Code in January. He and Ms. Plaskett are working on glitch items. Chairman Card asked City Manager Hooper if he would like for them to go through this or for City Manager Hooper to go through and point out the changes and why they have occurred. He has marked a number of changes to bring to the Committee's attention. It would be just as simple for City Manager Hooper to explain his changes. City Manager Hooper stated he tried to do an underline and strike through to show the changes. He informed Chairman Card he wouldn't mind him going through the differences. Chairman Card suggested he would point out some of them that he has noted and if he has missed anything the Committee could jump in. Mr. Jones feels they seem to jump around too much and get lost trying to follow everyone. He suggested they go through this page by page. Chairman Card informed the Committee he would go down the November 17 pages. This is separate from what was in the packet. City Manager Hooper suggested they compare the November 16 version to the November 17 version side by side. NEW BUSINESS Final approval of language Chairman Card referred to the first page, Recommended Definition Changes or Additions. He stated City Manager Hooper added the nuisance definition that they had specifically put in there due to this already being in the Code. City Manager Hooper stated there is one word difference. The third line down says disturbance of an individual's right. It says another's right in the original code. Mr. Jenkins commented on the word perceived. City Manager Hooper said this definition is already in the existing code, except for that one word. Mr. Jenkins stated his only objection was the word perceived coming from them. Page -2- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 ' Norio Mr. Heeb made a motion that this Committee accept the wording of all three definitions as their recommendation to Council, second by Mr. Ross. Mr. Jones spoke about not being able to come to terms on minor repairs. He would like to see them add that definition with a simple statement. He feels it would be more convenient to include this at the same time. Mr. Holland suggested they go page by page. The motion CARRIED 14 -1. Mr. Jenkins voted NO. Chairman Card referred to the 2 page, Section 21 -34.04 Inoperable, Abandoned and /or Wrecked Vehicles. Chairman Card stated he had a question in regard to Paragraph A, Number 6, the suggestion to delete this. City Manager Hooper explained a vehicle visible to the general public, which is obviously wrecked or dismantled 'shall be deemed to be wrecked' is redundant and says nothing. Mr. Ross agreed. City Manager Hooper feels it makes it more confusing. This has been defined elsewhere. Mr. Holland stated if City Manager Hooper would have attended many of the meetings that could have been clarified and saved them endless hours of work. Mr. Jenkins feels it is also redundant with Number 5. Mr. Aloise made a motion to eliminate from Paragraph 6 to be wrecked or and leave shall be deemed to be abandoned. Mr. Heeb asked Mr. Aloise to read what he is proposing. Mr. Aloise stated a vehicle that is visible to the general public or neighboring properties which is obviously wrecked dismantled or inoperable shall be deemed to be abandoned. Mr. Jenkins stated what he thinks City Manager Hooper wanted to do was eliminate Number 6. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Jarrett made a motion to delete Number 6, second by Mr. McKay. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. City Manager Hooper pointed out on A2, the fourth line down. It says restricted chemicals and it should read regulated chemicals. Mr. Jarrett asked if it needs to reference a regulatory body. City Manager Hooper stated he doesn't think so because what he said was any Federal, State or local environmental agencies. Mr. Holland made amotion to accept regulated as opposed to restricted, second by Mr. Ross. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Mr. Heeb made a motion to adopt Section 21- 34.04, Inoperable, Abandoned and /or Wrecked Vehicles as amended in the last two motions, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Jenkins disagreed with the word inoperable. He feels it should be unsafe. The motion CARRIED 14 -1. Mr. Jenkins voted NO. Mr. Jenkins stated he had a problem with inoperable on the entire page. It is still the issue if one person has a right to have a boat or motor home that is operable, then another person should have that same right whether an engine is in it or not. If it looks the same and meets the other criteria, it should also be covered. Page -3- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 Now vase Chairman Card stated they will move on to Section 21.34.05 - Vehicle Restoration & Permits - For Residential Properties. Mr. Madewell asked if they voted on the last page. Chairman Card informed him yes. Chairman Card noted changes in Paragraph C that he feels are significant. As he reads this a vehicle restoration permit authorizes people to work on vehicles in an enclosed area and nothing else. He asked if that was City Manager Hooper's intent. Mr. Ross stated the intent of the Committee was that a vehicle could be restored by permit, in the open, visible to the public, as it was being worked on. When it is not being worked on, it is to be stored in an enclosed area or under a custom car cover. When City Manager Hooper revised it, he felt it was an inadvertent change. As he reads it, he restricted the actual working to be in an enclosed area, which was not the Committee's intent. City Manager Hooper agreed. The intent was a restored vehicle may be stored in an enclosed area. His thought process was to define what needed a permit and what is to be included with the application and what you can do once you get that. He restructured that inadvertently to say you can only restore it in an enclosed area. It should be stored. Mr. Jenkins stated in Paragraph A, the first sentence was omitted from their original. He feels they can make one correction to the first sentence with two letters and it clarifies. Vehicles being restored may be stored in an enclosed area, not visible to the general public or neighboring properties. The second sentence is any person seeking to openly restore a vehicle shall file for a permit. It was always typed restored may be stored. What was in his mind was may be restored in an enclosed area. It would only need a permit when it is out in the open. Mr. Jenkins made motion to keep the original paragraph A but change the word stored in the first line to restored. City Manager Hooper referred to the Committee to Paragraph C1. Vehicles stored during restoration shall be in an enclosed area. Mr. Jenkins stated that or it is covered. Mr. Heeb stated the original intent of this Committee was if you had a car in a garage, you didn't need a permit to restore it. That is why the first sentence said vehicles being restored may be stored in an enclosed area not visible to the general public or neighboring properties. There was nothing required. Any person seeking to openly restore a vehicle shall file a permit. Mr. Jenkins stated if they changed it to restored then it doesn't matter whether he is working on it. If it is out of visibility it doesn't matter, it is not in the open. The next sentence says you have to have a permit if you are openly restoring it. If you compare the old proposal, you don't have to get into 1 and 2 under C of what City Manager Hooper proposed. You can leave the original one, the rest of it, the way it is. Page -4- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 'oarso NNW City Manager Hooper referred the Committee to C of what he is proposing: A vehicle restoration permit authorizes the following: Storage of a vehicle during restoration shall be in an enclosed area not visible to the general public or neighboring properties. Mr. Holland stated the whole idea was if you did it in your garage or had an opaque fence where you neighbors can't see what is going on in your back yard, you don't need a permit. City Manager Hooper referred them back to A, which tells you what you do or don't have to do if you get a permit. Any person seeking to openly restore a vehicle on property designated residential shall obtain a permit. If it is enclosed, you don't need a permit. Then it goes to B and says if you have to have a permit here is what you have to supply the City with the application. If you get a permit that says you are going to do it openly, here is what you are going to get. A vehicle is going to be stored in an enclosed area. Mr. Holland stated no it's not, because you just gave them a permit to openly restore a vehicle. Mr. Jenkins stated what they intended was if you got a permit you could store it in a driveway with a cover or anywhere else as long as it was covered or out of view by some other means. City Manager Hooper suggested they focus on C - A vehicle restoration permit authorizes the following. Change the first one the way they would like it to say. That is what he wants them to do. The rest of it follows the process, if you are going to openly restore one you have to a have permit. Item C says what that permit will do. Mr. Jenkins stated they will have to change one and two. Mr. Aloise stated Number 1 says vehicle restoration in an enclosed area. If it is in an enclosed area, you don't need a permit. Mr. Holland stated Paragraph C is not discussing why people are getting a permit to do a restoration in open view. One you can keep it in an enclosed area. Two you can store it behind an opaque fence. It doesn't say three, since you have a permit that you can do it in your front yard for a year. That is what a permit is for. Paragraph C does not take up the point of open restoration. Mr. Jenkins stated he didn't realize he had amended another sentence in Paragraph A. Vehicles being restored may be restored in an enclosed area comma. That means you don't need a permit because it is enclosed. Then you go on to say and not visible to the general public or neighboring properties. That is where you don't need a permit. Then you go on to say any person seeking to openly restore a vehicle shall file a permit application with the City. When not working on it said vehicle shall be stored from view by opaque fencing, screening, custom car cover or stored inside a garage. City Manager Hooper stated any person seeking to openly restore a vehicle on property designated for residential shall obtain a permit. That just says if you are going to do it openly, you have to get a permit. If you are doing it in a garage, you don't need a permit. Page -5- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 'ir wrr Mr. Holland stated in Paragraph C a vehicle restoration permit authorizes the following: 1 enclosed area not visible. 2 says opaque fencing screening. 3 is non existent. That would be what this Committee was trying to do for people restoring a car in front of their home for a year permit. You are not mentioning that. If they were to approve Paragraph C as it stands right now, the only thing that this permit authorizes is 1 and 2. It does not mentioned someone can get a permit for one year and do the restoration in their front yard, not opaque fencing, not enclosed area. That is where City Manager Hooper has twisted what this Committee brought to him. Ms. Donahue stated didn't they decide you wouldn't be able to work in your front yard or store this stuff in your front yard? Mr. Holland stated they said you could restore it with a permit in the front for a year. Mr. Jenkins stated if it is in your driveway it has to be covered. Mr. Holland stated you can't leave junk around. Chairman Card asked City Manager Hooper what was it about the November 16 version they had, Paragraph A - E, that he could not live with. City Manager Hooper stated he can live with all of it and he thought he had. He clearly wanted to say what you needed a permit for and what you needed in the application for a permit and once you got the permit what you are entitled to do. Chairman Card stated Paragraph A in theirs attempts to define when a permit is needed. Paragraph B attempts to define what is required in the permit and Paragraph C defines what the permit is about. City Manager Hooper read Paragraph A and asked where it is wrong. Mr. Holland stated openly restored vehicle is the sole purpose for permit. Anything that is opaque or enclosed doesn't need a permit. City Manager Hooper asked if the first one he read was agreed with. You need a permit if you are going to openly restore it. The vehicle restoration shall be posted. He read Paragraph B and determined that is okay. He asked if Paragraph C should read vehicle restoration in an open area not visible to the general public or neighboring properties. Mr. Jenkins stated the whole thing is wrong. Mr. Holland asked City Manager Hooper to go look what they wrote. 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. Mr. Ross stated City Manager Hooper requested they rewrite Paragraph C to fit their intent. He recommended they modify Paragraph C to read: A vehicle restoration permit authorizes the following: Restoration may be performed in an open area. When stored, vehicle shall be stored in an enclosed area or area not visible to the public or neighboring properties. Mr. Jenkins feels they could clear up Paragraph A in the old one to take care of what City Manager Hooper is worried about and make it more clear by saying vehicles being restored may be restored in enclosed area, not visible to the general public or neighboring properties and will not require a permit. Page -6- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 Now Mr. Jenkins further stated any person seeking to openly restore a vehicle shall be required to file for a permit application with the City in the Code Enforcement Department. Then the rest of C is covered. When not working on said vehicle, it shall be stored from view by opaque fencing, screening, custom car cover or stored inside a garage. Mr. Heeb made a motion to modify Paragraph C1 to read what Mr. Ross said. Mr. Ross stated a vehicle restoration permit authorizes the following: Restoration may be performed in an open area. When stored, vehicle shall be stored in an area not visible to the public or neighboring properties. Mr. Heeb stated he is making that a motion to change Paragraph 1, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Sylvester asked if they are saying vehicle restoration in an open area period. Mr. Heeb stated a vehicle restoration permit authorizes the restoration in an open area. The motion CARRIED 13 -2. Mr. Jarrett and Ms. Donahue voted NO. Mr. Heeb made a motion to change Paragraph C2 to read: a vehicle being restored shall be stored in an area hidden from view by opaque fencing, screening, custom car cover or stored inside a garage, second by Mr. Aloise. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Chairman Card read Paragraph F. The Committee's intent was that a second permit would be required for any parts cars. Mr. Holland stated that were parked out in the open. If you have your restoration car and donor car sitting next to each other, the donor car had to have a permit. If it was in the back, it didn't need a permit anyway. He suggested they leave it in. City Manager Hooper feels they should leave it in and add that it requires a restoration permit. Mr. Holland feels it should say shall comply with all of the above. If it is going to be sitting out front and in the open, it is not an operable vehicle, it is obviously a restoration vehicle and would need a permit. Mr. Jenkins stated it would come under Paragraph A. City Manager Hooper stated if they want to leave it that way, fine. For the Code Enforcement Officer five years from now, it makes it a little easier. Mr. Jenkins asked City Manager Hooper if he had an objection to making it clear that if it is out of view, it doesn't need a permit. City Manager Hooper had no objection. Mr. Heeb suggested they make it clear. Mr. Jenkins feels they need to make it clear it is an in view issue. Mr. Holland made a motion to accept Paragraph F as it is, if it is out front it will require a permit, second by Mr. Ross. Ms. Donahue agreed with City Manager Hooper. She feels it should say it requires a permit. Mr. Holland stated if it is out'front it will require a permit anyway. Ms. Donahue feels they should put it down if it is not there. Page -7- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 Noe Mr. McKay asked if there are any limits on permits on property that anyone is aware of. City Manager Hooper stated not unless they were recommended. The motion CARRIED 12 -3. Mr. Jarrett, Ms. Donahue, and Mr. Aloise voted NO. Chairman Card entertained a motion in regard to the whole page. Mr. Ross made a motion to accept City Manager Hooper's version of Section 21 -34.05 as amended by previous votes, second by Mr. Blum. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Chairman Card referred to Section 21 -34.06 - Watercraft, watercraft trailers, motor homes, recreational vehicle trailers, trailers and campers. He commented on a scrivener's error in Paragraph C1. He thinks it was their intent to include motor homes, etc. there. Mr. Holland stated he believes wherever it said what is included in the title. It goes everywhere. Mr. Ross made a motion to eliminate Subparagraph 1 to C and add a sentence to Paragraph C that says all such vehicles are noted. Mr. Ross stated before he makes that motion, he wanted to make a point. It is already illegal to store anything overhanging your property line. Why are they even talking about it? Mr. Ross made a motion that they should state no part of any of the above may rest on or occupy airspace past the property line, second by Mr. Sylvester. Mr. Jones feels they should modify the sentence that leads into that. City Manager Hooper stated they have said the things you can do which grant the ability to do everything except encroach on someone else's property.. He would rather they leave that and clean it up by adding the language in the title. Mr. Ross withdrew his motion. Mr. Heeb made a motion to amend Paragraph C to correct the scrivener's error, second by Mr. Jones. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Chairman Card referred to Paragraph F3. He feels this has been significantly changed from theirs. He read the previous language. City Manager Hooper explained he took their definition of nuisance and said the watercraft shall be kept clean and not be a nuisance that can be detected. Their definition of nuisance changed it so whatever is on your property is fine as long as it is not a nuisance to the property next door. Chairman Card stated their biggest concern was boats sometimes smell. Mr. Holland explained in the definition of nuisance it mentions odors. Mr. Aloise made a motion to accept Section 21 -34.06 as written, second by Mr. Blum. Mr. Jones stated there is nothing in the definition section but the fact about the tires shall be inflated. He feels this is a limp statement. He suggested they mention so many pounds of pressure. Page -8- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 Mr. Jones suggested they modify it to be inflated for over the road use, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Jenkins feels then people will argue if they are not going over the road, they don't need to be inflated. He suggested using tire manufacturer recommendations. Mr. Anderson suggested using properly inflated. Chairman Card feels they would run into the same problem. Mr. Jenkins suggested fully inflated. Mr. Jones would be open to changing the wording to manufacturer's specifications. Chairman Card asked Mr. Jones if he had modified his motion. Mr. Jones stated shall be inflated to tire specifications. Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Jones to modify it a little more and say all of the above on 2 and 3 or write it out as they have in all the other situations. Mr. Jarrett stated they had a motion to put that terminology into every paragraph. Mr. Jones amended his motion. Chairman Card stated there was an original motion and a second motion during the discussion. They can amend that initial motion or they can waive some of Robert's Rules allowing them to vote on this little part and then go back to the whole thing or they can amend this. Mr. Heeb stated they could ask Mr. Jones to withdraw his first motion and allow the second motion to stand. Mr. Jones withdrew his motion. Mr. Aloise amended his motion to accept Section 21 -34.06 as amended. Mr. Aloise withdrew his motion. Mr. Jones made a motion to amend Paragraph F2 to read: shall be inflated to tire specifications. Mr. Ross stated someone made a comment that the motion before was to correct the scrivener's deletions and for them to be covered in every paragraph. Mr. Jenkins stated he thought the motion only applied to Paragraph C. Mr. Loeffler had a problem with inflating tires to manufacturer's specs. He always inflates his ten pounds lower. Mr. Anderson suggested they shorten specifications to specs. Mr. Sylvester suggested using normal operating range. Chairman Card entertained amendments or a motion. Mr. Jones amended his motion to include all vehicles. Mr. Anderson asked him to read it now. Chairman Card stated he just did. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Mr. Jenkins asked if they included all the vehicles above into paragraph 3. Mr. Holland stated all the vehicles included in the title will be included in any paragraph that mentions any of these vehicles. Mr. Holland made a motion that in every paragraph they include watercraft, watercraft, trailer motor homes recreational vehicle trailers, trailers and campers, second by Mr. Ross. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. The meeting recessed at 7:57 p.m. and reconvened at 8:08 p.m. Mr. Heeb stated City Manager Hooper has indicated he would like to delete the requirement for a permit on motor homes. City Manager Hooper stated he has been told it is in the current Code anyway and withdrew his recommendation. Page -9- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 it Nu•P • Chairman Card referred to Paragraph 4. He believed on properties designated for residential use was supposed to be front yards. City Manager Hooper stated he doesn't have a problem with that. Chairman Card stated let's put stored in front yards back in. Mr. Jenkins stated he had something on I. He believed when they voted on I, they changed it to say a limit of two vehicles in the front setback area and got rid of the square foot issue. He feels the square foot issue would pose a problem for Code Enforcement trying to figure out how many square feet people had. Mr. Jenkins stated he went back to the minutes and there was no real minutes on the wording they actually voted on but it is probably on tape. He thought they took that out. Mr. Aloise asked if they used Florida Shores as a 10,000 square foot lot. Mr. Jenkins stated they changed it to two vehicles in the front or side yard. Chairman Card stated it was on a 10,000 square foot lot which is what Florida Shores would have two in the front yard. Their discussion went to a standard Florida Shores 80 X 125 lot being 10,000 square feet. Mr. Jenkins stated that was just discussion, that wasn't what they voted on. Chairman Card stated what they voted on was the language. Mr. Jenkins stated he believed he made an amendment. Mr. Heeb stated he thought this was what they had agreed on. Chairman Card commented on the materials that were pulled from transcription which he reviewed our language against. A limit of one vehicle per 4,000 square feet of area shall be allowed to be parked in the front and /or side yard. Additional vehicles may be parked in an area for no longer than two weeks. That is what he had from the materials he received. That was in preparation for the delivery of the final language to City Manager Hooper on Friday morning. He had Pat go over this with him and prepare a list of the changes they made. She kept a running total by hand of their motions and amendments. Mr. Jenkins stated Mr. Heeb had an original proposal which didn't specify front yard, it said 4,000 square feet. He amended it to say two in the front or side yard. Before his motion was voted on and they voted on the amendment and then they went back and voted on the motion as amended. It poses a problem with the small lots, like around Flagler Avenue. Mr. Ross made a motion to accept Paragraphs G, H, and I as written including the withdrawal of City Manager Hooper's suggestion of deletion in Paragraph H, second by Mr. Sylvester. Mr. Jenkins suggested after additional they add and /or visitor vehicles may be parked in those areas for no longer than two weeks. Mr. Anderson feels additional vehicles covers that. Chairman Card called the question. Mr. Aloise stated his initial motion was to accept this in its entirety which he withdrew. They have already covered Page 4. Mr. Ross is now including the coverage of Page 5. His suggestion to Mr. Ross is that they accept this in its entirety including the revisions. Page -10- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 Now Noe Mr. Ross amended his motion to accept Section 21 -34.06 as written on November 17 including the amendments, motions and deletions of City Manager Hooper, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Jones mentioned paragraph G. There are occasions where people own additional property in addition to their residence. Mr. Aloise stated if someone owns property adjacent to their property, it would be accepted as one. Mr. Jones spoke about someone owning property on another street. Mr. Ross stated vacant lots become parking lots. Mr. Jones feels they should cover that. Mr. Holland stated it has to be adjacent to the residence. Chairman Card called question. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. City Manager Hooper stated the only thing he is concerned about is when this started and one of the early tasks was to set a maximum length of a vehicle, particularly boats on a lot. They have done performance standards and he likes this approach of the per 4,000 square feet. Council is looking for a max number. He feels this is better than picking a number arbitrarily. Chairman Card stated his intent when this is presented before Council is to present this portion graphically so they understand the majority of the problems are going to be in Florida Shores. Florida Shores has a better consistency as far as property lines and the width of a road. He thinks he will graphically be able to show what they have limited to the driveway itself. Anything on the driveway is probably going to be 28 feet or less. Anything sitting beside the driveway can not extend beyond the property line. If they will not accept that, he thinks they are the ones with the problem. He thinks more than anything else that would have caused more problems. A maximum of 34, 36 or 38 feet would have caused more problems for enforcement. City Manager Hooper stated a gentleman told the Committee it is not practical to trailer a boat over a certain size. Mr. Holland stated you can't put a huge boat there, it won't fit. As long as you can fit something there that is not encroaching into the City's right of way, and it is not blocking the view, not a nuisance and not causing eyesore then they should be allowed to put it there. Mr. Madewell stated when they first started to put footage on vehicles,, everyone's scenario is different. Why should they punish someone when they can fit it in, as long as it doesn't encroach in the public right -of -way. Mr. Jenkins stated on a 10,000 foot 80 foot lot, that would be two vehicles. City Manager Hooper stated his point in number was length. Mr. Loeffler stated as the Committee they decided they didn't want to put a number on length so they wouldn't run into a legal issue. As long as it fits on the property, it would be legal. Mr. Jones asked if there are any fire regulations which would prevent someone from parking a vehicle close to a structure. City Manager Hooper stated not residential but there would be in commercial. Page -11- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 Mr. Holland made a motion to accept Section 21.35 -04 - Canopies/Temporary Car Ports and Tent /Gazebos as written, second by Mr. Ross. Mr. Jenkins stated there is a scrivener's error in Paragraph E. They should take out and between recreation vehicles and trailers. The proposal will also apply to commercial and he feels this will create problems, such as people in the storage business. There is one man who has several canopies and a few other businesses that have canopies in the front that will now be limited to one. He went by and talked to Karl's and he can turn his into one. He proposed they add a Section F that says commercial storage businesses shall be exempt from Paragraph C, which deals with where you can put them. Mr. Holland stated what happens to the mechanic that has cars he is working on. He feels they would have to do all commercial. Mr. Jenkins stated Karl's has the worse scenario. There is rules that deal with commercial already. Chairman Card stated his understanding was there wasn't. Mr. Jenkins stated not with canopies but there are on where they can work on the vehicles and where they can park them. Anything over 30 days has to be screened from view. Mr. Holland stated what they are doing doesn't just apply to residential, it also applies to commercial. Mr. Jenkins stated they will be limited to one in the front setback. Mr. Jenkins restated his motion. That they add Section F and exempt commercial storage businesses from Paragraph C. The motion DIED for the lack of a second. City Manager Hooper stated when this goes to Council they should have whoever has a problem there to talk about it. If they would have put that in, he would have objected strongly. City Manager Hooper wants this on all of them. Mr. Jenkins commented on grandfather clauses. He is worried if they don't it can make everything subject to a problem. City Manager Hooper always welcomes the challenge and commented on Common Law Vesting. Chairman Card asked if there was further discussion in regard to Mr. Holland's motion to accept the whole thing. Mr. Holland amended his motion. Paragraph E when it discusses watercraft, automobiles, recreational vehicles and it goes back to Section 21 -34.06 to include all of the above vehicles in the title but otherwise accept it as is. Mr. Ross feels they need to include watercraft trailers. Mr. Jenkins stated all trailers are included. The motion was second by Mr. Loeffler. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. City Manager Hooper asked for one motion to wrap it all up. Mr. Heeb so moved. Page -12- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 Noy vow Mr. Jenkins had an issue he wanted to discuss under Old Business. Mr. Ross had discussion related to the definitions. Mr. Heeb withdrew his motion. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Jenkins commented on the issue of one ton or more. Mr. Ross got a copy of what he thought was the current enacted Code. It had been amended in July and had the old language which says one ton or more. It has since been corrected to the language of over one ton. There are one ton pickup trucks and they are legal in all cities. He feels they shouldn't be considered commercial just because of the one ton capacity. Mr. Holland stated commercial is defined as registered with State of Florida as a commercial truck. Mr. Jenkins stated there is an existing commercial thing that we aren't dealing with that defines that one commercial vehicle one ton or less is allowed on a residential property. Mr. Holland stated but it goes back to commercial is by the registration of the vehicle. Chairman Card entertained a motion in regard to the definition. Mr. Jenkins made a motion to correct the Recommended Definition Changes or Additions, 1 paragraph to read change vehicle commercial to read: means any vehicle beach concession wagon, semi- tractor or semi- trailer with a rated capacity of over one ton and is intended or used for the transportation of people or goods as part of a business that is either commercially or privately registered and does not include rental vehicles designed for temporary, personal use, second by Mr. Ross. City Manager Hooper stated the only change is taking or more and putting over one ton. Mr. Jenkins stated he would add to this to correct the error in the existing code under commercial vehicles, Paragraph C. Mr. Jarrett asked if they are going to approve commercial one ton vehicles. Mr. Jenkins stated there already is a code that says one commercial one ton or less will be allowed. The motion CARRIED 15 -0. Mr. Jenkins made a motion to add a recommendation that the correct Paragraph C of the existing paragraph C of Section 21- 35.05 existing commercial vehicles in residential areas code. Paragraph C should read one commercial vehicle with one ton or less shall be permitted to park on any property for the primary use of residential. City Manager Hooper asked him to not do that as a motion. That was not part of the goals of the Committee. Mr. Jenkins withdrew his motion. Mr. Ross commented on the definition of commercial vehicles. Paragraph A of 21 -35.05 seems to him to be rather redundant and conflicts because it is a definition and it is different than the definition under definitions. City Manager Hooper stated he will look at that. Mr. Ross feels some of that needs to be incorporated into that too. Page -13- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000 Mr. Heeb made a motion to adopt and present to Council at the December 18 meeting all of recommended changes adopted tonight, second by Mr. McKay. The motion CARRIED 14 -1. Mr. Anderson voted NO. DISCUSSION ITEMS Chairman Card stated Deputy City Clerk Bloomer has done a first class job. Mr. Heeb complimented the entire staff. Chairman Card stated Ms. Plaskett and her staff have been extremely helpful to him and he appreciates the work that has been done. They have contributed a great deal of value in this community. Mr. Holland stated it has been very interesting working with everyone. He feels Chairman Card also deserves a round of applause. Mr. Jenkins stated in Edgewater democracy works and we don't need a recount. Mr. McKay thanked Ms. Plaskett's office for working with them in light of the attitude her office had about this committee in the beginning. He knows they worked hard on the Code and they were not all too enthused about this Committee but they bit their tongues real hard and he appreciates that. City Manager Hooper stated he had a group come in that promotes the ability to go into the community and gather facts and bring them back. He commented on five Homeowners Association meetings they attended. There is a lot to be said for a Committee like this and working together. He thought it would be more difficult to get to common ground. He feels they have a good product and performance standards that would rival anybody's. He feels this will be thoroughly supported by staff. He encouraged everyone to be there on the 18 and make them aware this is a unified approach. He feels overall everybody got to have input. He complimented the staff for doing a really good job. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, there was a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page -14- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. November 30, 2000