[00:00:02]
[1. Call Meeting To Order/Roll Call]
THIS IS THE, UH, AUGUST MEETING OF THE ORDINANCE RE UH, REVISION COMMISSION.AND, UH, IT'S UH, LIKE THE CALL, THE MEETING TO ORDER TONY, WOULD YOU PLEASE ROLL, UH, READ THE ROLL CALL, MR. ELLIS HERE, MR. FANNON.
MR. HENDRIX, DEAR MR. KITCHEN, MR. OTTO HERE, MR. WAMSLEY HAS LET US KNOW THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE HERE THIS EVENING, MR. WEBB.
UH, AT THIS TIME I, UH, THE, THE MINUTES
[2. Approval of Minutes]
HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK GLEN FOR CHAIRING THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF MATERIAL COVERED AND, UH, I WAS ABLE TO GO ON VACATION AS A RESULT OF THAT.SO, UM, I ASSUME EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES AND UNLESS THERE'S ANY CHANGES OR RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY WILL, UH, STAND ADMITTED AS PRESENTED.
MOVING ON TO TOPICS OF DISCUSSION, SECTION THREE, UH, LEGISLATION
[ Legislation Worksheets Review]
WORKSHEETS REVIEW, AND I HAVE A FEELING THAT WILL TAKE UP PROBABLY MOST OF THE MEETING TONIGHT, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION COVERED LAST WEEK OR LAST MONTH.AND, UH, SOME, UM, A LOT OF FOLLOWUP MATERIAL THAT'S BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION.
UM, SO I THINK I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, TONY AND LET YOU KIND OF WALK US THROUGH THE THING.
UM, SO I'LL START WITH, UM, SECTION 1 0 5, WHICH IS WARDS, WHICH WE HAVE ON AS AN OUTSTANDING ITEM ON OUR LIST.
UM, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE WARD REDRAWING OR REDISTRICTING.
UM, WE WERE WAITING ON, UM, CENSUS DATA AND, UM, WE DID GET THE PRELIMINARY DATA LAST WEEK WITH THE US CENSUS, UH, SHOWING A SIGNIFICANT GROWTH IN, UH, POPULATION IN HUBER HEIGHTS.
IT WAS 14 POINT SOMETHING PERCENT.
UM, I THINK FIVE OR SIX, FIVE OR 6,000 POPULATION INCREASE, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IN THE REGION.
UM, SO OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME NEED FOR REVISIONS TO THE WARDS, UM, BASED ON THAT CENSUS DATA, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE DRILL DOWN INFORMATION STILL.
UM, IN THE PAST, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS, UH, AT LEAST IN MY EXPERIENCE AND 10 YEARS AGO WAS, UH, DONE THROUGH A COUNCIL COMMITTEE.
SO I IMAGINE THAT THAT WILL BE THE PROCESS AGAIN.
AND WE HAVE A DEADLINE IN MARCH OF NEXT YEAR TO, UH, HAVE THOSE DONE AND, UH, SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
SO, UM, THAT'LL BE A PROCESS THAT WE'LL PROBABLY BE DRIVING SEPARATELY FROM THE ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMISSION, BUT I DID WANT TO GIVE YOU A STATUS UPDATE ON WHERE THAT STOOD AS FAR AS, UM, THE CENSUS DATA AS IT RELATES TO THAT, UH, SECTION.
SO, UH, THAT TAKES CARE OF ONE.
UM, IN SECTION THREE, WE ALSO HAVE COMPLETED ALL OF THE ITEMS AS FOLLOW UPS IN THERE.
UM, UH, PART FIVE WE HAVE, UH, ON THE SHEET, UH, THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT MR. WEBB HAD BROUGHT UP, UM, FROM A RESIDENT ABOUT SECTION 5, 1, 1 0.02, WHICH DEALT WITH CURFEW.
AND, UH, I THINK IT WAS FRIDAY WAS THE DAY OF THE WEEK THAT WE HAD FELT MAYBE WASN'T ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THE, UH, SECTION.
UM, I DID SEND OUT THE FEEDBACK FROM THE WALL DIRECTOR AND LET ME GRAB THAT MEMO.
UM, HIS FEEDBACK WAS THAT HE DID NOT THINK IT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED THAT, UM, THE WAY HE READS IT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IS THAT, UM, IT PROHIBITS BEING OUT PAST MIDNIGHT, FRIDAY NIGHT, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY 12:01 AM SATURDAY.
UM, AND SO THERE IS NO NEED TO, UH, FURTHER IDENTIFY THAT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE FEELS DIFFERENTLY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
UM, OR YOU WANT TO ACCEPT THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE SEXUAL STUFF, ANYBODY KNOW WHAT PAUL HAS EVER BEEN, TRYING TO THINK FROM MINOR'S BEEN EVER PASSED OUT ON SATURDAY AND BE ABLE TO GET AWAY.
CAUSE THE POLICE OFFICER MAYBE WAS CONFUSED OVER THE WALL, THINKING THEY WERE ALLOWING, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD KNOW THAT EVEN IF
[00:05:01]
IT DID HAPPEN.I DON'T THINK WE EVEN HAVE A CURFEW ISSUE.
I DON'T, I'M NOT EVEN SURE HOW MUCH DATA'S TRACKED ON CURFEWS OR, I MEAN, THEY PROBABLY HAVE IT AS A CATEGORY THAT THEY COULD TELL YOU IN A YEAR IF THEY'VE ISSUED ANY CURFEW VIOLATIONS.
BUT BEYOND THAT, I DON'T THINK IT DRILLS DOWN INTO ANY DEEPER.
SO IT HASN'T REALLY BEEN AN ISSUE.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S NEED TO CHANGE IT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD.
AND WE WILL, UM, NOTE THAT THERE IS NO RECOMMENDED ACTION WITH REGARD TO THAT PARTICULAR.
THEN WE, UM, WE DID ALSO, UM, THAT COMPLETES EVERYTHING THAT WAS ON THE LIST FOR PART FIVE.
UM, I DID RECEIVE, UM, SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY ENGINEER ABOUT A CHANGE THEY'D LIKE TO MAKE AND PART FIVE SECTION 5 0 9 0.08, WHICH IS DISTURBING THE PEACE.
UM, HE SAID THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAD COME UP RECENTLY AND, UM, CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAKE A CHANGE.
UM, I DID SEND THIS OUT AND THE INFORMATION I EMAILED THE COMMISSION, BUT, UH, THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN, UM, PARAGRAPH 10 OF THAT SECTION.
AND IT CURRENTLY SAYS, UM, YOU CAN'T DO ANY TYPE OF EXCAVATING, DEMOLITION, ALTERATION, OR REPAIR OF ANY BUILDING OTHER THAN BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 AM AND 10:00 PM ON WEEKDAYS.
UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO REMOVE ON WEEKDAYS AND, UM, CHANGE THAT TO MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY TO PERMIT THAT TYPE OF WORK, TO TAKE PLACE ON SATURDAY THAT, UM, SOMETIMES WHEN, UH, DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROJECTS OF THIS NATURE ARE GOING ON, THEY, THEY WORK ON SATURDAYS.
SO IT WOULD JUST EXTEND IT TO SATURDAY BETWEEN THE SAME HOURS, UH, THE PREVIOUS WEEKDAY WITH LIMITATIONS.
YES, NO OBJECTIONS TO THE OBJECTIONS.
THAT'LL BE THAT CHANGE WILL BE MADE RECOMMENDED, I SHOULD SAY.
THEN MOVING ON, UH, PARTS SEVEN, UH, WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF ALL THE ITEMS THAT WERE IN PART SEVEN.
SO MOVING ON TO PART NINE, UM, THE FIRST TWO ITEMS IN PART NINE ARE SECTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION REVIEWED PREVIOUSLY.
UM, AND AFTER I WENT BACK AND STARTED WORKING ON THE MINUTES AND WHAT WAS AGREED BY THE COMMISSION, UM, I NOTICED THAT ON BOTH OF THESE TWO ITEMS THAT THE LAW DIRECTOR, UM, AND THE CITY ENGINEER HAD BOTH COMMENTED ON THOSE SECTIONS, BUT THEY HAD CONFLICTING KINDS OF RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, FOR THOSE SECTIONS.
SO THE FIRST IS, UH, 9 20 0 7, WHICH IS, UH, PILLS.
AND, UM, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE COMMISSION AGREED TO APPROVE THE CITY ENGINEERS, UM, SUGGESTIONS, BUT THE ONES WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE LAW DIRECTOR.
SO THE CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION AND NINE, 20.07 WAS TO CHANGE THE FIRST LINE IN THIS SECTION TO SAY THE CITY'S ENGINEER, THE CITY ENGINEER'S DECISION TO DENY A PERMIT AND CHANGE THAT TO, TO DENY SUSPEND OR REVOKE A PERMIT.
AND THEN TWO IN THE SECOND SENTENCE TO, INSTEAD OF SAYING ALL APPEALS ON A DENIAL OF A PERMIT, JUST TO CHANGE IT TO ALL APPEALS MUST BE MADE IN WRITING SO THAT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR APPEALS OF SUSPENSIONS OR REVOCATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DENIALS.
UM, THEN WHEN I WAS CROSS-REFERENCING IT TO, UM, MR. MCDONALD'S INFORMATION, HE WENT INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL AND KIND OF REWROTE THE SECTION.
UM, HE, UM, SAID HE DIDN'T THINK THAT, UM, THE PHRASE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION SHOULD BE DELETED AS THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE CHAPTER REGARDING THIS, UH, ONLY DENIALS.
SO HE SAYS HIS BELIEF AS IT SHOULD READ THE CITY ENGINEER'S DECISION TO DENY A PERMIT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY MANAGER, ALL APPEALS ON A DENIAL OF A PERMIT MUST BE MADE IN WRITING
[00:10:01]
WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.SO, UH, I THINK HE'S, UM, HE'S SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDING SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION.
I THINK THOUGH IN HIS EMAIL THAT HE SENT OUT ON, UH, THE, I FORGET WHAT THE 9TH OF AUGUST, UH, HE INDICATED, HE SAYS, I LIKED THE CITY ENGINEER.
I LIKED THE CITY ENGINEER'S LANGUAGE, HOWEVER, AND HE SAID IT, UM, AND THEN HE SAID, WE NEED TO ADD PROVISIONS.
THAT WOULD ALSO REGARDING THE HEARING PRIOR TO A REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION, LET ME LOOK AT THE AUGUST 9TH EMAIL THAT HE SENT TO YOU.
SO AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, THAT BASICALLY HE JUST THINKS THAT THERE WOULD NEED A PRO AND WE WOULDN'T NEED AN ADD A PROVISION THAT WOULD, UM, BECAUSE I GUESS THERE WAS NO RE REQUIREMENT FOR A HEARING ON A SUSPENDED REPLICATION OR SUSPENSION IN THE EXISTING CODE BECAUSE I'M READING JERRY'S COMMENTS IN THAT EMAIL.
SO WITH THOSE VARIOUS PIECES OF INFORMATION, I, I DIDN'T, I WAS UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE.
SO, UH, I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU AND HAVE YOU EITHER RE SANCTIONED, I DECISION LISTENING TO THE MINUTES, I DID NOT GET CLARITY AS TO WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IN THAT SECTION.
UM, MY PERSONAL THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, UNLESS THEY ARE LOOKING TO US TO ACTUALLY WRITE A PROVISION, YOU KNOW, THE CODE, UH, THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, THAT IT WOULD, IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR JERRY TO PUT INTO WRITING THE ADDED LANGUAGE IN THE LEASE IN RESPONSE TO, OR IN LIGHT OF HIS EMAIL OF AUGUST 9TH, WHAT INFORMATION THAT HE WOULD WANT TO ADD IT TO THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE SUSPENSION OF ADVOCATION, IT'D BE A PARTY, THE ENGINEER'S LANGUAGE PLUS THE ADDED LANGUAGE THAT HE WOULD WANT TO SEE ADDED.
AND THEN THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AS A WHOLE.
IF THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION, I JUST WANT TO GET CLARITY ON THAT.
NO, I THINK THAT'D BE GREAT THAT WAY.
WE DON'T HAVE TWO CONFLICTING OPINIONS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION ON.
IF THOSE TWO COULD KIND OF PUT THEIR HEADS TOGETHER AND GIVE US SOMETHING THAT THEY THINK WORKS WELL FOR BOTH, THAT'D BE GREAT.
AND THEN IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME, A VERY SIMILAR ISSUE IN 9 21 0.0 4.10, WHICH DEALS WITH APPEALS.
UH, IT WAS BASICALLY THE SAME ISSUE AND I THINK THEY SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OBVIOUSLY THEY SHOULD BE CONSISTENT.
SO WE'LL GO WITH THAT ROUTE WITH BOTH OF THOSE NEXT UP IS SECTION 9 43 0.04 PARKS FACILITIES.
UM, THIS WAS AN UPDATE TO THE LIST OF CITY PARKS.
UM, WE HAD MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION THAT THE DOG PARK WAS NOT LISTED DIAL PARK.
JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE HAD A COMPLETE LISTING OF ALL THE CURRENT CITY PARKS.
UH, JOSH DID PROVIDE THAT LIST, WHICH I DISTRIBUTED TO EVERYBODY.
SO IF THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS TO THAT, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE LIST THAT WE WOULD CODIFY AS, UH, IN THAT PARTICULAR SECTION OBJECTIONS, SEEING THEM WE'LL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
AND THEN WE'RE ON TO PART 11 WHERE A LOT OF THE WORK IS.
SO, UM, FIRST STOP IS SECTION 11, 17.04, UH, SCHEDULE OF FEES, CHARGES, AND EXPENSES, UM, AND RECOMMENDATION WAS TO NOT MAKE ANY OKAY.
I DON'T MEAN TO GO BACK, BUT, UM, I'M LOOKING HERE.
IT JUST CAUGHT MY EYE ON AUGUST 9TH, EMAIL FROM JERRY, WHICH WAS SOME OF THE FEEDBACK ON THESE SECTIONS AND ON, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO? THAT WAS AN EMAIL I WAS REFERRING TO.
SO IN 9 21 OH 0.10 JERRY'S RECOMMENDATION, THERE WAS, THIS CHAPTER ONLY PROVIDES FOR DENIAL OR REVOCATION, NOT SUSPENSION OF A PERMIT.
[00:15:01]
SHOULD BE REMOVED.UH, AGAIN, I THINK AS LONG AS THAT SECTION AND 9, 20 0 7 IS CONSISTENT, YOU KNOW, UM, I MEAN, IF ONE SECTION GIVES AN APPEAL TO A SUSPENSION, UM, UH, IT'S JUST LIKE, IT LOOKS LIKE HIS, HIS FEEDBACK IS DIFFERENT FOR THE TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS.
THAT'S WHAT JUST CAUGHT MY EYE.
I'LL JUST HAVE HIM LOOK AT IT AND TRY TO REGAIN CLARITY.
SO, UM, 11, 17 0 4 SCHEDULE A FEES, CHARGES AND EXPENSES.
JERRY SAID, HE'D LEAVE THIS UP TO SCOTT.
SCOTT SAYS NO CHANGES ARE DATED.
AND WHICH SECTION IS THAT AGAIN? 11, 17 0 4.
AND GOD WAS OUR QUESTION TO THEM WAS, DID THEY GET BAYFIELD? THEY NEEDED TO UPDATE THEM.
AND ALSO, UM, JERRY SAID HE WOULD LEAVE THAT WENT UP TO SCOTT.
SCOTT DID NOT ANSWER THAT ONE.
UM, I WOULD TEND TO ASSUME IT WAS THE SAME AS 11 17 0 4, BUT I WILL VERIFY WITH HIM JUST TO BE SURE.
BUT IF HE DOESN'T RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES, THEN I'LL ASSUME WE'LL CLOSE.
SO NEXT UP IS, UH, 1120 3.25 A CARPORT.
SO ON THIS ONE, UM, JERRY SAID, SCOTT, I'M PLANNING THIS ONE TO YOU.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT LANGUAGE, JUST MENTIONING DWELLING IN ASSESSORY STRUCTURE, AS OPPOSED TO ALSO SAYING ASSESSOR REBUILDING.
THERE WAS NOT MUCH OF A DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY BUILDING BOTH BY DEFINITION.
UM, IN THESE TWO REFERENCE SECTIONS, BEING A BUILDING SUBORDINATES OR A BIGGER BUILDING ON THE SAME LOT.
AND ASSESSORY BUILDING APPEARS TO BE THE SMALLER TWO BUILDINGS ON THE SAME LOT, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE TWO BUILDINGS ARE BEING USED.
HE ALSO SAYS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE APPEARS TO BE SMALLER, A SMALLER BUILDING THAT IS BEING USED IN A SUBORDINATE MANNER FROM HOW A LARGER BUILDING ON THE SAME LOG BEING USED.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S CAR PORTS.
I THINK THEY GOT THE NUMBER WRONG.
IT'S 11 23, 20 PLOTS CAR PORTS.
AND YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ACCESS, RIGHT? YES.
CAUSE I REMEMBER I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SMALLER THING SOMEONE HAVE THAT PULLED UP.
I THOUGHT BY THE NUMBERS EASY IS FINE.
WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO KNOW? WHAT'S THAT? DOES THAT COVER THE AREA OF ASSESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES? NO, IT DOES NOT.
WELL, UH, UM, I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION.
THERE WAS SOME MINOR MENTIONED.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THAT I'VE BEEN BROUGHT UP CONCERNING DEFINITIONS OF, I THINK.
AND IT'S, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT SECTION IT WAS IN NOW, BUT THAT IT DEALT WITH.
THERE WAS, THEY SEEM TO USE THE TERM ACCESSORY BUILDING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE KIND OF INTERCHANGEABLY IN A COUPLE OF PLACES.
I MEAN, THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN DEFINITION.
SO I THINK THE ACCESSORY BUILDING VERSUS STRUCTURE DISCUSSION DID COME OUT OF THE CARPORT SECTION.
THERE IS A MENTION TO A SHELTER SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE DWELLING.
THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION AT ON THAT POINT.
IT CAME OUT OF THE DISCUSSION ON THAT TOPIC.
MAYBE NOT AS DIRECTLY RELATED TO CARDBOARDS.
UM, MY SCOTT'S COMMENTS, HE KIND OF, WE REFERRED TO SIZE, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THERE, YOU KNOW, ONE IS BIGGER THAN THE OTHER, THAT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY AN INDICATOR.
I MEAN, YOU COULD SAY, I COULD, I DON'T KNOW, SOMEBODY SETS UP A COMPANY WHERE THEY HAVE A SMALL PRIMARY BUILDING OR THE OPERATION RUNS, BUT YOU GOT LARGE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WHERE YOU HAVE THE ACTUAL WORK BEING DONE.
[00:20:02]
HE'S RECOMMENDED NO CHANGE ON IT.I THINK THE QUESTION WAS JUST BECAUSE WE HAD THE TERMS, ACCESSORY BUILDING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, BOTH LISTED.
AND WE, OUR QUESTION WAS KIND OF ALONG THE LINES OF, ARE WE TALKING NOW AND WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WHICH ONE? OR WHICH ONE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? AND DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? YEAH, BECAUSE THE CARPORT SEEMS TO TALK ABOUT DWELLING.
SO I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT WOULDN'T, UH, WE WOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, SO WE WOULD BE ONLY TALKING ABOUT IT DWELLING AND I CAN SEE A CARPORT BEING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, BUT NOT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.
AND THE OTHER QUESTION, THE DEFINITIONS WERE IN, UH, 11 23 0 1 11 23 0 2.
THAT'S WHERE THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE AT.
BECAUSE IT, SO YOU HAVE STARTED THE CARPORT SECTION, BUT WENT BACK TO THOSE BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS.
AS OF YET, IF YOU HAVE A BUILDING, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE THE HOUSE AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A, UH, A BUILDING IN THE BACKYARD, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, DWELLING, YOU KNOW, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A CAR PORT BEING PUT ON THE SIDE OF THE, THE OUTBUILDING OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SIBLEY? I MEAN, CAUSE IT SAYS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE CAR PORT HAS TO BE ATTACHED TO A DWELLING OR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
SO WHAT ABOUT AN ACCESSORIES FOR FOLDING? DOES THAT MEAN YOU CANNOT HAVE A CARPORT ON AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? YEAH.
IS ACCESSORY BUILDING SUBSUMED IN THE DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? AND SINCE WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE DEFINITIONS, THAT'S WHERE MY CONFUSION KIND OF, UM, I WOULD SAY A BUILDING WOULD ALWAYS BE A STRUCTURED, BUT A STRUCTURED NOT NECESSARY.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE IT'S HARD TO PLAY TELEPHONE BETWEEN ALL THE PEOPLE, BUT, UH, THE COMMENTS HERE WERE THAT THEY DIDN'T SEE A REASON TO EITHER OF THEM TO MAKE A CHANGE, THAT THEY DIDN'T FIND THOSE DEFINITIONS IN CONGRUENT.
I MEAN, I, I GUESS MY, MY, MY POSITION WOULD BE IS THAT AS LONG AS IF, IF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT UNDERSTANDS WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO, AND THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY QUANTUM PROBLEM RAISED BY IT, THEN I'M SAYING, OKAY, LET'S LEAVE THE, YOU KNOW, LET'S, DON'T TRY TO FIX SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE BROKEN.
AND SO I'M OKAY WITH FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF NO CHANGING.
AND EVERYBODY ELSE GOOD WITH THAT.
THEN MOVING ON TO SECTION 11, 27 0.03, UH, PARAGRAPH C FOUR POWERS.
UM, I THINK THIS WAS THE ONE THAT JERRY WAMSLEY HAD BROUGHT UP, UM, ABOUT A SITUATION HE HAD EXPERIENCED ABOUT, UM, THE RIGHTS OF A TENANT AND, UH, MAYBE A LAND CONTRACT SITUATION OR SOMETHING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SEEK A VARIANCE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE HOMEOWNER.
UM, JERRY MACDONALD'S FEEDBACK IS HE THINKS THE BEST AVENUE IS FOR THE CITY IS TO LEAVE THE LANGUAGE AS IT IS.
HE SAID, THE BOARD'S CITIES BOARD SHOULD NOT BE PUT INTO A, OF INTERPRETING RIGHTS UNDER A LAND CONTRACT, AS EACH LINK CONTRACT CAN CONTAIN DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.
I'M TRYING TO FIND IT, BUT IT ALSO MADE OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT CONCERNING MAYBE SOMETHING ABOUT THE, UM, THE, THE TENANT OR OCCUPANT BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR SOME THINGS.
I THINK THAT WAS MAYBE ON THE SUBJECT OF, UM, REQUESTING A HEARING ON A DECISION OR SOMETHING THAT THE TENANT SHOULD, MAYBE IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE YEAH.
THAT SAID THE HEARINGS ON THE PRO ON PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SECTION 13.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS ON THE SUBJECT AS WELL.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT JERRY WAS GETTING AT WITH HIS CONVERSATION WAS THAT, UH, HE WAS THINKING THAT THE, THE, HE FELT THAT THE PROPERTY OCCUPANT SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT ABILITY AS WELL.
UM, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT I THINK THAT'S WHERE JERRY WAS ONE ON THAT ONE.
BUT I THINK HE WAS SAYING LIKE, IF THEY WANTED TO SEEK A VARIANCE ON SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPERTY
[00:25:01]
OWNER, I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE.BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, AS THE CODE READS, THEY, THE OWNER HAS TO EITHER SEEK THE VARIANCE OR GIVE APPROVAL FOR THE SEEKING OF BETTER.
SO HE THOUGHT THAT THAT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE DONE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER, IF YOU WERE THE OCCUPANT IN A LONG-TERM SITUATION LIKE ATLANTA CONTRACT.
SO, UM, AT LEAST THE LAW DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT.
I MEAN, YOU WOULD BASICALLY, YOU COULD HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S LIVING IN THAT RESIDENCE AS AN OCCUPANT, UH, GETTING VARIANCES THAT MIGHT FUNDAMENTALLY BE AT ODDS WITH WHAT THE HOMEOWNER WOULD WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN WITH THE PROPERTY.
AND IT WOULD BE TO BE DONE WITHOUT THEIR APPROVAL.
I GET THAT FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT.
AND THEN WITH ME HAVING A MORTGAGE AND THE BANK STILL OWNS MY HOME UNTIL THE NURTURE GLADLY PAID, BUT I CAN MODIFY IT OR DO THINGS TO IT.
AND IN LINK CONTRACT SITUATION, IT'S KIND OF SIMILAR.
THEY'RE BUYING THE HOUSE JUST FROM A PRIVATE PARTY, BUT I DON'T KNOW LEGALLY HOW ALL THAT WORKS.
WELL, THE ONE DIFFERENCE IN LEGALLY IS IN A MORTGAGE SITUATION, YOU ACTUALLY DO OWN THE HOME.
IT'S JUST SUBJECT TO A LANE IN A LAND CONTRACT.
OWNERSHIP DOES NOT HAVE TRANSFERRED TO THE BUYER UNTIL THE LAND CONTRACT IS COMPLETED, WAS THE DEED THEN ISSUED AT THAT POINT.
SO I GUESS THAT WOULD BE, THE DISTINCTION WOULD BE THAT OKAY.
WHAT IS YOUR WISH? LET'S CLOSE THAT ONE, I THINK MOVE ON.
MOVING ON, UH, SECTION 1140 1.01 DISTRICTS.
THIS WAS THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SUBORDINATION OF OVERLAY DISTRICTS TO THE ZONING DISTRICT OR VICE VERSA.
UM, JERRY SAYS IT APPEARS, THE QUESTION IS SHOULD BRAND PIKE OVERLAY BE LISTED AS ITS OWN DISTRICT, WHICH I THINK IT IS RIGHT.
UH, IT'S NOT A TRUE STANDALONE DISTRICT AS ITS ZONING IS DETERMINED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING AND NOT THE OVERLAY.
NEVERTHELESS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO ME THAT ADDING IT TO 11 41 0 1 WILL HURT US IN ANY WAY.
UM, AND THEN SCOTT SAID, UH, THE OVERLAY SUPERSEDES THE UNDERLYING DISTRICT IF APPLICABLE AS MR. OTTO STATED.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF JERRY TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE ASKING IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
I THINK SCOTT MAYBE HAS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT ISSUE THAN MAYBE JERRY DOES SCOTT DIDN'T RECOMMEND ANY KIND OF CHANGE TWEAK TO THAT? WELL, I THINK WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THAT, UH, UH, IN OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THE ORIGINAL ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, WHETHER THEY SUPERSEDE THE OVERLAY OR NOT, UH, THE ISSUE WOULD BE THE OVERLAY SUPERSEDES THE UNDERLYING DISTRICT, THE ORIGINAL ZONING DISTRICT.
CAUSE TYPICALLY DOESN'T THE OVERALL OVERLAY.
ISN'T THE GENERALLY A MORE RESTRICTIVE IN MOST CASES THAN THE UNDERLYING.
I THINK HOW WE GOT ON THIS DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT THE, UM, AND THE BRAND PIKE THING, THE GOOD SAMARITAN OR THE, THE, THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS IN THAT AREA.
AND THEN IT LED TO SOME DISCUSSIONS AROUND THIS ISSUE, WHY MAYBE THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WAS DIFFERENT IN THE BRAND OVERLAY DISTRICT THAN IN SOME OF THE OTHER, UH, TRADITIONAL ZONE AND THE DISTRICT.
SO IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD BE ACTUALLY MORE LIBERAL THAN THE UNDERLYING THIS, YOU KNOW, THE BRAND YOU GO EITHER WAY WITH AN OVERLAY DISTRICT, IT WOULD JUST SUPERSEDE WHAT THE ORIGINAL ZONING YEAH.
BECAUSE USE CASE, I THINK IT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE LIBERAL.
AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY PROBABLY THE WAY THAT IT WAS INTENDED, UM, TO CREATE, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, LIKE IN THIS CASE, A BRAND PIKE OVERLAY WAS TO DEAL WITH A PARTICULAR SECTION AND THEN I CAN SEE WHY IT WOULD DO TO SUIT NOT REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, PARTICULAR ZONING ON CERTAIN PARCELS WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT.
BUT INSTEAD LOOKING AT THE OVERALL LOOK AT THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE IS EVERYTHING UNDERNEATH IT.
SO I, I THINK THAT WAS MORE OF A CLARIFICATION THAN THE RECOMMENDED CHANGE AND I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THAT BASED ON THAT INFORMATION.
NEXT IS UH, 1150 6.03 PARAGRAPH K SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
[00:30:01]
UM, JERRY SAYS, SCOTT, THIS IS RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY.SO IF JERRY IS KICKING IT TO SCOTT AND SCOTT SAYING NO CHANGE, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
THEN WE'RE ON TO 1160 0.06 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION.
UH, NO RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM SCOTT AND JURY PUNTED DOWN ON THIS GUY AS WELL.
THEN WE HAD THE ISSUE OF IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO, UH, SECTION 1172, THERE WERE THOSE, UH, DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WERE JUST KIND OF THROWN IN THERE AND WE WERE KIND OF AT A LOSS WHY THEY WERE PLACED THERE AND WHY THEY WEREN'T NUMBERED.
UM, SO ON THAT ONE, UM, JERRY SAYS THIS APPEARS TO BE VERY OUT OF PLACE.
I WOULD THINK BOTH THE BASIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE POD DISTRICT AND THE DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR A POD DISTRICT SHOULD BE CODIFIED SEPARATELY.
IT APPEARS THE BASIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS IN THIS LANGUAGE ARE VERY SIMILAR TO IT IN SOME RESPECTS, MORE DETAILED THAN THE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1170 1.05.
HE THINKS THAT, UH, WE NEED A REWRITE OF SECTION 11 71 0 5 TO INCORPORATE THE SUBJECT FLOATING LANGUAGE.
AND THAT'S HOW HE'S REFERENCING THESE TWO, UH, STANDARDS.
AND, UM, HE THINKS THAT THEN, UH, THE DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN LANGUAGE SHOULD BE RECONCILED INCORPORATED INTO SECTION 1170 1.09.
UM, AND SCOTT CONCURRED WITH JURY'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND HE, HE THINKS THAT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT AND, AND MOVING THEM FROM WHERE THEY'RE AT TO THOSE SPECIFIC SECTIONS.
AND THAT, THAT WAY THEY'D BE CODIFIED BY NUMBER, BUT ALSO FALLEN AN APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE CODE.
WE'RE NOT SURE HOW THAT GOT TO THAT POINT OR WHEN IT WAS DONE, BUT IT WAS A GOOD CATCH BY WHOEVER NOTICED IT.
SO WE'LL, UH, SO THE REWRITE WILL BE DONE BY, I ASSUME JERRY.
W WE'LL GIVE THE GUIDANCE, UH, PROBABLY JERRY AND I, IN ORDER TO GIVE MUNICH CODE DIRECTION, REALIGN THAT I ASSUME THIS WAS DONE BEFORE WE EVEN WERE COMMUNICA THAT PROBABLY THE PREVIOUS KIND OF FIRE.
UM, AT SOME POINT SOMEONE PUT IT IN THERE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED THAT IT WAS PUT IN THAT WAY.
I DON'T, I JUST, WE JUST DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT TO THAT POINT.
SO MAYBE SOMEONE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD PLACEMENT FOR IT AT THE TIME, BUT SO WE'LL GET THOSE CODIFIED IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS AS RECOMMENDED.
NEXT IS, UH, 1180 1.1, TWO OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES AND DISPLAYS.
UM, JERRY KIND OF SAID, UM, IT APPEARS THE LANGUAGE HERE AND THE LANGUAGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE SECTION WHERE IT SAYS THE HEIGHT OF ANY OUTDOOR SALES SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE FEET.
HE A QUESTION WHETHER IT MIGHT BE TENSE OR CHRISTMAS TREES OR WHATEVER, BUT HE SAID HE FINDS IT ODD AND IT'S, YOU'RE PROBABLY FIXED OR REMOVED.
AND I THINK SCOTT'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO JUST STRIKE IT FROM THE CODE.
I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, CAUSE I WAS THE ONE THAT RAISED THAT I THINK IN MY EMAIL THAT I SENT BEFORE THE MEETING LAST MONTH, UM, YOU KNOW, FIVE FEET JUST SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE SHORT.
UM, I'M NOT SO SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, ISN'T A BAD THING.
I JUST THOUGHT FIVE FEET WAS, WAS, YOU KNOW, WAS UNREASONABLY SHORT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO GO BACK AND SUGGEST SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, OR TAKE IT OUT ALTOGETHER AND JUST REMOVE IT ALTOGETHER.
I THINK THE DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST TIME TOO, WAS THAT, UM, IT JUST SEEMS WEIRD.
LIKE YOU'RE TALKING, HOW DO YOU PUT A HEIGHT ON A SALE? RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, IT JUST DIDN'T SEEM LIKE AN APPROPRIATE UNIT OF MEASURE FOR OUTDOOR SALES.
I'M FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION WITH TIME IS FINE.
THEN WE'RE ON TO, UM, 1180 1.20, A BUILDING MATERIALS FOR DWELLINGS AND 1180 1.24 B PARAGRAPH ONE, A COMMERCIAL BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS.
[00:35:05]
JERRY SAID, UM, SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE ISSUE WITH THIS PROVISION IS THAT IT REQUIRES BRICK MASONRY.IF THERE ARE HOUSES WITH VINYL, I ASSUME THESE HOUSES ARE LIKELY IN THE EXEMPTED SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED PRIOR TO THE 1181 CODE AMENDMENT.
THE MINUTES MENTIONED THAT PDDS ALTER THIS PROVISION AND ASK IF A CHANGE IS NEEDED.
A PUD IS STILL GOVERNED BY THIS PROVISIONS IN GENERAL, BUT GIVEN IT IS A PUD, IT CAN HAVE FLEXIBILITY.
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT WE PROVIDE THAT PUD CANNOT HOLD ALTER THE BRICK MASONRY REQUIREMENT THAT WE NEED CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT THE COMMISSION IS ASKING IN THIS SECTION.
AND THEN SCOTT SAID, UM, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION LAST NIGHT, WHICH WE DID, UM, AT THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION BECAUSE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S COME UP IN A VERY SPECIFIC, UH, SUBDIVISION, UH, IN THE OAKS SECTION NINE.
AND I WOULD DEFER TO DAWN OR GLEN IF YOU GUYS WANT TO.
I DID BRIEF JIM A LITTLE BIT ON THE BACKGROUND OF OUR DISCUSSION LAST NIGHT AND, UM, KIND OF TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW, HOW WE WANT TO ADDRESS THIS.
UH, I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH SCOTT TODAY AND HE THINKS THAT SOME LANGUAGE CHANGES CAN BE MADE TO THE SECTION THAT WOULD BE A RELATIVELY MINOR FIX THAT COULD CLEAR UP SOME OF THE CONFUSION.
UM, HE ALSO SAYS THAT IT'S COUNCILS WILL ACT ON THIS QUICKLY THAT, YOU KNOW, HE COULD PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE LANGUAGE WITH A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GET THIS ROLLING SO THAT THE ISSUE COULD BE ADDRESSED.
UM, IF WE PUT IT ENTIRELY THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THAT WOULD PROBABLY SLOW THE ADVANCE OF GETTING THIS ISSUE ADDRESSED.
SO, BUT IF ONE OF YOU WANT TO MAYBE WEIGH IN FROM THE DISCUSSION LAST TIME, I KNOW YOU HAD SOME COMMENTS THAT BRIEFLY IN THE EARLY YEAH, JUST DEFINITELY DISCUSSION LAST NIGHT.
WE, UM, UH, I TOOK A LOOK AT THE CODE EARLIER TODAY, GOING OVER IT, THERE IS A SECTION 1180 1.24 B ONE C.
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF MASONRY.
UH, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THE DEFINITION OF MASONRY FOR COMMERCIAL.
SO I THINK THE WAY TO ADDRESS WHAT WE WERE DEALING WITH LAST NIGHT IS FOR SCOTT TO SIMPLY HAVE PLANNING COMMISSION DEFINE MASONRY MATERIALS.
THAT WOULD TAKE IT BACK TO ANY OF THE USES BECAUSE IF YOU DO A QUICK SEARCH ON MASONRY, IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT, UM, ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
SO IF WE, IF HE DEFINES MASONRY AND AGAIN, THAT'S A FAIRLY DECENT DEFINITION.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT 11 81, 2 4 B ONE C.
SO THAT'S A GOOD DEFINITION THAT COULD PROBABLY BE TAKEN BACK AND APPLIED TO WHAT IS ON MASONRY MATERIAL GLENN.
ADDITIONALLY, DURING THAT CONVERSATION LAST NIGHT, MY POINT WAS THAT, UM, I THINK THE INTENTION OF IT WAS VISUAL INTENT AND, UH, UH, JUST TO BE MASONRY, TO BE MASONRY FOR ANY TYPE OF STRUCTURAL SUPPORT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT A VISUAL INTENT.
SO WHEN WE JUST PUT MASONRY PRODUCTS AND THEN AS NEW PRODUCTS COME OUT, BUT THEY, THEY, THEY LOOK LIKE SIDING OR THEY LOOK LIKE SOMETHING ELSE WHERE WE'RE OF UNDERCUTTING OUR INTENT AT THAT POINT.
UM, IF, IF OUR INTENT WAS TRULY TO HAVE THAT VISUAL OF BRICK OR STONE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC IN CLARIFYING OUR INTENT OR, OR WAS THAT OUR INTENT, I BELIEVE IT WAS, BUT I DON'T, I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE THAT WHEN, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER WROTE IT, THAT WAS THE CONTEMPT, BUT I THINK PROBABLY IT WAS CONSIDERING THE BACK THAT BACK THEN, WE WERE STILL TELLING OURSELVES AS AMERICA'S LARGEST CITY OF BRICK HOMES.
SO, UM, SO IN LIGHT OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH SCOTT TODAY, I IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY REALLY KIND OF WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THIS COMMISSION AND PUT IT ON MORE OF A FAST TRACK THROUGH, UM, SO YEAH, LAST NIGHT COUNCIL KIND OF SAID, WE'LL SEND IT TO THE ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMISSION TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
BUT THEN IN TALKING WITH SCOTT, I THINK HE THINKS HE CAN MOVE IT QUICKER.
AND HE'S GOING TO HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO REWRITE THE DEFINITION, UM, APPROPRIATELY AND MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL.
UM, TWO OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HERE AS COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL HAVE REVIEW OF THAT WHEN IT FINALLY COMES TO COUNCIL.
SO I THINK IN LIGHT OF THIS SITUATION WITH THE YOLKS AND, AND, UH, THE EXPEDIENCY WITH WHICH COUNCIL WOULD
[00:40:01]
LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT AND, UH, MOVE BEYOND IT, THAT WE, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE EFFECTIVE TO LET THE STAFF IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATE THAT AND, AND TAKE IT OUT OF THIS.I'M OKAY WITH THAT, BECAUSE THEN I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ADDRESS IT UNTIL NEXT MONTH.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE LANGUAGE AND TIM WAS CLEAR THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HARMONIOUS WITH THE SURROUNDING HOMES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO A DEFINITION OF WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT WORD MEANS IN OUR INNER CODE, WHAT MASONRY REALLY IS.
AND IT ISN'T, I DON'T AGREE WITH PLUMBING.
IT'S NOT THE CONTENT OF THE MATERIAL, IT'S THE LOOK OF THE MATERIAL.
AND I THINK STAFF I'VE HEARD THAT LOUD AND CLEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS AND COUNCIL.
WELL, SCOTT EVEN REFERENCED LAST NIGHT THAT, UH, AND I LIED THIS CASE BEFORE PLANNING, WAS IT QUAIL RIDGE OR WITH CORAL RIDGE, HE MADE IT CLEAR, UM, THAT PLANNING WAS TO APPROVE THE MATERIAL AND LOOK SO, YEAH.
AND HE SAID HE WOULD DO SO GOING FORWARD UNTIL, UH, THE CODE HAS CHANGED TO REFLECT THAT.
THEN WE'RE ON TO SECTION 1180 5.02 OFF STREET PARKING STANDARDS.
UH, THIS HAD SOME, UH, ISSUES, UH, SOME DISCUSSION AROUND SOME DIFFERENT TERMS LIKE PAVING.
UM, JERRY SAYS THE CODE USES A VARIATION OF THE TERM PAVED ALMOST 40 TIMES AS I UNDERSTAND IT WHEN IT COMES TO OFF STREET PARKING AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THE REQUIREMENT IN 11 85 0 2 IS PARKING A MOTOR VEHICLES ON A RESIDENTIAL ZONE PREMISES SHALL BE ON A CONTINUOUS HARD SURFACE AS DEFINED BY THE TERM HARD SURFACE DRIVEWAY IN CHAPTER 1123.
AND THEN IT GOES ON FURTHER TO EXPAND ON THAT DEFINITION.
UM, HE SAYS, ASSUMING THAT IN RESIDENTIAL, WE ONLY PERMIT CEMENT BINDER PAVEMENT OR ASPHALT PAVING.
I ALSO THINK THE TERM CONTINUOUS IS FINE AS IT PREVENTS A PAVED ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAWN FOR PARKING A VEHICLE.
AND THEN, UM, SCOTT SAID HE COULDN'T FIND HARD PAVED SURFACE IN THE CODE, JUST CONTINUOUS HARD SURFACE, WHICH IN ONE AREA RELATED BACK TO A DEFINITION OF HARD SURFACE DRIVEWAY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, WHICH THERE DOES NOT NEED TO BE A DISTINCTION FOR IT'S NOT ALL AREAS REQUIRE ASPHALT OR CONCRETE AND SOME ZONES ALLOW GRAVEL DERIVES, USUALLY HOW I'LL KNOW.
CAUSE I'M, I HAD NOTED WHERE IT SAYS HE MEANT BINDER PAVEMENT OR ASPHALT PAVING, BUT THERE ARE, I'VE SEEN NOT A LOT.
I'VE SEEN A FEW DRIVEWAYS AROUND HERE, BUT HIDES THAT ARE PAVERS, THE CONTINUOUS HARD SURFACE, BUT IT IS NOT CEMENT BINDER PAVEMENT OR ASPHALT.
SO WOULD WE, I MEAN, WOULD THAT BE AN ACCEPTED STANDARD IF IT WAS ALL CONTINUOUS PAVERS, DOES IT SEEM BY THE DEFINITION, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE MIGHT HAVE DONE EXCEPTION OR SOMETHING THEY MIGHT'VE DONE WITHOUT MAYBE NOT SUPPOSED TO IT'S TREATED AS A NONCONFORMING.
I DON'T SEE A LOT OF THOSE HAPPENING BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING.
I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT MYSELF, BUT I'M NOT PUTTING IN THE TIME.
I, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK I MIGHT'VE BEEN THE ONE THAT RAISED THAT THIS ISSUE OR AT LEAST I KNOW I ADDRESSED IT IN MY MEMO.
UM, CAUSE IN THE D IN 1180 5.02, I THINK IT'S B IT SAYS RESIDENTIAL PARKING MUST BE ON A QUOTE CONTINUOUS HEART SERVICE.
AND THEN 1180 5.03, UH, LITTLE, A THREE CAPITALIZE TO FINANCE A DRIVEWAY AS A CONTINUOUS HARD SURFACE.
BUT THEN WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO 1180 5.03, C3 B AND C, THAT TALKS ABOUT ADDITIONAL PARKING, IT REFERS TO A HARD PAVED SURFACE.
SO MY, AND MY QUESTION WAS IS, WAS THE INTENT TO ADDITIONAL PARKING, TO BE DIFFERENT THAN OFF STREET PARKING DRIVE, YOU KNOW? AND THAT'S, WHAT'S THE DRIVEWAY.
SO, UM, CAUSE LIKE ADDITIONAL PARKING WOULD BE, IF YOU HAD, I WOULD, I'M ASSUMING ADDITIONAL PARKING WOULD BE, IF YOU HAD A, UH, DETACHED GARAGE IN YOUR BACKYARD AND YOU HAD A PLACE TO PARK YOUR RV BESIDE IT.
[00:45:01]
DOES THAT HAVE TO WITH AS LONG AS IT'S A HARD PAVED SURFACE, IS THAT OKAY? AND THAT WAS, WAS THERE AN INTENTION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT A DRIVEWAY HAS TO BE VERSUS ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT MIGHT BE A PAD NEXT TO AN OUTBUILDING, RIGHT.STILL HAVE THE CONTINUOUS TERM IN THERE AS WELL.
LIKE TONY, YOU SAID WHERE YOU COULDN'T ACTUALLY LIKE HAVE THE GARAGE OUT BACK NO DRY WAY GOING TO IT.
SO YOU DRIVE, YOU'RE AN ISLAND IN THE YARD TO GET TO THE PAD THAT YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A DRIVE GOING TO THE PAD.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE CONTINUOUS BIRD CONTINUOUS PORTION.
I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THE CEILING.
AND THE ONLY REASON I BROUGHT UP WHAT I BROUGHT, BECAUSE I MEAN, YES, THE VAST MAJORITY OF HUBER HOMES ARE CONCRETE OR BLACKTOP ASPHALT, BUT AGAIN, WITH CREATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY AND NEW MATERIALS AND WHATNOT, YOU KNOW, HARD SURFACE, NOT NECESSARILY, I MEAN, THERE'S ROADS NOW BEING BUILT THAT AREN'T EITHER ONE OF THOSE.
WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT ADDITIONAL PARKING, IT DOES NOT UNDER BNC.
IT DOES NOT TALK ABOUT CONTINUOUS AND THAT'S OKAY.
IT JUST SAYS ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES SHALL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A HARD PAVED SURFACE WHEN LOCATED IN THE SIDE OR REAR YARD OF THE LOT.
WHO WOULD, IS THAT FOR RESIDENTIAL THOUGH? CAUSE THERE'S NEW REQUIRED NUMBER IT'S UNDER SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES.
IT'S UNDER THAT SECTION AND THAT THAT'S WHAT KIND OF THREW ME WAS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THOSE RESIDENTIAL HAVE A MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES.
I THINK IT HAS FAM THE DRIVEWAY.
I THINK THERE'S ONLY ONE PROFESSIONAL PARKING SPACE.
WELL, YOU HAVE THE GARAGE PLUS THE LENGTH OF TWO CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY, INCLUDING THE GARAGE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THEM, YOU CAN ONLY GET ONE AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET A SECOND ONE WITHOUT COVERING THE SIDEWALK.
SO THOSE WOULD HAVE TO NOW MIND YOU, THOSE ARE SMALLER.
BUT SO LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS MY, THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION WAS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADDITIONAL PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS AND HOW IT'S DEFINED.
AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THAT'S AN INTENDED, THEN THAT'S FINE.
I JUST DIDN'T WANT IT TO, YOU KNOW, AND LIKE I SAY, WHEN, WHEN, YOU KNOW, UH, WHEN, UH, SCOTT SAYS HE COULDN'T FIND HARD PAY SURFACE IN THE CODE, IT'S IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES THAT, THAT SAME CUT TO THAT SECTION.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'D LIKE IT, I WOULD LIKE THIS TO GO BACK JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S ON BOARD IN ENGINEERING.
IF YOU LOOK AT 1120 3.88 UNDER DEFINITIONS AHEAD, IT DOES ADDRESS ONE THING THAT GLEN JUST BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE, UM, THE PAMPERS IT'S A LITTLE STRANGE WHEN YOU READ IT, IT SAYS PAVERS OVER CONCRETE SURFACE, CONCRETE BASE.
WE'LL WE'LL PICK THAT ONE BACK.
THERE IS A DEFINITION FOR PAVED SURFACE.
I SEE WHERE HE'S OR BRICK OVER A CONCRETE BASE.
UH, NEXT IS A 1189, UH, PARAGRAPH OR 1180 9.09.
PARAGRAPH ONE SIGNS FOR PROPERTY OFFERED FOR SALE OR RENT.
UM, THIS WAS, I THINK SOME OF THE CONVERSATION AROUND THE REAL ESTATE SIGNS, UM, JERRY SAYS THE ISSUE HERE IS THE WALL AND THE CITY CANNOT REGULATE A SIGN BASED ON THE SIGN CONTENT OR WHAT THE SCIENCE STATES AS SUCH.
THERE CANNOT BE A PROVISION RELATING TO REAL ESTATE SIGNS.
UH, ANY LIMITS ON SIGNED DURATION MUST APPLY TO ALL SIGNS OF A PARTICULAR TYPE.
[00:50:01]
THE PROVISION IN 1180 9.091, WHICH IS THE SECTION WE'RE DISCUSSING IS THE ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE TIME FOR PEOPLE TO OFFER PROPERTY FOR SALE OR LEASE NOT BASED ON THE SIGN ITSELF, BUT ON THE TYPE OF THE PROPERTY WE CAN PROVIDE THAT ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS CAN BE ONLY UP FOR A SPECIFIC TIME.THAT IS THE DESIRE OF COUNCIL OR THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE, UH, ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMISSION.
UM, AS FOR SIGNS THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED.
THE CODE ADDRESSES THAT IN SECTION 1180 5.09, PARAGRAPH J ESPECIALLY REGARDING BANDIT SIGNS AND SNIPE SIGNS.
AND THEN, UM, SCOTT SAYS THAT THE STAFF DOES NOT REMAIN RECOMMEND CHANGING THE LANGUAGE IN THE SECTION THAT THIS WAS RECENTLY UPDATED IN 2019.
AND HE SAYS THAT IF THERE IS AN ISSUE OF SIGNS THAT ARE IN DISARRAY, UH, REPAIR THAT UNDER THE CODE EXISTING, THAT THOSE SIGNS COULD PUT, BE PUT UNDER VIOLATION IF THEY'RE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ZONING DEPARTMENT.
SO, SO WE CAN REGULATE TIME ON TEMPORARY SCIENCE WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY SAYING WHICH WHAT THE SIGNS ARE FOR, IF, IF YEAH, IF IT'S A UNIVERSAL APPLICATION OF THE SAME CLASS OF SIGNS.
COULD THERE BE A NOTE TEMPORARY SIGN SHALL EXIST FOR LONGER THAN X NUMBER OF TIMEFRAME OR WHATEVER.
I MEAN, WE HAVE TO DEFINE TEMPORARY BECAUSE THESE SIGNS ARE NOT TEMPORARY.
SOME OF THE ONES I'M LOOKING AT NOW AND IT'S TEMPORARY DEFINED BY CONSTRUCTION, SAME THING.
AND THERE'S, I MEAN, I WOULD THINK THAT FOUR BY FOUR POSTS AND PLYWOOD WOULD BE TEMPORARY.
I WOULDN'T THINK A PERMANENT SITE, WE WOULD ALLOW A PERMANENT SIGN OF THAT NATURE.
WELL, HE SAID YOU COULD RECOMMEND THAT TEMPORARY SIGNS, UM, IN, IN THIS SECTION, YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE SIGNS, I GUESS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OTHER TEMPORARY IS, UH, FURNITURE'S MEALS.
UH, BUT HE SAYS, UM, THAT, UM, YOU CAN DO IT FOR A SPECIFIC TIME, BUT YOU KNOW, UH, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR THAT ENTIRE, UH, CLASS, THE CLASS OF SCIENCE OR TYPE OF SCIENCE COULDN'T MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE BEST TYPE IS DONE ONE WAY AND RIGHT.
SO DO WE WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO DURATION OR DO WE WANT TO, UM, I'M TRYING TO FIND, SO YEAH, REALLY IT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION, UH, ON DURATION IF, IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO DO SO OR TO NOT TAKE ANY ACTION.
DO WE HAVE A SOLID DEFINITION ON TEMPORARY? AS FAR AS THE, THE DEFINING THE SIGN ITSELF? WE THERE'S JUST THE WORD TEMPORARY THERE.
WE DEFINE WHAT TEMPORARY MEANS OR WHAT A TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT IS.
I, I DON'T SEE ANY DEFINITION IN THIS CODE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT, THAT DEFINES WHAT IS CONSIDERED TEMPORARY.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE IN ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE.
I THINK TEMPORARY SIGNS ARE DEFINED SOMEWHERE FROM MY RECOLLECTION, BUT AS THIS PARTICULAR SECTION DEALS WITH SPECIFICALLY SIGNS FOR PROPERTY OFFERED FOR SALE OR RENT, IT MAY NOT BE DEFINED SEPARATELY WITHIN THAT SUBSECTION.
WELL, THERE'S A DEFINITE I MEAN, THERE IS A SECTION UNDER 1100 1180 9.07, AND IT'S CALLED SCIENCE PERMITTED FOR BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL OR OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND THEN TALKED ABOUT TEMPORARY SIGNS UNDER SUBSECTION LITTLE E.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S ONLY AS TO, YOU KNOW, THE CONSTRUCTION, THE SIZE, YOU KNOW, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, UH, BUT IN TEMPORARY BANNER SIGNS.
SO IT, IT, IT DEFINES THE, THE LOOK AND HOW THE SIGN IS NOT WHAT'S ON, WHAT'S ON THE SIGN.
AND AGAIN, AND IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, DEFINE, UM, TEMPORARY, UH, IN TERMS OF, FROM A, UH, ALL THE DEFINITIONS THAT I SEE WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT TEMPORARY SIGNS THERE FOR SIZE HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF YOU DON'T
[00:55:01]
SEE ANYTHING IN THERE WITH DURATION.I'M NOT FINDING THAT HAMMONS FOUND THIS.
I KNOW THEY VIOLATED TEMPORARY SIGNS LIKE SOMEONE, THEY PUT UP A SUMMER SALE.
YOU CAN'T STILL IN THE WINTER BE HAVING THAT SUMMER SALE OR SOME OF THE SNIDE BOARDS GO UP.
AND I KNOW AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, THEY GET VIOLATED, IF THEY CONTINUE TO PUT THEM OUT WITH REGARD TO THE PART OF THE COHORT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ALUMNI, YOU KNOW, AND, UM, 1 0 9, THE SIGNS FOR PROPERTY OFFERED FOR SALE AROUND, WHICH I THINK IS WHERE BOTH GLENN AND I HAVE, UM, IS KIND OF STUCK THERE WITH US.
SO WHY THEN CAN WE PUT ALL OF THESE, UM, DIFFERENT A, B, C THE SIGN CHAVA SETBACK, THE SHAUN SIGN SHALL BE THIS SIGN SHALL BE THAT, WHY CAN WE NOT ADD RIGHT INTO THAT PARTICULAR LEMONADE NINE OR NINE D UH, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY SAYS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT, IT SAYS, UM, THE, UH, AS FAR AS TIME BE ALLOWED ONLY DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING THAT THE PARCELS FOR SALE AROUND AND ENDING UPON THE SALE OR RENTAL THE PARCEL SUCH SIGNED TO BE REMOVED 14 DAYS AFTER SUCH A SALE OR RENTAL.
SO I, I THINK BOTH GLEN LINE, I AGREE ON THIS, THAT, UM, THAT'S GREAT IF IT'S OFFERED FOR SALE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, BUT NOT WHEN IT'S UP THERE FOR A DECADE, RIGHT? SO ISN'T THERE, ISN'T THERE SOME MODIFICATION WE CAN MAKE TO THAT PARAGRAPH THAT GIVES US A DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME THAT THAT PARTICULAR SIGN CAN BE UP THERE INSTEAD OF JUST A SIGN THAT'S PUT UP, UM, AND LEFT UNTIL IT FADES INTO OBLIVION.
SO THE WAY I'M READING THE FEEDBACK IS YOU CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION IF IT'S ON DURATION, AS LONG AS YOU DO IT FOR ALL THE SIGNS IN THAT CATEGORY.
WELL, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE PUTTING CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF SIGN SIGN FOR PROPERTY OFFERED FOR SALE OR RENT.
AND WE HAVE A, AN ENTIRE LIST OF, OF, UH, QUALIFIERS HERE FOR THAT SIGN TO BE LEGAL.
WHY CAN'T WE PUT SOMETHING UP THERE, RIGHT IN THAT PARAGRAPH, UM, IN DEFERENCE TO LEGAL COUNSEL HERE, WHY CAN'T, WHY CAN'T WE PUT SOMETHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH THAT WOULD SAY, UM, FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED, BOOM, I THINK HE'S SAYING YOU CAN, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BECAUSE IT'S A REAL ESTATE SIGN.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IT FOR ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS, NOT JUST A REAL ESTATE SIGN, I THINK IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT NONE OF THE OTHER, UM, MANY OF THESE OTHER THINGS DON'T APPLY TO, UM, LET ME SEE HERE.
YEAH, JOHN, THE SIGNS IS DIFFERENT THAN ANOTHER AREAS BY FAR.
WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS ALLOWS IF THE SIGNS INSTALLED WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF 70 OR FOREIGN 2 35, WE'VE GOT A SPECIAL CALL OUT IN, THERE CAN BE A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, AS OPPOSED TO, AS THE SIGN IN MY FRONT YARD, MY HOUSE FOR SALE, WHICH IS LIMITED TO WHATEVER THE REAL ESTATE
ADDITIONALLY, IT CAN BE 25 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH I CAN'T PUT OUT A FOR SALE SIGN UP FOR MY HOUSE, 25 FEET.
ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THE FACT THAT IN THAT SECTION THAT ALREADY HAS A LIMIT ON DURATION THAT NO, IT HAS, IT HAS DIFFERENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIDES, NOT AT ALL FOR AREAS, BUT IT ALSO HAS A LEMON ON DURATION THAT YOU CAN HAVE IT FROM THIS POINT UNTIL THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY OR 14 DAYS AFTER THE SALE OF PROPERTY, THERE IS ALREADY KIND OF A LIMIT PLACED ON IT.
AND IT'S A PARTICULAR CLASS ASSIGNS NOT, OH, I WONDER IF FURY UNDERSTANDS, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS SOME METHOD OF ELIMINATING THE, PUT UP A SIGN.
AND I KNOW WE ALSO BROUGHT UP THAT SOME OF THE SHOPPING CENTERS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT HAPPENS THERE FOR LEASE SIGNS UP IN FRONT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE AT FULL OCCUPANCY, AS A SIGN, NEVER COMES DOWN RATHER THAN LET'S JUST KICK THIS ONE BACK TO, OKAY, WELL THAT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE SECTION.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT WOULD BE THAT, I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE A ZONING VIOLATION.
YOU CAN TURN AROUND AND SAY, WELL,
[01:00:01]
BUT WE HAVE A TENANT THAT'S MOVING OUT IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AT THE END OF THEIR LEASE.AND WE'RE LOOKING TO BACKFILL THIS.
I THINK ALSO WHAT I THINK WHAT IS ALSO MISSING THOUGH, AND I THINK WE PROBABLY MAY WANT TO, IS WHAT ABOUT GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE THAT LASTS FOR DECADES? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN HERE THAT I'VE SEEN IN A COMMERCIAL SETTING THAT PLACES ANY LIMITATION ON SIGNAGE IN TERMS OF DURATION.
UM, AND I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF, I DON'T THINK JERRY LOOKED AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN LIGHT OF OUR CONVERSATION HERE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, UH, OBVIOUSLY THE DURATION THAT'S IN THE CODE DEALS ONLY WITH REAL ESTATE SIGNS.
UM, I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN OR CANNOT, THAT WOULD BE FOR JERRY TO TELL US, BUT, YOU KNOW, LOOK TO ADDING SOME LANGUAGE IN THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF THINGS WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE SECTION THAT DEALS WITH, UH, COMMERCIAL, UH, SIGNS, UM, ADDING SOME, SOME PARAMETERS WITHIN HOW LONG SIGN, LIKE YOU SAID, GOING OUT OR A SUMMER SALE IN THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF THING.
WELL, WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE BASED ON THE LANGUAGE ON THE SIGN A SUMMER SALE.
I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE TOO, BUT YEAH.
WE CAN'T TELL THEM TO TAKE THAT DOWN BASED ON THE LANGUAGE ON THE SIGN.
THEY CAN STILL SAY IT'S THEIR SUMMER SALE IN JANUARY.
IT'S CHRISTMAS IN JULY, I GUESS I CAN SAY THEY'RE, I MEAN, THEY'RE GOING OUT OF BUSINESS, I SUPPOSE IT WOULDN'T BE THE SAME RATIONALE.
YOU'RE YOU'RE SO LET'S, I'D SAY LET'S SEND IT BACK TO JERRY FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT CAN WE DO AND WHAT CAN WE DO? HEY, AGAIN, THE ULTIMATE GOAL HERE IS TO CLEAN UP SOME OF THE SIGNS, LIKE DON SAID THAT JUST ARE THERE IN PERPETUITY, AND IF NOTHING CHANGES, THEY WILL BE THERE FOREVER.
THEN, UM, NEXT IS SECTION 1193 TRAILERS, TRUCKS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, BOATS, FARM, OR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.
AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT, UH, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT.
UM, WE HAD HAD SOME DISCUSSION, I THINK AT MY SUGGESTION THAT THIS MIGHT BE AN ITEM THAT COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER, UH, AND SET A BROADER EXPECTATION FOR.
AND THEN STAFF COULD WORK ON DEVELOPING THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD FIT THE WILL OF COUNCIL AS FAR AS HOW TO MOVE IT IN AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTION ON THIS ISSUE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT THAT WAS THE FEEDBACK FOR BOTH JERRY AND SCOTT, THAT THIS IS PROPERLY, UH, AN ISSUE THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD RECOMMEND THAT COUNCIL TAKE A LOOK AT.
UM, I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY ANY, UH, USE AND THE COMMISSION WORKING TO DEVELOP A LOT OF LANGUAGE.
THAT'S GOING TO GET PICKED APART THROUGH THE PROCESS, IF ULTIMATELY THERE'S NOT THE WILL ON COUNCIL TO MAKE THESE TYPES OF CHANGES ON, IN A BROADER SENSE.
AND THAT IS MY RECOMMENDATION, MUCH LARGER TOPIC AS WELL.
AND WE'VE HAD OTHER, OTHER RECENT ISSUES INVOLVING PARKING AND CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THE TRUCKS AND WENT RIGHT DOWN BY.
SO WE'LL MOVE THAT ON THE COUNCIL AND EVERYBODY'S KICKING UP, PUT THAT IN THE FINAL REPORT AS A FOLLOWUP ITEM.
UH, SECTION 1190 4.09 EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL OF PERMIT.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT HAS TO DO WITH, UM, THE FOOD TRUCKS AND THE FACT THAT THE CODE, AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, SAYS THAT ALL FOOD TRUCK PERMITS EXPIRE THE LAST DAY OF, UH, FEBRUARY JURY'S FEEDBACK WAS, UH, AS I RECALL, WE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A BUNCH OF PERMITS ALL EXPIRING AT A DIFFERENT TIME.
AND WE CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT VERY FEW ACTIVE FOOD TRUCKS IN THE WINTER.
UH, SO A GOOD RENEWAL TIME WOULD BE FEBRUARY.
HE DID NOT THINK WE NEEDED TO, UH, MAKE ANY CHANGES I HAD, UM, WROTE BACK TO HIM JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE MORE DETAILED, CAUSE I WASN'T SURE IF HE GOT WHAT THE COMMISSION WAS TRYING TO SAY, WHICH WAS, IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION THAT FEBRUARY 15TH, SOMEONE APPLIES FOR A PERMIT IS THAT THEN ONLY GOOD FOR TWO WEEKS AND THEN THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE THINK THEIR SEASON IS.
YOU POTENTIALLY COULD HAVE SOMEBODY WHO WOULD BE SEEKING, UH, FOOD PERMITTED, UH, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER TIME THEN AFTER THE END OF FEBRUARY.
SO, UM, SOUNDS LIKE HIS STUFF WAS BASICALLY THAT THAT'D BE IT STAFF NOTIFYING THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT, HEY, THIS IS HOW WE DO IT.
SO WAIT UNTIL MARCH 1ST TO APPLY, WE OPERATE LA
[01:05:01]
AND THEY ENDED UP BUYING IN FEBRUARY.BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY THE VAST MAJORITY ARE FOOD TRUCKS, UM, YOU KNOW, DO OPERATE IN THE WARMER MONTHS, BUT I'VE SEEN SOME OF THAT.
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE BIGGER REGIONAL ONES LIKE ZOMBIE DOGS, THEY GO AROUND ALMOST YEAR ROUND.
I KNOW LIKE AL MADEC HAS FOOD TRUCKS YEAR ROUND THAT THEY DON'T JUST OPERATE.
SO IF YOU HAVE A NEW VENDOR COMING IN, UH, THAT MAYBE DOESN'T HAVE A PERMIT FROM THE YEAR BEFORE, UH, YOU KNOW, ENDING IN FEBRUARY, THEY MIGHT SEEK TO GET ONE.
UH, YEAH, THE REASON I RAISED IT WAS THE FACT THAT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WASN'T AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE THAT AS LONG AS, AS LONG AS IT'S INTENDED AND THEY, AND IT WAS DONE FOR A REASON, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEM ARBITRARILY DOING WHAT THEY DID.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WASN'T AN UNINTENDED TIME.
SO YEAH, JERRY SAID IF THEY APPLIED STAFF WOULD ADVISE THEM TO WAIT UNTIL MARCH TO APPLY FINE.
SO THAT'S FINE WITH ME, ME COVER THE WINTER PEOPLE.
I MEAN, I GUESS YOU JUST WANTED THE JOB BEFORE THAT YOU WEREN'T BUY BOX OR SOMETHING.
YEAH, I'M SURE IF IT CAME INTO SAMURAI.
NOW I GET IT NOW OR JUST OPERATE ILLEGALLY OR JUST OPERATE.
UM, SCOTT SAID HE DIDN'T RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES OR SYNDROME.
UH, 1190 9.07 BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD.
UH, THIS ONE, UM, I THINK WAS ABOUT REMOVING, UH, GREEN COUNTY.
AND, UH, EVERYONE AGREED THAT THAT SHOULD BE DONE.
UM, JERRY, UH, REITERATED THAT THESE ARE THE CORRECT REFERENCES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS POINT.
UM, SO WE CAN JUST STRIKE OUT THE GREEN COUNTY REFERENCES, WHICH IS THE RECOMMENDATION.
NOW TO GO BACK EARLIER IN THIS SECTION, RUSS GAVE ME A FEW OTHER RE CLARIFICATION'S OF SOME SECTIONS IN PART 11, UH, THAT I ALSO SENT OUT TO EVERYBODY.
SO IF WE COULD JUST TOUCH ON THOSE QUICKLY, UM, AS CAME AFTER WE HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED THESE WITH THE FEEDBACK FROM JERRY MCDONALD.
UM, BUT JUST TO BE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, UM, SECTION 1109 0.09 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT.
UM, RUSS JUST VERIFIED IN THE SECTION THAT THE REFERENCE TO A S H T O IS CORRECT, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT WE ESTABLISHED BEFORE.
UH, HE SAID THE SAME THING FOR SECTION 1109 POINT 10 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT.
THAT'S A REFERENCE TO THAT SAME ORGANIZATIONAL ORGANIZATION IS CORRECT.
AND THEN THE THIRD ONE WAS SECTION 1109 0.12 SPECIAL STREAK TYPES, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE DISCUSSED BEFORE IN ANY GREAT DETAIL, BUT WE HAD ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT THIS BASED ON, I THINK MAYBE GLENN BROUGHT UP SOMETHING ABOUT GATED STREETS OR, UM, HE IS SUGGESTING ADDING, UH, PARAGRAPH E TO SECTION 1109 0.1, TWO SPECIAL STREET TYPES TO STAY GATED STREETS SHALL BE ALLOWED IN ORDER TO SEPARATE PUBLIC STREETS FROM PRIVATE STREETS.
AND HE JUST HAS CORBY WAY CURRENTLY LISTED AS THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD FALL INTO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SEPARATING A PRIVATE STREET FROM A PRIVATE STREET.
MAYBE THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO IT, BUT MOUNT EVEREST STREET, THAT'S ANOTHER ONE.
BUT AREN'T A LOT OF THOSE STREETS AND MOUNT HOOD, UH, PRIVATE STREETS.
PRIVATE STREETS, BUT THERE IS A, YOU AN AREA.
SIMILAR GATES, THE SAME AREAS OF CORPORATES ON THE OTHER END.
IT MAYBE BOTH ENDS UP MOUNT EVEREST OR PRIVATE AND THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T LIST IT.
I THINK WHAT HE'S SUGGESTING HERE, IT'S A GATED STREETS THAT SEPARATE PUBLIC STREETS FROM PRIVATE STREETS.
SO IF THAT'S AN INTERNAL STREET THAT'S SEPARATING TO PRIVATE STREETS, THEN
[01:10:01]
THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS PROPOSED SECTION THAT HE'S RECOMMENDING.SO I'VE TAKEN IT THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE CORBY IS, BUT I'M TAKING IT THAT IT'S ON THE EXTERNAL PART OF THE, SO IT, IT PROBABLY ALIGNS WITH THE PUBLIC STREET.
THERE'S AN INTERFACE BETWEEN A PUBLIC AND ONE OF THE PRIVATE STREETS.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHY HE'S SUGGESTING THOSE BE LISTED.
JUST, IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATION ABOUT GATES BETWEEN PRIVATE STREETS.
SO I DON'T, I CAN'T LOOK AT THE MAP AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES ARE PRIVATE AND WHICH ONES ARE PUBLIC.
IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH, UH, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO ADDING E YEAH.
SO WE'LL MAKE THAT AS OUR RECOMMENDATION.
DO YOU THINK WE'LL FIND OURSELVES ADDING A COUPLE.
SO THAT WOULD BE EVERYTHING IN PART 11.
SO LASTLY WOULD BE PART 13 AND WE HAD THREE ITEMS FROM THE LAST DISCUSSION FOR STAFF FOLLOW UP, UM, ALL OF THOSE, UH, WITH THE LAW DIRECTOR.
SO THE FIRST IS, UH, BACK TO THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ISSUE, UH, 13, 13.05.
UM, SIMILARLY TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD BEFORE, I THINK IT WAS THE, UH, DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS BETWEEN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY BUILDING.
UM, SO JERRY BASICALLY SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT HE SAID IN OUR EARLIER DISCUSSION AND THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW IF IT MATTERS.
IF WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE TERMS, HE ALSO THINKS IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU GOT RID OF ONE AND JUST USE THE OTHER.
BUT HE SAID, IF YOU WENT WITH JUST ONE TERM, THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE SOME, UM, WORK REQUIRED, NOT ONLY TO THE DEFINITION SECTION, BUT THEN TO VET THE ENTIRE CODE, TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE EXCLUSIVELY USING ONLY THE TERM THAT YOU AGREED TO.
SO I THINK HE'S SAYING YOU CAN USE A MANOR CHANGE DOUBLY, UH, AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN THE CODE, OR IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE EXTRA EFFORT OF CHOOSING ONE TERM, DEFINING IT PROPERLY AND THEN MAKING SURE ALL REFERENCES IN THE CODE OR CONSISTENT WITH THAT ONE TERMS AND YOU COULD DO SO PERSONALLY, I THINK I'M GOOD AS IT IS.
I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN WAS IF YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS THERE, OBVIOUSLY THE INTENT WAS TO COVER TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.
AND SO TO USE THEM INTERCHANGEABLY THEN YEAH, TO ME, THAT CREATES CONFUSION.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF THE INTENT IS THAT WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THEY ALSO INCLUDE ACCESSORY BUILDING AND VICE VERSA.
THEN I THINK THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE DEFINITIONAL SECTION SAYING, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY SAYING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UH, SHALL ALSO INCLUDE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.
AND THEN IN THE DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY BUILDING SAYING AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ALSO INCLUDES AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND REWRITE ALL THE SECTIONS IN THE CODE.
BUT IF THE INTENT IS THAT THEY ARE BASICALLY INTERCHANGEABLE TERMS LESS THAN WHAT THE DEFINITION SECTION CLARIFY.
NO, THAT'S KIND OF A COMPROMISE.
THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.
THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO NOT HAVE TO REWRITE ALL THE SECTIONS IF THAT'S WHAT THE INTENT IS BEHIND.
YOU KNOW, SO, AND I, AND I DON'T KNOW, DID WE GET ANY COMMENT FROM RUSS ON THIS? WELL, IT'D BE SCOTT OR SCOTT ON THIS ISSUE.
CAUSE LIKE I SAY, I, YOU KNOW, I JUST, YOU KNOW, MY ONLY CONCERN WAS WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE USING TWO TERMS THAT ARE DEFINED INTERCHANGEABLY, THEN THAT I THINK THOSE COULD CREATE CONFUSION.
WELL, IN PART A LOT ON WE AGREED, UH, YOU KNOW, KEEP IT THE SAME, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HURT.
LIKE YOU SAID, TO MAYBE LOOK AT THE DEFINITION SECTION AND, AND CROSS-REFERENCE THEM TO EACH OTHER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, MAKE THAT
I THINK THAT WOULD BE FAIR TO DO THAT RATHER THAN CHANGING EVERY INSTANCE TO THE SAME THING TO BE A LOT SIMPLER FOR SURE.
THEN WE HAVE SECTION, UH, 13, 13.06, RIGHT OF ENTRY.
I THINK THE SUGGESTION WAS CHANGING, ENTER SUCH PROPERTY TO ENTER UPON SUCH PROPERTY.
I THINK JIM, THAT WAS, WERE RECOMMENDATIONS AND JERRY SAID HE WAS FINE WITH MAKING THAT CHANGE.
[01:15:01]
RECOMMENDATION.AND THEN, UM, SECTION 13, 13.09 HEARINGS.
UM, JERRY SAID, I THINK SINCE THE PERSON AFFECTED BY A PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATION, THE VIOLATOR COULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF A VIOLATION AND NOT JUST THE OWNER.
I THINK THE APPEAL RIGHT, AND 13, 1309 SHOULD ALSO BE TO ANY PERSON AFFECTED AND CHANGE IT TO READ.
AND HE PROVIDES A LANGUAGE SO THAT IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, THAT THE VIOLATOR IS NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND, UH, RECEIVES A PROPERTY, A MAINTENANCE VIOLATION THAT THE CITY WOULD ALSO, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, OR THE OWNER WOULD ALSO HAVE THE APPEAL, RIGHT.
UM, INTO THIS, UH, AS AN EFFECTED PERSON.
SO HE PROVIDED A LANGUAGE FOR DOING SO, SO IF YOU WANT TO GO WITH THAT OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR WHATEVER, UM, IT IS BASICALLY JUST GIVE AGAIN IN THE SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE A TENANT OR AN OCCUPANT, WHO'S NOT THE OWNER.
UH, IT WOULD GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO APPEAL, TO APPEAL TO THE VIOLATION.
AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO JUST BE THE OWNER.
HE HAS A BEGINNING OF A PARENTHESES WHERE IT SAYS CHANGE TO READ AND THERE'S A QUOTE 13.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE PARENTHESES PART ENDS AS EMAIL.
WELL, I'LL VERIFY THE LANGUAGE.
UH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THAT WAS THE END OF THE EVENING.
UH, YOU KNOW, THE LAST WORD WOULD BE EXISTS.
ALTHOUGH THE LAST SENTENCE SAID, IT SEEMS MORE COMMENTARY THAN IT'S.
I THINK IT WOULD BE AFTER REVIEWS.
I GUESS WE, WE, WE KIND OF NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT LANGUAGE IS, IS THAT HE'S PROPOSING TO BE ADDED.
WELL, I CAN WORK WITH HIM ON THE LANGUAGE THAT, WITH THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD BE, UM, THE, THE APPEAL RIGHT.
WOULD BE EXTENDED FROM THE VIOLATOR TO ANY PERSON AFFECTED, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE, YEAH.
I MEAN, IF THE INTENT IS TO HAVE THE CHANGE AND AFTER THE WORD REVIEWS AND THEN WHERE IT SAYS REVIEWS PERIOD AND NOT INCLUDE THE IT AS EMPHASIS, I'M FINE WITH THAT LANGUAGE BEING ADDED WITHOUT IT HAVING TO COME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE INTENDED IT TO HIM.
I THINK THAT LAST SENTENCE WAS MORE COMMENTARY THAN YEAH.
PART OF WHAT? UM, YEAH, SO IT WOULD JUST BE IF, IF ANY PERSONS AFFECTED BY A PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATION AND THAT AFFECTED PERSON AS THE APPEAL RIGHTS UNDER THIS SECTION.
GENTLEMEN, THAT CONCLUDES THE REVIEW OF, UH, ALL THE PAST TIMES THAT BRINGS US UP TO
[ City Code - Part Fifteen - Fire Prevention Code - Review]
SECTION THREE, C OR B THE CITY CODE PART 15 PREP FIRE PREVENTION CODE REVIEW.AND WE DID HAVE A, UH, AN EMAIL FROM, UH, KEITH KINSLEY OR NICELY.
UM, AND I GUESS THIS IS GOING TO BE GOING THE OHIO RIVER FIRE CODE IS GOING TO BE REVIEWED LATER THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR, NEXT YEAR, WHICH MIGHT MAKE SOME, UH, I MEAN, AT THAT POINT, SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS MAYBE REQUIRED TO OUR, I, UH, I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF POINTS ON A COUPLE SECTIONS.
UM, BUT I'LL ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT THEY WANT TO RAISE ANY OF THE SECTIONS? AND IF NOT, THEN I'LL JUMP TO THE LUNGS.
AND I'LL JUST SAY, I THINK KEY'S EMAIL WAS TO
[01:20:01]
SAY, NOT TO PRECLUDE YOU GUYS FROM OFFERING ANY RECOMMENDATIONS, JUST THAT STAFF WAS NOT GOING TO OFFER IT RIGHT NOW.UH, THE, THE FIRST POINT THAT I AM WITH ISN'T ON 15, 17.06 NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
AND IN THAT SECTION, IT SAYS THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF THE OHIO FIRE CODE SHALL BE SERVED ON THE OWNER, IS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OR ON THE OCCUPANT OR OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDITIONS UNDER VIOLATION.
THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THAT SECTION IS THE BORE.
UM, I HAVE, BECAUSE I THINK THE OWNER OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT SHOULD ALWAYS RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF A VIOLATION INVOLVING A PROPERTY THAT THEY AGREED.
UM, SO I THINK THAT THE WORD OR SHOULD BE, AND SO THAT THE OWNER HAS DULY OUT OTHER AND ON THE OCCUPANT OR OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE, UM, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT IT IF THE OWNER WAS THE OCCUPANT THAT REQUIRED HIM TO GET TWO NOTICES OR WOULD THAT YOU SAID, AND, OR, OR, AND YOU CAN SAY, HANNAH, WELL NOT HANDLE HER BECAUSE THEY HANDLE WAR WOULD THEN STILL BE OLDER.
AND I CAN PUT IN JUST IF, I MEAN, THE WORST CASE IS THAT THE, THE OWNER GETS TO NURSES, BUT I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE BETTER THAN HAVING THE OWNER NEVER KNOW ABOUT THE VIOLATION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND THAT'S POSSIBLE UNDER THIS THE WAY THIS IS, BECAUSE THEY COULD JUST GIVE NOTIFICATION TO THE OCCUPANT AND THE OWNER NEVER KNOWS ABOUT IT.
AND YOU KNOW, THAT COULD HAVE SOME ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE OWNER'S PROPERTY BECAUSE WE, IF THE CITY HAS TO INTERVENE AND IF THERE'S A COST, WELL GUESS WHO'S GETTING THAT MIDDLE AND RIGHT.
AND THEN THE SAME THING, THE SAME ISSUE DOWN IN 1517 0.08, AGAIN, THE, UH, STOP WORKING REMEDIAL ORDERS IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE OWNER'S AGENT OR TO THE PERSON DOING THE WORK.
UH, AGAIN, I THINK THE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BE GIVEN NOTIFICATION IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A STOP WORK ORDER OR REMEDIAL ORDER ISSUED.
SO I THINK MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND THAT THOSE TO BE CHANGED TO THE WORLD.
AND SO ANY COMMENTS THAT PUT THEM ON THE LIST HERE, DON SEE THE I'M THINKING DOWN THERE AS WELL.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, IT HAS A LOT OF WHORES ON IT.
WHY WOULDN'T IT JUST BE THE OWNER STRAIGHT UP THE OWNERS IN VIOLATION, THE OCCUPANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO RECTIFY IT QUICK.
IF YOU MIGHT BE THE ONE CAUSING THE VIOLATION, IT'S A GRASS ISSUE.
LIKE WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO, UM, UM, UH, VIOLATION CRA UH, I THINK IT WAS OWNED AND ON MAYBE IT'S SPECIFICALLY JUST REFERENCES.
WELL, YEAH, THAT'S AN, OH THE APPEAL SECTION YOU'RE TALKING, MAN.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THAT'S THE NEXT SECTION.
I HAD A QUESTION ISSUE WITH UNDER A, IT SAYS ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A DECISION OR INTERPRETATION BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL CAN APPEAL THEN.
BUT WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO D IT SAYS, IF THE OWNER FILES FOR MPL, WHAT IF AN AGGRIEVED NON-OWNER FILES AN APPEAL? YOU KNOW, IS THAT PERSON ENTITLED TO A HEARING, OR MAYBE THEY'RE JUST ENTITLED TO A FREE ORDER BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
SO I THINK THAT TO ME UNDER D THAT IF THE AGGRIEVED PERSON FILES FOR AN APPEAL, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE THE OWNER, IT COULD BE THE OCCUPANT, YOU KNOW? UM, BUT I, I THINK ELIMINATE, UH, SAYING THAT, UM, AN OWNER IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING, BUT NOBODY ELSE IS, IS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED.
WELL, IT SAYS THE OPPOSITE END SECTION.
SO, AND THOSE WERE THE ONLY COMMENTS I HAD ON, ON THE FIRE CODE SECTION.
SO, UM, THOSE WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATIONS GOING FORWARD THEN IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD TO ANY OF THE OTHER SECTIONS.
AND I THINK THAT COULD TAKE CARE OF THAT SECTION.
UM, SO MOVING ON TO SECTION THREE C
[ Administrative/Process Issues]
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ISSUES, UH, TONY, YOU WANT TO THEY'LL REALLY HAVE A LOT TONIGHT.UH, THE NEXT MEETING IN, UM, SEPTEMBER, UH, WOULD BE THE REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION LOGS.
UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE MAINTAINS
[01:25:01]
A LOG BY TITLE OF, UH, DATE OF PASSAGE OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES OF THE CITY.UM, WE CAN PUT THOSE IN A SEARCHABLE PDF.
UM, WHEN THE ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMISSION REVIEWED THOSE BEFORE, THERE'S NO EASY WAY TO REALLY, I DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO SYSTEMATICALLY READ EVERY RESOLUTION OR TITLE.
UM, SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE ONCE YOU RECEIVE THOSE FOR ME, IT MIGHT BE, IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR AREA OF INTEREST, YOU MIGHT SEARCH BY KEYWORD.
IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
I THINK WE'RE AT A, UM, ABOUT 6,500 RESOLUTIONS AND MAYBE CLOSE TO 3000 ORDINANCES, UM, IN THE LAST 40 YEARS OF THE CITY.
SO, UH, IF YOU WANT TO, YOU CERTAINLY CAN.
UH, BUT IF THERE IS ONE THAT FLAGS YOUR ATTENTION AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET A COPY OF THAT ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION, JUST TO DRILL DOWN IN THE INFORMATION A LITTLE BIT MORE, YOU CAN SEND THAT REQUEST TO ME AND THEN I'LL SEND YOU THE INFORMATION.
AND THEN YOU COME PREPARED TO THE NEXT MEETING TO, UH, MAYBE EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK THIS COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT THAT OR ADDRESS THAT.
I WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE LOGS INCLUDE ALL OF THE LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN CODIFIED AS PART OF THE CITY CODE, BUT ALSO THE ITEMS THAT ARE NOT CODIFIED, UM, AS PART OF THE CITY CODE.
SO THINGS LIKE, UH, WORDING CONTRACTS FOR EXPENDITURES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THOSE TYPES OF RESOLUTIONS.
UM, AND THOSE WOULD NOT GET CODIFIED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO FORCE A LAW IN TERMS OF, UH, APPLYING AS, UH, YOU KNOW, A STANDARD OF LAW THAT WOULD BE APPLIED TO THE COMMON CITIZENRY.
SO, UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY FEEDBACK, DO YOU WANT SOME MORE DETAIL ON ANY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION LEADING UP TO SEPTEMBER MEETING? UH, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THAT SEPTEMBER MEETING, I WILL NOT BE HERE, UH, FOR THAT MEETING.
SO, UH, I THINK I'VE BEEN HERE FOR ALL THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION TODAY, BUT, UH, I WILL BE, UH, LEAVING THAT DAY FOR MOROCCO, UM, FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
SO, UM, UH, KAREN WILL BE HERE IN MY PLACE AND, UH, I'LL BRIEF HER ON STUFF, BUT I THINK IF THERE'S A, UH, A MEETING TO HAVE WHERE, YOU KNOW, UH, I WOULDN'T BE HERE THAT PROBABLY THE REVIEW OF THESE LOGS IS PROBABLY THE BEST ONE.
AND THAT MEANS THE DATE OF THAT MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 15TH, 15TH.
UM, YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN I WAS FIRST APPOINTED TO COUNCIL SEVERAL YEARS AGO, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ORDINANCE VERSUS A RESOLUTION.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, UM, I THINK YOU KIND OF DESCRIBED IT THAT, YOU KNOW, RESOLUTION IS USUALLY A SINGLE, UH, PURPOSE MATTER, YOU KNOW, LIKE A CONTRACT OR DECLARING, UH, THIS PARTICULAR WEEK, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE FIRE PREVENTION WEEK OR A MONTH, OR WHATEVER, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
SO THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY GENERAL, UH, BROAD APPLICATION TO, TO RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.
SO, BUT THERE MAY BE SOMETHING.
AND, AND THEN UNLIKE RESOLUTIONS, THEY'RE GENERALLY, LIKE I SAY, A SINGLE PURPOSE, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ADOPTED AND IT DOES ITS THING.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S WAS ANYTHING LIKE WE WOULD BE AMENDING A RESOLUTION BECAUSE THERE REALLY GENERALLY WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING TO AMEND IN.
MOST RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCES ARE SAYING, WELL, THESE ARE JUST YOUR TWO WAVES, ONE SPECIFIC POINT IN TIME.
I MEAN THE ORDINANCE, YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.
ORANGE SCISSORS, OR WE HAVE A SINGLE ORDINANCE, BUT IT GENERALLY HAS THE ZONING, YOU KNOW, IT HAS A BROADER APPLICATION.
JUST DOESN'T HAVE A, AND THERE'S SOME LIKE, UM, I KNOW IN THE CHARTER, IT SAYS A BORDER COMMISSION OF THE CITY CAN BE CREATED BY AN ORDINANCE OR A RESOLUTION.
SO OVER THE YEARS, SOME HAVE BEEN, UH, CREATED BY ORDINANCE AND SOME BY RESOLUTION.
NOW ALL OF THOSE GET CODIFIED, WHETHER THEY'RE A RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IT'S A PERMANENT, UH, COMMISSIONER BOARD OR THE CITY.
IT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN CONSISTENT OVER THE YEARS IN TERMS OF WHETHER PEOPLE USE A RESOLUTION, UM, OR AN ORDINANCE, BUT TO GLEN'S POINT, I, YOU KNOW, LIKE A BUDGET, UH, WHEN THAT'S APPROVED THE ANNUAL BUDGETS BY COUNCIL, UM, OR THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE BUDGET, THOSE ARE DONE BY ORDINANCE.
UM, BUT THEY WOULDN'T BE CODIFIED, UH, AS THEY DON'T MEET THAT STANDARD FOR CODIFICATION.
SO, UH, ORDINANCES FOR SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS AND HOW RIGHT NOW, UH, ORDINANCES THAT ARE LIKE TEXTS AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE HAVE TO GO THROUGH PLANNING
[01:30:01]
COMMISSION.UM, THE FOOD TRUCK THING WAS AN ORDINANCE TO THE, UH, TO AMANDA PLANNING AND ZONING CODE.
SO IT'S KIND OF A CASE BY CASE SCENARIO, UH, JERRY AND I WORK WITH THE CODIFICATION PROVIDER TO, UH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF DETERMINE WHICH OF THOSE WILL BE, UH, THE KIND OF FIRE TAKES THE LEAD, AND THEN WE, OKAY.
UM, BUT, UH, SO YOU'LL HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE.
IF YOU WANT SOMETHING IN MORE DETAIL, I'LL, I'LL GET IT FOR YOU.
WHEN WERE YOU EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS? I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE GOING TO THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION WERE GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL PERIODICALLY OR ALL AT THE END, HAVE ANY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ACTUALLY BEEN PRESENTED COUNCIL.
IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF FACTORS.
UH, ONE IS A TIME CONSIDERATION ON MY PART, BUT THE, THE REALLY BIG FACTOR IS, UM, SO RECENTLY WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANY OF THE SECTIONS COMPLETELY NAILED DOWN.
UM, EVEN TODAY WE WERE STILL TALKING ABOUT PART ONE.
UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE INITIAL AMBITIOUS GOAL, BUT, UH, WE ARE GONNA, YOU KNOW, WE'LL PROBABLY STILL BE BRINGING THEM TO COUNCIL AND PIECES, UH, SO THAT THEY DON'T FEEL OVERWHELMED BY THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION.
AND WE WILL BRING THOSE ORDINANCES BY EACH PART.
SO 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, AND 13, WILL EACH HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT CORRESPONDS THE REASON I WAS ASKING THAT WAS I WAS LOOKING FORWARD KIND OF FORWARD THEM TO OCTOBER WHERE WE WILL BE, I GUESS, PUTTING TOGETHER OUR FINAL REPORT TO BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.
AND I'M ASSUMING THAT WILL INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE DONE, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE OUR LAST ACTUAL MEETING WILL BE TOTALED.
AND THEN, UM, DO WE, THEN WHEN IT GETS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL, WILL WE BE THE WHOLE ENDS OR WILL, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION ACTUALLY PRESENTED THAT NIGHT? YEAH.
UM, I'LL WORK WITH YOU AND WHOEVER'S GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPORT.
AND WHAT WE DID LAST TIME WAS, UH, WE HAD A COUPLE DIFFERENT SECTIONS.
ONE WAS A SUMMARIZATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE BEING MADE SPECIFICALLY TO, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE.
THEN THERE WAS A SECTION OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, SOME OF THEM ABOUT PROCESS ISSUES, UH, SOME OF THEM ABOUT, UM, TOPICS FOR LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THE ONE WE DISCUSSED TONIGHT THAT BE A RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL, LIKE EITHER THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS OR THE, UM, THE TRAILER PARKING AND STUFF, UH, THAT THESE ARE THINGS THAT THE COMMISSION THINKS IT'S OUT OF ITS PURVIEW, BUT THEY WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THEM SO THAT COUNCIL CAN DULY CONSIDERS THOSE AT SOME FUTURE POINT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK LAST TIME WE MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, ONE OF THEM ACTUALLY WAS, UH, THAT STAFF BE PRESENT AT THESE MEETINGS, UH, TO ENGAGE US, UH, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S JUST EASIER TO HAVE THE BACK AND FORTH DIRECTLY THAN IT IS THROUGH A CHAIN, BUT, UH, WE HAVE TO WORK WITH WHAT WE HAVE.
SO, UH, IF THERE WERE ANY PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS LIKE THAT, THEY COULD BE MADE PART OF THE FINAL REPORT.
AND THEN WHAT WAS DONE 10 YEARS AGO WAS THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION DID COME HERE WITH THE WRITTEN REPORT, FORMALLY PRESENTED TO COUNCIL, TALK ABOUT THEIR WORK, UM, AND BASICALLY PRESENT THE REPORT TO COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC, UH, TO SAY, W YOU KNOW, WE'VE COMPLETED OUR WORK AND HERE'S WHAT WE ACCOMPLISHED.
AND THEN IT'S REALLY IN COUNCIL'S HANDS TO TAKE THOSE ORDINANCES.
UM, MY PLAN WAS, WOULD BE AT THE LATEST TO HAVE THOSE ORDINANCES PREPARED IN THAT OCTOBER TIMEFRAME, UH, TO COINCIDE WITH THE REPORT THAT WE WOULD HAVE THOSE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THAT REPORT AS WELL.
NOW, ARE YOU TRACKING, I WANT TO SAY, YEAH, YOU DID THIS LAST TIME AND YOU USED MAYBE LIKE AN EXCEL TYPE FORMAT.
I JUST KIND OF LOOKED SOMETHING ALONG IN THE LINES OF THIS, WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, YOU HAD THE CODE HERE AND THEN MAYBE JUST RECOMMENDED ACTION.
AND ME WHAT STAFF HAD SAID, AND THEN A FINAL YEAH.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT THERE.
AND SO THAT WOULD KIND OF GET BROKEN DOWN IN THOSE INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, AND THEN, UM, AND THEN I ASSUME WE DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID BEFORE, AFTER THAT, UH, COUNCIL DID, UH, ASK THE ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMISSION TO COME BACK TO A MEETING OF COUNCIL, UM, AND THEY GAVE THEM AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND THANK THEM FOR SERVING ON THE COMMISSION.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE DID A PROCLAMATION OR SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY THAT
[01:35:01]
IT SERVED TO THANK THEM FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, COMMITMENT TO THE PROCESS.WELL, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ANYTHING ELSE, TONY? AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WALKING US THROUGH THIS MEETING.
HAVING NOT BEEN IN IRAN LAST MONTH, THAT WAS QUITE INVALUABLE TO ME.
SO IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER AT EIGHT OH FIVE, CALL THE MEETING ADJOURN.