WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=90Vc46AvXSg

Part: 1

1
00:12:25.760 --> 00:12:48.880
to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. So Lisa >> absent. Margaret Schneider

2
00:12:48.880 --> 00:13:05.040
>> here. >> Warren B >> here. >> John Petura is excused absence. Alexandria Bobo >> here. >> Mike Miller >> here. >> And Wes Mason >> here. >> Okay. If I could please have a motion

3
00:13:05.040 --> 00:13:20.959
for approval of the agenda. >> I move to approve the agenda as written. Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> may I have an a motion to approve the minutes of the April 6th meeting? >> Move to approve the minutes.

4
00:13:20.959 --> 00:13:39.839
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> At this point, we have to do any kind of disclosure of conflict. >> Would anybody like to >> Okay. Um any unfinished business? >> No. >> Okay.

5
00:13:39.839 --> 00:13:57.240
So the first item on the agenda then is the ordinance number 1719 regarding vehicle parking. And Dave, I understand you're going to give an overview of that. >> Yes, happy to do that.

6
00:13:57.920 --> 00:14:14.560
>> Good evening, members of the board. It's nice to be here. Um also for such a great turnout this evening. Um yeah, this is a um as I was just talking to our uh to to Byron, a lot of

7
00:14:14.560 --> 00:14:31.199
ordinances that ultimately get to this board and then go to the city commission are a result of um issues that we have out in the real world. Um and this is one of those. Uh we have uh our code

8
00:14:31.199 --> 00:14:48.160
enforcement folks. Uh this is a this is a an issue that pops up regularly. Um we have residents who are um not happy with neighbors generally. Um and we have a lot of matter of fact I think we have a couple of active cases

9
00:14:48.160 --> 00:15:03.440
right now going to our code enforcement special magistrate to deal with vehicle parking. Um and so currently the city code doesn't have any specific language or guidance

10
00:15:03.440 --> 00:15:19.760
um for our code enforcement officers and we have u there's one in particular I'm not going to not going to name names or point to addresses uh but we have a property in the city that has 10 plus

11
00:15:19.760 --> 00:15:36.639
trailers abandoned cars that aren't operating sitting there and it obviously it it upsets the res the neighbors. And so um but what we're so what we're proposing here is to put some additional guidance in our code to help in

12
00:15:36.639 --> 00:15:52.240
particular our code enforcement officers and generally this proposed ordinance takes a two-pronged approach um or really trying to get deal with two policy items. The first is dealing with

13
00:15:52.240 --> 00:16:07.920
number of um vehicles. As I said, right now there is no there is no restrictions or limitation or guidance in the code. Um so this is proposing um we'll go through the ordinance here in just a second. So this proposing

14
00:16:07.920 --> 00:16:24.320
guidance on that issue. Um the other one is um the location or the material that the car the vehicle is parked on. Right now we have folks parking on dirt basically.

15
00:16:24.320 --> 00:16:39.120
Um and so what this ordinance does, it proposes some uh a minimum paved improved area or an impu improved area, excuse me. Um, I'm sitting here talking to Byron who's

16
00:16:39.120 --> 00:16:54.959
a contract engineer for the city and I'm going I think I missed something on this ordinance. So, we may want to talk a little bit about that. I think I probably should have included a definition on improved area on what exactly that means and what exactly

17
00:16:54.959 --> 00:17:12.000
meets that the intent there. Um, so but we can talk about that. So, anyways, let's get let's just go run through the ordinance. um on page um page one starts at section 120 definitions. Um and what you'll see

18
00:17:12.000 --> 00:17:27.520
is any any of the language that's shown in black is existing language. The language shown in red and underlined or striketh through are are the actual either additions or uh deletions from the current ordinance.

19
00:17:27.520 --> 00:17:43.520
So, and I'll try to hit the uh the new language in 303B1. What we're saying here is that if we're going to be parking uh semi-truckss or tractor trailers in commercial districts, we don't want them consuming

20
00:17:43.520 --> 00:18:00.799
the required off-street parking in a parking lot. So, we don't want a we don't want a semitr coming in there and taking 10 spaces and it puts them below the required spaces for for that that particular commercial establishment. So that what that that's what that language is all about. Um down in the bottom of

21
00:18:00.799 --> 00:18:16.240
the page under paragraph 4 um in a the vehicle be parked on a driveway or other improved surface. You can see we're removing the reference to prepared and putting in a um

22
00:18:16.240 --> 00:18:32.559
a new term improved. And I think the intent was it needs to be, you know, if if you're going to be parking on it, it needs to provide a minimum level of um um storm water treatment. It needs to provide a minimum level of stability.

23
00:18:32.559 --> 00:18:49.280
I'm sure you've seen all over. We even have city streets that are put in pavers. They're not properly installed and they just over time they get they just they just they're not effective anymore. So, we're we're going to um that's what we're going to be looking for and that with that term approved. Uh

24
00:18:49.280 --> 00:19:06.000
next page um we're removing paragraph C and that language was allowing um um parking in a front yard is a allowing

25
00:19:06.000 --> 00:19:21.840
for the parking of a recreational vehicle in the front yard. Um, paragraph, and this is really where the meat is, paragraphs 6 through 10, and I'll just read those. Number six is what this language is allowing is a maximum

26
00:19:21.840 --> 00:19:38.000
of one boat, utility, trailer, RV, or special purpose vehicle may be parked in the front yard of a property at any one time. So, it's limiting front yard limiting at one. not not one boat, one RV, one trailer,

27
00:19:38.000 --> 00:19:55.360
just one of those um vehicles. Paragraph seven, a maximum of one of those vehicles be part in the rear or side yard of a property at any one time. And here again, that final sentence is we'd like to see it on an improved

28
00:19:55.360 --> 00:20:12.960
surface. Paragraph 8. If these if a vehicle is parked any closer to three feet from or you cannot park one of these vehicles any closer than 3 ft from the exterior of structure or a building. So, we don't want these vehicles parked right up next to the home or an

29
00:20:12.960 --> 00:20:28.159
accessory structure or something like that. Paragraph nine. Um, these vehicles shall not be parked in a rightway for more than 1 hour. We can talk about that 1 hour time

30
00:20:28.159 --> 00:20:43.440
limit, but what we're finding is um empty trailers, uh, boats on trailers getting parked in city rights of way over extended overnight extended periods of time and it's just causing a problem. That's really those parking spaces were

31
00:20:43.440 --> 00:21:00.720
not put there for uh for storage of boats and and utility trailers. And let's see. Um and then the last one, number 10, is if you're going to have these vehicles parked in your uh yard,

32
00:21:00.720 --> 00:21:15.360
we'd like to have current valid tag on them. Um in general, that's it. I'm sure there's going to be some questions and some discussion, so I'll I'll do my best to respond to those. Madam Chairman, >> okay. Uh, anybody on the board have a

33
00:21:15.360 --> 00:21:41.520
comment? >> I have a couple questions. >> Mike, >> go ahead. >> Okay. Um, >> improved. >> Yeah. >> Um, would that be or

34
00:21:41.520 --> 00:21:59.919
how do you confirm that that's done? Yeah. What we would do is, and I think that's why as I was sitting back there thinking about this, we'd want to define this, and we probably want to create some, I'll call them design guidelines,

35
00:21:59.919 --> 00:22:16.159
if you will, um, and put those into our, uh, we have a technical section of our code that deals with all the technical, you know, sidewalks and driveways and all those technical things. I think what we'd want to do is add a section into

36
00:22:16.159 --> 00:22:33.520
that um that would give us some guidance on on the proper installation meeting the uh meeting the definition of of of that term. So, I think what we'll need to do if the board agrees um I

37
00:22:33.520 --> 00:22:50.320
think what we need to do maybe is um we can either bring it back next month or we can just move it forward and just with understanding we'll be adding that to the ordinance once it goes to the commission. >> Did I answer your question?

38
00:22:50.320 --> 00:23:07.840
>> I I guess so it's to to be developed >> to be developed. Exactly. >> Yeah. So you're saying one vehicle parked in the front yard and plus one on the side. They just

39
00:23:07.840 --> 00:23:25.120
can't be in the same >> area. One in the side and or excuse me, one in the one in the front or one in the and one in the side or rear. >> Okay. So you could have two vehicles

40
00:23:25.120 --> 00:23:44.600
>> and that foot gap that would be between the person that lives there between their structure and the vehicle. This has nothing to do with easements. >> Yeah. >> Uh or maybe someone else's

41
00:23:48.480 --> 00:24:03.760
person. >> Yeah. As far as easements go, um I would imagine something like this could be parked in an easement depending on the easement, depending on what the e the the the conditions of the easement are. Generally, what we find in Cocoa Beach

42
00:24:03.760 --> 00:24:20.159
is we'll have what are called public utility easements. And those utility easements generally, if they have anything in them, they'll have um um storm water pipes or they may have some electric some electric conduit or something like that.

43
00:24:20.159 --> 00:24:38.240
So what we do is we gen we would allow a not I'm going to call it a semi-permanent surface to be put over that but the the property owner would need to know that if city needed to come in there and get access to any of those facilities we'd be digging that up. So what we do in the

44
00:24:38.240 --> 00:24:52.880
Go ahead. >> It would be just like a fence. You put a fence in there and in an easement >> you have the responsibility to replace it if the city has to go in there and repair anything. And one of the documents that we'd have as part of this package is we we have acknowledgements

45
00:24:52.880 --> 00:25:08.720
that we require our property owners to sign and we would require one here um that if if they're going to put something on top of an easement, they'd have to sign an acknowledgement basically saying, "Hey, I understand I'm putting something on a city easement. If

46
00:25:08.720 --> 00:25:24.159
the city has to come in and tear it up to get that, then I'm I'm responsible for putting it back to to uh to the uh original condition. So, we don't want any surprises for anybody. Um

47
00:25:24.159 --> 00:25:40.720
and was there a second part to your question? >> Oh, yeah. Concern distance from either your structure or >> Yeah, I think there's some language in here. Um here it is. If the vehicle is within uh Uh the vehicles the the vehicle shall be

48
00:25:40.720 --> 00:26:02.960
set back at least 2 feet from any abuing property line. So you have to keep two feet off of your adjacent property line. >> Yeah. Anything else? >> Okay. >> You know, I really hate ordinances like

49
00:26:02.960 --> 00:26:18.880
these. It's not that I really hate them, but I hate that we have to have them. I don't know why it's necessary for us to tell you to have respect for your neighbors, but I think too often this degrades our sense of community and uh I

50
00:26:18.880 --> 00:26:34.559
think to that extent, you know, it to me signifies a slum. Um but having said that, I applaud you for taking this dive into the pool here. >> Yeah, that's what we're doing. Does the city engineer have a recommendation on

51
00:26:34.559 --> 00:26:51.039
what we may use as a word instead of improved? >> Um, I don't believe we we ran this by um Gary. >> Yeah, I don't think so. >> Yeah, >> I don't think that term has much meaning. I know you put it in there quickly, but I think something more

52
00:26:51.039 --> 00:27:07.760
definitive needs to be put in for that. >> I I agree. At a minimum, we need to define that term. >> Yeah. So, maybe we need to just work on that and come back with language. Um the other thing I have to about and I don't have an answer for this is if you um

53
00:27:07.760 --> 00:27:25.760
need to stay away three feet from the side of building or an overhanding eve and two feet of the property line. 10 ft is commonly our sideyard. That only leaves you 5T. To me that's a disincentive to get these things out front yard and put in sideyard.

54
00:27:25.760 --> 00:27:42.880
Uh may well reconsider that. Uh [snorts] >> yeah, I'm um I certainly want to get stuff out of the front yard if at all possible. And I mean if I'm a I don't know what the answer is. I agree with you. [laughter]

55
00:27:42.880 --> 00:28:01.120
My um Oh, I like that. >> Wow. That was one of my >> That was one of my favorite shows when I was a little guy. >> My ex- secretary did that. [laughter] >> Yeah. I mean, I I I'll uh I think what we need to do, Corey, is we need to talk

56
00:28:01.120 --> 00:28:17.520
to our fire marshal to see if he's cuz a lot of these vehicles have gas in them and you know, >> okay, >> and so we don't want them to get too close to a building. >> Um and he there may some >> provisions in the um um the fire prevention code.

57
00:28:17.520 --> 00:28:32.720
>> Yeah. >> That addresses this. So, we'll we'll we'll talk to our city engineer. We'll also run it by S, our fire marshal, to talk about what minimum what minimums are there. And with respect to getting it onto a property line,

58
00:28:32.720 --> 00:28:51.399
um, you know, we do say the next, if a vehicle is within 10 ft of an adjacent, this is B2, this is right below the lanes we were just talking about, a 6 foot high opaque fence or wall along the adjacent property shall be provided. So,

59
00:28:52.240 --> 00:29:08.880
I'm totally open to whatever the board would like to do here. >> Like I said, I don't have an answer. You don't want to block a window either. >> Right. Right. Um, you know, I I don't know how many people You're right. Typical setbacks in Cocoa Beach are 10

60
00:29:08.880 --> 00:29:25.200
feet. >> Yeah. Except for Convert Cove where they're like 57, >> right? So there's, you know, I can't imagine anybody even, I mean, most boats are probably about 8 ft wide, 7 8 ft wide on the trailer, >> right? >> So it's be I mean it's it's prohibitive.

61
00:29:25.200 --> 00:29:41.840
That 3-foot requirement may be prohibitive. >> It may take off take out that possibility in a large part of the city. Um >> since that we're going to work on that other >> word improved and come back next month

62
00:29:41.840 --> 00:29:57.279
maybe you can discuss that with fire marshall come back and make a recommendation maybe it's not possible to park them in the sideyard. >> Yeah sideyards may you're right now that we kind of think about this it may not be uh sideyards may not be if unless it's a certain width or something.

63
00:29:57.279 --> 00:30:12.240
>> Yeah we'll we'll put some more thought into that. >> Ira I applaud you for doing this. I think it's it's needed. we have some control over that. Uh I think that's a it's a good step. >> Yeah. And believe me, I don't want to get in people's business about where

64
00:30:12.240 --> 00:30:27.120
they're parking their personal property on their proper private property and we you know, frankly, I don't our code enforcement folks, I don't want to put them in that situation. But when we have egregious situations and we don't have the ability to deal with it, that's

65
00:30:27.120 --> 00:30:44.080
that's where I feel we have to kind of step in when it starts affecting the enjoyment of adjacent properties and it start potentially could start affecting property values. >> Nice. Yes. >> Yeah. So that's that's kind of where I in my view that's where the city may need to get involved. So but we'll we'll

66
00:30:44.080 --> 00:31:00.000
we'll look into that a little bit more and get you some stuff back next time. >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. change. Oh, I just I think going along with that, the improved surface, there's a line there that says uh preferably a pvious surface, and that seemed a little bit

67
00:31:00.000 --> 00:31:15.679
vague to me as well, like it's it's the preference is that is that doesn't need to be a >> preference means nothing. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I think that goes right along with this conversation about sort of restructuring that that language. Um, and then the other thing I was wondering

68
00:31:15.679 --> 00:31:32.559
is if this ordinance maybe should point to some of the code that affect this. I don't know if that would be something that would be, you know, >> I'm not sure I'm following you. >> In other words, would would this ordinance specifically refer to the aspects of the code that would apply and and should should it be some some of

69
00:31:32.559 --> 00:31:48.399
that language be involved in the ordinance at all? >> I can see it tying into like block coverage. >> Yeah. I mean, you know after you know the surface is parked on as part of a driveway then it's got to be 10 ft from the set back right of the

70
00:31:48.399 --> 00:32:04.640
code. You couldn't do that on the side of the house. You know, you need to pull permit for the put a driveway down there service right? [clears throat and cough] >> Yeah. We need to think we need to think some through before we

71
00:32:04.640 --> 00:32:21.440
anything else. >> You have any more comments? >> Um, yeah. I think I think we're all in agreement that we need to strengthen the wording so that any allowance doesn't impact a sideyard zoning requirement, a

72
00:32:21.440 --> 00:32:38.240
front yard or a rear yard. Um those those boundaries have to be upheld. And I'd like to ask the um that's all to say about that because I don't want to beat it to death. We all know pretty much. The other question that I have is really for the attorney

73
00:32:38.240 --> 00:33:02.480
and that is and six and seven. Okay. Is that is that clear enough to withstand any kind of court action by saying a maximum of one boat utility trailer, recreation or special ve special purpose vehicle? or should we

74
00:33:02.480 --> 00:33:18.240
add the word any before one to make sure everybody understands it's not one of each. It's any one of those. Again, I'm >> we can certainly include language uh you

75
00:33:18.240 --> 00:33:33.440
know to for the avoidance of doubt only one you know vehicle in total shall be placed in the front. Something to that effect. Um but I think it's pretty clear as written. I I'd feel comfortable with the language as is but we could always include additional Okay. Um, and then then the rest of my

76
00:33:33.440 --> 00:33:49.919
comments have all been covered already. >> So, I think then the it's the consensus of the board that that it's back to the drawing board and we'll talk about this again next month. >> That sounds great. I appreciate appreciate the uh comments and input. >> If we could have

77
00:33:49.919 --> 00:34:05.600
>> We don't need a vote on that, right? >> No. >> Okay. Uh, the next item on the agenda is ordinance 1708, [clears throat] outdoor seating. Cory, >> you want to call? >> Oh, I'm sorry. We have two people that want to speak on this. Thank you for reminding me that we have two two

78
00:34:05.600 --> 00:34:22.618
audience members. >> Yeah, I've got Brian Evers. >> Brian Evers. >> I'm terribly sorry. I'm new with this. >> I'm glad you [laughter] Why am I here? Cy, it's Byron. >> Byron. >> Oh, the lesser mortals are named Brian.

79
00:34:22.618 --> 00:34:38.639
[laughter] >> Sorry. I don't know if there's a threeminut time limit. I'm Byron Evitz. I'm a resident. I live on Larivier Road and as Dave mentioned, I'm also a contract employee for the city. I'm a city engineer. Improved is vague enough. Let's leave it that way. I can get by with that.

80
00:34:38.639 --> 00:34:53.679
>> Um, you know, everybody used the word uh government overreach. I'm not going to use it. This strikes me a little bit as overreach because we're attacking not sorry. We're going after everybody when there's certainly a few troubled children out here in Cocoa Beach. We

81
00:34:53.679 --> 00:35:11.119
have one on the Riviera. two, let's say, abandoned vehicles, a utility trailer and a boat. And the funny thing is, this will not fix that one problem because he backs the cars in, so code enforcement can't see it, and one of the trailers is under 26 ft. So, I'd really like to get

82
00:35:11.119 --> 00:35:26.960
that straightened out, but unfortunately, this doesn't do it. Now, on our street, we also have three RVs, very, very nice, well-kept, and every single one of us owns a boat. So unfortunately, this is kind of painting us all with the same broad brush when

83
00:35:26.960 --> 00:35:42.320
you got three homeowners that take care of their stuff, get along with all their neighbors. They know where we park them. They move cars when it's time to leave. Um, I got to wonder and I' I've heard rumors on I'm at C2 now. Y 26 ft

84
00:35:42.320 --> 00:35:57.599
and it's in black text, so it's already codified, but this goes all the way back to somebody in Coo Beach who was building a boat in their backyard. And the mayor or commissioner at that time didn't like that. And I'm told that's where the 26 ft limit came up. My travel

85
00:35:57.599 --> 00:36:14.079
trailer is 29 ft until you add the bumper and the hitch. yet I'm still off the rideway and we still have a good sight triangle. So, I'm kind of like, well, why 26? But I don't think we're going to be going back changing the stuff that's already in black text. Um,

86
00:36:14.079 --> 00:36:30.000
only uh now I'm at a I guess it would be 5F now. Uh, only one vehicle exceeding 26 foot. And once again, I point out what if you own a nice RV and a nice boat. The RV is kind of in the side front yard and

87
00:36:30.000 --> 00:36:46.480
occasionally I need to have the boat in my driveway while I'm working on it or getting ready to trailer somewhere. So, um, you know, why are we going after RVs and boats when just about every when a lot of people in Cocoa Beach, if you own RV, I bet you own a boat. Um, yeah.

88
00:36:46.480 --> 00:37:01.200
Yeah. And then uh two of my neighbors have ample parking for their RVs and their boats and both their vehicles all on one's on an improved surface and the others are in driveways. So I'm thinking once again, these guys aren't the problem. The problem's the guy down the

89
00:37:01.200 --> 00:37:19.920
street and this won't even fix that. Uh kind of beating this dead horse. And then we get down to Oh yeah. Uh number nine. It started to come up. Mike, thank you very much. Um, as a private provider engineer, I have helped

90
00:37:19.920 --> 00:37:35.040
people reconfigure their sideyard and their fence and whatnot so they can get their boats in the side yard. Now, we're going to force them into the front yard because, as Mike points out, I got a 24-in overhang. Then I got 3T, then I got 2T. Most trailerable boats now are

91
00:37:35.040 --> 00:37:51.280
at 8 1/2 ft. So, we're going to force all those people to now get their boats in the front yard. So, we need to rethink that. The other thing that came to my mind is I can open my garage door and I can back my boat or RV all the way up to the garage door to stay out of the rain. And if I'm going to leave it there

92
00:37:51.280 --> 00:38:08.400
for a few days while I work on it, that would be disallowed by this. So, if we can reconsider that 3 foot, that would be great. Um, nine, no boats shall be parked for more than an hour. I cannot load and unload

93
00:38:08.400 --> 00:38:25.599
my RV in an hour. And I realize there's, you know, are we going to make 23 hours? Are we going to make it something just short of a um a day? I know when I come in late at night, backing in is kind of a hassle. So, sometimes I'll leave it there overnight. I call my neighbor and say, "By the way, watch how you're

94
00:38:25.599 --> 00:38:41.599
backing." But 1 hour is just way too short to load or unload your trailer. And then item 10 sums it all up. Let's get rid of the junk. All boats etc. shall have a fixed current tags and stored with wheels and tires

95
00:38:41.599 --> 00:38:57.119
mounted. So what we need to do is get rid of the junk. We need concentrate on the junk vehicles. And once again I reflect back on my one neighbor with all that stuff and this law won't even fix it. But I have seen some properties in Cocoa Beach that are definitely the problem. Is every one of those trailers

96
00:38:57.119 --> 00:39:13.040
tagged? Is every one of those trailers in working condition? That's what we need to go after. Uh any questions for me? All right. I know y'all are in a volunteer board. I did the board of adjustments for a couple of years, so a little bit of brown nose, but I really mean it. Thanks a lot for your volunteer

97
00:39:13.040 --> 00:39:35.920
effort because I know it's a thankless task. Cheers. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sorry for that, Brian. [laughter] >> All right, I have uh one more. Donald and Garrett. Hi, I'm Garrett Kooi. I live in 26

98
00:39:35.920 --> 00:39:52.880
Aelia. Um, and um, I'm speaking tonight to just express my opposition to this. Um, not in full, but in in pieces. Um, I think the problem we're trying to, like we've said, the problem we're trying to solve is the junky cars, the junky

99
00:39:52.880 --> 00:40:09.520
trailers, the house with six boats in the in the driveway, none of which have moved in 5 years. But this seems to arbitrarily focus on on those of us that maybe have a trailer, an RV that we use all the time and a boat trailer that we store

100
00:40:09.520 --> 00:40:25.599
and only need to pull out every now and then. And then if you have two boats, if you have an offshore boat, inshore boat, a a jet ski or a small trailer and you're limiting that to one on the side that and then one in the driveway, [clears throat] it just it doesn't seem

101
00:40:25.599 --> 00:40:43.440
fair. um when that's people like us that have those aren't the problem. Um so uh okay uh this also this would um this could potentially penalize small business owners that have trailers that they use on a daily basis for um yard

102
00:40:43.440 --> 00:40:59.920
maintenance type jobs and things like that. We we're not taking those into account if they have that and then they have a you know a jet ski or something he's taking it out every day for his job. um you know that just that unfairly penalizes him.

103
00:40:59.920 --> 00:41:17.760
Um obviously there's the burden of enforcement that came up. How are we going to enforce this? Where's is there extra money available to pay for people to enforce this and and and how um okay, what else do I have? [snorts]

104
00:41:17.760 --> 00:41:34.640
Um, the three-foot rule, we've talked about it, but another just reason why it doesn't it doesn't make sense to me is that some of us have much smaller lots and like we've talked about, there just isn't any room to put it outside. So now I have to I can't keep my trailer that's

105
00:41:34.640 --> 00:41:49.680
wellmaintained. We use it all the time. I got to go park it somewhere else because I can't fit it. I can't put it on my side anymore. So now I've got to pay 150, 300 bucks to store it somewhere. We all know there's nowhere to store it in Cocoa Beach. There's no storage available. So now I'm over in

106
00:41:49.680 --> 00:42:07.359
Merit Island anytime I want to go like if I can find something there if when I need to pull my boat out for a weekend project or something. Um um one thing I thought about for the sideyard um

107
00:42:07.359 --> 00:42:24.240
that possibly there could be some language about um the difference between an empty boat trailer. We are boating community. That's what most pe most of the trailers are, right? So, there could be language about having boat trailers on the side versus RVs and big work

108
00:42:24.240 --> 00:42:39.839
trailers because those trailers are over there and even though I can't get it 3 ft away from the overhang, it's 3 ft away from the house and then there's 10 ft between the overhang and the trailer. Doesn't seem right that I can't put it there now because of

109
00:42:39.839 --> 00:42:56.560
because of all of that. Um, one of the other questions we had was about the um, if we're doing this improved service, improved surface, would that be um, count towards our 60% pvious rule? You

110
00:42:56.560 --> 00:43:12.079
know, is each of these whatever we're putting there that affecting that? Does that have to be permitted? What do those permits look like? Who's managing those permits? Um, or is it just like a you should go do it type deal? Um,

111
00:43:12.079 --> 00:43:30.720
okay. Those are my main points. [laughter] Any questions? Thank you all for your time. Thank you. >> Thank you, Garrett. >> Anyone else wishing to speak on um ordinance 1719? >> Okay, let's go on to ordinance 1708,

112
00:43:30.720 --> 00:43:45.359
outdoor seating. Corey, that's >> okay. >> So, [clears throat] here's the background. Basically, se ordinance 1708 um is being proposed to establish some guidelines and rules for outdoor

113
00:43:45.359 --> 00:44:01.920
seating. Um uh the intent is to encourage outdoor seating by providing standardized process at the same time addressing any safety hazards or um issues to that point.

114
00:44:01.920 --> 00:44:16.720
The ordinance provides rules for the following. Standalone restaurants, restaurants on private property, and restaurants on public property. Um I think just for some background,

115
00:44:16.720 --> 00:44:34.079
um when COVID hit, a lot of restaurants moved their seating outside, which was the right thing to do at that time. And unfortunately, the city doesn't have any guidelines um that would help with the ADA sidewalks, the safety of the patrons.

116
00:44:34.079 --> 00:44:51.760
So, that's what this is the start of to put some guidelines and and some ideas behind what we're doing. Um now each one of the p each one of the restaurants that want to do outdoor

117
00:44:51.760 --> 00:45:09.200
seating will have to fill out a contract. Um the the concept is is that we'll go out and do a safety review. Um we got guidelines that'll cover if there's um a parking lot next to the seating, how do you keep the patron

118
00:45:09.200 --> 00:45:26.160
safe? There has to be a buffer of some sort. um always keeping the ADA compliant that they can't block the sidewalks, those kind of things. But this will be the start of the guidelines to help us um allow for

119
00:45:26.160 --> 00:45:43.520
outdoor seating but have some structure to it. >> I am so sorry this thing >> I just saw. [laughter] Just kidding. All right. Um

120
00:45:43.520 --> 00:46:00.720
I don't know if you all read through this yet. So this is just the beginning of some structure to this um outdoor seating. But yeah, there's um a lot to it at this point. And I'm sure as we go along,

121
00:46:00.720 --> 00:46:22.560
we're going to discover other things that we didn't think of at the time. But that'll be handled as as we do the contracts for each and every um restaurant that we go through. Is there any questions that you all have

122
00:46:22.560 --> 00:46:39.040
that you want the >> board have any comments? I had some >> questions. Um, >> okay. So, I this kind of covers different things in there, but the noise light visual impacts um uh the design standards there. There's a lot of subjectivity it seems when it comes to

123
00:46:39.040 --> 00:46:54.880
the idea of what are they going to be. Are there is there anything in the existing code now that could give sort of objective standards to the people that are trying to plan this out as the restaurant owners or that that's that was the thing that struck me is that even this the safety issue that you talked about with the parking you know

124
00:46:54.880 --> 00:47:10.319
lot next door do we do we have existing code that addresses that. Um we this does address it, but there are other safety issues that will take care of some of these things already like outdoor lighting um for the turtles or

125
00:47:10.319 --> 00:47:26.319
whatever. Yeah, that that's already in in our code in other places. >> I I sort of what I was the the the turtle the turtle issue totally understood right? >> It was the idea of you know uh noise next to residents etc. It it seemed to

126
00:47:26.319 --> 00:47:43.119
me it was a little bit quite subjective uh you know the interpretation of that and I think that that's something that could end up coming up as an issue for people you know and and that goes with the design standards you know what what is decorative what is quality design etc. >> Gotcha. Well there are current codes

127
00:47:43.119 --> 00:47:57.920
about noise lighting all of that is already covered outside of this ordinance that we're proposing at this point. >> Okay. So, yeah, that good point though. I mean, I noticed that this um ordinance

128
00:47:57.920 --> 00:48:17.520
even has outdoor TE's and you know, that kind of issue. It's not allowed. So, we're trying to make sure that we take care of the neighbors as well. I'd like to add something to that. Um, you know, when we're drafting up

129
00:48:17.520 --> 00:48:35.520
ordinances and regulations, there's a lot of things that we consider. One of them is enforcement. Um, and you know, the other is what what level of specificity do we specificity do we want to get into when we're drafting these things? Um, in some ways,

130
00:48:35.520 --> 00:48:50.319
my experience has been it's always been better to be a little bit more vague. um because when you're drafting this stuff, you really can't contemplate every situation and circumstance that you're going to run into. And so if you

131
00:48:50.319 --> 00:49:08.720
keep the language somewhat vague, that allows staff to kind of apply the intent and the um and the letter of the law to to to the situation. Um, and it's um, anyways,

132
00:49:08.720 --> 00:49:23.599
I'm not sure that's really answering your question, but I I'm I'm always hesitant to get too too specific when it comes to this stuff. Um, there's some general language in here under paragraph D because really the only thing that we're going to be dealing with outdoors

133
00:49:23.599 --> 00:49:38.800
is the furnishing um, and the uh, the barriers. And there is some language under paragraph D that that talks I mean it again it just talks about um a quality design a decorative

134
00:49:38.800 --> 00:49:53.839
and must be decorative and have a quality design to enhance the visual and aesthetic appearance. Then as you go down here it says we don't want outdoor trash cans. Uh we don't want PVC furnishing or plastic cuz that's that oh

135
00:49:53.839 --> 00:50:12.800
I don't I better be careful what I say. I mean we're just looking for quality. We don't want to cheapen anything, especially in our downtown area. Um, so yeah, I I get it. I mean, it has to be some leap of faith to allow staff to to

136
00:50:12.800 --> 00:50:28.640
um do their job, frankly, that we're paid to do. Um but um um if you'd like to see some additional standards put in here as far as uh stripping away some of the um

137
00:50:28.640 --> 00:50:45.359
discretion from staff. I mean we're we're open to it if you want to propose some language. We'd certainly be willing to talk about it. Um but um yeah. >> Um I guess I need a little clarification.

138
00:50:45.359 --> 00:51:02.880
public versus private. >> Yeah, good question. >> And then also defining the what's considered to be outside because we have we have some establishments around here that have outside decks. So

139
00:51:02.880 --> 00:51:19.440
>> yeah, >> when you talk about furnishings and stuff like that, does that affect those places or >> Yeah, public versus private. I'll give you some examples. public would be up here at where what used to be destination downtown on the corner. They

140
00:51:19.440 --> 00:51:35.760
were out on the sidewalk. That's all public right away. So those are on in the public space, the publicly owned realm. Um right over here at the sushi place across the street, >> Coco has >> kas or coco. >> Coco, they have their table.

141
00:51:35.760 --> 00:51:51.920
>> They have their tables in the parking lot. So generally if you see tables or eating areas in a parking lot, that's private property. Same would be down by Wake and Bake. They've got in that strip center, they've got some parking in or they've got some seating in the parking lot. That's private property, too. So,

142
00:51:51.920 --> 00:52:06.319
generally, if you see it close to the street or in the sidewalk. Um, another example of public is, do you know, uh, Dirty Nudes just opened up just south of um, Dirty Birds? They just put some chairs and tables there in that little

143
00:52:06.319 --> 00:52:22.720
alleyway. Um, that's that's all public. we entered into a use agreement with them um for for to use the public right away. So those would be that's kind of a distinction between public and private. Um and you had a third question. I don't

144
00:52:22.720 --> 00:52:43.440
remember what it was. >> Oh, like Jonathan's perhaps or uh >> Jonathan's >> coconuts. Yeah, >> that's it. >> Do we really do we What was your question about those furnishings? >> Well, when it says outdoors

145
00:52:43.440 --> 00:53:00.640
>> now, those are outdoors. They're not outside, >> right? Yeah, it would. Um I would I don't think that this would we picked all that up in what's called our site plan process. Um, so we dealt with all

146
00:53:00.640 --> 00:53:16.240
of the ADA issues and all the furnishings and everything in our site plan process. And we generally apply the site the site plan usually involves brand new development like Dirty Birds. U that was a complete REU. Typically these these standards are going to be

147
00:53:16.240 --> 00:53:31.920
applied to somebody who wants to come in and kind of retrofit their restaurant or bar with outdoor park or outdoor um excuse me seating. Uh that's exactly what happened at um Dirty Nudes. Um that's what happened at Destination

148
00:53:31.920 --> 00:53:48.079
Downtown. Um >> Coco's >> Coco. They came in after the fact. So um >> KOA also, >> pardon, >> Koa. >> KA. >> COA also came in after. >> Yeah. Uh which one is KA? I'm sorry. >> KOA is the one that's part of the Kium.

149
00:53:48.079 --> 00:54:03.200
>> Oh, the surf project. >> That's the old Thai place. >> Yeah. Yeah, I got you. >> A lot of [clears throat] people get confused. >> Yeah. Are you considering outdoor seating or dining area that's undercover patio? say like slowmo's area or you know has

150
00:54:03.200 --> 00:54:18.720
Italian is that going to be under this I think >> that would that would be in private well yes it would I mean if they came in after the fact that's on private property so yeah >> yeah so we would we'd apply this >> I'd like to see us apply more in I don't really know there should be a different

151
00:54:18.720 --> 00:54:34.640
standard standalone restaurant private those are both on private property I think much higher standard for restaurants using public areas I think need have to be to maybe a higher standard, more regulated. Um, some of the stuff seems restricted to me to a

152
00:54:34.640 --> 00:54:50.559
standalone private property restaurant that has a covered patio. They need to bring all their furniture in every night. That's not fixed. I think that's unnecessary. Maybe some language is just if it's storm weather, you know, depending something like that. >> Sure, we can we can strip that out of

153
00:54:50.559 --> 00:55:06.720
>> I also think too some of the um, you know, the times 9:00. I think of I live in kind of Florida Fresh Grill like they're facing a parking lot day one. There's much more road noise and parking lot noise and their little dining areas of why they need to close it down at 9. They're not they never have any

154
00:55:06.720 --> 00:55:23.599
entertainment out there. It's very quiet inter. So some of these are I think a little too restrictive on some of our uh our restaurants on private property. >> Fair enough. Good good observation. >> Yeah. >> I I wanted to comment

155
00:55:23.599 --> 00:55:40.079
like Some of these aren't built yet that were in the schedule like that's that's not built yet and that's going to be like the old >> right. >> Um

156
00:55:40.079 --> 00:55:54.640
and so no telling where they would like put outdoor seating or another question of mine would be like is there entertainment

157
00:55:54.640 --> 00:56:13.839
or is it assumed this for you know entertainment? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, that's good. I mean, a lot of the projects that are new construction, I mean, we can just go down the list, they're going to have all kinds of outdoor seating. We're not going to

158
00:56:13.839 --> 00:56:30.079
apply this to I mean, we're going to deal with that in what what was the site plan approval. So when we look at the entire project when they come in to get an approval from the city, we're looking at all of that at the same time. Um and so that's when we that's when we would start applying a lot of these standards.

159
00:56:30.079 --> 00:56:48.119
Um this is again this is generally going to be for after the fact. Um you know if is is I mentioned some examples right across the street here is an example. Um, >> it could be after it build

160
00:56:50.079 --> 00:57:07.119
>> most of those are in already set up in their site plan and what's approved >> before it's even built. >> And if if they wanted to increase that space of outdoor seating, we would probably take them through what's called a minor site plan review. we take them

161
00:57:07.119 --> 00:57:23.200
back through the site plan review process um and deal with it that way. Um a lot of these projects don't have this this this one across the street. I don't know when those properties were built. I have no clue what the original site plan looked like.

162
00:57:23.200 --> 00:57:38.079
It was we don't have a lot of this stuff. Um and so this is why this is we would apply in that situation. This is this is what we would propose to use. Um, >> there had to be some sort of regulation

163
00:57:38.079 --> 00:57:54.240
because when the French place originally was the twin something or other, their seating was on the side, >> not >> Oh, right over right across the street. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, you'd be surprised of the stuff happening without any

164
00:57:54.240 --> 00:58:10.400
approvals. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> You come back on Monday and they there's an outdoor seating uh setup going on and >> and [laughter] Turn my microphone. >> Anybody else? Tip. >> Yeah, I had a question. You are you saying that um there weren't regulations

165
00:58:10.400 --> 00:58:25.760
on outdoor seating previous to this or there were >> there there were not there was nothing in code but what there was which was really curious. We have these agreements that the city entered into with

166
00:58:25.760 --> 00:58:43.599
property owners and it spelled out a lot of these standards and requirements frankly that are in in this >> we use that was our that was our jumping off spot but there was nothing in code that um enabled these agreements to to

167
00:58:43.599 --> 00:58:58.799
exist. I mean I that would Garrick could probably talk a little bit about that. I think we get in we get we get in deep water if we start requiring things that aren't in code. It's just kind of a

168
00:58:58.799 --> 00:59:15.599
you know uh ad hoc oh let's start applying these different things. So >> certainly those sorts of agreements would be appropriate for private property owners who would want to use public land. Yeah, I was just thinking if it wasn't a review before, this could be a daunting task and look how many

169
00:59:15.599 --> 00:59:31.839
restaurants we have city and >> be unbelievable. >> There is um you know and there's some language in here that's exempts existing these existing seating areas, >> right? >> If they were if they were a result if

170
00:59:31.839 --> 00:59:47.119
the seating areas were result of a site plan approval. Now, that's going to be fun trying to track all that down. But, um, you know what we're trying to do? We're trying to claw some of these, I'll call them weekend established dining

171
00:59:47.119 --> 01:00:06.000
areas that that we it just in certain situations, it's frankly not safe. You've got seats and tables next to cars and and alleyways and it's just it's, you know, it's not safe. >> So, we're trying to, you know,

172
01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:20.960
This applies to this ordinance as well as the other one what I'm about to say. You know, we we established codes and requirements and you know, a lot of the stuff um it's

173
01:00:20.960 --> 01:00:38.240
in our toolbox. It's in a staff toolbox to deal with violations. Um but we use discretion as well. We don't enforce all of these codes and ordinances to the to the nth degree. Um

174
01:00:38.240 --> 01:00:53.280
especially in in retroactive situations like this, um you know, if but if we find a safety issue and now we do have ordinance in place, we'll we'll we'll we'll attempt to apply some of these

175
01:00:53.280 --> 01:01:10.079
codes um as needed. So there there is discretion. Code enforcement uses discretion every day. Cory and I use discretion on how and how best to uh apply codes and ordinance requirements to everyday sit. We we run across it

176
01:01:10.079 --> 01:01:26.079
every day. Um but we we you know we try not to be the heavy-handed government because I mean believe me if if we wanted to be that way we could and we just that's just not we just don't do that. My perception is that

177
01:01:26.079 --> 01:01:41.760
we've got the climate that allows outdoor dining almost year round and we're a resort community. One will encourage that sort of life in our especially in the downtown area as long as it doesn't pose a safety problem or a

178
01:01:41.760 --> 01:01:57.440
public nuisance. >> Right. >> To me that be the guidelines for what we're doing. >> And I'll read this as careful as I should have, but I will. Is there anything in here about amplified music?

179
01:01:57.440 --> 01:02:13.440
>> Well, we do talk there is some language is I don't I'm sorry. I don't know. I didn't I don't know what your name is. >> Wes. >> Wes. >> There's some language in there. Wes is talking about at 9:00. Um music is supposed to be uh turned off and there's some distance requirements or distance

180
01:02:13.440 --> 01:02:29.520
standards from residential areas. Um so there is some stuff in there. Yes. So, we don't totally prohibit ampl outdoor music. Um, I mean, we goes goes on all over downtown. >> That's a slippery slope.

181
01:02:29.520 --> 01:02:47.599
>> Is we have noise or also? >> No, not really. We have a nose poison just not worth anything. Try to enforce it. I have you can enforce it. It's impossible. >> We Yeah. What? Again, it's this whole

182
01:02:47.599 --> 01:03:04.000
discretion thing. >> Our police officers will go downtown and they'll talk with the proprietor of one of our downtown restaurants or bars, >> right? >> And they work with them and it sometimes it takes two or three visits a night to to to get any any success and sometimes

183
01:03:04.000 --> 01:03:20.640
there's no success. Um but um um yeah, >> I'm not concerned quite frankly about the deck behind dunes or about the the garden area inos or any of the places where it's self-contained on their

184
01:03:20.640 --> 01:03:38.319
property and it's not obstructing any kind of pedestrian traffic. Our sidewalks right now are in stiff competition of walkers, beach cart pullers, bicyclists, sometimes small golf carts and

185
01:03:38.319 --> 01:03:55.359
>> ebikes tables and well bikes and and trikes and restaurant tables. There's a lot of competition for very little sidewalk space. Just been one of my big complaints about the fact that our sidewalks aren't wide. They're just not wide enough. Um, so I I would like to

186
01:03:55.359 --> 01:04:11.839
see I think this is a very very good start and I would like to see more emphasis put on areas that it can actually impede on safety and and just overall quality of life. People being able to walk or being able to push their

187
01:04:11.839 --> 01:04:26.960
carriage and not having to go out in the street and go around a dining room table. Um, >> that's number one. Number two, E3. I'm not sure what technically Heidi is classified as. I thought it was

188
01:04:26.960 --> 01:04:44.960
classified as a nightclub or a cabaret. And according to this, they're prohibited from obtaining an outdoor restaurant seating area permit. And they have one. Again, it's on the side. It's against the building. It doesn't encroach on the sidewalk. But I

189
01:04:44.960 --> 01:05:01.359
don't know whether or not they are a nightclub or they're not a nightclub. So, we may want to look at that. >> Okay. Yeah, we'll we'll point look at that as a >> example apply try to apply that to that situation. >> One of the thing one more thing I've been talking about this for years is I

190
01:05:01.359 --> 01:05:16.079
it's just beyond me why the city does not have an architectural review board and while I'm delighted with the planning staff that we have now and the development staff I think you guys are fabulous. um really a lot to be putting on your shoulders and it it's just the

191
01:05:16.079 --> 01:05:33.200
most one of the most critical boards in any municipality. Um we wouldn't be running into a lot of these problems if we had that. >> I just came from Canaveral. I was up there for 10 years, city of Cape Canaveral, and we had a what was called the community appearance board

192
01:05:33.200 --> 01:05:47.760
and um they they they played a significant role in development approval. Um >> um so but I I'm I see where they can be beneficial.

193
01:05:47.760 --> 01:06:04.480
Um so but that's a uh that would be a city commission policy decision. [laughter] >> Oh, I know. I've spoken to a lot of city commissioners and some that are still here, some that are gone, and some that would like to be here. I make my my feelings. Is there anybody from the

194
01:06:04.480 --> 01:06:19.920
audience who would like to speak on this issue? We pulled out a card. >> Any other comments from the board? >> I I do I mean along with what you were saying um I have concerns about like

195
01:06:19.920 --> 01:06:36.480
where you out for seating because I think about downtown especially along A1A and around the surf and what was destination downtown I guess another

196
01:06:36.480 --> 01:06:51.200
going I don't know what they're going to do, but if you you had a number of these outdoor seating areas, I think it would compel traffic to slow down and create, you know, traffic. I mean, it's not that

197
01:06:51.200 --> 01:07:18.880
you want them to go faster, but slow down traffic allows, >> but I think Dave's point is very well taken. It is it's not what we allow, it's what the commission finally decides they're going to do. >> Oh, I know. It's just >> but but if they have guidelines at least

198
01:07:18.880 --> 01:07:40.000
they have things to to operate under. >> I mean it's a little different on >> Oh yeah. >> That was the worst. >> Okay. If there's nothing else to talk about on ordinance 1708, we can move to

199
01:07:40.000 --> 01:07:55.839
staff reports and announcements. >> All right. Um the only thing that I brought um was that request of all the projects that are going on. Um I supplied you it's in Excel. It didn't copy well to our software that the

200
01:07:55.839 --> 01:08:11.280
agenda software but um I think for the most part um all the information is um on there. Um, is there anything on those projects that you want a little bit more information on at this point or >> want to talk about?

201
01:08:11.280 --> 01:08:27.839
>> I understand the drift was approved by the commission. How'd that happen? >> Is that true? And >> the site Well, the site plan was approved. >> Yeah. By the commission. >> No, that's that's through our process, >> right? >> Right. Through the our department.

202
01:08:27.839 --> 01:08:44.000
>> They're still coming back for site plan approval here. >> No. >> No. No, >> the code the code has an administrative site plan approval process and a commission approval process and it depends on the size of the project. I

203
01:08:44.000 --> 01:09:00.480
think it's 3 acres or 30,000 square ft. If it's triggers either of those, if it's over that, then it has to go to the city commission. If it's under those, then staff can administratively approve the site plan. But doesn't it go to the

204
01:09:00.480 --> 01:09:17.199
planning board and then the city commission? >> Um if it's if it's a if it's a um >> the drift the drift is 7.9 acres, 220 units, two restaurants um and a leasing building. I don't know

205
01:09:17.199 --> 01:09:33.359
what that means, but at any rate, what is the status of right now? Are we still waiting for them to come back to the planning board? I know they came for preliminary they made a preliminary presentation maybe two years ago. >> Yep. They're they're waiting to start a

206
01:09:33.359 --> 01:09:49.279
building permit phase one. >> So that means they got site plan approval. >> Yes, they did. >> Okay. >> Yep. They've been through all the the whole process. I wasn't here for the beginning of that, but um site site plan approval has been approved.

207
01:09:49.279 --> 01:10:05.120
>> I can talk to you a little bit about that more in depth. um that this was a significant research and discussion question because if you if you do read the code, it says 3 acres or 30,000 square feet. If it's over that,

208
01:10:05.120 --> 01:10:20.640
it has to go to the city commission for approval. As you say, this project is over I think it triggers both of those. Well, I was uh scheduling the project to start back through its process for final

209
01:10:20.640 --> 01:10:37.360
site plan approval, which would include this board and then to the city commission. The attorney for the drift uh took didn't agree with that and he raised and he brought to my attention some um language in the development

210
01:10:37.360 --> 01:10:52.239
agreement. You remember this project, the drift was approved via a development agreement and there's language in the development agreement that >> that was approved by the board of assessment. >> The board the DA was approved by the commission. >> By the commission. Okay. >> Yes.

211
01:10:52.239 --> 01:11:09.280
So the attorney relied on language in the DA that basically said that the staff could give final approval for site plan. I didn't necessarily agree with that.

212
01:11:09.280 --> 01:11:25.920
So, we I I [clears throat] referred this issue to their attorney and our city attorney and discussions were had and that was a decision that it would be a the final site plan approval would be um provided

213
01:11:25.920 --> 01:11:42.880
and given by the city staff. It would be an administrative final site plan approval. So you would you did not see final site plan approval this board nor the city commission. >> Wow. Wow.

214
01:11:42.880 --> 01:11:59.440
>> And I think the argument was and and I'm not going to say it was without merit. There is language in the development agreement where it could be argued that the the city commission when they approved the DA provided for this administrative approval of site plan.

215
01:11:59.440 --> 01:12:15.760
They said it from what you said they said it could the admin it could go through administrative approval wasn't necessitated it was assume >> well in other words did the agreement say it must go through the the >> that approval process or

216
01:12:15.760 --> 01:12:30.640
>> no it didn't say that >> so so there was an agreement that was made to have it sort of go that way and that was that the city attorney that made that decision >> okay and so the city attorney said that we we are going to go through this administratively.

217
01:12:30.640 --> 01:12:47.280
>> Well, the the applicant the developer attorney requested that, right? >> And so since the intent of the commission apparently the intent of the commission or it was it was you know I wasn't there. I don't know what the commission what tent I all I could go by

218
01:12:47.280 --> 01:13:03.280
was what what the DA how it reads and there is language in the DA that that that it could be argued that administrative approval that was the intent of the commission >> to for it to go through that process for

219
01:13:03.280 --> 01:13:20.239
f for site plan approval >> was that the city attorney's thinking >> I'm the I was not the city attorney who who who did all that's Becky Vos so I'm not familiar with the projects So, I couldn't I I haven't read the DA, so I can't advise on that. But, uh,

220
01:13:20.239 --> 01:13:36.080
>> we're very fortunate, and I'm going to speak my mind. We're very fortunate that this is a a developer that's a good developer. Uh, that's a developer that's probably not going to hesitate to work with the city. We're not going to have that all the time. And there's a process. And, and again, I'm preaching

221
01:13:36.080 --> 01:13:53.146
to the choir, I'm sure, but I got to get it off my chest. There's a process. And if we start fooling around with that process, what's the point? What's the point of having the process? Anyhow, that's enough of that. Never want me sitting in this chair ever again. [laughter]

222
01:13:53.679 --> 01:14:10.320
>> You're doing great. >> What she said, I just want to make sure that we were on the board adjustments would not be used for vacation. >> That that that requirement is still in there. Yes.

223
01:14:10.320 --> 01:14:25.920
>> Okay. Any other report from staff representatives? >> No. >> Okay. >> I did have one one question for staff. I don't know if if you want to stay for this. Is it staff's intention to bring both of these ordinances back to the planning board for? So, you're not looking for a recommendation to city

224
01:14:25.920 --> 01:14:41.920
council? All right. Very good. I think we'll we'll take the input that we received this evening and Corey and I will roll up our sleeves and >> get >> and Kristen we might even get Kristen involved too and we'll all just uh [laughter] >> just under a bus >> just the board didn't make a motion with

225
01:14:41.920 --> 01:14:57.040
respect to either ordinance. So I think just uh staff will just go off the consensus to bring it back. All right, we're good. >> And and once when we get a draft that we're comfortable with that we think meets what the board is looking for, we'll obviously get it to Garrett too and let him take a look at it. So, we

226
01:14:57.040 --> 01:15:13.760
don't have to formally table anything. It just stays on the agenda. >> I don't think so. >> If if you if the board wouldn't mind making a motion for each ordinance just to continue it to the next uh board meeting date, which I believe is August 3rd. >> Could I have a could I have a motion to >> I move that we uh review this again at

227
01:15:13.760 --> 01:15:30.080
our next meeting? >> Well, next meeting. >> Well, it would be >> may not be August 3rd. >> Well, hold on. We just need one motion for the first ordinance and then another motion for the second one. So, if I could have a a a motion to refer to table ordinance 1719 to give the

228
01:15:30.080 --> 01:15:46.719
planning and development people a chance to make modifications as discussed tonight to the next meeting table to the next meeting you know the wording second >> so moved >> so move second >> well I think I'll second >> okay all in favor

229
01:15:46.719 --> 01:16:01.120
>> I >> and I would like to have a motion to again table ordinance 1708 outdoor seating for the next meeting so that the planning staff had an opportunity to

230
01:16:01.120 --> 01:16:17.199
make a adjustments as discussed this evening. >> I'll make the motion soon. >> You can second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> All right. Um, thanks guys. >> Is there any public comment on anything else? Anything you'd like to bring up?

231
01:16:17.199 --> 01:16:31.280
>> Nope. And board members, do you have any reports, announcements, anything you want to say? >> I do. >> Okay. >> I know you love this. I know you'd love one more thing to do, but I think down

232
01:16:31.280 --> 01:16:49.600
the line, sometimes we need to make changes that have to do with fundamental changes in the way business takes place. We've discussed this before. I think in reviewing sans there's a big change in number of deliveries that happen at

233
01:16:49.600 --> 01:17:05.920
facilities. Uh Amazon, FedEx, uh UPS, they get frequent many more deliveries than they used to. And I checked this. Amazon does not schedule their deliveries by place of

234
01:17:05.920 --> 01:17:20.320
order that they're delivering it, but how they're actually uh they arrive to them. So they could have four or five or six delivered in a large complex just

235
01:17:20.320 --> 01:17:38.320
one just Amazon. And uh I think the same is probably true of UPS and FedEx and everything. And I want to make sure that we require that there be enough parking space for them in a large complex that it that does not

236
01:17:38.320 --> 01:17:56.400
hamper the uh project. >> Yeah, I I think our code I have to go honestly I'll have to go back and specifically look, but I think what you're talking about, Mike, is loading and unloading areas. >> Yes. And

237
01:17:56.400 --> 01:18:12.640
I need to go back and see if if wired with with unloading and loading zones with our in our site plan approval process, >> right? >> Um I don't know honestly. I haven't looked specifically looked at it. So, but we'll

238
01:18:12.640 --> 01:18:29.280
go back in there and look if we think that if if obviously you're you're you feel like we need to get a little bit more um detailed on what we have. Um we'll go back in and look at it and we'll see if we can come up we'll do some >> look around for some best practice

239
01:18:29.280 --> 01:18:44.480
>> some metrics for that. That's my opinion. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> For largest large projects in particular. >> I was also astounded years ago when we review some major projects that going along there were no really guidelines for when you need to have a loading

240
01:18:44.480 --> 01:19:00.320
dock. That shocked me. Fortunately, I was able to convince the uh developers of those projects that they needed to have one or they already had it, but maybe there are real where a loading dock is actually

241
01:19:00.320 --> 01:19:16.159
required and and a way to maneuver into it without blocking traffic and other things. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think that's great. Um I think in new construction, it's very it's it's a no-brainer. you know, when we're doing deal dealing with redevelopment, especially in like a

242
01:19:16.159 --> 01:19:33.199
downtown area, it's sometimes it's really hard. Yeah. >> You almost have to do it off the front of the street, you know, off the front street. But, uh, we we'll take a look at the code and see what we can come up with. >> Sure. >> Well, if if if needed, >> mostly residential areas. I mean, that's >> we can, um, we'll put together an

243
01:19:33.199 --> 01:19:50.000
ordinance and bring it to the board. >> Because I think there's a fundamental change. There's far more deliveries than there used to be. >> Totally agree. M and there's going to be more and more. >> Yes. >> Okay. If there's no further comments, business,

244
01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:56.020
I'll adjourn the meeting. >> Well, well done. >> Well, thank you, chair. >> Thank you. [applause]