Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Fudge.

Roll call, yes. We have Lisa Colorado.

Yes. You pronounced it right.

You did. Margaret Schneider.

Here.

Warren Berger.

Here.

John Butera. Alexandra Bobo. Here. Wes Mason.

Here.

Mike Miller. We know he's absent. And Loy McKinley. Present. Thank you.

Okay, and we have an agenda here, and looking for, do we have a motion for approval of the agenda? I have a motion to approve. I have a motion. We have a second? Second. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. I think we had all aye, so the agenda's approved. And we also have minutes that everyone had from the last time.

I'll move to the minutes of July. No, July? Yeah, July 21st. When was it? July 21st? I forgot. Corey, when was the last meeting? The minutes from July. When were the minutes? Was it July 21st?

Do you have a copy of those? Lisa should have those.

Yeah, I have them. Oh, July 21st?

This is the 20th. July 20th.

I'll move to accept the minutes of the meeting of July 20th. I wasn't sure.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Second. All in favor approve? I say aye. Aye. Aye. I think we had all approval. So the minutes. And I don't think we have any disclosure of conflict that we have to do today. I know Becky's online, but I don't think that's necessary for the subjects today. And moving on to unfinished business ordinance 1719 vehicle or trailer parking. I think there were some changes and discussions since the last time, but Corey, did you want to go over that?

In front of you, I've modified the vehicle additions that we added. We're all under residential. They're under section C, numbers five through 10. I've moved them under general because we have some residential in a commercial zone. So this will pertain to all residential, no matter what zone they're in. So we'll make that adjustment when we bring it to the commission, but that's what that is in front of you.

Okay.

And all the changes from the last meeting are in yellow.

Do we have a motion to approve the ordinance as revised?

I'm still not sure. Number three, a maximum of any one boat, utility trailer, recreational vehicle, and special purpose vehicle or special purpose vehicle.

I don't know the question.

I'm wondering because I'm the one who who suggested that we Add the word any but now I'm not sure if you mean any one Boat utility trailer recreational vehicle or special-purpose vehicle only one any one but I'm saying should end be or I

You're saying one of each? Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, because otherwise it sounds like you could have one of each unless you change and to or.

Okay. We can do that and present that to the commission if you guys want to vote on that.

Yeah.

I just think that would clarify it.

Okay. I get it. Makes sense.

You had this discussion. So the intent was... One of each.

Yeah. No.

No. You can only have one of those. Only one of any one of those.

Of any one of those categories.

Any one. Right.

And that's the same language for four as well, right? For the side. Correct.

Yep. Quick question. So someone can have one on the front and one on the side then? Is that what we're going to allow? And one in the back. Okay.

Yeah, that's where I'm... The image shows more than just one of these.

You know what I mean?

And in the front, you can have one in the front yard. Oh, just in the front is what you're talking about. And then you could have one on the side as well, behind the fence. And if you wanted, put another one in your backyard.

Well, that's not... Again, that's not how I'm reading it, because number four... It says a maximum of any one boat utility trailer, recreational vehicle, or special purpose vehicle under 26 feet shall be parked in the rear or side yard.

Does that mean you could have one in front and then one in the side or the rear?

Or does it mean that you could have one in the front, one on the side, and one in the rear? That's the thing I'm, you know, and I hate to be sticky about this, but it's kind of an emotional issue. So I think we need to cross every T and dot every I.

Fair enough.

Hello. I'm actually, I don't know if everybody's met me yet. I'm Brian. I'm the Deputy Director of Development Services.

Oh, hi, Brian.

Let me see if I can help you a little bit on the clarification of this. The number three and four talk specifically about any utility vehicle or special purpose vehicle or anything to that effect under 26 feet. So you can have one vehicle under 26 feet in your front yard. And then if you have a second one, you could also have that in your side yard or your backyard. What we've done is we've We're trying to eliminate the houses, the properties, what have you, that have multiple utility vehicles in their front yard. We have properties in the city that have, I think we have one that has like eight of them in the front yard. You can't even see the front yard. It's so packed with vehicles. So that's our main purpose here is to remove those. We do know that there are a lot of property owners here who have numerous different utility vehicles. Some of them have two, some of them have three, what have you. So that's why we said under 26 feet, you can have one in the front yard, have one in the side yard or the backyard.

is the term front yard and a and three and rear or side yes yes can I make a suggestion can we possibly put the word either shall be parked in either the rear or side yard just to make sure everybody understands clearly that it's not you can't have it in the rear and the side it's either one of those two that's fine we can do that I mean I can remove the word or and put either

We had to have a motion before we went through all that but that's okay we can begin we can keep discussing it oh just a question on the on the photo there were the two photos in the handout just to be clear that the the top photo is If I'm understanding this correctly, there's an RV in the driveway, and then there's a boat that's on the lawn. Basically, according to this, the boat that's on the lawn wouldn't be allowed. Am I correct in looking at that?

Yes, you can only have one now.

You can only have one, and it would also have to be on a paved surface? No, that was also changed. Okay, gotcha. I thought I saw that still in there.

Yes, if you look on page 2, number 4A, And what this does is it says, the surface of the lot or parcel of land upon which or above which a boat, utility trailer, recreational vehicle, or purpose vehicle is parked shall be paved or shall be maintained in the same manner as the remainder of the lot or parcel of land. And there shall not be permitted upon such surface a growth of weeds, undergrowth, or lawn which exceeds 12 inches in height. And 12 inches of height is our max in the city. So what we do is we put this in there so if they do park it in the grass, they have to make sure it's mowed, there's no weeds growing around it and stuff to that effect. That makes sense. Thank you.

And those pictures that I pulled off the internet are just something that we don't want to have your neighbor have 20 boats in the front yard and that's all it was, just a reference.

I see that you've crossed out the number five from the original about the three feet from the exterior of any structure or building.

Yes, ma'am.

Is there any provision now for limitations or not? That's gone.

No. I contacted the fire department and asked them if there's any restrictions on how close you can park a vehicle to the building, and they said there is none. So we removed that section from it.

Okay, and then we also discussed at the last meeting a certain distance from the property line.

Yes, that's in, I think it's in, I think it was already in here, and it says that if it's so close to the property line, yes, shall be set back two feet from any abutting property line. If the vehicle's within 10 feet, it should have a six-foot height. That was already in the code. We never changed that.

Okay. Or 4B-1-3.

Where do we come up with the 26 feet? And what about the side yards? I think some homes, like one side of my house is over 50 feet long. I don't have room to park a vehicle there. But if I had room to put an RV back there that was bigger than that, I don't think that would bother anybody. So is there something we could do, maybe a little more length on the side? I don't know. Do you guys consider that?

It already is. It's in the code already. You can have anything. You can have a vehicle over 26 feet in the rear or the side yard. OK. So it's already in here as far as that? Yes. OK. Under 26 feet was already in the code, so we just left it there. I did a little research about the little communities and stuff to see where theirs was. And we're pretty lenient on that. I mean, 26 feet, most people are like 35 or 30 feet. Is that it?

I just want to make sure we're clear Margaret so I think it's maximum of one in the front and maximum of one on the side or the rear for a total of two potentially what I'm suggesting is that just to make sure there's no possible misunderstanding we just put the word either between shall be parked in either the rear or side yard it's just tightening it up a little bit

I can do that. That's fine.

I don't have a problem with that. I think you're right that there could be a little confusion. Especially because people came last time and are pretty passionate about it.

We have a public comment.

We have a public comment for Justin Case. Please come up.

and your name and where you live. Sure, good evening.

My name is Justin Case. I live at 8 Crystal River Drive. So I wanted to just make a couple comments. One, I wanted to, I guess, question what Wes had brought up about 26 feet. I'm an avid camper. I have what they call is a 27-foot camper, but from hitch to bumper is 33 feet. I live off the canal, so I have no side yard to put a camper, and there is definitely no access to get to the rear. So as a camper, and I have a lot of friends in Cocoa Beach that live off Minutemen, that have campers as well, we have to park partially in our front yard, and I would like to see if there are any options to open that up for the length in the front yard, because a lot of us are limited in the space.

Can you explain what it means from hitch to, as opposed to the actual body?

Yeah, so the body... is labeled as 27 feet, but the hitch on the front extends another four or five feet out, and then the bumper extends beyond the hull as well. So the total living area or body of the camper is 27 feet, but if I were to take a tape measure from the rear of the bumper to the hitch where it connects to the vehicle, it's 33 feet.

So we're not talking about enclosed campers. We're talking about campers that are hooked up to a truck.

Well, it is. I hook it up to my truck to pull it. But I'm talking about the body of the camper versus the hitch and the bumper.

Now I follow. I didn't realize that you were talking about a camper that gets hooked to a truck. I thought, I don't understand. Okay.

And I did notice in here that it was inclusive to include hitches and everything. So I wanted to keep that in consideration.

And what class of or RV, did you call that?

It's a pull-behind trailer. Just a travel trailer. That's what they call it. It's not a class A, B, or C. It's not a driver. You hook it up to a vehicle.

That could also be an issue, too, for a lot of boats that are a 26-foot boat with a trailer is going to be much longer than that. It's because of the tongue of the trailer.

Yeah, so there you're probably limited to a 20-foot boat. Yeah. Something like that.

I'm just curious, is this what Brian... Is this what you addressed in terms of, I'm sorry to get you back up, but when Wes was asking you about the, you know, if you had 33 feet on the side, I think the gentleman's talking about the idea of having that in the front yard. Were we precluded from that in the front yard at this point?

We're limited to 26 feet. Like I said, we did a, I was in Canaveral before I came here, and there they allow 35 feet in the front yard. So you can have something in that. So if it's the wishes of the board, you could always increase the 26. Now, the 26 is already in the code. That's not something that you're, you know, we're only deciding on where we can place these right now, changing the code. Right now, 26 feet is, or under 26 feet is already in the code. So we would change, we would have to change the entirety of the code. I'm not saying entirety. I'm talking about just this ordinance. We'd have to change it. to read 30 feet, 35 feet, however. But that's up to the board. If the board wishes staff to do that, we can look at that and adjust to.

Did you think about saying something along the lines of, maybe 26 feet or if somebody has like a huge yard less than, or, you know, that still leaves X amount of feet open. Do you know what I'm saying? Either or whichever.

Based on the size of the property.

Yeah. I mean, to accommodate, I don't know if that makes sense.

I think that that probably would be a little bit more difficult to regulate other than just stating, you know, 30 or 35 feet because you still have a, you still have in here in the code that you can't cross a sidewalk, a pedestrian sidewalk. You can't be within the right of way. You can't do stuff like that. So if you had a larger size, like a 30 foot, You still couldn't be near the right-of-way. You still couldn't be across the sidewalk. So if you have a smaller front yard, you still couldn't put it there. Those are already in the code. They're already codified, so you can't. We wouldn't change that because those are safety regulations. Those are right-of-way. The city owns the right-of-way, so you don't want them parking or coming across the right-of-way because those are just safety issues. But if somebody had a yard where they could put a larger boat, recreational vehicle, what have you, in their front yard without violating the others. Right, if they had 50 feet available or something. Yes.

And so in his case, could he come and get a waiver or request something, an exception based on his specific case?

There's nothing built in the code for anything like a variance or a waiver or a special exception or anything like that for this in particular.

Do you, from a planning standpoint, do you see any issue with the idea of having a 33 feet versus 26 feet? You know, in other words, Is that something that you would see as problematic generally for the community? Or is it something that maybe could make sense for people that have these kind of vehicles?

I don't think so. As long as the code still keeps all the other, you know, the distance off of the side yards or the distance off your property line, distance from the right-of-way, the size of the recreational vehicle, If it's 30 feet, if you can fit it in your yard, it's still, you know, without violating any other portion of the code, then it's going to look like a 26 footer sitting in a smaller property.

Yeah, sure.

So would that be including grass and the driveway or just the yard?

Well, it seems as though you're already able to park on the grass, the question that I had before. So it could be a situation where you're part on the grass and part on the driveway?

Is that what you're asking? Yeah, it's like, okay, so do you cover the whole front of the house? Is that going to be allowed in what you guys are suggesting? Yeah.

You know what the 26 was originally based on? I do not. I mean, I know it's in the code and it's been there. Yeah, it's been there for a while.

I do not. It was kind of surprised me, to be honest with you, when I first got here. And it's probably based off of, like you said, it's probably based off of the smaller lots. You know, because here we have a lot of... properties that are taken up by a lot of stuff. I mean, you pools and different things like that. So you got weird kind of smaller lot. So it's probably the reason why they did that was because of that.

You said Cape Canaverals is 35, 35.

Yeah. A little different scenario up there with their lots though and how they're set up. They don't have any canals going in and out of the property.

So can you like, Can you specify that a vehicle not be any longer than, well, let's just say in this case 26 feet, unless it's equipped with the hitches that actually extend that, which is not actually the length of the actual trailer. Those are the hitches. But if someone didn't have that sort of configuration on their trailer and such, then you would... Maybe you want to limit the vehicle itself to that, with the exception of if it's installed on. Would that work?

Well, all vehicles in the code are supposed to be, or all special purpose vehicles, trailers, what have you, are supposed to be in a movable condition at all times. It has to be inflated tires. You have to have hitches on them. You have to have them ready to move at any given time. So we can't really eliminate the hitch. or the length of it, and that's the actual full special purpose vehicle or utility vehicle is hitched to the till. So it's kind of difficult to remove something to that effect. I think the easiest way, if you're looking at doing something like that, would literally just be raise the length from 26 to what have you.

And just cap it.

Yes.

And my sense of how you guys came up with this was the idea that we're trying to keep people from having multiple vehicles on their property and whether it's an eyesore, et cetera, these kinds of things. It doesn't seem to me that extending this from 26 to 33 feet would inhibit what we're trying to accomplish with this, in my mind, at least. Do you see that could be an issue?

Yes. So 26 feet was a holdover from the original code and why it was there. So we, moved forward just kept it as 26 feet. Yeah. Like I said, if the board wants to raise it because they don't like that, this would be the best time to do it.

Okay.

I think about us just removing the restriction of how long it's got to be, as long as it's not in setbacks or crossing the sidewalk, if it's just on their property. And then I think, like you said, Warren, just really trying to eliminate the person who's got three trailers in their front yard. So I'd be all for that, just eliminating the length of it.

You have to be real careful about completely eliminating, though, the length of a trailer. I understand Mr. Case's problem or issue here with his being a little bit longer, and I understand that. However, if you completely eliminate it, you have some very large RVs out there. You have RVs out there that can take up the whole front yard. So now you're parking an RV in the middle of the front yard. It literally takes up the whole house. I mean, I think that you still want to, the board still wants to kind of talk about or discuss actually putting a limit on that, whether it be 30, 35, whatever it may be. I think you still want to look at putting a limit on that.

I agree that we should not, we have to have some limit. And we can't put too many caveats because all of a sudden there will be 55 caveats. I think we have to bite the bullet based on what the planning department's recommendation is. Is it 33? Is it 34? I mean, that whole thing threw me with the hitch, so I can't even begin to tell you what I think the length should be. But you're the professionals. You're the experts. I think you need to give the board some guidance on it, what the ideal number is.

You said Cape Canaveral uses 35 feet. Yes. Do you think there's significant differences from Cape Canaveral, say, to here? Say if we went to 35 feet. I know you said that Cape Canaveral has some bigger lots and things like that. But say we went to the 35 feet that Cape Canaveral is doing. Do you see that as being problematic here in Cocoa Beach because of the smaller lots? Or do you think that that would be still acceptable?

I don't think 35 feet is going to be out of. like just way off because of the fact that you still have in the code. It's still, like I said before, it still requires you to be so far from the, from the property line. It requires you to not be in the right of way. It requires you not to go across the sidewalk, stuff to that effect. So you're still, I mean, if you have enough room to put 35 feet inside your, you know, in your yard or what have you, It's the same thing as 26 feet. You're just giving them an extra, like Mr. Case, giving him an extra length to cover what he has.

I would be inclined to look at that 35 feet that Cape Canaveral seems to be using.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. As long as the other protections are in there for the right of way and the spacing and not putting too many vehicles and all that, which is really what you did a good job of addressing all that. This five more feet, I don't necessarily know I have a great feel for that based on the average lots and the sizes. I do know that there's a lot of boating in Cocoa Beach and Minuteman is like a thoroughfare for boats. There's a lot of people with boats on those lots and everywhere. If it doesn't cause a huge problem, I'm okay with making it 35 if it's in the ballpark of other residential areas nearby. I'm sure Cape Canaveral people come down around here with their boats and stuff driving them around too. I'm okay with it, but I guess we'll hear from the

Would I would be in favor of changing under 26 feet to not to exceed 35 feet And if you look in section C Number three that talks about including the mass the hitches That includes a whole length of the unit Yeah We can make that change if that's the board's wishes.

I We need to vote on that?

First of all, we haven't even had a motion yet. So we had a good discussion. And I guess what's on the table now is instead of 26 feet, it's not to exceed 35 feet. That's the change. So I don't know if somebody else can make the motion.

I'll make a motion that we change it from 26 feet to no more than 35 feet.

Do we have any other public comments?

No. Do you have anything else? Yeah, I do have another question.

Oh, sorry. Did you raise your hand back there as well?

I was going to motion.

You were just making motions.

Yeah, you kind of got interrupted, Justin, so go ahead, please. Okay, so my second question is about enforcement. So I'm assuming this ordinance is coming up because of the people who are abusing the right to have a vehicle in their front side, whatever it is. Anytime I've had some kind of ordinance that was in potential violation, I reached out to the city multiple times and I got pushed back even though it was out of code. I got pushed back to say it was a civil matter. So I guess I would like to better understand as a resident who has problems with some neighbors, will this be something that once this goes into effect, there's gonna be someone policing all the streets to start giving notices on these vehicles that are outside of this or will it be targeted or the people that have multiple violations be the prime people that are being cited for being out of the ordinance.

Mr. Bryan probably can best answer that for you. He's actually our code enforcement.

Yes, we have a, Our code enforcement section is actually twofold. It's proactive and it's reactive. So we actively go out and drive the streets and we look for violations. Right now we're down an officer, we're hopefully to hire someone soon, and everything will ramp back up again. The reactive portion of it is we do rely a lot on our neighbors to file complaints. So if you see a big RV or something sitting in the front yard that's over 75 or over 35 feet, If you call us, let us know. We can address that also. But as far as it's a civil matter, usually when it's between two parties and it doesn't fall under the ordinance or under our code itself, we can't address it. So it becomes a civil matter between the two parties. If it's not in our ordinance, we really can't address it. So that's why we always say it's a civil matter. But if you have any questions, you can always get a hold of me. I can give you my card afterwards, and you can call me directly. Appreciate it. All right? Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks.

Go ahead. We have a motion, and we have a second. With the motion.

I made it earlier, but do you want me to make it again?

I make a motion that we change the 26 feet language in the proposal to no more than 35 feet. Not to exceed 35 feet.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second? I'll second. We have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Approved to go forward to the commission.

Thanks. Did you have a public comment?

We did.

I missed it.

We'll let you go, Skip, I guess. Make an exception for Skip.

So the change you made was instead of 26, you went to 35?

Not to exceed 35. Not to exceed 35 feet. Okay.

Yeah. And somewhere in there it says that you can only, if you bring something bigger than that to your house, like if you're going to go on a vacation and you've got a Class A motorhome or a big boat or something, that you can only have it there for 24 hours. Yes. I think it would be amenable to this planning board to change that to 48 hours before it comes to the commission. Because if you bring a motor home out of storage, and you've got to check out a lot of systems and stuff, and you might have to repair something, change oil, different things. It might take you, it probably would be a rush to try to get that all done in 24 hours.

Yeah, I don't think 24 hours is a new thing, though, that is with this change. Isn't that already there? Hasn't that been in there? It's been in there. That's nothing new in this change, just so you know.

Right, well, I'm a dinosaur, so it used to be 72 hours. So now it's 24.

24 is probably based on some feedback that they got, but I'll let... Go ahead.

I'd like to think that we could, you know, before it comes to the commission, because we'd like to just carte blanche whatever you guys approve, and I just think that 48 hours would be a little more amenable.

I think Brian's going to have an answer for you.

I was just going to say that...

Yes, the 48, that's correct. It's actually 24. It's one day per week for maintenance loading, unloading, and preparation. That's already in the code. That wasn't a change from us. Right.

Yeah, that's always been there. Did we get any other feedback on that? I think that was mainly to prevent people from having time to have it sit there and work on it for a while. I mean, I don't know. That's

That's what it was originally. I believe so. I wasn't here when they originally put that in. We did add an hour for the right-of-way just to keep them from parking. We have a lot of problem with them just sitting in the right-of-way.

That's the only thing I see about time. Where is the part about 20 minutes?

If you look at the last page, number 5, any vehicle which cannot comply with the parking regulations may be part of the owner's property a maximum of one day per week for maintenance unloading Loading and trip prep.

Oh, so the one day per week is 24 hours. That's why I couldn't find 24 hours.

Maybe it could be two 12-hour periods because no one's working and unloading from the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. I mean, if I owned a vehicle like that or something, I wouldn't be doing it then. I would be doing it after work Or, you know, after school or during the day or whatever. Mm-hmm.

Does anybody want to make a change? Are you recommending?

Are we good with the board?

Any thoughts on that? It doesn't make any difference to me.

Well, if... If we had it more than one day in a given week, I wouldn't. Yes. You know, I'd want some sort of a cap.

Never mind. Sorry, Becky. Per month.

Okay.

Is Becky trying to say something?

No, she's fine.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

Go ahead. I just want to ask Brian a question. Just on the premise of the, all right, we have the 24 hours in place. Say it was to be a 48-hour period. Do you see any potential problems with that? Or, you know, I don't have enough experience to know if there's been significant, you know, 48 hours to have this here, you know, and be working on it is problematic for the neighborhood or problematic, you know, in general. Like, do you have an opinion on this?

The only issue that you would have with extending it is the same issue you have with the 24 hours, and that's regulating it and enforcing it. That's really the issue with it. I mean, you go out, you say that this vehicle's been sitting there at this date, and then the code officer has to go back out and look at that same time the next day to see if it's still sitting there. That's really the only issue with that. It's already got 24 hours to sit there. So if it's, and now you've increased it to 35. So you have a 35 foot, you know, a lot of people before on the last time we brought this to you were talking about, well, mine's over 26 feet. Mr. Case said mine's 30 feet. Can I have a little bit more time to have it sitting in my front yard so I can unload it? Now you're at 35 feet. So I don't know, I really have no idea, like, what, you know, what you're parking, you know, going to want to be there or whatever, park there.

Do you know, do you get a lot of instances where it's violating the 24-hour time? You're in code enforcement, so does this happen a lot? Is this something that's a problem for anybody?

We don't seem to have a lot of that. However, right now we're battling having, you know, eight, six, eight trailers in the front yard. Once we remove all of that, that's when you're going to see the 24 or the 48 hours or what have you. That's when you're going to see more of those violations happening because you're going to remove all the trailers from the front yard and now people are going to want to come, you know, put their trailer there to unload it, say, hey, I'm unloading it. It's only been here for 24 hours or what have you. So, you know, you change one thing, it's like a trickle effect to make something else happen.

Yeah, being a boater and RVer, I think 24 hours is a little restrictive to unload and work on that. I'd be in favor of increasing it. Like you said, they're going to use the excuse anyway. We're punishing the people that are just legit trying to use their RVer boats and do a little work on them versus the clamp it who has 10 trailers in their front yard. They're going to try and work around it anyway. So I think we're just hurting the law-abiding person that's a good neighbor by making it 24 hours. Yeah.

I mean, I'd probably agree with that.

Yeah, I mean, by the time you go get it out of storage, you bring it home, like, that's almost a full day, and you're already tired from doing that. If you want to run a Walmart, load up. Like, it's just pretty restrictive.

Okay. So do we want to – it's probably out of the Robert's rules, but we could have a new – I'm okay with it too. I'm okay with not to exceed 48 hours. I mean, me personally, based on it. Do we have a new motion? Can we make a new motion? We have more information. David's coming up. Hold on.

Good evening. Good evening. I think if the board wants to do this, you'll need to reopen the hearing on this particular ordinance, and I would suggest you do it through a motion and a vote by the board to reopen the public hearing on that.

That's true because it didn't go out.

Pardon?

Because it hasn't been seen, it hasn't gone out because of that change.

Yeah, well, the board has already closed the – I mean, you've already acted on it and voted on it and everything. So in order to open – I don't think they voted.

Yeah, they did.

Yeah.

Yeah, they voted.

It's a done deal. So that's why I'm suggesting that the board, if that's what you want to do, reopen it via a motion in a second and a vote by the board to reopen the hearing, then redo the vote, and then we can move on to the next item, if that makes sense. And if Becky would like to opine on that, she's certainly more than welcome.

Becky, did you want to speak on this?

Yes. No, if somebody wants to reopen it, there can be a motion for reconsideration, and it's somebody who voted in favor of it, and I didn't hear anybody vote against it, so anybody could do that, and there'd be a second, and then it could be reopened.

Reopened for today and not brought back. Is that what you're saying, Becky?

Correct.

You could...

Yes, unless you want it brought back to get more information about it. I don't know.

No, I don't think that's the case. I just wanted to get clarification on since we've already gone through the motion. So we could reopen it, have another motion, and revote. That's what I understand from that discussion.

Alternatively, we can vote it as is, and when it goes to the commission, they can change it. So it depends on what you want to do.

Yeah, I'll motion to reopen it.

Do we have a motion to reopen? I second. I have a second. OK, so we'll reopen this. And then do we have a new motion? Somebody have a new motion?

I think you have to vote on that.

Oh, sorry. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, so it's approved to reopen this?

Correct.

Okay.

Now you probably have to make the motion for both.

So we have a new motion that somebody wants to make?

It's going to be, I'll make a motion. I move that we change number five. To any vehicle which cannot comply with the parking regulations above may be parked at the owner's property a maximum of 48 hours per week for maintenance, loading, unloading, and trip preparation.

Do we also have to, in that motion, we also have to include the original motion that I think we did?

Yes. Not to exceed 35 feet.

So 35 feet and that have to be included.

Not to exceed 35 feet.

So we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Okay. It's approved. Thank you.

Thanks for making our meeting longer, Skip.

Okay. We have another ordinance, 1708, on outdoor seating.

And we had made the changes that you had suggested. I don't know if everybody read through there, but the changes that you suggested at the last meeting are in yellow. It looks like under Section 3B, we added and shall be consistent with APCO turtle lighting standards. That's to do with the lighting. There's a concern there. And then under section C, number four, we added to pay all applicable connection fees. And those were the only changes that we had from the last meeting.

I have a question. I'm not sure. Number three, where it talks about the sidewalk. It says, unobstructed pedestrian access must be available through or adjacent to the seating area and to the restaurant entrance at a minimum of five feet at all times to provide safe public access. I understand seating area, but I don't understand restaurant entrance.

that's all part of a DA the safety standards that they set so it doesn't have to make sense

And besides the ADA, the city feels that that's sufficient because as we discussed at the last meeting, we've got very busy sidewalks with electric bikes and scooters and pedestrians and carriages and beach carts. So five feet is enough, you feel?

Yeah, we try to go wider when we have projects, something like the West End or something like that. But the sidewalks that we currently have, they have to have at least a minimum of five feet for pedestrian traffic.

I just had a question on the furnishings, Section D. This is all outdoor restaurants. Shall I comply with the following? I brought this up at the last meeting. I still think it's restrictive. It's too general. If it's a restaurant that has it out in a public easement, yeah, bring everything in at night. But for some of the restaurants, bringing in, like, number two, not all permanent fixtures must be – Removing the restaurant closes that's super restrictor for a lot of restaurants and I think unnecessary So especially if they're all fenced in and gated in an area. That's you know private protected when you say that i'm thinking of like uh like patty cassidy's has their outdoor thing in front there and it's gated yeah a lot of those like patty cassidy's florida fresh grill i think i mean dirty birds almost all outside they're gonna where are they going to bring all that furniture i mean if they're required to do that you know they're it's all fenced and closed off when it's closed down so i think that's pretty prohibitive for all the all those restaurants

I was wondering if it was intended to be like to make sure it's secure and not flying away or something like that, you know. Yes, that's the main. Get it out of the way.

That was the main thought behind this when they originally put it in here. This was originally in the code was to keep it from flying around when nobody's actually there to watch it. We could actually put it in here unless it's, you know, you must remove it as applicable because, you know, if you don't have a wall or something to hold in everything. Because we do have this in here for, you know, a decorative wall and stuff. So, I mean, we could always put that in there if you have something like that. If you have an enclosure where your seats and stuff are, we can always put a thing in there where, you know, a caveat.

Yeah, I think that'd be good to add something like that.

I do think that would be a good add just because there's been a lot of increased exterior eating space that really started back in COVID where people would carve out space outside in their parking lots or wherever. I think it's a little different than maybe it was even five years ago or something. So to me, it does sound like it's reasonable to say it's certain instances, maybe it's just secured, not removed and taken all inside.

Yes, this is just a lot of these things that are put in code is for safety. It's safety purposes, and you don't want a chair or a table that's sitting on a sidewalk in the middle of the night blow out in the middle of the road and something to that effect where there's nobody there to actually watch the chairs and the tables and stuff to that effect. So it's all built in for safety. But if it's enclosed or what have you or they have it secured, then we can always put that in there.

Is the city's definition of a nightclub a restaurant that has a cabaret license for live entertainment?

Nightclubs, I'm not sure of. I don't know if we have a definition for the nightclubs. I do know that bars and stuff, it's a difference on how much you sell, like food you sell and beer you sell or liquor you sell.

At the last meeting for the prohibited uses number two, nightclubs are prohibited from obtaining an outdoor restaurant seating area permit. I think Heidi's is a nightclub, and they already have one. That meets all the other criteria that we want.

Yes, I'd have to look into that. I'm sorry. I don't know if they are or not.

Just another question on the 500 feet from residential, multifamily, prohibited after 9. So have we looked at which establishments that would impact? I mean, how many have outdoor seating that wouldn't be able to operate? It seems like we have residential kind of mixed almost.

Yeah, it's more for the noise. Right. And noise is already in the code at 500 feet. So whether you have an outdoor seating area or you don't, you're still looking at the noise ordinance for that, for 500 feet. So to eliminate that possibility, then we just bring the chairs and the tables and say, after this time, you need to move those in if you're within 500 feet. Because if you don't, you're still going to have that noise. You're still going to be in violation. So that's giving them that, you know, putting them in violation already before we even start it.

One comment here. Heidi's, we looked up on the BTR, it's a full-service restaurant is what it's considered. That's what their license is.

And where is that definition?

It's on their BTR. That's tied to their license with the DBPR.

Can I make a suggestion? Because I know... There's probably a lot of people that think that Heidi's is a nightclub. They kind of do some advertising as a nightclub. We may want to say nightclubs as defined by whatever it's defined. So there's never any problem if somebody's saying, well, you know.

Maybe it's not a bad thing to add to the.

Would Heidi, I mean, we're talking about outdoor seating. I mean, are they really, people are outdoor seating. They do their entertainment inside, though.

No, but they have outdoor seating.

Yeah, I understand. But they're not playing music and entertaining out there, right?

No, but none of these places talk about music. They're all talking about eating outside.

Right, and that's why I have a big problem with a lot of this, because I think Florida Fresh Girl has seating out there. It's never louder than the traffic in the public's parking lot. Now they have to stop serving out there at 9 o'clock. I think that's really... hindrance I would say there's condos right behind there they're probably pretty close to 500 feet might be a little further so but you know I haven't measured at all also how would that affect like hunker down I think there's condos right behind it I mean so they'd have to shut down their outdoor area at nine o'clock and there's a big a big impact we really need to do some more research on what's that or hunger down

Places outdoors.

Yeah, there is Underground I mean outdoors if it has a cover over doesn't know what doesn't the noise ordinance supersede that this that That's what the noise ordinance says that you know 10 o'clock.

You have to turn your music off if it's outside I'm not sure how these would work in conjunction together the noise ordinance and this seems like this would be more the 9 o'clock be more restrictive than the 10 o'clock and What are we saying? So if they're not making noise, they can continue to operate, you know, outside?

Is there a world where this could be a tentacle? You know, most restaurants, they stop serving at a certain time. Yeah. It's not often that you see a restaurant that's open past 10 o'clock, you know. Is there a world where if we move this to 10 o'clock rather than 9 o'clock, does that solve some of this problem? Yeah.

Yeah, also what's considered just outside, like this undercover patio, like Sloan, though, I look at that. They have their bar areas. It's outside. I think it's outside, and they're open, you know, obviously much later than 9 o'clock, so they'd have to shut down.

No, I think those are separate if they have that outdoor seating area already. I think this is for the outdoor seating areas. That aren't already established, I believe. I think they're already established, though.

Yeah.

To that.

So this only applies to new outdoor seating?

If I'm not mistaken, I think, yes. I think we wouldn't go back and tell, you know, hey, you can't do this or whatever. Sure.

But so a future restaurant business is going to have that same. Would they be affected by this then? Wouldn't allow that?

The ones that come in to get an outdoor seating permit.

Yeah, what if someone was building a brand new standalone restaurant that's low and low? They wouldn't be allowed to do that then, or they could have to stop operating at 9 o'clock? No, they would still, if they're existing. No, I'm saying brand new. Yes.

Well, according to this right here, the way it's written right now, yes, they would have to stop their outdoor seating at 9 o'clock, yes. Okay. You could always put it to what the... noise ordinances also if that's better because i mean you couldn't the new the noise or noise ordinance is already codified so if you change this to like let's say 11 or 12 then you still wouldn't it still wouldn't be um i guess legal i guess i can't think of the right word but it's still because the noise ordinance would supersede it So you could change this to meet the noise ordinance if you would like.

Which is 10 o'clock, correct? I believe so.

That makes sense that they're going down the same path.

Yeah, I'm not sure if it's 10 o'clock.

I guess we can verify. I mean, it sounds like people were, like, okay with moving it to the time that coincides with a noise ordinance. I think it was.

I'm not sure.

I'd have to look. There were a lot of discussion back when that happened.

It actually says different time frames for different days and stuff, so I'd have to look.

It used to be 11, and I think it got changed to 10.

Do you know, I don't know where it is in the code, that you consider outdoor seating Completely underneath like a sheltered space or a tiki bar or whatever you know like a slow and low is that the same in this case would be treated the same as somebody who puts Seats out in front on their sidewalk. I mean to me.

They're like kind of different outdoor seating It is I don't know where it's listed in here there are definitions I I don't know I could get that answer for you Sure

Yeah, right. Hi, my name's Dave.

Right now, the ordinance breaks it down by three different locations. A, if you're on private property. B, if you're on public property. Or C, if you're on private property in a standalone building. And an example of that would be, what's the pizza joint up here by Ace Hardware?

Oceanside.

Oceanside, thank you. Yeah, that's a standalone building. So those are the three separate categories that we're talking about. And what was the question?

Is it outdoor seating, per the code, is it treated the same for situations like the pizza place and slow and low where it's under a roof of some sort or whatever versus people just put chairs and tables out on the sidewalk, which is public?

Correct.

So would this apply to just the public or both?

No. In section 340 on page 1, the section under B1 is for standalone, the slow and low type restaurants. Section 2 is restaurant seating is located on private property, such as right down here by Wake and Bake. What is the name of that restaurant right there on the end?

Pokey?

Pokey. It's on a private piece of property. And then paragraph three, public property. You been to Dirty Nudes yet? They just put out all those new seats right there in the alleyway. Or Moshe's old place, destination downtown. They had all those umbrellas and chairs and tables that wrapped their building on the city sidewalk. So that's an example of the different what applies to what. And then the requirements in category C, your paragraph C, you can read that. The following additional regulations are applicable to all restaurant types. So all of those C, they apply to standalones, private, and public.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, that helps.

Okay. So the time under the 9 p.m. time frame would apply to all?

Yes.

Right. Right. Okay.

Yeah, and we can change that. If the board wants to, we can change the distances if the board would like to. I mean, it's all open to conversation. That's what we're here to do.

I think a lot of the... Stuff in here is great for public seating areas. I think it's too restrictive for private standalone. They're kind of the same thing. They're both on private property. But that would be my opinion is to lighten up more on the private property, standalone, and then also kind of a little maybe better define, unless there's definitions that aren't with this, what we're considering. And maybe stuff that's under a roof, like slow and low, would be more exempt from this. They're inside a railing. They have shutters that come down. I mean, it's like you can't have trash cans out there. Well, they have a bar out there. They can't have trash cans in the bar now. And there's a lot to this. I think it's really restrictive for the private property businesses.

Yeah. Well, whatever the board would like. We're looking for direction from at least three of you. That's how this works.

That's right. Just a question for you, though. Yes. Because just overall, you know, there's something that's trying to be accomplished here. Right. And to give some structure to what's going on with the with outdoor seating in the city. And so I think there's merit to that. Right. And so we're seeing like, hey, how do we get there? And like, you know, what are the and I certainly the board can make decisions, but. Is there a general sort of overview that you were saying, you all saying, hey, you know, what kind of, what is the structure that we want to impart here? And is the idea here that we just, we do want to get structure here. It makes sense to kind of, you know, make sure that people are safe, make sure that people have ability to walk by and things like that. there sort of things that in your opinion would say hey this is really necessary for us to be able to have sort of a working functional city here with outdoor seating whereas other things might be more amenable to change because they're the impact wouldn't be as much in terms of the you know how we're living here does that make sense what I'm saying yeah no I think I understand yeah I mean there's always regulations that are safety rooted in safety

And then there's regulations rooted in aesthetics. There's regulations rooted in community standards and aspirational standards for a community. So there's all different levels and hierarchies of standards and what you want to accomplish. So if the board strictly wants to strip it down to just include life safety welfare standards, then we as a staff, we can go back and we can do that. We can peel away those aspirational and aesthetic requirements that we as a staff felt were at least worthy to talk about and discuss and consider. So if that's what the board would like is for us to staff to peel away everything except for the life safety issues, we would be happy to do that. So we just that's just a little bit of direction.

Yeah. And I I'm just I'm trying to get my head around because you guys could have built this right. And you know what's in front of us coming from the experience that you guys have which is valuable here. And so you know I'm trying to get my head around sort of if we strip certain things out does the bigger picture get affected from your view and your experience and things that you've seen where It doesn't work. If you see what I'm saying, I'm trying to get to your mindset in how this was created so that we're seeing everything that we need to see in order to do this. Right.

Yeah, I think this is what you have in front of you is, from a staff perspective, is a well-rounded community aspirational document. Now, that's why the board is here, is to provide us with real world experience and real world ties to the community. You guys get out in the community, you know the residents and you know your neighbors better than Cory and I do. And so if you feel like, that's why, if you want to start factoring in those issues. I mean, it's really a give and take. You know, obviously, this is what staff thinks from all of those different things I mentioned earlier. This is kind of a document that we think works well. But if the board feels like it's overreaching, or if we're being overly, we're overreaching, putting too much of an emphasis on the aesthetic side of it, and we're not putting enough emphasis on the operational standards that a proprietor of Bonefish needs to keep in mind. We're not here to put so much standard and some regulations on businesses that they can't operate. I don't think this includes, I mean, I think we could talk about the hours I think nine might be a little restrictive. I think the 500 feet may be a little restrictive to recognize what our community has. But those are things we can discuss. We're open ears. We're more than willing to listen and have a conversation. Super helpful.

Yeah, that's helpful. So it sounds like, are there any other comments? It does sound like the time, most people sound like it could be loosened up a little bit to sync up with the noise. And it also sounds like the, I don't know. Distance? The distance maybe, but the the expectations on what I'll call like semi-permanent structures that cover outdoor seating versus what I think of as pretty temporary outdoor seating, which to me, those are maybe a little bit different, treat them a little bit differently as an expectations of how much they need to do and bringing things in and all that, you know, that's secure to me. That seems like a,

I totally agree. I mean, if you think about slow and low and all the outdoor seating there, it's called outdoor seating, but it's really under a roof structure. Our intent is not to get into that business. So we could peel all the, peel all of that out of the ordinance. I think our main intent here is people on city public rights of way, because that's where the city comes up with liability issues. And that's, that's in my mind, that's a great place to start. And maybe finish too.

I agree. And I was thinking, and it is the area where things are popping up more.

Yeah.

You know, it's noticeable that people would now add tables here, chairs here, you know, and then you get people... having a tough time getting past them or maybe or the parking starts getting to be an issue too because you have 20 more people sitting out there and do they really have parking spots for people to do that?

Again, it comes down to public safety. My main goal is to deal with the sidewalks, alleyways, things like that. I do have a little bit of concern about businesses popping up just like at Pokey or over here at COA. The sushi place over here?

Cocoa.

You've got a seating location out there next to A1A, or excuse me, yeah, A1A, and you've got an alley on the north side of it. So you've got cars, some of them moving pretty quickly. So we want to make sure that those people who are out there eating in that kind of a situation are protected. So it's a public safety issue versus a slow and low or a bonefish or whatever the case is. I mean, if that's the consensus of the board, I think we can take a third crack at this thing. So, yeah.

I think that would be... I don't know. Is there any other? I think that would be helpful to maybe... look at those two overarching things and whether you, I don't know the terminology, but I think the point was maybe more than what I call like temporary pop-up types of things that come, you know, new businesses come in and they throw some tables out on the sidewalk and stuff versus it was always built to be an undercover, you know, space for people to eat and, you know, gather.

Yeah. That's a great point. I like the pop-up, but more versus the, Yeah, like the slow-mo, keep using that. Where it's built for seating, it's not in their parking lot, it's not going to be an alleyway.

Not only for the ones existing, but for new.

Yeah, right.

If they built sort of an outdoor area that's covered and meant to be outdoor seating all along, that's probably fine.

I mean, I think of Weston. They're going to have 11 or 12 new restaurants in there. Really, the city shouldn't be involved in what's going on inside those property lines. So, yeah, we can work on this.

Slicing that a little different. Okay. Anything else?

I guess there's consensus. Margaret, are you feeling okay about that?

I'm feeling fine about it. I mean, there's just too many different kinds of areas here. And my concern has always been the sidewalk. As long as there's enough room on that sidewalk that people can get by without getting hurt, I'm not worried about music or anything else.

Okay. I think we understand what the board is looking for.

Is there a public comment? Anybody have a public comment on this?

Do we got it? You have your card.

Did you fill out your card? Come on down. State your name and where you live.

My name is Skip Williams, and I live in Cocoa Beach. And I appreciate the service of all y'all. And I'm running for real, no I'm not. That's why I'm here, trying to get some exposure. I just wanted to add a couple things. Almost two decades ago, when Heidi wanted to have their little outdoor seating that they have, we went through a rigmarole. And they were actually paying the city for the use of the public right-of-way for their seating. and they've got their little wall around it, and if you go by there at night when they're closed, all that stuff's just piled up and got a little cable around it, locked. You know, it's not blowing away or anything. So they've been good partners. I don't know if they're still paying anything, but we used to charge for people to use the public right away. My biggest concern is all the things you see that are closer than the five foot for people to be able to walk through. And so even, you know, I hate to call out Juice and Java, but they've added tables outside. And if you push a chair in, there's five feet. But as soon as somebody sits down, there isn't five feet. So you know, we really need to try to, you know, regulate that five foot to have clearance, you know, not just for them, but over here where, you know, uh, The old destination downtown was with their big umbrellas and everything. The umbrellas stuck out way more than the five-foot clearance and the nurse chairs. And sometimes they just lowered the umbrellas and left the chairs and stuff out there overnight unrestrained. So I think that does need to be tuned up, that if people are going to have stuff outside and it's not protected by a barrier like Heidi's or like Slow and Low or Florida Fish or any of the other establishments, that they should have to either bring their stuff inside or secure it some way. Because, you know, we get pop-up thunderstorms with, you know, 50-mile-an-hour gusts and things blow around. And if somebody's walking down the sidewalk, it's going to hit them. So I just thought I'd give you a little history that we used to charge people to use the public right-of-way for their outdoor seating. And now we're kind of, you know, we need to have some regulations set for public safety, and I think that's your intent. So I applaud you for that. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, Rick Anderson, 1800 Minutemen Causeway. I'm sitting here listening to all this, and I always wonder what prompts the proposal in the first place that needs to be done something, and how many violators we're talking about, how many flagrant violators we're talking about. In general, any kind of permanent permit to have some kind of outdoor seating from private... restaurant could be seen as a little bit problematic. I can see temporary or ongoing, but any kind of an open-ended permit like that, and my question is, Were these people doing this without any kind of a permit process and without even asking or just putting things out there, assuming that it was OK? So as far as the private stuff that's behind a boundary and protected from the public right away, I don't see why we'd be messing with them at all. But going forward, I am a little bit concerned about just open-ended permits, and I wonder if it's possible to put enough restrictions that would apply to every single case. So, I mean, that's where I'd be at.

So hopefully this is, I think most of what was said is an agreement like that. We'll see. do our best to try to keep it safe and comfortable for both sides a little bit. But we'll see. Because there was really nothing. Sometimes these things do just pop up, honestly. I think they just pop up without asking and just don't say anything. So we'll reign it in a little and see how it goes. OK. All right.

We'll bring it back.

Moving on to new business. Do we have any new business today? None. Any staff reports?

Yes, I have one issue I'd like to bring to the board. Our next meeting is actually scheduled on Labor Day. So if you all would like to take a vote to see if we move it to the following Monday, the 14th, I believe is.

I move we change the date of the September meeting to From Labor Day to September 14th, the second Monday. Second.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. So we'll move it to the following.

Good deal. Thank you.

Any other news? Report? No. Staff? No.

No.

Any other public comments? Anything? And board members, reports, announcements? Any board members? No? None for me? None for me, okay. It's not really an important report, but I had given Corey an old copy that I had of the comp plan from 2000. It has all the original, you were talking about history today, so it has all the old Surveys a lot of the original pull out the big surveys everything so I don't I'm donating it to Corey, but if anybody wants to look at it. I'm sure he'll let you look at it I'll have it my office.

Just let me know if you want to Take a look Thank you.

Uh-huh Okay meetings adjourned