Today is July 28th. It is 1:36 p.m. Call to order the meeting of the planning and zoning board. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One
[clears throat] nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Ashley, can we have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Sean P >> here. >> Member Randy Stout >> here. >> Member Lorie Simpson >> here.
>> Member Michael Ferez. Let the record show that member Flores is absent from today's meeting. Member Ronald McDonald >> here. >> City Attorney Nancy Meyer >> here. >> Fantastic. >> One second, guys. Up here.
Slow steady. There we go. Okay, perfect. Since we're approving board amendments, which which one we'll have later? [clears throat] Okay, we're going to open up. Any comments from the general public this time? We'll hear them. Obviously, not related to this meeting.
>> They're one side at this time. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Okay. No closed comments from the from the public. Comments from the board obviously not related to today's Jenny. Anything we discuss? >> Ron, >> I just have one question on here.
>> Sure. Uh we say we're we're going up to 85 ft on building height. >> That's coming later. That's agenda item. This >> Yeah, this is just something that if there's anything outside of the >> memo. Tell them about your memo. >> Uh I did the Chamber of Commerce
prepared a study of Airbnbs. >> Okay. on what's happening locally as far as all the Gulf Coast cities here in Florida, what they're charging, how they're regulating it, and what they're doing. In our case, uh I think it's
worth really investigating because it can mean additional income for us when you stop and consider that you have commercial and residential, but this falls in between. It's not really a residential because they're making money
using it as a hotel and it's not really a commercial because it's in a residential neighborhood. So, it's not zoned for it. So, I was thinking maybe we ought to have a separate zoning understanding of what an Airbnb is. It's
quasi commercial. And the same thing with how we can protect the general public by making sure the fire inspector checks it out and making sure there's uh code enforcement checks it out and make sure they're real and legitimate,
all that good stuff. Between Verbbo and all the other companies that are out there pushing it, if you go online, you're going to find we've got about 60 to 70 of these Airbnbs right in our own community. I got one right across the street from me and they had like 30
people there uh because there's no zoning to say what they can do and they can't do on one day with cars blocking the road all the way up and down where uh Dedra was. So that was just put together for your consideration.
>> Perfect. I think it's definitely something worth having a conversation about. I I personally own one in the city limits myself, so I understand there's definitely a need for some kind of control. So, I personally control mine much differently just because I don't there's a certain caliber of people that want to stay at my place,
but I I understand that for sure. >> Okay. Anything else? Well, it seems that the complaints on those are from people that own them that don't live nearby because people are having big parties and lots of cars and
>> no control, no eyes on anything else. Okay, let's move on to business in the hand. So we have a number one the agenda is the proposed zoning text amendment to
section 127-58 plan unit development zoning district. >> Tammy, >> thank you. Tammy Bronna, Brana Consulting, Safety Harbor, your city planner. So today we're going to be looking at proposed revisions to section
12758 which govern planned unit development districts in as part of the city's zoning code. The purpose of the public hearing is to review the revisions um to hear public comments and then to obtain the planning and zoning board's recommendation to
city council. The request is a city initiated zoning text amendment. It revises and clarifies the regulations which govern PUB uh uh districts in the city by implementing the comprehensive plan density
standards, updating development standards, improving code organization and administration and clarifying the application the approval and modification procedures in the PUD. So why is the PUD district being
updated? The primary reason is that the proposed amendment um addresses an inconsistency between the city's comprehensive plan and the planned unit district standards. Uh the current PU PUD district um provides for a maximum
of 18 dwelling units per acre while the comprehensive plan with the adoption of the Cody River Landing future land use category in early 2025 allows up to 40. So there's a inconsistency right there. So the current PUD district does not
fully implement your [clears throat] city comprehensive plan. So about the PUB districts just generally um PUD districts uh provide for specific permitted uses that are established by the PUD resoning. Uh
they're tailored to a specific development site or characteristics of a development plan. They're very integrated. So the uses, the site design, traffic circulation, open space, all those things are coordinated and planned very uh in intentionally
together. And then they derive some public benefit. So by virtue of being able to do your own uh types of standards uh and having that flexibility from the city, it's implied that there would be a public benefit um by virtue of that. Okay. So that general, we'll
get back into specifics. So the primary proposed revisions um involve the comprehensive plan implementation. So as I mentioned the density and also the intensity. So floor area ratio um is also something that's identified in the future land use category. So we'll be
addressing that uh administrative administrative improvement. So looking at procedures, organization, terminology, just for clarification, there's uh there's no additional changes in standards, just mostly the way that
the text reads and and the ease of implementing that by being able to understand things more clearly. And then updated standards we'll get into is the maximum building height, um the open space calculations, and also the building
coverage calculations. Those are kind of the big things. So, maximum building height, catch up here. Um, is to address uh more modern uh building
practices such as vertical mixeduse buildings, which are more of a recent thing in um in Pasco County and and actually in Florida in general. Um, it addresses the ability to do more flood resilient construction, uh, meeting the
city's freeboard requirements and also the, uh, the potential for structured parking units. >> That used to be based on, if I'm correct, on mean high, tide. Now, is it just building itself no matter what the elevation of the property is?
>> The freeboard is it >> the building height of 85 ft. Is that straight building or is that >> both based on elevation? >> Because when we first did our stuff, it was based on the high t mean high tide level of what it was. So that doesn't
have anything to do with the elevation of the property to start with. >> So you have to build above the base flood elevation as required by the city code. So that's where the the height starts. Is that is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay.
So right now the planned unit development district allows up to 72 feet. [clears throat] Um under this proposal the maximum would be a building height of 85 ft. Um and I believe that you know for instance where the Cody River Landing future land use
category is I don't know if the elevation there is the base flood elevation 12 or 13 feet or not certain. I'm probably like mixing things up here, but um the 85 feet would allow for such things as um mixed vertical mixed use.
Those tend to have, you know, different types of heights of floor plates, you know, a little higher end development. Um also just anything that needs to be kind of structured on the bottom to make it more flood resilient. But there's also
an important stipulation just to make it explicit that proposed is that city council may establish a lower maximum height through the approved BUD zoning. So if you think about it today, your planned unit development district would apply across the entire city where much
of the city uh does not is not really set up for maybe 85 feet in height. Um but but 72 feet is not really necessarily that much less. Um, so it's just the ability to be able to to do a
little bit of a higher building um in in consideration of flood resilient construction, freeboard requirements, the addition of structured parking or pedestal building and then also vertical mixeduse buildings. [clears throat]
So, calculations of waterfront properties under the future land use category for Cody River Landing, there is a um a stipulation that says that the density and intensity would be based on upland portions of the site. So, we had to go in and look at the PUD which does
not make that distinction. Uh right now, the current building coverage and required open space are based on total site acreage, which some parcels do have submerged lands within them. So there's no distinction between those uplands and submerged lands. Under the proposal,
we're looking at the base calculations on the upland portion of the site only. It would we would exclude the submerged lands that are not capable of supporting development. And then you would recognize publicly accessible boardwalks and similar waterfront improvements as
qualifying open space. when you're looking at your open space calculations, you wouldn't necessarily want to say, well, 20% of your full site would be open space because a lot of it's open already by virtue of being underwater. Um, so what we're doing is making that
more of an equitable calculation by applying the open space requirements just to the upland portions of the site. Now for instances of the boardwalk, the boardwalk is a little special situation because it is kind of creating open
space above water. So in that particular case, um that would be something that could be that could qualify as open space although it's um it's over submerged lands. As far as the minimum parcel size today,
the current PUD district requires that any any parcel that wants to come in and get a PUD resoning must be at least five acres. The proposed revision retains that 5 acre minimum, but it allows less acreage when approved by city council as part of
a PUD zoning. So if you had something that was an exemplary project that was coming in, it's meeting your your goals, objectives, your community redevelopment master plan, you know, it's something that would be a good fit within the city, city council at their discretion
would be able to reduce that five acre. And as we we talked about last time when we were discussing this, um there are many instances of where you can do nice mixed use developments that are conducive to a a district like this on
one acre on a oneacre site. Special exceptions within the current PUD district says that those are prohibited or excluded. um we're proposing that that provision be deleted because your uses are established with
your um PUD zoning. So they run with that PUD zoning and special exception exceptions are tied to your conventional zoning districts which would be replaced at such time as when the PED is established. So it's it's really kind of
a moot uh consideration at that point. So just kind of generally the the proposed amendment also recognize recognizes the PUD district um it reorganizes not recognizes reorganizes it into a more logical format. So things
are kind of a few things moved around just so they kind of flow and they fit together. Um clarifies relationships to other city regulations. uh clarifies how permitted uses are established by virtue of a peed reszoning and a concept plan.
It refineses the application and review procedures without adding any additional requirements on it. It pretty much just explains the application review process better and then it clarifies the treatment of previously approved peeds.
So previously approved PUDs um would this would the re the recommendation or the um the proposal provides that continuity by existing PUD approvals remain in effect. The approved conditions and agreements remain valid.
Thresholds for substantial modifications remain essentially the same. So, if you do a more substantial modification as set forth in the code, you would need to come back to the city um for a um essentially for a PD resoning again.
[snorts] And then uh city council may apply updated standards, you know, whenever um whenever they feel that affected portions of a PUD um excuse me, city council may apply updated standards only to the affected portion of a PUD
when warranted by the scope of the proposed change. So if a developer came or applicant came in and wanted to do something in this section of the PUD, the other things don't necessarily come into play. sort of just, you know, unless there's some direct relationship between what you're doing here and how
it affects the rest of the site. So, it's not an opportunity to open up the whole PD. So, our staff findings is that overall this um these proposals uh promote public health, safety and welfare. It importantly improves consistency between
the land development code and the comprehensive plan. It clarifies standards, procedures for PUD applications, approvals, modifications and implementation, improves readability and administration, better accommodates mixed use and waterfront uh
redevelopment and preserves the flexibility of PUD zonings. So, our recommendation to the planning and zoning board is to recommend approval of the proposed changes to section 127-58 to city council. But of course, if there are any modifications that you wish to
suggest um or you have the potential to deny it if you so choose. [clears throat and cough] So our next steps would be following um my discussion and any questions that you have for me is to open it up for a public hearing. This would then proceed
to the city council for a first reading public hearing on August 11th and then a second reading public hearing on August 25th. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Do do questions for you? >> Certainly.
>> Of the the building heights right now without a a special exception or whatever we called it in the PUD, it would be 72 ft. Right. >> And that's where it is everywhere else. But we did for the waterfront district,
we did approve 85 ft. >> We have not. when we did it's still 72 >> it's 72 feet >> so we're basically asking for citywide wholesale changes >> you're so essentially it is making the
standard 85 ft if you if it goes forward that way >> 72 today it would be that additional to 85 ft could be applicable based on context so it's not a by right planned unit development takes a lot of things into consideration the site
characteristics what's around the site all those things and make the determination. So you couldn't say point to the book and say I can get 85 ft. A lot of things need to be taken into consideration but the maximum would be 85 ft under this proposal.
>> So right now the PUB waterfront district is I mean 72 ft. >> Correct. What I understand right? >> Yes. >> Then it's really the same question as far as the [clears throat] density going from 18 to 40. So what did we approve
for the waterfront district there for the density? >> So keep in mind that this these PUD standards are citywide. So anybody somewhere right now today if they had five acres they could come forward to the city and ask for a PUD zoning
district. Um they could but but right now you would be allowed up to the 18 units per acre. This is saying that you need to look at your underlying future land use category to tell you what the maximum could be. So in the uh if you
had Cody River Landing future land use category, if you were in that and the only properties that have that right now are the the old mobile home park and that piece that's along the waterfront because those are the only properties that have come forward to ask for that future land use category. any any
property with that future land use category could tap into the 40 units per acre. So it's really relies on what your future land use category is. Everywhere else in the city is maximum 18 units per acre. So you wouldn't be able to exceed
that because your future land use category would be residential or commercial. >> Okay. So today if someone has five acres they want to create a PUD and they want a density of 40 can they can ask that
non-automatic but they can ask in front of this board and request that. Right. >> That's right. >> And if and if they did not have a future land use category of Cody River Landing they'd have to go through that first. They'd have to get that designation and then they'd be able to ask for the PUB
at the 40 units per acre. >> The only place that has 40 units per acre is the WOD plus the trailer park lot there. That's the only place and there's only two lots on there which is the Burke properties. But like Catches and Whiskey Joe's, they're in that same
district. But like over over here for instance, there's no there's no path to 40. That make sense? So just the WOD the new flame use category that's created that has the potential for 40. That's the only place in the city that has potential 40 and you have to ask to be a part of that thing because it's each
parcel is >> not automatically adopted. >> Today there are four parcels um associated with one overall development plan that have the future land use category that allows 40. No other places in the city would have be able to tap
that 40 until they first came to city council for first you and then to city council to ask for a future land use map amendment. >> What about Matt's property? That's over five acres. >> That's that's not in the the district. So that's there's no path to 40 there.
He's talking about off Congress. >> So it's still only going to be 18 per acre. the rest of the city would be relying on its future land use category that only allows up to 18 citywide. So that's unchanged. The only the only location that would be subject to this
new 40 units per acre would be within the future land use category of Cody River Landing future land use category. So and like I said only four parcels have that today. How does that affect these trailer parks
that are being decimated and they're looking at putting tiny homes up on them because their density is higher than 18 per acre? >> So, I guess um you'd have to look at grandfathering provisions. So, I'm not prepared to like talk about that right now, but if they were coming in with a
new development plan and there wasn't any grandfathering situation going on, they would be allowed up to 18 units per acre. up to doesn't mean they're going to get it because it has to meet a lot of other review, you know, u what's happening on site, what's happening
around, you know, what the context is, what's happening with traffic. So, a lot of things go into that, but the absolute maximum that they could achieve would be 18 units per acre >> that if that's the case, I'll entertain any motions at this point. [laughter] >> Oh, just
>> yeah, there's an ordinance in your packet. So, Whoever makes a motion, let's use the reference to the ordinance number if you don't mind. >> Oh, that's right. That's okay. >> Okay. >> I'll tell you it's number 26746. >> Do you want me to clarify all this or
just name the actual ordinance? >> Um, you can read what? >> Okay. [laughter] Any discussion before I have have a motion? No. >> Can I have a motion? >> Who wants to be the one?
>> Mike's not here, so [laughter] >> Mike's the one always reads. >> I'm fine. I'll read it. >> You got it. This one. >> Um, >> move the planning and zoning board re uh recommend approval of the proposed amendment to section 127-58
of the land development code to city council. >> Amen. >> This U regarding ordinance number 26-746 that [laughter] >> u
which is an ordinance of the city of Port amending chapter 127 zoning section 127-58 plan unit development zoning district PD to revise and clarify regulations governing plan unit developments
including residential density, building height, open space, building coverage, and procedures for application, approval, and modification providing for codification, conflicts, severability, and an effective date. >> Perfect. Do I have a second?
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Fantastic. Ry's off the hook. >> All right. Section number number two, proposed uh zoning text amendment to section 127-92 accessory uses and structures, parking and storage and recreational vehicles, watercraft, etc.
Miss Tammy, you have the floor. >> Thank you. So, um again, this is another zoning text amendment. So, we're this concerns section 127-92 [clears throat] of the city's land development code pertaining to accessory uses and
structures. The purpose of this hearing is to review the proposed revisions to section 127-92, specifically section or subsection F to hear public comments and to obtain planning and zoning board
recommendations to city council. So section 127-92F regulates the parking and storage of RVs, boats, and similar equipment within residential districts. It prohibits parking or storage within required front
yards or forward of the dwelling. It restricts the placement between a public rightway and a body of water. And what we're addressing today is that it allows temporary driveway or front yard parking for loading and unloading for up to 24
hours. And you'll recall that we had a discussion item at your last meeting in June uh whereby you might probably jumping ahead whereby you directed staff to come back with an ordinance for your consideration. Um you guys at that at the last meeting
you had talked about neighborhood compatibility uh code enforcement code enforcability and the practical needs of a voting community. So we looked at some regulations in other communities and we found three
different uh distinct approaches. One, operational standards. Two, temporary parking standards and recurring exception periods. So under operational standards, driveway parking is generally permitted with regulations focused on
location, operability, maintenance, visibility, and prohibitions on habitation. The second type would be uh temporary parking standards. So allowing that driveway or front yard parking uh permitted for limited times associated
typically with loading, unloading. We also saw cleaning, maintenance or preparation for use of that equipment. And the thirdly was allowing some front yard parking uh or excuse me not allowing uh park front yard parking but
allowing recurring exception periods that allow limited parking during specific times without requiring monthly tracking of cumulative parking days. So essentially establishing a certain time on the calendar whereby um you could manage your equipment on your front
yard. So in proposed section 12792 um subf it clarifies uh permanent storage and temporary driveway parking. It updates the standards for temporary driveway
parking. It clarifies operational requirements. Seeksk to balance neighborhood compatibility with practical needs of residents. Eliminates some redundancy and overlap especially with that first paragraph in that section. and establishes clear and
objective standards for administration and enforcement. Uh as the box says, if it's adopted, it would be applied uniformly throughout the city. So this is just um the different sections of the uh code with yellow,
excuse me, which highlighted in yellow, but this is the clean version. So um the first one relates to permanent storage. Uh so it shall not be parked on or stored in any res residential driveway or forward of the dwelling or on a
vacant lot zoned for residential use. Um there's nothing really that's changed there. We just took out a redundancy. Uh for waterfront lots part two. We added some um no it's not added. We didn't add anything. No boat, watercraft, trailer,
or major recreational equipment shall be parked or stored on a partial lot or non-ontiguous segment of the residential lot situated between the public right away and a body of water. That's unchanged. Uh state law compliance is is unchanged.
And then major recreational equipment defined, we added some things. So, um scrutinize those for us if you will. Major recreation equipment includes, but is not limited to, travel trailers, pickup campers, motor homes, tent
trailers, fifth wheel trailers, houseboats, and similar recreational vehicles or equipment. And then prohibited occupancy continues to remain. This is where the the meat of the changes occurs. So for temporary
driveway parking, you can have one piece of equipment essentially uh temporarily parked on a paved residential driveway for loading, unloading, cleaning, maintenance or preparation for use subject to the following. So for
temporary driveway parking shall not exceed 72 consecutive hours. Um, it shall not exceed six days total during any calendar month and the equipment shall remain operable and licensed or
registered when required by law. Um, and then the last part, the equipment shall not encroach into or obstruct any sidewalk. And that's essentially what's in the code today. Key changes um changing from 24 to 72 consecutive hours, having a new monthly
limit of six days, expanding permitted temporary parking activities such as cleaning or preparing for use. Uh uh using having parking on a paved driveway, having operability registration uh and obstruction um
those not changes though. the obstruction safeguards were always there and then that continuing permanent storage and waterfront provisions remain unchanged. So our finding is that um the reg regulations as proposed does promote the
public health safety and welfare. It balances neighborhood compatibility with reasonable opportunities for temporary parking of recreational equipment. It's consistent with approaches used by comparable communities. provides clear and enforceable standards. It improves
code or the code organization and readability and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Uh step recommends that you have a public hearing that you consider changes and that make your recommendations to
city council. Next steps would be a public hearing here today. Um on August 11th, the first reading of the ordinance by city council and then on August 25th, a second reading of the ordinance by city council. And with that, be happy to answer any questions.
>> Do we need to include anything in there that allows us to uh put a moratorum on that? Because I know when we had the hurricane, we allowed people to put their RVs and stay in them for longer periods of time while they worked on their houses. Does that need to be
included in here or is that just something we allow? >> No, you can address it should the time come and try to address it how you want. >> Isn't there already a provision from emergency management for that? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, because we already have already dealt with that.
>> Isn't it like six months? >> Well, I believe it's six months. That correct? >> Six months. >> Yeah. I mean, we I know that we have some individuals in the city who have been there a long time. [laughter] >> 180 days and it can be extended. Okay.
>> Does that answer your question? >> I have a question. And I don't think it's one of the changes being proposed, but I just happened to read this about waterfront lots. Uh, no boat or other major equipment
shall be parked on a partial lot or non-ontiguous segment of a residential lot situated between a public ride away and a body of water. And I don't think it's the intent of it, but it almost seems like somebody could
think that means a vote lift. >> You need to scroll back. I was trying to >> I had the mouse clicked off of it. Sorry. Here we go. At the bottom, right? So, so no watercraft,
>> uh, trailer or major recreational equipment shall be parked or scored >> on a partial lot or a non-ontiguous segment of a residential lot situated between the public right away and the body of water. So, that's currently in
your code, but let's talk about >> is is intending to mean no boat lift storage. No, no equipment shall be parked or stored on a partial lot, partial lot
or non-ontinuous segment of a residential. So something that you Okay, for instance, if you're if you're divided by your property by a road perhaps, >> so that means you might have a >> then there's lots and then there's
water. So, I think it's saying that you can't >> store there, but does that mean docks like you said? Is that like a >> Well, that's the entire south side of the city, right? [laughter] >> I mean, they they have they have to walk
across the street to their their their lifts >> situated between the public right away. >> They have people that have they got >> I know one person in particular that's over there >> put boat lifts there just to keep their boats, not necessarily build the house on. So would that be considered storage the same way? >> Yeah.
>> This is not continuous. That is continuous. >> Well, even the lock across the street is continuous. >> Well, it says I think that it's meant though this spirit is because it says between a public rideway and a body of water. So I think it's although you're
right, it is part of the same parcel. I think that this is trying to separate those parcels that do have a street in between. Well, we just we just disenfranchised an entire section of the city. >> That's what >> Yeah, we had a whole road that does nothing but that. [laughter]
>> Does anybody have any resolution as to why that was in the code before? So, is there any and we can think about this, but maybe what we do is research like to think about what they were trying to get at with this particular
stipulation. I think I'm going to guess they thought you were just gonna have a boat on a trailer on that lot and sitting sitting there on on this type of lot. >> Okay. >> But but not I don't think they were
thinking of a boat lift but >> so lift >> it could be interpreted that way too. >> Yeah, because boat is a structure on the property that was approved by >> Yeah, that's a good so many out there already. >> So this is called parking. So, I don't know if there's this distinction between
like being on a boat lift and being called parking or um being on a trailer, you know, essentially. So, we should make a clarification that it's not intended for parking outside of being on a boat lift essentially, right?
>> Good. >> Boat lifts are tied to a floating dock. I mean, there's lots of different uses that are done over there and particularly in that one production town. >> [clears throat] >> be curious to see what Newport New Richie has written and how their code is written that way because they have the same issue. If you go down Grand
Boulevard, those houses all have reprian rights across the street. >> I think in the packet, >> what if you just didn't just eliminated that whole thing? >> Yeah, >> because it already said can't be in front of the house. >> I don't think they want somebody to go across the street like that. This is
making if if what you're on to, which I think is probably correct, it's making it explicit to say because right now from the front word of front face of your house to the street, you can't park in that area. But what
happens if your house is separated like the front yard is separated by a road? I think it's still considered your front yard, right? >> In my neighborhood, that's exactly what it is. You've got houses over here with a road and then they own the property
right on the water where they're keeping their boats. >> Yep. >> And if that's the case, >> you want to watch the boat parades. >> All of them are illegal. So >> yeah. >> And also a lot of them have their kayaks and and canoes on that part that's across the river across the street too.
And that's would be considered a watercraft. I guess >> it is a watercraft. Yeah. It's just because they're heavy to carry >> relates to major recreational equipment.
So maybe I would say a kayak or canoe probably wouldn't fit in that category. >> So if you look [laughter] at the the if you look at the prop the uh Pasco County um property pressures assessment, >> it clearly shows a designation of the street from that. So it's a different
parcel. So it's not contiguous. So that verbiage does not work. >> Are are all of the lines I don't know if all of them are uh separate. >> You you ours used to be separate and I consolidated
>> through the actual through the actual street >> and made it residential. >> No, no, the property, but it was a separate parcel and I consolidated to one. So I think the separate part it says on a partial lot would probably say
like it's on your part of your lot or a non-ontiguous segment. So I think it's really getting to that Grand Boulevard >> sort of situation. Um but you did you would not want to prevent people from parking on their boat lifts. So I think
there just needs to be a >> So what would happen if we just eliminated number two completely? They'd be parking in the lot and not on a boat lift. Correct. Let them park like on the lot the physical land. >> So if somebody >> So if we took it out and someone said, "Well, it's not in front of my house.
It's across the street and then over there I can park over there." >> Right. >> So I think the clarification that you're not trying to incorporate lifts or something might be warranted, but I I don't think I think taking it out might have that effect. But I think it's a really good point that that would preclude something that
you do on a regular basis and it's perfectly acceptable. >> Okay. Well, we will uh modify that if you tell us to with your recommendation um >> and have that be. Well,
it's just the way I'm reading it and the way I interpret it is that it's more concerned of just especially when you're talking about areas of Grand Boulevard or any other areas that the the dock is across the street. I think this is just pointing out the concern that they don't want they don't want the boat parking
literally on the roadway or anywhere near that rightway that >> that they don't you know that's that's what for number two that's what we're really focusing on I think that's exactly what he's trying to point out is that it needs to either be the boat
needs to be either on the property on one piece or the other but nowhere near the rightway >> that's use the word storage in That's because storage changes everything because if it's on a boat lift, it's in storage. >> The fact that we're discussing it right
now means that it needs to be clear. [laughter] >> It has been an issue in Nepo Richie where they were parking little trailers across the street because they own the property. Well, it's my rep right >> doesn't matter. I think that um you the fix that you're suggesting is that we we
stipulate we say that it's if you're on a dock or a lift or and we'll floating dock will pull up all the uh qualifiers but you know that's intended but uh the prohibition would be in that yard. >> I think we just need to adjust
[clears throat] the land. I don't know. Well then I guess you could also have your we'll come up with some language that that And I still think watercraft can include a kayak and a canoe. Can can it be motorized watercraft or
>> Well, I thought that the major recreational equipment kind of was the qualifier there, but if you just if somebody again, if they decided that watercraft was a canoe and somebody has their kayak sitting out next to the
water, not necessarily on a lift or on a floating dock. Is that what you're saying? That like >> Yeah. [clears throat] has kayaks. >> There are parcels on in the city limits that literally have had kayak racks on the other side what she's talking about there and there as well in in Newport
Richie as well. >> But I agree like to park a trailer and a boat there all the time across the street would look hideous. You know, >> the house across the street for me has a kayak rack and they've got like five kayaks sitting up on top of it and they're right on the lake. So >> yeah. So let's go back to number four.
Major recreational equipment defined. Major recreational equipment includes, but not limited to travel trailers, pickup campers, motor homes, tent trailers, fifth wheel trailers, house boats, and similar recreational vehicles or equipment. Could everybody
consider or could you could you construe that to exclude uh kayaks or canoes? >> I think watercraft is a problem because it says or major recreation equipment. That's a separate category. Watercraft is its own category. I don't I don't put k the kayaking canoe in the major
recreation. I wouldn't put that there. >> Watercraft covers the gamut of watercraft, >> right? >> But really Okay. So So maybe what we do is um >> Well, it doesn't include a 60oot sport fisher either.
That would be considered major recreational. >> But it doesn't say that though. [laughter] Doesn't say anything about boats. So the title is we always go to the top. Parking of storage of boats, watercraft, trailers, and major rec. So do does the title need to be tighter?
Maybe it's parking and storage of major recreational equipment and then we define it later on in the subject or in the section. >> Licensed can we get away if we do because like you don't license a kayak, you don't license a canoe. It has to be something that has a motor attached to
it. So the license canoes are considered that. But >> if we shorten that title to just be parking and storage of major recreational equipment and then we define it within the section, is there anything that we're not thinking of? >> You're going to have to include at that
point you're going to have to like Eric have to include the boats and stuff and that at that point. >> Well, look, here's definitions. Major recreational equipment includes >> Yeah, boats is not there. >> Now, number four doesn't have boats because you have boats separately. Correct. And in number one, we have
boats on its own, watercraft on its own, and trailers, assuming that's with the boats and the watercraft. Then you have the major recreational equipment, which you defined, which are the separate like >> I think if we just went through this and we and we tied everything to a major
recreational equipment and then we went through and made sure that, >> you know, maybe we just say major recreational equipment and then we define what that is in that section. And it would make it all >> I think I think you could do that. And then you would put obviously boats and watercrafts and trailers as part of the definition of what a major.
>> Yes. >> But watercraft still can mean a sub. It could be a canoe. It could be a kay. >> Well, what about sailboat? >> You have to have a license for it. >> Don't say nothing.
>> Watercraft is not even major. Sales boats are right. >> I think so. That's not the word boat number. >> I think the way it was written, you had boats as one thing, watercraft as one, and then the trailers, and then major recreational equipment, which is defined
as those other things that aren't listed anywhere else. Just to give people an idea, this is what we're trying to capture >> by major recreational equipment. So I think if you want to change the title to just be addressing major recreational equipment, your number four would have to expand to include boats, watercraft,
whatever that looks like because you're a good good points about the the kayaks and and those things. Um you just have to make you know include what you want to include in that. >> Yeah. Would paddle boards be considered major? I call it major but I that's and it's
not included in the F definition but it is watercraft and right now this in sub one says you can't store your watercraft. >> Yeah because the biggest problem we have there is the whole idea this is to make enforcability so much easier for code enforcement. >> Poor Pat drives around now and is told
multiple things by multiple people. No, I was told I could do this. So are so if we retitled it to be major recreational equipment and then later down in the definitions we talk about
what is like isn't a boat watercraft. >> A watercraft is not necessarily a boat. >> Paddle boards are watercraft you know watercraft but a boat is under that watercraft category. So I think that if we did what is major and then probably
just specifically if you wanted to exclude the kayaks and canoes then we make that >> explicit in that definition does not include kayaks and canoes >> and and
>> that the paddle boards >> and when you're saying on the lot does that also include any of the floating docks is that considered part of the lot, you know, or what the lift is. Is that part of the lot? >> Some of them Some of them are on a lot
and some are not on. Some are on state land, some are on private lot. >> Is there a difference between small vessels with motors? So according to general category of watercraft, motorized vehicles, personal watercraft, non-motorized craft, canoes,
kayaks, rowboats, and sailboats moved by paddles, wars, and wind, specialized craft, submarines, hover hovercraft, and barges used for transport, military or work. So that's pretty much anything that floats and somebody rides on it. >> Overall, what's that definition from? That's from just when I just Googled it
just to say state of Florida law says the statute for Florida statute 327-02 as a a vessel less than 16 ft long. There's a specific definition for a personal watercraft but the broad scope for state >> watercraft >> for broad scope is includes almost every
description of art artificial contrivance or boat propelled or floated on public or private waterways. That's state of Florida law. The Florida live watercraft is formerly termed a vessel and defined as a water any watercraft barge or airboat other than a sea plane used or capable of
being used as a means of transportation on water that would include kayaks, paddle boards, etc., etc. >> So shall we go back and reference state statute to you just in alignment with that and perhaps the distinction between
something smaller is personal watercraft? No, because a person walk could also be considered a jet ski. >> So non-motorized. >> So I would see a non-motorized be different. Yeah, because in your now you have kayaks, paddle boards,
>> that kind of thing. >> That' be the way to do it. Motor motor, no motor >> and maybe under any kind of propulsion. So because sailboats are considered you can have a non motorized sailboat like Randy said, but it's got a sail. It's
propelled that way, you know. Holy crap, for example, 12 ft. >> Yeah, that's a that's a slippery slope because if we don't we don't tighten it down, somebody will try to find a way to work around it. >> Sure. Sure. >> But the intent is for things that are of
a more sizable scale. Uh probably sits on a trailer at some point to be moved around potentially. Uh versus something that's pretty small. statute. >> Oh yeah. Not considered major. Okay. Let
us re go back and look at this in terms of Florida statute. >> Yeah. >> See if we can just make it, you know, clarified throughout as to what it is that this is addressing. >> Okay. >> Do you want to >> you want to table it then?
>> Yeah, we should table it then. >> Give it another eye. Okay. 100%. >> I think that would be smart. >> Any other discussion regarding other sections that or grab anybody's attention? Randy, I'll go around the room. Randy, I'm done. >> Ron, >> I think this is just our one little spot
we have to kind of tighten down. Otherwise, we're pretty good. >> There's a lot of >> Can you um >> Yeah. >> Can you Can you continue this to like the 20th or or >> Yeah, you can continue, but if you want to continue, you have to like right now say when when and when. >> Okay.
>> So, we could do we could do that and then if that when doesn't work, we'll have to renotice. So we have right now a a 20th August 20th planning and zoning board date. So you could continue it to that date certain time certain that >> I would do I would do a motion date certain when and where
>> August 20th at >> 6 >> oh 6 o'clock 6 p.m. It's an evening meeting you can do it that way that to avoid noticing. >> Okay. Can someone like to make a motion besides for Randy? He's already read out [laughter]
>> motion to move the decision for proposed zoning text amendment to text to section 127-92 to August 20th at 6 p.m. meeting. Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Fantastic. >> Thank you. >> All right. Let's see. All right. Any other old business? Any to discuss? In that case, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. I move. Do
>> I have a second? Second. >> All in favor? I >> I. Fantastic. Thanks, everybody. [clears throat and cough]