##VIDEO ID:lncuQQiDvzQ## yeah I was called me every and she called me told me she had storm Dar wish I C and sound like it went pretty well last night I know you've got more experience with him than I have well that's why I all right we will call this code review and land use committee meeting to order today is August 6 2024 5: PM um clay help me clarify here with with a missing council member we are basically in Workshop mode correct well well we we have two of three which can constitute a quorum typically you do not proceed with a two member board because the chairman can't make a motion and not supposed to be in a position second um so it's not as though we can technically we could get through it but it is a Messier process I will note councilman Valley has similarly submitted comments that you have in your packets here I've spoken to him briefly today um should the circumstances arise he's asked me to clarify any comments that might come up I don't know what your comments will be but I'll do my best to assist him in that um but I advised him that this would be a workshop for me that so that um less formal approach would be um the better option I would say yes we should treat it as a more of the workshop format and I would encourage us to focus our time if it is acceptable to committee on the Downtown parking analysis discussion that is under the indon zoning that's out there um certainly that needs to continue moving forward and Mr Valley to see it again at city council and on chapter 14 because more efforts been there I will let everybody here know I briefly mentioned Mr Valley talk about to speak to more on the parks and W stuff but since we haven't actually gone over that as much detail at this point in time we're gonna have to have that come back a second time anyway so it might save both of your gentleman's time if we focus on those two okay so we will we will B effectively table the minute approval until the next meeting when we have a correct full compliment so we will move on to land use and Zoning the Downtown parking analysis uh Mr Wallace I understand you got an updated map yeah and I I I printed out M my map is is is perfectly fine I'm not sure what Raphael um did here so if you can't read the numbers um at the last meeting I was asked to expand this out to show the additional parking there on Baldwin Avenue between Crescent and 11 and then the small area just west of 11 so you've got 12 there which would be parallel parking seven spaces that's basically behind a Maris paint that's on the far left of that and that was where there was an existing curve there um that we think we can improve but we're only getting seven spaces there um that all we get out of it seven spaces after measuring it out what we could identify as the curve that was there m um whatever the distance was I don't recall but I know that according to the dot standards I think it requires 21 fet for parallel spaces so it looked like only seven was what we could add there give or take until we really dig that out and figure out what we have there um now did we look at right there under the 12 where it says main I thought we discussed uh using that as uh the more not parallel but the more Pullin style parking in that grassy area we look at that in that area the road was wide enough that we would not have to make any uh improvements or adjustments other than adding striping to add 12 parallel spaces there the North side of the road is full of curb cuts for the various businesses that exist or or no longer exist right but we what I'm what I'm talking about is on the on the south side of Baldwin right there basically where the where the 12 is converting that right now that's all a grassy area so converting that into pool in parking very much like we have the rest of the way we have to make adjustments to the Curve okay because there is a curve there right um so Mr Simmons and I went out there and measured that out um without making any improvements other than adding striping we could add 12 if we wanted to go with the angled parking it might require additional infrastructure improvements so this is a right and solution to that problem right but I think the point was we were going to present this to the CRA and ask the CRA to fund some of those improvements so that would be that would be part of the ask would be making those improvements to that to that area to to house more yeah if you go with the angled parking you could certainly get more than 12 there do we know roughly how much I don't have the dimensions in front of me um it looks like according to the scale it's greater than 400t if you went with an angled parking um generally those are 10 ft wide with an angle so you could get roughly 35 uh plus spaces if you went with an angle parking there gotcha okay um between Fifth and fourth we have the room it would require um additional payment additional infrastructure there right the distance there again where I put 40 on here that's an approximation um give or take a couple spaces and then down on Circle between Circle and well I believe it's still Circle there um be circleing I guess technically Sixth Street right yeah that's given the distance there we're looking at 45 approximately with that again would require additional Paving um additional infrastructure okay so for now our best low cost is the 12 and seven which doesn't help us out a whole lot um the 40 and 45 requires a little bit more investment either by the city or if CRA was willing to undertake that we could do that there yeah I I would like to revise the map to show on on the the left side of the graphic there where you've got the 12 spaces convert that from parallel parking to angled parking and because if we're going to ask the CRA to to fund that over on the right side where we've got the 40 and the 45 it makes sense to go and ask them to do the angled parking over there on what is effectively the West Side the left side of that graphic as well which would again we're already looking at it an extra 100 parking spaces so that would be more like 120 to 130 parking spaces yeah okay I can do that Mr Greg you have any no the angle parking you can't get more in on the angle parking absolutely so I agree with that 100% all right we're not taking any action but does is there any public comment on the discussion around the Downtown parking all right see none any anything else on that Mr Wallace no not this time I know that the CRA reviewed a uh parking study M they received I believe it was four um was it four responses to their RFP I helped review those with Josh we both agreed on the firm that appeared to be most qualified to perform that parking study and it was tabled at their last meeting and we'll be coming back up uh I believe with this meeting in August do you know off the top of your head if in the RFP what exactly was the the intent of the RFP right because I would hope that the the RFP stipulates that they are going to have specific recommendations about where the where we need to place more more Municipal parking or public parking you know what what do we have right now like not just yep here's your parking spaces like obviously we we could do that right so I'm hoping that the RFP is asking yeah there were a number of components included in that RFP one was to do account what do we have existing one of the components was to what is the current demand so they would come out I believe it was at three different times to actually do a count of how many spaces were being utilized and to also look at the demand in terms of what types of businesses were located downtown what is their expected parking demand and how does our supply compare to the demand but then to identify areas where we may be able to potentially add additional parking so that was in the RFP for them to identify additional uh potential areas where we could expand and improve our parking okay okay good deal all right we will move on to 4A chapter 14 nuisances Hazard and insanitary conditions um Mr sh if you'll you'll come up and kind of talk us through the revisions that we're made and then we can kind of maybe go with some comments I know I've got some comments on it as well so if you just kind of talk us through what you have changed well I added I added what Mr um councilman um Valley wanted regarding green roof and the um definition where is that on page two okay thank you where it talks about green roof is a vegetative roofing system okay so he wanted that in there um now he had notes as you see in there I'm going to have to get with him to um to decipher what he is requesting um I don't know do you have like on page four um you have his notes on that one at the bottom yeah I just handed those yeah so um now everything else basically is the same um in a lot of this I added on page five where he wanted where with the exemption of properly designed and installed green roof on H he wanted that and that was added and I added on all the other Pages where it talked about city council and added the magistrate sections in those those are like on page 1415 all the section regarding um process of um abatements so I had a question on that so I I kind of mentioned this to Clay and we kind of battered back and forth some ideas here but how much of this is duplicate of our magistrate ordinance because what i' much rather do is instead of duplicate what we already have I would much rather just cross reference and then that way we're not I would Cod we don't really do a lot of abatement in the section about talks about special magistrate and actually I am talking with um councilman not me city manager um Townsen we are trying to come up with a possible abatement procedure where we actually go ahead and Abate the properties and possibly put them on the tax rosters so would would it be more appropriate to take a lot of this that's in these later sections dealing with um duties of the magistrate procedures limitations time allowance notice of violation all this stuff here and move that into a comprehensive uh magistrate ordinance I think it will be a good idea to do that actually okay I'm I'm in I'm in full support of that clay do you have any any thoughts on that do we have a specific magistrate ordinance or is it we do okay well we have an ordinance that adopted the magistrate is part of our code with other sections but no I agree I think what you're proposing is the way we should go about it okay so that would certainly shorten up chapter 14 yes okay the only other comment I had was I I kind of wanted to just openly talk through um in section 42 on page P two Jesse if you want to scroll all the way back up to page two can we talk through the pros and cons of spe of specifying the 2021 edition of the international property maintenance code published blah blah blah blah blah in other words what are again what are the pros and cons of that are are we going to be in a gotcha situation somewhere down the road if we specify this and then we decide we want some flexibility or well right now it's based off my opinion if you don't use something black and white if you and I and Mr Kon go look at a piece of property and say is this property is in violation of Maintenance we all three may have a completely different opinion on something by having that code it is black and white if you have chipping peeling paint if you have dry dry rot if you have all this actually gives me a black and white book to go by as what it should be for maintenance for a piece of property especially a structure broken windows so it it's basically it takes out of opinion to what a basically a ruling in a way okay yes yeah I will say in my previous position we utilized the 2016 International property maintenance code um and it it did just that it gave we didn't have a magistrate we went before the judge but it did give a clear definition of this is a violation this is not um it's a very thorough um document that is universally used across the United States and would give not only Mr straw on a little more teeth to the ordinance but would also provide guidance to our magistrate when she is making a ruling based on that that property maintenance code so I believe it's been official to have that so is this is it updated every single year or is it generally they will update the international codes I mean they've got International property maintenance code and National Building Code um generally they're updated every two to three years but that doesn't mean that you have to update it right as the code is updated through we can we can use a 2021 addition as long as we want to um but is there is there a cleaner way to reference this and maybe say that by resolution which is a lot easier to to update versus ordinance that you know well if it's going to be part if we're actually going to use the this as something that's going to be able to be sworded for enforcement it needs to be part of our ordinance problem okay I I will say this I I completely understand where Mr Wallace is coming from you are going to prove correct councilman on certain issues there are certain times that that code may have something in it that is not how you or anybody in the city would fore something playing out and the first time that issue comes up and it's in that manual somebody's going to be on the receiving end of a very harsh lesson and the question is how do you go about it and ignorance of the law is not going to be offense magistrate could try to mitigate I guess to some degree but you do need to be mindful of it um perhaps there's a discussion we could have with regard to this is a technical standards manual that you know that in cases that are not plain violations of the existing code of ordinance of the city of the uniac Springs um the manual would be the default reference in cases of ambiguity or uncertainty and whether some you know maybe perhaps we don't get to do it in that way but you do need a guide book and it's either are you going to put the whole guide book in your code of ordinances or are you going to default to somewhere else but I can sit here and tell you I can't quote that book verbatim I don't think anybody in the city is going to be able to so it's G be when it comes up you're going to need to thumb to that page and see what's there yeah it's not exactly on my reading list at night but and so yeah so so there there's if there's some obscure reference that's going to catch 30 properties around in and around the historic district in a way we never thought can I promise you it's going to be there no I can't and so what I would say is that is always the danger when you go in to implement this without ever having had anything for an extended period of time but but I will say this if the if the city were looking at traffic studies and road implementations if we were to say we're using the it Mee we're going to find roads that are non-compliant with it all over this city find parking to ficient all over this city so the question is do you penalize someone under that or not and I guess that will will be the challenge you have to recognize is what does this adoption create or how does it get implemented right okay you have anything no I agree with him because the implementation is going to be the biggest thing about it that's what question me how you going to implement it you know you got it in no what that is a big question mark and as I as I observe strong times he he give him the letter and and stuff and it is what it is Mr SE have you had a chance to look through all of councilman Valley's notes or I have I didn't see until I got here so so I have I have looked through him like I said there's I'm going to have to reach out to him to decipher some of his I I I'm not quite sure what he's requesting like on page seven seems like this would be a moving Target I'm not quite sure what he's referring to so I'm going to have to reach out and get him to I guess maybe I I would take that as do we have current parking lot guidelines and specifications that we either have as a matter of policy or that we've adopted an ordinance or resolution new development we do right you I I kind of kind of sort of see his comment in do do you apply new development guidelines to something that's been there for 20 plus years I mean like I'm excited to see them Paving the parking lot over there that's the first thing I said Mr stra yeah when he show me the comments they're Paving you got the same issue where Tractor Supply is currently located right so there there needs to be some sort of parking lot maintenance standards do we make them develop them to our current standards in terms of uh landscape Islands Landscaping those types of things no but should they be free of potholes I think that is reasonable to ask I think um I know I get a lot of complaints about different parking lots I know Mr stra does as well and there's really nothing in there in our in section 18 of our code that really can require somebody toade maintenance repair feature it's what it has to be put in initially there's no ongoing maintenance obligation gotcha okay uh the actually I'm was fing back through this and this did remind me of another comment I had so if we can go to page nine section 14-10 mandatory uh utilities so should we should we page nine Jesse there there we go should we like under B during construction on development the primary structure for living purposes and such instance only during time construction development is actually underway should we put some acceptable hours of operation so that someone's not out there at 11 o'clock at night going what I'm working on my house 11 o'clock at night running a generator air compressor that sort of thing we can do that um I know a lot of standards are from basically 6:00 AM to usually 8 800 PM special I would say I I would be quite upset if someone came banging next to my house at 6:00 am. so maybe we we make it maybe we make it 7:30 or 8 make it a little more reasonable I know a lot of construction Crews like to start early in the morning when it's cool but 6: a.m. to me is a little reasonable so maybe we do 7 or 7:30 as a compromise to what time do you want I would say or dust oh in the winter time they're they're going they're at five o'clock when it gets dark but you're gonna have to worry about the summertime so I think we should be respectful of maybe people that have young ones that are trying to put them down at 6 7 o'clock so so 7 p.m. I would say 7 p.m. Clay is that that defensible I mean or is that a can of worms well I mean it's I mean look anytime you get into regulating what someone can do on their own piece of property you're going to open a can of worms what my caution to the city would be on these type of things is be mindful of whether we are getting into becoming more of a homeowner association than a city yeah and so we're dealing Nuance of Base bit blight so somebody says there's a guy out there hammering working on his house 7:30 Mr strong gets code complaint okay you go out there guys on his roof Hammer well as we're talking about right now and I I'm picking on you a little bit here counselman because if we got this far there would probably be exceptions written in but what you just say can we do it with the guy says the hail storm that came through here 30 minutes ago Mr strong just dropped a canalou size piece of hail through my roof and I got the rain pouring in and I'm hammering piece of wood up and some shingle to try to cover it am I not supposed to do it Mr Charles like well you can do it but here's your citation you say s o'clock it means 7 o'clock so what do we that's the kind of situation I would also say it seemed like we're drifting into the noise or issue which we have we understand there's a need to try to address noise and nuisance but perhaps the noise ordinance if we're really going to ever go into that that might be the cleaner option because is somebody painting their house at 7 o'l in the middle of the summer working on the house is it just noise based what is the nuisance that becomes the question so we would have to Define it and it seems to be the nuisance would likely be noise face well as you saying though for B right there actually we're only talking about using a generator so we're making an exception that a generator can be used for construction purposes and um actually I gave Chief Hurley a noise ordinance from cres viiew that actually deals with construction times so I know he's working on that which I think is what you're more concerned about during the time frames right that might be better cleaner way to address all this okay yeah because actually looking at this 1410 it doesn't mention the word generator until you get all the way down to C yeah well actually it doesn't a but the operative claws get you under SE the way it's broken out right okay so we clear as mud on that one well B is mostly for if you are um let's say you have a temp poll up or something right yeah so is the consensus from what I'm hearing from you guys to basically leave leave that time stipulation out of this and we can address that under noise ordinance is that word on hearing I do want to Okay so we'll we'll leave it at that then anything else you have any any other comments Mr Strawn on the only other comment I had was on the very last page page 19 if that was something that you were wanting to consider or think about this would actually assist with the public work section where individuals would take care of the rows in front of their properties this is right up your alley you have spoken to the council about this one before and this is a conversation Mr Valley did won't get to chim in on so I'll let mran go first well I was in Europe in 1980 and I noticed what they did when I was over there the Germans taking sweep from their door to the next door that door to the next door all the way to the corner and they pick up the trash with no problem and the same thing we do with the garbage but we here I notice since I've been cutting them 30 years we don't we don't sweep from one door to the next we don't cut from one door next they say oh let the city have that but the gr area on that is that everybody have a different idea but I just can't stand it when I'm cutting I want that yard I want look nice all the way across but everybody's not like that I personally cut mine not like that that's a city well making your propit look 100% better and when busit pass around it's going to look nice they're gonna say hey hey they keep that up right there but everybody don't have the same idea so I I think it need to be some teeth into that a little bit because everybody don't have the same attitude on it it need to be some teeth in I think I don't know how you will enforce it on the legal side Council but U I think it ought to be a requirement of it because excuse me I'm sorry because a lot of times this neighbor do that because he ticked off with the other one I'm leave I'm G leave it like that I I ain't Miss with it because I don't like him I don't like her but we need some things in place for that that is important it'll help the beautification of the city I cut City propit all the time I is all right yeah I cut the kind of RightWay all the time is all right yeah I said said if you're going to find me go ahead I you keep cutting I said I'm just exercising my taxpaying dollar you know I'm saving it I had a account of commission to another week cut all you want okay so I I think we need to have a little teeth into that really that that that really and I it helps the city because they can move along much faster much faster and they ain't got that section I cut over a mile section and guy said man I know when you've been through he said we can just we can move we get all this but most people not like that but we need a little tee into that it would help the city especially being short on Manpower I agree and it's not uncommon that you mow the say you've got a sidewalk you've got four feet of maybe grass between the back of the sidewalk in the back of the curb um it may not be your property but it's still your front yard and I think it should be the responsibility the homeowner to maintain that um so I think this is important to have uh it would save the city in the county Resources by requiring Property Owners to do this um I don't think it's unreasonable to require it I have I have a specific legal question but I think some of it might get addressed by your comment however I will say Chris to your point um maybe this needs to specify just front yards because for example my mom owns some uh a rental house on Bruce and there's an old Alleyway Infamous Alleyway is of DEC Springs and the city allowed bamboo to grow up in that Alleyway to where it was impassible and then the bamboo was then falling on her fence and damaging her fence and so is she responsible for for that in that in that Alleyway or is the city the way this is written she would be responsible for that but long before her the city allowed that that RightWay to become overgrown with bamboo that was they they you know they had to get heavy equipment in there to clear it out so yeah I think we could probably somehow in here specify that any um improved ride of way because you do have those we've got many Alleyways in the city that have never been improved right um I think what Mr strong was really going for here was on the Frontage in your front yard that is located on a improved Street yeah yeah I agree with that so so Council M Valley had a number of comments I'll let him speak to all of his in full when he gets the opportunity um was not I think I can fairly say he had some concerns about this specific provision more than anything else in this primarily coming from the idea that you're putting a cost on the owners um and it's a matter of you're telling them to go out and improve that if someone has a larger track of land it's going to cost them more money than someone with a smaller track of land um and then also what what do we get into if their maintenance of that RightWay causes problems for the city you told me to go do it the best I could do is what I did and that's prob or vice versa what if the right of way in the city has obstructions debris or other things that were placed in there by the city that make it difficult for them to maintain are we subjecting ourselves to liability when they damage mowers hitting rocks pipes other things that we left and our RightWay because hey it's our RightWay we can leave this cber sticking here we can leave this pip sticking up we don't need to stub it all for Buri it it's the city we can do what we want we have that all over the city where we have those type of infrastructure um I I'll I think he raises good questions I'll say this this is one of those areas is it is common I want to be very clear it is common but I would encourage all of you to look at where it is common and circumstances in which it is common I don't know that you're going to find it being very common in a city such as ours where the vast majority of property that within the city is not something where there is private RightWay or private roadway um and that the right of way is not jointly dedicated or that is not RightWay dedicated as part of planed subdivisions and things of that nature where the city maintains the road maintains that the passing along to the individual owners is where you do see challenges one thing that I would suggest to be mindful of is so Mr strong another there and pick on Chris because he's a code enforcement guy I don't want anybody who's watching or listening think I'm just picking on Chris because I don't like him but let's say Mr strong goes out and someone has the right of way in front of their house that is grown up and you go issue we're talking about nuisances and what we want to update and we're defining things as nuisance and the goal is for abatement and so we're putting this in place because we're saying we need to Abate this nuisance it's potential has and that person comes in and says why been f x number of dollars go to it okay and if I were to do it it's going to cost me X number of dollars but I paid the cityx number of dollars in taxes last year what did I pay the city taxes for because that's not my property that's your property so did to Mr Wallace's point I guess Playing devil's advocate there yeah it's the front yard but it's not the property it's our property and so you're going to put a lean on their property for not maintaining our property and if they say I'm not going to pay it we're going to pour clothes on their house because they we didn't maintain theirs and so what happens when the city mows one person's yard what we're calling their front yard parls we're using here today let see right away once a month the most somebody else is in the cities once every three months did somebody get the raw into of the de well if the guy who got it m every 3 months gets his house forclosed on by the city and that's point in time I promise you we will have an equal protection claim a select a prosecution claim and a pretty good taking step um at a minimum so what I would say the challenge here is this all of that presents problems but there is a larger problem I've looked into since we last talked about this that jumped out and I I called this out earlier in this com in my comments about if staff that's reviewed this elsewhere can tell me that the place that do this have clearly dedicated RightWay on plats and that okay we see that but here's groups that don't have any dedicated RightWay I'll gladly revisit the decision but a lot of our RightWay in the city is depicted on what we call right of way Ms that matters a great deal because under 95 36 1 95361 of Florida statute it is the right of ways presumed dedication statute of Florida PL and what Florida law says on that point is when we build a right way and maintain it for a specified period of time we own that property whether we ever owned it before but if we improve a right way storm water ditches shoulder of road if we build it we maintain it direct number of years it's ours how do we give it do you sue the people absolutely not do you ask a judge to give it to you absolutely not do you go pay them a takings claim no wild as this may sound you file a map with the clerk that says this is our RightWay map with a 95 361 designation on it and it's yours and it's not your right it's not an Ean it is the property of the city of that moreover you can do that even if you don't originally build the RightWay RightWay just so happens to be there if you didn't originally construct the road so a private subdivision gets put in roads are put in Tim to get turned over but the city maintains the RightWay just got to maintain it for a longer period of time I will tell you that we've all heard well we have prescriptive rights lot we have prescriptive rights over that access or over that right away this is what people are actually talking about whenever you hear that that nine out of 10 times y'all don't need me to give you real property 101 and talk about the law of prescription and all of that but I will simply say they're really talking about 95361 and it's not a prescriptive right it's a full ownership right because the vast majority of RightWay in this city just take the original being Kirk man no right away dedication on that it's actually not a plan it predates the record plan statute there's right way all over there if we don't have a 95361 claim to our continuous maintenance of it it's not ours whose is it I think we all can probably think of government entities all around that have woken up to the harsh realities where they thought they own something and didn't and then l b had to deal with it or thought they had rights that were not consistent with what the law said and have to dig out of it later what I would suggest here is you're about to shift the RightWay maintenance burden completely off of the city because you're going have an ordinance says you have to go do this so if we ever get challenged on a piece of RightWay I would hope the city would have Grace to me if I am your counsel in that scenario when I go before a judge and the judge says well this guy says he's been mowing it for the past seven years so y'all don't have the seven years of uninterrupted use from the time the dispute arose well judge we think we've been maintaining it too well have y'all ever cited him for violating the code because it was his responsibility no well he must have been doing it then presumptions against you his property not yours it will be his front yard then and then we can enforce it but what happened to all of the improvements we did what about storm water what about I'm not telling you that there is a long list of cities and counties that have found this to be a problem but I will tell you I have not found very many cities that have developed in the way the func Springs primarily is developed where rways are primarily not part of subdivision plans and I I would just say I mean Mr Wallace since you've been here we've done quite a few plans and PLS I would venture to say since you've been here we probably have H we've probably done half as many plats of subdivisions in the city of defunc during your tenure as we had in the city total in its history prior to getting here Chris is nodding in agreement thinking I'd ask y'all to think around about where subdivisions actually are not the lakeyard not the vankirk map but actual true subdivisions without those it creates an issue so I I would say this if this is really the goal that there be maintenance of those rights I think we probably need to be very tailored in how it's presented um perhaps only in those right of ways that we don't assert a dedication right to perhaps um it be for new development is another way to look at it and I realize everything I'm saying basically makes this worthless for everything that's already on the ground pretty much but but I would say this if someone if you want me to go to court and defend the case where someone says well I can't do anything in that right way I bought this piece of property knowing it was encumbered by City RightWay so I don't own it I don't pay tax I technically don't pay taxes on it but I pay taxes on my property and I am restricted from how far I have to set back from city right away my water meters and things like that have to be set relative to City RightWay and here I am in a subdivision with a dedicated RightWay my property is encumbered by the city property why am I now taking over maintenance of city property so I just I I would suggest that we would need to be very tailored in how we would roll this out and what we're presenting here unfortunately is going to be broad enough that we're going to find far more challenges against it that have a good argument and that's where I'm going to be coming back the city manager and Mr strong and saying well guys on this one maybe we can't do it and then the next time well we did it on this one what about this yeah but this one's a little different too and nothing makes Chris want to strangle me more when I have to tell him well actually don't will this would that's the case but all of that is being said you need something where he's able to say yes this is how it's going to work every single time so if that is the goal we will do what we can to enforce it but I would tell you that since our last meeting when this first came up in my review of the 95361 issue I do see a lot of potential challenge we have in opening up unintended consequences uh here however that is not to say [Music] that there is there have not been a lot of other efforts by communities that do this and to establish that there have to be some degree of routine maintenance of the property to allow the right of way not to become in disrepair and so there are things like that you can look at the Junction between the property you can't let a tree fall on the property into the city right away and well your problem City and there's a double-edged sword here you got to be willing to swing that sword at the person who lets the tree fall your right away expect you to clean it up but understand do we have an obligation to mow right away that would be the case but we're going to have a lot of case specific scenarios I think councilman Val's point also does indicate that there is probably a you know what do you do with large trackers so my question to you to you and even to you is this really an issue that is worth opening the can of worms that Council just no I mean I brought this forward just to see if there something that interested you and um councilman Valley and Mr michon if it's something also the possibility of freeing up some of the public works because I do know they're tied up a lot of times having to mow different sections um of rideways and it's all day process and once they get finished with one then they have to loop back around and start doing it again so but um it won't hurt my feelings to strike it either I'm in favor of just pitching it entirely I think it opens up a m worms on your new development what can you do to go on forward with that oh I I think U I think we can certainly look at putting language in Land Development code that to the extent that um once the roads are turned over to the city that RightWay maintenance will be the responsibility the owner within those developments to keep rways clean maintained free of instructions free of overgrowth so the the city can access it and use it as need be for all RightWay purposes we can build language in like that all the time and we can start looking at that that that would be my my preferences that we we strike this but we may make a me mental note or even a a record of it that we want to include this in the LDC it would be in the LDC language right it would okay as part of development be development requirement okay any public comment on this particular okay all right anything else to discuss on chapter 14 yeah so Council M Valley did ask me to also mention and I think it's been touched on a little bit bit broadly before so I'm not going to belor it he does want that if we're going to proceed with additional nuisance abatement issues that he wants the CRA brought into that discussion on the front end whether it's some type of he didn't specify a meeting between us this is my own words I'm guess I'm suggesting that from this conversation I think it's consistent with the what he's talking about they are tasked with black mediation and if we're talking about a bait we're moving in a nuisance of bait those two if they don't overlap or aren't the same thing they definitely butt up against each other he's not saying he doesn't want us to do this he just wants to make sure we make it clear this is not in Li of their responsibility and we also don't need to duplicate efforts if they're already doing X Y and Z then that is the case um that is also one of those situations that perhaps um those are the discussions that may need to be engaged in about and I'm not going to specifically call the right of way maintenance back up but certainly because there's some obligations why we need to do that as a local government not the CRA but there may be issues like that where we believe there is some Community Ser Community serving benefit to the owner maintaining property or maintain out at a certain distance that may become something that CRA could maintain as is part of their obligation so he does want to make sure CRA is brought into the PO but that would be the primary issues okay all right anything else sir okay all right clay do we want to take a first run at chapter 16 I can we can talk about it again I think we're going to spend the most the bulk of the time that we're going to have to talk about here is going to be once we get Council M Valley back based on my discussion with him this afternoon but I will broadly say that what we want to do with chapter 16 if we want to just talk about we have parts and regulations covered here and then we talk about regulations a very shortly defined list of about 13 items um and then we have specific requirements ready to Chipley Park and then we put the amphitheater hang on one second hey Jesse you'll pull up a browser window and just go to 1611 to uh you can go to the city website and do the municipal code and then pull up that way we can all see [Music] so and while he's pulling that up what I'll say broadly is you have some specific restrictions in language about Chipley Park and Lake defunc you have a little bit of language about the Chipley Park Amphitheater we previously talked about moving this kind of under City properties broadly and addressing regulation of city-owned property which would cover buildings Parks Etc and do that but what I would say is your regulation section needs to be reviewed and what I would encourage you to look at is how much of what's in our regulation section is really where we want this to stand um you know we've got language in there it says it goes back to 2001 but I can tell you I went back and looked and nine of these go back as far as 1950 um probably 1611 d a being the biggest one if Jesse you can scroll down I thought we Revis some of this when we Rev the alcohol ordinance that was in a different section that's why we need to bring 16 into it it's a higher section of the code where we addressed it okay so this is why we're going to merge all these together but for instance right now it's unlawful to use profanity within a park playground Recreation Area I don't think we've ever given out Citation for that I hope we aren't going to start because I'm not sure the First Amendment um is going to give us a lot of cover depending on what profanity is defined as u in the late 40s early 50 I recognize the concepts of morality probably dictated some of these language but also the first amendment jur Prudence on those type of designations was not as cutting I would say um we did talk about property but you your point was exactly where I was going to be we don't allow the consumption of intoxicating beverages while on any public park playground or facility yet we have allowed elsewhere so do we need to bring that into Conformity well we didn't at the time I believe counil mcnight didn't want to open that door as as far as a discussion he felt it needed to happen only in the certain areas to avoid what would be opposition I don't think we had any opposition so maybe something to review um we have the unique inclusion of skateboarders um frankly d probably sums up about everything you really would want if you wanted just to say look each Park is going to be governed by the rules set um will post rules but when you say all posted rules shall be strictly observed it means you got to go post them right and if you don't post these roles this whole list then they're not to be strictly observed so some of this is just clean up but what I would really encourage you as you look through this I can make a very strong case for a lot of what's here however I can also make a case that some of it probably doesn't need to be there and we probably need some more um and what I would suggest to you is the best way to tackle this entire discussion is what are don't have to limit yourself to 10 but your ten commandments so to speak of what your fixed list of highlevel guiding rules relative to city parks are let's put this in city parks let's make this regulations for City properties let's make it consistent so that if somebody can if somebody parks around Circle Drive goes to the Wine Walk about or Mo bro they walk out to their car they go to get the passenger side of their car well they shouldn't have an open container they go over there and step that side of the car they're holding that cup moment they Ste and chipped apart they're breaking the law so perhaps we need a what are we doing on city property City street city parks broadly and then focus on each individualized park or there certain things we want the example of that while we're not obviously looking like we're pressing too far ahead right now um until we get through more of these discussions is the smoking in City Parkers that's a blanket regulation we need to do it it needs to be here if it's not going to be in every park it doesn't need to be in any park it's it's an all or none type of discussion on some of this stuff um we have a language there parking sh would be allowed and designated parking areas that's only covered four other times in the code but yet here it is I mean so it's things like that that I want this committee to be ready to talk about when we come back about what do we want everywhere so here's the question to take you down to Chipley Park Jesse if we can scroll down just a little bit please yeah there we go so it's unlawful for any person to cause any horse to enter Chipley Park how we do that at least once a year with the parade well unless they if they actually get the park you do but um you know if it's just on Circle Drive perhaps not but donkeys are okay right now they are as our goats mules I mean look I mean they you know I mean I can be very phous and say look we might want to let a bunch of goats out if we want to maintain a RightWay I am not serious about that but what I suggesting is yes that's exactly what the presumption is you can you can have a goat lakeyard but you can't have a horse can't have a donkey uh you can't have a cow I mean you can have every form of livestock you want to talk about you can't have a horse now I can imagine there are reasons why and this back goes back to the 60s it looks like orance 4:15 72 is what it say well that's say section 72 um 441 was done in 1977 I would suspect 40 415 was done in the early 60s based on the city's orance adoption schedules was that a problem well I wasn't here then but I would say it could have been and so somebody put it in but we we've updated the swimming obviously um by having the council designate times right um no person shall operate or being a motorboat in Lake depc um and then we talk about one horsepower electric motors well what I would point out to you on this is if horses aren't okay in chiple Park why are they okay in any park right why are they okay in every Park of this city but Chipley Park and somebody's probably eggs my house for saying it but wouldn't it make more sense for the horses to be in Chipley Park than in say the little park over there where our tennis courts are or Pat koville Park where there's clearly no room for them and one would think that that would be the more logical one but there's a reason they put that in effect and I'm not advocating changing it but I'm advocating if there's an animal restriction we should put an animal restriction that clearly defines what's not allowed there now we can't deal with service animals we're not going to but we need to look at it um I think that goes back to our the animal ordinance that we've already passed up to the council for adoption well but the animal ordinance broadly applies I think for your city parks you can um that's talking about the keeping of allowing things like that we need to look at the cross references and so when we get there but what I would say is I use the horse as my example here for some reason in ordinance number 4:15 city council said horses don't need to be in Chipley Park we don't care where else they are fair enough what other things do we not want in chiple park that can go everywhere else and vice versa what do we want in some parts not others so that's after you get your high level your Ten Commandments your Top Line discussion Park RS Are there specific things we don't want any Chipley Park could become a discussion about the regulation of late dep punc if you wanted to be technical about it right but it is unlawful for any person to operate or Park a vehicle in the lakeyard except an area specifically designated by the city council where are those areas designated are there any I don't know I've never seen right 40 plus years I don't think there's a i I don't know that's accurate but Vehicles nonetheless get parked in there at times so I think those are the things I'm going to encourage you to look at that's where I'd like us to start the discussion when we come back is over overarching park rules with the city what we want to see and then Are there specific things we want to call out into specific areas of the city just like we have specific things that what works in the Civic Center May different for the h so it's have those and um I definitely want to remove the uh fee section and move that into ordinance and that needs to be in resolution yes sir I'm sorry yes resolution yeah we already do that for we do that for the vast majority of our fees Brotherhood yeah yeah waiver fees same thing okay so those are my big comments for tonight we come back and we'll pick up there and talk about that but what I need to know from you is more of your thoughts about what those overarching Park regulations are because if I can get a sense of where you're going there I think we can guide the individual Park discussion a lot easier so that's where I wanted to start with that otherwise it's could be formatting formatting formatting of us pulling these sections from above of some of these City facilities that we talked about 6.5 Center in shop Auditorium will get brought in so Mr Greg do you have anything a lot to take in that's why I want to give yall some I want to give youall some food for thought and I said i' certainly share that same with Mr Valley so he can come back prepar do we have any public comment this is exhilarating conversation upow interesting Tuesday night it was one guy you had a horse in the park ruined it for everybody yeah ruined it for everybody all right we will move on from chapter 16 so we will go to the committee priority list see I think you're probably tracking right where you have been with it where we stand right now we can't really move anything off of it because of the circumstances of us being in Workshop passion anyway right thatal agreement so no no nobody has any comments or questions about parties we good to move on from that one yes sir all right we'll move on to the code review tracking sheet so it looks like we are going to probably continue our discussion on 14 and 16 into September that'll be at our next meeting and then I think we can open the discussion moving down to the next section of the code um if we would like to go ahead and have that because I think we are making good Headway on 14 I think we're in a position where we would like to move on and discuss um 17 which is Peddlers and leners and canvassers that will probably um dovetail nicely into some of our chapter 16 discussion because I imagine there should be some prohibition of some of that that we do want in the Parks um that may not be broadly across other properties so so let's move 15 and 12 to October yeah 15 is one that I think we might as well continue to slide for quite a while that is offense is miscellaneous for anybody looking for it and it is a very broad section of the code I think once we work through most of the code we will find that 15 is going to be the catch all that gets placed at the end of the code anyway yeah and 12 I definitely want to dedicate some good time to because that was 12 is going to taxations we've got a lot of yep y got that Mr clerk yes thank you all right we will move on to Citizen comment come on come on up state your name for the record please hey I'm Teresa Ford um owner fory barbecue and also president our local crwc our crew has been putting on a festival for 12 years now and we always find it difficult that your ordinance for I'm reading special event permits can't be placed further than third 90 days in advance okay we are the only Marty Gro crew in Walton County and we travel like all the crews to all the others most of the other Crews know at least a year out if not longer if we could get ours our date approved at least a year out it would help us tremendously be able to bring more crews into this and it would have a better response a bigger Festival we've always had a great Festival but it's been very difficult so we would ask if y'all would be considerate and change I don't know if it's for everybody for somebody's done it for so many years whatever and give us a chance to have the date set out a year in advance okay what um I know it's not technically on our agenda but we are workshopping so to kind of put you on the spot Chris any downside to strong on the spot actually it's under chapter 18 section 1871 which unfortunately Falls underne plan development code which you have farther down on the list but I mean but if we were wanting to just change that one section because right now it basically says you cannot submit application less than seven days and it cannot be passed 90 days now if you want to allow them to go up one year we can as as a easy change by just changing one section in there right do what ma'am is it Reserve day yes so basically let's say Main Street wants to do um Mary Street Market but they want to do it in J they want to basically in January do the application right technically I'm not supposed to allow them to do it right so but this would actually allow them to claim that time period on Bald Avenue before everyone else does any is there any downside to extending it out to lot people a full year no what what is some of the problem is I think ma'am is that U you need more time because they counsel L and some of them you can't get because conflict time in the area is that what you see is it so so you really need more time with it so I understand I understand what she said she need more time now yeah there I'm just saying from a from a city perspective is there yes ma'am goad and state your name for the record Cindy perer I do the rentals and so they can rent the amphitheater a year in advance so they can have their M gr special their Festival this weekend and next week they can come in and do it for the same week but yet they can't do the special event permit until later although they have the amphitheater rented so they've got a date for the amphitheater but they can't make promises for anything else logistically there is no reason that you can't do this um what I would say um I've dealt with this some other jurisdictions I would perhaps encourage that if applicate that um if we were to change the language and I'm not get how we write the language right now because I can give you a couple different methods of doing it but what I would suggest is that events that have occurred either continuously for a certain number of years and we don't have to make it 20 years it can be five years but something that's shown attract record of participation in community um shall be permitted to apply um up to one year in advance following the completion of their prior event and then the way it is typically worded is you put that in there provided that no violations of city code of of local code or law or the previous permit issued were identified at time so you let them get through one event they can go ahead and put their next one in and come back give them you know come in the week after as long as there not been a violation you let them do it what you will see a lot of places will not do is allow people to book that far out for new events because it would allow someone to come in if they wanted just to book things up right and um that's the circumstance and if somebody books up and cancels they would lose the right to have that much future booking in advance um the point of the 90 days has been to allow for neness to allow people to come up with events and not just have something booked out in a long form but if it's somebody that's already doing it and planning it out I see no reason six months is clearly a common number that a lot of places use I don't see a problem with going to a year I do think having multi-year bookings becomes problematic Chris strong did you say that was under 18 under Land Development it is yes sir 18 18 section 18 71 yep why do we have special event under Land Development because it was originally part of the temporary use regulations and so it is actually article nine special event temporary use regulations and so then special events became its own thing special events got updated into this very wordy version of an ordinance in 881 which happened in 2017 whereas the temporary uses 1872 which deals with garage sales did not change so anybody reading this no that was not added in 2017 but then temporary uses was amended in the same one and amended again in 2023 so what you're dealing with is a scenario that it is somewhat codification I'm not going to tell you that there is a cocation issue with ordinance 8:30 and ordinance 88 one dealing with those two sections that probably should not have been done the way munico did it years ago but that's why it's there and it probably does need to be pulled out into licenses and permits which is the one we just referenced we're going to be talking about in the near future however if that's something that y'all feel comfortable with there's no reason can't address that next Council and ask for that ordinance to be updated out of sequence to go ahead and open that up don't want to do that too often but it's but is literally a one land change I I'm fine I'm fine with what you presented if if they're consistent they haven't been there hasn't been trouble in the past there hasn't been ordinance violations or or any kind of law violations they're an established event and and the body grow event is a fantastic event that has a great reputation so so I'm in support of supporting those type of events that have a positive reputation of completing and not being troubled yes melen Henderson of the city I can remember one year it's been quite a while back that I had a permit for the sale around the circle and on the same day I applied somebody else supplied for the 5K s around the circle since it was on private property and didn't require road closures didn't go to the council but the 5K did and they effectively closed every road that nobody could get to our event that had been approved so we had a fight here at City Hall it was nice but um it got resolved because one person backed out and chose another date yeah we we definitely have um you know in the past I know um Mr Sangle was very um forward with his belief about not scheduling all the city scheduling two events on one day because he had Peddler's alley and then a lot of times there was other things going on elsewhere within the city but his his opinion was that there was one event within the city and that was it so we've certainly had our issues in the past deconflict it um but no I perhaps what we do is that next council meeting we put on the next council meeting agenda maybe well we can some prob get there if we want to and um direct the manager that while the ordinance says not more than 9 days in advance to provide an exception on a limited term basis until we come back with the ordinance revision for anyone that has a facility rental associated with it because it sounds like y are going have a facility rental so if they go ahhe if they have already booked a facility of the city that will go and Grant a special event permit to match up to that facility rental we can do that without amending the ordinance that can be done in one meeting with one temporary direction to manager I'll get you an agenda form to to you think you can work on putting that new business doing that have to be under the council yes sir special event permits special event permits um associated with facility runs will be the type put in a new business and we'll get a direction and change that would start that that'll save us a lot of time and help them right now y another thing if you if you will come to the podium please so we can get it on record another thing that causes concern until until you have an approved date you dare not do very much advertising and for some things you need more than 90 days absolutely so um I like six months is very much the common one but if you're Renning a city facility and you're able to do that a year out matching the permit up might be the cleanest option for sure let's make it consistent so we'll get that addressed at the next council meeting now that would probably be good so everybody can hear what you're why you're asking but we're going to be Monday [Music] night here five o' 12 at5 any other citizen comment than we go all right with that we will call this meeting themselves thank y'all that is a hard fast rule by the way