BOOK 51 Page 22953 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF APRIL 1, 2002, AT 2:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Mayor Mary J. Quillin, Commissioners Richard F. Martin and Lou Ann R. Palmer, Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor Commercial Vehicle Ad Hoc Committee (CVAHC) : Members Jay Brady, Mark Collins, Don Gilliland, and John Browning, representing Member Linda Holland ABSENT: Commissioner Mary Anne Servian, CVAHC Members Connie Maultsby, Linda Holland, and Joseph Moraca, and City Manager Michael A. McNees PRESIDING: Mayor Mason The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(b) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 2:05 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. INTRODUCTION RE: PARKING REGUIATIONS OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (AGENDA ITEM I-A) CD 2:08 through 3:00 Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that at the February 20, 2001, public hearing concerning proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121, the Commission unanimously passed a motion to allow continued study of proposed revisions to the Zoning Code regarding the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zone districts; that Staff convened a workshop of the Commercial Vehicle Ad Hoc Committee (CVAHC) on May 15, 2001, to provide all parties the opportunity to present new information and reach a consensus; that the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA) submitted a written proposal; however, no consensus to CCNA's proposal was reached by CVAHC; that CVAHC was polled and the consensus was another CVAHC Workshop would not be productive; that at the August 20, 2001, Regular Commission Meeting, a motion was passed to schedule a joint meeting with the Commission and CVAHC; that the remaining issues are policy decisions requiring ultimate resolution by the Commission; that at the February 20, 2001, Regular Commission meeting, a motion was passed denying proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 concerning commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods and directing Staff to continue enforcing the City's current regulations prohibiting the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zone districts; that Staff is enforcing the current prohibition as directed. Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission previously requested a joint meeting with CVAHC; that all CVAHC members are not present; however, some important members are present at the current meeting; that evening and weekend code enforcement initially commenced in the summer of 1995 sO code enforcement inspectors could proactively enforce codes outside of normal business hours; that the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zone districts has been a concern for many years; that the Commission heard the issue in December 1995; that the Commission directed Staff to study the issue of parking of commercial vehicles in residential zone districts and requested Staff limit code enforcement to commercial vehicles larger than standard trucks which was performed until February 2001; that no active code enforcement activities were previously conducted against standard three-quarter ton trucks or vans. Mr. Litchet continued that in February 2001, active code enforcement of the existing prohibition of commercial vehicles in residential zone districts commenced; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) and the Commission held ten public hearings and four workshops; that two issue papers and a year's work by CVAHC attempted to provide a positive solution; that the issue regarding commercial vehicles in residential zone districts is difficult and requires closure. Mr. Litchet referred to the minutes of the February 20, 2001, Commission public hearing included in the Agenda backup material and stated that 17 concerned citizens and neighborhood association members spoke at the public hearing; that the Commission's consensus was proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 was too liberal; therefore, the Commission voted against proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 and directed Staff to enforce the current prohibition of commercial vehicles in residential zone districts and to continue study of the issue. Mr. Litchet continued that at the May 15, 2001, Joint Workshop, the Commission and CVAHC were presented with new information in an BOOK 51 Page 22954 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22955 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. attempt to reach a consensus; that CCNA subsequently presented a new proposal which was debated but did not result in a consensus; that further CVAHC meetings were not scheduled; that the Commission instructed Staff to schedule a joint meeting of the Commission and CVAHC which is the current meeting. Mr. Litchet referred to the document entitled Commercial Vehicle Matrix (Issue Matrix) included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the differences between proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121, CCNA's proposal, and a proposal presented recently by the Gulf Coast Builder Exchange (GCBE), Inc., will be compared; that a decision regarding commercial vehicles in residential zone districts will not be easy or pleasing to everyone; that the goal of the current meeting is to reach a consensus which reasonably accommodates the community's interests and the City's ability to enforce; however, the consensus will not accommodate every commercial vehicle owner; that the current regulations regarding commercial vehicles in residential zone districts have been in effect since the Zoning Code (1974 ed.) completely banned commercial vehicles in residential zone districts; that the regulations do not provide a definition of a commercial vehicle which is a deficit; however, the regulations regarding the ban on commercial vehicles in residential zone districts are currently being enforced as directed by the Commission at the February 20, 2001, public hearing. Mr. Litchet continued that the City has an obligation to prove a vehicle is utilized commercially which can be difficult; that numerous cases involving semi-trucks and yard- and lawn-maintenance vehicles have been brought forward for violations; that the regulations banning commércial vehicles in residential zone districts are currently being actively enforced; that code enforcement inspectors routinely inspect neighborhoods in different zone districts; that the night and weekend code enforcement inspectors assume normal duties but are also advised to investigate illegal commercial vehicle storage; that code enforcement inspectors are advised to expect to find numerous commercial vehicles in residential zone districts and to concentrate on the larger vehicles prior to citing the smaller vehicles; that proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 as recommended by CVAHC was not approved by the Commission, which was of the opinion the restrictions were too liberal; that the amount of public input was minimal until the February 20, 2001, Commission public hearing at which 17 persons addressed the Commission. Mr. Litchet further stated that input of the public as reflected in the minutes of the February 20, 2001, public hearing was definitive; that a compromise may now be within reach; that the principal areas of contention are: weight, height, signage, and trailer limits. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the number of citations issued and the zone districts in which commercial vehicles have been cited since February 20, 2001. Mr. Litchet stated that specific data regarding the quantity and location of citations is unknown; however, the data can be obtained if the Commission wishes; that the process of code enforcement commences with a door-hanger notice of violation to notify the resident of a code enforcement issue; that a reasonable time is provided for the resident to rectify the code violation; that a citation is issued as a last resort. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that data regarding the locations of code violations, the types of violation, and the neighborhoods in which the violations are most prevalent would be helpful. Mr. Litchet stated that the requested data can be obtained and provided to the Commission. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the data can be obtained for the current meeting? Mr. Litchet stated that Staff will attempt to obtain the requested data for the current meeting; and continued that Issue I of the Issue Matrix is as follows: Ordinance No. 99-4121 and Issue I: CCNA's Proposal Parking commercial vehicles Allowed with limitations in residential zone districts Mr. Litchet continued that CCNA and GCBE are in agreement regarding a limitation on the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zone districts; and continued that Issue II is as follows: Issue II CCNA Proposal Ordinance No. 99-4121 Weight limit Under 6,000 lbs. empty Under 17,000 lbs. base curb weight (BCW) gross vehicle weight (GVW) BOOK 51 Page 22956 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22957 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet stated that CCNA proposed allowing commercial vehicles of under 6,000 pounds of BCW in residential zone districts; that proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 allowed commercial vehicles of under 17,000 lbs. GVW; that GCBE recently proposed an allowance of under 12,000 GVW; and continued that Issue III is as follows: Issue III CCNA Proposal Ordinance No. 99-4121 Height limit 6.5 feet including 9 feet including tools tools and rack and rack Mr. Litchet stated further that CCNA proposed a 6.5-foot height limit including tools and rack; however, the tools must be stored in the vehicle; that proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 indicates a 9-foot height limit including tools and rack; that GCBE proposed an 8-foot height limit including the tools and rack which is a 1.5-foot difference from CCNA'S proposal and continued that Issue IV is as follows: Issue IV CCNA Proposal Ordinance No. 99-4121 Signage None visible from public No limitations rights-of-way or stored in front setback area Mr. Litchet stated that CCNA proposes no visible signage from the public rights-of-way or in the front setback area; that proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 provides and GCBE proposes no limitation for signage; and continued that Issue V is as follows: Issue V CCNA Proposal Ordinance No. 99-4121 Tools None allowed if stored in Tools must be safely unbuffered front setback and securely stored Mr. Litchet stated that CCNA proposed no tools should be allowed if the commercial vehicle is stored in an unbuffered frontyard setback; that proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 provides and GCBE proposes tools may be visible provided storage is safe and secure. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if ladders are considered tools? Mr. Litchet stated yes. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if tools or ladders are allowed on commercial vehicles in residential zone districts? Mr. Litchet stated that CCNA's proposal would allow no tools or ladders on commercial vehicles in a residential zone district; that the positive and negative aspects of the proposals are not being discussed at the time; that the issues are only being presented; and continued that Issue VI is as follows: Issue VI CCNA Proposal Ordinance No. 99-4121 Number of One visible if One visible if vehicles conditions met; conditions met; unlimited garaged or unlimited if garaged fully buffered or fully buffered; additional vehicles allowed in carport Mr. Litchet further stated that CCNA's proposal allows for one vehicle if conditions are met and an unlimited number if the vehicles are garaged or fully buffered; that proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 allows one visible commercial vehicle if conditions are met and additional vehicles if garaged or fully buffered; that additional vehicles are allowed in a carport; and continued that Issue VII is as follows: Issue VII CCNA Proposal Ordinance No. 99-4121 Prohibited As listed in Ord. 99- As listed and allows vehicles 4121 and prohibits all class A wreckers wreckers Mr. Litchet stated further that the regulation of tow trucks and wreckers in residential zone districts was the subject of much discussion; that CCNA and GCBE agreed at least some wreckers should not be allowed in residential zone districts and continued that Issue VIII is as follows: Issue VIII Ordinance No. 99-4121 and CCNA Proposal Ownership regulation Resident of record Mr. Litchet stated that proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 provides and CCNA and GCBE agree the owner of the commercial vehicle must be the resident of record; that a commercial vehicle owned by a friend or relative cannot be stored on the property; and continued that Issue IX is as follows: Issue IX CCNA Proposal Ordinance No. 99-4121 Trailers 16 foot length/6.5 foot 24 foot length height buffered from view buffered from view BOOK 51 Page 22958 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22959 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet stated that further discussion concerning trailer limits is required; that CCNA is proposing a 16-foot trailer limit with a 6.5-foot height limitation if buffered from view; that proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 indicates a trailer 24 feet in length must be buffered from view which is the proposal GCBE supports; and continued that Issue X and Issue XI are as follows: Issue X Ordinance No. 99-4121 and CCNA Proposal Exemptions As limited in Ord. 99-4121 Issue XI Suspensions during Yes Emergency Mr. Litchet continued that the Exemptions provision and the Suspensions during Emergency provision indicated in proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121 are agreeable to CCNA and GCBE; and further stated that the base curb weight (BCW) refers to the weight of a vehicle including a full tank of fuel and all standard equipment and does not include passengers, cargo, or any optional equipment; that the gross vehicle weight (GVW) is the BCW plus actual cargo weight and passengers and is the actual weight if the fully loaded vehicle is driven onto a scale; that BCW and GVW are the industry standards referring to the weight of a vehicle. Gerald Chapin, Senior Zoning Analyst, Building, Zoning Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and concurred. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if GVW is the weight on the vehicle registration? Mr. Litchet stated that BCW and GVW are indicated on a vehicle registration. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that taxes are assessed based on the GVW of a vehicle at registration; and asked if the plate on the door of a vehicle indicating BCW and GVW is utilized for code enforcement purposes? Mr. Chapin stated yes. Mr. Litchet stated that CCNA's weight limit proposal utilizes the BCW; that GCBE utilizes the GVW as a measurement; that for example, an F-350 series Ford truck weighs between 9,700 and 11,200 pounds GVW and would be allowed under the GVW rating measurement; that the BCW of the F-350 series Ford truck is 6,700 pounds; that the F-350 series Ford truck would not be allowed under the BCW rating measurement as the weight limit is 6,000 pounds; that the F-350 series Ford truck would be allowed under GCBE's proposal but not under CCNA's proposal. Mr. Litchet continued that another example is the F-250 series Ford truck which has a GVW of 8,800 pounds and a BCW of 6,700 pounds; that the weight of the F-250 series Ford truck is very similar to the F-350 series Ford truck; however, the GVW is much less in the F-250 series Ford truck than the F-350 series Ford truck; that the construction of the F-250 may not be as solid in spring capacity and other factors; that the F-250 series Ford truck is allowed under GCBE's but not CCNA's proposal. Mr. Litchet further stated that a third example is another F-350 series Ford truck with added optional equipment; that the GVW is 9,700 to 11,200 pounds and the BCW is 6,294 to 7,126 pounds; that the vehicle will be allowed under GCBE's but not CCNA's proposal. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the F-250 series Ford truck indicated has an BCW of 6,752 pounds and presumably a gasoline engine; that the F-350 series Ford truck with the added additional equipment has a V-8 diesel engine; and asked the difference between the F-250 and the -350 series Ford trucks? Mr. Chapin stated that the Ford Motor Company has in excess of 40 different combinations of pickup truck configurations; that Ford trucks contain different engine sizes, diesel or gasoline engines, two- or four-wheel drive, standard or extended cabs, super-cab with four doors and room for four passengers, and single- or dual-rear wheels; that the various combinations would dictate the BCW and GVW. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the various combinations of pickup truck configurations resulting in a difference in BCW and GVW is the reason for illustrating the differences? Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that F-250 series Ford trucks may have a GVW of 8,000 to 11,000 pounds; that the difference will depend on the truck's features; that two vehicles may have up to a 1,000-pound difference in GVW. BOOK 51 Page 22960 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22961 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet displayed a photograph of a standard size van on the Chamber monitors and stated that the van has a BCW rating of 4,947 pounds and a GVW rating of 6,700 to 9,500 pounds; that the van would be acceptable under CCNA's and GCBE's proposals. Mr. Litchet referred to a depiction of a larger vehicle included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the vehicle is 8,600 to 10,000 pounds at BCW and 26,000 to 33,000 pounds at GVW; that the vehicle is large, thus unacceptable under the weight limits proposed under CCNA's and GCBE's proposals as well as proposed Ordinance No. 99-4121; that another vehicle in the F-450 series Ford truck with a GVW of 15,000 pounds is larger than would be allowed under GCBE's and CCNA's proposals; however, the F-450 series Ford truck is a closer size to the 12,000 GVW limitation preferred by Staff. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the GVW of the F-450 series Ford truck? Mr. Litchet stated that the GVW of the F-450 series Ford truck is 15,000 pounds which is unacceptable under CCNA's and GCBE's proposals; that the purpose of the example of the F-450 series Ford truck is an example of a truck less than 26,000 but over the 12,000 GVW preferred by Staff. Mr. Litchet referred to photographs displayed on the Chamber monitors of commercial vehicles and stated that a standard pickup truck with a tool bed and a rack measures 7 feet, 3 inches to the top of the rack which is taller than the 6.5 feet allowed by CCNA but under the 8 feet allowed by GCBE; that tools have been addressed for regulation purposes; however, piping on top of a vehicle and barricades on the back of vehicles have not been addressed; that an 8.5-foot plumbing van would not be allowed under either CCNA's or GCBE's proposals. Mr. Litchet continued that Staff recommends basing the weight limit of a commercial vehicle in a residential zone district on the GVW, which is easier to obtain, more commonly utilized, and is on many vehicle registrations; that GCBE changed the recommended proposed GVW limitation from 17,000 to 12,000 pounds; that GCBE's proposed 12,000 GVW limitation may still be high compared to the 6,000 BCW limitation proposed by CCNA; however, CCNA's proposal of 6,000 pounds BCW is low and will not accommodate the standard F-250 or -350 series Ford truck; that Staff's information regarding the weights of a standard Ford truck makes the truck appear small; that neither CCNA nor GCBE objects to a standard-size pickup truck with an extended cab; however, a larger-size vehicle is objectionable to all parties; that Staff recommends an 11,000 to 12,000 GVW limitation. Commissioner Martin stated that the weight limit is a primary concern; and asked if code enforcement will be able to differentiate between a 10,000 and 13,000 GVW vehicle? Mr. Litchet stated that the license plate number allows code enforcement inspectors to obtain registration information which includes GVW; that vehicle weights can be obtained if the specific information concerning year and model number of the vehicle is known; that vehicle weights can also be obtained from the license plate numbers. Commissioner Martin stated that weight is not visually evident and therefore should not be an issue. Mr. Litchet stated that having an enforceable standard eliminates the discretionary factor, i.e., the vehicle either meets the standard criteria or not; that most ordinances include a weight limit, which is an accurate unit of measurement. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that GVW is the optimal criterion; that GVW is BCW plus cargo weight plus passengers; that heavy-duty suspension and/or enhancements can increase the weight to the maximum GVW; that additional weight will have a negative impact on performance; that a vehicle of 12,000 pounds GVW, deemed unacceptable by GCBE, is not exceedingly high, considering the enhancements; that all the vehicles viewed are at the maximum GVW; that the business owners presently have trucks parked at their residences not accompanied by trailers or additional equipmenti that individuals often keep work trucks at personal residences but store generators and larger equipment at another site. Mr. Litchet stated that the GVW is the maximum weight the vehicle can accommodate if fully loaded; that the GVW depends on the type of suspension and springs on the vehicle and is the maximum weight the vehicle can accommodate; that a considerable disparity does not exist between the criteria proposed by the Committee and the CCNA; that CCNA's height limit is 6.5 feet and GCBE's height limit is 8 feet; that the 6.5-foot height limit accommodates a standard truck or van without a rack; that the limitation is on visible, parked vehicles rather than garaged or buffered vehicles; that based on GCBE'S analysis, vehicle will have one of two appearances; that a 7.5- or 8-foot recommendation is appropriate BOOK 51 Page 22962 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22963 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. if a rack is not considered detrimental to a neighborhood or property values; that the majority of the vehicles do not exceed 7.5 feet; however, a new ladder rack facilitating ladder removal is taller sO vans measure between 7.5 to 8 feet; that racks could be allowed or not; that loading more equipment from home may be encouraged by allowing different pipe-accommodating racks; that equipment is often loaded on the truck upon leaving the work site; that valuable items are stored in the garage upon returning home and reloaded upon leaving home; that having a work vehicle at home to provide constant accessibility is a major issue; that compromise is desirablei, that the vehicles could be garaged or stored in the rear yard while loading equipment; that a question is if signage should be restricted and, if SO, a reasonable standard; that a 2-by-2-foot sign regulation was proposed at one time, allowing two signs on each side of the van or pickup truck, which accommodates the company name and telephone number and does not infringe on neighborhood aesthetics; that Staff believes minimal signage is reasonable and recommends a 2-by-2-foot sign for a visible vehicle in the front yard, which allows identification and a telephone number. Commissioner Palmer asked the size of real estate signs allowed in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Litchet stated that 2-by-2-foot real estate signs are allowed in front yards in residential neighborhoods; and continued that CCNA's proposal does not allow visibly stored tools or racks; that GCBE's proposal allows tools provided safely and securely stored; that the lack of compromise regarding tools and ladders is based on the difficulty of defining the specific type of tools and ladders allowed; that if Public Works utility trucks are utilized as a standard truck which can accommodate barricades and pipes, visibility in a front yard does not help neighborhood values; that conversely, trucks with only a ladder on top do not have the same impact as trucks with tools. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the number of Public Works utility trucks parked in the neighborhoods? Mr. Litchet stated that an answer is not known. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that her district is most affected by commercial vehicles in residentially zoned neighborhoods; that Public Works utility trucks have not been seen in the district. Mr. Litchet stated that the policy of Public Works regarding take- home vehicles is not known. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the majority of Public Works utility vehicles taken home are on call and rotate among employees; therefore, the vehicle is not always at the same employee's residence. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the reason employees are on call? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that employees must respond immediately if a need arises. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that returning to the Public Works Department would not be necessary if, for example, a water line breaks. Mr. Litchet stated that CCNA's proposal allows a trailer length of 16 feet; that GCBE's proposal allows 24 feet; that both proposals require the trailer be buffered from view or stored in a back yard; that trailers are problematic; that many trades, including landscapers, use a 16-foot trailer, which is sizeable; that most code enforcement issues in the past involved yard trades; that the concern is trailers are brought home to the back yard, lawnmowers serviced, and noise created with the loading and unloading of equipment; that Staff's recommendation is to allow a maximum of 16 feet for trailers; that the size proposed by CCNA is ample for a residential neighborhood if the trailer is towed in and out, especially considering the amount of equipment stored inside. Commissioner Palmer asked the height limitation CCNA proposed? Mr. Litchet stated 6.5 feet. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that open flatbeds and trailers should also be discussed. Mr. Litchet stated that Staff considers 16 feet a sufficient length for a trailer in a residential zone district. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if 16 feet is the maximum for enclosed as well as open trailers? Mr. Litchet stated that trailers are problems in residential areas due to the excessive loading and unloading; that a landscaper must frequently service the equipment inside the trailer after returning home; that such service work has a negative impact on BOOK 51 Page 22964 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22965 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. adjacent neighbors; that code enforcement was resolute on the subject. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that vehicles used for leisure should also be addressed; that many enclosed or flat trailer owners in her district use trailers for work and leisure; that code enforcement should be prepared if called to a residence and the owners indicate the vehicle is for pleasure. Mr. Litchet stated that the data presented should be sufficient sO a decision can be made concerning the recommendations. Commissioner Martin asked if the term "tools" includes materials, ladders, tools, pipes, and equipment? Mr. Litchet stated yes. Commissioner Martin stated that in most cases, the issue concerns visible commercial vehicles; that the number of vehicles is unlimited if garaged or fully buffered. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Commissioner Martin asked if the proposal presents a problem for others? Mr. Litchet stated that limiting non-visible commercial vehicles may not be problematic if the vehicles are garaged and not seen by neighbors; that the only impact is at the time the owner exits in the morning or arrives home in the evening; that many families have the husband, wife, and children all engaged in the trades and residing in one house; that such individuals will have to take additional steps to buffer vehicles such as parking the vehicle in the back yard, completely buffered from view to prevent a negative impact on neighbors' property values; that problems can still arise; however, buffering or storing vehicles in an enclosed area is a reasonable compromise. Commissioner Martin stated that individuals in such situations may be utilizing the residence as a business site, which is a concern and could be the subject of a later discussion. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the proposal for unlimited vehicles if fully buffered causes concern to individuals in her district, herself included; that residences in the City are being utilized as business sites; that the data can be confirmed by a review of City and County occupational licenses to determine if residential addresses are being used as business addresses and more than one vehicle exists; that handymen, electricians, and plumbers are all affected; that the allowable number of non-visible vehicles should be addressed; that any approved recommendations should be evaluated after one year to monitor progress. Mr. Litchet stated that an evaluation in one year is supported. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a clause for an evaluation is in the current proposal. Mr. Litchet stated that a question was previously raised regarding the number of code enforcement cases; that the response is: 43 commercial vehicle cases in fiscal year 2001 and 9 in fiscal year 2002; that the data will be copied and distributed to the Commission; that most of the cases are on lots located on Novus Place, Lockwood Ridge Road, and North Tuttle Avenue. Commissioner Palmer stated that considering the weight analyses, the lower weight, or BCW, seems more consistent than the GVW; that all the trucks viewed with the exception of those not allowed in either of the proposals are between 6,000 and 7,000 pounds in BCW, which could be used as a base rather than GVW. Mr. Chapin stated that the type of engine, i.e., two-wheel versus four-wheel drive, single- or dual-rear wheels dictates weight; that the vehicle's ability to carry cargo is exponential. 2. PUBLIC INPUT RE : PARKING REGULATIONS OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (AGENDA ITEM I-B) CD 3:00 thru 3:53 Mayor Mason requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan explain the public input sign-up process. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that all persons wishing to speak are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers will have three minutes to speak, will be timed, and will be advised when one minute remains. The following people came before the Commission: Albert Moore, Plymouth Harbor, 700 John Ringling Boulevard (34236), stated that approval of the CCNA's proposed ordinance to regulate parking of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods is sought; that CCNA's proposal appears a fair compromise enabling a large number of self-employed individuals to maintain businesses and vehicles at home without harming the BOOK 51 Page 22966 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22967 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. surrounding residential area; that since deliberations are beginning on the ground level, even a minimal compromise will help; that a vehicle of 6,000 pounds BCW seems reasonable; that larger vehicles belong in a commercially-zoned area and can destroy the residential nature of a neighborhood; that reinforcing CCNA'S proposal is a goal; that yielding slightly on the 6,000 pounds BCW limitation may be required; that negotiating may necessitate flexibility; that the size of a 6,000-pound BCW vehicle based on the photographs of commercial vehicles displayed was unexpected. Renée Gluvna, 3836 Calliandra Drive (34232), representing Glen Oaks Estates Homeowners Association (Association), stated that the Association is a community of 145 members; that 54 households are not members; that all 199 homes have deed restrictions concerning commercial vehicles, sO the three-quarters of the community who are members of the Association have Association enforcement; that the remaining one-quarter rely on City code enforcement; that the visual effect rather than the weight should be taken into consideration; that the discussion is not new; and distributed a copy of the Association's deed restrictions concerning commercial vehicles and quoted the definition of a commercial vehicle in the Association's deed restrictions as one which meets any of the following tests: the vehicle bears a commercial license plate or displays any form of advertising, lettering, symbols, signs or the indication that is for commercial use or has a cargo capacity greater than 1,500 pounds, three-quarters ton or equipped, outfitted or ornamented in a manner which indicates trade or business use such as but not limited to, pipe-racks, tanks, pumps, or vehicle contains visible material or equipment indicating trade or business use such as but not limited to wheelbarrows, garden tools, construction tools or supplies, furniture, lumber, plumbing, resale inventory, and such material or equipment is visible from neighboring lots or the street Ms. Gluvna further stated that garaged or buffered commercial vehicles are allowed; that trailers are not permitted; that the document submitted is a sample of an Association definition of commercial vehicle to assist the Commission in developing a system of rules which are conducive to neighborhoods; that CCNA's proposal appears to concur with those of the Association. Mayor Mason asked if the Commission wishes to hear from Mr. Browning at this time; and stated that hearing the Commission's consensus, Mr. Browning is requested to address the issue if desired. John Browning, 1376 Harbor Drive (34239), representing the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations, stated that the reasons CCNA's proposal includes the limitations of weight and height will be presented; that all vehicles listed in Consumer Reports Magazine, including all standard Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs), vans and trucks except a Ford Excursion with diesel, can be purchased at a BCW of 6,000 pounds and under, which is the reason for the recommended 6,000 BCW pound limit; that the 6.5- foot height limit is based on the limitation on the height of buffering, hedges and walls to 6.5 feet as required by the Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that a vehicle can be buffered or hidden by legally-allowed heights of walls or shrubbery. Mr. Browning continued that the revised draft proposal was unanimously approved by the represented neighborhoods at the August 2001 CCNA meeting and is CCNA's compromise position; that CCNA's proposal is a fair and reasonable compromise allowing residents wishing to park commercial vehicles in neighborhoods sufficient latitude to do SO, while maintaining residential standards, quality of life, and property values; that problems are only presented in non-deed-restricted neighborhoods; therefore, reliance must be placed on the City to enact code restrictions to protect property rights; that CCNA's proposal is more definitive than GCBE's proposal. Commissioner Martin stated that the allowed time has elapsed; however, the presentation should be finished; that CCNA's proposal is a main topic being considered; that representation of CCNA's proposal is desired. Mayor Mason asked the wishes of the Commission. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Mr. Browning is representing CVAHC Member Holland; that a dialog with representatives of the Committee will be beneficial and desired; however, public input is being received at this time; that the dialog with the Committee should occur after public input. Mayor Mason stated that Mr. Browning signed up to speak; that the majority consensus is Mr. Browning, being signed up to speak, may proceed. BOOK 51 Page 22968 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22969 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that fair representation of all parties is desirable. Commissioner Martin stated that fair representation of the parties will be received. Mayor Mason stated that Mr. Browning may proceed. Mr. Browning stated that CCNA's proposal is more definitive and in some areas more restrictive than the County's ordinance; that the Commission has in the past expressed a desire the City ordinance not be less restrictive than the County ordinance; that CCNA's proposal is a compromise which does not prohibit commercial vehicles with signs but rather limits allowable parking areas sO the residential character of the neighborhood is not degraded; that CCNA's proposal prohibits vehicles from being used as advertising billboards parked in residential areas and also requires vehicles not be a distraction or a safety hazard; that any ordinance will affect every residential area of the City; that any proposal which is less restrictive than CCNA's proposal will subject all residents to greater abuses than proposed by CCNA; that accommodating storage of commercial vehicles is unwarranted; that the County limits a vehicle to 5,000 pounds BCW and a trailer to 16 feet; that 6,000 pounds BCW for a vehicle and 16 feet for a trailer have been recommended to include recommended limitations for all normal vehicles found in Consumer Reports Magazine; that the figures are within reasonable limits; that anything beyond the proposed limits is in excess of the limits allowed by the County. Randy Ragan, 2895 Poplar Street (342137), resident of the City of Sarasota for 49 years, 21 of which are as a plumbing contractor, stated that his vehicle, which is an unmarked, one-ton Ford van, is stored at his home; that that ability of his vehicle to meet the 6,000 pounds BCW limitation is unknown; and asked if BCW or GVW is the weight requirement being addressed? Vice Mayor Quillin stated GVW rating is the suggested criteria. Mr. Ragan stated that the issue of weight was ongoing in 1995 at the time his van was purchased; that a decision was made to confirm the van met the legal requirements prior to purchase; that purchasing a. new van will be required if weight is limited to three-quarters ton; that the desire is to continue utilizing the one-ton van, based on the extra suspension necessary for towing equipment to a job site; that a one-half, three-quarters and one-ton truck all possess the same bodyi that the only physical difference is the height between the bumper and the terrain as the heavier suspension supports the van two inches higher; that the one-ton vehicle should be permitted as contractors haul a substantial amount of tools at all times and occasionally tow very heavy equipment to a job site; that a personal expense of $150,000 was incurred to purchase the shop from which he operates, which is a considerable expense each month for a one- or two-person business, with his son as a new addition; that paying overhead expenses and the excess driving potentially incurred will be difficult if an emergency call is received in the middle of the night; that a customer on Siesta Key may have to wait for the retrieval of his truck on Cattleman Road prior to receiving service. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Mr. Ragan has lived in a residential neighborhood in her district for quite a few years. Mr. Ragan stated that he has lived in the neighborhood since 1954. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that many working-class people reside in the neighborhood; that Mr. Ragan has been active and is acquainted with the residents; and asked the problems with commercial vehicles in the neighborhood within the past few years? Mr. Ragan stated that a problem which was recently eliminated involved an individual driving a semi-tractor home, i.e., not the trailer, just the tractor; that such practice is unfair to the neighbors; however, his personal views were not shared with others; that in addition, individuals are conducting businesses out of their homes; that one person operates a business out of his home, brings home refuse from remodeling jobs, and leaves the refuse on the curb for the City to remove; that the practice is unfair; that the debris could be at the curb for four days until the City removes the debris; that a storage container or POD was delivered to a residence in his neighborhood and remained for an extended period of time; that a report may or may not have been filed; that after removal, another POD appeared; that the existence of a time limitation on PODs is not known; that the PODS, i.e., temporary storage containers rented by individuals who are relocating, should be nicely painted, plain containers, without advertising; that a POD is much more offensive than a service vehicle; that at least a service vehicle is performing a greatly needed function. BOOK 51 Page 22970 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22971 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Mr. Ragan has been around the City for many years and has seen a considerable number of issues, has worked at trying to improve situations for many people, and is well-respected in the neighborhood; and asked Staff's recommendation concerning PODs? Mr. Litchet stated that a meeting was held with representatives of PODs; that the City has a policy concerning PODS in residentially zoned neighborhoods. Commissioner Martin stated that some sentiment exists to have regulations concerning parking of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods similar to the County's; and requested Staff comment. Mr. Litchet stated that a discussion was held with County Staff, who indicated the County's ordinance concerning commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods is being reviewed at this time; that any recommended changes to the County's ordinance are unknown; that the County is not currently pro-actively enforcing the ordinance; that additionally, information concerning the ordinance in Manatee County was received and can be shared if desired. CVAHC Member Brady stated that the issue is important and of great concern to many GCBE members; that holding the meeting in the middle of the afternoon is unfortunate as many of the members are working; that the individuals present are in all probability not aware of the signing-in process; that a few additional speakers may surface; that the needs of each neighborhood are unique; that different ordinances will be required for the various neighborhoods; that the print media indicated what is good for Harbor Acres is not necessarily good for Carolina Estates or Lime Lake or the subdivision near Beneva and Fruitville Roads; that every third house in many neighborhoods seems to have a vehicle which would probably be in violation of any limit proposed; that the signage issue is very critical; that limitation on signage will require massive repainting of every problematic vehicle in the City; that data was compiled through his travels through several neighborhoods; that a list of approximately 50 companies which would be in violation was compiled; that the number would quickly quadruple if a thorough survey were conducted, which was requested at previous CVAHC meetings; that after seven years, the uncertainty of the precise problem yet exists; that a thorough survey has never been done; that categorizing all the violations to geographically define the signage or height problems or identify if the problem is solely a matter of where the vehicle is parked is difficult. CVAHC Member Brady continued that a substantial portion of the problems would be solved by moving the vehicles from the grass and street into the driveways and carports; that CCNA's proposal requires commercial vehicles with signage must be parked in a garage; that although feasible for Harbor Acres, many homes exist in Southgate and other neighborhoods which only have a one- or two-car carport; that some homes do not have any carports; that some homes were built without a garage or carport or the carport area has been enclosed; that a height limitation of 6.5 feet is unreasonable; that the restriction runs the risk of causing individuals to attempt to circumvent the limitation by taking unsafe measures, as in attaching ladders to the sides of commercial vehicles; that the Committee offered an 8-foot limit in the spirit of compromise; however, some individuals require an additional 6 inches, which causes a problem; that double ladder racks are very common; that the unfolding ladder rack is a very safe and efficient way to load and unload the ladders; however, an 8-foot limitation eliminates the possibility of having a double ladder rack; that some issues remain; that a GVW of 12,000 pounds is reasonable as key vehicles used in the construction industry are below the 12,000 GVW threshold; that trailers represent a minimal concern. CVAHC Member Brady further stated that public input is necessaryi that the majority of the cases involve yard and landscape contractors, most of whom work out of the home; that lawn-mowing is not a $100,000 per year job, allowing people to afford their own business; that an immense difficulty is involved with the additional expense incurred for a small home-based business operation attempting to set up shop outside of the home; that the economy in the City is service-oriented; that a trailer length of 16 feet and a trailer height of 8 feet to allow for head Clearance has been proposed; that a compromise can be reached regarding wreckers, leaving the issue to the wrecking people, who disappeared after attending a few meetings; that a safety issue probably exists with wreckers also; that contractors, i.e., plumbers, air conditioning, and electrical contractors, are on call 24 hours a day handling serious problems and must be accommodated for the health of the entire community; that signage is limited to one properly parked vehicle; that the second vehicle must be buffered or in a carport; that allowing an unlimited number of vehicles will not result in an excess of vehicles as BOOK 51 Page 22972 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22973 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. restrictions are imposed on the second vehicle; that nevertheless, the issue can be reevaluated in a year to establish if complaints have been lodged, i.e., if an individual has five fenced and garaged vehicles; that a very serious affordable housing problem exists in the County; that people share a home, legally or not; that each has his/her Own vehicle which is his/her source of income; that being prohibited from keeping the vehicle at a residence may result in an individual or an entire family losing a mode of transportation, possibly forcing them to move out of the City or County; that the concerns warrant more sensitivity than a few letters of the alphabet and some graphic art on a vehicle; that every day, the ubiquitous sign is seen; that signage is not a sensitive subject analogous to people's livelihoods and their ability to keep their homes; that the current meeting has yielded good compromises regarding weight and height; that the length of the trailer is not a significant problem; that further assistance is offered if necessary. CVAHC Member Gilliland stated that the CVAHC's as well as his organization's position were expressed well; that a height of 6.5 feet is standard for a truck with added suspension, which is typical for vehicles with larger wheel and tire sizes; that the height of vehicles will be 8.5 feet if a cantilevered ladder rack is attached; that the rack increases safety on the road and while loading and unloading the ladders; that a question is if the additional half foot above the 8-foot proposed height limitation makes a substantial visual impact if viewed from the street; that the impact is not substantial enough to exclude the vehicles of a sizeable number of people converting to the ladder racks; that representatives of the wrecker industry and the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) served on the CVAHC at the time initially organized; therefore, the discussion revolved around response time necessary for an emergency requiring a wrecker, i.e., a 17,000- pound Class A vehicle, which has a weight significantly higher than most the commercial vehicles; that the limitation is important for wreckers; that representatives of the wrecker industry have since withdrawn from the CVAHC; that the subject of wreckers is always a sensitive issue and therefore should not be pursued at the present time. CVAHC Member Gilliland continued that 12,000 pounds GVW is the limit for one-ton vehicles, which are equipped to carry heavy loads and pull trailers; that the photograph of the Public Works utility truck which included piping, etc., is not typical of most commercial vehicles; that some self-employed contractors and companies may own similar vehicles; however, driving such vehicles home is generally not encouraged as the type of repair performed on an emergency basis is not the heavy-duty type similar to the City's; that residential repair material, i.e., piping and valves, can be transported inside the truck; that the typical working van with which the CVAHC is concerned does not generally transport piping and valves but rather ladders and a dolly; that advertising on a vehicle parked in a neighborhood is not of value; that the signage is valuable for advertising en route; therefore, the sign must be visible while moving, which a 2-by-2-foot sign is not; that consequently, employers will be resistant to eliminating signage on the trucks; that signage on commercial vehicles should be addressed; that a problem with CCNA's proposal is commercial vehicles with signage must be camouflaged and out of view; that CCNA's proposal is commercial vehicles can be visible if the vehicle has no signage or tools and is stored in a buffered setback; that the main issue discussed was working families with two commercial vehicles at a single residence, one visible vehicle and one out of sight; that the question is if to allow the vehicles or not; that both CCNA's and GCBE's proposals allow commercial vehicles. CVAHC Member Collins stated he has worked extensively on the issue of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods for a considerable time with Staff; that removing commercial vehicles from view does not eliminate the problems; that based on his personal income as a landscaper, many more tropical storms must hit to enable the purchase of even a bare lot to store his equipment, i.e., two large bucket trucks, a chipper, a loader truck, and a log loader truck; that a $100,000 lot for storage of the vehicles cannot be afforded; that the fee on his leased site for storage of vehicles is $10,000 annually; that his equipment is personally considered too large for a residential area; therefore, his equipment is not transported home; that his one-ton dump truck with a 16-foot trailer is kept at home in a buffered area, not visible from any right-ot-way; that the truck is also kept at home for security reasons; that the quantity of landscape tools stolen in the County and City, i.e., edgers, weed-eaters, chainsaws, tractors, blowers, is extensive; that the Sheriff's Department had a 2-inch thick document of the landscape thefts from January 2001 through February 2002, which is another problem the landscapers face; that the weight limit of 8,000 pounds GVW is light; that 12,000 pounds GVW is more feasible; that the height limit of 6.5 feet is not sufficient; that many desirable 4-wheel drive trucks are over 6.5 feet; that even his empty 4-wheel drive Chevrolet pick-up truck is over 6 feet high; therefore, a vehicle height of BOOK 51 Page 22974 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22975 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. 8.5 feet is proposed; that his 16-foot trailer is 7.5 feet high, was purchased due to height restrictions, and requires dropping one's head to avoid a collision entering and exiting the trailer; that many contractors cannot afford signage; that the majority of the signs are decals; that the 16-foot-length limit is desirable for trailers, buffered or not; that his tools are very important and costly; that many contractors are on call 24 hours; that storms are the only instances during which his calls are incessant; that the neighborhoods, including those not deed- restricted, are in need of clean-upi that the issue of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods has been a difficult one for the Commission and the neighborhoods; that a compromise must be found; that the two lists, i.e., neighborhood proposals and Committee proposals, could be divided in half, then combined to establish criteria; that the criteria could be followed for 12, 18 or 24 months, at which time a meeting can be held to refine the list; that landscapers cannot charge a $45 appearance fee and $30 for every 15 minutes at the customer site, which would create many more problems in addition to commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Anita Bartholomew, 4237 Sarasota Avenue (34234), stated that the issue is about aesthetics and quality of life; that regarding signage, a 6-by-6-foot sign is not permitted on a resident's lawn; however, the suggestion is an individual can have a -by-6-foot sign on a truck parked at a residence; that for everyone to store tools, pipes and lumber on the lawn would be a considerable detriment to the neighborhood and is not allowed; that nevertheless, allowing trucks parked in plain view with tools, pipe, lumber, racks and ladders exposed is being considered; that the proposal does not require a $100,000 expense but rather utilizing hedges or fences; that an 8-by-6.5-foot fence can be purchased for approximately $24; that the 4-by-4 posts to hold the fence on either side cost $6 each; that constructing a fence is not a major inconvenience but rather asking people who want to park commercial vehicles in a residential zone to understand the nature of residential zone districts and to allow residents, who are not interested in running construction businesses, to live accordingly; that a commercial vehicle hidden from view is not a problem; that the needs and the property values of the people who own the commercial vehicles with the billboard advertising are also effected; that all vehicles in Consumer Reports Magazine would be covered under CCNA's proposal. Wayne Sousa, 3422 Melody Circle (34237), stated that he works out of his home in Carolina Estates restoring and repairing furniture for hotels and restaurants on Longboat Key and the surrounding areas; that 99 percent of his business emanates from the advertising on his vehicle; that the alternative is purchasing a substantial yellow pages advertisement at a cost of $10,000 to $20,000 annually which is not an affordable expense, having a handicapped child and a wife who works only part-time; that the homes in his neighborhood range from $60,000 to $115,000; that his van is new and is always in a clean condition; that the signage consists of the name of his company and the service provided; that the requests for service from Longboat and Siesta Keys indicate his van is not visually offensive; that greatly reducing the size of the signage will cause a considerable decrease in business; that being prohibited from parking his van in his driveway and having signage on the van will have a substantial negative effect; that many improvements are necessary in the neighborhood due to the single-family rental homes and the type of renters which have a negative impact on the neighborhood; that residents are continuously calling the SPD; that the issues include cleaning up neighborhoods rather than just vehicle signs. Clarence Brien, 419 West Cornelius Circle (34232), stated that the intent was not to speak; however, the subject being discussed concerns a subject about which meetings were held back in 1992 and 1995; that while driving down a neighborhood street recently, a resident's front yard, which should have grass, was viewed containing two trucks, a truck rack, a large barbeque, and a boat; that the Committee has been conferring on the issue for a long time; that a suggestion is to travel through some neighborhoods and take photographs; that suggested truck weight limits of from one-half to 1-ton, 2-wheel and 4-wheel drive, dual wheels, racks and boats on the top are all areas of contention; that a practical approach may be to consider the visual aspect rather than the size of the vehicle; that objects seen as desirable or undesirable in the neighborhoods do not necessarily relate to weight or height; that an aesthetically undesirable vehicle should be in the back yard, out of the neighborhood, or out of view when driving or walking around; that a number of ordinances have been passed but not enforced. 3. COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DIRECTION RE: PARKING REGULATIONS OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (AGENDA ITEM I-C) CD 3:53 through 5:00 BOOK 51 Page 22976 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22977 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Mr. Browning stated that a previous speaker presented good reasons for the advertising on the side of a van, whether parked in a neighborhood or in transit; however, good reasons were not presented for leaving the van parked in the frontyard, forcing neighbors to view the advertising; that several examples of disturbing sights in neighborhoods were presented by an individual whose vehicles may also be a problem to nearby neighbors; that the conscientiousness and concern for the neighborhood expressed by several owners of commercial vehicles is commendable but is the minority view of owners who park commercial vehicles in the neighborhoods; that the restrictions of Harbor Acres are good for all the neighborhoods; that concerns for quality of life, property values, and residential standards are good for all neighborhoods; that independent contractors are able to buy a large vehicle which exceeds $50,000 in value but are not required to buffer the vehicle to prevent viewing by the neighbors; that having Mr. Brady, who lives in a deed-restricted neighborhood in the County, as the main spokesman for the commercial interests, determine the rules for City neighborhoods is disconcerting. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that intormation can certainly be provided; however, no personal attacks should be made. Mr. Browning stated that no personal attack was intended; that only information concerning personal residence was intended. Mayor Mason stated that the Pledge of Conduct must be respected. Mr. Browning stated that many business owners have been aware of the 1974 rules which do not allow employees to keep commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods; however, companies do not hold employees accountable to the rule; that one could question the reason; that people are used to not following the law; that the only interest is in meeting personal needs; that CCNA's proposal is fair and allows some commercial vehicles; that the expectation is to respect one's neighbors and uphold the law. Commissioner Martin stated that reasonable and feasible signage restrictions and enforcement should be developed; that everyone should not be required to repaint vans due to a sign being larger than permissible; that the issue of signage should be addressed without being draconian; that the impact on people's lives should be minimized. Mr. Litchet stated that signage is a difficult issue which the Committee has discussed in the past; that Staff discussed the possibility of grandfathering, or registering existing vehicles; that grandfathering is a feasible but time-consuming task which could make enforcement difficult; that utilizing square footage as a criterion will facilitate enforcement. Commissioner Martin stated that a reasonable period of time, i.e., one year, could be provided for compliance. Mr. Litchet stated that one year as a phased-in approach to an ordinance could be provided if desired. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that existing commercial vehicles can be grandfathered; however, enforcement becomes difficult; that grandfathering should only be attempted for a specific timeframe, if at all. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that vehicle size should be addressed; that signage could be allowed as a percentage of the area of the vehicle, i.e., no greater than 60 percent, which allows a creatively designed logo. Mr. Litchet stated that the list of issues can be reviewed if desired. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a consensus from the Commission allowing commercial vehicles in neighborhoods must be obtained first. Commissioner Martin agreed. Mr. Litchet stated that the weight limit based on BCW differs from GVW; that the vehicle registration has the BCW; however, either BCW or GVW can be utilized; that the Department of Motor Vehicles can be called if the make and type of vehicle are available; that the information can be extracted from resource books; that Staff's recommendation is to use a 11,000- to 12,000-pound GVW as a basis. Commissioner Palmer stated that every allowable vehicle in the displayed photographs is under 7,000 pounds of BCW; and asked if the basis of the County's ordinance is 5,000 pounds of BCW? Mr. Litchet stated yes. BOOK 51 Page 22978 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22979 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer stated that considering the BCW makes more sense, as items loaded on the vehicles vary. Mr. Litchet stated that a 7,000-pound BCW allows different regular-size pickup trucks with extended cabs even with the 4- wheel drive accessories; that the BCW weight appears on the vehicle registration. Commissioner Palmer stated that she was a member of the PBLP at the time the issue was discussed a year and a half ago; that the Committee was satisfied with acceptance of the 7,000-pound BCW vehicles, which was essentially the mutual agreement. Mr. Litchet stated that the Committee did not object to a three- quarter or one-ton vehicle, which was considered the maximum allowed. Commissioner Palmer stated that the larger vehicles were of concern. Mr. Litchet agreed. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a few years ago, 5,000 pounds of BCW was the criterion; that the concern is not maintaining the current weights and ratings of the vehicles; that the weight of future trucks is not known; therefore, the maximum GVW should be considered; that the deciding factor in purchasing a commercial vehicle will be BCW; that commercial vehicles will have heavier- duty suspensions and possibly a fifth wheel. Mr. Litchet stated that data can be obtained by utilizing either weight. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that an individual registering a truck receives a regular rather than a commercial license plate. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Commissioner Martin stated that the weight limitation appears problematic; that a question is if a weight limitation is required; that the height limitation could be determined based on the type of vehicle, i.e., a pick-up truck, a van, etc.; that additional limitations may exist to eliminate the necessity for determining a weight limitation; that weight may not be a necessary restriction or definition if a one-ton and a three- quarter-ton vehicle are identical in appearance. Mr. Litchet stated that weight is a definitive factor; that the box or the cube of a regular or three-quarter-ton pick-up truck can have many diverse body configurations; that an assessment of the other restrictions can be accomplished, after which weight limitations can be discussed if desired; that most ordinances in other jurisdictions include a weight restriction; that the Commission should decide if the criteria will be BCW or GVW; that research can be conducted prior to the public hearings if a problem exists. Mayor Mason stated that the key word is "decide.' - Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the limitation should be a GVW of 12,000 pounds, which includes commercial vehicles. Mayor Mason and Commissioner Martin agreed. Commissioner Palmer stated that the majority vote is contrary to her position; that limitations of a GVW of 11,000 pounds and BCW of 7,000 BCW could be established; that the Commission should move forward to the next issue. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if establishing a maximum BCW and GVW are useful standards of measurement? Commissioner Palmer stated that the desired outcome should be considered and accomplished. Vice Mayor Quillin agreed and stated that the height of vehicles with heavy-duty suspension is above 6.5 feet. Commissioner Palmer stated that height rather than weight is being discussed. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a correlation exists between heavy-duty vehicles and standard size trucks. Commissioner Palmer asked if a GVW not greater than 12,000 is being suggested? Vice Mayor Quillin stated yes; that the GVW would be the maximum weight allowable in the neighborhoods; that the weight includes vehicles with unlimited heavy-duty suspension, which encompasses all the vehicles displayed; that the last time a greater weight than 7,000 pounds BCW was discussed, the neighborhoods showed a BOOK 51 Page 22980 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22981 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. large pick-up or panel truck rather than a flat-bed truck, which was the photograph displayed by Staff. CVAHC Member Collins stated that panel trucks will not likely be allowed under any proposal being discussed; however, the possibility of two different weight limits is a concerni that the F350 truck would be excluded if 7,000 BCW were utilized but would be allowed if 12,000 GVW is utilized. Mayor Mason asked if the next step after Commission consensus is reached is a public hearing? City Attorney Taylor stated that input is being received sO an ordinance can be prepared; that any proposed ordinance can be returned to the Commission for additional discussion if desired. Mr. Litchet stated that the restrictions concerning commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods will be incorporated in an ordinance to amend the Zoning Code; that the ordinance will be reviewed by the PBLP prior to the public hearing before the Commission. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if Staff understands the weight limit. Mr. Litchet stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that proposals will be returned to the PBLP prior to the Commission; that significant public hearings and additional input from the community will take place in the near future; that the proposals are not necessarily supported; however, concrete numbers will enable the process to move forward. Commissioner Martin asked if a GVW limitation of 12,000 pounds was decided. Mayor Mason stated yesi that the Commission's majority consensus is for a GVW limitation of 12,000 pounds. Commissioner Palmer stated that the majority consensus of three, while not her recommendation, is acceptable. Mr. Litchet stated that CCNA's proposal was a height limitation of 6.5 feet; that GCBE's proposal was 8 feet. Mayor Mason stated that the previously recommended ordinance was 9 feet. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Commissioner Palmer asked Staff's recommendation? Mr. Litchet stated that a response depends on if the Commission finds tools located on the exterior objectionable; that a 7.5- to 8-foot range is necessary if tools or a visible ladder rack is allowed as the truck or van is 6.5 feet; that adding a ladder rack on top requires an additional 1.5 feet; that the height reaches 8 feet if new ladder truck technology is utilized. Mayor Mason stated that the first determination should be if tools will be allowed. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that heavy-duty suspension trucks typically have a height of greater than 6.5 feet. Mr. Litchet stated that the height can reach 7 feet with larger tires; however, a standard vehicle is not greater than 7 feet. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that two women manage a small dog- grooming company in the City and have increased the van size to enable dog-grooming inside the van; that an aluminum blind cleaning contractor has also increased the van height to enable driving the van to homes to perform his service; that a decision should be made if to allow tools on the exterior of a commercial vehicle; that the increased height limitation should be available only to accommodate ladder racks. Commissioner Martin stated that Staff indicated the height of a commercial vehicle would be 8 feet if tools are carried; that obtaining tools at the shop in the morning may be required even if a ladder or dolly is not carried; that the rack is still necessary to transport the tools once picked up, which requires additional height; that 8.5 to 9 foot is required for the double ladder arrangement; and asked if state-of-the-art or common usage is being considered? Mr. Litchet stated that not everyone such as a specific dog- groomer or an individual requiring two ladders on a truck will be satisfied. Commissioner Martin stated the question concerns the accepted practice in the industry? Mr. Litchet stated that most plumbers have one ladder. BOOK 51 Page 22982 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22983 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin stated that one ladder seems reasonable; that one visible commercial vehicle should be the limit; that additional vehicles should be buffered; therefore, accommodating the additional height may not be feasible; the second or third vehicle would have to be within the 6.5 range if the limit is one vehicle at the taller height. Commissioner Palmer stated that the suggestion is to allow one commercial vehicle with an 8-foot height limitation; that other commercial vehicles must be 6.5 feet or less; that the most disturbing photograph was the City utility truck, which was low but had racks and items inside the truck bed in full view; that the appearance of the City utility truck is not acceptable considering the aesthetics in the neighborhoods; that height is not the concern. Mr. Litchet agreed but stated that the City utility truck was carrying heavy-duty piping, while the average plumber will only be carrying plumbing valves; that the covering of tools will be discussed at the time tools are discussed. Commissioner Palmer stated that another previously expressed concern was the materials used to cover the racks of commercial vehicles; that the parking of City utility vehicles in residential neighborhoods as currently configured is inappropriate. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that most commercial vehicles are in her district; that commercial vehicles resembling some vehicles in the displayed photograph are not seen, even with the handyman and his tools or the small yard people; that such vehicles are probably not transported home. Mr. Litchet stated that the tools and equipment in the back of the commercial vehicle in the photograph is not likely loaded on the vehicle when parked at a residence as the tools and equipment would be stolen during the night; that the example of the City utility vehicle was not representative; that the Commission appears to have consensus concerning height which is: a height limitation of 8 feet for one visible commercial vehicle and a height limitation of 6.5 feet with buffering requirements for all other vehicles; that buffering a taller vehicle would be difficult. Vice Mayor Quillin agreed with an 8-foot height limitation. Commissioner Martin asked if an 8-foot height limitation is the Commission's consensus? Mayor Mason stated yes. Mr. Litchet stated that CCNA's proposal is for no signage, while GCBE's proposal is for no limitation on signage; that significant incongruity exists between the proposals. Commissioner Martin stated that signage - is important; that signage is the most disturbing problem about commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods; that the recommended 2-by-2-foot sign seems fair and is certainly a compromise; that his proposal is to allow a 2-color sign on the body of the commercial vehicle and not brash signage; that advertisements on the national public broadcasting stations are very generic, allowing only the name, telephone number and service performed, which is not strictly considered an advertisement; that a similar, discreet type of signage should be allowed; that transition time is also a concerni that a transition time for enforcement could be one year. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a percentage of the vehicle surface area could be determined as a maximum allowed for signage, which may be easier to regulate and result in more attractive signage than if limited to a 2-by-2-foot area; that vans and pickup trucks are being considered; that a registered logo should be allowed; that a franchise could be paying a portion of the signage cost; that a suggestion is to allow a maximum 4-by-4-foot sign on commercial vehicles stored on private property. Mr. Litchet stated that a 2-by-2-foot sign is the limit for real estate signs. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that campaign signs can be 4 by 4 feet; that latitude should be provided; that unreasonable restrictions could be an encroachment on generating business and retaining an identity; that allowing 30 percent of the exposed area of a commercial vehicle for signage should be feasible. Commissioner Palmer stated that commercial vehicles are currently not allowed in the City; that the recommendations will broaden the prohibition considerably; that large advertisements BOOK 51 Page 22984 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22985 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. should not be allowed in neighborhoods; that buffering or enclosing commercial vehicles is acceptable; that a 2-by-2-foot sign equivalent to a real estate sign on visible commercial vehicles is sufficient in the neighborhoods; that vehicles should be garaged, buffered on the lot, or stored elsewhere if large signs are necessary on the vehicle. Mayor Mason agreed a 2-by-2-foot sign is acceptable for the sake of consensus; and stated that everyone will not be pleased; however, the proposal will be considered further prior to being returned to the Commission. Commissioner Palmer stated that political signs are not displayed on a regular basis, are only allowed at certain times, and must be removed; that signage on commercial vehicles is continuous. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the initial ordinances prohibiting commercial vehicles in residentially zoned neighborhoods were implemented in 1974; that areas of the City are working-class neighborhoods, particularly in her district; that the prohibition against commercial vehicles was a poor law and seemed to consider working-class people unsavory; that long- time City residents, similar to the plumber who spoke and a multitude of business owners, have been and are the backbone of the Cityi that individuals attempting to earn a living in her district call regularly indicating their commercial vehicles are not allowed in the City; that limiting advertising signage to 30 percent of the vehicle surface, thus leaving added white space, is recommended; that the 2-by-2-foot sign limitation will cause problems; that the situation should be assessed after one year to determine if signage is still a problem; that the size and number of commercial vehicles on residentially zoned property such as moving-van trucks is the problem rather than signage. Mayor Mason stated that working-class people reside throughout the City, which will be taken into consideration while making the difficult decisions; that the issues will not be solved at the. current meeting; that instead, Staff will be provided with sufficient data to allow an informed, intelligent decision at a future meeting. Mr. Litchet asked for clarification if the Commission's consensus is a limitation of two 2-by-2-foot signs located as desired. Commissioner Martin stated yes. Mr. Litchet asked if magnetic blanks of the same color as the vehicle to cover existing signage are acceptable while the vehicle is parked at a residence if the signage is larger than 2 by 2 foot? Commissioner Palmer stated that magnetic covers were used during campaigning; that the maximum allowable sign is a 2-by-2-foot sign, whether publicly visible at night or during the day while parked. Mr. Litchet stated that a 2-by-2-foot sign is a fair compromise; that additionally, a temporary cover could be considered, as the majority of the concerned speakers indicated advertising in the neighborhoods is not an objective; that blank magnetic covers could be removed prior to departure in the morning and replaced upon arriving home; that the solution may accomplish the goal of everyone; that a proposal will be finalized incorporating a temporary cover feature; and asked if the Commission reached consensus concerning the transition time of one year and/or the two-color restriction? Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the number of colors should not be limited; that a review will be necessary after one year to determine the impact of any restrictions. Mayor Mason stated that a one-year review is reasonable. Mr. Litchet stated that two diverse issues are being deliberated, specifically, reviewing after one year and requiring compliance after one year. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the proposal could be reviewed after one year to determine if additional compliance is necessary before repainting any signage. Commissioner Martin stated that a reasonable solution is desired. Vice Mayor Quillin stated a one-year review should be conducted. Commissioner Palmer stated a timeframe is necessary. Vice Mayor Quillin agreed. BOOK 51 Page 22986 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22987 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the ordinance should include an effective timeframe, i.e., within 30, 60 or 90 days, if restrictions on signage are desired shortly after the ordinance is passed; that the entire ordinance can be reviewed in a year if desired; that an argument advanced is the signage provision should not be effective until one year from now, which is entirely different; that Staff will comply with the wishes of the Commission. Commissioner Palmer stated that the issue should be studied; that reaching a decision at this time is not required; that any provisions must be enforced; that nothing can be evaluated in a year if the feasible and unfeasible solutions are not known; that some restrictions are necessary, whether implemented within two or three months; that the optimal approach is not known; that enacting an ordinance is not practical if not effectuated and implemented. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that recommendations regarding implementation can be returned to the Commission after preparing the ordinance if desired. Commissioner Martin stated that allowing a reasonable timeframe for the transition was initially discussed; that 90 days seems an adequate transition rather than a year based on the suggested provision the signage could be covered. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that placing a magnetic sign on a panel van is extremely costly and thus unreasonable; that a reasonable solution would be ensuring compliance at the time a new van is purchased or repainted at the company's regularly scheduled time; that requiring a repainting of vehicles within 60 to 90 days is unreasonable; that a one-year compliance timeframe is more appropriate; that any problems in the neighborhoods will be revealed within one yeari that telephone calls are received regularly from constituents unable to earn a living due to code enforcement; that the businesses should provide input to determine if a year is viable, at which time the proposal will be reviewed and new trucks should have been purchased or existing trucks repainted sO signs are in compliance. Mayor Mason agreed with the suggestion for a 90-day transition period; that the recommendations will be reviewed again; and asked if Staff has sufficient information to proceed? Mr. Litchet stated yes; that the cost of covering a vehicle sign can be researched; that a proposal will be developed by Staff for further review; and asked if limitations concerning visible tools and equipment if safely and securely stored are desired? Commissioner Martin stated that limitations concerning visible tools and equipment should be developed; that a ladder, which is allowed, seems a reasonable tool of the trade; that a rack is allowed; however, allowing additional tools appears problematic; that allowing piping and/or tools and other visible items appears the equivalent of signage; that the discreetness is gone and the blatancy is excessive. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that semantics are the important; that a ladder is a tool. Mr. Litchet agreed that a ladder is either a tool or equipment. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if piping or wire is considered materials rather than tools? Commissioner Martin stated that the question is important. Mr. Litchet stated that the language should be studied further; that the language refers to tools and equipment safely and securely stored; that tools can be limited further; that a definition of tools can be developed. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that defining tools can create a multitude of problems. Mr. Litchet stated that developing a definition can be difficult; however, valuables such as expensive tools are generally stored in a locked toolbox. Commissioner Palmer stated that ladders do not appear a problem during her travels through the community; that the features, which can be numerous and varied, create the aesthetic problem in the neighborhoods; that the neighborhood is the focus rather than the items in transit on the City streets. BOOK 51 Page 22988 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22989 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Mr. Litchet stated that the proposal will be limited to ladders, which have been the primary tool discussed; that additional tools can be considered if members of the public indicate having additional tools stored outside is vital. Commissioner Martin stated that limiting visible items to ladders is preferred. Mr. Litchet stated that the terminology will be researched further; that the Commission's consensus appears to allow one visible vehicle with conditions and unlimited vehicles either enclosed or buffered. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a second vehicle must be buffered. Mr. Litchet stated that the buffering or enclosed requirement is incorporated in both CCNA's and GCBE's proposals; and asked if the total number of commercial vehicles should be limited, for example, to two? Mayor Mason, Vice Mayor Quillin, and Commissioner Martin stated yes. Mr. Litchet asked for clarification if the Commission's desired limitations are for one visible and one not visible, i.e., enclosed or buffered, commercial vehicle? Commissioner Palmer stated that one proposal was for one visible commercial vehicle if conditions are met and unlimited if fully enclosed or buffered; and asked the number included in CCNA's proposal? Mr. Browning stated that additional commercial vehicles not visible to the public are not a concern. Commissioner Martin stated that no more than two commercial vehicles should be allowed. Mr. Brady stated that the Committee recommended the second vehicle could be stored in a carport since many neighborhoods do not have garages; that the City could, if desired, build everyone a garage sO all would be on an equal footing; that the flexibility of storing a second vehicle in a carport is desired; and asked if storing a vehicle behind a fence is acceptable? Commissioner Palmer stated allowing one visible commercial vehicle which meets the requirements and a second commercial vehicle if completely enclosed, buffered, or covered up in some way to prevent being seen is acceptable; that the commercial vehicle must be stored in a carport with buffering on the side which prevents the vehicle from being viewed from the street; that the contention concerns the non-visible commercial vehicles. CVAHC Member Brady stated that one commercial vehicle could be stored in the carport with a sign on the rear which is at least marginally visible from the street; that the vehicle will be covered on at least one side, if not two or three, if in a carport; that some flexibility must be allowed for individuals without garages for equitable regulation. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the argument is understandable; that storing a commercial vehicle in a carport is not a concerni that a limit of two commercial vehicles should be established in residentially-zoned areas; that the number of allowed commercial vehicles should not be not unlimited; that no additional vehicles should be allowed in the rear of the lot, which is a significant problem in some neighborhoods. CVAHC Member Brady stated that the second commercial vehicle could be stored in the rear. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the second commercial vehicle could be stored in a covered carport or parked on the side of the carport in some neighborhoods. Mr. Litchet stated that both proposals allow one visible commercial vehicle with conditions; that both proposals require the second commercial vehicle must be garaged or completely buffered from view; that buffering meant the commercial vehicle must be in the side or rear yard and not viewable from the street; that allowing a second commercial vehicle in a carport is different than the proposals presented as both commercial vehicles would be visible; and asked if having both commercial vehicles visible is a concern? Vice Mayor Quillin stated that either the front or the rear of the commercial vehicle will be seen from a carport. Mr. Litchet stated that most carports do not have sides. BOOK 51 Page 22990 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22991 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that most carports have at least two sides, a back and the wall. Mr. Litchet agreed and stated that the meaning of carport should be defined. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that an attached carport is meant; that Staff can review the language. Mayor Mason stated that a definition is necessary; that the requirement could be the commercial vehicle must be either fully enclosed or buffered or in a carport; however, the two requirements are different; that not many garages exist in her district, in which many commercial vehicles are kept; that asked if the direction to Staff should be the second commercial vehicle must be fully enclosed or buffered? Commissioner Martin stated yes. Mayor Mason stated that the proposal will be reevaluated at a Commission meeting after review by the PBLP. Commissioner Martin stated that the discussion concerns second commercial vehicles, which are less prevalent. Mr. Litchet asked the Commission's wishes concerning trailers. Commissioner Palmer stated that the maximum allowable length should be 16 feet. Mayor Mason stated that length is an issue but asked if height must also be addressed? Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the height allowance could be 8 feet. Mr. Litchet stated that the height can be limited for commercial vehicles and trailers, unless a different height is required for trailers; that a question is the manner in which a taller trailer can be buffered, as trailers in both proposals must be either fully enclosed or buffered; that 6.5 feet is the maximum fence height. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that many landscaping trailers are taller to enable an individual to enter; that a 6.5 feet height allows a 5-foot opening from ramp to top which is dangerous, particularly in managing sharp-edged equipment. Commissioner Martin stated that a vehicle of greater height should be stored outside of a residentially zoned neighborhood. Commissioner Palmer agreed. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a 6.5-foot height limitation restricts the ability earn a living, particularly the small landscaping contractor. Commissioner Palmer referred to the photograph of the City utility truck and asked the height of the vehicle? Mr. Chapin stated that the height is 7.5 feet. CVAHC Member Collins stated that a 16-foot trailer includes only the cube or the box; that another 4 feet must be added for the tongue sO the trailer measures 20 feet; that the visual impact is not unpleasant if the fencing reaches the top strip or any area between the insignia and the top of the trailer, unlike the visual impact of tools and ladders; that aesthetics are the concern. Mr. Litchet stated that the trailer in the photograph is 16 feet from tongue to rear. Commissioner Martin stated that length is therefore defined as combined length rather than trailer length. Mr. Litchet asked if the Commission wishes a height limitation? CVAHC Member Collins stated that the Clearance from the bottom of the trailer to the terrain is 1.5 feet; that his trailer is 7.5 feet high; however, his head strikes the ceiling nevertheless; that a portion of piping was covered with insulation due to constant collisions; that his recommendation is for an 8-foot height limitation. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the recommendation is due to the necessity to walk up a ramp to enter the trailer. BOOK 51 Page 22992 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22993 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer stated that the height of the commercial vehicle in the photograph is greater than 6.5 feet; that buffering higher than 6.5 feet will be required and if the vehicle must be buffered from view; therefore, the purpose of the limitation is defeated; that a problem arises concerning enforcement. CVAHC Member Collins stated that a restriction should be placed on the Length rather than the height of trailers. Commissioner Palmer stated that the potential height of a 16-foot-long trailer is not known. Commissioner Martin stated all trailers should be buffered from view and backed into the back yard and unhooked. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that viewing the top of the trailer over a 6.5-foot fence is acceptable; that otherwise individuals will erect wooden slats on the side of a flat-bed truck as in the past and ladders will be hung, resulting in a dire appearance. Commissioner Martin stated that trailers should not be visible. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that some trailers are unpleasant to view; however, some contractors such as landscapers service neighborhoods with the new enclosed vans or trailers; that the doors of the vans or trailers are kept closed sO as not to intrude into the residential areas in which work is being performed; that keeping the doors closed is considerably more pleasant than viewing unkempt trailers; that the concern is a vehicle stored in the side or back yard; that otherwise, individuals will utilize the open, flat containers with ladders and weed-eaters suspended from the vehicles which will cause complaints due to an unsightly appearance. Mr. Litchet stated that Staff can submit a proposal for a 7.5- foot restriction; that trailer height was not thoroughly researched; that recommendations will be returned to the Commission; that area businesses can provide information concerning trailers, including many more photographs; that significant progress has been made; that ample direction has been furnished; that nevertheless, additional work is necessary. Mayor Mason thanked Staff and the Committee for the efforts contributed; and stated that a substantial beginning has been made. Commissioner Martin stated that achieving the desired goals is possible. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that constituents in her district are considered criminals under the current regulations but are only attempting to earn a living; that the constituents are not only those working for private companies but are also entrepreneurs attempting to improve personal lifestyles; that attractive neighborhoods must be maintained; therefore, any restrictions should be reviewed after a yeari that all citizens in the City must be legally represented as the workers are at the present criminals due to the unlawfulness of having commercial vehicles parked at their homes. Commissioner Palmer stated that the issue is current; that her philosophy is relatively different; that commercial vehicles should be permitted to some extent; however, property values of neighbors of the commercial vehicle owners should not be devalued due to inappropriate activity or poor aesthetics in the neighborhoods; that a consensus is imminent; that all will not be satisfied; however, the Commission must proceed with the present data and follow the course after public input is received. Deputy City Manager Schneider thanked the Commission for the direction received and stated that the subject has been long and difficult; that Staff has accomplished the task requested; that an ordinance will be prepared incorporating the Commission's direction. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Commissioners should travel through the neighborhoods with a Committee member or a business representative; that as a result of his travels in the neighborhoods, former Commissioner and Mayor Albert Hogle was very enlightened and developed views concerning the direction which should be followed. 4. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 5:00 There was no one signed up to speak. BOOK 51 Page 22994 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22995 04/01/02 2:00 P.M. 5. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM III) CD 5:00 There being no further business, Mayor Mason adjourned the Regular meeting of April 1, 2002, at 5:00 p.m. Carlhag CAROLYN (J. MSON, MAYOR ATTEST: TA Rill W Relensen BILLY ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK -