CC Minutes 10/13/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CASSELBERRY CITY COMMISSION Minutes of October 13, 2008 - Regular Meeting Page 14 of 17 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.Section 3-10.9, Parking in residential districts. The intent of the parking requirements was to eliminate parking of vehicles with accessories and attachments from the driveways in neighborhoods. Based on Code Enforcement action, the manner in which the Code is written requires a vehicle to first meet the definition for a large vehicle (length, height, copy area) before it can be reviewed for attachments and accessories. A phrase has been eliminated from the current code to remove the large vehicle requirement. 3) Vehicles defined as a Large Vehicles due solely to having accessories or attachments (racks and similar structures) designed to haul, store, or transport equipment and/or materials such as ladders, pipes, hoses, cord, scaffolding and the like shall be parked in a garage or carport. Recommendation: The City Manager and the Community Development Director recommended approval of Ordinance 08-1251, including the staff amended language. Public Hearing: The following individual came forward and addressed Ordinance 08-1251: 1) Mr. Craig Tull, 420 Ranch Trail, stated he was confused by the proposed language pertaining to defined as a large vehicle. Ms. Smith clarified the proposed language requires vehicles with commercial accessories and attachments to park in the garage or carport. No one else came forward. Mayor Goff closed the public hearing relative to Ordinance 08-1251. MOTION:Vice Mayor Hufford moved to approve Ordinance 08-1251 as amended. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Solomon read a statement into the record proposing that the ordinance be restated that a code violation not be issued if the only issue is a vehicle rack and the house is kept up. The City Attorney stated she understood Commissioner Solomon’s concerns, however her suggested language would be very subjective and impair the City’s ability to enforce codes. The City Commission discussed front yard landscaping and fencing and the possibility of amending the code to allow a four-foot high fence in the front yard. The City Commission requested staff to review codes from surrounding communities and to change the title of the ordinance to be more generic and not reference specifically six foot fences, should the Commission decide at the next reading to modify the front yard fence height. Vice Mayor Hufford stated she was not in favor of increasing the front yard fence height, and felt the intent was for the fence to be of a decorative nature. Motion carried 4 - 1 (Mayor Goff dissenting) by voice vote. 10.FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES