04-30-07 Item 7A, Planning Case 07-006 Zoning Code for RV's

Home Browse Search

,...", L&- : Q ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 4, 2007 3 Commissioner Larson stated back when the ordinance was originally adopted, 34 feet was probably a reasonable length, but today things are larger, so they need to say if the ordinance was correct at 34 feet, or should they look at other areas such as setbacks. Chair Sand stated it appeared both sides had good arguments in their favor. Applicant bought a motor home and the dealer represented it was a 34-foot mobile home, so the applicant thought it met the ordinance, but once it was measured, it was determined it was in excess of 34- feet and since the Ordinance did not very well define length, he believed both parties proceeded in good faith and it was a matter of interpretation they needed to deal with. Commissioner Thompson asked if there was any height requirements. Mr. Lehnhoff responded that R V s greater than seven feet in height, regardless of length, would require a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the request to come forward and make comment. David Hagen, 3631 Pascal Avenue N, stated this process started for him back in June 10, 2006 when he spoke with the City of Arden Hills. He stated he had spoken with the City and that he was looking for a trailer and they informed him of the code requirements and ordinances. He stated he had explained to them how fifth wheels were measured and classified and at that time, and someone told him that if that was the way the trailers were classified that it would be okay under the City Ordinance. He noted this was a major investment and they had been looking for a trailer for the past five years. He stated they had done their homework and based on what the City told them, they went out shopping for a trailer complying with the Codes and that was a critical part of their decision process. He stated all of the dealers he talked with referred to a measurement of a trailer from the king pin to the rear bumper and that was why they bought the trailer they bought. He stated he had received several letters from dealers and manufacturers on how they measured trailers. He believed his trailer was in compliance with the City Code. He summarized some letters he had received from various RV vendors and manufacturers. He stated the staff had also contacted three dealers and also found that this was a standard form of measurement for fifth wheel trailers. He stated he wanted to work with his neighbors to the best of his ability and was willing to put in $5,200.00 in landscaping along his property line. He stated he had been in contact with the City since June, 2006. He stated he was a conscientious buyer and had checked the Codes before he bought the trailer and based on the Codes, he bought a trailer that he believed met City Code. Anita Warner, 1444 Arden Oaks Court, stated she has lived at this address for almost 25 years and shared a common property line with Mr. Hagen. She stated this was a very difficult situation for them and during the 25 years, they have never made a complaint about a neighbor, but this issue affected them. She asked the Planning Commission to enforce the ordinance and not grant a CUP and to find the vehicle should not be considered for a CUP because it exceeds the 34-foot maximum length. She stated the vehicle was located to the west of their property and was highly visible from all windows of their home. She stated Mr. Hagen should have applied for the CUP before purchasing the trailer. She stated Mr. Hagen placed the RV on his property in early November and