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

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of2 James Lehnhoff From: Michele [slomo@usfamily.net] Sent: Monday, April 02, 200710:41 PM To: James Lehnhoff Subject: PC#07-006 Dear Mr. Lehnhoff: Neighboring property owners were invited to submit comments about the application for a conditional use permit to store a large RVon property located at 3631 Pascal Avenue North before the Planning Commission public hearing on April 6. The following are my comments. I live on the Arden Oaks Ct. cul-de-sac near the subject property. I oppose the application for the following reasons. First, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion in your report to the planning commission that the proposed storage of the RV on this property can be mitigated so as to nullify negative impacts on neighboring properties or the community. I believe that storing iarge RVs on residential lots, whether "screened" or not, does negatively impact the neighborhood and property values. I do not think that the general public perceives storing large RVs on residential lots as aesthetically pleasing or a sign of a "desirable" neighborhood. This is especially true in the Pascal/Arden Oaks Ct./Arden Oaks Dr. area, where the lots are not configured in traditional parallel manner, but where lots (and what is stored on them) can impact more than one or two adjacent properties. When i moved into this area quite a few years ago, I did so with the hope that the quality of the neighborhood would not change and my investment in my home would not lose value. As you know, there are many valuable residential properties located in close proximity to the subject property. Next, I have heard from neighbors that the applicants told them the reason for wanting to store the large RV on their property is personai "convenience" so they can easily use it on weekends. They told the neighbors that they "don't want to" have to store it some where else. However, there are two other residents, on Arden Oaks Dr., nearby, who have very large RVs, and they store their RVs off site from their residences. The only time we see those vehicles is the day before, and the day after, they take them on trips, when they load/unload the vehicles. Then those RVs disappear (go to storage eisewhere). If the applicants can afford to purchase a large RV, then they can presumably afford to pay to store it somewhere else, Why should an exception be made here? It appears that the applicants are offering to pay substantial amounts of money to buy trees. Why not use that money to pay storage fees, like the other neighbors, and store the RV off site? I do not think that the applicants' convenience should outweigh the negative effect on the neighborhood of storing these types of vehicles on a residential lot year round. Finally, my opinion is that granting this application would be inconsistent with the apparent purpose of the recently adopted city ordinance requiring property owners in the city to meet a prescribed level of maintenance of their homes. It does not make sense for the city to adopt an ordinance requiring residents to maintain their residential structures, while at the same time allowing people to park large recreational vehicles in their yards. Cluttered yards or yards with large vehicles or numerous vehicles or pieces of equipment stored in them are eyesores to many people, just as much as "run down" houses. Even if well-intended, the new ordinance seems like a joke if the city takes such a laissez-faire approach to individual homeowner's requests to store large vehicles in their yards. I sincereiy hope that the planning commission, and the city council, will use this application review as an opportunity to change past practices and take the neighborhood impact of such projects more seriously rather than what seems to be a pattern of continuing to approve every individual homeowner's request. It is very discoura9ing to pay over 4000 dollars a year in property taxes, and work hard to maintain your home and yard in a pleasing manner, only to watch, step by step, the city let more vehicles and accessories accumulate on other properties based on an individual owner's "convenience" or personal preferences/habits. Maybe the city will even consider rewriting some of its ordinances to give more weight to the interests of the neighborhood and neighboring property owners. I thank you for the opportunity to submit a comment on this application. My husband asked me to tell you that he shares my views. Respectfully submitted, Michele Owen, 1428 Arden Oaks Ct. Arden Hills 4/3/2007