CC_Minutes_2014_0421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 21, 2014 Page 10 guage in Code could also be used to address and enforce public nuisance con- cerns. Public Comment Dan Kelsey, 735 Heinel Drive As someone who has spent the last fourteen years reviewing, writing, adopting and enforcing state rules similar to the proposed ordinance, Mr. Kelsey stated that he had learned a lot during that time. Mr. Kelsey cautioned that it was easy to get more restrictive and overreact, opining that there were times when government should move slowly, suggesting this instance may be one of those times. Mr. Kelsey expressed appreciation for the comments about driveways, opining that by today's standards, a 20' boat was not considered large; and it was nice to have some flexibility, especially with recreational vehicles parked on cul-de-sacs. Mr. Kelsey stated that another thing he had learned from rules was that there were people on both sides of the spectrum, and if the intent was to keep people happy and to approach the problem methodically, as a resident, he would prefer that oth- er portions of the discussion be held before action taken. Mr. Kelsey stated that, while he wasn't happy with having more rules and regulations, but he wouldn't object to the proposed language moving forward as proposed by staff. Robert Seebow, 657 Heinel Drive Mr. Seebow expressed similar concerns as expressed by Councilmembers Laliber- te and Etten, in creating blanket ordinances for only a few violators. Mr. Seebow opined that Mayor Roe's suggestion for a review of the visibility triangle would be better versus this overarching ordinance; and questioned how many neighbors needed to complain. Mr. Seebow opined that there was a lot of ambiguity with this proposal at this current time, and asked for more consideration and explora- tion versus taking action at this time. Richard Karlan, 693 Heinel Mr. Karlan advised that one concern of his was singling out one class of vehicle without a particular validated study on which class of vehicle was more of a nui- sance than others. Mr. Karlan opined that he didn't see a difference in a passen- ger vehicle being parked on the street every night and a boat/trailer that doesn't move frequently. When defining nuisance, Mr. Karlan opined that the City opened itself up to more litigation if singling out one vehicle from others; and suggested that the proposed language not remain arbitrary. Mr. Karlan opined that it was unreasonable to prevent people from parking on a street for a reasona- ble amount of time; and suggested one class of user should not be singled out from another. Mr. Kaplan advised that he owned an RV and didn't typically keep it in front of his property, but as a physician, he didn't always get it out as soon as he planned, depending on his unpredictable schedule. Mr. Kaplan opined that his neighbors were not complaining, and recognized that the City needed to plow streets; however, he reiterated that the proposed language should have non- arbitrary distinctions with clear vehicle classes provided.