Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, May 7, 2014 <br />Page 2 <br />by the Planning Commission. At this time, however, Mr. Paschke advised that they were <br />46 <br />covered in the Nuisance Code and other code enforcement sections. <br />47 <br />Discussion ensued about current provisions and the length of consecutive days for <br />48 <br />storing items and the location for such storage in residential areas; how and when those <br />49 <br />issues were enforced; and whether or not those considerations fell within the scope or <br />50 <br />charge of the Planning Commission without the addition of that particular section in the <br />51 <br />Zoning Code. <br />52 <br />Mr. Paschke suggested the immediate step would be for an internal staff discussion <br />53 <br />among Community Development Department staff and the City Manager to determine the <br />54 <br />best approach in addressing accessory structures in particular Zoning District <br />55 <br />designations and permitted or non-permitted uses; and whether it would be appropriate to <br />56 <br />add something to the Zoning Ordinance beyond current language. Mr. Paschke <br />57 <br />suggested that if such an addition occurred, it may be best to keep it as a separate <br />58 <br />section to avoid consultation with the Planning Commission formally versus <br />59 <br />administrative action by staff, with the typical appeal process to the City Council, in <br />60 <br />addressing these areas of concern. <br />61 <br />Further discussion ensued regarding how such situations are currently handled and <br />62 <br />current rules and regulations covered in Code, considerations in shoreland areas and <br />63 <br />differences addressed in that specific ordinance and actual definition of front and rear <br />64 <br />yards in the current ordinance; and potential need to amend the Zoning Ordinance <br />65 <br />accordingly. <br />66 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Mulder advised that he had not been successful in <br />67 <br />approaching the neighbor directly at least to the point of finding any resolution. Mr. <br />68 <br />Mulder advised that he had called the City to explain the situation, at which time the RV <br />69 <br />was moved from the previous surface (grass) to the impervious surface (driveway). <br />70 <br />However, Mr. Mulder noted that this past winter in particular, this had created huge <br />71 <br />problems in snow plowing, since the RV was long enough to extend about 1’ beyond the <br />72 <br />curb. Mr. Mulder advised that this particular neighbor had stored the RV off Rice Street in <br />73 <br />a commercial area in the past until the gas line was redone on Rice Street last year, at <br />74 <br />which time the RV had been moved to the home. Due to family issues, Mr. Mulder <br />75 <br />advised that it was his understanding that the RV could no longer be stored off Rice <br />76 <br />Street in that former area; and while having been told that the RV was for sale, Mr. <br />77 <br />Mulder noted that it had not moved for at least nine months. <br />78 <br />Mr. Mulder advised that he thought the Planning Commission was an appropriate next <br />79 <br />step to begin the conversation and determine whether, when and where it was <br />80 <br />appropriate for storing this type of unit on residential properties. <br />81 <br />Mr. Mulder noted that he had observed at least three similar situations throughout the <br />82 <br />community. Mr. Mulder noted that there were places that could be leased or areas for off- <br />83 <br />site parking, at a fee, and suggested people pursue that option and be willing to pay <br />84 <br />applicable storage fees for doing so. <br />85 <br />MOTION <br />86 <br />Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy, to request that the <br />87 <br />Planning Department review appropriate codes and/or ordinances that limit <br />88 <br />parking and/or storage of large vehicles on residential driveways; and return with <br />89 <br />their assessment and recommendations to the Planning Commission in the future, <br />90 <br />with their analysis of the feasibility and appropriate mechanisms for enforcing or <br />91 <br />putting such steps in affect based on this discussion. <br />92 <br />In support of the motion, Member Boguszewski noted that he had not put a date specific <br />93 <br />to the motion as he didn’t want to make this a priority that may take away from other work <br />94 <br />items; and once staff’s report was received, further action could be taken by the <br />95 <br />Commission as appropriate. <br />96 <br /> <br />