Agenda - Council - 04/09/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I CASE # q REVIEW PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS $ AND 9 OF RAMSEY (~ITY CODE REGARDING PARKING AND STORING VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: Per Council's direction, the following concerns regarding the proposed ordinance to establish regulations for ~g and storing private and commercial use vehicles and equipment in the residential districts were forwarded to the Planning Commission for additional consideration: a4 The type~ of surfaces considered acceptable for outside storage of vehicles and equipment should be~specifically identified and there should not be any language allowing for another type of surface that will require City Staff to make a judgment call bo Perhaps ttlere should be stricter regulations in the urban service area like restricting outside parking tb the driveway or a pad immediately adjacent to the garage, and requiring equipment_, as well as vehicles to be parked on a hard surface pad adjacent to the garage. City Attorney Goodrich has indicated that it would not be considered discriminatory to set different S. tandards for the urban and rural areas (see Memo from Mr. Goodrich dated February 15, 1996). Co Perhaps there should be a cap on the number of vehicles and pieces of equipment that can be stored Or parked outside. do Screening l should be better defined: height, width, from what angle, seasonal, type of materials, etc. f. Review Coon Rapids regulations for applicability and workability in Ramsey. Notification' Persons that have been in attendance at prior City meetings regarding this subject were notified of this case being oa the Planning Commission agenda for April 2. If Council accepts the changes made by the PlanCng Commission, the ordinance wig have to be subjected to another public hearing and persorts on the mailing list will be notified of that date. Observations: In response to Item (a) above, the Planning Commission eliminated that language that allowed for alternative type o~ surface that had been pre-approved by the City Administrator. The only surfaces allowed for outside parking of vehicles is bituminous, concrete, con-bit or gravel. In response to Item (b) above, the Planning Commission rejected the idea of requiring equipment as well as vehicles! to be parked on prepared ~surfaces or requiring the outside parking pads to be located immediatel~ adjacent to the garage./ri'he Planning Commission feels that in any district, there might be oth~ areas on the lot other thtan adjacent to the garage that are more appropriate for outside storage and parking. In the urban district, the Planning Commission feels the lots are sufficiently restrict~ by virtue of their size and how that impacts their capability to meet criteria for outside storage of ~ehicles. In addition, fence heights are restricted to 8 feet, so if a privacy fence is going to be used for screening, the item being screened couldn't exceed 10-2/3 feet in height. In response to Item (c) above, the Planning Commission recalled previous discussions that leal to the decision to not l~Ut a cap on the number of vehicles and equipment that can be stored outside. As a compromise, me Planning Commission proposed an amendment to the regulations for the R-1