My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/08/1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
1996
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/08/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 12:45:47 PM
Creation date
9/25/2003 2:39:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
02/08/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Connolly questioned where the line would be drawn. He felt the City will have to go by either <br /> gross weight or by license ptate. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Deemer disagreed, stating that doing such would be discriminatory. <br /> <br /> Chairperson Bawden stated the guidelines are outlined in the definitions entitled "Motor Vehicle, <br /> Commercial Use" and "Equipment, Commercial Use". <br /> <br /> Mr. Connolly also inquired how screening and fencing are going to be handled. <br /> <br /> Ms. Frolik summarized current City Code requirements for screening. <br /> <br /> Chairperson Bawden pointed out that the commercial use vehicles and equipment must be 75% <br /> screened. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Deemer added that they also have to be parked on a hard surface. <br /> <br /> Mr. Connolly inquired whether Class V would meet that requirement. <br /> <br /> City Engineer Jankowski stated it would be okay in the rural areas of the city. <br /> <br />Mr. Connolly questioned having two standards for the city, and Ms. Frolik stated that it is not <br />abnormal for the City to have separate standards for the mraI and urban areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Connolly questioned whether the size of the vehicle mattered. He also noted there were no <br />dimensions specified for the hard surface, stating that he could put down four cement patio blocks <br />under the tires of his vehicle and it would comply. He stressed the need to specify exactly what the <br />City wants accomplished because this ordinance is too vague. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holland solicited Mr. Connolly's suggestions, and Mr. Connolly suggested doing <br />as the old ordinance did and go by gross weight. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer noted that it was a one-ton restriction. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik stated that the intent was to go after vehicles used for commercial use, not to define a <br />commercial vehicle. <br /> <br />Mr. Connolly inquired whether Staff has checked with the City Attorney to see how far they can <br />go before it's decided that they are over-legislating. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik replied that the City Attorney will review this when it is in its final draft. <br /> <br />Mr. Connolly inquired whether there was any time limit to comply. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated he ~lieved it would be 24 hours after~'-~k~- ~q-~/r~ <br />Mr. Connolly inquired whether anything going over the road could be put indo6r for storage, <br />noting that some of these large vehicles can tear up the roads. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bawden stated that if the vehicle violates other statutes, then those statutes would <br />apply. <br /> <br />Public Hearing/Planning Commission/January 2, 1996 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.