Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/08/1996

Home

Mr. Jankowski r~poned that weight restrictions are not posted with the exception of during the spring thaw, and during that time, the City expects all vehicles to comply with those road restrictions. He attvised that all road restrictions are either five tons or seven tons. Mr. Jankowski went on to explai~ that the purpose for the proposed ordinance is to restrict what type vehicles can be stored in residt, ntial areas, not to protect the streets. Dorene Pellet, 1~301 Zirconium Street N.W. - questioned whose revenue was to be considered. Chairperson Bawden replied that anybody's revenue, whether it be the homeowner's or a company's, woul~ be applicable. Marlys Williams~ 5180 157th Lane N.W. - pointed out that Chapter 5 attempts to prohibit storage of junk vehicles ~d this amendment to Chapter 9 would allow outdoor storage of any number of private vehicles ~s long as they are licensed. Commissioner D~emer replied that Chapter 5 currently refers to unlicensed motor vehicle,s with the intent to prohibittthe storage of junk. Chapter 9 deals with licensed vehicles, and we don t want to refer to them as j~unk. Ms. Williams q,aestioned whether vintage classic cars, not operable but with collector license plates, were covered under Chapter 5 or Chapter 9. Ms. Frolik repli ~d:l they would be considered a private use motor vehicle under Chapter 9. Commissioner 'I~horud inquired whether demolition cars would be allowed also. Ms. Frolik stated she assumed they would be if they had current licensing. Ms. Williams felt that the City was contradicting themselves with Chapter 5. Ms. Frolik speechified that the ordinance does not say the vehicle has to be operable, it states "designed to be lself-propelled." Ms. Williams reiterated that Chapter 5 states inoperable motor vehicles are not allowed. Terry Armstrong, 7290 154th Lane N.W. - stated that the Planning Commission has come up with about as worka~ble a product as can be expected. He agreed that it needs some fine tuning regarding the s{reening and parking surface, but that it is basically a workable ordinance that everyone can d~al with. With regard to the junk cars issue, he felt.that if it is a vehicle for commercial us~ then it should be screened. Ms. Frolik explained that private use vehicles do not require screening. She noted that there still is only one unlice!ased vehicle allowed. Commissioner Bawden noted that the prior discussion concerned vintage cars that were licensed but didn't run. Mr. Armstrongisuggested requiring screening for both so that they wouldn't be offensive. He felt this is leading fo an argument as to whose junk looks worse, therefore 75% screening should be required for everyone. Ms. Frolik felt ihis might open the door to a bunch of mini salvage yards. !Public Hearing/Planning Commission/January 2, 1996 Page 3 of 4