Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/10/1996 - Special Commission

Home

Mr. Jankowskiireponed that weight restrictions are not posted with the exception of during the spring thaw, ~d during that time, the City expects all vehicles to comply with those road restrictions. He~ advised that all road restrictions are either five tons or seven tons. Mr. Jankowski went on to expl~n that the purpose for the proposed ordinance is to restrict what type vehicles can be stored in resi~lential areas, not to protect the streets. Dorene Peifer, i6301 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, wo~ld be applicable. Marlys Williarr~, 5180 157th Lane N.W. - pointed out that Chapter 5 attempts to prohibit storage of junk vehiclesland this amendment to Chapter 9 would allow outdoor storage of any number of private vehicles!as long as they are licensed. Commissioner ~)eemer replied that Chapter 5 currently refers to unlicensed motor vehicles with the intent to prohibit the storage of junk. Chapter 9 deals with licensed vehicles, and we don't want to refer to them asiunk. Ms. Williams questioned whether vintage classic cars, not operable but with collector license plates, were coqered under Chapter 5 or Chapter 9. Ms. Frolik repli~ they would be considered a private use motor vehicle under Chapter 9. Commissioner Thorud inquired whether demolition cars would be allowed also. Ms. Frolik stat~ she assumed they would be if they had current licensing. Ms. Williams feit that the City was contradicting themselves with Chapter 5. Ms. Frolik s.peq~.ified that the ordinance does not say the vehicle has to be operable, it states "designed to be ~elf-propelled." Ms. Williams re!terated 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[~le a product as can be expected. He agreed that it needs some fine tuning regarding the s~eening 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 feIt that if it is a vehicle for commercial use~ then it should be screened. Ms. Frolik explained that private use vehicles do not require screening. She noted that there still is only one unlicensed vehicle allowed. Commissioner Bawden noted that the prior discussion concerned vintage cars that were licensed but didn't run. ~ Mr. Armstrong ~uggested requiring screening for both so that they wouldn't be offensive. He felt this is leading ta, an argument as to whose junk looks worse, therefore 75% screening should be required for eve~one. Ms. Frolik felt t~is might open the door to a bunch of mini salvage yards. Public Hearing/Planning Commission/January Page 3 of 4 2, 1996