Minutes - Planning Commission - 01/10/1996 - Public Hearing @ 7:54

Home

owners of these vehicles should also be required to park them on an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt to minimize potential ground water pollution. Ms. Williams concluded that these inoperable junk vehicles, unlike commercial vehicles, sit on their owner's property 24 hours a day; they do not come and go on a regular (or even a yearly) basis. Without limitations on the accumulation of inoperable junk cars of any type, the City is inviting overall decline in property values. Tom Kurak, 15001 Sunfish Lake Boulevard N.W. - remarked that Ms. Williams' statement that no one has objected to these ordinances is not tree. Mr. Kurak declared that he opposes these amendments, stating they are too restrictive on the whole for properties. He felt that if a person wants to live in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants, they can move to that type neighborhood rather than put these restrictions on the whole city of Ramsey. He added "as it is, we don't allow overnight parking on the streets, and that should be good enough." Landol Locher, 15451 Nowthen Boulevard N.W. - stated he has been a resident since April, 1969. He explained they moved out here to "get some space and get away from postage-size lots, shoulder-to-shoulder people, etc." He agreed this amendment makes sense for these smaller lots the City is trying to bring in here. Mr. Locher commented that the law is suppose to be by the people, for the people, and of the people, however, these laws seem to be for special interest groups and not the people. He suggested making the Planning Commission and the City Council resign and putting the developers on it. He declared "it's time for us to take our city back. We have people out there that are constant complainers. This is just the first of them trying to tell us how to live." Mr. Locher also mentioned that he has collector cars that are grandfathered in. Commissioner Deemer remarked that he would like to see those documents. Mr. Locher advised him to see the City Attorney. Mr. Locher went on to state "you seem to be rubber stamping everything that comes to you." He questioned the rationale for requiring a parking surface, stating he saw no reason for it since oil, etc. will wash off the cement or concrete and end up on the ground. He declared "this is a ruse, a hindrance, to prohibit people from parking their vehicles. If this stuff isn't stopped, I can see a lot more ordinances coming, telling us how to run our lives." Mr. Locher inquired about the 75% screening, whether it applied to winter or summer. He commented that the City is buying themselves a lawsuit. He also felt that a lot of people did not appear for the public hearing because they fear recrimination. Chairperson Bawden inquired as to the comparison to the original ordinance. Ms. Frolik replied that the amendment is not changing the number of unlicensed private vehicles allowed in the original ordinance. She also explained that the surface pad only applies to commercial use vehicles and the intention is to keep those vehicles in one area on the lot. The screening also applies only to commercial use vehicles and should be 75% screened year-round. Mr. Locher reiterated "the nebulousness of this is bringing a lawsuit." Commissioner Deemer stated the City cannot discriminate by size of lot because the Supreme Court has thrown similar cases out. Mr. Locher suggested making it a requirement that the vehicles be contained within 10-20 feet of the garage, and Ms. Frolik agreed that was viable. Larry Plessel, 15323 Ramsey Boulevard N.W. - felt this was the best ordinance draft the residents have had to work with. He stated "I don't like it, but it's workable." Public Hearing/Planning Commission/January 10, 1996 Page 2 of 3