Loading...
PL 01/02/2002 - 00024712CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 2, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the January 2, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Barbara Johns, Larry Kuechle, Dean Saba, Leroy Oquist Members Absent: None Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Richard Young, 5695 Quincy Street Mike Christiansen, 300 Longfellow Street Lyle Nelson, 1316 Skywood Court Jim and Donna Reisner, 6424 Pierce Street APPROVE THE DECEMBER 5. 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Johns, to approve the December 5, 2001, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #01-08, by the City of Fridley for reconsideration of the City Ordinance on the storage of non-motorized vehicles such as campers, boats, snowmobile trailers on residential properties. MOTION by Ms. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:33 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that the City is requesting a zoning text amendment that would change City Code requirements on the parking of non-motorized camping trailers, boats, and utility trailers. When the City began the systematic code enforcement program in 1998, a number of property owners were storing their utility trailers, campers, and boats in the front yard next to or on the driveway. The Code does not allow this and never has. Two property owners requested variances to park their travel trailers on the driveway. Both variance requests were denied. Because of the interest of the public, City Council instructed City staff to take another look at this section of Code. On September 17, 2001, the Council members held a public hearing to discuss the existing ordinance and give residents a chance to voice opinions. All but one were in favor of allowing campers and trailers on the driveway seasonably or year around. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 2. 2002 PAGE 2 Mr. Bolin stated City staff also looked at other cities' regulations which ranged from very simple to very complicated code sections. Some communities allow the shorter trailer such as a pop- up, and some allow trailers of greater length. The City of Fridley currently only allows outdoor storage in the side and rear yard for non-motorized campers, boat trailers, and utility trailers. The City requires motorized recreational vehicles to be parked on paved surface. So, a motorized RV can be parked in the driveway, but a boat cannot. A boat must be parked in the side yard. City staff wanted a user-friendly ordinance that would be easy to enforce. The most recent citizen survey indicated that if the ordinance stays as is or is changed, half of the respondents are going to be disappointed in the outcome. The ordinance as it now reads is easy for staff to enforce, and about half of the respondents favored that option. Mr. Bolin stated the second option to allow outdoor storage in all portions of the yard is easy to enforce but counterproductive to the goal of improving Fridley's image. Mr. Bolin stated the third option recommended for approval would allow not only motorized RVs in the driveway, but also non-motorized campers and boat trailers. The Exterior Storage portion of the R-1 zoning district reads: "Nothing shall be stored in the required front yard with the exception of boats, non-motorized camping trailers and utility trailers, provided they are located on an approved hard surface and no portion of the sub-trailer extends more than 25 feet from the home's living area." Most homes in Fridley are set back at 35 feet, so this would still keep the trailers far enough back from the street. If the garage is set back further than the front corner of the living area, this would allow a larger camper. This would also deter vision problems. Mr. Bolin stated that the second change of wording would be under the second paragraph of the code section as follows: "Boats, non-motorized camping trailers, and utility trailers stored in the side or rear yard are not required to be located on a hard surface." Staff recommends the proposed ordinance resembling the third option be approved by the Planning Commission and forwarded on to the City Council for final approval on January 28. Ms. Savage asked if this is a separate ordinance that has to do with the non-motorized trailers. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct, because the motorized ones are dealt with in the motorized vehicle parking section of the ordinance. That will have no changes. Ms. Savage stated that separate code provisions allow motorized recreational vehicles to be parked in the driveway. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. Ms. Savage stated there is no limitation as to the number of non-motorized boats and trailers. Mr. Bolin stated that the only limit is that if they are in the front yard, they need to be on the driveway. Ms. Savage stated that some other cities' ordinances had limitations on the number of recreational vehicles. Mr. Bolin stated that a limit of two recreational vehicles per property is fairly common. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 2. 2002 PAGE 3 Ms. Savage asked how you would count a non-motorized recreational vehicle if you did have a limitation of two. Mr. Bolin stated they would count the trailer with a boat or snowmobiles on it as a single unit. Most cities do this also. Mr. Saba asked if the setback of 25 feet would make any traffic vision problems. Mr. Bolin stated that with the 25-foot setback, in most cases, the home will still have 7-13 feet of boulevard area before the property starts. Mr. Kondrick stated that a motorized camper less than 25 feet from the curb would be against the rules. Mr. Bolin stated that if it is motorized, it is not regulated. Mr. Kuechle asked about the logic of differentiating between motorized and non-motorized. Mr. Bolin stated that the State requires motorized vehicles to be parked on a paved surface. RVs are lumped in with the commercial vehicles. The City reviewed this section of the ordinance six years ago, and they did not deal with anything that was non-motorized. That is a separate code section. Most Fridley residents are happy with the RV section, and they have had no requests to change that. If the Commission prefers to put a size limitation on motorized vehicles, it can be looked at. Mr. Kuechle asked how near a hard surface could be placed to the lot line. Mr. Bolin stated that it is three feet. Mr. Kuechle asked if any thought was given to having it 15-20 feet off the curb. Mr. Bolin stated that they were looking for something easily enforceable, and it makes sense to not have something sticking way out in front of the home. With the front yard living area setback, this seemed logical. Mr. Kondrick stated that if a neighbor backs out of the driveway and gets into a collision due to vision obstruction from the RV or camper, who's fault is that? Twenty-five feet seems fair. Mr. Kuechle stated he would prefer going back 15 feet from the curb line. Mr. Kondrick stated that backing out of the driveway safely with a camper or RV in the way of vision is what bothers him. He would prefer 15 feet also. Mr. Bolin stated that would be an easy change to make. It could be 15 feet back from the curb, but in no case more than 25 feet in front of the home. Mr. Kuechle stated he is concerned about having 25 feet in front of the home, because it tempts people to park it right against the garage. That is not very attractive either. It is better to leave a space to at least walk behind it. He does not know if 25 feet is a reasonable length for a trailer. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 2. 2002 PAGE 4 Richard Young, 5695 Quincy Street, stated that there is a big difference between travel trailers and a fifth wheel trailer. If you have a 25 foot travel trailer towed behind the vehicle, the hitch is approximately three feet from the front of the vehicle. The Commission may want to consider 25 feet of the trailer itself, not counting the hitch unit. Mr. Kondrick asked about 6-foot hitches. Mr. Young stated they are typically about three feet. Mr. Kondrick stated a 6-foot hitch would be a problem. Mr. Young stated he would not have been aware of this meeting if he had not seen it in the Focus News. He was not aware of the City Council meeting on September 17, because he was out of town. He has a 29-foot fifth wheel that sits on the driveway. No more than two feet of that sticks in front of his house, so he would be in compliance. Mr. Kondrick stated that is correct. Ms. Johns asked if he would be in compliance because it is in the side yard. Mr. Bolin stated that he would be in compliance. Mr. Young asked if he had to have it on a hard surface. The majority is on the driveway. His neighbor has no problem with one wheel sitting on his yard because it sticks over just a bit. He would get a variance for that if he has to. There are so many ordinances that are easily enforced that appear not to be enforced. He would hate to think of another ordinance that is selectively enforced. One ordinance not adequately enforced is the "no parking" on the street for more than 24 continuous hours. Garbage containers are also visible from the street. Ms. Savage stated the Commission is not really addressing these other ordinances at this time. She asked Mr. Young if he was in favor of this proposal. Mr. Young stated that he is because he is in compliance. In the winter time, his fifth wheel is in storage and in the summer it is sitting on his driveway. Storage is expensive and difficult to find. Jim and Donna Reisner, 6424 Pierce Street, stated they have been to a few of the Council meetings about this. Their camper is 30 feet long, and it is stored in their driveway from May 15 through November 15 and then stored off site all winter. They are hoping that the code changes so they can keep it in their driveway during the summer. Ms. Reisner stated she has a bad back so it is easier to have it there so she can clean it when she needs to. Mr. Reisner, 6424 Pierce St., stated that the motorized RVs can be 30-35 feet and still be parked in the driveway. Whose fault is it if there is a collision when pulling out of the driveway because vision is blocked by these long RVs? Mr. Bolin stated that is a separate section of code. Ms. Reisner stated there is plenty of room for them to park their pick-up in front of the camper, and their neighbors have no problem with it. Ms. Savage asked if they were in favor of the new ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 2. 2002 Ms. Reisner stated they are in favor of the new ordinance. PAGE 5 Mr. Oquist stated the Reisner's camper is 30 feet, but the proposed code change is saying that only 25-foot campers are allowed. Ms. Johns stated that if the Reisners have a long driveway, the camper can still be parked there. Mr. Oquist stated that the ordinance states that it is 25 feet from the garage to the tongue. Their camper is 30 feet so they are in violation. The Commission could change that to read 15 feet from the curb, then they would be okay. Ms. Savage asked if the Reisners could park their camper along the side of the house. Ms. Reisner stated that they would have to go across the neighbor's yard into his driveway to get to the side of their house. Mr. Reisner stated it should not matter how long a trailer is as long as there is a good view. Ms. Savage stated they would consider that. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated that it is more reasonable to govern the distance from the curb to the trailer. This would put the 25-foot camper out into the boulevard area for those properties with short driveways. Ms. Johns asked if they would have to view it from the street. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. Ms. Johns stated that it would be easier to measure from the curb than it would be from the camper. Mr. Oquist stated that 15 feet from the curb is more reasonable. Mr. Kondrick stated he agrees with the change, but the 15 feet from the curb is better. Mr. Kuechle asked if there was any interest by staff to have a 25-foot limit. Mr. Bolin stated that the 25-foot limit keeps campers back out of the right-of-way; and with most homes, it keeps them back an additional ten feet from the right-of-way. Mr. Kondrick stated that they would be further away from the curb on average measuring from the house as opposed to the curb. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 2. 2002 PAGE 6 Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. They just need a size limit, and not everyone will get to keep a camper in the driveway. For example, Mr. Saba has a garage that is set back further than his home and his home is set back 35 feet. If he measured 25 feet from the front of his house and went all the way back to his garage, he could put a 50-foot camper in his driveway. Mr. Oquist stated that he likes the way the New Hope ordinance reads with the setback of 15 feet from the street and curb and not encroaching on any sidewalk and front yard. Mr. Kuechle asked what the possibility would be of putting a limit of 15 or 30 feet from the curb? Keep both of them but extend it to 25 feet; yet it has to be at least 15 feet back from the curb. The ordinance should try to accommodate the majority of the people. Mr. Bolin stated that it depends on how far the garage is set back from the home. He is not opposed to the 15-foot suggestion either. Ms. Johns asked if staff thought about putting non-motorized vehicles on the driveway, that people may park their cars on the street if it is a smaller driveway. Mr. Bolin stated that would be a problem in the winter. Ms. Johns stated this would probably only happen in the summer. Mr. Kondrick stated that safety comes first. People may just have to find another place to park if it is too close to the street. Ms. Savage stated that she has a concern about more clutter with no limitations on the non- motorized and motorized vehicles. Ms. Johns asked if a lot of letters have been sent out for noncompliance of this ordinance. Mr. Bolin stated that many noncompliance letters for boats and trailers in the front yard have been sent out since 1998. Ms. Johns asked if those people knew of the ordinance. Mr. Bolin stated many do not know of this ordinance until they get the first letter. Mr. Saba stated that summer is such a short season and these vehicles would not be out for a long time. If people take care of these vehicles, it does not look bad. He likes this ordinance and thinks it is a good one. He shares a little of the concern about the clutter, but he thinks most people tend to keep their properties as neat as possible. He does not have a problem with going 15 feet away from the curb. Mr. Oquist feels that he agrees with 15 feet, but they should drop the 25 foot requirement. It should not encroach on the sidewalk or front yard. The hitch cannot be out on the sidewalk. Mr. Bolin stated that in the ordinance, the public right-of-way will limit that. Ms. Savage asked if in the other cities' ordinances, "neighbor approval" meant next door neighbor. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 2. 2002 Mr. Bolin stated that was correct with written approval. Ms. Savage asked if he would consider that. PAGE 7 Mr. Bolin stated he would not because you may get along with neighbors one day and not the next. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of ZTA #01-08 as amended: Section 205.07.06.0 EXTERIOR STORAGE C. Exterior Storage (1) Nothing shall be stored in the required front yard, with the exception of boats, non- motorized camping trailers, and utility trailers provided they are located on an approved hard surface and no portion of said trailer extends closer than 15 feet to the back of the curb. In no case shall said trailer encroach on the public right-of-way. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONERS KUECHLE, OQUIST, KONDRICK, SABA, AND JOHNS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1. Mr. Bolin stated this item will go to City Council on January 28. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Bolin stated that the January 16 meeting is canceled. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JANUARY 2, 2002, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Recording Secretary