Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 <br />the area that is typically used for boat or RV storage may become unkempt <br />and unsightly given weeds will grow or other storage will accumulate. <br />The Planner noted that the ordinance amendment does not say that boats <br />cannot be stored within 3 feet of the side lot line in the side yard, it says <br />that if boats are stored in that area, they must be screened. <br />Murphy asked if the City has received complaints around this issue. The <br />Planner indicated that the issue is that property owners are confused in <br />reading the Code, and City staff is requesting more clarity. <br />Duray asked what other cities are doing. The Planner reported that while <br />each city is a little different, and while some cities have gone deeper into <br />the issue of the parking of RVs, most cities do allow some side yard <br />storage. <br />Knudsen asked which sections of the ordinance amendment proposed are <br />more restrictive than the current Code. The Planner replied that the 6 foot <br />height limitation is new, although implied in the current Code. The <br />Planner also indicated that the screening requirement is also implied in the <br />Code, but not necessarily clear. <br />Maleitzke asked if this was a housekeeping item requested by staff and not <br />the result of complaints. The Planner reported that it is a little of both, and <br />noted that staff has requested the amendment to provide them more clarity <br />in explaining side yard storage to property owners. <br />Again, Knudsen asked where this Code was more restrictive. The Planner <br />replied that the proposed language clarifies the current Code, and <br />indicated that the language relative to RV storage is probably the biggest <br />clarification. Knudsen asked if RVs can be parking in the driveway or <br />behind a house. The Planner replied that that was correct, noting that <br />storage of an RV in a rear yard would be subject to a 10 feet setback from <br />the rear property line. <br />Murphy stated that unless there were numerous complaints, she did not see <br />the necessity of this ordinance. Murphy pointed out the nature of the <br />community and the fact that there are lakes in Little Canada. The Planner <br />replied that staff requested the amendment in order to gain clarity when <br />discussing these issues with property owners. <br />Knudsen recommended approval of the Amendment to the Zoning code, <br />Chapter 903, General Provisions, relating to the regulations for the parking <br />of vehicles on residential properties as recommended in the City Planner's <br />report dated September 7, 2012. <br />Motion seconded by Fischer. <br />- 10 - <br />