Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />April 9, 1997 <br />Page 4 <br />Chair Schaps stated that he received 157 telephone calls and 24 letters, one in <br />favor of the ordinance change and the rest opposed to any change. He polled <br />Board members for their position on the revised ordinance. <br />Mr. Dunn stated that he supports the revised text amendment to the ordinance. <br />Mr. Robinson stated that of the calls he received, one person supported the new <br />change, and 120 want the ordinance to stay the same. The ordinance has to be <br />updated to something everyone can live with because many are in violation of it <br />the way it is currently written. <br />Ms. Dahl thanked the residents who called her. She likes to have citizen input <br />and wants everyone to know that Board members are not unreachable. Board <br />members make mistakes, change their minds and appreciate letters and citizen <br />input. <br />The remaining five Board members supported the ordinance as it is written with <br />a revision to allow RV parking legal in driveways that is currently being violated <br />because of the setback requirements. <br />One resident stated that the ordinance is confusing because it only refers to <br />allowing one RV vehicle. There is no allowance for two trailers, or a boat and <br />camper. <br />Mr. Brixius agreed that the current ordinance language provides for one RV per <br />site. The reference to a "similar vehicle" needs to be defined. He recommended <br />that the revised ordinance address: 1) number of RV's and their size; 2) setback <br />requirements from the street; and 3) storage of RV on a paved surface, sod or <br />gravel. <br />Mr. Nicholas Nagen, 850 Olive Street, stated that he would like to see the 30 -foot <br />setback requirement eliminated from the ordinance. If that is done, most RV's <br />would be in compliance with the present ordinance, and Lino Lakes Police do not <br />have the time to measure storage setbacks of RV's. <br />Ms. Mary Archer, 201 Egret Lane, Rice Lake Estates, stated that the City should <br />be careful about making any ordinance unduly restrictive. She objected to the <br />text amendment for three reasons: <br />1. The City should not restrict a healthy and wholesome form of recreation of <br />middle class families. There are many young families in her <br />neighborhood who are struggling to raise their children, educate them and <br />have a modicum of the good life. <br />Having spent her life working in the court system, she can testify that there are <br />far worse things than seeing a boat in the neighbors' yard. <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />