gr00090_000044_pg127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Objections to parking some kind of recreational vehicle in the front yard were expressed by a total of 47 (36 %) of the respondents; 25 respondents who do not own such vehicles, and 22 respondents who own recreational vehicles. The types of behicles objected to were as follows: NON- OWNERS OWNERS TOTAL House Trailer 21 12 33 Chassis Mounted Camper 16 3 19 Housecar 11 2 13 Motorhome 18 5 23 Tent Trailer 15 4 19 Slip -In Camper 16 4 20 Converted Bus 21 15 36 Converted Van 11 5 16 A total of 18 (14 %) of the respondents (15 non - owners /3 owners) indicated a permit should be obtained in order to park the objectionable vehicle within a neighbor's view. Sixteen (12 %) of the respondents (14 non - owners /2 owners) indicated the objectionable vehicle should be prohibited entirely from parking within a neighbor's view. Wayne Spiczka, 7634 Groveland Road asked who started the ordinance. Councilmember Baumgartner replied that it first came up 22 to 3 years ago and started with two converted school buses. The problem in eliminating the eyesore is that some criteria must be established, and that in trying to get rid of the buses, the ordinance•came about. There is no one individual who could be considered the originator of the ordinance. Mr. Spiczka questioned why fences could be put up and why a vehicle couldn't be put behind it. He stated that if a recreational vehicle had to be parked away from the home, it would be open to vandalism, higher insurance rates, etc. Mr. Kirberger stated that insurance coverage is lost on recreational vehicles once • they are stored off the owner's property. Mr. Beckfield mentioned that if recreational vehicles were moved to the back yards, they would then just become an eyesore for the neighbors in back of the o;.fner. Wayne Mortenson, 2175 Bronson Drive stated that his motor home takes away no more visability than anything else. He questioned where the 1 ton chassis limit came about. His c c in a vehicle r only 19 feet long n ut has a 1, ton chassis. so �. . s r4 r4t n l � � i � o ., A �.. ►0�3;, b� � n ��s ,� l:r �.� a.�s is in violation of the ordinance. He did not feel the weight limit should be con- sidered on recreational vehicles since often times a longer vehicle will weigh less than a shorter one. Mayor Pickar stated that the major concern was the safety factor in blocking the view with a vehicle, not the weight. Administrator Achen stated that the weight limit was put into the ordinance because the ordinance covers both recreational and commercial vehicles and they tried to set up one set of regulations, since they could not discriminate between the recreational and commercial vehicles.