Laserfiche WebLink
the hearing and that the two converted buses in question had been parked in excess <br />of 15 feet from the curb, so they would not be in violation of the ordinance if it <br />were passed with just a footage requirement. However, he did see many passenger <br />vehicles that were less than 15 feet from the curb. Councilmember Baumgartner stated <br />that he felt most recreational vehicle owners were smart enough to not park their <br />vehicle close to the street. <br />Councilmember Hodges stated that he agreed with Councilmember Baumgartner and that <br />parking near the street did present a safety hazard. He also stated that he was <br />aware of the eyesore problem but did not feel that it was connected directly to <br />the recreational vehicles but rather to buses. He stated that he would go along <br />with a parking requirement from the curb. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth stated that he felt the City and the citizens should involve <br />themselves with problem solving, and that people generally come to a hearing of this <br />type with something to defend, and that while the people could be noisy it did not <br />solve the problem. He felt the people should look to the future and that they should <br />look far enough ahead and then put the issue in a problem solving situation and come <br />up with some answers. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth also stated that he felt at least 20 feet was needed from the <br />curb in order for someone to see who was backing down a driveway or for someone <br />driving down the street to detect that someone was coming out of the driveway. He <br />felt the safety factor was the most important feature of the issue. <br />In addition to the footage requirement from the curb, Councilmember Ziebarth stated <br />he felt that the length should be looked at because in the future manufacturers <br />are going to continue building the recreational vehicles longer, and the City must <br />decide a cut -off point. <br />Councilmember Rowley stated that she was not happy with the ordinance as it presently <br />stands and that she agreed the safety factor was the most important issue. She felt <br />the City could not define what a vehicle could look like; however, it must be <br />licensed as a recreational vehicle. Also, Councilmember Rowley wanted to know how <br />many vehicles should be allowed per yard? She felt the Council should look to the <br />future and decide what should be allowed. <br />Mayor Pickar stated that one of the problems involved in changing the ordinance as <br />such is that the ordinance is referred to in many different places. The areas <br />involved are: <br />Chapter 40 (Zoning) <br />40.02, Subd B (84) <br />40.05, Subd N (2) & (4) <br />40.06, Subd D (4) & (5) <br />40.07, Subd D (6) & (8) <br />40.07, Subd F (3), (4) & (6) <br />40.10, Subd C (1), (2) & (3) <br />Chapter 81 (Parking) <br />81.01 Entire <br />81.02, Subd 3 <br />