Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1977/06/20PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA A special meeting of the Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor Pickar at 7:30 PM on June 20, 1977 at the Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota 55112. Members Present: Also Present: Mayor Pickar Councilmember Baumgartner Councilmember Hodges Councilmember Ziebarth Councilmember Rowley Clerk- Administrator Achen OPENING OF PROJECT 1977 -2 AND 3 BIDS Administrator Achen reported that four bids had been received for the projects, ranging from a low of $42,651 to a high of $57,364.44. The low bidder was Alexander Construction Co., Inc. of Apple Valley. Project 1977 -2 includes the street and utility service improvements necessary to develop the Berwyn Addition plat on Bona Road between County Road H and Woodcrest Drive. Project 1977 -3 includes extension of a six inch watermain from Knoll Drive to the interior of Greenfield Park where a fire hydrant will be installed for ice rink flooding. It also includes extension of a plastic line to the general area of the pitcher's mound for a future underground sprinkling system. MSP Ziebarth- Hodges) to award the bid for projects 1977 -2 and 1977 -3 to Alexander Construction of Apple Valley, Minnesota for $42,651. 5 ayes Mayor Pickar adjourned the meeting until 8:00 PM, the scheduled time for the public hearing on recreational and commercial vehicles. PUBLIC HEARING ON RECREATIONAL VEHICLES Mayor Pickar opened 1.11'.' public f ?ea ri rlu on rJ2creat;onal is is ies and st'u'd that the Council was looking for input from the citizens on how they would like Chapter 40 revised. Mayor Pickar gave a brief background of Chapter 40. It was revised in February 1977 after the Planning Commission spent two years revising and updating it. A public hearing was held on February 8, 1977 on Chapter 40. The Chapter was passed at that meeting and controversy immediately arose. Mayor Pickar indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council members were aware that there would be immediate contro- versy but that the Chapter was passed as a whole with the idea to go back to problem areas. The Planning Commission again discussed the recreational and commercial vehicle laws and gathered input from the citizens. It voted on the issue and was tied at 3 to 3. -2- The City Council at that time set the hearing for tonight to get the citizens input. Mayor Pickar asked that recreational vehicles be covered first. Cedric Beckfield, 7738 Knollwood Drive questioned if the parking ban on recreational vehicles was legal. He stated that it had been found to be unconstitutional in other states and cities. He also stated that he pays $1,000 a year in taxes and that he should be able to park his vehicle in his yard. His vehicle is a pick -up camper, which he uses for work. He would have to drive past his neighbor's bedroom window if he was to try and get his camper in his back yard. Mayor Pickar replied that the City Attorney had informed the City Council that the ordinance on parking recreational vehicles was legal and constitutional. Administrator Achen informed Mr. Beckfield that his particular vehicle was not in violation of the ordinance since it did not have a 1 ton chaise or more, or was 22 feet in length or more. Harry Hermanson, 5219 Greenfield Avenue stated that he owned a $12,000 camper and had licensed it and questioned why he could not park it in his driveway. Mayor Pickar replied that the Mounds View police force had not been enforcing the ordinance until a Council decision was made, and no one had been tagged for violations, and that was why the hearing was being held, to discuss the issue and come to a decision. He stated that the Council had an option to specify a set distance off the street for vehicles to be parked in driveways. Nello Digiovanni, 5120 Long Lake Road stated that he owns a 28 foot motor home and asked why the ordinance had a length limit. He stated that he had been a resident of Mounds View for 20 years. Mayor Pickar replied that the 22 foot length limitation had been set and asked the citizens how they would determine how big is too big? Mr. Digiovanni suggested that vehicles should be allowed to park in front of homes, perhaps with the stipulation that they be 20 feet or more from the curb. Ron Johnson, 8294 Red Oak Drive stated that he owned pickup truck with a camper on it, which met the weight limitation but not length limitation. Mayor Pickar stated that the vehicle at present would be considered a violation because of the length. Mary Dumas, 8360 Spring Lake Road asked why the City needed the ordinance. Mayor Pickar replied that several cities were involved in the area. The issue was originally brought forward by citizens in opposition to looking out their windows and not being able to see anything but a recreational vehicle parked next to them. Bill Skaroild, 2470 Ridge Lane stated that he had seen several recreational vehicles parked in the parking lot of City Hall over the weekend and questioned why outsiders or visitors would be able to park without problem in the city yet the residents would not be able to. Mayor Pickar repeated that no one had been issued a violation as yet and that the Meeting was being held to reach a decision on the ordinance. -3- Arnold Knapp, 5210 Greenfield Avenue stated that he wanted to park his recreational vehicle at his own home and stated that a property owner should be able to do what he pleases on his own property. Mayor Pickar replied that he agreed, that the City had a democratic system and that the problem had to be worked out to the peoples satisfaction. Bill Kirberger of New Brighton introduced himself as a state legislative representative of the Good Sam Camping Organization, which has 3,200 members and stated that he was concerned about the ordinance and had received complaints from citizens of Mounds View, which was why he was present at the meeting. He stated that he did not believe the City officials had the right to put the ordi- nance into effect, that it was unconstitutional and should not be put into effect because of a neighbor who did not like the view. He also asked what the City expected to gain by the ordinance. He stated that a town in Texas had been faced with the same problem and their City Council decided to build a recreational vehicle park, at a cost of $139,000 and they ended up making a considerable amount of money on it. Councilmember Ziebarth replied that to answer the question of what the City expected to accomplish by the ordinance, was that safety factors be established and enforced, such as parking a recreational vehicle on an incline close to the street. Mr. Kirberger stated that he agreed that there should be safety factors enforced. He asked that the City Attorney contact the State Attorney General regarding the con- stitutionality of the ordinance. Ann Ross, 5142 Eastwood Road stated that she knew where there were several junk cars parked in the city and wondered why just recreational vehicles were being pursued and not junk cars also. Mrs. Ross asked if any action had been taken yet on the flyer the City sent out on recreational vehicles. Mayor Pickar gave the background of the flyer for those who were not aware of it. It was included in the March 1977 Newsletter and was a questionnaire on recreational vehicle parking. A total of 132 questionnaires were returned. These included 23 photocopied questionnaires that one resident went house -to -house asking citizens to complete. Of 132 2s 92 came from 'ia?�^t; r vehicles. O these the JL responses, JL I; it i ll�',iLYI. recreational 1 Il�l.i yr 92 recreational vehicle owners, 60 (66 indicated they ALWAYS park these vehicles in the front or side yard, and 9 indicated they NEVER park in the front or side yard. The balance parked in the front yar nr f 1 s 0 -5 days 3 5 -25 days 6 25 -50 days 6 over 50 days 3 summer only 10 Of the 92 owners of recreational vehicles. 80 (873x) do not store the vehicle off their premises in the winter. 63 (68'x) do not use the vehicle for daily transportation. -4- 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 2' 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 owner. 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 abort. His recreational vehicle is only 19 feet long but has a 1'2 ton chassis so 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. -5- Mr. Mortenson asked what good the law was if it was not being enforced. Mayor Pickar replied that there was an immediate reaction against the ordinance when it was passed in February so the Council decided to let the law ride and work the problem out. Councilmember Ziebarth stated that the City must look to the future and try to forsee what problems might arise within the next 10 years. Mayor Pickar stated that the hearing was for the people to realize that there is a problem as far as safety and for getting their input as to what the solution might be. Delbert Stimpson, 5132 Long Lake Road stated that the Council should remember that many citizens have invested a great deal of money into motor homes and trucks. Mr. Stimpson said that his own livelihood would be lost if the law was enforced. Mr. Skaroild asked if the Grandfather Law was being taken into consideration. The Grandfather Law says that if the people involved in an issue were living in the area before the issue arose, they cannot be affected by any such ordinance. Councilmember Hodges stated that the Grandfather Law no longer applies if the original owner moves out and a new person moves in. Mr. Skaroild stated that he did not receive the New Brighton Bulletin and thus was not aware that a hearing was even being held until a neighbor told him. Mayor Pickar replied that the New Brighton Bulletin was the official paper of the City of Mounds View since Mounds View did not have it's own paper. Also, notice was published on the board outside City Hall. Harry Gillman, 7805 Greenwood questioned if his vehicle were parked 20 feet away from the curb, what would the length of his vehicle matter? Mayor Pickar replied that the length limitation was.put in as a basis to work around, and was subject to revision. Vernon Hall, 2186 Bronson Drive stated that he felt the ordinance should just be involved with the length of open area from the end of the vehicle to the curb, not the size or weight of the vehicle Mayor Pickar agreed that the safety factor was more important than a weight or length limitation. He asked if anyone present at the hearing would lik t speak in favor of the ordinance. There was no response so Mayor Pickar polled the council members. Councilmember Baumgartner stated that he had been against the ordinance since the ordinance first came about but that he had been outvoted. He also stated that he felt approximately 75% of the people in Mounds View would not be able to get their vehicles into their back yards, if the ordinance were enforced. Councilmember Baumgartner stated that he would like to see the areas of front yard parking, weight requirements and length requirements taken out of the ordinance but some type of footage requirement, perhaps 15 feet, put in between the curb and the vehicle. Councilmember Baumgartner stated that he had driven around the City before going to the hearing and that the two converted buses in question had been parked in excess of 15 feet from the curb, so they would not be in violation of the ordinance if it were passed with just a footage requirement. However, he did see many passenger vehicles that were less than 15 feet from the curb. Councilmember Baumgartner stated that he felt most recreational vehicle owners were smart enough to not park their vehicle close to the street. Councilmember Hodges stated that he agreed with Councilmember Baumgartner and that parking near the street did present a safety hazard. He also stated that he was aware of the eyesore problem but did not feel that it was connected directly to the recreational vehicles but rather to buses. He stated that he would go along with a parking requirement from the curb. Councilmember Ziebarth stated that he felt the City and the citizens should involve themselves with problem solving, and that people generally come to a hearing of this type with something to defend, and that while the people could be noisy it did not solve the problem. He felt the people should look to the future and that they should look far enough ahead and then put the issue in a problem solving situation and come up with some answers. Councilmember Ziebarth also stated that he felt at least 20 feet was needed from the curb in order for someone to see who was backing down a driveway or for someone driving down the street to detect that someone was coming out of the driveway. He felt the safety factor was the most important feature of the issue. In addition to the footage requirement from the curb, Councilmember Ziebarth stated he felt that the length should be looked at because in the future manufacturers are going to continue building the recreational vehicles longer, and the City must decide a cut -off point. Councilmember Rowley stated that she was not happy with the ordinance as it presently stands and that she agreed the safety factor was the most important issue. She felt the City could not define what a vehicle could look like; however, it must be licensed as a recreational vehicle. Also, Councilmember Rowley wanted to know how many vehicles should be allowed per yard? She felt the Council should look to the future and decide what should be allowed. Mayor Pickar stated that one of the problems involved in changing the ordinance as such is that the ordinance is referred to in many different places. The areas involved are: Chapter 40 (Zoning) 40.02, Subd B (84) 40.05, Subd N (2) 40.06, Subd D (4) (5) 40.07, Subd D (6) (8) 40.07, Subd F (3), (4) (6) 40.10, Subd C (1), (2) (3) Chapter 81 (Parking) 8 81.01 Entire 8 1. 0 2, Subd 3 -7- Mayor Pickar stated that he felt a change should be made in the ordinance, and that he was not happy with the ordinance when it was adopted but that the ordinance was passed just to get it through after two years work on it. Mayor Pickar expressed concern over the distance of the vehicles from the road. He stated he did not believe it was possible to regulate how the vehicles could look. Mayor Pickar stated that changes would be made in the ordinance and that the citizens should watch for a notice to be published in the New Brighton Bulletin and the sign board outside City Hall. He expressed his gratitude for the people who came to the hearing and gave their input. He summarized that the Council appears to be in favor of doing away with the weight and length limitations but that some restriction would be put on the distance from the curb. Robert Shelquist, 8025 Fairchild introduced himself as a former member of the Planning Commission who had worked on the ordinance. He stated that the Planning Commission had spent many hours studying the ordinance, especially the recreational and commercial vehicle section. He stated that the Planning Commission and City Council recognized that a good percentage of the residents of the City of Mounds View owned either recreational vehicles or commercial vehicles. However, Mr. Shelquist stated that he had had his home appraised by a realtor and was told that because he lived in Mounds View, which was known for being so open with their ordinances, that his homy was worth less than if it had been in New Brighton or another nearby suburb. He felt the presence of such vehicles were a detriment to the neighborhood. Mayor Pickar recessed the public hearing on recreational vehicles. PUBLIC HEARING ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLES Mayor Pickar opened the hearing by stating that the background of the commercial vehicles was basically the same as that of recreational vehicles. Gerald Tesch, 5135 Long Lake Road stated that his neighbor owned a commercial vehicle and that it was not unsightly to him, and that the truck had always been kept up and was only home weekends when the owner was home. Mr. Tesch stated that having the truck across the street from him did not bother him. He did, however, feel that the distance from the street for a commercial vehicle should be the same as for a recreational vehicir Herb Lutnik, 5391 Raymond asked the Council if the same rules for recreational vehicles apply to commercial vehicles_ Mayor Pickar replied that they do, Mr. Digiovanni stated that his commercial vehicle is within the same restrictions as the recreational vehicles and why not put commercial vehicles in the same class and have the same 20 foot restriction from the street. Mayor Pickar stated that concern had been expressed about businesses being run from the home, which would involve a commercial vehicle being at the home. Mel Stukard, 5386 Clipton stated that he and his scn are in business together and that he likes to be able to bring his truck home when he wants to. He stated that he has had no complaints from his neighbors. t Maureen Digiovanni, 5120 Long carpenters in Mounds View and Mayor Pickar stated the trucks of the present requirements, i situation was open for garbage -8- Mrs. John Balmer, 5108 Long Lake Road stated that she felt a law should not be passed on vendictiveness from individuals and that the issue started from one person against another. She also stated that if someone was given permission for their commercial vehicle several years ago, that permission should not be taken away now. Mayor Pickar stated that he could recall when the Planning Commission and City Council were very concerned about businesses being run from homes. The idea of commercial trucks and the problems they presented when parked at home was brought up at that time Lake Road stated that there were many plumbers and asked if their commercial vehicles were also involved. were involved as long as they were in violation of one .e., length or weight. Mayor Pickar stated that the trucks to start being parked at homes. Gerald Tesch stated that any truck such as a garbage truck or cattle truck or whatever should be covered under the sanitation laws. Administrator Achen stated that the City of Mounds View does not have a sanitation department so it follows the State standards. Mr. Digiovanni stated that he felt commercial vehicles should be allowed the same rights as recreational vehicles and that they should be allowed to park a safe distance into the driveway. He stated that commercial vehicle owners make their living with their vehicles and the vehicles should not be prohibited since it would take away their livelihood. Mr. Digiovanni stated that most commercial vehicle owners have between $40,000 and $80,000 tied up in their vehicle and that they should be allowed to park them in their driveway to help avoid vandalism as well as insurance problems. Betty Shelquist, 8025 Fairchild stated that she had read the city ordinance before buying her home and had felt that the ordinance covered any problems she would have anticipated. She also stated she believed that recreational and commercial vehicles should be classified together otherwise people would be reclassifying their vehicles to get around ordinances. Mrs. Shelquist stated that she was concerned with the devaluation of property brought on by the commercial vehicles being allowed to park in residential areas. Darlene McPheeters, 7750 Sil1per Lake Rod asked what the people would do who do !got live in the City, i.e., her father who runs his business out of Florida but stays in Mounds View frequently. Jean Snare, 5138 Lung Lake Road identified h.rseif as the neighbor of e. truck driver and stated that she did not like to look out her window at his muck, that the diesel smell bothered her and L she did not like the truck blocking her view from her house. Mrs. Gerald Tesch, 5135 Long Lake Road stated that Mrs. Snare had been made aware of the truck before purchasing her home. The issue arose of trucks parking in the street and the hazards that they presented. Counciimember Baumgartner stated that Chapter 81.01 does not allow parking on the City streets by commercial vehicles for more than two hours per day. Mr. Shelquist stated that there were presently auto body and paint shops being operated -9- and that the police have driven by and have done nothing about the problem. Ron Meron, 5250 Greenfield stated that he worked for the Ramsey County court and that he knew the police are not enforcing the law as the courts require a search warrant in order for them to check out someone's home or garage and determine if a business is being run from it, and that there are a great number of legal technicalities involved. Mayor Pickar stated that he felt the Mounds View police department was doing a very good job, and that the department has been recognized as one of the higher police departments in the County and State. He questioned those present as to how much of their tax money they would like spent by the City in determining if a business was being run from a home. Also, there are so many critical cases in the Ramsey County Court, i.e., murders and rape, that a case of a business being run from a home would most likely be thrown right out of court. Mr. Shelquist stated that he did not intend to put down the Mounds View police depart- ment but that he has observed the police department ignoring the situation. He felt that the situation should be enforced as none of the businesses in question were there when he bought his home, and they have since devaluated it. He also questioned how the Cities of New Brighton, Arden Hills and others closeby would not have the same problem, since they were also under the jurisdiction of the Ramsey County Court. Mayor Pickar replied that the problem had been brought up recently at the League of Minnesota Cities and that the cities had said they did have trouble enforcing the law. Mr. Stimpson stated that he agreed with the safety factor and felt that if the trucks were parked 15 feet from the curb, it would provide adequate safety. He stated that he wants his truck at home at night so he can keep an eye on it. Mayor Pickar reminded the citizens that they must realize the situation of the other home owners without trucks, who do not like to look at these trucks outside their windows. Mayor Picker polled the councilmembers for their opinions. Councilmember Baumgartner stated that he felt the commercial vehicle situation was a real problem and felt that recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles should be separate and that commercial vehicles should have a length and /or weight restriction. Councilmember Baumgartner stated that he felt there definitely was a safety hazard in parking the trucks, and that he was especilly concerned with the semi's backing up. He also questioned what was a nice looking vehicle versus a not so nice looking one? Councilmember Baumgartner stated that he felt that parking a semi or large truck in the yard would devaluate the property of Lice home owners in the area. He summarized by saying that he felt there should be a weight and /or length restruction on commer- cial vehicles in a residential area. Councilmember Hodges stated that all are concerned about living along side of one another, and there is an adjustment problem for those concerned. He recommended making restrictions on the size limitation of the trucks, and stated that the trucks should definitely not park in the streets. Councilmember Hodges also recommended looking to the future. -10- Councilmember Ziebarth stated that he was upset with the way that meetings have to come to a situation such as this one, i.e., a neighborhood feud rather than a hearing. He stated he would like to try and see if there is a way to solve the problem in the neighborhood so that someone does not have to sell their business yet not have trucks start up at 4:00 AM, and that there must be a happy medium. In reference to Mr. Shelquist's comments on the police department enforcement of the law, Councilmember Ziebarth stated that the police department could not enforce the law until the Council came to a decision and informed them. Councilmember Ziebarth stated there were 3 or 4 problems in the commercial vehicle situation that should be cleared up, and that personally he did not care to have large commercial vehicles parked within the city. Councilmember Ziebarth stated that he was concerned about the set -back requirement and size of vehicles. He recommended that the ownership of the vehicles be checked into as he felt some drivers who were parking trucks at their homes did not own them. He also questioned the insurance coverage on the vehicles and stated that he believed they were covered by insurance even when not parked on the owners property. Councilmember Ziebarth also stated that most occupational people have vans rather than large trucks and that he felt there would be no problem with vans, but that he was uncomfortable with the semi's. Councilmember Rowley stated that she could understand the problems in parking a vehicle away from the home and could understand why the owners would want the vehicle in their yard. However, she stated that she could also appreciate the problems of the neighbors living next door to the vehicles. She felt there was definitely a safety problem in backing up and in blocking the view. She stated something must happen but she was not certain what the answer was. She does not want to see more vehicles being brought into the city. She suggested that perhaps the vehicle owners could get written permission from their neighbors to have their vehicles parked at home. Mayor Pickar stated that he felt the requirements for commercial vehicles should be more stringent than for recreational vehicles. He felt that everyone should look to the future. He stated that Fridley does not allow trucks to be parked for more than 24 hours, and that they cannot park on the street for more than 4 hours unless loading or unloading. He felt the length of the truck must be taken into consideration. However, he did not have a solution for regulating it. HP recommended that the weight be regulated since the City streets were not built For the large trucks. He also felt the factors of smell and unsightliness should be kept in mind. He stated the City could not regulate against an occupation but they also cannot allow a small group to run the whole city. Mayor Pickar thanked the citizens for their input. MSP (Rowley Ziebarth) to adjourn the public hearing at 11:05 PM. 5 ayes ,_RAspectfull,lc submitted, 0 Mark Achen Clerk- Administrator