Laserfiche WebLink
• -13- <br /> -he strongly recommended the Council reinstate Article #14 ; because <br /> -he had no intention of voting for the ordinance without it. <br /> Councilmember Enrooth stated that: <br /> -he didn' t think the Council had been as concerned about minitrailers <br /> or small boats being parked on residential property as they had been <br /> about situations where a trailered 24 foot long "mini-cruiser" is <br /> parked where the neighbors have to look at it from October through <br /> May; <br /> -he thought the Council really hadn' t known where to draw the line to <br /> mediate the problem; <br /> -he perceived there was a need to establish some sort of maximum; <br /> -as he had indicated during the April 28th meeting, he strongly <br /> believed that Article #14 with a specific number should be included; <br /> and <br /> -he hadn' t changed his viewpoint on that since then. <br /> • Councilmember Marks reported that during the time he was campaigning <br /> voters had appeared to have the greatest concerns about a small number of <br /> unsightly yards where parts of vehicles or construction equipment was <br /> left on lawns all year long. The Councilmember said: <br /> -he had noticed for the first time one of his neighbors had a number <br /> of vehicles parked next to a woods and he perceived that homeowner <br /> should probably have been at the meeting that night to protest what <br /> Article #14 would be doing to him; <br /> -he didn' t think the small boats people consider to be "symbols of <br /> affluence" were really the problems the ordinance was directed <br /> towards; <br /> -rather than restricting the number of vehicles to 4 to get at <br /> unsightly construction equipment parked on residential property, <br /> thought the Council should be looking for ways to specifically address <br /> that type of violation. <br /> The Councilmember was told even the existing weight restrictions would <br /> not address some of the motorhomes neighbors have to put up with in the <br /> yard next door since the ordinance exempts recreational vehicles. <br /> Councilmember Makowske said she perceived the ordinance in its present <br /> form addressed the specific problems of unsightliness, parking ruts in <br /> lawns, as well as parts of vehicles laying all over front yards the <br /> Council was looking at. She contended: <br />