Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.b. Text Amendment Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles in Residential Districts City of Rosemount, 08-17-TAAGENDA ITEM: 08 -17 -TA Text Amendment Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles in Residential Districts City of Rosemount AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director AGENDA NO. $.h ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance Amendment, Requested Ordinance Amendment, Council minutes from September 16, 2008, Council memo and minutes from June 3, 2008, Council memo and minutes from July 1, 2008, Council memo and minutes from August 13, 2008 APPROVED BY: DD-) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Hold Second Reading of Ordinance. Motion to approve Ordinance Amendment. x xosEMouNr CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting Date: October 7, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY In September, the City Council discussed an ordinance amendment relating to the outside parking of vehicles at residential properties. The amendment recommends up to 5 vehicles in the urban area and 10 vehicles in the rural residential areas. During the meeting, the Council discussed the regulation of vehicles on properties and the question of whether this is too much regulation by a municipality. There was also discussion about individual homeowners associations and how their regulations may dovetail with the City's regulations. There continue to be concerns expressed regarding what the appropriate number of vehicles should be allowed. In response to the later concern, staff continues to believe that some number is the most expeditious and straight forward way to regulate outdoor vehicle storage. The ordinance language is not ambiguous and therefore administration is relatively easy. It should be clear that most of the complaints dealt with by code enforcement personnel are on a complaint basis. The only exception will be during the sequential enforcement program conducted every summer; where a specific neighborhood is targeted for education and review of existing city regulations. Additionally, enforcement will be conducted under the current method, staff will review the site for violations, send a letter relating to the ordinance requirement and asking for compliance. The property is rechecked, and if in violation, another letter sent. Upon final review, and continued non compliance a citation would be issued. Staff also works with residents to achieve compliance and will give extra time to bring the site into compliance if there are particular circumstances that warrant an extension. RECOMMENDATION Hold the second reading. Motion to approve the draft ordinance. BACKGROUND In July, the City Council voted on a 3 -2 vote to not approve an ordinance amendment limiting the number of vehicles that can be stored or parked at a residential property within the City. The draft ordinance listed the total number of vehicles allowed at eight (8). Council members had a variety of reasons for not supporting the amendment. There were concerns about the number suggested, that there was no differentiation between the rural and urban areas, that the definition of vehicles may be too broad, and that using a number to limit vehicles may not be the best approach. The attached recommendation, limiting vehicles to 5 in urban areas and 10 in rural areas is based upon suggestions from several Council members. Staff has also taken the liberty of modifying the definition of vehicles to include some motor powered vehicles that were not previously listed but would be considered vehicles under the defuution. The amendment also clarifies how vehicles are counted, recognizing that each vehicle is counted separately and storing them on a trailer does not reduce the total number. A courtesy letter notifying residents about the September meeting was mailed to all residents who spoke at previous meetings notifying them of the first reading. At the September meeting, the council announced that this item would again be discussed at the October 7, 2008 Council meeting. DISCUSSION After the September meeting, Council member Sterner requested staff investigate the Apple Valley ordinance which permits additional vehicles through an administrative permit process. A similar amendment is attached for the Council's review. Council member Sterner is interested in allowing 6 vehicles in the urban area through administrative permit. The draft provides the same criteria that Apple Valley requires for their administrative permit 2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS that Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended as follows: Section 8 -2 -2: Parking and Storage of Vehicles in Residential Districts. H.3. The City may approve an annual "on site parking permit" for outdoor parking of more than five (5) but not to exceed six (6) passenger vehicles, on an R -1, R -2, R -3, R -4, R -5, R -CL zoned property, or Planned Development districts where the primary use is single family residences, provided it meets the following standards: a. The applicant's property shall conform to the parking standards set forth in Section 8 -2 -2 hereof; ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT CITY CODE TITLE 8, CHAPTER 2 RELATING TO PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR OUTDOOR PARKING OR STORAGE OF VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Section 1. The Rosemount City Code Title 8, Chapter 2. is amended to add following: b. The owner shall pay a permit fee as stated in the fee resolution adopted from time to time by the council; c. All vehicles must be parked or stored on the established paved driveway and not on the street. d. No vehicle shall encroach into or otherwise block a sidewalk, trail, path or any roadway; or within the area between any sidewalk and roadway; e. All vehicles must be operational and properly licensed. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this day of 2008. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste, Mayor Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2008. Section 1. The Rosemount City Code Title 8, Chapter 2. is amended to add following: City of Rosemount Ordinance No B- THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS that Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended as follows: Section 8 -2 -1: Definitions. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT CITY CODE TITLE 8, CHAPTER 2 RELATING TO THE OUTDOOR PARKING OR STORAGE OF VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Vehicle: Any device which is self propelled or designed to be pushed or pulled and shall include, but not be limited to, automobiles, buses, motorbikes, motorcycles, motor scooters, trucks, tractors, snowmobiles, personal watercraft, go- carts, golf carts, campers, trailers, boats, planes and gliders. Each vehicle shall be considered as an individual vehicle whether it is on a trailer or is separate from a trailer. Section 8 -2 -2: Parking and Storage of Vehicles in Residential Districts. H Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles in Residential Districts. The following standards apply to the outdoor parking or storage of vehicles in all residential districts. 1 General. The parking or storage of vehicles in any residential zoning district shall comply with all applicable performance standards for the zoning district in which they are located as well as the off -street parking regulations in Title 11, Chapter 6: Off -Street Parking, Loading and Landscaping. 2 Number. The maximum number of vehicles parked or stored outdoors on any rural residential zoned property (RR) shall not exceed ten (10) vehicles per dwelling unit and any residential property zoned R1, R1A, R2, R3 or R4 shall not exceed five (5) vehicles per dwelling unit. These vehicles must be owned by and for the primary use of the owner or occupant of the dwelling unit. Junk vehicles parked or stored outdoors are prohibited by Section 8 -2 -2F. Section 2. The remaining following sections of Section 8 -2 -2 currently labeled H., I., J., and K., shall be amended to be labeled as I., J., K., and L. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this day of 2008. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2008. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 3, 2008 NEW BUSINESS 9.a. First Reading: Text Amendment Outdoor Parking or Storage of Passenger Vehicles in Residential Districts City of Rosemount, 08 -17 -TA Interim City Administrator Lindquist provided a background summary of the staff report. Ms. Lindquist suggested holding the second reading on July 1, 2008 to allow for more public input on the process. Council Member DeBettignies questioned the types of vehicles that were licensed. Ms. Lindquist read the definition of a vehicle from the Ordinance. Mayor Droste talked about the ordinance including the urban and residential districts and the difference between summer and winter parking hours. Chief of Police Kalstabakken provided more information on vehicles parked on the streets and the current restrictions for on -street parking. He added that the proposed ordinance relates to vehicles stored on properties. Mayor Droste opened the podium for public comment. Jim Ehrer, 12514 Danbury Way, Rosemount, expressed concern about the property located at 12510 Danbury Avenue. He presented the City Council a petition to Remove All Junked Vehicles Trailers from Residence that contained 42 signatures. Mr. Ehmer requested that the number of vehicles parked outside be limited to four. Mike Jones, 12520 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated that operable vehicles should including running in a safe manner. He stated he was a 29 year resident and expressed concerns about his neighborhood. He believed the homeowner was operating a business. Mr. Jones requested that the number of vehicles parked outside be limited to four. Discussion ensued regarding how to prove the resident was operating a business out of his home and vehicle insurance requirements. John Rutoski, 12509 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated it was obvious the subject property was operating a business. He questioned where the homeowner was operating their business and stated that the property values will decrease with the increased outdoor storage. Sharon Mickelson, 12145 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated she was a realtor and was concerned about the value of the homes located within the neighborhood. Loren Carlson, 12537 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated the property looks like a business. He added his concerns about what was going in the groundwater from working on vehicles. Mr. Carlson requested that the number of vehicles parked outside be limited to four. Chris Vitek, 12505 Danbury Way, Rosemount, wanted the City Council to look out for the long term value of properties in Rosemount. He wanted the ordinance to establish criteria that was reasonable. Lynn Ehrner, 12514 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated she was a 27 year resident who took pride in her neighborhood. She requested that the number of vehicles parked outside be limited between four and eight. Les Kasten, 15101 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated he was a car enthusiast. He provided information on the previous code complaints starting in 2004. He wanted to obtain a special use permit to continue storing vehicles on his property and asked to be grandfathered into the ordinance with a 10 car maximum. Mr. Kasten felt his rights were violated by City staff when photographs were taken of his property. He questioned storing vehicles on trailers and spoke of insurance issues. He also was concerned that he could not fix inoperable vehicles in his driveway. He provided information on a denied building permit to construct a shed. Ms. Lindquist explained that changeover in the Code Enforcement position. She added that Police Chief Kalstabakken found approximately 17 vehicles stored on the property today. She added that a special use permit was not an option because the ordinance does not have that provision. An ordinance amendment would be needed to allow a special use permit for vehicles. Based upon previous City Council discussions she stated it did not appear that an ordinance amendment would be approved. She added that neighbors did allow City staff to go on their property to take pictures of the subject property. Ms. Lindquist also provided more information on the home occupation regulations. Council Member Baxter found a business to be an unacceptable use for the property. He did find the limit of four vehicles to be fairly restrictive. Council Member Sterner wanted more information on why the permit to build a shed was denied. Ms. Lindquist stated she would provide more information on the denied permit at a future meeting. Council Member Shoe Corrigan requested information on what could be stored on trailers, codes for selling vehicles privately and limits on fixing inoperable vehicles. Mr. Kalstabakken explained that the vehicles being sold must be parked on a paved surface and only sold by the person residing the property. He also explained the limits for fixing inoperable vehicles. Council Member DeBettignies was disheartened to hear that none of the neighbors contacted Mr. Kasten prior to signing the petition. He could appreciate Mr. Kasten's hobby but would base his decision upon the testimony provided. Mayor Droste requested that state law regarding dealership licenses, input from surrounding s[ cities on the issue and the definition of vehicles be discussed at the July 1 meeting. Mary Lancey, 12501 Danbury Avenue, Rosemount, spoke of how the oil and antifreeze were disposed of on site. She stated residents should be more concerned about the ATVs driving through the wetlands in the neighborhood. Motion by Shoe- Corrigan. Second by Mark. Motion to hold the Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the City of Rosemount City Code Title 8, Chapter 2 Relating to the Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles in Residential Districts on July 1, 2008. Ayes: Droste, Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan Nays: None. Motion carried. October 3, 2008 Richard Dorniden 13054 Charlston Way Rosemount, MN 55068 651 423 -3942 1 was disappointed to read that the city is yet again considering an ordinance regulating the number of vehicles that a resident may have on their own land. I do not feel that this is necessary or proper. If there is a safety or health issue it should be addressed. If this is not an example of arbitrary regulation of private citizens, I do not know what is. In reading the report of the last discussion of this ordinance, the number of vehicles was something that was different for various council members. This alone should indicate that this is not an area for the city to address. It seems that some people are never satisfied unless they are making others conform to their ideas of what things should be like, or how they should look. If you do not like what is in my yard, please look in some other direction as you pass by. People move to rural residential areas to enjoy life without being under the constant watch of neighbors. As long as the resident is not causing problems of a safety or health nature, he should be free to enjoy the property he has purchased and is paying taxes on. This should never have been considered in the first place. The pursuit of a hobby that provides personal enjoyment should not have to pass the scrutiny of a bunch of meddlers. The present ordinance is excessively restrictive already. Leave us alone .That is why we moved out of the confines of the city. Please reject the idea of regulating another one of our personal freedoms just to appease a few people. Sincerely, Dick Dorniden Lindquist, Kim From: Verbrugge, Jamie Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 10:35 AM To: Lindquist,Kim Subject: FW: Vote NO on the new vehicle outdoor parking or storage From: Rosemount City Council Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 10:34:32 AM To: Baxter,Mike; Sterner,Phillip; Droste,William; Shoe- Corrigan,Kim; Verbrugge,Jamie; DeBettignies,Mark Subject: FW: Vote NO on the new vehicle outdoor parking or storage Auto forwarded by a Rule From: Chet Ellingson [SMTP:CELLING3 @FRONTIERNET.NET] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 10:33:30 AM To: Rosemount City Council Subject: Vote NO on the new vehicle outdoor parking or storage Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Mayor and Council members, I thought the whole Danbury Way parking thing had been rejected. It should be. I have lived in Rosemount most of my life and currently reside on Danbury Way in Rosemount. The cars parked on Danbury have been kept covered, neat and orderly. I have seen some properties with a lot more than 10 vehicles outside and honestly I didn't have to go searching for them. If the City is going to actually enforce these new restrictions in all of the Rural Residential areas of Rosemount you are going to need to add more staff and Police. If you do not plan on enforcing it, then vote NO. Although the Mayor seems to think that the covenants of a structured community like Evermore is good, it is not why most residents in Rural Rosemount choose to live where we live. We live in Rural Rosemount because we DO NOT want the covenants of a structured community. Currently two residents on Danbury Way are behaving like two little boys trying to see who can "pee" higher on a wall. They have sucked the city into their petty neighborhood squabble. The city should have better things to do with their time, than to spend hours trying to solve the problem of these two idiots. Please Vote NO on this silly bit of un- needed, un- desirable regulation. Kindest Regards Chet Ellingson 12568 Danbury Way Rosemount 55068 651 423 1452 1 AGENDA ITEM: 08 -17 -TA First Reading: Text Amendment Outdoor Parking or Storage of Passenger Vehicles in Residential Districts City of Rosemount AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, AICP Planner AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Amendment (First Reading), Notice to Residents, Map of Notice Mailing Area APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to hold the Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the City of Rosemount City Code Title 8, Chapter 2 Relating to the Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles In Residential Districts on June 17, 2008 ROSEMOLINT CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting Date: June 3, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY This ordinance amendment was initiated by staff in response to concerns raised by residents regarding the number of vehicles parked or stored on residentially zoned property. Staff requests the City Council review the draft ordinance and take public comment. ISSUE ANALYS As mentioned above, this ordinance amendment was initiated by staff in response to concerns raised by residents. Since these concerns were raised, staff surveyed other communities regarding their standards for parking and storing passenger vehicles in residential districts. The results of the survey are provided in the table on the next page. Staff's research found that the techniques used to regulate this issue vary by community. As a result, there is no "right way" to address this issue. Rather, it is up to each local government to determine the appropriate standards for their community. However, it is important to note that there are several common components to the parking regulations designed to limit the number of vehicles on individual residential properties. These common components include: standards related to the ownership, licensing, the type of surface on which the vehicles are parked or stored and the setbacks. With this information, staff crafted the attached draft ordinance. The proposed ordinance would apply to all types of vehicles in both urban and rural residential property. Under the ordinance, the maximum number of licensed and operable vehicles parked or stored outdoors on any residential property could not exceed eight (8) vehicles per dwelling unit. These vehicles must be owned by and for the exclusive use of the owner or occupant of the dwelling unit. Residential Passenger Vehicles Parking and Storage Standards from Various Communities Community Passenger Vehicles Parking and Storage Standard Apple Valley Maximum of four (4) passenger vehicles with up to six (6) with zoning permit. Burnsville The City is researching standards related to this issue. Staff anticipates enacting standards in the next twelve (12) months. Eagan No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed and operable. An approved surface is only required for parking or storage of vehicles within the front yard. Those surfaces are limited to pavers bricks, concrete or bituminous and must be setback at least five (5) feet from side or rear property lines. Farmington No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to pavers bricks, concrete or bituminous and must be setback at least six (6) feet from side or rear property lines. Hastings Inver Grove Heights No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehides to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to 25% of lot and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. Lakeville No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to pavers bricks, concrete or bituminous and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. Residential Passenger Vehicles Parking and Storage Standards from Various Communities Community Passenger Vehicles Parking and Storage Standard Chanhassen No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to 25% of lot and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. Eden Prairie Maximum of four (4) passenger vehicles. Isanti Maximum of three (three) passenger vehicles. These must be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces must extend at least one (1) foot beyond the area where the vehicles are stored and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. North Mankato No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City The parking or storage of vehicles in any residential zoning district must also comply with all applicable performance standards for the zoning district in which they are located as well as the off -street parking regulations in Title 11, Chapter 6: Off -Street Parking, Loading and Landscaping. These standards would require all vehicles (with the exception of RV's) to be located on either concrete or asphalt in urban areas. 2 RECOMMENDATION Hold the first reading regarding the proposed amendment creating standards for the outdoor parking and storage of vehicles in residential districts and take public comment. After taking public comment, the Council should set the second reading of this ordinance amendment for June 17, 2008. 3 does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to concrete or asphalt and must be setback at least ten (10) feet from all property lines. Ramsey No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to concrete or bituminous in a front yard and Class Five gravel in the side or rear yard and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. Stillwater The City does not regulate the number, size, placement or parking surface for any operational and licensed vehicle. of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to concrete or bituminous in a front yard and Class Five gravel in the side or rear yard and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. RECOMMENDATION Hold the first reading regarding the proposed amendment creating standards for the outdoor parking and storage of vehicles in residential districts and take public comment. After taking public comment, the Council should set the second reading of this ordinance amendment for June 17, 2008. 3 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 2008 8.a. Second Reading: Text Amendment Outdoor Parking or Storage of Passenger Vehicles in Residential Districts City of Rosemount, 08 -17 -TA Interim City Administrator summarized the information provided in the staff report. She noted that several issues were raised at the last meeting and were addressed in the staff report. She added that any comments from public were forwarded to the City Council during the time period between meetings. Ms Lindquist explained that the text amendment did not address on street parking. Per Council Member Baxter's request, she also explained the restrictions currently in place for residential districts. Mayor Droste pointed out that it was consistent throughout the metro that vehicles must be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Mayor Droste invited residents to submit comments. Shelly Seeberg, 13096 Charleston Way, Rosemount, submitted and read written comments to the City Council expressing opposition to the proposed ordinance. The written comments included discussion on the difference between rural residential and urban residential zoning districts. Jim Ehmer, 12514 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated that his neighborhood submitted a petition at the last meeting. Mr. Ehmer provided similar complaints and believed the neighbor was operating a business out their home. th Gene Stiles, 3515 147 Street West, Rosemount, spoke against the proposed ordinance. He provided history on dealing with similar storage issues at his property. Mr. Stiles stated that the eight vehicle limitation would affect many residents in Rosemount. Les Kasten, 12501 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated he has made an effort to keep the vehicles covered on his property. He expressed frustration with previous staff members requiring that his vehicles be stored on a paved surface. Barb Jones, 12510 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated the changes to the rural residential districts since she moved to Rosemount in 1979. Mary Lansey, 12501 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated after the last meeting she spent time talking to the neighbors. She added that many were in agreement to allow Mr. Kasten a variance to build a shed on his property. She stated her opposition to the proposed ordinance. John Reinkus, 13040 Akron Avenue, found the property on Danbury Avenue to be well kept. He thought passing the proposed ordinance would be bad public policy. Mike Jones, 12510 Danbury Way, Rosemount, stated that he did not expect a commercial business to be located in his neighborhood when he moved in 30 years ago. Council Member DeBettignies requested further clarification on the current ordinance related to hard surface requirements. Ms. Lindquist explained that the current ordinance did not have a hard surface requirement for parking vehicles in the rural residential district. Council Member DeBettignies was concerned about including a set number in the ordinance. He stated the limit of vehicles would affect more than just the 42 residents that signed the petition. Council Member Baxter stated the City has to deal with the growth issues. He did not find 17 cars stored on a yard to be an acceptable use. Mayor Droste echoed the growth concerns and stated the changes with the tremendous growth since 2000. Council Member Sterner requested further definition on storage and consideration if a set number in the ordinance was needed. Mayor Droste stated that with storage issues the City would need to be reasonable. Police Chief Kalstabakken stated that in general enforcement issues for the City Code violations the warnings are a result of a neighborhood complaint. He added that warnings are given out before a ticket is issued. Council Member Shoe- Corrigan questioned the amount of paved surface that was allowed in the rural residential districts. Ms. Lindquist replied that there was not a hard surface maximum but the ordinance has setback requirements for the rural residential district. Council Member Shoe Corrigan stated that rural residential feel has changed over the years as Rosemount has grown. She did not want to proceed with a number in the ordinance but would support have the number tied to the amount of hard surface. Council Member Shoe Corrigan suggested that staff find a compromise that would work and be reasonable for the rural residential and urban residential neighborhoods. Mayor Droste summarized that the consensus was to have a differentiation between the urban and rural residential districts. Ms Lindquist stated the surface requirements for the urban and residential districts. She cautioned that the variations for determining the rural residential based on hard surface would be greater. Motion by Baxter. Second by Droste. Motion to approve an Ordinance Amending the City of Rosemount City Code Title 8, Chapter 2 Relating to the Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles in Residential Districts. Council Member Sterner preferred to discuss the item at a future work session. Ayes: Droste, Baxter Nays: Sterner, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan. Motion failed. Mayor Droste stated that the item would be addressed at a future work session. He added that notice would be given to all that provided public comment on the issue. AGENDA ITEM: 08 -17 -TA Second Reading: Text Amendment Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles in Residential Districts City of Rosemount AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, AICP Planner, Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: 06 -03 -08 City Council Excerpt Minutes, Ordinance Amendment (Second Reading), Home Occupation Standards, Resident emails APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve an Ordinance Amending the City of Rosemount City Code Title 8, Chapter 2 Relating to the Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles In Residential Districts. ROSEMOUNT ate: CITY COUNCIL Jul 1, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY This ordinance amendment was initiated by staff in response to concerns raised by residents regarding the number of vehicles parked or stored on residentially zoned property. As proposed, the ordinance amendment would apply to all vehicles on either urban or rural residential property. The maximum number of licensed and operable vehicles parked or stored outdoors on any residential property could not exceed eight (8) vehicles per dwelling unit and these vehicles must be owned by and for the exclusive use of the owner or occupant of the dwelling unit. Staff requests the City Council review and approve the draft ordinance. CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council held the First Reading of this item during their June 3, 2008 meeting. Minutes from that meeting are attached for your reference. During the meeting, staff provided a background sun-unary of the issue and suggested holding a second reading to allow for more public input. During the Council discussion, a neighbor submitted a petition to remove all junk vehicles and trailers from the property at 12501 Danbury Way. In addition, questions were raised about licensing of vehicles, seasonal parking standards, ordinance regulations for home occupations, potential impacts on property values, and vehicle ownership. Council member Baxter stated he felt it was unacceptable to use the site as a business. Mayor Droste requested more information regarding dealership licenses, the definition of vehicles, and more information from the surrounding communities. ISSUE ANALYSIS Ordinance Comparison This ordinance amendment was initiated by staff in response to concerns raised by residents in a specific neighborhood. However, it should be recognized that vehicle parking and outdoor storage result in the large percentage of nuisance complaints in the City. Therefore, though this issue and the resulting draft Residential Passenger Vehicles Parking and Storage Standards from Dakota County Communities Community Passenger Vehicles Parking and Storage Standard Apple Valley Maximum of four (4) passenger vehicles with up to six (6) with zoning permit. Burnsville The City is researching standards related to this issue. Burnsville staff anticipates enacting standards in the next twelve (12) months. Eagan No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed and operable. An approved surface is only required for parking or storage of vehicles within the front yard. Those surfaces are limited to pavers bricks, concrete or bituminous and must be setback at least five (5) feet from side or rear property lines. Farmington No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to pavers bricks, concrete or bituminous and must be setback at least six (6) feet from side or rear property lines. Hastings Limitations are based on zoning district. In the Agricultural and R -1 Districts, no more than 5 vehicles outside no more than 2 may be recreational /commercial category, combined. In R -2, R -3, R -4, R -5 Residential Districts, no more than 3 vehicles per residential dwelling unit outside only 1 may be of the recreational vehicle /commercial category. The following standards apply: (a) vehicles may not be parked or stored within the boulevard portion of the public right -of- way (b) No commercial vehicles may be parked or stored on a residential lot outside of a structure, except while work is being performed at the property. Inver Grove Heights No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to 25% of lot and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. Lakeville No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City ordinance is prompted by a particular incident, it has implications for the entire City as the ordinance would affect all residentially zoned properties in the community. Since these concerns were raised, staff surveyed other communities regarding their standards for parking and storing passenger vehicles in residential districts. The results of the survey are provided in the table on the next page. Staff's research found that the techniques used to regulate outdoor vehicle parking vary by community. As a result, there is no "right way" to address this issue. Rather, it is up to each local government to determine the appropriate standards for their community. However, it is important to note that there are several common components to the parking regulations designed to limit the number of vehicles on individual residential properties. These common components include: standards related to the ownership, licensing, the type of surface on which the vehicles are parked or stored and the setbacks. With this information, staff crafted the attached draft ordinance. 2 Residential Passenger Vehicles Parking and Storage Standards from Various Communities Community Passenger Vehicles Parking and Storage Standard Chanhassen No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to 25% of lot and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. Eden Prairie Maximum of four (4) passenger vehicles. Isanti Maximum of three (three) passenger vehicles. These must be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces must extend at least one (1) foot beyond the area where the vehicles are stored and must be setback at Mast five (5) feet from all property lines. North Mankato No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to concrete or asphalt and must be setback at least ten (10) feet from all property lines. Ramsey No limit on the number of passenger vehicles. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to concrete or bituminous in a front yard and Class Five gravel in the side or rear yard and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. Stillwater The City does not regulate the number, size, placement or parking surface for any operational and licensed vehicle. However, the City does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to concrete or bituminous in a front yard and Class Five gravel in the side or rear yard and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. does require all vehicles to be licensed, operable and parked on an approved surface. Those surfaces are limited to pavers bricks, concrete or bituminous and must be setback at least five (5) feet from all property lines. Dealer's License Specific to the issue within the Danbury Way neighborhood is the question of what constitutes a hobby versus a business. In reviewing the State requirements for licensing of a "dealer it was found that any person who "leases or sells 5 vehicles in a 12 month period" requires a dealers license. It is unclear how many vehicles Mr. Kasten has sold as the City does not have ready access to that information. The City's zoning ordinance regulates home occupations. Two criteria that home occupations must meet are that "All business activity and storage shall take lace within structures," and "Said occupation shall not involve the retail sale or rental of products on the premises Storage of vehicles for sale, particularly if there was on -going sales to the extent that a dealers license was required, would be out of compliance with the home occupation criteria. The discussion of whether the sales of cars occurs to the extent that requires a dealers license pertains to 3 the compliance issue on Danbury but does not directly relate to the proposed ordinance before the Council. As staff mentioned in the previous Council meeting, one of the goals of the ordinance is to reduce the ambiguity associated with the existing ordinance and aid in administration and enforcement of vehicle outdoor storage. Similar to the discussion about requiring insurance for all vehicles the administration of a requirement such trying to monitor if a dealer license is required, is much more time consuming and difficult than the current proposal; to just count the number of vehicles Limiting the number of vehicles, in staff's opinion, is a more obvious, less ambiguous method to address the issue of outside vehicle storage and will result in more timely and clear enforcement. Accessory Structures Mr. Kasten noted that the City did not allow additional construction of outbuildings on his property, which limits his ability to place vehicles inside rather than store outside. It appears based upon existing building permit records the property contains a 30' x 36' detached garage. The ordinance states that the maximum aggregate total for an accessory building (s) excluding attached garage is 1,200 square feet. The current structure is 1080 square feet and therefore there is little opportunity to build another detached structure that would allow placement of the vehicles inside. Definition of Vehicles At the last Council meeting there was some discussion about the definition of vehicles and how the proposed regulation would be interpreted. The ordinance specifically defines vehicles to be the following: Any device which is self propelled or designed to be pushed or pulled and shall include, but not be limited to, automobiles, buses, motorbikes, motorcycles, motor scooters, trucks, tractors, go- carts, golf carts, campers, trailers, boats, planes and gliders. Staff would consider any of the above items to be counted as one vehicle. That means even if there is a trailer that has a passenger vehicle place on it, they would be counted as two vehicles. The exception would be for boats which must be stored on a trailer and cannot be counted separately or if there is an enclosed trailer. In that latter case items not seen but stored on an enclosed trailer would not be counted. The point of this ordinance is to be able to count the number of vehicles that can be seen and are stored outside. CONCLUSION The proposed ordinance would apply to all types of vehicles in both urban and rural residential property. Under the ordinance as proposed, the maximum number of licensed and operable vehicles parked or stored outdoors on any residential property could not exceed eight (8) vehicles per dwelling unit. These vehicles must be owned by and for the exclusive use of the owner or occupant of the dwelling unit. The parking or storage of vehicles in any residential zoning district must also comply with all applicable performance standards for the zoning district in which they are located as well as the off -street parking regulations in Title 11, Chapter 6: Off -Street Parking, Loading and Landscaping. These standards would require all vehicles (with the exception of RV's) to be located on either concrete or asphalt in urban areas. RECOMMENDATION Hold the second reading regarding the proposed amendment creating standards for the outdoor parking and storage of vehicles in residential districts, take public comment and approve the proposed ordinance amendment recognizing any modifications desired by the Council. 4 EXCERPT OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS AUGUST 13, 2008 2.D. Outdoor Vehicle Storage Chief of Police Kalstabakken summarized the information in the staff report. He stated the draft ordinance included language for six vehicles in the urban residential districts and 10 vehicles in the rural residential districts. Considerable discussion took place regarding the number of vehicles that would be allowed in the urban residential districts. The majority of the City Council preferred to allow five vehicles in the urban residential districts. Mayor Droste preferred to have only four vehicles and Council Member Sterner preferred to have six vehicles. AGENDA ITEM: 08 -17 -TA Text Amendment Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles in Residential Districts City of Rosemount AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance Amendment APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session Date: August 13, 2008 RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting direction from the Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY In July, the City Council voted on a 3 -2 vote to not approve an ordinance amendment limiting the number of vehicles that can be stored or parked at a residential property within the City. The draft ordinance listed the total number of vehicles allowed at eight (8). Council members had a variety of reasons for not supporting the amendment. There were concerns about the number suggested, that there was no differentiation between the rural and urban areas, that the definition of vehicles may be too broad, and that using a number to limit vehicles may not be the best approach. The attached recommendation is based upon suggestions from several Council members which addresses the urban /rural issue and also modifies the number proposed. Staff has also taken the liberty of modifying the definition of vehicles to include some motor powered vehicles that were not previously listed but would be considered vehicles under the definition. The amendment also clarifies how vehicles are counted, recognizing that each vehicle is counted separately and storing them on a trailer does not reduce the total number. Staff is bringing this item before the Council during a work session to obtain feedback prior to placing the item on a formal agenda for a first reading. Lindquist, Kim From: Verbrugge, Jamie Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:47 PM To: Lindquist,Kim Subject: FW: Parking Ordinance From: Rosemount City Council Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:46:40 PM To: Baxter,Mike; Sterner,Phillip; Droste,William; Shoe Corrigan, Kim; Verbrugge,Jamie; DeBettignies,Mark Subject: FW: Parking Ordinance Auto forwarded by a Rule From: Doug Mary[ SMTP :LUNDEYUKON @FRONTIERNET.NET] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 7:46:57 PM To: Rosemount City Council Subject: Parking Ordinance Auto forwarded by a Rule Mayor Council members, This letter is in reference to the new city ordinance about how many vehicles a person can have on there property. Page 1 of 1 How can the city tell people they can have only so many vehicles. We live in the rural area so we DON'T have to have covenants of area's like evermoor. We feel Rosemount city council needs to focus on other problems in this town, and let this silly ordinance be put to rest. I think some people in Rosemount need to mind there own business. Please reconsider this ordinance and let the people in the rural area alone. That is why we moved to the country to have the space. Please vote NO on this. Thank You Doug Mary Lunde 12590 Biscayne Ave. W Rosemount, MN 55068 651 322 -7391 10/7/2008