Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a. Second Reading: Text Amendment Outdoor Parking or Storage of Passenger Vehicles in Residential Districts City of Rosemount, 08-17-TA ROSEN4OLINJT SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting Date: July 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: 08 -17 -TA Second Reading: Text Amendment AGENDA SECTION: Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles in Residential Districts CIa NACilleSS City of Rosemount PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, AICP Planner, Kim Lindquist, Community AGENDA NO. S.ti Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 06 -03 -08 City Council Excerpt Minutes, Ordinance Amendment (Second Reading), APPROVED BY: Home Occupation Standards, Resident emails 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. 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 summary 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 I 1 large percentage of nuisance complaints in the City. Therefore, though this issue and the resulting draft 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. 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. 2 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 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. 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. 3 The discussion of whether the sales of cars occurs to the extent that requires a dealers license pertains to 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 from the June 3, 2008 City Council Regular Proceedings 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 Ehmer, 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 Ehmer, 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 a changeover in the Code Enforcement position. She added that today 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 at 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 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. City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B- 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 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 1. The Rosemount City Code Title 8, Chapter 2. is amended to add following: 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 districfshall 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 licensed and operable vehicles parked or stored outdoors on any residential property shall 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. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 1st day of July, 2008. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2008. 11 -2 -15 11 -2 -1 construction is intended. The area allotted for the third stall shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') wide and twenty feet (20') long. The combined area for the required two (2) stall attached garage and the proposed third stall shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. (Ord. B -142, 9 -21 -2004) 11 -2 -16: HOME OCCUPATIONS: A. Home occupations shall be conducted solely by persons residing in the residence. B. All business activity and storage shall take place within structures. C. There shall be no alteration to the exterior of the residential dwelling, accessory building or yard that in any way alters the residential character of the premises. D. No sign, display or device identifying the occupation shall be used. E. The occupation shall not be visible or audible from any property line. F. Said occupation shall not involve the retail sale or rental of products on the premises. l G. Unless completely enclosed within an approved structure, no vehicle used in the conduct of the occupation shall be parked, stored or otherwise present at the premises other than such as is customarily used for domestic or household purposes such as a van or three quarter ton truck. H. Only on site off street parking facilities normal for a residential use shall be used. I. The conduct of an occupation or the use of substances which may be hazardous to or may in any way jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of neighbors and neighboring property shall not be permitted. (Ord. B, 9 -19 -1989) 11 -2 -17: ESSENTIAL SERVICE FACILITIES: Essential service facilities are permitted uses in all zoning districts except electrical substations and switching stations are prohibited in all residential (R) and public /institutional (P) districts. Essential service facilities shall be August 2006 City of Rosemount Lindquist,Kim From: Verbrugge,Jamie Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:21 PM To: Lindquist,Kim Subject: FW: Limit the number of cars, boats,RV's a house may own From: Rosemount City Council Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:21:20 PM To: Baxter,Mike; Sterner, Phillip; Droste,William; Shoe Corrigan,Kim; Verbrugge,Jamie; DeBettignies,Mark Subject: FW: Limit the number of cars, boats,RV's a house may own Auto forwarded by a Rule From: kevin. grass @ledyour.com[SMTP:KEVIN.GRASS @LEDYOUR.COM] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:21:12 PM To: Rosemount City Council Subject: Limit the number of cars, boats,RV's a house may own Auto forwarded by a Rule Hello All; I have a thought for you to mull over. With the Economy is alot of older kids are moving back home with their parents. I have first hand knowledge of this as I'm a Postman. Now you put the limited numbers into effect alot of Family's will be over your limited numbers. Please do not go thru with limiting but encourage putting them into storage areas by allowing the construction os storage sheds of larger de -tage garages. The City will get a black eye in the PR department by saying you may only have 10 licensed per household. Kevin Grass 15625 Darling Path Rosemount,MN. 55068 1 From: Ronald Brastad[SMTP:RBRASTAD @USFAMILY.NET] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:31:38 PM To: Rosemount City Council Subject: Parking of cars on private property Auto forwarded by a Rule All City Council Members, I would like to comment on the proposed city code draft dealing with the maximum number of vehicles parked on private property. I am concerned that it appears individual disagreements over what is acceptable behavior seems to always need a code change for resolution. I think some of the council members were on the right track with comments about the neighbors discussing solutions. Maybe this could lead to arbitration as a resolution for disputes. Trying to pick the number of parked vehicles to allow may work for some residences, but not others. If a neighbor has the time to seek signatures for a petition, then this may be a way to "vote" for a neighborhood "standard" to be used for discussion. I would like to think that if 1 was presented with a majority opinion against something I was doing with my property, I would take steps to rectify the situation. If I felt strongly enough that all my neighbors are wrong, then I wouldn't want to live in that community. I live on Danbury Way. I do not believe that Mr. Kasten's hobby is offensive. It is obvious that he has taken steps to keep his property in a manner that does not make it appear "trashy I have never observed any "business" traffic or practices on his part. I also believe city code would prevent him from building a structure that he could place all of his vehicles inside of. This is another city code that I believe should be applied on an individual basis. As I understand it, out building's square footage is tied to the house. I believe out buildings should be proportional to lot size. If this were the case, Mr. Kasten may be able to build a garage proportional to his lot and be able to house his vehicles out of sight. I do not believe that adding a limitation of 8 parked vehicles to city code is a good solution for this perceived problem. Sincerely, Ron Connie Brastad 12541 Danbury Way Rosemount, MN tA IZ judvi i,2001( Testimony for July 1 City Council Meeting I am Shelley Seeberg, I live at 13096 Charlston Way in the rural residential Rosemount. I am here to speak against the proposed ordinance for outdoor parking and storage of vehicles. To get to my home you have to drive on a gravel road, to get to my home you pass at least one farm with horses or cattle. To get to my home you pass a neighbor that collects trackers, another that has wood piles scattered across his acreage. We have our own water and sewage system. We purchased this acreage two years ago because it has a rural feel. Because we knew we would need additional storage we built a building, but not before the existing building had to be torn down, our building had to meet code "same look and design as the home" so it does, our additional driveway and parking had to be on pavement or gravel approved surface, so it is. Today, we drive by houses that have second buildings not to code, parking surfaces not to code and the list could go on. I am not here to speak against these neighbors, but I am here to point out enough on ordinances that are developed for everyone and only enforced on a few. If the City of Rosemount doesn't enforce the current ordinances why are we considering making new ordianances? I think another resident put it best when he said "it appears individual disagreements over what is acceptable behavior seems to always need a code change or resolution" the ordinance being proposed isn't an acceptable resolution or process. With this new ordinance additional restrictions on "all" residential districts for parking and storage will be imposed. You have been provided a list of surrounding communities, most of which are much larger than Rosemount; these larger communities do not have an ordinance like the one being proposed here. You are also being asked to compare apples to oranges, Apple Valley has a four vehicle and up to six vehicle limit, but the document before you fails to state that according to the Apple Valley planning department they do not have rural residential zoning. So their ordinance applies to residential neighborhoods or simply put 50 by 100 foot lots not 3 to 5 plus acre parcels. When speaking to a Rosemount employee regarding our concerns, the question was posed what if we were allowing out of town friends to leave their vehicles at our house instead of the airport, would this be considered storage? His response was yes, this is craziness. I have over three acres, with two driveways leading up to two three car stall garages and two boat pads one on cement and one on pavement and somehow I have to worry about whether keeping 2 3 extra vehicles for a week is storage? This ordinance also fails to provide adequate verbiage on storage, according to this my daughters coming home from college with friends and their cars, visitors coming from out of State, us hosting a picnic or open house are all examples of so called storage and the list of examples can go on and on. One has to beg to ask the question what is storage; a day, a week, two months, a year? Who determines when a vehicle is considered stored? The definition of vehicles is too expansive, snow mobiles, wave runners, boats, go- carts. Based upon the media attention paid to this issue, I would guess that most rural residents of Rosemount would assume that vehicle is essentially the general description being used for car, if this is passed as written, many residents will be unpleasantly surprised to find out about this expanded definition being imposed by the city. There is also nothing in this ordinance to address, "vehicles" that are kept in a privacy fenced area or tree covered areas. In the rural residential parts of Rosemount, there should be no reason why anything stored in these areas should even be included or looked at in regards to allowable numbers for stored "vehicles Again, I can't stress enough, there is a distinct difference between rural residential and residential. There is no reason why rural residential home owners shouldn't be allowed privacy fenced areas or tree lined storage areas, since there is not an issue of land available. The maximum square footage for buildings should also be reviewed; the land owned should be useable to the owners. I would also caution too much weight being given to the whole concept of property values declining due to one person's actions. I too could claim my property values are affected by neighbors who don't paint or stain their homes, or cows or horses who have an odor, or detached buildings that don't match the living dwellings (all of these things we currently have ordinances for) but in reality failing property values probably have more to do with over inflated values in a bad economy. Due to all of these things I would ask you not to proceed with the ordinance regarding the storage of vehicles. This is a heavy handed action that clearly even our larger more residential neighboring communities have not seen a need for. My husband and I enjoy Rosemount; we volunteer on the Leprechaun Days Committee and we have been recognized by the city for our volunteer work. We hope to continue to work to make Rosemount a community all of us want to live in. (06 July 1, 2008 Ms. Holly Anderson Dakota County Transportation Department 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 Re: Dakota County 2009 -2013 Capital Improvement Program Dear Ms. Anderson: As requested, the City of Rosemount would offer the following comments and requests for projects as part of Dakota County's 2009 -2013 Capital Improvement Program. 1. County Road 73 (Akron Avenue) CSAH 42 to future Connemara Trail At this time, the City requests that funding for the improvement of County Road 73 (Akron Avenue) from CSAH 42 to future Connemara Trail continue to be programmed for 2009 by Dakota County. 2. County Road 73 (Akron Avenue) Future Connemara Trail to Inver Grove Heights Based on the uncertainty for the timing of development along this portion of County Road 73 (Akron Avenue), the City supports the programming of improvements for this portion of County Road 73 (Akron Avenue) for 2013. The City understands that this modification is considered a placeholder for the project and that in the event development occurs prior to this time, Dakota County will work with the City to identify funding for a project sooner. Furthermore, the City understands that advancement of this project prior to 2013 may require the Cityto advance fund Dakota County's share of the project cost. 3. CSAH 42/TH 52 Interchange Project The City of Rosemount continues to support the CSAH 42 /TH 52 Interchange Project and Dakota County's efforts to secure additional funding. This is a high priority project for the City and as such, the City will continue to work with Dakota County for the advancement of this project. 4. Trail lmprovements The City of Rosemount continues to request the identification of funding for the construction of a bituminous pathway on the east side of CSAH 33 (Diamond Path) from CSAH 42 to Evermoor Parkway. In addition, the city is interested in the development of a trail on the south side of County Road 38 McAndrews Road) from Shannon Parkway to the west. We G: \ENGPROJ\Dakota County\CIPRequestLTR7- 1- 08.doc understand that the advancement of this project will require coordination with the City of Apple Valley to develop complete trail extensions to logical termini. These projects are important to the City to address safety concerns for pedestrians along these County highways. 5. Dakota County Maintenance and Cost Share Requirements As the City continues to evaluate maintenance procedures and service levels, including the City's maintenance of boulevards and trails within Dakota County rights -of -way, the City is requesting consideration by Dakota County for increased maintenance of these facilities by Dakota County personnel. This includes the mowing of boulevards, snow removal on trails, and the long term maintenance of trails. In addition, for future improvement projects, the City is requesting a review of Dakota County's cost participation policy which currently requires a 45% project cost share by the City for improvement projects on county highways. The City is interested in alternative funding sources and percentages in acknowledgment of the City's continued development of a comprehensive transportation system in support of the County highway system. In addition to the above comments, we would like to acknowJ e Dakota County's commitment to participating in the completion of safety im g yements at the intersection of County Road 38 (McAndrews Road} and Shannon Parkway in 2008. The city of Rosemount looks forward to the successful completion of this project to add an eastbound right turn lane and west bound by-pass lane on County Road 38 at the Shannon Parkway intersection. On behalf of the City of Rosemount, I would like to thank Dakota County for its continued inclusion of local agencies with the development of Dakota County's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program. Should you have questions regarding these requests, please do not hesitate to contact me at 651.322.2025. Sincerely, Andrew J. Brotzler, PE City Engineer Cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Kim Lindquist, Interim City Administrator 2 b .C4. City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT CITY CODE TITLE 8, CHAPTER 2 RELATING TO THE OUTDOOR PARKING OR STORAGE OF PASSENGER VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 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: J Section 1. The Rosemount City Code Title 8, Chapter 2. is .•amnended'to add following: Section 8 -2 -2: Parking and Storage of Vehicles in Residentia stri H Outdoor Parking or Storage of Vehicles in Residenntial D The B ow i ng standards apply to the outdoor parking or storage of vehicles ill residential districts., 1 General. The parking or storage of vehicles iiiPtany residential. zoning distri'' e all comply with all applicable performanc standards for th g d in wh the e. y are located as well as the off -street parking regiilations in Title 11. Chapter 6: Off -Street Parking. Loading and Landscaping. i ;u 2 Number. The maximum number o enseci as id..operable ve tles parked or stored outdoors on an residential ro e shall 'not exceed). .ht, vehicles er dwelhn' unit. These vehicles xn'nst be owned by and fob F the exclusive of the owner or occupant of the dwelling unitoi Rt, Section 2 The rem fP o.„,. sections o Section 8 -2 -2 currently labeled H., L, `vim S ..''s'" 4 .'Y''; ,P', h z as J., and K, s be amcndcd be bl ed as I and L. ENACIN>AND ORDAINED into a rdiinance this 3rd day of June, 2008. h CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste, Mayor ATFEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2008.