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. ebb
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance Amendment, 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:
J AJ
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Hold First Reading with Second Reading of Ordinance set
for October 7, 2008.
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Meeting Date: September 16 2008
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, 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 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.
Because previous memos explained the reasons for adopting an ordinance such as this there is little
additional information to provide to the Council. The previous agenda items and minutes are attached for
the Council's benefit to aid in discussion.
A courtesy letter was mailed to all residents who spoke at previous meetings notifying them of this first
reading.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold the first reading.
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 -1: Definitions.
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 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 DATE
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 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 Ehrer, 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
SI
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.
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
ROSEMOUNT
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 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
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.
May 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 Remkus, 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.
!C ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
ulv 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 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
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 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.
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
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting direction from the Council.