Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA008 - Council Action Form, June 16, 1981 _ 0 COUNCIL AGENDA FORM SUBJECT: P&Z Commission recommendation re: proposed regulations for the keeping, storage, parking, and abandonment of motor vehicles, junk or otherwise. COUNCIL AGENDA DATE : June 16, 1981 BACKGROUND: The P&Z Commission during its regular meeting of June 3, 1981, considered two pieces of proposed legislation drafted by City Attorney, John Klaus, to control idled motor vehicles as specified above. This legislation had been requested by the City Council and referred to the P&Z Commission. Action taken by the P&Z Commission is indicated below. ALTERNATIVES : RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION: (Sherkow/Kahler) Based on the previous discussion move that we not recommend either ordinance be adopted by Council in their present form. VOTE: 4 in favor(Zingg, Sherkow, Kahler, Whetstone) 1 opposed (Hoffman) Planning & Zoning Commission 3 June 3, 1981 Mr. Zingg referred to the proposed electric gate to be constructed to deter people from using the short cut. He was concerned about maintenance and asked whether a statement on maintenance should be part of the stipulation. The Commission discussed other alternatives besides an electric gate. Permanent closure of the Lincoln Way entrance would have an effect on the apartments, however, restricting the Lincoln Way point to ingress and eliminating egress would be a good solution because it would eliminate the need for a gate and the concern over maintenance. Public Comments Norm Hamilton, 240 Hickory Drive, stated that the revision was acceptable to him, however, he was concerned about the barrier fence, i.e. , how it would be constructed, what type of material would be used, who would maintain it, what size it would be. He asked that the fence be constructed before Mr. Kocimski begins construction. Ruth Kinderman, 121 McDonald, was concerned about the height of the fence and asked if it would meet with another fence that was already in place. She stated a fence would deter any cross foot traffic. Charles Benn, 230 Hickory Drive; asked that the privacy fence be extended from the Kinderman property to the Skarshaug property; that is, from Hickory Drive south to where it intersects the Skarshaug property. MOTION: (Whetstone/Sherkow) Move we table this with instructions to staff to show the following on the site plan: a. the east and west barriers including: height of at least 6 feet; extent; maintenance; material made of; at what point in time will the barriers be constructed. b. the short cut showing the elimination of the egress from the site to Lincoln Way with actual physical curbing to be installed at the time the Marshall Avenue entrance is open. C. a diagram of the parking stalls in the southeast corner showing which way they are going. d. the signature of Mr. Kocimski indicating the limitations he would go to on the plan as presented, with him being made aware of his option to object to some of the stipulations. Amendment (Hoffman) - That the plan be shown to the City Attorney to obtain legal counsel. Motion carried unanimously. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ordinance Revisions -- Review of a proposed revision to the Zoning Ordinance dealing with the regulations of junk yards or salvage yards, junk or demolished motor vehicles, and the outdoor storage of motor vehicles in residential districts. John Klaus, City Attorney, reviewed these ordinances for the Commission giving background information leading to their formulation. He stated that one ordinance would amend the parking regulations and the other would amend the zoning ordinance. Mr. Klaus stated that the problem these address is vague, but it seems to involve cars in residential areas that are deemed by others in the area to be undesirable, i.e. , demolished, junked, inoperable, old. Mr. Klaus gave some examples of complaints the City has received and noted that some of the complaints come from commercial areas. Planning & Zoning Commission 4 June 3, 1981 Mr. Klaus reviewed each ordinance. He indicated that the time limits in each ordinance could be changed. He stated that exceptions to each ordinance would involve obtaining a special use permit from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. This procedure would help in avoiding unreasonable results and the Zoning Board of Adjustment could impose certain conditions unique to each application and a judgement could be made in each case. , With respect to the ordinance for junk yards/salvage yards (an additional section to the present zoning ordinance), Mr. Klaus reviewed the zoning district (G-I) in which those uses would be allowed and stated that existing junk/salvage yards would be grandfathered in other districts and continue as existing legal, non-conforming uses. Under this proposed ordinance, even in a G-I district it would be necessary to obtain a special use permit from the ZBA to establish the junk/salvage yard so that special conditions, if they were deemed necessary, could be imposed to protect surrounding land use. Mr. Klaus noted that neither of the ordinances would have any effect on new or used cars being displayed for sale, but they would impact on any commercially zoned land where wrecked, demolished, or stripped vehicles were left out-of-doors for more than the prescribed period of time. He referred to auto body shops and stated that in situations where it is shown necessary to store vehicles out-of-doors for a period of time before they are repaired, a special permit would be required from the ZBA. Mr. Zingg asked if the length of time was changed to 30 days, would he be in violation of the ordinance if he was to go on a 31-day vacation or park a small travel trailer beside his garage for a season. Mr. Klaus indicated these would be violations of the zoning ordinance unless a special use permit was obtained. Ms. Whetstone asked about a young person who is working on an automobile on his property and Mr. Klaus stated that he would be in violation if his work was longer than the prescribed period of time. Mr. Sherkow asked what the reasoning was behind the paragraph that addressed the parking of operable motor vehicles and whether there was an inordinant number of unused motor vehicles around Ames. Mr. Klaus stated that there was a problem in defining what is prohibited and what is permitted. There have been complaints about motor vehicles and City Council felt that there should be some ordinance to deal with the problem. Some people feel that too many unused, stored vehicles detract from their enjoyment of property. Mr. Kahler indicated that frequently there are parking violations and the police do not do anything about it unless there is a complaint. If the City cannot take care of illegally parked vehicles, wi'll they be able to enforce a new ordinance? Mr. Zingg asked about student vehicles parking in University lots and Mr. Klaus stated that the University parking lots would be outside the jurisdiction of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Kahler asked whether auto repair shops would need a special permit for each car they leave -outside for more than 30 days. Mr. Klaus stated that the auto body repair shops would only need one permit to store vehicles out-of-doors. Mr. Kahler also stated that through this ordinance landowners could place unfair pressure upon businesses they did not like. Mr. Klaus indicated that the ZBA will be reviewing and commenting on this ordinance before it is enacted. Planning & Zoning Commission 5 June 3, 1981 Speaking in Favor: No comments. Speaking in Opposition: .John McNunn, Ames Garage and Used Auto Parts, Freel Drive, stated that there are laws in existence that address some of the problems discussed. He indicated he could pick up abandoned vehicles if the owner of a property contacts the police, the police ticket the vehicle and the owner signs it. Charles Gilbert, Gilbert Service Garage, was concerned that a 6-foot screening fence was part of the ordinance and Mr. Klaus explained that it was not included in the ordinance, however, it could be a condition that might be imposed by the ZBA if a special permit was obtained to deal with the storage of vehicles longer than the time prescribed in the ordinance. Joel Rasmussen, owner of a salvage yard, stated that it seems as though people who do not like cars have more rights than people who do. If a person wishes to keep an antique car on his property, he should be able to do this as long as he pleases. Dave Kepley, Dave's Auto and Truck Service, asked if permits would do anything to satisfy those complaining. There are too many permits required now for wreckers-- when will it end? Mr. Engelman, owner of a janitorial service, 3612 S. Duff, discussed the vehicles he needs to park on his property which are related to his business and explained that his residence is in an Rl-10 zone. The ordinance is an enfringement on the business people and creates more of a burden. The Commission held further discussion. Ms. Whetstone suggested that the time periods in the ordinances be increased. Mr. Zingg stated that while he is in sympathy with the intent of the ordinance it does cause perfectly valid businesss some problems that it really should not. Mr. Sherkow indicated that the Commission has no idea what the problem is, i.e. , who is making complaints, what part of town they reside in. He stated that the ordinances are solutions looking for problems. Mr. Sherkow suggested that something should be done about abandoned vehicles but other areas of the ordinance are overly regulatory. MOTION: (Sherkow/Kahler) Based on the previous discussion move that we not recommend either ordinance be adopted by Council in their present form. The Commission discussed this motion. Ms. Whetstone stated that the ordinance should be confined to address the problem of abandoned cars on residential property. Mr. Kahler suggested the ordinances be narrowed down and more information be obtained about auto repair garages in town. Mr. Sherkow discussed the enforcement problems that the Commission has heard about at their public meetings and suggested that the enforcement people be involved in drafting up the ordinances. Ms. Whetstone reiterated the Commission's viewpoint that abandoned cars in residential areas be addressed, but the other parts need to be refined. Mrs. Hoffman stated that she would rather work on changing what the Commission has and make exceptions from there. Mr. Zingg stated he was not sure about the impetus for the ordinances'. Mr. Kahler asked about the urgency of passing the ordinances and suggested that the Commission deal with them more thoroughly in the Fall. Mr. Sherkow asked for a list of where the complaints are coming from. Planning & Zoning Commission 6 June 3, 1981 Vote: 4 in favor, 1 opposed (Hoffman) . The motion passed. Ms. Whetstone stated that there are some commercial places that need to be cleaned up and she indicated that this is an issue the Commission should be concerned about. MOTION: (Sherkow/Whetstone) Ask staff to look at how they might approach the problem if they had the time. What would be a brief process by which they could identify the problem. Amendment (Zingg) : To tell the Council that the Commission intends to include this on a list of revisions to the Zoning Ordinance for consideration. Mr. Zingg will personally relate this to Council. Motion carried unanimously. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION: (Whetstone/Kahler) Move we delay agenda items 6 (Discussion of Area 5) and 7 (LUPP Review) until the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSION COMMENTS Mr. Kahler stated that he met with the Southwest Neighborhood Association and they are concerned about zoning. Mr. Kahler stated he had encouraged them to make their plans known to the Commission. Mr. Zingg stated that he had been contacted by Roger Volker who is connected with the Old Town Neighborhood Association. They have been in the process of conducting a survey and would like to present the results to the Commission some time in July. Ms. Whetstone suggested notifying other groups of the dates of summer meetings and Mr. Kahler indicated that the schedule could be published in the paper. Mr. Sherkow noted that the Commission needs to do some intense review of the LUPP and a lot of time should not be taken up by rehashing what has previously been discussed. Mr. Zingg indicated that at each Commission meeting time will be allotted for public comment, but the Commission could suggest that the presentation be no longer than 15 minutes and a written report be provided to the Commission prior to the presentation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Wooldridge distributed a report prepared by staff on comments gleaned from the public meetings held over the past six months. Mr. Brennan asked about the request of the Commission to include all of the Westwood Village stipulations on the site plan and wondered if this set a precedent for other development plans. Mr. Zingg explained that this request was due to the time span of the Westwood Village plan and does not relate to other development plans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------