Loading...
05.b Exterior Storage Public Comments_Vavoulis1 b.eklund From:Anthony Vavoulis < Sent:Monday, August 4, 2025 11:58 AM To:mail Subject:Amendment for Exterior of Vehicles City of Scandia: The number of LRC and RCV allowed on each of the parcel sizes described on Table 153.400.090-1 is far too generous. We do not want our city and lakeside properties to be a parking lot of vehicles. Of course owners want to park their vehicles on their property, but neighbors and other citizens shouldn’t have to view these lots of vehicle collections. I did not note any limits on LRC or RCV size?? These babies can get big, and screening a big thing is still a big thing. My property and many along my section of the BIg Marine are small, 50', less than a quarter acre. An LRC and RCV plus a truck and a couple of cars is a lot full of vehicles….a parking lot. The vehicle ratios don’t improve as the lot size increases. Four big rec vehicles plus up to 4 personal vehicles plus all the parking and drive surface on a 150’ x 150’ lot is just too much. How about rain runoff…into the lake? I suggest that the Planning staff be asked to draw up examples of the various lot sizes with an actual storage plan layout of the maximum number of vehicles (LRC, RCV & personal) proposed, including space for screening and necessary access to each spot and full egress for the 4 personal vehicles…..not simply showing the overall areas allowed for vehicle storage on the lot, but an actual functional layout for a residential lot, riparian and non. In most cases the lots themselves are the limiting factor not the Table in the proposed ordinance. Essentially no limits on the few property owners with multiple rec vehicles exposing the many property owners to the potential of living next to a parking lot of hulking vehicles. The image that all stored vehicles and screening will be beautifully maintained may be the case for some, but others may not be maintained at that standard and sit in place for years..aging in place. Again, easy storage for a few, nuisance and lowered property value for many. At a minimum the numbers on Table 153.400.090-1 should be cut in half, for the smallest it should be either a LRC or and RCV.. not both. Anthony Vavoulis 12100 196th Street .