Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/2006URBAN AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Urban Affairs Committee was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Shirley Doering. Members Present: Barry Berg, Sandy Breuer Robin Curran Shirley Doering, Shelley Madore, Sharon Schwartz, and Pam Sohlberg. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner; Margaret Dykes, Associate City Planner; and Sharon Hills, City Attorney. Guests present: None 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Sharon Schwartz moved, seconded by Shelley Madore, to approve the agenda. The motion carved 7-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2006. Sharon questioned Barry Berg whether he did agree with Code Enforcement Officer Tim Miller about most boat motors being self-contained. Barry said the minutes are correct as is. MOTION: Sharon moved, seconded by Shelley Madore, to approve the minutes. The motion passed 7-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Residential Parking Issues -Possible Amendments to City Code Shirley opened the meeting with remarks about the direction the Committee was taking with the ordinance amendments. Kathy Bodmer stated staff had a presentation to make and some recommended actions. Kathy recapped the accomplishments of the Committee and briefly went over the changes to the ordinance the Committee had approved, specifically, defmitions, the revisions to the overnight parking section, the screening requirements, and the number of recreational vehicles and trailers allowed on residential lots. Kathy then listed the outstanding issues that the Committee needed to review: 1) Paving requirements; 2) Definition of Driveway; 3) Maximum Width of Driveway; 4) Setbacks Class II Vehicles, and; 5) Number of Passenger Vehicles on a Lot 1. Paving Requirements: Kathy stated that staff thought that the Committee has three options for dealing with the paving issue: 1. Require all vehicles with motors to be parked on a paned surface. Urban Affairs Cormittee Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 2 Draft 2. Require all vehicles licensed for on-street use only to be parked on a paved surface but require all other motorized vehicles, e.g. boats, jetskis ATVs, etc, to be parked on Class V gravel. 3. No change from current ordinance which is to allow any type of recreational vehicle or trailer regardless of size, except for motorhomes, to be parked on an unpaved surface. The Committee discussed the chazacteristics of Class V gravel and whether it would be more much expensive to install concrete or bituminous versus Class V. Pam asked why jetskis, boats, etc. should not be pazked on a paved surface. The Committee discussed contained motors, recreational vehicles on trailers, and other subjects that were discussed at the February 22nd meeting. Sharon stated she was comfortable with requiring all motorized vehicles be parked on paved surfaces without side setbacks. Barry stated that is would likely be significantly more expensive to construct a paved driveway or parking pad. Shirley stated she is concerned that oil will leak from vehicles into the ground. Shelley stated that requiring paved surfaces for all vehicles improves the appearance of a neighborhood and believes it is reasonable. Sandy stated she is struggling with the decision, but believes requiring Class V gravel for other types of motorized vehicles is a compromise and thinks pacing may be a financial hardship for some residents. Robin is also comfortable with the Class V gravel compromise. MOTION: Pam moved, seconded by Shirley to recommend approval that the City Code require all vehicles with motors to be parked on a paved surface. The motion passed 4-3. Shirley, Shelley, Pam, and Shazon voted in the affirmative; Robin, Barry, and Sandy voted in the negative stating they would like the Class V gravel compromise considered. Staff also believes that the Committee seemed comfortable with requiring that all Class II vehicles and trailers needed to be parked on a paned surface. The Committee agreed with staff's assumption. MOTION: Shirley moved, seconded by Pam to recommend approval that the City Code require all Class II vehicles of any type be required to be parked on a paved surface. The motion passed with 6 affirmative votes, and one abstention (Barry). 2. Definition of Driveway: The Committee reviewed staff s recommended language for the definition of a driveway: Driveway - A paved area on private property that intersects with any public street roadway and is intended to provide vehicle access from the public roadway to private property. MOTION: Sandy moved, seconded by Shelley to recommend approval that the City Code contain the defmition of a driveway as recommended by City staff. The motion passed 7-0. 3. Maximum Width of Driveway After much discussion between the Committee and staff, Robin recommended that the width of a driveway should not exceed 35% of the width of the front yard of a residential lot. The Committee agreed this would be an appropriate measurement. MOTION: Robin moved, seconded by Barry to recommend approval that the City Code be amended so that that the width of a driveway shall not exceed 35% of the width of the front yard of a residential lot. Motion passed 7-0. S:\planning\UrbanAffairs\2006 Activides\Agendas & Minutes\UAC Minutes March 221A06.doc Urban Affairs Committee Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 3 4. Setbacks Class II Vehicles: Draft The Committee reviewed staff s language requiring a 10-foot rear yard setback for Class II vehicles and trailers. The Committee agreed this was a reasonable requirement. MOTION: Barry moved, seconded by Shelley to recommend approval that the City Code require a 10- foot rear yard setback for Class II vehicles and trailers. The motion passed 7-0. The Committee reviewed staff s discussion about the 5-foot side yard setback for Class II vehicles. At earlier meetings, staff had suggested that a 5-foot setback would be a useful revision to the Code because it would allow fire and safety personnel to reach the rear yard of a residence in an emergency situation. In addition, the proposed side yard setback was intended to help minimise negative impacts to neighboring properties. However, based on further discussions with the City's fire and police personnel, staff changed its recommendation about the 5-foot setback, and is comfortable with allowing all vehicles regardless of size to be parked up to the side property lines. City emergency personnel stated that they will get to a back yard by any means necessary and a 5 foot setback is not necessary for them to do their jobs. The lack of side yard setback is consistent with current City ordinances. MOTION: Pam moved, seconded by Shirley to recommend approval that the City Code be amended to require a 5-foot side yard setback for Class II vehicles. The motion failed 2-5. Shelley and Pam voted in the affmnative; Bany, Sandy, Robin, Shirley, and Sharon voted in the negative. The Committee reviewed the proposed language for instituting a 13-foot front yard setback as measured from the back of the curb for Class II vehicles and trailers to create better traffic visibility for neighboring residents. Barry suggested that all recreational vehicles and trailers be required to meet the same 13-foot front setback. Shelley stated that Class I vehicles should not have to meet the setbacks. Sharon agreed with Shelley that requiring all recreational vehicles and trailers to meet a front setback would not be reasonable. MOTION: Pam moved, seconded by Shelley to recommend approval that the City Code be amended to require a 13-foot front setback for Class II vehicles. The motion passed 7-0. The Committee debated the possibility of allowing an exemption to the front setback regulation for the loading and unloading of motorhomes. During previous discussions, some members thought a homeowner should be allowed to encroach into the proposed front setback for some particular time period, e.g. 72 hours, so that the homeowner could remove items from the motorhome and clean it out. Shirley wanted to table the item until the next UAC meeting; Sandy disagreed and thought the Committee should make a decision. The Committee weighed various options and concluded that motorhomes and other Class II vehicles could encroach into the front setback for a maximum of 48-hours in a 7-day period. MOTION: Shelley moved, seconded by Pam to recommend approval that the City Code be amended to allow Class II vehicles to encroach into the proposed required 13-foot front setback for a maximum of 48-hours in a 7-day period. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Number of Passeneer Vehicles on a Lot: S:\planning\UrbaMffairs\2006 Activities\.4gendu & Minutes\UAC Minutes March 22 2006.doc Urban Affairs Committee Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 4 Draft The Committee reviewed the proposed draft language revising the current ordinance to increase the maximum number of vehicles that could be pazked on a residential lot from 4 motor vehicles to 6 passenger vehicles. Staff thought 6 passenger vehicles would allow residents with larger driveways that could accommodate these vehicles would be able to do so and not have to apply for a residential parking permit. The number of passenger vehicles would be in addition to any recreational vehicles or trailers that might also be parked or stored on the lot. Shirley stated that neighbors she spoke with thought the increase to 6 passenger vehicles would be sufficient. Barry thought the maximum number of vehicles allowed by the Code should be the number of vehicles that will fit in a driveway and meet all of the setbacks are provisions of the Code. MOTION: Barry moved, seconded by Pam, to recommend approval that the City Code be amended to allow the maximum number of vehicles allowed by the Code should be the number of vehicles that will fit in a driveway and meet all of the setbacks are provisions of the Code. Shelley asked if someone is allowed as many cars as will fit in the driveway, plus the allowable number of recreational vehicles/trailers, and, as an example, only 3 cars fit in the driveway, then will passenger cazs be driven onto the street? The Committee discussed the ramifications of placing a limit on the number of vehicles allowed on a residential lot and its effect on the late-night parking provision of the Code. Sharon Hills explained that the proposed draft amendment to the late-night parking ordinance could be modified so that it would be cleaz that only a specific number of cars could be pazked on a lot on a regular basis. The Committee agreed this would be an appropriate change to make to the draft language. The motion failed with 6 votes in the negative and one abstention (Barry). MOTION: Sharon moved, seconded by Sandy to recommend approval that the City Code be amended to allow increase maximum number of passenger vehicles allowed on a residential lot be increased from 4 to 6. The motion passed with 6 votes in the affirmative and one abstention (Barry). OTHER BUSINESS a. None ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sandy moved, seconded by Pam, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. S:Aplanning\UrbartAffaira~2006 Activities~.Sgendas & Minutes\UAC Minutes Mazch 22 2006.doc