The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About[06c] Ordinance Amendment - Parking on Front LawnMYOFST.JOSM Planning Commission Agenda Item 6 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: November 7, 2011 Ordinance Updates Administration PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: None. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the October 20, 2011 City Council meeting Councilor Steve Frank requested the Planning Commission re -visit and consider creating an amendment that creates limitations on parking on the grass by requiring a parking pad. Placed in your packet are the minutes of the Planning Commission and City Council from the last discussion. The City Chicken material produced by the League has been included in the packet for discussion. ATTACHMENTS: Request for Planning Commission Action Parking Pads - Planning Commission Minutes, City Council Minute City Chickens — League of MN Cities Fact sheet REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Forward recommendation to City Council THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Planning Commission Action — March 7, 2011 Ordinance 52.10 — Parking Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission previously held a public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed amendment to Ordinance 52.10. The Council; however, did not accept the recommendation and has asked the Planning Commission to review the amendment again as it relates to the parking pad provisions. A number of residents have recreational vehicles parked in their yards during the off season and requiring the installation of parking pad may create financial or logistic issues. The other issue that arose during discussion was the requirement that parking pads must abut a public way for access or have a driveway that extends to the parking pad. Meyer stated that he is unsure what the Council is looking for. According to Weyrens, the Planning Commission has previously approved the amendments as shown. When staff presented the Commission the proposed amendment, it was based on concern from residents that is raised often. It comes down to what people expect in a residential neighborhood. A number of residents contact the City with concerns about having to look at a vehicle from their house or complaints about the grass growing around the obstacle. Rieke suggested the possible alternative of grass pavers to which Dullinger stated that she has dealt with quite a bit in some of her design work. There was considerable discussion about the use of "recycled bituminous" and whether or not crushed concrete would be considered the same and whether or not that would be acceptable. Weyrens stated that the issue with that is the weeds that tend to grow thru the rocks.. According to Weyrens, the Council's main concern was that of Parking Pads for Residential Units [Subd 6(a)]. Deutz clarified that the issue is with residential areas. Rieke again addressed the use of recycled or crushed bituminous and questioned whether or not it can be used in commercial areas. Weyrens questioned whether they want to allow this by Special Use Permit, similar to how it is done in the Industrial Districts. Deutz stated that there have been some businesses that have been allowed this right whereas others have been denied. Meyer redirected the commissioners and stated that the purpose of this discussion is to discuss the location of parking pads /hard surfaces. Since the Planning Commission has already discussed this and recommended approval to the Council, Meyer questioned whether they should continue this discussion or let the Council make the final decision on the proposed Ordinance Amendment. Weyrens questioned whether or not the Commissioners feel that the following requirements are unreasonable: "Subd. 6 e. Parking pads may encroach into side and /or rear yard setbacks, provided: i. They do not encroach into utility or drainage easements. ii. They are setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line. iii. Parking pads shall not occupy a viewing triangle measuring twenty-five (25) feet from the curb intersect at intersections of two or more public streets. f. Parking pads allowed in front yards must be constructed as an integral part of an improved driveway. Total square footage of structures, driveway, and parking pads shall not occupy greater than fifty (50) percent of the front yard. Parking pads shall not occupy a viewing triangle measuring twenty -five (25) feet from the curb intersect at intersections of two or more public streets." Dubel replied that it is normal to have a viewing triangle and supports the provisions. Kalinowski commented on Subd. 6(d) which states: "Parking pads existing at the time of this Ordinance adoption shall be allowed to continue as existing until a building permit or rental permit is requested by the property owner. Upon building or rental permit application or rental renewal application, the parking pad shall be brought into conformance with this Ordinance. The Planning Commission may grant an extension to this requirement provided sufficient escrow is filed with the City to ensure said parking pad improvements are completed within nine (9) months of the issuance of a building or rental permit." She questioned the date of adoption to which Weyrens explained that it would be the date that the Ordinance is published. It was suggested that a date be inserted instead and the Commissioners agreed on using April 2011 rather than stating "at the time of Ordinance adoption ". Weyrens advised the Commissioners that the current rental process already includes the requirement for a hard surface. Deutz expressed concern about the need for conformance with this ordinance upon applying for a building permit. He stated that many property owners pull permits to do maintenance work and does not feel that this would apply to those types of building permits. The Commissioners suggested the following changes: • Subd. 6(d): Add language stating that building permits for maintenance projects such as roofing, siding, windows, plumbing, mechanical, etc would not pose the need for conformance with this ordinance. • Subd. 6(d): Change the "date of adoption" to April 2011. • Subd. 4(b): Correct fraction typos. Deutz then questioned the 25' viewing triangle. He questioned whether the 25' is from the curb or the property line. It was clarified that it is from the curb. This lead to additional discussion regarding the maximum square footage for the pad being no more than 50% of the front yard. Meyer stated that some people's driveways alone cover more than 50% of the front yard. He commented that it is unreasonable to make an ordinance to fit everyone. Dullinger agreed with Meyer and stated that perhaps it should read no more than 50% of the lot rather than 50% of the front yard. Deutz questioned the required amount of impervious surface to which Weyrens replied that 30% of the lot must not be covered by a structure or combination of structures. Dubel suggested removing the word "structures" from Subd. 6(f) as a property owner could have a garage door on both sides of their garage with a pad on the back side. Dubel made a motion to recommend the Council adopt the following modifications to the proposed Amendment to Ordinance 52.10: • Subd. 6(d): Add language stating that building permits for maintenance projects such as roofing, siding, windows, plumbing, mechanical, etc would not pose the need for conformance with this ordinance. • Subd. 6(d): Change the "date of adoption" to April 2011. • Subd. 4(b): Correct fraction typos. • Subd. 6(f): Change this to read 11 ... Total square footage of the parking pad not to exceed 500 square feet...." The motion was seconded by Deutz Discussion: After considerable discussion, the question was raised as to how it came to limiting the parking pads in front yards. Weyrens replied that it was a result of considerable discussion and numerous complaints. Kalinowski added that there is a typo in Subd. 7(c). It should read "Areas suitable to accommodate emergency vehicles... ". The word "of' should be removed. The motion passed unanimously. City Council Action — April 7, 2011 Ordinance Update — Parking Previously the Planning Commission held a public hearing on modifications to the Parking Ordinance which were considered by the Council in October 2010. The Council accepted all the recommendations with the exception of the parking pad regulations. The Council in October requested the Planning Commission reconsider the provisions regarding parking pads. The Planning Commission in March considered the request of the Council and made some minor modifications. The Council suggested the following changes: • Subd. 6(d):"... The Planning Commission may grant an extension... ". Wick stated that the City Council would grant the extension as the Planning Commission is only a recommending body to the Council. • Subd. 6(g): "... Total square footage of structures, driveway and parking pads shall not exceed 500 square feet...." It was suggested that structures be removed. Loso also stated that, based on this provision, if the driveway is greater than 500' that would restrict the property owner's use of their property by not allowing a parking pad. Loso stated that he does not support the restrictions in the Ordinance regarding parking pads and does not feel how residents currently use their property. He does not agree with regulating what a property owner does in their back yard. Weyrens clarified that the provision regarding parking pads is a new provision that is a result of the complaints received by the City from neighbors regarding vehicles and equipment parked on the grass. After considerable discussion, Wick made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.10 [Off Street Parking], minus Subd. 6. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK