Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment

8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment

1/312

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 22, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-04

APPLICANT: City of Stillwater

REGARDING: Consideration of adoption of new regulations pertaining to parkingvehicles on yard areas.

PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner

BACKGROUND

At the Council’s last regularly-scheduled meeting, the Council received a favorablerecommendation from the Planning Commission for approval of a Council-initiated ZoningText Amendment (ZAT) pertaining to yard parking. The Planning Commission had draftedthis ordinance through a four-month public process which included two public hearings inDecember and January.

In early March the Council heard a presentation by City staff, took public testimony and closedthe public hearing prior to discussion. In the meeting, the Council directed staff in thefollowing ways:

Amend to indicate no parking on grass in the Front Yard area. Amend to allow for off-street parking spaces to be constructed of gravel. Amend to allow for off-street parking spaces. Amend to allow for the reconstruction of non-conforming driveways. Explore how other communities address vehicle lengths and the total number of

vehicles on properties and report back to the Council.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Based on the directed provided by the Council, as well as public testimony heard in the hearing,

staff has drafted the proposed amendments to the ordinance:

Under General Provisions, the following has been added:o Parking of vehicles on grass in the Front Yard area of all districts shall be

prohibited.o Parking of vehicles in Side Yard area is allowed if the vehicle is adequately

screened by permitted fencing or year-round vegetation. In addition, the vehiclemust maintain at least a five foot (5’) setback from the side lot line.

Under Design Requirements: Parking Spaces, the following has been added:


2/312

Case No.2016-04CC: 3/8/2016Page 2 of 3

o In residential districts, parking spaces are not required to be contiguous todriveways.

Under Design Requirement: Parking Facility Layout, the following has been amended toread:

o Existing nonconforming driveways shall be allowed to be maintained , repairedand replaced. Expansion of the nonconforming setback shall not be permitted.

The Class 5 bed for pavers has been modified from ‘six to eight’ inches to ‘minimum ofsix’.

Under [Off Street Parking Facilities] Surfacing, the following has been added:o Gravel parking spaces may be permitted in residential districts only.

Under Permit Required, the following has been amended to read:o No driveway may be constructed without first obtaining a permit. The fee shall

be established by resolution of the city council.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The Council direction staff to report on what other communities have done to address vehicle

length and number of vehicles on a property. The following is a summary of those items foundin the Community Ordinance Summary, attached:

Vehicle Length Number of VehiclesDuluth One occupied trailer in a private

garage, driveway or in a rear yard

Mahtomedi Up to 36’ Long – 1 per lotLess than 25’ Long – No numericalrestriction

Minneapolis Vehicles greater than 25’ long areprohibited

Maximum two vehicles per dwellingmay be parked on an improved surface

Osseo Up to two recreationvehicles/equipment may be parked inresidential areas

Redwing Maximum 32’ Long No more than one recreational vehiclemay be parked or stored outside

Woodbury Maximum 24’ Long

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Staff requests Council to discuss the proposed changes for determination of whether they

address the concerns expressed at your last meeting. Additionally, the Council should furtherdiscuss whether or not the inclusion of vehicle length and total number of vehicles areappropriate inclusions into this ordinance.

COUNCIL ACTION

The Council has three alternatives:


3/312


4/312

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 8, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-04

APPLICANT: City of Stillwater

REGARDING: Consideration of adoption of new regulations pertaining to parkingvehicles on yard areas.

PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner

ORDINANCE ORIGINATION

At a regularly-scheduled City Council meeting in April, 2015, the City Council was asked byStillwater resident Eric Solberg (2064 Oak Glen Drive) to consider the creation of an Ordinanceto address the parking of vehicles in the front yards and on front lawns in residential areas inStillwater. It was indicated the issue was not only unsightly and of a blighted nature, but that itbrought down property values in the community.

Direction was given to staff to work with the Planning Commission on the development of adraft ordinance which would address the issue of yard parking. The Council limited theordinance scope to address the parking of registered vehicles and trailers in yards, specificallyfront and side yards or those areas visible from the street, on improved surfaces only.

PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGOUND

In November the Planning Commission reviewed Mr. Solberg’s submission and discussed theCouncil’s direction. Staff discussed the ordinance impact with the Commission and providedthem with the results of a preliminary aerial imagery assessment and other community’sordinances. Staff has attached both of these for the Council’s review. With this information, theCommission preliminarily discussed potential components of the ordinance: surfacingmaterials, number of vehicles, fences and other visual barriers, applicable districts, etc. Lastlythe Commission directed staff to conduct a community input survey on the City’s website. In

December the Commission reviewed the Community Input Survey and directed staff to preparean ordinance.

Minutes of the November and December Planning Commission meetings are attached for theCouncil’s reference.


5/312

Case No.2016-04CC: 3/8/2016Page 2 of 4

COMMUNITY INPUT SURVEY SUMMARY

While staff has attached all community input survey results, as well as other public inputreceived prior to the Commission’s public hearing, staff would like to note:

On November 16 City staff sent a press release to the Stillwater Gazette, the Lowdown, the

Current, the Patch, the Pioneer Press, and the Star Tribune advising a public input survey wasavailable until December 1st. Additionally, utilizing the City’s constant contact, direct emailwas sent to 660 interested parties who have signed up to receive Planning Commission packetsand minutes as well as the Stillwater Scene, the City’s quarterly newsletter.

A total of 297 survey responses were collected from 276 separate IP addresses online; anadditional ten individuals made direct contact to share their opinions with City staff. Generallyspeaking, those surveyed:

Do not park on their lawns but think yard parking is a problem in Stillwater and wouldlike to see parking on lawns regulated.

The regulation should apply across all districts

Front yard parking was more concerning than side or corner yard parking. Cars/pickups, RVs, Ice Houses on Skids, Pull-behind Campers, and Trailers should all

be regulated

ATVs, Snowmobiles and motorcycles should not be regulated

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 13. Staff has attached the minutesof that meeting. At the hearing the Commission heard from ten members of the public prior todiscussing the proposed ordinance. The Commission determined certain provisions, such aslimiting the total amount of impervious surface in the front yard was necessary to preserve the

intent of front yard areas as well as allowance for alternative materials for the construction andreconstruction of driveways should be incorporated. The Commission directed staff to modifythe ordinance and bring back at the next meeting.

In the February public hearing, the Commission heard from five members of the public.Included in the public testimony was a submission from Mr. Rob SanCartier (216 Owens StreetSouth) of 200+ petitions signed by residents of the community in which the first line of thepetition reads “efforts are being made to ban motor homes, boats, and recreational vehiclesfrom driveways and yards in Stillwater.” The four additional public comments involvedrequests regarding clarification of the proposed ordinance. As such, on a 5-0 vote, theCommission forwarded to the City Council a favorable recommendation of approval of the

draft ordinance.


6/312

Case No.2016-04CC: 3/8/2016Page 3 of 4

DRAFT ORDINANCE SUMMARY

The draft ordinance was designed to be minimalistic while working within the existing zoningcode provisions. Staff has attached a legislative version of the draft ordinance for the Council’sreview. Any text where formatting has not been changed and highlighted, is current city coderegulation. In essence, the proposed code change would allow vehicles to be parked in the front

and side yard of a home if it is on improved surfaces. Currently improved surfaces are onlyconcrete and asphalt. While the new ordinance provisions would not be applicable to AP(Agricultural Preserve) properties, it would be applicable to all other residential zoningdistricts.

The ordinance would allow for paver driveways, as well as allow the City Engineer to approveother surfacing materials for flexibility in improved surfacing materials. Any driveway orparking area that is currently constructed of gravel or crushed rock would be allowed to bemaintained, but not expanded; no new gravel or crushed rock driveways would be allowed. Ifthe ordinance is approved, parking and drive areas would not be permitted to be located within5’ of a property line; this is a reduction from the code’s current setback of 10’. However, no

greater than 50% of the front yard area would be permitted to be parking and drive areas, as topreserve open space in this area. Lastly, the Planning Commission is proposing the City createa permitting system for the construction and reconstruction of driveways.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

The Council should review and discuss the proposed ordinance and determine whethermodifications should be made prior to adoption. One thing staff would like to request theCouncil consider is the requirement for permitting. In discussions with the Public Works andEngineering Department, Public Works Director Shawn Sanders indicated it may be good tohave a permit like this but questioned whether or not instituting this type of permit at this time

was most appropriate as well as who would administer the permit review process. Sandersindicated that driveway specifications and standards are found in various sections of the CityCode and they are not as comprehensive as the City may desire (such as there is no provisionindicating separation between driveways, the standards for driveway widths, nor therequirements for assessing surface water runoff from new driveway construction). Sandersrecommended the City explore the development of comprehensive driveway standards prior torequiring new permits.

COUNCIL ACTION

The Council will hold a public hearing and take public comments. Once all comment has beenmade, the Council should close the public hearing and discuss the proposed Ordinance andtake action. The Council has three alternatives:

1. Move to approve, with or without changes, the first reading of the Ordinance and placethe item on March 22 Council agenda for a second reading.

2. Move to table the first reading, direction staff to incorporate changes as discussed by theCouncil.

3. Move to deny the first reading.


7/312

Case No.2016-04CC: 3/8/2016Page 4 of 4

ATTACHMENTS

Solberg SubmissionOrdinance Impact and Preliminary Aerial Imagery AssessmentCommunity Ordinance SummaryCommunity Input Survey

Public CommentsLegislative VersionDraft Ordinance


8/312


9/312


10/312


11/312


12/312


13/312


14/312


15/312


16/312


17/312


18/312


19/312


20/312


21/312


22/312


23/312


24/312


25/312


26/312


27/312


28/312


29/312


30/312


31/312


32/312


33/312


34/312


35/312


36/312

As presented to the Stillwater Planning Commission on November 9, 2015 (Page 1 of 3)

ANTICIPATED ORDINANCE IMPACT & PRELIMINARY AERIAL ASSESSMENT

A new ordinance designed to address yard parking could impact all residential properties inStillwater. To understand the extent of the issue, staff conducted an investigation as to thenumber of properties that would currently be in violation of an ordinance that prohibited yard

parking in the front and side yards on an unimproved surface. Additionally, as many of theexamples shared by Mr. Solberg were within his neighborhood, staff wanted to determine if thisissue was a city-wide issue or not.

In order to estimate the total number of offending properties, staff set the following parametersbased on the petition from Mr. Solberg and the Council’s direction: address the residentialparking of vehicles on unimproved surfaces in the front and side yards. From this it wasdetermined to break the City into manageable districts for review of properties. Attached is amap of the districts developed by staff. In order to conduct the survey effectively, it wasdetermined the review of aerial imagery of parcels in Stillwater would be the most efficient andeffective method for gathering data.

Utilizing 360 degree aerial imagery from April 16, 2014, staff reviewed all residential propertiesin the following districts. It was determined that due to the nature of the AgriculturalPreservation (AP) zone, staff would not review these properties. Additionally, thoseneighborhoods in West Stillwater, which are included in active Homeowner’s Associations(HOAs), contain properties that are managed by covenants which address exterior storage andparking of vehicles. The results of the survey include:

NeighborhoodEstimated

Parcels TotalEstimated Offending

ParcelsTotal

Percentage

Dutchtown 278 19 6.8%

North Hill 985 13 1.3%

South Hill 1,166 25 2.1%North Central 642 21 3.3%

Central 811 39 4.8%

West Central 931 46 4.9%

Total 4,813 163 3.3%

There are some inherent limitations to the survey conducted:

Results are based on review of property from aerial photography. While zooming in on a

specific parcel can be achieved, the visual quality is reduced. It left staff with the assumption

that this object was a vehicle.


37/312


When an object was identified, further investigation would lead staff to make certainassumptions: was there adjacent surfacing material and, if so, was that surfacing material

impervious, permeable, etc.? In the circumstance identified on the next page, it was not

until the last rotation staff identified an additional parking pad had been created on the

property but that it does not appear to have been extended to the RV. Furthermore, the

areas around the RV appear to be grass on at least two sides.

Figure

1:

Aerial

Imagery

Zoomed

to

300%

Figure

2:

Aerial

Imagery

without

Zoom


38/312


Lastly, as the aerial imagery was from the spring of 2014, assumptions can be made

regarding whether or not the amount of yard parking occurring at the time the imagery wastaken is more or less the same all year round.

With a basis of the impact of the ordinance staff is better able to indicate this problem is notnecessarily specific to one neighborhood; each residential neighborhood surveyed containsproperties which homeowners park their vehicles, trailers, etc. on their yards. Inneighborhoods where the total percentage is low, staff has made the assumption that this is dueto these properties having a relatively small amount of land space in comparison to otherneighborhoods. Additionally, the RB District (which the North and South Hill Districts arezoned), the Front Yard Setback area is 20’ whereas in the RA District (which several of the other

districts are zoned) is 30’. The same is true for the Side Yard Setback area: the RB District allowsfor houses to be closer together with often less than 10’ in between houses.


39/312


40/312


OTHER COMMUNITIES

As indicated, Mr. Solberg identified ordinances specific to other communities. Additionally, hisresearch was expanded to include other communities which have a similar nature as Stillwater(either a river town or other historic community with a significant amount of visitors), as well as

a small sampling of other metro area communities. A summary of the findings from the 33other communities is attached to this report.

Most of the communities define a vehicle as something that is licensed and operable. Several ofthe communities indicate vehicles include cars, trucks, trailers, ATVs, snowmobile, all-terrainvehicles, campers and recreational vehicles. Four of the surveyed communities haveordinances, or a portion of their zoning/nuisance codes, that specifically address the parkingand/or storage of RVs on residential properties.

Of the communities surveyed, over half of the communities outright prohibit parking on grassor other landscaping materials. A total of 22 communities require surfacing materials that areimproved, with 16 of the communities specifically designating asphalt, concrete, bricks orpavers as the approved surfacing material.

Lastly, nearly all communities have specific designations regarding parking vehicles in the frontof the property. Where a community allows it, it is designated to be permitted on a driveway orapproved parking pad. In regards to side yards, often the side yard is denoted as allowing forparking when it is located behind the front line of the house. Lastly, many communities allowfor rear yard parking on unimproved surfaces.

ATTACHED

Community Ordinance Summary Compiled by City Staff


41/312

Jurisdiction General

Regulation Violation Surfacing

Material Front

Yard Side

Yard

Bayport Unoperable or not

licensed

Burnsville

Vehicles must be parked

only on the approved

driveway

Concrete, asphalt or

pavers, or stored in the

garage

Champlin

To park a vehicle in a

yard without an

approved surface

Vehicles and RVs on

access drive or driveway

are permitted

Vehicles and RVs on

access drive or drive

are permitted

City of Big Lake

Parking pads

(improved

and semi‐improved)

require an administrative

permit

Improved Surface =


pavers

in

Front

Yard/Semi‐Improved

Surface = gravel, class 5,

crushed rock or similar

composite contained to

control dust, drainage

and prevent spillage

Must be on an improved

surface

Must be in semi‐

improved surface

City of Grant

The ordinance is silent to

vehicle parking with

regard to surfaces but

regulate partially

dismantled, non‐

operating, wrecked,

junked, or

discarded

parts from vehicles.

Coon Rapids

Parking is prohibited

except on improved

surface

Parking is prohibited

except on improved

surface


42/312

Crystal

Motor vehicels are

prohibited from parking

on unapproved surfaces

Duluth

One unoccupied trailer

in a private garage,

driveway or

in

a rear

yard

On all lots, parking i

allowed in the entire

rear yard and one si

yard. For corner lot

landowners

who

canlocate sufficient par

in the rear or on one

yard may then apply

a Variance

Edina Parking on a non‐hard

surface

Hugo

Except in ag and rural

residential districts,

parking areas hall be

paved with bituminous,

concrete, pavers or

tother approved

dustless

and erosion resistant

material

Lakeville

Parking prhobitied unless

on designated driveway

or surfaced space on the

side of a driveway

Pavers, bricks, concrete

or bituminour material

Mahtomedi

(See

Table)

All parking shall be hard

surfaced.

Hard surfaced areas shall

consist of a durable

material such as

concrete or

asphalt

but

not including gravel or

crushed rock

One four hundred (4

square foot hard

surfaced area adjace

to a garage or drivew

for parking

purpose

shall be permitted.

area shall not be loc

in front of the living

of the dwelling

Maplewood Cannot park on

unimproved locations Hard surfacing required


43/312

Maple Grove

Parking is not permitted

on any unapproved

surface, or any part of

the yard

Must be paved surface

Minneapolis

A maximum of two

vehicles per dwelling

unit may be parked on

an approved surface

On an approved parking

surface

Asphalt, concrete, brick

pavers, etc.

Minnetonka

Park on unimproved

surface

Newport

All parking and drive

areas must be paved

with asphalt, concrete or

other materials

RVS must be located on

the driveway and on

private property

RVs on an improved

surface, abutting a

garage (2' from lot l

North St. Paul

Vehicles shall be parked

or stored on approved

surface

Parking or storing

vehicles on the grass or

landscaped areas is

prohibited

Asphalt, brick, concrete

pavers or concrete

Northfield

No vehicle, trailer, or

other personal property

shall be parked on an

unpaved surface for the

purpose of displaying the

vehicle, trailer, or other

personal property for

hire, rental, or sale,

unless the applicable

zoning allows the use,

and the person or

business at that location

is licensed to sell

vehicles, trailers, or

other personal

property

No other motorized

vehicle parking shall be

located within an

unpaved surface in the

front or side yard.

Oak Park

Heights

No landscaping area shall

be used for the parking

of vehicles or for the

storage or display of

materials, supplies or

merchandise


44/312

Oakdale

On residential

properties, parking is

limited to driveways only

Driveway must be

concrete, bituminous or

brick

Osseo

Plymouth Parking on grass

Redwing

All persoanl property

stored must be screened

from adjoining neighbors

and streets

No person shall park or

store any vehicle in the

required front yard of

any residential

districtexcept upon the

customary driveway

emplaced to provide

access to a garage

attached or adjacent to

the principal building,

carport, or

a rear

parking

area. Any of the herein

vehicles parked within

the front yard, on a

driveway shall be parked

in such a manner as to

maintain all wheels and

trailer tongues on the

driveway surface.

Boats and unoccupi

trailers, less than th

two (32) feet in leng

are permissible if sto

in the side or rear ya

no closer

than

two

(

feet distance from a

property line.

Richfield

Park or place a vehicle in

yard on other than

established driveway

areas

Robbinsdale Vehicle

parked

in

unapproved surface


45/312

Rochester

No person shall park in a

front yard in a residential

neighborhood except as

provided in parking

setbacks

One additional space

outside of the driveway

is permitted if is is

pavement or permeable

(not gravel) but may not

be in required setback

for strcuture, the area

does not require more

than 20%

of

the

yard,

access if from the

driveway and not a new

drive or wider curb cut,

and must be landscaped

Parking allowed so l

as area is at least eig

feet in width and th

parking

area

is

pave

Roseville

Vehicles must be stored

on an improved surface.

Cars and trucks stored

on the grass is a violation

St. Anthony

All vehicles must be

parked

on

a

surface

paved with asphalt or

bituminous material,

concrete, cement, brick

or other paved surface,

or on a gravel driveway

located in front yard

St. Cloud You may not park on

grass, dirt or gravel

Must be an improved, all‐

weather service

Must be located on

driveway or drivewa

approach and m


46/312

St. Paul

All parking spaces,

driveways and off ‐street

parking facilities shall be

paved with standard or

pervious asphalt or

concrete, or with brick,

concrete, stone pavers,

or material comparable

to adjacent

street

surfacing

Off ‐street parking spaces

shall not be located

within the front yard.

White Bear

Lake

PArking prohibited in

front and side yards

unless on driveway or

approved parking pad.


pavers, or stored in the

garage

One open, hard surf

space located on the

of the driveway or

garage is permitted

shall not be located

the front of the

residence

Woodbury Concrete or blacktop RV: Not within 15' of the

curb

RV: Not within 5' of

proeprty line


47/312

Type of Vehicle Permitted Location Numerical Restrictions

Passenger automobiles, vans and trucks

with a carrying capacity of one (1) ton or

less.

On the designated driveway or hard

surfaced parking area as described in

Subdivision 10.3, G .

One (1) commercially licensed vehicle per

lot.

Large recreational vehicles such as travel

trailers, motor homes, and pickups with

slip – in campers thirty – six (36) feet or

less in length.*



Subdivision 10.3, G .

One (1) per lot.

Motorboats, sailboats, and unoccupied

trailers twenty – five (25) feet or less in

length.



Subdivision 10.3, G , and also in the rear

yard subject to setbacks for accessory

buildings. No parking shall be allowed in

corner side yards.

No restriction.

Other smaller recreational vehicles as

defined herein such as motorcycles,

snowmobiles, jet ski, etc.

In interior side and rear yards subject to

setbacks for accessory buildings. Not in

corner side yards.

No restriction.

Table 10.3 – B: Types of Vehicles Permitted to be Parked on Residential Lots


48/312

Draft – November 9, 2015

Draft Public Input Survey: Yard Parking

Introduction: The City Council of the City of Stillwater has directed staff to work with

the Planning Commission on the development of an ordinance which

would regulate the parking of vehicles in yards. This ordinance would bedesigned to specifically address vehicles parked on unimproved surfaces

in the front and side yards of properties.

For the purposes of the ordinance, vehicles would be defined as either: 1)

any vehicle or trailer designed to be street legal (regardless whether it is

currently street legal or not, and regardless whether it is currently

registered/licensed or not); or 2) any self-propelled or pull-behind

recreational vehicles (whether designed to be used on public streets or

not) , including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles,

watercraft, golf carts. etc.

Questions:

The City should not regulate parking in rear yards.

Based on the attached map, what neighborhood do you live in? (Multiple Choice)

o Dutchtown, Central or North or West Stillwater, North or South Hill

Do you think yard parking is a problem in Stillwater? (Y/N)

Is yard parking a problem in your neighborhood? (Y/N)

Is yard parking a problem in other neighborhood? (Y/N)

o If so, which neighborhood(s) is yard parking a problem in? (Multiple Choice)

o Dutchtown, Central or North or West Stillwater, North or South Hill

Should yard parking be regulated in Stillwater? (Y/N) Should yard parking be regulated in all residential districts? (Y/N)

Should yard parking be regulated in all districts? (Y/N)

If yard parking was regulated, which of the following should it be applicable to:

o Cars, RVs and Campers, Trailers, ATV/Snowmobiles/Motorcycles

Your definition of an improved surface includes:

o Asphalt, Concrete, Gravel, Paver, Brick, Hard Surface Strips

True/False:

o The City should not regulate parking in yards.

o Parking in the front of the house should only be done on a driveway.

o

The City should allow for parking pads to be developed on the side of a driveway.o The City should allow for parking pads to be developed on the side of a house.

o Vehicles should be allowed to park on the side of the home on an unimproved

surface (i.e. grass or landscaping).

o The City should not regulate the parking of vehicles behind the front line of the

house.

o The City should not regulate parking on side yards where a fence is in place.


49/312


50/312


51/312


52/312


53/312


54/312


55/312


56/312


57/312


58/312


59/312


60/312


61/312


62/312


63/312


64/312


65/312


66/312


67/312


68/312


69/312


70/312


71/312


72/312


73/312


74/312


75/312


76/312


77/312


78/312


79/312


80/312


81/312


82/312


83/312


84/312


85/312


86/312


87/312


88/312


89/312


90/312


91/312


92/312


93/312


94/312


95/312


96/312


97/312


98/312


99/312


100/312


101/312


102/312


103/312


104/312


105/312


106/312


107/312


108/312


109/312


110/312


111/312


112/312


113/312


114/312


115/312


116/312


117/312


118/312


119/312


120/312


121/312


122/312


123/312


124/312


125/312


126/312


127/312


128/312


129/312


130/312


131/312


132/312


133/312


134/312


135/312


136/312


137/312


138/312


139/312


140/312


141/312


142/312


143/312


144/312


145/312


146/312


147/312


148/312


149/312


150/312


151/312


152/312


153/312


154/312


155/312


156/312


157/312


158/312


159/312


160/312


161/312


162/312


163/312


164/312


165/312


166/312


167/312


168/312


169/312


170/312


171/312


172/312


173/312


174/312


175/312


176/312


177/312


178/312


179/312


180/312


181/312


182/312


183/312


184/312


185/312


186/312


187/312


188/312


189/312


190/312


191/312


192/312


193/312


194/312


195/312


196/312


197/312


198/312


199/312


200/312


201/312


202/312


203/312


204/312


205/312


206/312


207/312


208/312


209/312


210/312


211/312


212/312


213/312


214/312


215/312


216/312


217/312


218/312


219/312


220/312


221/312


222/312


223/312


224/312


225/312


226/312


227/312


228/312


229/312


230/312


231/312


232/312


233/312


234/312


235/312


236/312


237/312


238/312


239/312


240/312


241/312


242/312


243/312


244/312


245/312


246/312


247/312


248/312


249/312


250/312


251/312


252/312


253/312


254/312


255/312


256/312


257/312


258/312


259/312


260/312


261/312


262/312


263/312


264/312


265/312


266/312


267/312


268/312


269/312


270/312


271/312


272/312


273/312


274/312


275/312


276/312


277/312


278/312


279/312

Planning Commission November 9, 2015

Page 2 of 4

gravel, adding that he would not want an ordinance to state that Class 5 is the only material that works.

Commissioner Siess asked what if a resident put gravel all over their front yard? Ms. Wittman asked

if the Commission like to set a maximum percentage of the front yard that may be surfaced. She

summarized comments from the Commission that unimproved surfaces would be grass and dirt areas,and that improved areas would be asphalt, concrete and potentially gravel.

Ms. Wittman then asked if the Commission would want to set a maximum number of vehicles allowedto be parked in a front yard. Commissioner Hansen remarked he feels the Commission may be starting

to over-regulate something that isn’t as big a problem as it is made out to be. Commissioner Siess

noted the number of vehicles parked in yards appears to be growing in her neighborhood. ChairmanKocon commented if he had one neighbor with a vehicle parked in the yard, he wouldn’t appreciate

it. Commissioner Hansen replied that sounds like saying if someone has a lot in Stillwater, they have

to choose whether to have a boat, a trailer, or a second car. He said he is not in favor of saying aresident can have only one vehicle, especially if side yards are considered. Commissioner Hade said

he is inclined to not allow any parking in yards. Chairman Kocon said he is inclined to allow one

vehicle to be parked in a yard.

Ms. Wittman brought up side and rear yard parking, and said she will revisit the definition of front

yard. She also brought up commercial versus residential property. Commissioners voiced the thoughtthat commercial property should be treated no differently than residential property. Ms. Wittman askedif maximum length of a vehicle should be addressed. Commissioner Siess suggested addressing height

as well. Chairman Kocon commented that mass may be a better choice of words. Ms. Wittman said

staff can look at what other communities have done in regard to mass of vehicles allowed.

Ms. Wittman solicited comments about whether allowances should be made for yard parking for

special events like block parties or graduation parties. Commissioner Fletcher noted it might be selfregulating, because if it’s a one-time event, neighbors are not likely to complain unless it’s chronic.

Chairman Kocon added that if the penalty is to remove the vehicle, and it’s a one day event, then itwould be removed already by the time the ordinance would be enforced. He said for him, the true

eyesore is the vehicle that has been parked there for a lengthy time period; if it’s a wedding, graduation party or church social one-time event, there’s less of an impact than looking at a huge SUV for several

months. He pointed out the other issue is what will be done with the vehicles if they are to be removedor towed. He suggested incorporating a 24-hour notice to allow yard parking for one-day events.

Commissioner Hade replied that could be problematic if someone goes fishing every weekend, for

example, and parks a boat or trailer in their yard consistently. There would be a potential for violationeven though it is parked there for one day at a time.

Ms. Wittman asked if the Commission would like the ordinance to address rolloff boxes in yards.Commissioner Hansen commented he doesn’t think the Commission should open Pandora’s box by

including rolloff boxes in the ordinance. Commissioner Lauer agreed. Ms. Wittman noted the City

gets a lot of phone calls about neighbors having a lot of things in their yard. The question has been brought up whether the City have an ordinance regulating dumpster storage bins on grass.Commissioner Siess stated the City could initiate a permit process for storage pods. Ms. Wittman

stated a storage pod might be considered a general nuisance under the nuisance ordinance, but unless

it poses a public safety hazard, there is not a lot the City can do, as there is no ordinance coveringexterior storage. Commissioner Hansen remarked if dumpsters and storage bins aren’t a huge issue

right now, the Commission ought to let it be. That could change if it becomes a chronic issue.

Chairman Kocon said he doesn’t like to see anything on the lawn, whether it’s a dumpster or a pod.He is ok with it being on an improved surface, but doesn’t want it sitting in the front yard.


280/312


Page 3 of 4

Commissioner Hansen responded that with a lot of the rolloff container companies, a resident wouldn’t

want them parking on the driveway because they damage the driveway. Ms. Wittman recognized that

maybe the issue of pods and dumpsters belongs in a different ordinance.

Ms. Wittman summarized the discussion thus far: some changes to the definitions were suggested; the

Commission supports establishing some maximum percentage of improved surface area; landscaping

should be defined; the ordinance may be self regulating in terms of one-day events; someCommissioners want to limit the number of vehicles while some do not; the Commission wants to

explore the definition of front yard and to have these provisions apply to front yards.

Ms. Wittman stated she also heard the Commission wishes to explore length, height, mass and bulk

limits; there should be no difference between commercial vs residential properties; there could be

some sort of hourly exception, but the ordinance is designed for chronic and repeat offenders; theordinance will be limited to the storage of vehicles and will not address rolloff containers; also the

word etcetera should be eliminated.

Ms. Wittman summarized the City’s existing regulations regarding impervious surface coverage in thevarious districts. The next step is for staff to collect public input via a survey. She presented draft

survey questions for review. Commissioner Fletcher suggested adding an open ended question askingfor any other concerns. Ms. Wittman stated the survey will go out within the next week or so. Resultswill be brought back to the Commission in mid-December. She anticipates having a public hearing

before the Commission in January for a recommendation to the City Council, which would hold two

public hearings in February as is done for every ordinance.

Council Representative Junker commented he feels the ordinance should focus on the fact that the City

wants to eliminate the RVs, boats, and multiple cars in the side or front yard. But there is still the possibility that someone will throw down a little Class 5 or pea rock, that barely covers the area on

which the huge RV or boat will be on, and call it an impervious surface. Ms. Wittman responded thather direction from the Commission was that maybe gravel could be considered unimproved, maybe it

could be considered improved; she will look at how other communities classify it.

Chairman Kocon remarked that throwing gravel down in a yard would not be acceptable in his opinion.He would want to see a legitimate bordered parking area. For instance, pavers are a pervious surface

but are an improvement over gravel. Maybe the ordinance needs to address all these improved

surfaces.

Eric Solberg, 2064 Oak Glen Drive, Stillwater, thanked the Planning Commission for working on the

issue. He added there is a new example of the problem near Oak Glen. He said he realizes the City hasto help residents make this work for everybody, but feels the problem is increasing.

OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION

Staff Verbal Updates - 2016 Downtown Framework chapter of Comprehensive Plan

City Planner Wittman informed the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan is due for an update by2018. Updates to the downtown framework chapter have begun. A downtown plan committee will be

formed which will include a member of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hade responded

that living downtown, he may be interested in serving on the committee.


281/312


Page 4 of 4

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.

All in favor, 7-0.

Respectfully Submitted,

Julie Kink

Recording Secretary


282/312

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

December 9, 2015

REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.

Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer,Middleton, Siess, Council Representative Junker

Absent: None

Staff: City Planner Wittman

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Possible approval of November 9, 2015 meeting minutes

Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to approve the November 9, 2015

meeting minutes. All in favor, 9-0.

Possible approval of September 9, 2015 meeting minutes

Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve the September 9, 2015

meeting minutes. All in favor, 9-0.

OPEN FORUM

There were no public comments.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case No. 2015-40 Request for approval of a Special Use Permit for a short term rental to be located at

308 Chestnut Street East. John Atkins representing the estate of Scott Zahren, applicant.

City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit for the

conversion of a second story apartment into an overnight lodging unit. Two parking spaces would berequired. The owner has indicated that one parking space is currently being leased at the Shorty’s parking lot, a block to the west. Staff recommends approval with four conditions.

Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing.

John Atkins, applicant, stated he is appearing under difficult circumstances. He understands and is

willing to comply with all Special Use Permit requirements including the payment of lodging taxes.

The rental began shortly after July 4; its income allows the paying of legal fees, building insurance,


283/312

Planning Commission December 9, 2015

Page 2 of 5

utility costs, and settlement of debts while ensuring The Wedge & Wheel, the first floor tenant, is not

adversely impacted.

Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Siess asked if the City Council has discussed regulation of VRBOs.

Council Representative Junker replied that the Council has not discussed VRBOs in 2015. It appears

there are other spaces downtown that could easily be converted, so he felt it warrants Council

discussion.

Motion by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve a Special Use

Permit for a short term rental to be located at 308 Chestnut Street East, with conditions recommended bystaff. All in favor, 9-0.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Yard Parking - Survey Results and Ordinance Direction

City Planner Wittman stated that at the Commission’s last regularly scheduled meeting, theCommission discussed yard parking and directed staff to solicit public input. Ms. Wittman recapped

that discussion. She summarized survey results. Generally, those surveyed do not park on their lawns

and do not think yard parking is a problem in Stillwater but would like to see it regulated. Staff expectsto present a draft ordinance for Commission consideration in January.

Commission consensus was to accept the definition of a vehicle proposed by staff, with the possibleaddition of work equipment as suggested by Chairman Kocon. Commissioners voiced agreement with

the maximum driveway width at the curb being 16’.

Ms. Wittman noted that parking pads could be defined as a 10’ x 30’ asphalt or gravel area. ChairmanKocon suggested if the City regulates the percentage of impervious surface on a property, there also

should be regulation of driveway and parking pad installation. He stated that he would like to see a permit required for installation of a new driveway or other impervious surface on a property, including

sport courts.

Commissioner Hansen countered that the existing impervious surface restrictions could be used as the

regulating factor. Chairman Kocon pointed out that if the percentage of impervious surface is the only

control, then a property owner with a very large lot could install an overly large parking pad. CityPlanner Wittman added that not all residential districts have maximum impervious surface coverage

restrictions.

Commissioner Hansen asked if the ordinance could specify a square footage allowed rather thanspecific dimensions of 10’ x 30’. He encouraged the Commission to think outside the box because notall properties are the same. An ordinance needs to consider all types of property in the City.

The Commission agreed that there should be a square footage maximum and that a property owner

should not be permitted to increase the amount of impervious surface beyond the maximum allowed

in the district.


284/312


Page 3 of 5

City Planner Wittman asked how the Commission felt about setbacks. Consensus on the Commission

was that the sideyard area should have a minimum setback.

Commissioner Hansen asked if there would be a way to grant variances to the restrictions beingdiscussed. Ms. Wittman replied that a property owner may apply for a variance to zoning restrictions

pertaining to a number, but not for a completely different use than allowed in the district.

Commissioner Fletcher said it was apparent from reading survey comments that there are a lot of

people concerned about the issue. She pointed out that because enforcement is complaint-driven, even

if the rules are put in place, they may not be enforced unless someone is complaining. City PlannerWittman confirmed that the City does not have a dedicated zoning enforcement officer, so staff may

not be aware of a violation.

Commissioner Kelly commented if a parking pad has to be contiguous to a driveway then he assumed

no parking would be allowed in the rear yard either. He mentioned that the survey speaks strongly

toward parking in rear yards being just as big a problem as parking in front yards. Commissioner

Fletcher said she was less concerned about regulating parking in the rear as it impacts fewer peoplethan front yard parking which is visible to anyone traveling on the street.

Commissioner Hansen noted he felt strongly that the approach should be as minimal as possible tostart off, such as simply prohibiting parking on the grass in the front yard. He felt the number of

properties in question is so small, it doesn’t warrant going through a bunch of steps to regulate.

Council Representative Junker voiced concern about categorizing gravel as an improved surface;

throwing some gravel down beside a garage should not be considered an improved surface.

Chairman Kocon said he doesn’t envision allowing someone to throw down a bucket of gravel on their

grass and consider it improved, but that gravel can be considered an improved surface if done right.

Commissioner Kelly said if the City regulates only the front and side yards, it will likely push the problem to the back yard, as people will probably park their RVs in the backyard. Chairman Kocon

agreed he would not want to see a huge RV parked in his neighbor’s backyard.

Commissioner Middleton asked if a parking pad is contiguous in the front yard, isn’t it just really an

enlargement of the driveway? He said he would prefer setting a maximum allowable square footageof impervious surface coverage, rather than designating 10’ x 30’ as the maximum space for a parking pad.

Commissioner Kelly suggested, in zoning districts where there are no restrictions, limiting the

driveway to the width of the garage plus a maximum additional 30’ x 10’ or an extra 300 square feet

and also restricting the setbacks.

City Planner Wittman asked if the Commissioners’ intent would be to regulate what is visible fromthe street as opposed to what is visible to the neighbors. Chairman Kocon suggested taking a straw

poll.

Commissioner Hade remarked it’s human nature that a property owner will put a vehicle on the lot

line, not next to their own house - that’s why setbacks are needed.


285/312


Page 4 of 5

Chairman Kocon called for a straw poll to find some measurables, for instance, a driveway can’t be

wider than a garage and a property owner may add 300 square feet of parking pad contiguous to the

garage as long as the driveway and the parking pad do not encroach into the setback. Also, the

maximum impervious surface for the lot may not be violated.

Commissioner Hansen suggested first establishing that this will be a zoning ordinance, that it should

be drafted in a way that allows for variances, otherwise it will create rules that some people won’t beable to meet. He added that he would like to build in a relief valve for those who seasonally park in

their yard to avoid parking on the street. City Planner Wittman pointed out that the violation of parking

on grass would be covered under the nuisance ordinance.

City Planner Wittman summarized the discussion: generally speaking, the Commission would like to

see the front yard area reserved for parking as opposed to the back yard; no more than 50% of the frontyard to be impervious, as long as it doesn’t exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage for the

property; the Commission is not opposed to seeing a parking pad alongside a garage as long as the

maxim;um front and side yard impervious surface coverage is not exceeded and it doesn’t encroach

into a sideyard setback area; concrete and asphalt are considered improved surfaces; the Commissionwould like to allow for provisions for variances for placement and width of parking pads; there may

be other materials the Commission could consider to be impervious surface.

Commissioner Middleton expressed concern that if there is no permit process, the situation becomes

more a matter of relationship with one’s neighbors.

On a straw vote of whether a permit should be required to put in a new driveway or a parking pad, all

Commissioners felt a permit should be required, except Commissioner Hansen.

City Planner Wittman informed the Commission she had enough direction to draft an ordinance for

the Commission’s consideration. The ordinance would cover new construction or changes toimpervious surface coverage; it would not apply to existing non-conforming situations.

Commissioner Middleton brought up Chairman Kocon’s concern, expressed in the November

meeting, about the mass of vehicles. For instance, a ’65 Corvette has less impact than a big hulk of anRV. He asked why the Commission isn’t dealing with the issue of mass. City Planner Wittman

acknowledged unless length times width times height is specified, there is no way to address mass.

STAFF UPDATES

System Statement

City Planner Wittman informed the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan update is beginning.

She presented a memo indicating that the City Council has accepted the Metropolitan Council’sSystem Statement, after clarification from Metropolitan Council staff about anticipated ruralresidential development patterns. Commissioner Hade asked if there has been further talk of better bus

service for Stillwater. Ms. Wittman replied that the Met Council’s Thrive 2040 plan includes a goal

of daily service to Stillwater 6-8 times per day.

ADJOURNMENT


286/312


Page 5 of 5

Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 8:55

p.m. All in favor, 9-0.

Respectfully Submitted,

Julie Kink

Recording Secretary


287/312

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

January 13, 2016

REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.

Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

Present: Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Lauer, Middleton,Siess, Council Representative Menikheim

Absent: Commissioner KellyStaff: City Planner Wittman

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Possible approval of December 9, 2015 meeting minutes

Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the December 9, 2015meeting minutes. All in favor, 8-0.

OPEN FORUM

There were no public comments.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case No. 2016-01 Request for an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit for mechanical upgradesto Oak Park Elementary School, located at 6355 Osman Avenue North. BWBR, Inc., on behalf ofStillwater Area Schools, applicant.

City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to an existing SpecialUse Permit for the installation of a new 160 ton chiller to be located on the north side of Oak ParkElementary School. The approximately 19’ long, 8’ wide and 8’ tall unit will be enclosed in a 36’ long, 23’ wide and 10’ tall area. The inside of the chiller yard will contain concrete “hush quilt” material. The noise from the unit is estimated to be 43 decibels at 100 feet, well under the 55 maximum

nighttime restriction for residential districts. The exterior of the enclosure will be a reinforced brickmasonry product of the same color and tone as the existing structure. Staff recommends approval withone condition.

Commissioner Hansen asked if there is any chance the noise would approach maximum decibel levels.

Tony Willger, Operations Manager for Stillwater Area Schools, replied that according to themanufacturer, the sound deadening blankets will absorb the noise and it should not exceed themaximum decibel level. The equipment usually won’t run past 4 p.m.


288/312

Planning Commission January 13, 2016

Page 2 of 7


Rob Sancartier, 216 Owens Street South, an HVAC service technician, questioned why the district is proposing a huge unit, spending a lot of money and working with a large company for a quick fixrather than hiring a smaller local company. He also expressed general concerns about the timing ofthe proposal and traffic throughout the city.

Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing.

Commissioners Hansen and Collins voiced support for the proposal.

Motion by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend to the CityCouncil that an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit for mechanical upgrades to Oak ParkElementary School, located at 6355 Osman Avenue North, be approved with the condition recommended by staff. All in favor, 8-0.

Case No. 2016-02 Request for an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit for mechanical upgrades

to Lily Lake Elementary School, located at 2003 West Willard Street. BWBR, Inc., on behalf of StillwaterArea Schools, applicant.

City Planner Wittman explained the request. An amendment to an existing Special Use Permit issought for the installation of a new 160 ton chiller to be located on the north side of Lily LakeElementary School. The approximately 19’ long, 8’ wide and 8’ tall unit will be enclosed in a 36’ long, 24’ wide and 10’ tall area. The inside of the chiller yard will contain concrete “hush quilt” material. The installation would result in a loss of parking spaces; however there would still be asurplus of 49 spaces more than required. The structure would 100 feet from the nearest residential property line. The estimated noise would be 43 decibels at 100 feet. The exterior of the enclosure will be a reinforced brick masonry product with the same color and tone as the existing structure. Staff

recommends approval with one condition.

Commissioner Siess asked how Lily Lake staff feels about the proposal. Mr. Willger replied he hadheard no concerns voiced by school staff. Commissioner Siess asked if the applicant had asked thePTA about the proposal and Mr. Willger replied no.

Commissioner Middleton asked if multiple rooftop units were considered. Mr. Willger replied yes, but it would have presented more sound concerns.

Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing wasclosed.

Commissioner Siess stated whenever there is an event at Lily Lake school, the parking situation isawful and there are no appropriate places to park in surrounding neighborhoods. She said she opposesthe proposal due to the reduction of seven parking spaces.

Chairman Kocon responded that the Downtown Parking Commission sets parking requirements whichare met under the proposal.


289/312


Page 3 of 7

Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to recommend to the City Councilthat an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit for mechanical upgrades to Lily Lake ElementarySchool, located at 2003 West Willard Street, be approved with the condition recommended by staff.Motion passed 7-1 with Commissioner Siess voting nay.

Case No. 2016-03 Request for an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit for mechanical upgradesto Stillwater Junior High School, located at 523 Marsh Street West. BWBR, Inc., on behalf of TonyWillger, Stillwater Area Schools, applicant.

City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to an existing SpecialUse Permit for the installation of a new 160 ton chiller to be located on the north side of StillwaterJunior High. The approximately 19’ long, 8’ wide and 8’ tall unit will be enclosed in a 59’ long, 25’ wide and 10’ tall area. The inside of the chiller yard will contain concrete “hush quilt” material. Theexterior of the enclosure will be a reinforced brick masonry product with the same color and tone asthe existing structure. The nearest residential property lines are more than 500 feet away. Theinstallation of the improvement will necessitate the removal of five parking spaces on the east side ofa 14-stall parking lot. The applicant is proposing retaining the western stalls in an angled fashion. The proposed configuration of these parking spaces does not meet the City’s design requirements, therefore

staff has determined there will be a net loss of 11 parking spaces. Despite the reduction in parkingspaces, there will still be a surplus of nine parking spaces. Staff recommends approval with onecondition.

Commissioner Siess recalled a lot of community concerns about traffic that were related to the ECFEcenter. Mr. Willger stated the District has not explored replacing the lost parking spaces because itwould cause loss of green space.

Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to recommend to the City Councilthat an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit for mechanical upgrades to Stillwater Junior High,located at 523 Marsh Street West, be approved with the condition recommended by staff. Motion passed

7-1, with Commissioner Siess voting nay.

Case No. 2016-04 Consideration of adoption of new regulations pertaining to parking vehicles on yardareas. City of Stillwater, applicant.

City Planner Wittman summarized discussions from the last few meetings. She reviewedmodifications to City Code proposed by staff as a result of the discussions and direction by the CityCouncil. She also presented a legislative version for a complete description of all modifications proposed. She noted the City Council has a public hearing scheduled for February 2. Ms. Wittmanalso stated that the concept of establishing a permitting process for driveways was discussed withPublic Works Director Sanders; Mr. Sanders felt that a permit process may be a good idea, but the

City would need to establish driveway standards first.

Commissioner Hansen asked if the proposed ordinance includes a definition of the allowable surfaces.He said if the City begins requiring permits for driveways based on design standards, then he thinksthe standards should include some options for pervious material for driveways.



290/312


Page 4 of 7

Rob Sancartier, 216 Owens Street South, spoke in opposition to the proposed regulations. He feelsstrongly that it infringes on property owners’ rights to own vehicles and work on them in their ownyards, especially those who cannot afford to rent space to park them elsewhere. He feels there is toomuch governmental control in general.

Jim Hansen, 1303 Fifth Avenue South, asked why concrete or bituminous are required, but not gravelwhich is more pervious. He has gravel alongside his house and has not had a problem with runoff. Hevoiced complaints about lack of City communication about the issue.

Eric Solberg, 2064 Oak Glen Drive, stated the proposed ordinance doesn’t appear to address the issueof vehicle size. He suggested establishing a maximum size for a parking stall which would limit thesize of the vehicle it could accommodate. He also asked how the ordinance would apply to existingsituations, whether they would be grandfathered in. Ms. Wittman replied that existing non-compliant parking areas would be in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Solberg went on to state he feels there is stilla need to consider Class 5 surfaces as there are a number of properties that currently have Class 5driveways. He also said that permits without standards are useless.

Natalie Seum, 2160 Oak Glen Trail, agreed with Mr. Solberg’s comments. She expressed concerns

about her property value because her sunroom faces a property with a boat covered by a huge tarp.

Katie Friend, 1901 Oak Glen Lane, related that her neighbors have a giant motorhome that blocks herview. She is worried about property values and feels the current proposal does not address the size ofvehicles.

Steve Zoller, 2316 Oakridge Road, recognized that some RV owners are responsible in trying to lessenthe impacts on neighbors. He went through great expense to get his own motorhome off the street and bought a cover for it to match his house so it would blend in. He has not drawn a complaint in sixyears.

Dan Fabian, 326 South Sixth Street, stated his driveway is on the property line, so he is concernedabout possibly being required to move his driveway in the future, or to obtain a permit or variance. Hefeels if the issue isn’t a big problem, the City should be careful not to take away personal propertyrights. He recognized Class 5 is not much more pervious than asphalt, but there are other pervioussurfaces to consider.

John Colburn, 224 Willow Street East, stated that his property has no backyard; he owns a boat andsmall RV so they must be in the side yard. He reiterated concerns about property owners’ rights, asexpressed by Mr. Fabian and Mr. Zoller. He feels that adopting the proposed regulations would beakin to adding covenants. He asked the Commission to consider allowing parking on pavers, pea rockand other surfaces. He has researched case law offering definitions of visual blight, and noted that

other cities have stayed away from this issue.

Tammy Olson, 1710 North Broadway, said she is very concerned about lack of City communicationabout the hearing. She asked the Commission to consider unique properties and not over-regulate. Shewould like to be able to manage her property as she feels best.

Todd Reich, 422 Pine Tree Trail, noted he paid $850 for a water project to stop runoff. He feels theCity would be going backward by allowing pads. He finds long grass plantings at corners moreoffensive than any trailers he has seen.


291/312


Page 5 of 7

Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. The meeting was recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at8:55 p.m.

City Planner Wittman explained the process used to survey residents, and summarized the publicoutreach that was done, including sending press releases to all local papers, advertising the publicinput survey, discussing it at the Commission’s November and December meetings, and sending noticeof the survey through the City’s direct email system to 660 individuals who signed up for communitynotices. 297 survey responses were received. 20% indicated they do park or have parked on theirlawns. 54% said they did not think yard parking was a problem, but 61% still wanted to see it regulated.78 respondents stated front yard parking should be regulated. About half indicated side yard parkingor backyard parking should be regulated.

Chairman Kocon recapped comments received during the public hearing, and reminded the audiencethat the Council will make the final decision on the ordinance. He feels other pervious surfaces should be allowed such as gravel.

Commissioner Middleton spoke about alternative surfaces that he would like to include and encourage.

Commissioner Hansen agreed that pervious surfaces should be allowed. He pointed out that theCouncil requested an ordinance be drafted to regulate yard parking. He feels pavers are a goodsolution, but that doesn’t eliminate the issue of yard parking.

Councilmember Menikheim informed the Commission that initially, a citizen approached the Councilabout visual blight and aesthetics of yard parking. He feels the Commission’s discussions will givethe Council a larger knowledge base.

Commissioner Middleton said it seems the Commission is trying to address blight by using a code toregulate surfaces. The issue that the Commission spoke about in December at length was the aesthetic

of vehicles being parke

Documents

Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment