Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 07-21-2009 (Special/Joint Meeting)MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION July 21, 2009 — Workshop on Off - Street Parking 5:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Bill Spartz, Barry Voight, Lloyd Hilgart COUNCIL PRESENT: Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault, Suzie Wojchouski, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf STAFF: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC, Deb Ward, Ron Hackenmueller, DJ Hennessey, Jeff O'Neill Workshop began at 5 p.m. with introductions. Angela Schumann explained history of ordinance for public nuisance and recent building department sweeps to cite violations of the ordinance. The Building Department has compiled results of the sweep. It was noted that public comments resulted mostly from off - street parking citations. Purpose of workshop is to identify issues and concerns over current ordinance and create an off - street parking section of the ordinance. Gary Anderson explained the process of doing an annual sweep and results of sweep: 213 public nuisance citations with 156 related to vehicles and /or off - street parking. The City mailed notices to comply with notification requirements within 20 days of citation. If not compliant, Wright County handles processing of citations. Wright County Sheriff's Department has 5 days to inspect property and work with owner to comply. If the owner does not, the citation is turned over to the Wright County Attorney's office. Angela noted the Planning Commission recently discussed the public nuisance ordinance. Public nuisance violations are considered misdemeanors and can be prosecuted. Off - street parking issues are currently considered public nuisance and would be handled like blights or other public nuisances. A City resident in attendance noted that he was interested in hearing what was being proposed. Charlotte Gabler asked about the process involving Sheriff's Department. Schumann described the new public nuisance process, by which a property receives a first notice from the City, with one follow -up inspection. If the notice has not been complied with, it is turned over to Wright County sheriff s Office, who then completes an inspection, writes a citation if needed and then completes a follow -up inspection. At that point, if not remedied, the violation is sent forward to the Wright County Attorney's office. Schumann stated that violations of the zoning ordinance were treated differently in the past. The Building Department would issue a violation notice, then re- inspect. If the notice wasn't complied with, they were eventually sent on to the City Attorney. In the most recent sweep, Schumann reported that all violations were processed in a public nuisance format. Clint Herbst expressed his thought that the problem is not so much the ordinance but the interpretation of the ordinance. He mentioned that City would not want boats and other recreational vehicles in the back yard, but if it is nicely set up and maintained, would that be an issue? He would rather see the City back off and not be so particular while interpreting the ordinance. He stated that he thinks the notification process is working well. Steve Grittman explained two things to accomplish as part of the workshop: 1) can the City write an ordinance to be interpreted the way intended, and (2) does the end result say what the City wants it to say. Brian asked how the City would answer a hypothetical situation if someone called and said they bought a 22 ft RV and where can they park it on their property. Would it be clear to city staff when reading the ordinance? He would like the ordinance to be clear enough that residents can look it up on the website and understand it themselves. Steve Grittman noted that it would not be difficult to do, but we want to assure that staff would answer this consistently. It should also be clear for homeowners to look up ordinance and find what they are looking for. Steve discussed some definitions that should be clarified within the ordinance. • Define "yard" in terms of front yard, side yard and rear yard. • Define "vehicle" types (ex. passenger, recreational /RV, commercial). • Distinction between "parking" and "storage." Currently the description of the front yard line is not clear in where the front yard ends and side yard and /or rear yard begins. Steve suggested it should be clarified to mean front yard is the area in front of living area of housing unit. There is some confusion in some cases with the distinction between front yard and side yard, especially in townhome units. Glen Posusta commented that he thought that some townhome units may have to be considered separately for parking purposes in the front yard.. Steve suggested that agreement of definition of "yard" should be clarified first. Then the ordinance can be written to distinguish uses in front yard. DJ noted that there is not a huge problem with interpretation of front yard lines; rather the bigger issue is interpretation of side and rear yard lines. 2 Glen noted that it appears difficult to identify language in ordinance to satisfy everyone. He felt that no matter how specific you make the ordinance, there will always be someone that does not feel that it is being interpreted correctly for his property. Steve recommended that the goal is to establish a code that applies rules fairly across the board. You do not want to regulate based on comments from just one neighborhood. If you establish appropriate definitions, it will make it easier to apply proper uses. Steve asked the Planning Commission and City Council members how they would classify area behind a garage but adjacent to the side of a house that is setback further than the house. Consensus was that should be considered side yard and not rear yard. That would leave the area that is behind'the garage and house to be considered rear yard. Glen asked if residents with an accessory building in the rear yard are allowed to park vehicles next to such buildings. Steve noted that is not allowed under the current ordinance. It is felt that they built the accessory structure to handle storage needs and should not be parking outside of the structure. Angela noted that those present will be expected to help define vehicle types. Steve noted that current ordinance references terms such as passenger and commercial vehicle, but there are no definitions in the ordinance that differentiates between vehicle types. Several Planning Commission and City Council members described how they would classify non - commercial versus commercial vehicles. Some felt that vehicles with business signage should be considered commercial. However, others said that would not be enough to differentiate for parking purposes. Steve asked for consideration of size and weight in determining allowable commercial vehicles. He noted that this may run up against definition of allowable RV parking. Steve noted there are references in the ordinance that address parking and storage but does not clarify what can go where in terms of parking and storage. He asked Planning Commission and City Council members for their opinion on what could be parked in a driveway in front of a garage. Everyone agreed that passenger vehicles, business vehicles, and RVs could be parked there as long as they do not obstruct and are licensed and operable. Steve asked several other questions related to parking. • Does this include converted buses? Yes, if they are licensed and operable. • What about the empty trailer that held the boat or snowmobiles? Yes, agreed that it could be parked in driveway as long as it is licensed. • Can all those same things be parked in a hard - surfaced area next to the driveway? Yes, agreed that would be allowed. 3 • What about parking anywhere else in front yard? No, agreed to not allow parking anywhere else in front yard. Harlan Hamson, 2841 Oakview Drive, described his situation with parking an extra vehicle at his neighbor's in what is actually defined as the rear yard. He parks a pickup truck (passenger vehicle) in a surfaced area, which appears to be within the city right -of- way. This appears to be a relatively isolated situation and consensus was to leave this be for now and address outside of the ordinance. Lloyd Hilgart asked how many complaints the City receives related to off - street parking. Angela noted that not too many are received. However, those people that were cited are questioning the application of the ordinance. It is required to have an ordinance that is used so the City cannot discontinue applying the ordinance. Clint Herbst asked if we could draft ordinances and still grandfather in those situations that are not in compliance. Steve noted that could be done but felt it would be better to address each non - compliant situation informally. Some cities approve non compliant use until such time as property is sold. Steve moved on to addressing side yard parking. What should be allowed to park in side yards? Not semi trucks. What about commercial vehicles? Currently there is 9000 lb weight restriction. Generally there is not much support to allow larger size commercial vehicles in a residential neighborhood. Consensus seems to allow side yard parking next to garage similar to driveway parking as long as the surface is acceptable for the type of vehicle (i.e. hard - surfaced, gravel, grass) and maintained. Gary noted that there are sometimes issues with how close vehicles are parked to the road. Consensus is to restrict the distance if there is a safety issue and the vehicle blocks the sidewalk or street. It was asked how much of an area can be surfaced in side yard. It was felt that the width should be restricted so that residents don't hard surface their entire side yard. Consensus was to limit to 15 feet of surfacing so that it only allows one vehicle width at most. Steve asked for opinions regarding allowing extra side yard area in terms of storage. Clint suggested that people will have to make some choices on how they are going to use their property and preferred to stay with 15 foot width for parking or storage on one side or the other. Discussion of how much parking should be allowed for non - passenger vehicles. Current ordinance allows for one non - passenger vehicle in driveway. Is that sufficient? Consensus is to leave that as is. Steve asked for feedback on whether ordinance should address right -of -way (ROW) area along street. Should parking be allowed in driveway if it extends all the way to the 4 street? Or would it be better to create a setback from the curb? Consensus is to leave the ordinance as is and not create a setback. Steve asked for feedback on ROW setback on side yard. Jeff noted that there is currently a 3 -yard allowance which is probably sufficient as there is already a 15 yard setback on side yards from house to street. Steve asked for feedback on parking or storage in those cases where there is a side yard area behind garage and to side of house. Consensus is to allow storage of non - passenger vehicles in that area. Several City Council members noted that they do not like the requirement to get a driveway permit. Angela and Jeff explained the issues that were created before driveway permits were required. Residents were covering water and sewer lines; curb cuts were not appropriate; and there were issues with setbacks. Clint Herbst suggested that applications for a driveway permit be required but there be no charge for the permit. There was further discussion on when it would be required to hard surface an access to the side or rear yard next to a driveway. Current ordinance requires that access be hard - surfaced if a passenger vehicle is parked along the side of a garage on a surfaced area because it essentially becomes a driveway. It was suggested that if RV or recreational equipment is parked along side the garage, the access should not have to be hard - surfaced. It was pointed out that there may be issues with occasional parking in access areas that normally would. not be compliant. Lloyd Hilgart asked why it would be okay to park a non - passenger vehicle on grass along the garage but not a passenger vehicle? It was explained that passenger vehicles tend to be driven on a regular basis and the grass would not be maintained. Gary Anderson pointed out situations where there is a home with a detached garage in the rear yard. What would be the allowances in these cases for parking along the house? It was recommended to allow up to 35 feet of side yard parking provided they did not violate the setbacks between the street and the building. Steve asked for feedback on what should be allowed in the rear yard. It was recommended to not allow passenger vehicles at all in the rear yard. Some suggested that recreational vehicles and equipment could be stored in the rear yard. Steve pointed out that there are questions between parking and storage because the ordinance is not clear in those definitions. Other opinions noted that the city should discourage any parking or storage of vehicles and equipment in rear yards. Gary asked what to do in situations where people have a road that runs through the back yard. Consensus is to deal with those on a case -by -case basis because it does not occur often. 5 Steve noted that the City should not write the ordinances based on bad cases; rather the code should address all situations fairly. Ordinances should not allow or restrict uses based on permission granted from property owners. Clint Herbst feels that if the ordinance allows for enough accessory parking and storage, it should not be necessary to park in the rear yard. DJ Hennessey felt that parking should not be allowed in the rear yard if they do not have access from the front yard. Brian Stumpf suggested that parking in rear yard be allowed by variance only. Deb Ward noted that it would be very harsh to not allow any parking or storage in rear yard; many residents use their rear yards for storing their recreational vehicles and equipment. She does agree that passenger vehicles should not be parked in rear yard. Steve noted that the City could set up requirements for fencing or screening for rear yard storage /parking. DJ Hennessey noted that the ordinance currently states that parking is not allowed in rear yards, but does not address any restrictions on storage of recreational vehicles or equipment. Complaints related to rear yards generally are regarding the number of junk vehicles, possibly inoperable and unlicensed. Clint recommended that storage of RVs and equipment be allowed in rear yards but not parking of other vehicles. Clint suggested that there be restrictions on commercial vehicles and where they are parked in yards. Jeff recommended that the ordinance continues to require a 3 foot setback on side yards related to parking and storage of vehicles and equipment. Jeff asked about situations where there is limited side yard area along the garage for storage. At his home, he has very limited parking on the garage side, but has a lot of space on the opposite side along the house. He would prefer to put his boat on the other side of his house, which is not immediately next to a neighbor. Could there be allowance, in the case of a hardship for homeowners, to choose which side of their property to use for parking /storage? Ron Hackenmueller asked that there be some consideration given to the homeowners and the use of their property. If inspectors receive complaints or have to apply ordinances strictly, homeowners question why they don't have leeway to choose how they use their property. Suzie Wojchouski questioned how often building inspectors are out in the field and whether they go out and seek out problem properties. Angela noted that there is an annual sweep done to track compliance with the ordinance. The building inspectors try to interpret the ordinance consistently, but there are issues with trying to apply fairly across the board when the ordinance is not clear. In addition to the annual sweep, problems are also addressed when complaints are received. a Suzie feels that the city should attempt to do this in a respectful manner preferably in person. Deb Ward pointed out that many times there is no one at home when the building inspector stops to address an issue of non - compliance. There are also many cases where the property is a rental and it is sometimes difficult to reach the appropriate party. The City is required to send a notice to the property owner who might not be the one in violation. The message does not always get to the proper party. Ron Hackenmueller asked if Council would allow building inspectors to also send out notices when they observe problems when out doing building inspections. Council felt that is appropriate since they are city employees and that is part of their job. Brian Stumpf asked if building inspectors could also address problems with temporary signs. Gary Anderson noted that, in many cases, the building department is trying to control violations related to signs. It was noted that it might be good to require a name and /or phone on temporary signs so that they can be contacted if in violation. Suzie Wojchouski asked when Planning Commission would be addressing driveway widths. Currently the city ordinance allows up to 24 foot width. There are a number of driveways in town that are not in compliance. This will be looked at in the future. The off- street parking workshop ended at 7:30 p.m. Cathy Shuman, Recorder fi