1. 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; Mike Hammerstad, Code Enforcement Officer; and Tim Miller, Code Enforcement Officer.

Guests present: None

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MOTION: Sharon Schwartz moved, seconded by Pam Sohlberg, to approve the agenda. The motion carried 6-0.

Committee member Shelley Madore arrived at 7:02 p.m.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2005.

Barry Berg requested that the minutes be amended to reflect his objection to the prohibition of overnight on-street parking of motor homes and that he did not object to Pam's concern about the safety issues raised by overnight on-street parking.

MOTION: Sandy Breuer moved, seconded by Pam, to approve the amended minutes. The motion carried 7-0.

4. DISCUSSION ITEMS

a. Residential Parking Issues - Possible Amendments to City Code

Kathy Bodmer opened the item with a staff presentation and stated that there were generally three items left to be discussed by the Committee: the number of vehicles, both passenger and recreational, that may be parked or stored on a residential lot; the screening and paving requirements for parking and storage of vehicles; and the possibility of setbacks for larger vehicles.

Number of Vehicles

A. Passenger Vehicles - Kathy explained that the current code limits the number of vehicles that can be parked on a residential lot to four (4) "vehicles" but the term "vehicles" is currently not defined. However, a property owner may obtain permit to allow up to six (6) vehicles. Staff though that the City could limit the number of vehicles that may be parked or stored on a residential lot to four (4) passenger vehicles, but thought the Committee should discuss the issue. Kathy presented the pros and cons of options to limit the number of passenger vehicles.

" Option 1 - Limit the number of vehicles to those that will fit in the driveway and not block the sidewalk. The pros of this approach are that it's easy to enforce and offers more flexibility if a resident has a long driveway. The cons are that there could be many vehicles parked in a long driveway and that it could create conflicts with the City's ban on on-street parking from 3-6 a.m.

" Option 2 - Limit the number of vehicles to the number of licensed drivers in a household. This approach gives a resident control over the number of cars parked in a driveway, and, as the needs of the household changes over time, the number of cars parked in the driveway will change. However, this approach is very difficult to enforce, and, again, may conflict with the ban on on-street parking from 3-6 a.m.

" Option 3 - Limit the number of vehicles to a flat number per lot. This approach is easy to understand and easy to enforce. However, it's not flexible in either enforcement or practice, and it does not account for the size of the lot or the driveway.

The Committee questioned the existing ordinance whether the limit of 4 vehicles applied at any time during the day or only during the 3-6 a.m. hours. Kathy said the code isn't specific but the City usually only gets involved if there is a complaint and it's an on-going issue with a particular property. Shirley asked about the permit process. Kathy said the City has no established criteria yet for when it will and when it will not approve the parking permit.

Shirley asked all members of the Committee to express their views. Robin said she thought Option 1 wouldn't be fair and thought Option 3 (limit to 4) would be appropriate. She had mixed feelings about the special permit. Sandy supported Option 3. Shelley liked Option 1 but with setbacks for all passenger vehicles; she thought larger homes with long driveways could hold more vehicles. Sharon liked the setback proposal, but was concerned that smaller homes with smaller driveways might get caught in a difficult situation. However, she also liked Option 1 with setbacks. Pam supported Option 3 with the permit. Barry said 4 vehicles aren't enough for those residents who have 3 or more children, all with cars, and both parents with cars. He liked Option 1 with setbacks and thought it was fair. Shirley supported Option 3 with the permit.

Shelley asked about overnight parking: Can the City prohibit long-term overnight parking on the street even if a driveway is full? The Committee discussed some of the difficulties that result from the ban on on-street parking between 3-6 a.m. with an exception for those lots that may have the maximum number of vehicles parked in the driveway. This creates some problems for the Code Enforcement department.

Shelley suggested a two-tier system: for driveways 43' in length or less, limit to 4 vehicles and no setbacks for passenger vehicles provided the vehicles did not block sidewalk; for driveways over 43', no limit to number of cars, but there must be minimum setbacks. The Committee thought this would be a balanced approach, but agreed it could be more challenging to enforce.

B. Recreational Vehicles - This item was discussed at the November 30, 2005, meeting, but no definite decision was made regarding the Class I and Class II recreational vehicles. Kathy refreshed the Committee and explained that Class I vehicles are those less than 22' in length and less than 8' tall. Class II vehicles are those greater than 22' in length and/or 8' tall. For those lots smaller than one acre, the proposal is to limit the number of vehicles to either one Class I and one Class II OR two Class I vehicles. For lots one acre or larger, the proposal is to allow up to four (4) recreational vehicles of any size provided at least two (2) are screened from the view of neighboring properties and roadways. Sharon asked about the screening requirements in other communities: what materials were acceptable and was vegetation ok? Kathy said staff would investigate this issue.

Shirley polled the Committee about the proposed limitations on the number of recreational vehicles allowed on a residential lot. Shirley, Pam, Robin, Sandy, Shelley, and Sharon thought the approach discussed by staff would give residents flexibility and be relatively easy to enforce. Barry opposed the proposal because he thought different rules based on property size would not be defensible. Sharon Hills disagreed and said the City could differentiate between properties based on lot area.

Screening, Location and Paving

A. Screening - Kathy explained that the current City code did not require screening of passenger vehicles, and the current practice is to not require screening of any vehicle parked in a residential driveway. Barry stated he thought screening requirements would be impracticable, but the other Committee members determined that screening in the rear yard was necessary. Sandy thought Class I vehicles in the rear yard should be entirely screened with a minimum 6' fence, but that Class II vehicles would be extremely difficult to screen. Shelley thought all vehicles parked or stored in the rear yard should be surrounded by an 8' fence. Barry thought screening with up to an 8' fence made sense, but requiring screening above 8'would not add value to the property.

The Committee all agreed that vehicles parked or stored in the rear yard should be screened as best as possible with a minimum 6' fence and a maximum 8' fence.

C. Location and Paving - Kathy explained staff's proposal for new location and paving requirements. Passenger vehicles could be parked or stored on a paved surface only, which could be located in the front, side or rear of a house. Non-passenger vehicles cannot be stored anywhere on a residential lot, and can only be parked on a paved surface when rendering a service.

Recreational vehicles, either Class I or Class II, can be parked in the front only on a driveway, only on the garage side of a house, or anywhere in the rear. Motorized recreational vehicles (regardless of means of propulsion), whether on or off a trailer, must be parked or stored on a paved surface only. Non-motorized recreational vehicles, whether on or off a trailer, may be parked or stored on any surface.

Trailers, either Class I or Class II, must be parked or stored in the front only on a driveway. Class I trailers can be parked on either side of a house or in the rear yard. Class II trailers can be parked only on the garage side of a house or in the rear yard. Class I trailers can be parked or stored on pervious surfaces, but Class II trailers must be parked or stored on impervious surfaces only.

Kathy defined paving as an impervious surface such as concrete, bituminous, or brick pavers. Pervious surfaces include grass Class 5 gravel, decorative gravel (small river stones, lava rock, etc.), or geo-grid pavers (grass grows within the pavers).

The Committee unanimously agreed to the proposed changes to the Code with the exception of the garage-side parking requirement for recreational vehicles, and Class II trailers. Several Committee members thought the garage-side requirements might be a problem to enforce because the amendments are very different than the current ordinance. Tim Miller said the City may indeed have difficulty enforcing this requirement. Sharon wanted clarification on this matter.

Setbacks

Kathy explained staff's proposal for vehicle setbacks, which would apply only to Class II recreational vehicles and trailers. These larger vehicles can create sightline obstructions for neighboring properties. Staff is proposing setbacks of 5' from the side lot line, 10' from the rear lot line, and 13' from the edge of the curb of the public right-of-way. Several Committee members thought the garage-side setbacks were needed for safety reasons. For instance, if an emergency occurred at a residence, the garage-side setback would allow room for emergency personnel to maneuver around the house. Other Committee members thought the garage-side setback requirement was a significant departure from the current City code and many residents would be in violation of the proposed amendments. After a lengthy discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the setbacks were appropriate for the larger Class II vehicles (those vehicles greater than 8' in height and/or 22' in length).

b. Urban Affairs Advisory Committee By-Laws and Mission Statement

After staff drafted language for a Committee Mission Statement and amendments to the Committee's By-Laws, the City Attorney's office stated that advisory committees cannot have by-laws. Advisory committees are created by the City Council and, as such, must follow the rules set by the Council; the committees cannot have any rule that might separate it from the Council. The Committee asked if they could have a procedural policy. Sharon Hills stated that the City Council operates under Robert's Rules of Order, and the Committee must use the same procedures as the Council, so no. The Committee asked if it could adopt the Mission Statement. The Committee decided to discuss the Mission Statement with the City Council at its future joint meeting.

MOTION: Barry moved, seconded by Sharon, to have the City Council adopt the Committee's Mission Statement. Measure passed 6-1 (Shirley dissented stating the action was premature and that the Mission Statement should be discussed with the Council before the Committee acted on it).

5. OTHER BUSINESS

a. Set Joint Meeting with the City Council

City Staff explained that the City Council is meeting with all of the City's advisory committees and commissions to discuss the important issues in the community. The Council could meet with the Urban Affairs Committee on any of the following dates: February 16th, February 23rd, February 28th, or March 2nd. The Committee decided that it could meet on February 23rd at 6:30 p.m., which is before the City Council's regularly scheduled meeting.

6. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION: Sharon moved, seconded by Shelley, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.