stillwater yard parking amendment
TRANSCRIPT
-
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:
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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:
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
3/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
8/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
9/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
10/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
11/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
12/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
13/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
14/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
15/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
16/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
17/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
18/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
19/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
20/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
21/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
22/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
23/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
24/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
25/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
26/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
27/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
28/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
29/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
30/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
31/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
32/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
33/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
34/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
35/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
37/312
As presented to the Stillwater Planning Commission on November 9, 2015 (Page 2 of 3)
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
38/312
As presented to the Stillwater Planning Commission on November 9, 2015 (Page 3 of 3)
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
39/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
40/312
As presented to the Stillwater Planning Commission on November 9, 2015 (Page 1 of 1)
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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 =
Concrete, asphalt or
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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.
Concrete, asphalt or
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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.*
On the designated driveway or hard
surfaced parking area as described in
Subdivision 10.3, G .
One (1) per lot.
Motorboats, sailboats, and unoccupied
trailers twenty – five (25) feet or less in
length.
On the designated driveway or hard
surfaced parking area as described in
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
49/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
50/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
51/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
52/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
53/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
54/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
55/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
56/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
57/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
58/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
59/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
60/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
61/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
62/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
63/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
64/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
65/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
66/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
67/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
68/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
69/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
70/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
71/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
72/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
73/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
74/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
75/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
76/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
77/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
78/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
79/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
80/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
81/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
82/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
83/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
84/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
85/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
86/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
87/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
88/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
89/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
90/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
91/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
92/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
93/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
94/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
95/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
96/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
97/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
98/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
99/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
100/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
101/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
102/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
103/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
104/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
105/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
106/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
107/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
108/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
109/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
110/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
111/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
112/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
113/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
114/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
115/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
116/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
117/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
118/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
119/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
120/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
121/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
122/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
123/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
124/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
125/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
126/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
127/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
128/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
129/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
130/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
131/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
132/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
133/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
134/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
135/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
136/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
137/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
138/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
139/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
140/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
141/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
142/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
143/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
144/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
145/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
146/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
147/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
148/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
149/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
150/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
151/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
152/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
153/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
154/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
155/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
156/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
157/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
158/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
159/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
160/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
161/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
162/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
163/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
164/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
165/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
166/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
167/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
168/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
169/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
170/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
171/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
172/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
173/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
174/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
175/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
176/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
177/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
178/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
179/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
180/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
181/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
182/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
183/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
184/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
185/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
186/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
187/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
188/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
189/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
190/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
191/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
192/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
193/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
194/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
195/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
196/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
197/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
198/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
199/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
200/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
201/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
202/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
203/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
204/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
205/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
206/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
207/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
208/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
209/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
210/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
211/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
212/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
213/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
214/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
215/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
216/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
217/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
218/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
219/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
220/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
221/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
222/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
223/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
224/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
225/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
226/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
227/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
228/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
229/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
230/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
231/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
232/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
233/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
234/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
235/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
236/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
237/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
238/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
239/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
240/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
241/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
242/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
243/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
244/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
245/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
246/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
247/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
248/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
249/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
250/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
251/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
252/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
253/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
254/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
255/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
256/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
257/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
258/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
259/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
260/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
261/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
262/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
263/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
264/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
265/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
266/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
267/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
268/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
269/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
270/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
271/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
272/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
273/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
274/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
275/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
276/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
277/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
278/312
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
280/312
Planning Commission November 9, 2015
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
281/312
Planning Commission November 9, 2015
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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,
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
284/312
Planning Commission December 9, 2015
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
285/312
Planning Commission December 9, 2015
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
286/312
Planning Commission December 9, 2015
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
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
288/312
Planning Commission January 13, 2016
Page 2 of 7
Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing.
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
289/312
Planning Commission January 13, 2016
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.
Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
290/312
Planning Commission January 13, 2016
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.
-
8/19/2019 Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment
291/312
Planning Commission January 13, 2016
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