Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 239 2025 <br />item was brought back to the Commission at its July I Oh meeting, and the Commission unanimously <br />recommended approval as presented, with one proposed amendment related to recreational vehicles. <br />He provided an overview of the proposed changes related to driveways, parking, storage, and <br />pedestrianization. He asked for input from the Council on the proposed changes. <br />Miller asked for more information on a U-shaped driveway. The Community Development Director <br />stated that if a minimum of 30 feet can be provided between curb cuts and there are no issues with <br />access, a resident could still request a U-shaped driveway. <br />Mayor Fischer asked if there are software or additional tools that could help resolve some of the issues <br />that exist in the Code from previous updates and the use of PDF documents. The Community <br />Development Director replied that there is software available for City Code, but it does not flag <br />elsewhere where changes have been made. He explained the benefits that type of software would <br />provide for readability and noted that they will be tackling the issue of accessibility and moving away <br />from the use of PDF documents. <br />Mayor Fischer stated that he has walked around the city in the winter and noticed many boats being <br />stored. He asked if a pontoon with a tarp over it would be considered to be screened. The Community <br />Development Director replied that it would not be considered to be screened. <br />Kwapick referenced the discussion related to the storage of boats and recreational vehicles and asked if <br />screening would still be a requirement if it were parked on a parking pad. The Community <br />Development Director confirmed that the screening requirement would still apply. <br />Is'-wapick asked for a definition of screening and whether that would apply to the street or to what can <br />be seen by neighbors. The Community Development Director replied that technically it would apply <br />towards the public right-of-way and what can be seen by adjacent properties. He noted that most code <br />enforcement calls arise from adjacent properties, as staff is not proactively looking for code violations. <br />Mayor Fischer stated that many residents have recreational vehicles and park them alongside their <br />garages, commenting that it would seem impractical that an RV could effectively be screened. <br />The Community Development Director reviewed the Code language related to screening examples and <br />requirements. He stated that the number one code enforcement call that staff receive is related to boats <br />and other items stored in the backyard. <br />Gutierrez used the example of a comer lot and stated that she previously had a six-foot fence on her <br />comer lot but had to cut it down to four feet to meet City Code requirements. She noted that she owns <br />an original 1913 home, which comes with some unique features, and asked for more information on <br />that scenario and what is considered to be paved. <br />The Community Development Director replied that the term paved has been updated and reviewed the <br />newly proposed definition. He stated that gravel would not be considered to be paved, but if it already <br />exists, it would be considered nonconforming as long as it is not expanded. He recognized that a <br />comer lot is always unique. <br />14 <br />