10-10-2013 Council Workshop Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 10, 2013 suggested that a brochure could be developed which would include more explanation. Fischer asked if the City would promote this information and invite attention to it or just have it available to support code enforcement activities. Montour stated that his opinion was that it should be promoted on the City's web site, etc. He indicated that the brochures could be used by the Code Enforcement Officer when dealing with violations. The Code Enforcement Officer suggested that when property owners apply for a building permit to pave within 3 feet of a property line in the side yard, as an example, that building permit could include a note outlining the permitted parking and storage uses of this paved area. Blesener asked additional questions relative to the parking of recreational vehicles within either 10 feet or 3 feet of the property line, suggesting that the chart language could be a little clearer. There was discussion about code enforcement, with the City Administrator pointing out that once code enforcement is commenced for a certain violation, many times that property owner will identify similar violations that have not been addressed. Murphy asked the extent of parking and storage violations in the City. McGraw suggested that if there are 50 to 75 properties with a particular violation, the City may be better off changing the Code to allow the particular situation. There was also discussion that the particular layout of neighboring properties is, at times, a factor, i.e. side yard storage is occurring adjacent to the fancily room window of a neighboring house. Murphy pointed out that the original discussion was that the Code was not being changed, but was being made clearer. Blesener and McGraw commented that the Planning Commission should finalize a recommendation on this matter and present it to the Council. The City Planner noted that based on the final draft of the chart, his office would put together an ordinance amendment. That amendment would go through the normal planning process, Planning Commission review with a recommendation to be considered by the Council as part of a public hearing. Maleitzke noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting the consensus was that the Commission was OK with the chart as drafted. Murphy asked if the Code Enforcement Officer foresaw any concerns with moving forward as proposed. The City Planner noted that the difficulty will be that some people will want more liberal parking and storage regulations while others will want stricter regulations. Murphy asked the 4