Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment

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 parking

vehicles on yard areas.
PREPARED BY:
Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
BACKGROUND
At the Councils last regularly-scheduled meeting, the Council received a favorable
recommendation from the Planning Commission for approval of a Council-initiated Zoning
Text Amendment (ZAT) pertaining to yard parking. The Planning Commission had drafted
this ordinance through a four-month public process which included two public hearings in
December and January.
In early March the Council heard a presentation by City staff, took public testimony and closed
the public hearing prior to discussion. In the meeting, the Council directed staff in the
following 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 vehicle
must maintain at least a five foot (5) setback from the side lot line.
Under Design Requirements: Parking Spaces, the following has been added:
In residential districts, parking spaces are not required to be contiguous to

driveways.
Under Design Requirement: Parking Facility Layout, the following has been amended to
read:
o Existing nonconforming driveways shall be allowed to be maintained, repaired
and 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 of
six.
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.
o
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 found
in the Community Ordinance Summary, attached:
Vehicle Length
Duluth
Mahtomedi
Minneapolis
Up to 36 Long 1 per lot

Less than 25 Long No numerical
restriction
Vehicles greater than 25 long are
prohibited
Osseo
Redwing
Maximum 32 Long
Woodbury
Maximum 24 Long
Number of Vehicles
One occupied trailer in a private
garage, driveway or in a rear yard
Maximum two vehicles per dwelling

may be parked on an improved surface
Up to two recreation
vehicles/equipment may be parked in
residential areas
No more than one recreational vehicle
may be parked or stored outside
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 further
discuss whether or not the inclusion of vehicle length and total number of vehicles are
appropriate inclusions into this ordinance.
COUNCIL ACTION
The Council has three alternatives:
Case No.2016-04
CC: 3/8/2016
Page 2 of 3
1. Move to approve, with or without changes, the first reading of the Ordinance and place
the item on April 5 Council agenda for a second reading.
2. Move to table the first reading, direct staff to analyze other options.
3. Move to deny the first reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Solberg Submission
Ordinance Impact and Preliminary Aerial Imagery Assessment
Community Ordinance Summary
Community Input Survey
Public Comments
Legislative Version
Draft Ordinance
Case No.2016-04
CC: 3/8/2016
Page 3 of 3
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 parking

vehicles 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 by
Stillwater resident Eric Solberg (2064 Oak Glen Drive) to consider the creation of an Ordinance
to address the parking of vehicles in the front yards and on front lawns in residential areas in
Stillwater. It was indicated the issue was not only unsightly and of a blighted nature, but that it
brought down property values in the community.
Direction was given to staff to work with the Planning Commission on the development of a
draft ordinance which would address the issue of yard parking. The Council limited the
ordinance scope to address the parking of registered vehicles and trailers in yards, specifically
front and side yards or those areas visible from the street, on improved surfaces only.
PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGOUND
In November the Planning Commission reviewed Mr. Solbergs submission and discussed the
Councils direction. Staff discussed the ordinance impact with the Commission and provided
them with the results of a preliminary aerial imagery assessment and other communitys
ordinances. Staff has attached both of these for the Councils review. With this information, the
Commission preliminarily discussed potential components of the ordinance: surfacing
materials, number of vehicles, fences and other visual barriers, applicable districts, etc. Lastly
the Commission directed staff to conduct a community input survey on the Citys website. In
December the Commission reviewed the Community Input Survey and directed staff to prepare
an ordinance.
Minutes of the November and December Planning Commission meetings are attached for the
Councils reference.
COMMUNITY INPUT SURVEY SUMMARY

While staff has attached all community input survey results, as well as other public input
received prior to the Commissions 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 was
available until December 1st. Additionally, utilizing the Citys constant contact, direct email
was sent to 660 interested parties who have signed up to receive Planning Commission packets
and minutes as well as the Stillwater Scene, the Citys quarterly newsletter.
A total of 297 survey responses were collected from 276 separate IP addresses online; an
additional ten individuals made direct contact to share their opinions with City staff. Generally
speaking, those surveyed:
Do not park on their lawns but think yard parking is a problem in Stillwater and would
like 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 minutes
of that meeting. At the hearing the Commission heard from ten members of the public prior to
discussing the proposed ordinance. The Commission determined certain provisions, such as
limiting 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 and
reconstruction of driveways should be incorporated. The Commission directed staff to modify
the 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 Street
South) of 200+ petitions signed by residents of the community in which the first line of the
petition reads efforts are being made to ban motor homes, boats, and recreational vehicles
from driveways and yards in Stillwater. The four additional public comments involved
requests regarding clarification of the proposed ordinance. As such, on a 5-0 vote, the
Commission forwarded to the City Council a favorable recommendation of approval of the
draft ordinance.
Case No.2016-04
CC: 3/8/2016
Page 2 of 4
DRAFT ORDINANCE SUMMARY

The draft ordinance was designed to be minimalistic while working within the existing zoning
code provisions. Staff has attached a legislative version of the draft ordinance for the Councils
review. Any text where formatting has not been changed and highlighted, is current city code
regulation. 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 only
concrete and asphalt. While the new ordinance provisions would not be applicable to AP
(Agricultural Preserve) properties, it would be applicable to all other residential zoning
districts.
The ordinance would allow for paver driveways, as well as allow the City Engineer to approve
other surfacing materials for flexibility in improved surfacing materials. Any driveway or
parking area that is currently constructed of gravel or crushed rock would be allowed to be
maintained, but not expanded; no new gravel or crushed rock driveways would be allowed. If
the ordinance is approved, parking and drive areas would not be permitted to be located within
5 of a property line; this is a reduction from the codes current setback of 10. However, no
greater than 50% of the front yard area would be permitted to be parking and drive areas, as to
preserve open space in this area. Lastly, the Planning Commission is proposing the City create
a permitting system for the construction and reconstruction of driveways.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
The Council should review and discuss the proposed ordinance and determine whether
modifications should be made prior to adoption. One thing staff would like to request the
Council consider is the requirement for permitting. In discussions with the Public Works and
Engineering Department, Public Works Director Shawn Sanders indicated it may be good to
have 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. Sanders
indicated that driveway specifications and standards are found in various sections of the City
Code and they are not as comprehensive as the City may desire (such as there is no provision
indicating separation between driveways, the standards for driveway widths, nor the
requirements for assessing surface water runoff from new driveway construction). Sanders
recommended the City explore the development of comprehensive driveway standards prior to
requiring new permits.
COUNCIL ACTION
The Council will hold a public hearing and take public comments. Once all comment has been
made, the Council should close the public hearing and discuss the proposed Ordinance and
take action. The Council has three alternatives:
1. Move to approve, with or without changes, the first reading of the Ordinance and place
the 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 the
Council.
3. Move to deny the first reading.
Case No.2016-04
CC: 3/8/2016
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
Solberg Submission
Ordinance Impact and Preliminary Aerial Imagery Assessment
Community Ordinance Summary
Community Input Survey
Public Comments
Legislative Version
Draft Ordinance
Case No.2016-04
CC: 3/8/2016
Page 4 of 4
ANTICIPATED ORDINANCE IMPACT & PRELIMINARY AERIAL ASSESSMENT

A new ordinance designed to address yard parking could impact all residential properties in
Stillwater. To understand the extent of the issue, staff conducted an investigation as to the
number 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 the
examples shared by Mr. Solberg were within his neighborhood, staff wanted to determine if this
issue was a city-wide issue or not.
In order to estimate the total number of offending properties, staff set the following parameters
based on the petition from Mr. Solberg and the Councils direction: address the residential
parking of vehicles on unimproved surfaces in the front and side yards. From this it was
determined to break the City into manageable districts for review of properties. Attached is a
map of the districts developed by staff. In order to conduct the survey effectively, it was
determined the review of aerial imagery of parcels in Stillwater would be the most efficient and
effective method for gathering data.
Utilizing 360 degree aerial imagery from April 16, 2014, staff reviewed all residential properties
in the following districts. It was determined that due to the nature of the Agricultural
Preservation (AP) zone, staff would not review these properties. Additionally, those
neighborhoods in West Stillwater, which are included in active Homeowners Associations
(HOAs), contain properties that are managed by covenants which address exterior storage and
parking of vehicles. The results of the survey include:
Neighborhood
Dutchtown
North Hill
South Hill
North Central
Central
West Central
Total
Estimated
Parcels Total
278
985
1,166
642
811
931
4,813
Estimated Offending
Parcels
19
13
25
21
39
46
163
Total
Percentage
6.8%
1.3%
2.1%
3.3%
4.8%
4.9%
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.
As presented to the Stillwater Planning Commission on November 9, 2015 (Page 1 of 3)
Figure2:AerialImagerywithoutZoom
Figure1:AerialImageryZoomedto300%
When an object was identified, further investigation would lead staff to make certain
assumptions: 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.
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 was
taken 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 not
necessarily specific to one neighborhood; each residential neighborhood surveyed contains
properties which homeowners park their vehicles, trailers, etc. on their yards. In
neighborhoods where the total percentage is low, staff has made the assumption that this is due
to these properties having a relatively small amount of land space in comparison to other
neighborhoods. Additionally, the RB District (which the North and South Hill Districts are
zoned), 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 allows
for houses to be closer together with often less than 10 in between houses.
OTHER COMMUNITIES
As indicated, Mr. Solberg identified ordinances specific to other communities. Additionally, his
research 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 33
other communities is attached to this report.
Most of the communities define a vehicle as something that is licensed and operable. Several of
the communities indicate vehicles include cars, trucks, trailers, ATVs, snowmobile, all-terrain
vehicles, campers and recreational vehicles. Four of the surveyed communities have
ordinances, or a portion of their zoning/nuisance codes, that specifically address the parking
and/or storage of RVs on residential properties.
Of the communities surveyed, over half of the communities outright prohibit parking on grass
or other landscaping materials. A total of 22 communities require surfacing materials that are
improved, with 16 of the communities specifically designating asphalt, concrete, bricks or
pavers as the approved surfacing material.
Lastly, nearly all communities have specific designations regarding parking vehicles in the front
of the property. Where a community allows it, it is designated to be permitted on a driveway or
approved parking pad. In regards to side yards, often the side yard is denoted as allowing for
parking when it is located behind the front line of the house. Lastly, many communities allow
for rear yard parking on unimproved surfaces.
ATTACHED
Community Ordinance Summary Compiled by City Staff
Jurisdiction
GeneralRegulation
Violation
SurfacingMaterial
Unoperableornot
licensed
Burnsville
Vehiclesmustbeparked Concrete,asphaltor
onlyontheapproved
pavers,orstoredinthe
garage
driveway
Champlin
Toparkavehicleina
yardwithoutan
approvedsurface
CityofGrant
CoonRapids
SideYard
RearYard
Setbacks
RVspecific/Other
RV:Complywithall
parkingandbuilding
setbacksforthezoning
districtandshallonly
utilizetheexisting
permittedaccess
drivewayintothesite.
Exemptiontoscreening
requirementsfor
propertystorage
Bayport
Parkingpads(improved
andsemiimproved)
CityofBigLake
requireanadministrative
permit
FrontYard
VehiclesandRVson
VehiclesandRVson
accessdriveordriveway accessdriveordriveway
arepermitted
arepermitted
ImprovedSurface=
Concrete,asphaltor
paversinFront
Yard/SemiImproved
Mustbeonanimproved Mustbeinsemi
Surface=gravel,class5,
surface
improvedsurface
crushedrockorsimilar
compositecontainedto
controldust,drainage
andpreventspillage
Canbeonunimproved
surface(grass,
compactedearthor
naturallyoccurring)
Theordinanceissilentto
vehicleparkingwith
regardtosurfacesbut
regulatepartially
dismantled,non
operating,wrecked,
junked,ordiscarded
partsfromvehicles.
Parkingisprohibited
exceptonimproved
surface
Parkingisprohibited
exceptonimproved
surface
Parkingisacceptableif
thevehiclehascurrent
registrationandis
operable
Motorvehicelsare
prohibitedfromparking
onunapprovedsurfaces
Crystal
Duluth
Edina
Onalllots,parkingis
Onalllots,parkingis
allowedintheentire
allowedintheentire
rearyardandoneside rearyardandoneside
yard.Forcornerlots,
yard.Forcornerlots,
landownerswhocannot landownerswhocannot
locatesufficientparking locatesufficientparking
intherearorononeside intherearorononeside
yardmaythenapplyfor yardmaythenapplyfor
aVariance
aVariance
Oneunoccupiedtrailer
inaprivategarage,
drivewayorinarear
yard
Parkingonanonhard
surface
Exceptinagandrural
residentialdistricts,
parkingareashallbe
pavedwithbituminous,
concrete,paversor
totherapproveddustless
anderosionresistant
material
Hugo
Lakeville
Parkingprhobitiedunless
ondesignateddriveway Pavers,bricks,concrete
orsurfacedspaceonthe orbituminourmaterial
sideofadriveway
Mahtomedi
(SeeTable)
Hardsurfacedareasshall
consistofadurable
Allparkingshallbehard materialsuchas
surfaced.
concreteorasphaltbut
notincludinggravelor
crushedrock
Maplewood
Cannotparkon
unimprovedlocations
Hardsurfacingrequired
Onefourhundred(400)
squarefoothard
surfacedareaadjacent
toagarageordriveway
forparkingpurposes
shallbepermitted.Such
areashallnotbelocated
infrontofthelivingarea
ofthedwelling
Theparkingareashallbe
setbackatleastfive(5)
feetfrominteriorside
propertylinesandten
(10)feetfromcorner
sidepropertylinesand
shallbehardsurfaced
Parkingisnotpermitted
onanyunapproved
Mustbepavedsurface
surface,oranypartof
theyard
MapleGrove
Minneapolis
Minnetonka
Amaximumoftwo
vehiclesperdwelling
unitmaybeparkedon
anapprovedsurface
Onanapprovedparking Asphalt,concrete,brick
surface
pavers,etc.
Allparkinganddrive
RVSmustbelocatedon RVsonanimproved
areasmustbepaved
thedrivewayandon
surface,abuttinga
withasphalt,concreteor
privateproperty
garage(2'fromlotline)
othermaterials
Parkingorstoring
Vehiclesshallbeparked
vehiclesonthegrassor Asphalt,brick,concrete
NorthSt.Paul orstoredonapproved
landscapedareasis
paversorconcrete
surface
prohibited
OakPark
Heights
Parkingisallowedinthe
rear40feetofthelot
Recreationalvehicles
longerthan25feetare
prohibited
Notcloserthan5'from
sideandrearpropertty
linesandnotinan
drianageandutility
easement
RVsandotherrec
equipmentmustbe
storedinabuilding
unlessoperableand
licensed
Parkonunimproved
surface
Newport
Northfield
Thereshallbenooff
streetparkingwithin15
feetofanystreetsurface
Novehicle,trailer,or
otherpersonalproperty
shallbeparkedonan
unpavedsurfaceforthe
purposeofdisplayingthe
vehicle,trailer,orother Noothermotorized
vehicleparkingshallbe
personalpropertyfor
hire,rental,orsale,
locatedwithinan
unlesstheapplicable
unpavedsurfaceinthe
zoningallowstheuse,
frontorsideyard.
andthepersonor
businessatthatlocation
islicensedtosell
vehicles,trailers,or
otherpersonalproperty
Nolandscapingareashall
beusedfortheparking
ofvehiclesorforthe
storageordisplayof
materials,suppliesor
merchandise
Oakdale
Onresidential
properties,parkingis
limitedtodrivewaysonly
Drivewaymustbe
concrete,bituminousor
brick
Uptotworecreational
vehiclesandequipment
maybeparkedin
residentialareason
pavedorapproved
surfaces
Osseo
Plymouth
Redwing
Richfield
Robbinsdale
Parkingongrass
Nopersonshallparkor
storeanyvehicleinthe
requiredfrontyardof
anyresidential
districtexceptuponthe
customarydriveway
Boatsandunoccupied
emplacedtoprovide
trailers,lessthanthirty
accesstoagarage
two(32)feetinlength,
attachedoradjacentto
arepermissibleifstored
theprincipalbuilding,
inthesideorrearyard
carport,orarearparking
nocloserthantwo(2)
area.Anyoftheherein
feetdistancefromany
vehiclesparkedwithin
propertyline.
thefrontyard,ona
drivewayshallbeparked
insuchamannerasto
maintainallwheelsand
trailertonguesonthe
drivewaysurface.
Allpersoanlproperty
storedmustbescreened
fromadjoiningneighbors
andstreets
Parkorplaceavehiclein
yardonotherthan
establisheddriveway
areas
Vehicleparkedin
unapprovedsurface
Recreationalvehicles
maybepermittedinthe
sideorrearyardif
parkedorstoredatleast
two(2)feetdistance
fromanypropertyline.
Theparkingorstorageof
recreationalvehicleson
therearorsideyard,as
permittedherein,may
beonsurfacedor
unsurfacedareas
Nomorethanone(1)
recreationalvehiclemay
beparkedorstored
outsideinthesideor
rearyardofaresidential
lot.
Rochester
Nopersonshallparkina
frontyardinaresidential
neighborhoodexceptas
providedinparking
setbacks
Roseville
Vehiclesmustbestored
onanimprovedsurface.
Carsandtrucksstored
onthegrassisaviolation
Parkingallowedsolong
asareaisatleasteigth
Parkingalloed
feetinwidthandthe
parkingareaispaved
Allvehiclesmustbe
parkedonasurface
pavedwithasphaltor
bituminousmaterial,
concrete,cement,brick
orotherpavedsurface,
oronagraveldriveway
locatedinfrontyard
St.Anthony
St.Cloud
Oneadditionalspace
outsideofthedriveway
ispermittedifisis
pavementorpermeable
(notgravel)butmaynot
beinrequiredsetback
forstrcuture,thearea
doesnotrequiremore
than20%oftheyard,
accessiffromthe
drivewayandnotanew
driveorwidercurbcut,
andmustbelandscaped
Youmaynotparkon
grass,dirtorgravel
Mustbeanimproved,all
weatherservice
Mustbelocatedona
drivewayordriveway
approachandm
Meetsthesetback
requirementsofthe
LandDevelopmentCode
Allparkingspaces,
drivewaysandoffstreet
parkingfacilitiesshallbe
pavedwithstandardor
Offstreetparkingspaces
perviousasphaltor
shallnotbelocated
concrete,orwithbrick,
withinthefrontyard.
concrete,stonepavers,
ormaterialcomparable
toadjacentstreet
surfacing
St.Paul
WhiteBear
Lake
Woodbury
PArkingprohibitedin
frontandsideyards
unlessondrivewayor
approvedparkingpad.
Concrete,asphaltor
pavers,orstoredinthe
garage
Concreteorblacktop
Passengervehiclesmay
beparkedonan
approveddrivewayin
frontorsideyards
providedthedriveway
leadstoalegalparking
space.
Oneopen,hardsurface
spacelocatedontheside
ofthedrivewayor
garageispermitted.It
shallnotbelocatedin
thefrontofthe
residence
RV:Notwithin15'ofthe RV:Notwithin5'ofthe RV:Notwithin5'ofthe

curb
proeprtyline
propertyline
Greaterthan24'not
allowedinresidential/
Onepieceofrecreational
equipmentperdwelling
unit(whenonatrailer,
thecombinationis
consideredasingleunit)
Table 10.3 B: Types of Vehicles Permitted to be Parked on Residential Lots

Type of Vehicle
Passenger automobiles, vans and trucks
with a carrying capacity of one (1) ton or
less.
Permitted Location
Numerical Restrictions
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
Subdivision 10.3, G .
less in length.*
One (1) per lot.
Motorboats, sailboats, and unoccupied

trailers twenty five (25) feet or less in
length.

Subdivision 10.3, G , and also in the rear
No restriction.
yard subject to setbacks for accessory
buildings. No parking shall be allowed in
corner side yards.
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.
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 be
designed 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.
DraftNovember9,2015
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

November 9, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.
Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Lauer, Siess, Council
Representative Junker
Commissioners Kelly and Middleton
City Planner Wittman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of October 14, 2015 meeting minutes
Chairman Kocon noted the tabling of the September minutes will be continued.
Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to approve the October 14, 2015
meeting minutes. All in favor, 7-0.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Discussion of a future Yard Parking Zoning Text Amendment (ZAT)
City Planner Wittman stated that in April 2015, Eric Solberg approached the City Council to discuss
the issue of yard parking as a blight and nuisance in the community. Staff was directed to work with
the Planning Commission to develop a draft ordinance to address the issue. Staff has since reviewed
aerial imagery to identify registered vehicles parked in the front or side yard area on unimproved
surfaces. She reviewed limitations of the study. The highest amount of yard parking, almost 7%, was
in the Dutchtown district, with the north and south hill being the lowest. Staff found that yard parking
occurred in about 3% of total properties in the aerial scans. Ordinances in other communities were
researched.
Ms. Wittman discussed the definition of surfacing materials and asked if the Commissioners would
agree that grass, landscaping and dirt are unimproved surfaces. Commissioner Hansen asked about
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
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 allowed
to be parked in a front yard. Commissioner Hansen remarked he feels the Commission may be starting
to over-regulate something that isnt 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. Chairman
Kocon commented if he had one neighbor with a vehicle parked in the yard, he wouldnt 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 a
resident 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 thought
that commercial property should be treated no differently than residential property. Ms. Wittman asked
if 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 self
regulating, because if its a one-time event, neighbors are not likely to complain unless its chronic.
Chairman Kocon added that if the penalty is to remove the vehicle, and its a one day event, then it
would 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 its a wedding, graduation
party or church social one-time event, theres 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 removed
or 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 violation
even 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 doesnt think the Commission should open Pandoras 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 covering
exterior storage. Commissioner Hansen remarked if dumpsters and storage bins arent 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 doesnt like to see anything on the lawn, whether its a dumpster or a pod.
He is ok with it being on an improved surface, but doesnt want it sitting in the front yard.
Page 2 of 4
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Commissioner Hansen responded that with a lot of the rolloff container companies, a resident wouldnt
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; some
Commissioners 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; the
ordinance 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 Citys existing regulations regarding impervious surface coverage in the
various 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 asking
for any other concerns. Ms. Wittman stated the survey will go out within the next week or so. Results
will 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 that
her 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 has
to 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 by
2018. 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.
Page 3 of 4
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
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
Page 4 of 4

December 9, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.

Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer,

Middleton, Siess, Council Representative Junker
None
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
Possible approval of September 9, 2015 meeting minutes
Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve the September 9, 2015
OPEN FORUM
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 be
required. The owner has indicated that one parking space is currently being leased at the Shortys
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,
Planning Commission
December 9, 2015
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 by
staff. All in favor, 9-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Yard Parking - Survey Results and Ordinance Direction
City Planner Wittman stated that at the Commissions last regularly scheduled meeting, the
Commission 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 expects
to present a draft ordinance for Commission consideration in January.
Commission consensus was to accept the definition of a vehicle proposed by staff, with the possible
addition 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. Chairman
Kocon 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. City
Planner 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 than
specific dimensions of 10 x 30. He encouraged the Commission to think outside the box because not
all 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.
Page 2 of 5
Planning Commission
December 9, 2015
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 being
discussed. 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 Planner
Wittman 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 people
than 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 to
start 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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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 neighbors backyard.
Commissioner Middleton asked if a parking pad is contiguous in the front yard, isnt it just really an
enlargement of the driveway? He said he would prefer setting a maximum allowable square footage
of 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 from
the street as opposed to what is visible to the neighbors. Chairman Kocon suggested taking a straw
poll.
Commissioner Hade remarked its human nature that a property owner will put a vehicle on the lot
line, not next to their own house - thats why setbacks are needed.
Page 3 of 5
Planning Commission
December 9, 2015
Chairman Kocon called for a straw poll to find some measurables, for instance, a driveway cant 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 wont be
able 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 front
yard to be impervious, as long as it doesnt 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 doesnt encroach
into a sideyard setback area; concrete and asphalt are considered improved surfaces; the Commission
would 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 ones 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 Commissions consideration. The ordinance would cover new construction or changes to
impervious surface coverage; it would not apply to existing non-conforming situations.
Commissioner Middleton brought up Chairman Kocons concern, expressed in the November
meeting, about the mass of vehicles. For instance, a 65 Corvette has less impact than a big hulk of an
RV. He asked why the Commission isnt 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 Councils
System Statement, after clarification from Metropolitan Council staff about anticipated rural
residential development patterns. Commissioner Hade asked if there has been further talk of better bus
service for Stillwater. Ms. Wittman replied that the Met Councils Thrive 2040 plan includes a goal
of daily service to Stillwater 6-8 times per day.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 of 5
Planning Commission
December 9, 2015
Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 8:55
p.m. All in favor, 9-0.
Julie Kink
Recording Secretary
Page 5 of 5

January 13, 2016
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.

Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Lauer, Middleton,

Siess, Council Representative Menikheim
Commissioner Kelly
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of December 9, 2015 meeting minutes
Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the December 9, 2015
OPEN FORUM
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 2016-01 Request for an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit for mechanical upgrades
to Oak Park Elementary School, located at 6355 Osman Avenue North. BWBR, Inc., on behalf of
Stillwater Area Schools, applicant.
City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to an existing Special
Use Permit for the installation of a new 160 ton chiller to be located on the north side of Oak Park
Elementary 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 brick
masonry product of the same color and tone as the existing structure. Staff recommends approval with
one 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 the
manufacturer, the sound deadening blankets will absorb the noise and it should not exceed the
maximum decibel level. The equipment usually wont run past 4 p.m.
Planning Commission
January 13, 2016

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 fix
rather than hiring a smaller local company. He also expressed general concerns about the timing of
the proposal and traffic throughout the city.
Commissioners Hansen and Collins voiced support for the proposal.
Motion by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to recommend to the City
Council that an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit for mechanical upgrades to Oak Park
Elementary School, located at 6355 Osman Avenue North, be approved with the condition recommended
by staff. All in favor, 8-0.
to Lily Lake Elementary School, located at 2003 West Willard Street. BWBR, Inc., on behalf of Stillwater
Area Schools, applicant.
City Planner Wittman explained the request. An amendment to an existing Special Use Permit is
sought for the installation of a new 160 ton chiller to be located on the north side of Lily Lake
Elementary 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 a
surplus 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 had
heard no concerns voiced by school staff. Commissioner Siess asked if the applicant had asked the
PTA 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 was
closed.
Commissioner Siess stated whenever there is an event at Lily Lake school, the parking situation is
awful and there are no appropriate places to park in surrounding neighborhoods. She said she opposes
the proposal due to the reduction of seven parking spaces.
Chairman Kocon responded that the Downtown Parking Commission sets parking requirements which
are met under the proposal.
Page 2 of 7
Planning Commission
January 13, 2016
Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to recommend to the City Council
that an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit for mechanical upgrades to Lily Lake Elementary
School, located at 2003 West Willard Street, be approved with the condition recommended by staff.
Motion passed 7-1 with Commissioner Siess voting nay.
to Stillwater Junior High School, located at 523 Marsh Street West. BWBR, Inc., on behalf of Tony
Willger, Stillwater Area Schools, applicant.
City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to an existing Special
Use Permit for the installation of a new 160 ton chiller to be located on the north side of Stillwater
Junior 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. The
exterior of the enclosure will be a reinforced brick masonry product with the same color and tone as
the existing structure. The nearest residential property lines are more than 500 feet away. The
installation of the improvement will necessitate the removal of five parking spaces on the east side of
a 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 Citys design requirements, therefore
staff has determined there will be a net loss of 11 parking spaces. Despite the reduction in parking
spaces, there will still be a surplus of nine parking spaces. Staff recommends approval with one
condition.
Commissioner Siess recalled a lot of community concerns about traffic that were related to the ECFE
center. Mr. Willger stated the District has not explored replacing the lost parking spaces because it
would cause loss of green space.
Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to recommend to the City Council
that 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 yard
areas. City of Stillwater, applicant.
City Planner Wittman summarized discussions from the last few meetings. She reviewed
modifications to City Code proposed by staff as a result of the discussions and direction by the City
Council. 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. Wittman
also stated that the concept of establishing a permitting process for driveways was discussed with
Public 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 thinks
the standards should include some options for pervious material for driveways.
Page 3 of 7
Planning Commission
January 13, 2016
Rob Sancartier, 216 Owens Street South, spoke in opposition to the proposed regulations. He feels
strongly that it infringes on property owners rights to own vehicles and work on them in their own
yards, especially those who cannot afford to rent space to park them elsewhere. He feels there is too
much governmental control in general.
Jim Hansen, 1303 Fifth Avenue South, asked why concrete or bituminous are required, but not gravel
which is more pervious. He has gravel alongside his house and has not had a problem with runoff. He
voiced complaints about lack of City communication about the issue.
Eric Solberg, 2064 Oak Glen Drive, stated the proposed ordinance doesnt appear to address the issue
of vehicle size. He suggested establishing a maximum size for a parking stall which would limit the
size of the vehicle it could accommodate. He also asked how the ordinance would apply to existing
situations, 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 still
a need to consider Class 5 surfaces as there are a number of properties that currently have Class 5
driveways. He also said that permits without standards are useless.
Natalie Seum, 2160 Oak Glen Trail, agreed with Mr. Solbergs 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 her
view. She is worried about property values and feels the current proposal does not address the size of
vehicles.
Steve Zoller, 2316 Oakridge Road, recognized that some RV owners are responsible in trying to lessen
the 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 six
years.
Dan Fabian, 326 South Sixth Street, stated his driveway is on the property line, so he is concerned
about possibly being required to move his driveway in the future, or to obtain a permit or variance. He
feels if the issue isnt a big problem, the City should be careful not to take away personal property
rights. He recognized Class 5 is not much more pervious than asphalt, but there are other pervious
surfaces to consider.
John Colburn, 224 Willow Street East, stated that his property has no backyard; he owns a boat and
small RV so they must be in the side yard. He reiterated concerns about property owners rights, as
expressed by Mr. Fabian and Mr. Zoller. He feels that adopting the proposed regulations would be
akin to adding covenants. He asked the Commission to consider allowing parking on pavers, pea rock
and 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 communication
about the hearing. She asked the Commission to consider unique properties and not over-regulate. She
would 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 the
City would be going backward by allowing pads. He finds long grass plantings at corners more
offensive than any trailers he has seen.
Page 4 of 7
Planning Commission
January 13, 2016
Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. The meeting was recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at
8:55 p.m.
City Planner Wittman explained the process used to survey residents, and summarized the public
outreach that was done, including sending press releases to all local papers, advertising the public
input survey, discussing it at the Commissions November and December meetings, and sending notice
of the survey through the Citys direct email system to 660 individuals who signed up for community
notices. 297 survey responses were received. 20% indicated they do park or have parked on their
lawns. 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 parking
or backyard parking should be regulated.
Chairman Kocon recapped comments received during the public hearing, and reminded the audience
that 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 the
Council requested an ordinance be drafted to regulate yard parking. He feels pavers are a good
solution, but that doesnt eliminate the issue of yard parking.
Councilmember Menikheim informed the Commission that initially, a citizen approached the Council
about visual blight and aesthetics of yard parking. He feels the Commissions discussions will give
the Council a larger knowledge base.
Commissioner Middleton said it seems the Commission is trying to address blight by using a code to
regulate surfaces. The issue that the Commission spoke about in December at length was the aesthetic
of vehicles being parked in yards.
Commissioner Fletcher said she feels there are competing goals - an aesthetically beautiful historic
city, and the water quality of rivers and streams. She agrees that the ordinance as proposed may not
be optimizing the best of both goals.
Commissioner Hansen concluded there are people who want to have RVs on their property, and people
who dont want to look at them; they are both right in what theyre saying. There is nothing the City
can do that will make both groups happy. He suggested addressing the issue in smaller bites to see
what can be done to improve what is being proposed, without going in one direction or the other
direction. He reiterated that the regulations should allow for other types of improved surfaces.
Chairman Kocon said he is not a complete fan of what is in front of the Commission but he feels the
Commission can play with it.
Commissioner Hade stated he feels the permit process should be included in the regulations because
it would allow projects requiring variances the opportunity for public input.
Page 5 of 7
Planning Commission
January 13, 2016
Commissioner Hansen suggested using something like a permeability rating by which to measure
compliance in terms of surface used. He would like to attach a quantifiable number to the definition,
retaining the ability to establish a range and have a variance to it.
Chairman Kocon responded he feels the Commission is confusing improved with impervious. An
improved and an impervious surface might both meet the standards. He prefers to use the word
improved - for instance, requiring that an improved surface may not exceed 50% of the front yard area,
defining what is an improved surface, including what is considered compliant when pavers are used,
how much sand and gravel, and so on.
Commissioner Middleton noted if the Commission as a group is alright with 50% coverage for
improved surface, does it matter whether its pervious or impervious? The problem is that the
technology is changing so rapidly that its difficult to find appropriate language that would not require
a variance every time someone wants to do something out of the norm.
Ms. Wittman suggested if concrete and asphalt have zero permeability and the City wants to encourage
surfaces that allow water to drain through, then the City can establish an acceptable range to be
considered an improved surface. She summarized that the Commission wants to expand requirements
from concrete and asphalt, and to allow for more pervious surfaces based on a measure of permeability
which needs to be brought back to the Commission.
Commissioner Middleton said he feels that measuring permeability is a slippery slope; in other words,
if there is already a 50% maximum improved surface allowed in the front yard, why try to quantify
the permeability rate; if concrete is allowable, what difference does it make what the permeability of
any other surface is?
Chairman Kocon said he is more interested in the durability of a surface and how it stands up, than its
permeability. He feels the standards should be drafted to ensure durability. The Commission should
expand the definition of allowable surface to include gravel, pavers, and the pavers that are diamond
shaped that include gravel. That would provide more options for residents.
Commissioner Hansen recognized he is the only Commissioner who doesnt want a permit
requirement for driveways. If there is a permit requirement, then he is not comfortable limiting the
allowed surface to only those options the Commission can think of tonight, because there are a lot of
new products coming out. He would like to ensure there is a way to obtain a variance. City Planner
Wittman reminded the Commission that the variance process requires something measurable to which
a variance can be granted.
Commissioner Siess stated she is on the fence about requiring permits for driveways.
Motion by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Hade, to table consideration of adoption
of new regulations pertaining to parking vehicles on yard areas and direct staff to develop standards for
pavers and gravel, and to develop some sort of measurable indicator for the potential allowance of
variances. All in favor, 8-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Page 6 of 7
Planning Commission
January 13, 2016
Case No. 2014-13 Request for an extension on a Special Use Permit for construction of a sculpture near
the front entrance of Our Saviors Lutheran Church, located at 1616 Olive Street West. Gwen Johnson,
representing Our Saviors Lutheran Church, applicant.
City Planner Wittman explained that in May 2014, the Planning Commission gave conditional
approval for the installation of a sculpture to be located on the Our Saviors Lutheran Church property.
The property owner acknowledges that the sculpture will not be installed prior to the expiration of the
Special Use Permit issued nearly two years ago, and therefore has requested an extension. Staff
recommends approval of a one-year extension.
Motion by Commissioner Hade, seconded by Chairman Kocon, to approve a one-year extension to the
Special Use Permit issued to Our Saviors Lutheran Church, 1616 Olive Street West, for installation of a
sculpture. All in favor, 8-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
STAFF UPDATES
Public Hearing Notification
In light of residents complaints about not being notified about the public hearing on yard parking,
Commissioner Hansen asked if staff could explore additional options for communicating with the
public. He acknowledged the numerous methods the City already uses to inform residents. City
Planner Wittman replied staff can explore additional options for communicating.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to adjourn the meeting at 9:56
p.m. All in favor, 8-0.
Julie Kink
Recording Secretary
Page 7 of 7

February 10, 2016
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.

Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Lauer, Siess, Council Representative

Menikheim
Commissioners Hade, Hansen, Kelly and Middleton
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of January 13, 2016 meeting minutes
Commissioner Siess requested that a statement be added to the minutes regarding the discussion of
Case No. 2016-02, indicating that she asked if the applicant had asked the PTA about the proposal and
Mr. Willger replied no.
Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the January 13, 2016
meeting minutes as amended. All in favor, 5-0.
OPEN FORUM
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 2016-06 Request for a Zoning Text Amendment for Sec. 31-315 to allow a Senior Care Living
Facility permitted with a Special Use Permit in the Townhome District, located at 1167 Parkwood Lane.
Gopher REO, LLC, owners and Matt Twomey, applicant.
City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant has three contiguous townhouse zoned parcels
under contract. If the Zoning Text Amendment were approved, he would then proceed with the Special
Use Permit process for the Commissions consideration of a Senior Care Living Facility on his specific
parcels. This public hearing is for the purpose of considering the general question of whether Senior
Care Living Facilities should be permitted by SUP in all townhouse zoned parcels. Currently, senior
living facilities are allowed only in the RCM and LR districts. Staff recommends approval.
Matt Twomey, applicant, reviewed the proposal. He reported that he had notified surrounding
residents on Parkwood of his intent to seek a Zoning Text Amendment. He has not yet done full
engineering plans, but would do them for submission with the SUP application, if the ZAT is approved.
Planning Commission
February 10, 2016
Mr. Twomey said that the proposed facility would be relatively small with 40 beds; it would not have
a large scale feel. He would provide one parking stall for every five rooms; very few residents are
expected to need stalls for vehicles.
Art Junker, 1164 Parkwood Lane, stated the need for townhomes is great in Stillwater. He encouraged
the Commission to keep the land zoned for townhomes rather than senior care living. He expressed
the following concerns: If independent living is part of the facility, there could be more traffic than
anticipated. Since only one entrance to the site is proposed, service vehicle traffic would compete with
staff and resident traffic. He also expressed concern about the possibility of light pollution and the
narrowness of the street for truck deliveries. Commercial access would involve crossing County Road
5 which could be dangerous for the senior care residents.
Michael Hughes, 1172 Parkwood Lane, commented that the proposed development is not appropriate
because it changes the nature of the neighborhood. He feels that the neighborhood is not against senior
living, but there are many other more suitable locations in Stillwater. He is concerned about the 24/7
commercial activity in a residential area. He added that the text amendment seems like an effort to
circumvent what he feels should be a full zoning change involving a comprehensive plan amendment.
Darla McCarty, 1161 Parkwood Lane, encouraged the Commission to leave the neighborhood as
townhomes and single family residences to retain the real neighborhood feel.
Martha Morse, 1172 Parkwood Lane, said she would welcome the development of townhomes on the
parcels, which she anticipated when she bought her property five years ago. She refuted statements in
the staff report regarding the need for senior care facilities in the City. She is concerned that this project
is building for a need that isnt there. There is high demand for townhomes in Stillwater. She
encouraged the Commission to reject the proposed text amendment.
Lou Bruno, 1144 Parkwood Lane, expressed concern about the prospect of increased traffic. He said
that more entrepreneurs are starting their own in-home care business, diminishing the need for
facilities like the one proposed. He feels there are other more appropriate locations and the
Commission should reject the proposal.
Debra Keech, 1156 Parkwood Lane, agreed with statements made by her neighbors encouraging the
Commission to leave the townhome designation unchanged.
Suzanne Werner, 1183 Parkwood Lane, mentioned that Parkwood Lane is maintained by the City, but
she lives in one of nine townhomes whose road is maintained by the townhome association. Increased
traffic would cause overflow parking to be right in front of their townhomes.
Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. He pointed out that if the Zoning Text Amendment is
approved, the proposal would still require a Special Use Permit. A Zoning Text Amendment would
still allow townhomes to be built on the property. The Commission is not considering the proposal
specifically, but rather, a Zoning Text Amendment.
Commissioner Siess said she isnt comfortable applying the proposed amendment to all townhouse
areas. She feels the facility is more of a business use than residential. She also feels there is a
fundamental economic need for townhomes.
Page 2 of 7
Planning Commission
February 10, 2016
Commissioner Collins noted he also struggles with making one change that affects other areas
throughout the City. He feels there are other options for the development.
Commissioner Fletcher suggested the issue of the Zoning Text Amendment may be better addressed
as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. She would rather see more flexibility in adding the senior
care living uses to an existing zone rather than creating a separate unique zone for them.
Chairman Kocon pointed out the neighborhood arguments have been excellent specific to the site, but
he feels a Zoning Text Amendment would be appropriate even if the development as proposed may
not achieve a Special Use Permit. Any proposal would have to come back before the City.
Commissioner Siess argued that businesses are inappropriate for the middle of residential
neighborhoods.
Chairman Kocon reiterated that any specific proposals would need to be individually approved.
Commissioner Lauer remarked that the site-specific arguments from the neighborhood make a lot of
sense, but he would like more flexibility in the zoning to allow the City to react to changing needs. He
values the diversity of having an older and younger population mix in a neighborhood.
Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to recommend to the Council to
approve the Zoning Text Amendment to allow for Senior Care Living Facilities in the TH District. Motion
passed 3-2, with Commissioners Siess and Collins voting nay.
Case No. 2016-07 Request for Variance for 24 x 24 two-car garage in northeast corner of property,
located at 803 Willard Street West. Jeff Polacek, owner, and Alex Polacek, applicant.
City Planner Wittman explained the request. Alex Polacek is requesting a 15 variance to the required
30 front yard setback for a garage. The property is for sale and the future buyer wishes to demolish
the existing garage and replace it with a new two-car garage. The new garage would be 7 feet further
back from the street than the existing garage, but still would be only 15 from the property line so it
would not conform to the zoning setbacks for garages in the district. Staff finds no unique
circumstances or practical difficulty, and recommends denial.
Alex Polacek noted the reason she wants the new garage to be closer to the street is that placing the
garage further back on the lot would eliminate the only safe, private yard space for pets and children.
There is no other feasible spot due to distance to other homes.
Commissioner Siess commented that 15 feet is a large variance. She asked if the applicant has
considered other alternatives.
Ms. Polacek restated that the only alternative is to build the new garage in the back corner of the lot,
thus eliminating the only safe, private yard space. She also would like to maintain safe access from
the garage to the home; she wants to avoid increasing this distance.
Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was
closed.
Page 3 of 7
Planning Commission
February 10, 2016
Commissioner Fletcher said she struggles with granting the variance because it cant be proven that
there is no alternative.
Commissioner Lauer pointed out that there is room to construct the garage without a variance.
Chairman Kocon remarked that he has a three-car garage that is 20 x 30 and he manages to get a
boat and two cars in it. A two car garage could be 20 x 20. So if the garage were 4 shorter, the
applicant could shorten the variance; if it were 6 shorter, it would line up with the front of the house.
He feels the variance isnt justified and there are alternatives.
Commissioner Collins noted that the current garage sticks way out. If it were moved farther back
behind the house, he could support that, but he is uncomfortable with the current request.
Motion by Chairman Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to recommend to the Council to deny
the variance for a 24 x 24 two-car garage in the northeast corner of the property located at 803 Willard
Street West. All in favor, 5-0.
Case No. 2016-09 Request for Special Use Permit for Sleep Center, located at 850 Churchill Street West.
Lakeview Health Systems, owner and Keith Messinger, applicant.
City Planner Wittman reported that the applicant is requesting a new Special Use Permit to allow for
the conversion of the existing hospital office building into a sleep study center with four bedrooms.
The facility would be open six days a week and employ no more than six staff members each day. An
estimated total of 10-12 patients would be seen each day with a maximum of four patients to be onsite
at night. The existing SUP approved in 2013 prohibits use of the structure for patient related care
functions. Ms. Wittman stated she had fielded concerns from three property owners Staff recommends
approval with ten conditions.
Commissioner Siess asked why the prohibition on patient related functions was part of the original
SUP. Ms. Wittman replied there has been a general concern from neighbors about the hospital business
encroaching further into the neighborhood.
Ted Wegleitner, President & CEO of Lakeview Hospital, explained that the need for sleep studies and
treatment of sleep disorders has grown substantially. The current two-bed sleep center is not large
enough to meet demand and there is no other space in the hospital to expand. The proposed four bed
center would allow an additional 145 patients to receive treatment each year. He explained that the
HVAC system will be a special quiet unit surrounded with special dampening to ensure it is under
minimum levels. Traffic is anticipated to be less with the sleep center than the present office use.
Lakeview has no intention of expanding beyond its current footprint. Noise will be tested to ensure
compliance. Signage will be worked out with the Heritage Preservation Commission. Laundry and
other deliveries will happen during business hours. He summarized the benefits to the community.
Chairman Kocon pointed out that the staff report includes a statement that laundry services will use a
side service door and happen at 5:30 a.m. Mr. Wegleitner responded that the hospital will ensure
laundry delivery happens during regular business hours, no earlier than 7:30 a.m. nor after 4:30 p.m.
Patients leaving to go home after a night study would leave around 6:30 a.m. Chairman Kocon said he
would like to see a stipulation that patients be released no earlier than 6:30 a.m.
Page 4 of 7
Planning Commission
February 10, 2016
Commissioner Collins asked how the existing sleep rooms at the hospital will be used. Mr. Wegleitner
replied they will be call rooms for staff who are on call.
Dr. Ucer, Medical Director of the Sleep Lab at Lakeview Hospital, informed the Commission that
sleep problems are epidemic. The end of the study time varies - some patients have to keep regular
work hours so they may leave the facility before 6:30 a.m.
Asked by Chairman Kocon to address anticipated noise levels, project engineer Terri Ulrick, BWBR
Architects, said the HVAC will run at 61 DBA, but its enclosure will make it 46 DBA. To compare,
home condenser air conditioner units usually run at 61 DBA; 46 DBA is comparable to the noise level
heard in a normal office area.
Ernie Preimesberger, 819 West Abbott Street, stated that the hospital has been a great neighbor, but
he has concern about noise levels since the blower would face his bedrooms. He asked what guarantees
there are that this will not cause problems for him.
Anthony Beyer, 904 Churchill Street West, said he is opposed to the amendment. He reflected that the
current SUP prohibited patient care on the site to make it more palatable to neighbors and the
Commission. He feels that incremental changes to the neighborhood are being made, and the facility
is not suitable for this location because of concerns about light pollution, signage, and hours.
Commissioner Siess asked if the hospital changed the services to be provided at this location, would
they be required to come back to the Commission? Ms. Wittman responded that sleep study services
would be the only patient care services allowed under the SUP - this is one of the staff-recommended
conditions. The SUP would not be transferrable to another facility without prior consent.
Commissioner Collins asked about lighting. Ms. Wittman shared that no additional lighting has been
proposed. A condition may be added stating that no additional lighting fixtures would be allowed.
Commissioner Fletcher noted the residents have raised good concerns, which have mostly been
addressed by the applicant. She feels comfortable that the SUP is headed in the right direction.
Commissioner Siess commented that she struggles because she remembers when the original SUP for
the building was considered. She is concerned about growing encroachment into the residential area.
Chairman Kocon said he doesnt see it as an encroachment because the building is already there and
the Commission is simply looking at a different use. It should be made clear that if approved, patients
would be expected not to be leaving the facility at ungodly hours, with few exceptions.
Commissioner Siess clarified that encroachment is the placement of business, any type of business,
into the residential area.
Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to recommend to the Council that
the Special Use Permit for a Sleep Center, located at 850 Churchill Street West, be approved with
conditions recommended by staff, and with the following additional conditions: a) lighting fixtures must
Page 5 of 7
Planning Commission
February 10, 2016
provide a complete cut-off so the bulb/source of light cannot be seen off the property, and at the property
lines, the illumination must be engineered to be zero lumens; b) laundry services shall be limited to 7:30
a.m. -4:30 p.m.; and c) prior to the release of a Certificate of Occupancy, verification of compliance with
the noise ordinance provisions shall be submitted to the City upon installation of the exterior mechanical
equipment. Equipment not in compliance with the Citys nuisance regulations shall be rectified. Motion
passed 4-1 with Commissioner Siess voting nay.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Case No. 2016-04 Request for adoption of new regulations pertaining to parking vehicles on yard areas.
City of Stillwater, applicant.
City Planner Wittman provided background and reviewed proposed code amendments as detailed in
the staff report.
Douglas Isackson, 2821 Icerose Lane, asked for interpretation of the ordinance as relates to a concrete
slab beside his garage. Ms. Wittman said that as drafted, the code states that any nonconformance
would be allowed to be maintained, so he may continue to park his trailer there.
Rob SanCartier, 216 Owens Street South, stated he believes efforts are being made to stop Stillwater
residents from working on vehicles in their driveways to make financial ends meet, and also to ban
motorhomes, boats and RVs from driveways and yards in Stillwater. These items are the focus of
family activities; renting storage for the items would put them out of reach for many families. He
presented a petition requesting that the City allow residents to continue to have and work on these
items. He asked the Commission to reconsider its position on the yard parking ordinance.
Sheldon Wendorf, 521 West Maple Street, stated he has been parking trailers here all his life and for
four generations back. He asked for clarification about parking items on driveways. Ms. Wittman
stated residents would be allowed to maintain an existing parking pad.
Dennis Lanoux, 617 West Wilkins Street, noted he has a nonconforming driveway and no parking
pads. He cant afford to put pads under his boat and trailer. He feels the ordinance will devalue his
property and make it harder for him to sell it. He feels residents should be able to put a boat or trailer
in their backyard. It would cost $150/month to store his boat offsite. Putting in a pad would ruin old
trees and be cost prohibitive. He urged the Commission to think about the negative impacts on the
community. Ms. Wittman clarified that under this ordinance, he would be allowed to park his boat and
RV in the rear yard, as the ordinance applies only to front and side yards.
Dan Henkel, 717 Linden Street, told the Commission he was relieved to hear City Planner Wittmans
clarification. He reminded the Commission to consider other parts of the City code which could limit
the number of vehicles. He would hope that gravel or rock surfaces are allowed, as young families
cant afford to put a 30 x 16 cement in their yard. Ms. Wittman addressed concerns about the number
Page 6 of 7
Planning Commission
February 10, 2016
of vehicles, saying that newly constructed homes must have a minimum of two off-street parking
spaces.
Commissioner Collins noted this has been a long process resulting in a minimalistic approach. He
feels the steps taken have been good and supports the current draft ordinance.
Commissioner Siess noted that she and Commissioner Hansen had reservations about the permit
process. She is not in support of requiring a permit if it is going to be more burdensome for staff.
Chairman Kocon countered that permits are needed to regulate the process and ensure projects are
done right.
Commissioner Fletcher reminded the audience that the draft ordinance will go to the Council for more
discussion and action. She feels comfortable with the draft ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Lauer, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to recommend to the Council to
approve the draft ordinance pertaining to parking vehicles on yard areas. All in favor, 5-0.
STAFF UPDATES
There were no staff updates.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 p.m.
All in favor, 5-0.
Julie Kink
Recording Secretary
Page 7 of 7
Draft Yard Parking Ordinance: Legislative Version

No Format Changes Existing City Code
Underlined Proposed Addition to the Code
Underlined & Italicized Proposed Relocation of Existing City Code
Strikethrough Removal from City Code
Gray Highlighting Alterations to the City Code
Bold & Underline/Strikethrough Alterations since City Council 3/8/2016
Sec. 31-101. Definitions
Vehicle means any car, truck, 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 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.
Sec. 31510. Offstreet parking and loading.
Off-street parking and loading shall be regulated as follows:
Subd. 1. Off-street parking.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the regulations contained in this Section 31-510 is to reduce
street congestion and traffic hazards in the city, and to add to the safety and
convenience of its citizens, by incorporating adequate, attractively designed, and
functional facilities for off-street parking and drives as an integral part of every use of
land in the city, and to establish minimum standards for the construction and
reconstruction of off-street parking facilities and driveway areas.
(b) General provisions.
i.
ii.
At the time any building or structure is constructed or erected or modified, there shall
be provided, on the same site, for the use of occupants, guests, clients, customers or
visitors thereof, off-street parking spaces for vehicles in accordance with the
requirements in this Section 31-510.
Parking vehicles, in the Front Yard area, Exterior Side Yard area, or Side Yard area of
all districts, with the exception of the Agricultural Preservation (AP) district, shall be in
conformance with the requirements in this Section 31-510.
a. Parking of vehicles on grass in the Front Yard and Exterior Side Yard areas of
all districts shall be prohibited.
b. 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
vehicle must maintain at least a five foot (5) setback from the side lot line.
*Note*
Existing tables in City Code Section 31-510 have been removed from this legislative
version. These tables will remain in effect in the City Code.
DraftLegislativeVersion(YardParkingOrdinance),Page1of8
(c) Number of parking spaces required. Where the computation or required parking spaces
produces a fractional result, fractions of one-half or greater shall require one full
parking space
(d) Modifications to requirements. Modifications to off-street parking and loading
requirements shall be permitted as follows:
(1) Alternative provisions. The off-street parking requirements of this subdivision shall
be considered satisfied if:
i.
The property being occupied is a part of a parking district which has been
duly formed under the provisions of this Code; and
ii.
A specific development plan for an area has been adopted and contains
parking standards which supersede those contained in this subdivision; or
iii. The required parking spaces and street access are permanently provided
within 300 feet of the parcel, and a maintenance and management plan
indicating the useful functioning of such parking is submitted and approved
by the community development director. Not more than 60 percent of the
required parking may be provided off the site.
(2) Cooperative parking facilities. The requirements for the provisions of parking
facilities, with respect to two more property uses of the same or different types,
may be satisfied by the permanent allocation of the required number of spaces for
each use in a common parking facility, located within 300 feet of all such
participating property uses and cooperatively established and operated. In the case
of a cooperative parking facility which is designed to satisfy the parking
requirements of:
i.
From two to four independent property uses, a reduction of not more than five
percent of the total number of required spaces shall be allowed.
ii.
From five to seven independent property uses, a reduction of not more than ten
iii. Eight or more independent property uses, a reduction of not more than 20
(3) Shared parking facilities. Parking facilities may be shared by two or more
commercial uses if their entrances are located within 300 feet of each other and if
their hours of operation do not coincide, provided they:
i.
Receive special use and design permit so that design criteria are met and
conditions of use may be established along with periodic review.
ii.
Submit a w r i t t e n d o c u m e n t g u a r a n t e e i n g m a i n t e n a n c e , h o u r s o f
o p e r a t i o n a n d specifying length of agreement.
iii. Demonstrate how the shared parking arrangement will fulfill the intent
of this subdivision.
(4) Parking requirements for nonconforming structures or uses. In the case of
structures in any district, which are reconstructed, enlarged, structurally altered,
changed in occupancy to a more intensive use category or otherwise increased in
capacity, off-street parking shall be provided only for that portion of structures or
use constituting the increase in capacity; except that no additional parking need be
provided for nonresidential uses, if the increased capacity results in an increase of
four or fewer off-street parking spaces.

(e) Miscellaneous requirements. Miscellaneous parking and loading requirements are as
follows:
(1) Parking limit. The city may establish a maximum parking limit where the
development proposal exceeds city standards for the number of parking spaces
required.
(2) Parking use. Parking areas shall be used for vehicle parking only with no
sales, dead storage, repair work or dismantling of any kind.
(3) Existing spaces. Existing off-street parking spaces and loading spaces shall not be
reduced in number unless the number exceeds the requirements set forth for the
use.
(4) Facilities for the handicapped. Handicapped parking spaces shall be 19 feet long by
12 feet wide. Parking facilities specifically designed, located and reserved for
vehicles licensed by the state for use by the handicapped shall be provided in each
parking facility of ten or more spaces, according to the following table:
Maximum Number of Spaces Required
(5) Parking lots in residential districts. When in its opinion the best interests of the city will
be served, the city council may permit, temporarily or permanently, the use of land in a
residential district, other than a one-family district, for a parking lot where the land
abuts or is across the street from a district other than a residential district, provided
that:
i.
The lot is to be used only for parking of passenger automobiles of

employees, customers or guests of the person controlling and operating the lot,
who shall be responsible for its maintenance.
ii.
No charge is to be made for parking on the lot.
iii. The lot is not to be used for sales, repair work or servicing of any kind. iv. Entrance
to and exit from the lot are to be located on the lot.
v.
No advertising sign or material is to be located on the lot.
vi. All parking is to be kept back of the setback building line by a barrier unless
otherwise specifically authorized by the city council.
vii. The parking lot and that portion of the driveway back of the setback line is to be
adequately screened from the street and from adjoining property in a residential
district by a hedge or sightly fence or wall not less than six feet high and not more
than eight feet high located back of the setback line. All lighting is to be arranged so
that there will be no glare therefrom annoying to the occupants of adjoining
property in a residential district and surfacing of the parking lot is to be smoothly
graded, hard-surfaced and adequately drained.
viii. Such other conditions as may be deemed necessary by the city council to protect
the character of the residential district.
(6) Parking lots and driveways abutting residential districts. Whenever a parking lot or
driveway to a parking lot is established in other than a residential district so as to abut
the side or rear line of a lot in a residential district, a solid masonry wall or a substantial
sightly fence not less than six feet high and not more than eight feet high, shall be
constructed and maintained along the side or rear lot line up to, but not beyond, the
setback building line. In addition, in all use districts, the lighting, including any
permitted illuminated sign, on any parking lot or driveway shall be arranged so that
there will be no glare directed or reflected toward a residence building or residential
districts.
(f) Design requirements. Design requirements shall be as follows:
(1) Parking space.
i.
ii.
Each parking space shall be at least nine feet in width and 18 feet in length
exclusive of an adequately designed system of access drive. Driveways for twoway traffic shall be 24 feet.
Parking spaces shall be created on, or contiguous to, driveways
(a) In residential districts, parking spaces are not required to be contiguous to
driveways.
(2) Parking facility layout.

i.
ii.
There shall be no off-street parking spaces located within 15 feet of any street rightof-way or ten five feet of any property line except in the central business district
where spaces may be allowed with an approved design permit.
(a) Existing nonconforming driveways shall be allowed to be maintained, repaired
and replaced. Expansion of the nonconforming setback shall not be permitted.
Parking facilities shall not encompass greater than 50% of the total Front Yard area
in any residential district.
(3) Access to spaces or facilities. Driveway design standards are as follows:

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Driveways shall be designed to conform with existing contours to the maximum

extent feasible.
(a) Driveways shall be in conformance with the design standards found in City
Code Section 31-521 and the requirements in this Section 31-510.
Driveways shall enter public/private streets in such a manner as to maintain an
adequate line of sight.
Driveways with gravel or crushed rock surfaces (or similar materials) are not
permitted. Although, any such driveways existing on or before the adoption date
of this prohibition on such surfaces will be considered a legal non-conforming
driveway. These driveways may be maintained, but not expanded. If the property
owner chooses to maintain the non-conforming driveway, a minimum of four
inches of compacted Class 5 material must be maintained.
For the construction of residential driveways:
(a) Concrete driveways: Four inches of compacted sand and five inches of concrete;
(b) Bituminous driveways: Four inches of Class 5 gravel and two inches of bituminous;
(c) Paver driveways: A minimum of six inches of Class 5 gravel and minimum one
inch sand setting bed.
(d) Additional materials not listed herein shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Public Works Director.
For the construction of commercial drives
vi.
vii.
viii.
(a) For concrete: Four inches of compacted sand and six inches of concrete;
(b) For blacktop bituminous: Four inches of Class 5 and four inches of bituminous.
The sand or aggregate base should be compacted to 100 percent of the Standard Proctor
Density.
An additional sub-cut, depending on the condition of the underlying soils, should be
considered to prevent heaving or settlement of the driveway.
Driveways for two-way traffic shall be 24 feet.
(4) Aisles. Circulation aisles necessary for maneuvering within a parking facility
shall be designed so that vehicles do not back out into a street, sidewalk or other
public way, other than a residential alley. In general, double-loaded aisles are preferred
to single-loaded aisles.
(5) Curbing. All commercial, industrial or multifamily residential parking lots with five or
more spaces shall have continuous concrete curbing around the entire parking lot.
(6) Border barricades. Every parking facility containing angled or 90-degree parking spaces
adjacent to a street right-of-way shall, except at entrance and exit drives, be developed
with a solid curb or barrier along such street right-of-way line; or shall be provided with
a suitable concrete barrier at least six inches in height and located not less than two feet
from such street right-of-way line. Such wall, fence, curb or barrier shall be securely
installed and maintained.
(7) Surfacing. All off-street parking facilities shall be surfaced. Permitted surface types are:
a minimum of five inches of concrete, or 1 inches of asphalt overlying four inches of
base rock except temporary off- street parking facilities, which may be surfaced by
placement of a single bituminous surface treatment upon an aggregate base, which
bituminous treatment and base shall be subject to the approval of the director of public
works. All off-street parking shall be so graded and drained as to dispose of all surface
water from within the area; in no case shall such drainage be allowed to cross sidewalks.
i.
Gravel: Parking facilities with gravel or crushed rock surfaces (or similar
materials) are not permitted. Although, any such parking facility existing on or
before the adoption date of this prohibition on such surfaces will be considered a
legal non-conforming parking facility. These parking facilities may be maintained,
but not expanded. If the property owner chooses to maintain the non-conforming
parking facility, Gravel parking spaces shall be permitted in residential districts
only. A minimum of four inches of compacted Class 5 material must be
maintained. Moreover, this surface must have edging on all sides.
ii. Concrete: a minimum of five inches;
iii. Asphalt bituminous: Four inches of base rock with 1 inches of asphalt;
iv. Paver: Minimum four inches of Class 5 gravel and minimum one inch sand setting
bed. Six to eight inches of Class 5 gravel and minimum one inch sand setting
bed.
v. Temporary off- street parking facilities: may be surfaced by placement of a single bituminous
surface treatment upon an aggregate base, which bituminous treatment and base shall be
subject to the approval of the director of public works.
vi. All off-street parking shall be so graded and drained as to dispose of all surface water from
within the area; in no case shall such drainage be allowed to cross sidewalks.
(8) Marking. Parking spaces within a facility shall be clearly painted and delineated.
(9) Lighting. Any lights provided to illuminate any parking facility permitted by this
subdivision shall be arranged so as to reflect the light away from any adjacent
properties, streets or highways.
(10) Landscaping and screening. Landscaping shall be provided in new parking lot
construction and reconstruction. Landscaping is employed to diminish the visibility
and impact of parked cars by screening and visually separating them from surrounding
activities and the street; to provide shade and relief from paved areas; to channel the
flow of traffic; and generally contribute to good site design. Trees, shrubs, ground
covering and earth berming shall be used for lot landscaping. Every parking facility
abutting property located in residential districts shall be separated from such property
by a wall, planter or a view-obscuring fence; or a raised landscaped mound of earth,
sand stones or the like; or by a permanently maintained compact evergreen hedge; or a
combination of any of the preceding treatments. Such screening devices shall be six feet
in height, measured from the grade of the finished surface of such parking facility, along
the abutting residential property.
Subd. 2. Off-street loading facilities.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the regulations in this subdivision is to reduce street
congestion and traffic hazards; and to add to the safety and convenience of the
community. Adequate, attractively designed and functional facilities for off-street
loading shall be incorporated as necessary in conjunction with new uses of land in the
city.
(b) General provisions. For every building erected, which is to be occupied by
manufacturing, storage, warehouse, retail and/or wholesale store, market, hotel,
hospital, mortuary, laundry, dry cleaning or other uses similarly requiring the receipt or
distribution by vehicles of material and merchandise, off-street loading areas shall be
provided in accordance with the requirements in this subdivision.
(c) Required areas. Required areas are as follows:
(2) Each loading space shall be not less than ten feet in width, 30 feet in length and
with an overhead clearance of 14 feet.
(3) The space may occupy all or any part of any required yard or court space, except
for any exterior side yards; and shall not be located closer than 50 feet to any lot in
an R district, unless inside a structure or separated from such district by a wall not
less than eight feet in height, provided a conditional fence permit is approved.
Subd. 3. Miscellaneous off-street parking and loading standards.
(a) In CA zoning district. All automotive uses allowed in the CA general commercial
zoning district that are adjacent to a residential zone must maintain the required front
yard setback area in a clear condition without permanently parked or stored
automobiles, trailers, vehicles or other stored items or materials used for or accessory to
the automotive use. Short term daily customer parking is allowed in the setback area
but the area must be clear when the business is closed.
(b) In VC district. When a property within the VC district is directly across a street or
thoroughfare or adjacent to any residential district, all parking and loading facilities
must be at least 20 feet from the property line and buildings and structures at least 20
feet from the street. The setback space must be permanently landscaped.
(c) In CRD district.
(1) All parking areas must be set back a minimum of 20 feet from any street right-ofway.
(2) All parking areas must be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the property line of
any residentially zoned property, where adjacent property is already developed for
residential use or is designated residential use on the city's comprehensive plan.
(3) All parking areas must be set back a minimum of ten feet from any peripheral
property line other than a street right-of-way or residentially zoned property.
(4) Each establishment must provide sufficient off street parking spaces for all
employees, customers and visitors. The number of parking spaces must be
determined at the time of preliminary development plan approval, but in no event
may there be less than three spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area or
portion thereof shown on the plan and in no event may there be less than 3.8
spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area of office and research buildings.
Some parking may, at the discretion of the planning commission or city council, be
built in stages.
(5) Each establishment must provide an adequate loading space within a building or
in a side or rear yard, in a way that will allow all storage, standing and
maneuvering of trucks to be off the public right-of-way.
(6) No portion of a parking or loading space, including maneuvering area, except the
necessary drives, may be located closer than 20 feet from a public street right-ofway.
(d) In PA district.
(1) Parking adjacent to residential property. All parking areas for three or more cars
adjacent to residentially zoned land shall be set back a minimum of ten feet and
landscaped to screen the parking area from the residentially zoned land.
(e) In PWFD district.
(1) All parking areas must be set back to a minimum of 20 feet from any of the
property lines. (2) Parking areas, driveways or outside storage areas must be set back
a minimum of 30 feet
from the property line of any residentially zoned property.
(3) Adequate parking must be provided for employees and visitors. The number of
spaces must be determined for current and future possible expanded use at time of
PUD review.
(4) No parking area loading space, or maneuvering area may be closer than 30 feet
from public right-of-way. This regulation does not apply to entrance and egress
driveway.
(5) Parking lots and drives may be shared with adjacent park areas. Subd. 4. Tax.
(a) In areas of the city with zero lot lines or similar conditions, new development or
changes of use subject to this chapter, cannot meet parking requirements without a
variance or other accommodation. In these cases, as a condition of approval of parking
variances or accommodations, applicants are required to pay an "in lieu" parking fee by
purchasing parking permits for use of city parking lots on an ongoing basis in a number
necessary to mitigate the impact of not meeting the parking standards.
(b) Efforts to secure the payment of this "in lieu" fee have been time-consuming and notices
have often been ignored.
(c) The applicants are hereby classified as a subject for taxation and the extent of use of
this class is determined the "in lieu" fee required to mitigate as set forth as a condition
of approval of a permit or variance issued under this section.
(d) There is hereby created a parking tax, as permitted by M.S.A. 459.14, subd. 2(5) in an
amount equal to "in lieu" charges that remain unpaid 90 days after a written demand to
pay notice is sent by mail to the applicant.
(e) On an annual basis, this tax will be certified to the county auditor for collection with the
real estate taxes to the parcel that received the variance or accommodation.
(Ord. No. 1075, 1, 4-21-15; Ord. No. 1081, 8, 7-21-15)
Subd. 5. Permit required.

No off-street parking facility or driveway may be constructed without first obtaining a
permit. The fee shall be established by resolution of the city council.
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SEC. 31-101,
DEFINITIONS, SEC. 31-510, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING, AND
SECTION 33-5, MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF DRIVEWAYS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN:
Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish standards for the parking of
vehicles in the Front and Side Yard areas and to to combined standards for the
construction and reconstruction of driveways.
1. Repeal. City Code Chapter 33-5, Minimum standards for construction and
reconstruction of driveways, is hereby repealed.
2. Amending. Stillwater City Code Section 31-101, Definitions, is amended to add
the following:
Vehicle means any car, truck, 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 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.
3. Amending. Stillwater City Code Section 31-101, Definitions, shall be
renumbered to accommodate the aforementioned definition addition.
4. Amending. Stillwater City Code Section 31-510, Off-street parking and loading,
is amended as follows:
Subd. 1. (a) Purpose.
The purpose of the regulations contained in this Section 31-510 is to reduce street
congestion and traffic hazards in the city, to add to the safety and convenience of
its citizens, by incorporating adequate, attractively designed, and functional
facilities for off-street parking and drives as an integral part of every use of land in
the city, and to establish minimum standards for the construction and
reconstruction of off-street parking facilities and driveway areas.
Subd. 1. (b) General provisions.
i.
At the time any building or structure is constructed or erected or
modified, there shall be provided, on the same site, for the use of
occupants, guests, clients, customers or visitors thereof, off-street parking
ii.
spaces for vehicles in accordance with the requirements in this Section 31510.
Parking vehicles in the Front or Side Yard area of all districts, with the
exception of the Agricultural Preservation (AP) district, shall be in
conformance with the requirements in this Section 31-510.
a. Parking of vehicles on grass in the Front Yard and Exterior Side Yard areas of
all districts shall be prohibited.
b. 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
vehicle must maintain at least a five foot (5) setback from the side lot line.
Subd. 1. (f) Design requirements. Design requirements shall be as follows:

1. Parking space.
i.
Each parking space shall be at least nine feet in width and 18 feet in
length exclusive of an adequately designed system of access drive.
ii.
Parking spaces shall be created on, or contiguous to, driveways.
a) In residential districts, parking spaces are not required to be
contiguous to driveways.
2. Parking facility layout.
i.
There shall be no off-street parking spaces located within 15 feet of
any street right-of-way or five feet of any property line except in the
central business district where spaces may be allowed with an
approved design permit.
a) Existing nonconforming driveways shall be allowed to be
maintained, repaired and replaced. Expansion of the
nonconforming setback shall not be permitted.
ii.
New parking facilities shall not encompass greater than 50% of the
total Front Yard area in any residential district.
3. Access to spaces or facilities. Driveway design standards are as follows:
i.
Driveways shall be designed to conform with existing contours to
the maximum extent feasible.
a) Driveways shall be in conformance with the design standards
found in City Code Section 31-521 and the requirements in this
Section 31-510.
ii.
Driveways shall enter public/private streets in such a manner as to
maintain an adequate line of sight.
iii.
Driveways with gravel or crushed rock surfaces (or similar
materials) are not permitted. Although, any such driveways
existing on or before the adoption date of this prohibition on such
surfaces will be considered a legal non-conforming driveway. These
driveways may be maintained, but not expanded. . If the property
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
7.
owner chooses to maintain the non-conforming driveway, a

minimum of four inches of compacted Class 5 material must be
maintained.
For the construction of residential driveways:
a) Concrete driveways: Four inches of compacted sand and five
inches of concrete;
b) Bituminous driveways: Four inches of Class 5 gravel and two
inches of bituminous;
c) Paver driveways: A minimum of six inches of Class 5 gravel
and a minimum of one inch sand bed.
d) Additional materials not listed herein shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Public Works Director.
For the construction of commercial drives
(i) For concrete: Four inches of compacted sand and six inches of
concrete;
(ii) For bituminous: Four inches of Class 5 and four inches of
bituminous.
The sand or aggregate base should be compacted to 100 percent of
the Standard Proctor Density.
An additional sub-cut, depending on the condition of the
underlying soils, should be considered to prevent heaving or
settlement of the driveway.
Driveways for two-way traffic shall be 24 feet.
Surfacing. All off-street parking facilities shall be surfaced. Permitted

surface types are:
i.
Gravel: Gravel parking spaces shall be permitted in residential
districts. A minimum of four inches of compacted Class 5 material
must be maintained. Moreover, this surface must have edging on
all sides.
ii.
Concrete: a minimum of five inches;
iii.
Bituminous: Four inches of base rock with 1 inches of asphalt;
iv.
Paver: Six to eight inches of Class 5 gravel and minimum one inch
sand setting bed.
v.
Temporary off- street parking facilities: may be surfaced by
placement of a single bituminous surface treatment upon an
aggregate base, which bituminous treatment and base shall be
subject to the approval of the director of public works.
vi.
All off-street parking shall be so graded and drained as to dispose
of all surface water from within the area; in no case shall such
drainage be allowed to cross sidewalks.
Subd. 5. Permit required.

No driveway shall be constructed without first obtaining a permit. The fee shall be
established by resolution of the city council.
5. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapters 31 shall remain in full force and
effect.
6. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and publication according to the law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this
day of March, 2016.
CITY OF STILLWATER
______________________________
Ted Kozlowski, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Diane F. Ward, City Clerk

Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Stillwater Yard Parking Amendment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

MEETING DATE: March 22, 2016

CASE NO.: 2016-04

Consideration of adoption of new regulations pertaining to parking

Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner

Amend to indicate no parking on grass in the Front Yard area.

Under General Provisions, the following has been added:

In residential districts, parking spaces are not required to be contiguous to

Up to 36 Long 1 per lot

Maximum two vehicles per dwelling

CITY COUNCIL REPORT

CASE NO.: 2016-04

Consideration of adoption of new regulations pertaining to parking

Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner

COMMUNITY INPUT SURVEY SUMMARY

DRAFT ORDINANCE SUMMARY

ANTICIPATED ORDINANCE IMPACT & PRELIMINARY AERIAL ASSESSMENT

There are some inherent limitations to the survey conducted:

As presented to the Stillwater Planning Commission on November 9, 2015 (Page 1 of 3)

As presented to the Stillwater Planning Commission on November 9, 2015 (Page 2 of 3)

As presented to the Stillwater Planning Commission on November 9, 2015 (Page 3 of 3)

As presented to the Stillwater Planning Commission on November 9, 2015 (Page 1 of 1)

RV:Notwithin15'ofthe RV:Notwithin5'ofthe RV:Notwithin5'ofthe

Table 10.3 B: Types of Vehicles Permitted to be Parked on Residential Lots

On the designated driveway or hard

One (1) commercially licensed vehicle per

Large recreational vehicles such as travel

One (1) per lot.

Motorboats, sailboats, and unoccupied

On the designated driveway or hard

Other smaller recreational vehicles as

In interior side and rear yards subject to

Draft Public Input Survey: Yard Parking

The City should not regulate parking in rear yards.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer,

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Hade, Hansen, Lauer, Middleton,

January 13, 2016

Chairman Kocon opened the public hearing.

January 13, 2016

January 13, 2016

January 13, 2016

January 13, 2016

January 13, 2016

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Chairman Kocon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Chairman Kocon, Commissioners Collins, Fletcher, Lauer, Siess, Council Representative

February 10, 2016

February 10, 2016

February 10, 2016

February 10, 2016

February 10, 2016

February 10, 2016

Draft Yard Parking Ordinance: Legislative Version

four or fewer off-street parking spaces.

The lot is to be used only for parking of passenger automobiles of

No charge is to be made for parking on the lot.

No advertising sign or material is to be located on the lot.

(2) Parking facility layout.