Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-04/17/2017COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 17, 2017 4:00 p.m. Harold E. Getty Council Chambers Members present: Jacobs, Morrissey, Powers, Lind, Amos, Schmitt, and Welper. Moved by Schmitt seconded by Amos that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Voice vote - Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. Objective: Amendment to the 2007 City of Waterloo Code of Ordinances, by adding to Title 6, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, a new Chapter 7, Parking in Residential Areas. Aric Schroeder, City Planner, provided an overview of the proposed changes from the original agenda and since the agenda was tabled on April 3, 2017, at the Regular Session. Mr. Schmitt questioned the pros and cos of the concrete pad language in the proposed ordinance change. Aric Schroeder explained that the previous version of the ordinance required that a concrete pad be poured in order to park a recreational vehicle. The proposed ordinance allows for flexibility and will allow vehicles to be parked on pads in the backyard if screened. Mr. Schmitt questioned if the hard surface is to prevent oils or gas from leaking into the ground but if it is purely for aesthetics then he believes it is a moot point. Aric Schroeder explained that he believes that protection of the ground was an intention of the original ordinance. Mr. Schmitt questioned if this was the reason that commercial car dealerships were required to hard surface their property. Aric Schroeder explained that part of that change was to help with dust control and erosion. He further explained the time allowance provisions for RV parking and the permit and appeals portion of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lind commented that the proposed permit allowance for certain recreational vehicles may create issues between neighbors and possibly problems for city council. He recommended keeping this a neighborhood issue, allowing neighbors to make decisions about their own neighborhood. Aric Schroeder explained that he agrees that there are potential draw backs to developing a permitting process for large recreational vehicles. Mr. Lind questioned who would have to sign off on having large recreational vehicles. Aric Schroeder explained that property owners on either side of the home and all neighbors across the street. Mr. Lind commented that he thinks that the appeal to council should be removed as he does not believe that council should be able to override neighbors. Mr. Schmitt asked for the definition of recreational vehicle as it applies to this ordinance. Aric Schroeder clarified what qualifies as a recreational vehicle. Mr. Lind questioned if the definition includes construction trailers and also asked if this eliminates semi -tractors in driveways. Aric Schroeder confirmed that construction trailers are included in the definition of a recreational vehicle. He further explained that he did try to do research on how other communities regulate Page 2 parking and they were, for the most part, all over the map. He commented that some did have provisions for commercial vehicles. Mr. Welper commented that he believes that the ordinance is too difficult for citizens to understand and Code Enforcement to enforce and would like to see it simplified. Mr. Powers commented that he drove around and saw recreational vehicles parked in front of houses and that those citizens spend quite a bit of money in town. He further commented that public safety play a part in the ordinance. He further believed there is an issue with contractors having the ability to set up trailers in town on a construction site and that the city should not be trying to regulate beauty. Aric Schroeder explained that a 20 foot setback could be a feasible condition. Mr. Powers reiterated that his primary concern is public safety. Mr. Morrissey questioned why the city does not currently have parking regulations. Aric Schroeder explained that in 2015 the city was working on changes to International Property Maintenance code, where parking regulations were considered an addendum. In 2015, the city council passed an ordinance abolishing the old International Property Maintenance Code, along with the parking regulations addendum. Council adopted a new International Property Maintenance Code, however adopting a new chapter for the parking regulations was not passed, in large part, due to the recreational vehicle issue. Mr. Morrissey questioned why the old regulations were not maintained in lieu of developing new regulations. Aric Schroeder explained that the old regulations expired before council took action. Mr. Morrissey questioned if there is a problem with not having parking regulations. Aric Schroeder explained that Code Enforcement is having issues with front yard parking on grass. Mr. Morrissey questioned if the council could renew the old regulations pending suitable language. Aric Schroeder explained it could be done effectively by passing the proposed ordinance with a suggestion to use the previous wording temporarily. Mr. Morrissey explained that he would be in favor of moving the old parking regulations forward until a new parking ordinance could be agreed upon. Mr. Schmitt explained that he agrees with Mr. Morrissey and is in favor of moving forward. Mr. Lind explained that the council should vote on what is proposed. Mr. Welper commented that he was involved in re -writing the ordinance for a year to include stricter regulations, however it was voted down. Aric Schroeder explained that some of the provisions are less restrictive. Mr. Powers commented that he agrees with Mr. Morrissey and Mr. Schmitt and that the old regulations should be re -adopted, but the recreational proposal should be excluded and studied going forward. Mr. Morrissey concurred with Mr. Powers, but suggests moving forward with the proposal, as is, with a motion to amend. Page 3 Mr. Welper clarified that the suggestion is to eliminate parking in the front yard, and continue to work on the ordinance. Mr. Morrissey clarified that the suggestions is to move forward to full council with the proposed ordinance in its entirety, and a motion can be made at the regular session, to amend the ordinance to exclude certain language. Mr. Welper commented that it should be corrected prior to going to council. Mr. Amos commented that at this time there is no parking ordinance in place and something needs to be in place so Code Enforcement can do their job. He clarified that he supports Mr. Morrissey in passing the proposal as is to get an ordinance passed, and amend as necessary later. Mr. Welper reiterated they need to make changes before moving forward to full council. Mr. Schmitt explained that Mr. Powers suggested adopting everything except the RV part. Mr. Powers agreed and stated that he is ready to move forward on no parking in the front yard except for washing vehicles. Mr. Jacobs questioned which sections of the proposed ordinance address recreational vehicles, and if those sections could just be excluded from the vote and revisited later. He further asked for clarification of the backyard restrictions. Mr. Welper explained that another session may be needed for consensus. Aric Schroeder commented that the item was tabled to April 24, 2017, and having another work session would not allow it to return to regular session on that date. Kelley Felchle, City Clerk, explained that if council wishes to have another work session on the issue, then that would take precedence, and it must pass committee before going before council. Mr. Morrissey questioned the need for another work session if there appears to be a consensus about eliminating recreational vehicles. Mr. Powers commented that he would like to see it move forward next week except B and D. Mr. Welper polled the committee, and it was agreed to move the item to full council, excluding Sections B and D, which can be discussed at a work session next week. Mr. Morrissey questioned if semi tractors will be added. Aric Schroeder explained that it would need to be addressed at a later date. Objective: ATE (Automated Traffic Enforcement) Dan Trelka, Chief of Police, explained that there is a problem in Waterloo with people running red lights and, as a result, causing traffic accidents. He explained that when he first moved to Iowa he was not in favor of automated traffic enforcement but after discussions with the Cedar Rapids Police Chief and looking at their statistics, he has become an advocate. He would like to put ATEs at six to eight intersections and most contracts are for three years, and study the results for that period of time. Mr. Lind commented that the legislature is currently discussing restricting proceeds to streets and stop signs and questioned if it includes traffic and public safety cameras. Dan Trelka explained that he has not seen any restrictions coming from the legislature on how funding is used but that he does believe the ATEs could be used to help with surveillance. He further explained that the contract does not cost the city anything but that they take a portion of the revenue generated. Page 4 Mr. Lind questioned an appeal process for the tickets. Dan Trelka explained that they would be reviewed by an officer and that an appeal process would be in place to possibly override tickets. Mr. Schmitt supports the use of technology to assist in public safety, and questioned the down side of ATEs. Dan Trelka explained that studies show that rear end crashes can increase but side impact crashes decrease. He further explained that side impact crashes result in more deaths than rear end crashes. Mr. Powers commented that revenue generated might also be used to reduce the tax base along with the camera system discussed. He further questioned why only six cameras are being suggested. Dan Trelka explained that he would like to see 6-8 cameras at intersections and move forward if it is successful. Mr. Jacobs questioned if the traffic tickets would affect the driver's record. Dan Trelka explained that the tickets do not go on your driving record. He further explained that the city can set the rate for the traffic tickets and should be $50-$60 dollars so as to not overly burden residents. Mr. Morrissey questioned if the cameras would run constantly. Dan Trelka explained that it would record for up to 30 days. Mr. Morrissey questioned who would have access to the video. Dan Trelka explained that it would be up to the city to decide who has access to the video. Mr. Welper polled the committee for a consensus, and it was agreed to move forward with the item. With no further business before the Council, it was moved by Schmitt seconded by Jacobs that the meeting be adjourned at 4:57 p.m. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. Kelley Felc City Clerk