After Mayor Joel Greer called for an initial motion to approve the first reading of the Chapter 156 changes, Marshalltown Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Jon Boston explained some of the work the commission has undertaken over the last several months to update the regulations and ensure there are no longer any conflicting passages between the two sections.

“We totally reviewed the maximums and minimums on the parking spaces and changed the number of the maximums. We found some of them that were just plain not needed. Some of them were way understated and would really restrict businesses as they were developed,” he said. “A good example is (that) all of the Kwik Stars and Casey’s were only gonna be allowed about 20 to 30 percent of the parking spaces they have today, so we adjusted those.”

Another change was ensuring that parking in front of one’s garage door would be counted as a parking spot, according to Boston, and the fact that the size of a parking spot was different in different places, which he said has now been standardized to nine feet wide and 18 feet long. Perhaps the most notable change is the increase in the maximum number of cars allowed to be legally parked outside on a residential property, from four to six.

The regulations governing the maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on a property apply to external spaces and not garages or accessory buildings, Boston added. Councilor Greg Nichols thanked Boston and the commission members for “all of the exciting reading” they get to do, and Greer joked that he had picked quite a time to continue serving with the ongoing discussions over both parking and ground solar arrays in 2024.

Marshalltown Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Jon Boston addresses the city council during a discussion on parking rules as part of Monday night’s meeting.

During the public comment period, Julie Miller, who owns a downtown building on East Main Street, stepped forward and expounded on remarks she had shared during the previous meeting expressing concern about downtown parking restrictions especially with the looming reconstruction of Main Street.

Focusing on the rule that prohibits street parking between 2:30 and 5:30 a.m. Miller shared the story of a recent trip to deal with a tenant’s bat issue that resulted in her receiving a parking ticket at 4 a.m.

“It seems excessive when there’s absolutely not a soul downtown. I was down there on business trying to handle something,” she said.

She wondered when and why the restriction was put into effect and didn’t think it served much of a purpose. City Clerk Alicia Hunter then clarified that the rule in question was part of Chapter 77 and would need to be addressed in a separate action by the council. She added that some form of the restriction had been in place since 1931, and as the property owner, Miller could apply for permits allowing for residents of the buildings to reserve street parking spots.

Miller responded that a permit would be “awesome” for her and someone like Jeff Simms, who will have apartments in the neighboring building at 26 E. Main St. once the redevelopment is completed, but she still didn’t feel the overnight restriction was necessary in the first place.

Councilor Jeff Schneider wondered if the reason for the rule was to prevent permanent parking of vehicles on downtown streets, and Miller said she had no problem towing offenders who stayed in the same spot for longer than 24 hours.

“The average citizen/business owner downtown shouldn’t have to be in this situation because of someone who just blatantly leaves a vehicle. That should be under the three hour rotation that we all know we have to move our vehicle. We can’t just leave it, or we park in long-term places,” she said.

Police Chief Mike Tupper then came forward and said parking enforcement has been “a difficult issue” for his department as, at different times throughout his 13-year tenure, he has been pressured to enforce parking codes more strictly. When the MPD does, he added, people get mad.

“You guys would all be heroes if you told the cops not to enforce that anymore, so if that’s what you want, that’s fine. But it’s on the books, and we’re trying to do the best we can. And we have a lot of dueling responsibilities, so you let us know what you think we should do,” Tupper said.

Schneider asked the chief about techniques used to determine which cars were staying parked for too long, and he said he didn’t want to disclose them publicly for fear of “counter-techniques” being used to subvert them.

“We do our best. It’s not as easy as you might hope, but we do our best,” Tupper said.

After Hunter reminded the council that they were considering a motion on Chapter 156 and not Chapter 77, Councilor Gary Thompson suggested bringing back changes to Chapter 77 at a later date and noted that there used to be 10 to 12 bars downtown, which could have prompted a desire to keep vehicles off the street overnight.

“As we want more apartments downtown after we redo Main Street, this is gonna become a bigger issue. So we need to figure out a way to make it convenient for the tenants and the owners to be able to park in front of their buildings — limited time, obviously,” Thompson said.

Tupper added that from a public safety standpoint, he would prefer if bar patrons left their cars downtown as opposed to driving home drunk. Councilor Mike Ladehoff then shared his concern about homeless people who live in cars parking downtown overnight and “turning into something that we really don’t want.”

Councilor Barry Kell then called a point of order, noting, like Hunter had before, that the topic being discussed was not germane to the motion being considered, but Greer nonetheless allowed Miller to return to the podium and comment again — she felt the homeless situation would be “very minimal” and “easily identified.”

Ultimately, the original motion to pass the first reading of the changes to Chapter 156 carried unanimously.

Chapter 72 discussion

The only discussion item on the agenda before the council went into closed session was a review of Chapter 72 of the code governing parking, and Boston again stepped forward to provide a summary of the review the P&Z Commission has conducted over the last few months.

Thompson asked Boston if he felt the commission had caught any and every potential conflict between Chapters 72 and 156, and the chairman responded that he believed they did.

Thompson also wondered if the new ordinances would be enforceable.

“We believe they’re enforceable, it’s just whether the people are in place to enforce them and have the time to enforce them,” Boston said.

Boston added that the impetus for the entire conversation on said rules was the number of inoperable and/or unlicensed “junk” vehicles parked in yards across the community.

“Granted, there are some businesses that have vehicles that obviously not in that category if they’re running a body shop (or) a salvage yard,” Boston said. “You’re gonna get a body shop that brings a vehicle in, it comes off the wrecker and they can’t move until they drag it in, start tearing it apart and fixing it. That’s pretty obvious. We’re talking about just a general, maybe a mechanic’s shop with a junk car sitting there that needs to be moved.”

Public Works Director Heather Thomas stepped forward next to highlight a few of the changes and seek clarification on penalties and fees for noncompliance. Previously, she said, neither Chapter 72 nor 156 had clear definitions of corner yards, front yards, side yards and rear yards, which the proposed new code clears up, and some sections are referred directly back to Chapter 156 to avoid confusion.

Chapter 72 currently stipulates that only four vehicles can be on a property in a side and rear yard, and as previously mentioned, the new language says a single family can have up to six vehicles on a property as long as they are positioned on permitted driveway surfaces. Vehicles, trailers and RVs longer than 30 feet count as two vehicles, and only two trailers would be allowed per residential property.

The restriction on street or alleyway parking for over 24 hours will remain in place, but there is language to allow for temporary services, such as if a contractor is working on a property.

“That one, in my mind, could be difficult from an enforcement standpoint, but that was Planning and Zoning’s recommendation,” Thomas said.

The city will now have the ability to restrict parking in and blocking alleys with a two-minute short service option related to the downtown improvements. Thomas said the P&Z Commission liked for the guidelines on total surfacing allowed by driveways. For driveway extensions, the maximum allowance will be 10 feet plus the width of the overhang on the garage for taller vehicles that won’t fit.

In the business section, the Central Iowa Fairgrounds have an exception to allow grass parking, and businesses primarily selling agricultural products with a site over four acres can also have on-grass parking as long as it is maintained. Businesses can also be granted exceptions for group gatherings, receptions or meetings where vehicles can be parked anywhere on the lot for up to eight hours but not overnight.

Thomas then shifted the conversation to enforcement, noting that a new staff person has been hired as a hybrid parking and code enforcement officer. Currently, the Marshalltown Police Department is tasked with enforcing parking rules, and the new language will open that up to give the new city staff member that power as well.

Thompson, who lives on Byron Street near the downtown area, said there are no alternating parking signs there, and sometimes his van sits in front of his house for more than 24 hours at a time.

“Are you gonna sign that somehow, or do I need to tell all the neighbors that you have to move it once a day, roll it forward six feet? How do you want to handle situations like that?” he asked.

Thomas responded that the city’s ordinance already prohibits street parking for more than 24 hours, and the situations are primarily complaint driven. She noted a specific case where city staff asked the MPD to examine a vehicle that had been parked on Byron Street for weeks on end.

Hunter said penalties and fees must be set in the ordinance, not by resolution, and she shared some thoughts on a staff review of the current collection procedures. Currently, a standard parking ticket is $20 with a $5 late fee added after 30 days — snow ordinance violations are $25 with a $10 late fee, and fire hydrant and yard parking are $30 fines with a $5 late fee added after 30 days. Handicap parking violations are a $100 fine with no late fee.

City staff, Hunter added, recommended upping the late fees to $15 but giving violators 60 days instead of 30 days before they kick in, allowing for more time to pay them. The annual fee of $5 on any outstanding parking violation would also be eliminated.

“That would decrease the amount of time that staff have to deal with a single citation that is unpaid,” Hunter said.

With no public comments and no action on the table, Thomas said she would bring the first of three ordinance readings back for official action at a future meeting.

——

Contact Robert Maharry at 641-753-6611 ext. 255 or rmaharry@timesrepublican.com.