The Marshalltown city council spent the last half hour plus of last Monday night’s biweekly regular meeting discussing parking rules amidst ongoing complaints about yard parking within the community and various codes coming into conflict with each other.

Public Works Director Heather Thomas said they have frequently heard from residents on the issue and wanted to bring clarity to city ordinances with council direction. Yard parking both on grass and gravel is one of the most common complaints, and Thomas noted that in 2010, the city council at the time passed an ordinance amendment restricting new gravel going in the front yards of residential driveways, meaning they all needed to be hard surfaces.

In November and December of 2023, the city’s engineering staff studied the yard parking problem around town and identified 364 properties where vehicles were either parked on grass or “gravel-ish” areas. The review prompted a review of Chapter 72 in the city code and an attempt to reconcile discrepancies between zoning code, fire code, the aforementioned Chapter 72 and the driveway permitting process.

There was also conflicting information, Thomas said, on whether vehicles could be parked in a terrace or street right of way area, and she planned to clarify that to allow it if it does not create a “visual hazard.”

“We have some businesses that have a paved terrace where it is intended for people to park, but we don’t want those vehicles there for more than 24 hours. So we’ve clarified sections of this code so it all says the same (thing),” she said.

Thomas also recommended a change in the width of an allowable extension for a driveway from 10 feet to 16 feet, which she felt would help property owners hoping to complete improvements. First, she asked the council if they agreed that gravel should not be permitted in front yard driveways, but At-Large Councilor Gary Thompson, who lives in the First Ward, pointed out that there are “a ton” of gravel driveways in his neighborhood and wondered if residents would be allowed to re-gravel an existing driveway. Thomas said it would be allowed, and the city has a catalog of historical photos to reference which ones are which. Additionally, if grass and weeds pop up, it would constitute a yard parking violation.

After sensing a consensus on the first question, Thomas asked for feedback on allowing gravel lots on side and rear yards. Councilor Barry Kell felt the city should look to other similarly sized communities for guidance on their rules and regulations, and Councilor Mike Ladehoff, citing the example of a friend he referred to as “Keith,” felt gravel should be allowed in backyards and side yards.

A question from Councilor Greg Nichols about fire code brought Deputy Fire Chief and soon-to-be Acting Fire Chief Christopher Cross to the podium, and he provided some distinctions between different types of structures like single-family homes, duplexes and larger apartment buildings.

Thompson cited the example of corner lots and worried about older homes being subdivided into apartments and the whole rear yard being turned into a gravel lot. Thomas felt there was enough in the code that would classify a corner lot as a front yard and not allow gravel there.

“As far as allowing somebody to gravel their entire rear yard, it’s a concern, and it’s not a concern right now that’s addressed in our zoning code. That’s something that we can put some language together to try to restrict that, and what may restrict that is gonna be one of the next items I talk about as far as how many vehicles would be allowed in the rear inside yard,” she said.

Councilor Jeff Schneider worried that allowing too much graveling would encourage “hoarding” in backyards, so he felt more inclined to support requiring a hard surface. Ladehoff then clarified that he only felt gravel should be allowed on a pad, not an entire backyard. Councilor Al Hoop then recalled the ordinance as allowing as many cars as will fit on a hard surface main driveway but only two on a combination of side or backyard driveway.

Nichols asked if some of the properties on the north side with more vehicles than that parked were in violation of city code — and how that would affect units where everyone should have their own parking space — and Thomas said they would be in violation and others would be required to park on the street.

City code requires landlords to provide off-street parking for new builds, but according to Thomas, there are older properties considered to be grandfathered in where such accommodation is not required. Thompson said he didn’t want to see backyards turned into parking lots, and Ladehoff called for being “flexible” but fair.

Councilor Mark Mitchell asked if boats and boat trailers would be included, to which Thomas responded affirmatively, and Kell wondered about ways to keep people from rushing to fill more spaces with gravel and claim that they’re grandfathered in, thus perpetuating the problem into the future.

In response, Thomas said the ordinance could only be enforced after it became effective. Under the current timeline, a third reading would not pass until the April 22 meeting.

“I say that, but you have to realize that our driveway permit right now doesn’t allow gravel in the backyard, so we have a conflict in our ordinance and what our driveway permit says. And that’s one of the reasons this is coming forward to you,” she said.

Thompson then suggested eliminating all alleys to solve the problem of backyard parking. Thomas moved onto the question of whether the council would like to keep the limit to two vehicles for side and backyard driveways as there are currently many properties in violation of the code. Nichols again asked about houses split into multi-family units, and Thompson agreed that some sort of exception would need to be made for them.

“It’s just the nature of the beast. The older houses on the north side were single family homes and now they’re not anymore,” Thompson said.

Thomas proposed 1.5 vehicles per unit, and Nichols said he felt it would work. While Ladehoff said he didn’t feel as many homes were being split off as in the past, Kell preferred having rules in place because it could still be an issue in the future.

With consensus on the 1.5 vehicle rule, Thomas then discussed whether or not the council should allow parking pads not connected to a driveway for seasonal or temporary parking of vehicles like boats and RVs during the winter. She felt it would help keep boats out of front driveways, and she sensed a consensus there before moving to the last item, yard parking ordinance suspension in the event of a snow emergency.

Thomas said she has heard stories of such a practice working in other communities, and she didn’t feel it would generate the same level of complaints as the current situation. Schneider shared his concern about sending “mixed messages” by allowing residents to park in their yards on some occasions but not others.

With the floor opened up to public comment, Jimmy Landt recounted his own experiences being rejected on previous applications to expand his garage and asked what the difference was with the parking lots. Thomas wasn’t aware of the specific details of the situation but said she would run it through the planning and zoning department before the ordinance change comes back for a first reading.

Dave Grieve, a Marshalltown native who recently returned to the community and bought the Doo Dah’s building, told the council he was struggling to find a place to live with a garage and wondered about tax abatement for vacant lots to be redeveloped.

“My only concern is you’re putting a bunch of rules on rules on rules and codes and codes and codes. There are already 15,000 ordinances in this town. It’s difficult to do anything. That’s all I’m gonna say,” Grieve said.

No official motions were made, and the meeting was then adjourned.

——

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