 The ordinance has been a controversial issue with the council
for the last 10 months. The Tuesday night committee of the whole was
no exception, as objections to terms, language and even the
ordinance itself kept the discussion on the subject lively.
Discussions began with David Wilmert telling the council the actual
ordinance was now written. He said there had been changes to the
language, based on the last discussions the council has had on the
subject.
He noted in particular that a Section C had been added that
offered a sunset clause or expiration date for the ordinance. The
sunset is one year. It allows that in 12 months the council will be
able to evaluate the effectiveness of the ordinance and then
determine whether or not to revoke it or continue it into the
future.
Wilmert said another change that had been made was to remove
livestock trailers from the list of acceptable trailers that can be
parked in driveways or adjacent all-weather surfaces.
Homemade trailers were added to the list of acceptable items.
Wilmert said this was based on a photo zoning and safety officer
John Lebegue had shown where a trailer had been made from the bed of
a pickup truck.
The definition of an all-weather surface was deleted from the
language, Wilmert said, because it is covered in another city
ordinance.
A change that will be made prior to voting is the addition of a
stipulation that the parking ordinance does not override other city
ordinances regarding nuisances.
Wilmert verified with city attorney Blinn Bates that such
language should be added, and Bates responded: "If it is going to
pass, that should be in there." He went on to say, "I don't think it
should pass. But that is not my decision."
Mayor Keith Snyder asked about the word boat in the language. In
Section A, the definition of acceptable includes boat but doesn't
say trailer. Snyder said he thought someone could if they wanted to,
push the boat off the trailer and leave it lying in the driveway.
Wilmert said that the word trailer would be added behind the word
boat.
Tom O'Donohue asked for clarification on why a livestock trailer
wasn't going to be allowed and homemade trailers were. He said he'd
seen livestock trailers that were pretty nice-looking compared to
some of the homemade things.
The discussion that ensued involved the fact that livestock
trailers can be odorous. This led to a lively exchange between
O'Donohue and Stacy Bacon in which O'Donohue said that trailers with
trash in them can also be bad; and Bacon countered that there were
other ordinances to control that. David Armbrust said he was the one
who had originally voiced concern over the livestock trailers
because of a concern that they would be parked in a community
without being cleaned up.
Sue McLaughlin, the new city administrator, also got involved in
this discussion, asking about the acceptable trailers being licensed
and operable. Wilmert said, "That's assumed. Right?" To which
McLaughlin replied, "No."
Jonie Tibbs then questioned the setback language. The ordinance
says "parking of trailers is not subject to set-back requirement."
Wilmert said there is a 25-foot setback rule, but that rule will not
apply for the parking of trailers, because some driveways aren't
that long. Tibbs said they would still not be able to block a
sidewalk. And, Wilmert said that was correct. Tibbs wondered if that
should be spelled out more clearly.
McLaughlin agreed, saying there should be something to clarify
what they can do. She said: "Otherwise you're going to have pavement
from the sidewalk to the curb, and they can pave their whole front
yard -- unless that was your intent."
McLaughlin went on to ask how the city would deal with the "sight
triangle." She offered as an example a home on a corner lot with the
trailer blocking the view of traffic approaching the intersection.
Wilmert said that would be covered under other nuisance rules and
addressed as a safety concern.
McLaughlin said she wasn't sure there was an ordinance written
that way. Wilmert countered by saying this new ordinance didn't
cover every single contingency. It was meant only to relax a current
restriction, define a trailer and allow owners to park them in their
own drives.
[to top of second column] |
McLaughlin acknowledged that she was new to this discussion and
didn't know the background behind it. She asked Wilmert to fill her
in on the original discussion.
"In my experience," she said, "these types of ordinances lead a
very slippery slope into blighted neighborhoods. It is certainly not
something that I would recommend. However, I am interested not only
in your perspective, but also in the middle of the first page it
says you believe this is in the best interest of the citizens of
Lincoln. That is for the trailer owners. What about the citizens
that live next door to the potential issue that can be created by
this ordinance?"
Wilmert told her it would take a long time to rehash the whole
story. He told her what was before the council was a distilled
version of an ordinance that had gone through two different
committees. He outlined what he had written and offered to show her
the original draft and some emails of how the ordinance had evolved.
He told McLaughlin: "We've gotten to a point of an up or down
vote, if it can be put on the agenda for Monday."
Jeff Hoinacki tried to offer some explanation, talking about the
72-hour street parking issue and how it was not enforceable, so
allowing parking in driveways was a means of hopefully eliminating
the real problem.
O'Donohue also noted that the ordinance the city is now faced
with does nothing to address the street-side parking problem.
McLaughlin asked then, if staff were given a little more time to
address this, if a better solution might not be possible.
Bacon said she really didn't think so. She told McLaughlin that
the council has discussed this issue for the past 10 months, and
this is what has come out of it.
Tibbs also talked about a constituent who has parking issues. She
said this ordinance would provide a solution for several people in
Lincoln. She finished by saying the council wants to find something
that will work for everyone. She then added: "But I really don't
think we're going to be able to please everybody."
Wilmert agreed, saying that was why there is a sunset clause, so
the ordinance can expire if it doesn't work.
He added: "I'd like to put it on the agenda for an up or down
vote. If there are still concerns, everyone can vote their
conscience, but I don't think rehashing is going to help one way or
the other."
As the discussion came to a close, Snyder brought up the
ordinance for street-side parking. He asked Wilmert if he would be
working on that ordinance next.
The last time parking was discussed, Wilmert said he was not
going to address the street-side parking at all.
However, on Tuesday evening he told the council that when this
all began, he promised that he would first address the parking on
private property, then move on to address the street-side parking.
He said he would honor that commitment, but if there was anyone else
who wanted to take that away from him, he would gladly let it go.
Wilmert had also said in the past that he wanted an up or down
vote on the private parking ordinance and, pass or fail, he was
finished with it. He said it will not be brought back to the council
by him at least.
[By NILA SMITH]
Past related articles
 |
