A Knight in Dragonland

The proposed parking code ordinance (discussed on this blog here and here) was tabled last night pending the recommendations of the traffic safety committee regarding on-street parking. Council Members Blanchard, Jones, Kortkamp, Dunn and Abel voted to table the measure, while Council Member Strand offered the sole nay vote. She didn’t see the point in waiting on this measure. Mayor Dave Tebben was absent from the meeting.

I suppose I don’t see the problem in waiting one month to see what the traffic committee has to say about possible regulation of on-street parking. The two ordinances certainly go hand-in-hand. If a residence does not have a driveway AND on-street parking is limited, the owners would have a legitimate complaint. However, I’m sure that the ordinance could be worded to avoid such circumstances.

Here are the details of the proposed ordinance (courtesy of today’s Times article):

€ Under the code revisions, homeowners and their guests will not be allowed to park in any area of the yard except the driveway.

€ Boats, boat trailers, camping trailers, motorcycle trailers, truck campers, commercial equipment, commercial vehicles and motor homes in the front yards of any residential area will be prohibited.

€ Driveways used for entering and leaving a property cannot be any wider than 24 feet at the street line, not including driveway flares.

€ Driveways cannot exceed 45 percent of the total front yard in R-4 residential zoning areas and 35 percent in all other residential zoning areas. R-4 zoning is for properties with lots 5,000 square feet or smaller.

€ Driveways under construction must be hard surfaced with materials such as concrete, asphalt or brick pavers. New areas cannot exceed 30 percent of the combination of any side and back yards in residential zoning areas.

€ The installation or expansion of any gravel driveways from the time the ordinance is passed will be prohibited. Any expansion of a driveway must be contiguous and parallel to the existing driveway and cannot cause additional run-off into the city right-of-way.

I agree with the provisions of the proposed new ordinance outlined above, but what about stepping up the enforcement of the ordinances already in place? That’s why I tacked on the parenthetical addendum of “sorta” to the title of this blog. According to the Times article, the Pekin City Code already prohibits parking in the front yard … although I’ve looked through the Code and can’t find that specific prohibition:

City Director of Public Works Joe Wuellner said it has always been an ordinance violation to park in any area of the yard that is grass. He said parking on the grass deteriorates the lawn and dust becomes a problem. He said the dust is a nuisance to neighbors.

I probably just missed the specific clause, since reading through the city code is about as enjoyable as getting a dental extraction. However, I did find the clause in the Code that prohibits keeping abandoned, junked or disabled vehicles on your property:

Junked or disabled motor vehicles may not be parked, stored or left in the open on public property or upon open, private land not enclosed by garage or carport and in view of the general public for a period of more than seven (7) days in any one calendar month, unless it is necessary for the operation of a business enterprise lawfully conducted thereon.

I imagine that if I took a drive around Pekin tonight, I could easily find multiple violations of these two provisions.

Why aren’t these codes being enforced? Do they lack adequate teeth, or do we lack the necessary code enforcement manpower?