Grain Valley council advances ordinance to limit rear-yard parking on smaller lots after public hearing

The Grain Valley City Council on Monday advanced a zoning amendment that would limit rear-yard parking in residential lots smaller than 0.75 acres to no more than two of a defined list of items, unless the items are not readily visible from a public place or surrounding private property. The council approved the measure on its first reading and will bring it back by title only for a second reading.

The proposed amendment to City Code Chapter 400, Section 400.29 would allow no more than two of the following to be parked in the rear yard on lots under 0.75 acres: automobiles, boats, unloaded utility trailers, recreation vehicles, nonmotorized campers (including fifth-wheel and bumper-pull trailers), hybrid trailers, pop-up campers and teardrop trailers. The ordinance includes an exception that removes the restriction if the item is stored on private property “so located upon the property as not to be readily visible from any public place or from any surrounding private property.”

Planning staff explained the change as an attempt to preserve typical neighborhood character while allowing some flexibility in atypical lot configurations. "The intent was kind of looking at what a normal subdivision would be where you have all of the lots kind of backed up to each other and then trying to account for those situations where maybe that's not the case," said Mr. Martin, a city planning staff member who presented the amendment.

Two residents spoke against the wording during the public hearing, saying the visibility exception would make enforcement inconsistent and could invite complaints. "The exception paragraph that was added to this basically makes everything prior to that mute if a neighbor wants to complain or someone drives by and wants to complain about the item being in your backyard," said Dale Arnold of 31603 East Ryan Road. Arnold said the exception would create enforcement challenges and urged removal of the visibility language or a vote down of the ordinance as written.

"This is solely based on aesthetics," said Brian Schoeningert of 780 East Ryan Road. Schoeningert described his backyard as set below street level and said that even a six-foot privacy fence may not block tall trailers from being seen from the roadway. He said residents view the proposal as overreach by local government.

Aldermen debated the practical effects of the 0.75-acre threshold and whether the visibility exception was written clearly enough. Alderman Knox asked whether a property that is shielded from public view would be exempt, and a staff answer confirmed that if an item is not readily visible, the restriction would not apply. Alderman Skinner and others raised concerns about local enforcement capacity and about residents being able to see items several houses away from raised decks.

Council members said the 0.75-acre threshold was intended to limit regulation to typical neighborhood lots and to avoid regulating large-acreage properties. Supporters who favored keeping the visibility exception said it allowed reasonable accommodation in heavily wooded or otherwise screened lots where neighbors and passersby could not see parked items.

The motion to approve the ordinance for its first reading passed; the council will consider the ordinance again by title only at a future meeting. The council did not adopt a final ordinance at this meeting; any changes raised during discussion will be available for review when the item returns for second reading.