City staff presented a draft ordinance change allowing limited alternatives to concrete for residential parking surfaces, recommending that front-yard driving and parking remain concrete while screened rear-yard drives could use asphalt, concrete pavers or decomposed granite with a polymer binder.

The staff presenter (Speaker 6) said the proposal came from a subcommittee review and that the group ‘‘kind of settled on a recommendation that would require ... parking surfaces in the front yard to maintain the requirement that that be concrete,’’ while rear-yard alternatives could be permitted and detailed installation specifications would be submitted with permits and posted in residential construction packets on the city website.

During council questions, residents and members raised maintenance and enforcement concerns. Jim McDougal (Speaker 2), a registered public commenter, said he had emailed background materials and an engineering sketch and suggested a lot-size limit, saying he had ‘‘neglect[ed] to include one that would restrict the use of any alternative surfaces to lots of over an acre ... and such parking surfaces would only be behind the rear building surface.’’ Staff and several council members replied that the subcommittee favored binder-stabilized materials (not loose gravel) because loose material can migrate into alleys and streets.

Council members pressed for clearer technical standards and inspection protocols. Staff said manufacturer installation guidance would be required with permit applications and used for inspections; council members asked staff to consider specifying sub-base and bedding requirements in the permit materials rather than leaving all details to individual manuals.

Members also discussed how polymer-stabilized decomposed granite would count toward lot-coverage limits; one council member (Speaker 3) noted the material ‘‘is considered [a] permeable surface’’ and asked staff to verify whether it should be excluded from lot-coverage calculations. Several members warned against naming brand-name products in the code and recommended describing system types generically while excluding light roll-out grid products.

The council directed staff to revise the draft to clarify permitted materials, inspection submittal requirements and any lot-size or lot-coverage treatments and to return with final language for further review. No vote occurred on the ordinance during the meeting.

The city will continue technical review and bring revised ordinance language back to council for additional consideration.