HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/30/2003
City of
MEMO
Notes from joint Apple Valley City Council and Planning Commission informal meeting held
April 30, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., at Apple Valley Municipal Center.
PRESENT: Mayor Hamann - Roland; Councilmembers Bergman, Erickson, and Grendahl.
Chair Edgeton; Commissioners Burke, Churchill, Hadley, and Schindler.
STAFF: City Administrator Lawell, City Clerk Mueller, City Attorney Dougherty, City
Engineer Gordon, Assistant Planners Bodmer and Dykes, Public Works Director
Heuer, Community Dev elopment Director Kelley, and City Planner Lovelace.
RURAL RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES & CONSIDERATIONS
There are approximately 112 acres of property in the City that can be classified as “Rural Estate
Residential”. These are large lots or tra cts of land, some that have the potential to be divided
into smaller lots and some that the owners desire to maintain for a single dwelling unit. There
are currently 84 septic systems in use in the City, 15 of which are considered permanent.
Issues with providing public improvements for sanitary sewer and water utilities have arisen
when an owner or owners of some lots want to develop their property, but utility extensions
would need to extend through or in front of other lots. Concern was expressed that paying for
the utilities could force owners to subdivide their property to cover the costs or put an undue
burden on owners that do not want to subdivide or have property that is not suitable for
subdivision due to the location of an existing home.
The C ity can provide financing for the improvements by special assessments to the benefited
property. The maximum term is repayment over 30 years. To assist property owners where
utility improvements might be premature, a 15 - year deferment has been offered. The utility
deferment has been allowed until the property connects to utilities, is subdivided, or 15 years
have expired. Repayment over a term of 15 years then begins. Deferment of street
improvements has not been offered.
Two areas where property owne rs are dealing with this issue are the southeast corner of
Diamond Path and Pilot Knob Road and Embry Way east of Pilot Knob Road. Owners of
property on Embry Way who were present or represented at the meeting were: Jeff Andresen,
Stu and Fran Doerner, M rs. Frank Dorniden, Chris Hill, Dave Hoban, Bob Shackleford, and
Vern and Bea Spindler.
Septic system issues discussed included whether the City’s ordinance should be changed to
require upgrading the system when a property is sold. New septic systems cos t about $6,000 to
$8,000. Depending on where the drainfield is located on the property, relocating a new system
can be a problem.
Water system issues involve access for fire fighting. It was estimated that homeowner’s
insurance costs an additional $5 00 annually because hydrants are not available. It was also noted
there is no fire lane on Embry Way. It is a narrow private road and parked vehicles often impede
access.
The City Engineer reviewed Embry Way concerns and said the street is now about 18 feet wide
and may or may not be constructed entirely within the right - of - way or easement. In an attempt
to save trees, the minimum width of the street could be 24 feet. To install sanitary sewer and
water, a width of 30 to 40 feet would be needed and tha t would disrupt the area.
A sketch plan of the Embry Way area has been prepared that will be submitted to the Planning
Commission for initial review on May 7, 2003. Of ten property owners in the area, six have an
interest in having improvements installed and four are opposed. The Council and Commission
expressed concern that it would be premature to accept an application for platting when there are
so many unresolved issues for this area.
It was agreed that a survey of all property owners in rural resid ential areas would be conducted,
individually, to get their opinions on these issues. The survey should include economic, lifestyle,
and environmental issues as well as an opportunity for them to ask any other questions.
ACCESSORY UNIT DWELLING ORDINANC E
Following first reading of the proposed Accessory Unit Dwelling (AUD) ordinance by the
Council questions were raised about determining the size of the building additions allowed,
distance between units, and allowable zoning districts. One specific prop osal has been submitted
to the City by a homeowner, in an R - 1 zone, requesting an answer.
The proposed ordinance would allow AUDs only as a conditional use meaning each application
would be subject to a public hearing and reviewed individually. Condition s for such a permit
could be refined for different zoning districts, with more restrictions placed on smaller lots, or
permits could be limited to R - 1 districts where there are only larger lots. The total number of
permits in the City could be limited and separated by some distance (such as 350 - foot radius).
Generally, there was agreement to allow AUDs and develop parameters around lot size, garage
space, street frontage, doorway entrances, etc., to cover more property types in the City.
To address the c urrent application, the initial ordinance could allow AUDs in R - 1 zones only. It
could allow for a total of six permits in the City with a provision that it would be reviewed after
six permits are issued.