HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/2006
Urban Affairs Advisory Minutes 1-25-2006 Page 1 of 4
URBAN AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2006
1 CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Urban Affairs Committee was called to order at 7 00 p.m. by Chair Shirley Doenng.
Members Present: Barry Berg, Sandy Breuer, Robin Curran, Shirley Doenng, Shelley Madore, Sharon
Schwartz and Pam Sohlberg.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner; Margaret Dykes, Associate City Planner; Mike
Hammerstad, Code Enforcement Officer; and Tim Miller, Code Enforcement Officer
Guests present: None
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION Sharon Schwartz moved, seconded by Pam Sohlberg, to approve the agenda. The motion
carned 6-0
Committee member Shelley Madore arrived at 7.02 p.m.
3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2005
Barry Berg requested that the minutes be amended to reflect his objection to the prohibition of overnight
on-street parking of motor homes and that he did not object to Pam's concern about the safety issues
raised by overnight on-street parking.
MOTION Sandy Breuer moved, seconded by Pam, to approve the amended minutes. The motion
carned 7-0
4 DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Residential Parking Issues -Possible Amendments to City Code
Kathy Bodmer opened the item with a staff presentation and stated that there were generally three items
left to be discussed by the Committee• the number of vehicles, both passenger and recreational, that may
be parked or stored on a residential lot; the screening and paving requirements for parking and storage of
vehicles, and the possibility of setbacks for larger vehicles.
Number of Vehicles
A. Passenger Vehicles -Kathy explained that the current code hmrts the number of vehicles that can be
parked on a residential lot to four (4) "vehicles" but the term "vehicles" is currently not defined.
However, a property owner may obtain permit to allow up to six (6) vehicles. Staff though that the City
could hmrt the number of vehicles that may be parked or stored on a residential lot to four (4) passenger
http.//www ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/urban affairs/2006/01-25-06.htm 4/28/2009
Urban Affairs Advisory Minutes 1-25-2006 Page 2 of 4
vehicles, but thought the Committee should discuss the issue. Kathy presented the pros and cons of
options to limit the number of passenger vehicles.
" Option 1 -Limit the number of vehicles to those that will fit in the driveway and not block the
sidewalk. The pros of this approach are that it's easy to enforce and offers more flexibility if a resident
has a long driveway The cons are that there could be many vehicles parked in a long driveway and that
it could create conflicts with the City's ban on on-street parking from 3-6 a.m.
" Option 2 -Limit the number of vehicles to the number of licensed drivers in a household. This
approach gives a resident control over the number of cars parked in a driveway, and, as the needs of the
household changes over time, the number of cars parked in the driveway will change. However, this
approach is very difficult to enforce, and, again, may conflict with the ban on on-street parking from 3-6
a.m.
" Option 3 -Limit the number of vehicles to a flat number per lot. This approach is easy to understand
and easy to enforce. However, it's not flexible in either enforcement or practice, and it does not account
for the size of the lot or the driveway
The Committee questioned the existing ordinance whether the limit of 4 vehicles applied at any time
during the day or only during the 3-6 a.m. hours. Kathy said the code isn't specific but the City usually
only gets involved if there is a complaint and it's an on-going issue with a particular property Shirley
asked about the permit process. Kathy said the City has no established criteria yet for when it will and
when it will not approve the parking permit.
Shirley asked all members of the Committee to express their views. Robin said she thought Option 1
wouldn't be fair and thought Option 3 (limit to 4) would be appropriate. She had mixed feelings about
the special permit. Sandy supported Option 3 Shelley liked Option 1 but with setbacks for all passenger
vehicles, she thought larger homes with long driveways could hold more vehicles. Sharon liked the
setback proposal, but was concerned that smaller homes with smaller driveways might get caught in a
difficult situation. However, she also liked Option 1 with setbacks. Pam supported Option 3 with the
permit. Barry said 4 vehicles aren't enough for those residents who have 3 or more children, all with
cars, and both parents with cars. He liked Option 1 with setbacks and thought it was fair Shirley
supported Option 3 with the permit.
Shelley asked about overnight parking: Can the City prohibit long-term overnight parking on the street
even if a driveway is full? The Committee discussed some of the difficulties that result from the ban on
on-street parking between 3-6 a.m. with an exception for those lots that may have the maximum number
of vehicles parked in the driveway This creates some problems for the Code Enforcement department.
Shelley suggested atwo-tier system. for driveways 43' in length or less, limit to 4 vehicles and no
setbacks for passenger vehicles provided the vehicles did not block sidewalk; for driveways over 43', no
limit to number of cars, but there must be minimum setbacks. The Committee thought this would be a
balanced approach, but agreed it could be more challenging to enforce.
B Recreational Vehicles -This item was discussed at the November 30, 2005, meeting, but no definite
decision was made regarding the Class I and Class II recreational vehicles. Kathy refreshed the
Committee and explained that Class I vehicles are those less than 22' in length and less than 8' tall. Class
II vehicles are those greater than 22' in length and/or 8' tall. For those lots smaller than one acre, the
proposal is to limit the number of vehicles to either one Class I and one Class II OR two Class I
vehicles. For lots one acre or larger, the proposal is to allow up to four (4) recreational vehicles of any
http.//www ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/urban affairs/2006/01-25-06.htm 4/28/2009
Urban Affairs Advisory Minutes 1-25-2006 Page 3 of 4
size provided at least two (2) are screened from the view of neighboring properties and roadways.
Sharon asked about the screening requirements m other communities what materials were acceptable
and was vegetation ok? Kathy said staff would investigate this issue.
Shirley polled the Committee about the proposed limitations on the number of recreational vehicles
allowed on a residential lot. Shirley, Pam, Robin, Sandy, Shelley, and Sharon thought the approach
discussed by staff would give residents flexibility and be relatively easy to enforce. Barry opposed the
proposal because he thought different rules based on property size would not be defensible. Sharon Hills
disagreed and said the City could differentiate between properties based on lot area.
Screening, Location and Paving
A. Screening -Kathy explained that the current City code did not require screemng of passenger
vehicles, and the current practice is to not require screening of any vehicle parked m a residential
driveway Barry stated he thought screemng requirements would be impracticable, but the other
Committee members determined that screemng m the rear yard was necessary Sandy thought Class I
vehicles m the rear yard should be entirely screened with a minimum 6' fence, but that Class II vehicles
would be extremely difficult to screen. Shelley thought all vehicles parked or stored in the rear yard
should be surrounded by an 8' fence. Barry thought screemng with up to an 8' fence made sense, but
requiring screemng above 8'would not add value to the property
The Committee all agreed that vehicles parked or stored in the rear yard should be screened as best as
possible with a minimum 6' fence and a maximum 8' fence.
C Location and Paving -Kathy explained staff s proposal for new location and paving requirements.
Passenger vehicles could be parked or stored on a paved surface only, which could be located in the
front, side or rear of a house. Non-passenger vehicles cannot be stored anywhere on a residential lot, and
can only be parked on a paved surface when rendering a service.
Recreational vehicles, either Class I or Class II, can be parked m the front only on a driveway, only on
the garage side of a house, or anywhere m the rear Motorized recreational vehicles (regardless of means
of propulsion), whether on or off a trailer, must be parked or stored on a paved surface only Non-
motorized recreational vehicles, whether on or off a trailer, may be parked or stored on any surface.
Trailers, either Class I or Class II, must be parked or stored in the front only on a driveway Class I
trailers can be parked on either side of a house or in the rear yard. Class II trailers can be parked only on
the garage side of a house or in the rear yard. Class I trailers can be parked or stored on pervious
surfaces, but Class II trailers must be parked or stored on impervious surfaces only
Kathy defined paving as an impervious surface such as concrete, bituminous, or beck pavers. Pervious
surfaces include grass Class 5 gravel, decorative gravel (small river stones, lava rock, etc.), or geo-grid
pavers (grass grows wrthm the pavers}
The Committee unanimously agreed to the proposed changes to the Code with the exception of the
garage-side parking requirement for recreational vehicles, and Class II trailers. Several Committee
members thought the garage-side requirements might be a problem to enforce because the amendments
are very different than the current ordinance. Tim Miller said the City may indeed have difficulty
enforcing this requirement. Sharon wanted clarification on this matter
http.//www ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/urban affairs/2006/01-25-06.htm 4/28/2009
Urban Affairs Advisory Minutes 1-25-2006 Fage 4 of 4
Setbacks
Kathy explained staff s proposal for vehicle setbacks, which would apply only to Class II recreational
vehicles and trailers. These larger vehicles can create sightlme obstructions for neighboring properties.
Staff is proposing setbacks of 5' from the side lot line, 10' from the rear lot line, and 13' from the edge of
the curb of the public right-of--way Several Committee members thought the garage-side setbacks were
needed for safety reasons. For instance, if an emergency occurred at a residence, the garage-side setback
would allow room for emergency personnel to maneuver around the house. Other Committee members
thought the garage-side setback requirement was a significant departure from the current City code and
many residents would be m violation of the proposed amendments. After a lengthy discussion, the
Committee unanimously agreed that the setbacks were appropriate for the larger Class II vehicles (those
vehicles greater than 8' in height and/or 22' in length)
b Urban Affairs Advisory Committee By-Laws and Mission Statement
After staff drafted language for a Committee Mission Statement and amendments to the Committee's
By-Laws, the City Attorney's office stated that advisory committees cannot have by-laws. Advisory
committees are created by the City Council and, as such, must follow the rules set by the Council, the
committees cannot have any rule that might separate it from the Council. The Committee asked if they
could have a procedural policy Sharon Hills stated that the City Council operates under Robert's Rules
of Order, and the Committee must use the same procedures as the Council, so no The Committee asked
if it could adopt the Mission Statement. The Committee decided to discuss the Mission Statement with
the City Council at its future jointmeeting.
MOTION Barry moved, seconded by Sharon, to have the -City Council adopt the Committee's Mission
Statement. Measure passed 6-1 (Shirley dissented stating the action was premature and that the Mission
Statement should be discussed with the Council before the Committee acted on it)
5 OTHER BUSINESS
a. Set Jomt Meeting with the City Council
City Staff explained that the City Council is meeting with all of the City's advisory committees and
commissions to discuss the important issues in the community The Council could meet with the Urban
Affairs Committee on any of the following dates February 16th, February 23rd, February 28th, or
March 2nd. The Committee decided that it could meet on February 23rd at 6.30 p.m., which is before
the City Council's regularly scheduled meeting.
6 ADJOURNMENT
MOTION Sharon moved, seconded by Shelley, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at
8.30 p.m.
http.//www ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/urban affairs/2006/01-25-06.htm 4/28/2009