Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/1989CITY OF APPLE VALLEY URBAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER The August 8, 1989 Urban Affairs Committee Meeting was called to order by Chairman John McKay. Members Present: John McKay, Chairman, Sharon Schwartz, Jeffrey Weldon, JoAnne Ellison, and Barbara Savanick. Members Absent: Pamela Sohlberg and Jeanne Churchill. Staff Present: Bruce Erickson, Kurt Chatfield, and Scott Hickok. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION: A motion was made by Sharon Schwartz, seconded by Jeffrey Weldon, to add to the agenda a discussion regarding parking setbacks. The agenda was approved as revised. The motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES MOTION: A motion was made by Jeffrey Weldon, seconded by Sharon Schwartz, to approve the minutes as written. The motion carried unanimously. 4. DISCUSSION OF PARKING SURFACE SETBACK REGULATIONS Sharon Schwartz stated that she felt there should be consideration given to a setback distance for newly installed hard surface. The Committee has discussed this topic on several occasions, but no recommendation has been forwarded. Clarification of present requirements followed Sharon's request. Chairman McKay asked if presently there is a setback requirement. Staff Member Scott Hickok explained that presently a homeowner can install a driveway to the property line without a space between the surface and that line. There is, however, a requirement that a surface drains within a drainage easement and not on areas that will detrimentally affect adjacent property. The question was raised regarding reasonable distance. Two options were mentioned - 3 feet and 5 feet. Staff Member Scott Hickok added a comment that in White Bear Lake, the City required a one foot setback on hard surface installations. Urban Affairs Committee Minutes August 8, 1989 Page 2 Chairman John McKay stated that he felt 5 feet would be too restrictive. Mr. McKay went on to say that requiring 5 feet between the driveway and the property line, combined with other requirements of this ordinance, may cause undesirable situations we are trying to avoid. An example would be the situation where a homeowner cannot add a surface beside the garage, because there is no room for the setback and the surface. Instead, the homeowner may install a hard surface in the rear yard and drive over an unpaved area to get to it. This would fit the guidelines for parking, but may cause ruts and unsightly conditions. Sharon Schwartz responded that one foot would not be sufficient. Lieutenant Bruce Erickson asked about twin homes and patio homes- where the driveways are adjacent. Sharon Schwartz stated that she has that situation across the street from where she lives. A general discussion ensued regarding potential problems and benefits associated with a setback requirement at the property line in twin homes. Jeffrey Weldon stated that he has a situation on the lot, adjacent to his home, that would not be permitted with a 5 foot setback. In this case, the lots are "small-lot", single-family and there is not sufficient area between the garage and the lot line for parking vehicles. JoAnne Ellison suggested wording the motion to exempt those "R-2" parking situations where there are common-wall garages with common driveways. JoAnne added that she lives in a town home with a planting area between the driveways and it makes getting in and out of the car very difficult. She stated that she would rather not have that arrangement. Jeffrey Weldon asked if the wording of this portion of the code could be constructed to reflect this "R-2" situation. Staff Member Scott Hickok responded with a sample wording for this exemption. A brief discussion ensued. MOTION: A motion was made by Jeffrey Weldon, seconded by JoAnne Ellison, to approve the 5 foot parking setback for all surfaces (gravel, crushed rock, concrete, bituminous and pavers). This setback would have an exemption for "R-2" properties, with a common garage wall and driveway. This exemption would only be for setbacks along the shared property line. All other setbacks and requirements would apply to these lots as well. The motion carried unanimously. Urban Affairs Committee Minutes August 8, 1989 Page 3 5. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS FOR DAYCARE FACILITIES IN RESIDENCES AND UNLECENSED HOME OCCUPATIONS Staff Member Scott Hickok gave a brief explanation of the topic of licensed verses unlicensed daycare, state requirements and home occupations. Chairman John McKay asked about the State requirements and what number of children require a license by the State. Staff Member Scott Hickok responded that he would research the issue, but felt five (5) was the maximum number without a state license. Councilmember Barbara Savanick commented on the National Conference she attended on daycare facilities and added that the government sees the need for quality daycare and recognizes a shortage, presently. Staff Member Kurt Chatfield added that daycare is an essential service and provisions should be made to allow .low-cost facilities. Lieutenant Bruce Erickson added that there are many of these in the community - probably far more than we are aware of. Staff Member Scott Hickok responded that the Urban Affairs Committee is not obligated to change the requirements for unlicensed facilities- only if they feel it is necessary. A general discussion ensued. Chairman John McKay asked the Staff to followup with the State's requirements for maximum number of children without license. 6. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Jeffrey Weldon, seconded by Sharon Schwartz to adjourn at 7:35 p.m. The motion carried unanimously. kg