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