HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/1989CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
URBAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 25, 1989
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The April 25, 1989 Urban Affairs Committee Meeting was called to
order by Chairman John McKay at 7:04 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Members Present: _ Chairman McKay, Shirley Doering, Pamela Sohlberg,
Sharon Schwartz, Jeffrey Weldon, JoAnne Ellison, and Jeannine Churchill.
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Tom Melena, Captain Bruce Erickson, Tom Lawell, Scott
Hickok, and Dennis Welsch.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
The agenda was approved as written.
3. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER JEANNINE CHURCHILL:
Chairman John McKay introduced and welcomed new member Jeannine
Churchill to the Urban Affairs Committee.
4. RECYCLING DISCUSSION:
A general discussion of recycling issues ensued.
5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Minutes of the April 11, 1989 Urban Affairs Committee meeting were
approved as written.
6. DRAFT OUTSIDE PARKING ORDINANCE:
Member Schwartz asked.for further information regarding screening as
it applies to exiting driveways and parking areas. She asked if properties
would be considered non- conforming or pre- existing. Dennis Welsch respon-
ded that the Plannina Commission ceased screening of side yards as a major
issue in order to protect property values of adjacent homeowners. Jeff
Weldon asked for a clarification regarding fencing: Is there a set of
standards for fencing.
Member Doering commented that cul -de -sac lots seem to be to narrow
for side lot parking. Sharon Schwartz stated that she opposed the screen-
ing of newly paved driveway space. Members Doering and Schwartz noted
that fences and screening are an aesthetic or value related issue that may
not need to be. addressed.
Tom Melena suggested that it may be better to require vegetation than
fencing which could later dilapidate. Scott Hickok stated that the code
F,.. Urban Affairs Committee Meeting
April 25, 1989
Page 2
does require "a level of opaqueness" in screening and other standards for
fences. A general discussion ensued regarding the side and rear yard
screening. Member Doering asked if fencing was less of a nuisance than
plantings or a dilapidated vehicle.
Member Weldon asked for clarification regarding the ordinances handed
out by the staff. Should section 4, page 2, read; more than 4 vehicles
but no more than 6?
Agenda discussion ensued regarding parking bans on streets and the
City's 3 - 6 a.m. parking ban as it relates to exterior parking require-
ments.
Scott Hickok read a report from the City Attorney who recommends:
1. That all vehicles mentioned as 1.5 ton vehicles be consistent
with other portions of the code which currently read 1 ton
vehicles. Bruce Erickson and other members of the committee
prefer to use the 1.5 ton vehicle language.
2. The attorney questioned the use of occasion of "occasional guest"
in the language. He suggest removing it from the draft because
it would be difficult to enforce. Scott Hickok responded that
the enforcement process is different between the police depart-
ment and the code enforcement office. The police department
tickets immediately, whereas the code enforcement office provides
warning letters before beginning the ticketing process and there-
fore occasional guest would not be subject to the ticketing for
exterior parking.
Tom Melena asked the committee to consider what standards the City
should really have. Sharon Schwartz asked for more in depth understanding
of what an inspection of pavement and fences might be. She also stated
that inspections by a building inspector should be a necessity when dealing
with pavement and large fences.
Scott Hickok handed out two new draft ordinances, one of which dealt
with parking limitations and pavement surfaces, and the second of which
dealt with no more exterior parking beyond four vehicles except by permit
and then only to six vehicles on an exterior paved site.
Tom Melena asked the committee to consider whether vehicles must be
stored in screened areas, or whether it would be more beneficial to
require that vehicles be stored adjacent to existing structures on the
site. He suggested within 20 feet of any building which has a concrete
slab or concrete foundation.
Urban Affairs Committee Meeting
April 25, 1989
Page 3
COMMITTEE CONSENSUS:
1. The consensus of the committee was that screening and fences are
a major concern and may be a major hardship for pre- existing
uses. More thought should be given to the fence issue before
requiring a regulation which may be difficult to enforce.
2. The committee asked for clarification on timing. Who is suppose
to be regulated by these new ordinances, and who is to be grand -
fathered in?
The committee asked for clarification regarding the permit pro-
cess. How would the building inspector inspect paved surfaces
and fencing? Could the building inspector attend the next com-
mittee meeting? The staff will see that a building inspector is
available at the next meeting.
4. Enforcement equality: The committee expressed concern over the
ability to enforce pavement and screening issues uniformly
through the community, especially when some areas would be grand -
fathered in, while others would not and would be required to
place expensive hard surfaces and vegetation on their site.
The committee requested a joint public hearing with the planning
commission to discuss the exterior parking requirements,
especially as they relate to fencing and paved surfaces. The
staff responded that the Planning Commission will receive a copy
of the Urban Affairs Committee minutes and will be alerted to
the request by the Urban Affairs Committee to set a joint public
hearing within two to three weeks.
0
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
eh