Loading...
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