CC 07-31-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - July 31, 2000 10 Mayor Probst asked whether the City Attorney was comfortable with the proposed amendments. Mr. Filla stated he is comfortable with the proposed language, adding that most cities have include such definition in their code. He noted that the definition is a legally acceptable concept and as such is defensible. Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section II (D), Definitions; Seetion VI (A) #5, Size; and Section VI (F) #1 h, Parking Structures, with regard to Item 2, pertaining to accessory structures. Since there are restrictions on accessory buildings, a definition should be clearly defined and amended to include all accessory structures. Also, there is no limit on the amount of accessory structures permitted. Typically, cities limit this to one structure in addition to a detached garage, which is what is proposed. The accessory structure setbacks are in conflict in some sections (10' for accessory but some principal structures only require a 5' setback) so this language is proposed to be amended. Finally, the term "parking structure" is not detined in the code so it has been amended for "private garage" which is defined. Councilmember Larson stated the intention was that there be no more than two accessory structures on a lot. He asked whether a home with attached garage could still have two accessory structures. Ms. Chaput confirmcd that the Planning Commission had agreed on that point. Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section VI (F) #3, Traffic and Circulation, with regard to Item 3, pertaining to accessibility to public streets. It is not clear in the ordinance that all newly created properties need to abut a public street. The only information that is provided does not refer to all districts. Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section VI (F) #1 C, Construction Standards, and Section VI (F), #3 C, Driveways, with regard to Item 4, pertaining to driveways. There are no regulations on the number of driveways that a property has or that parking vehicles in the front yard is prohibited. Plus, there is no language that specifically states that new driveways for any type of dwelling unit must be paved. There is also concern about existing language that allows tor the paving of a driveway to occur rigbt up to a lot line without a setback. Finally, State and County regulations for streets should be contirmed with these regulatory bodies at that time and the code should not list their requirements, in the case that they have changed or are incorrect. Mayor Probst asked how this item will affect nonconforming properties. Ms. Chaput stated that nonconforming uses would not be allowed to be created. Council member Larson asked whether curb and gutter will be required for residential properties. Ms. Chaput stated the recommended changes with regard to eurb and gutter do not apply to single family homes.