Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 14,2000 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />Mr. Wenzel asked whether a fishhouse would be considered an accessory structure, adding he <br />has a neighbor with six fishhouses in his back yard. Ms. Chaput confirmed it would be <br />considered an accessory structure. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section VI (F) #3, Traffic and Circulation, with regard to <br />Item 3, pertaining to accessibility to public streets. It is not clear in the ordinance that all newly <br />created properties need to abut a public street. The only information that is provided does not <br />refer to all districts, <br /> <br />Ms, Chaput reviewed amendments to Section VI (F) #1 C, Construction Standards, and Section <br />VI (F), #3 C, Driveways, with regard to Item 4, pertaining to driveways, The number of <br />driveways or curb cuts for a residential property is not limited. There are no requirements to <br />pave driveway surfaces, setbacks to a driveway or permitted parking locations on a lot. <br /> <br />Complaints regarding the number of vehicles on a property at one time are addressed by limiting <br />the number of vehicles permitted outside of a garage, Other cities were researched specifically <br />on this issue and it was found that it was generally dealt with by limiting the width of a driveway <br />whicb in turn limits thc number ofvehic1es that can park at any given time, Generally, cities <br />have a minimum (not maximum) number of spaces required of two per dwelling unit. The <br />proposed number of a maximum of three cars on a dri veway was a result of Planning <br />Commission discussion and thc proposed number has not changed from further research. <br /> <br />Finally, State and County regulations for streets should be confirmed with these regulatory <br />bodies at that time and the code should not list their requirements, in the case that they have <br />changed or are incorrect. <br /> <br />Mr. Peters stated that changes to this section would have a major affect on his client's use of his <br />property. He added the garage on tbe property had been converted to a study area and the <br />driveway widened with the necessary permits. He noted the amendment should be broadened to <br />take multiple dwelling units into account. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated that some property owners have cireular driveways, Ms. <br />Chaput stated they ean remain until the driveway is changed in some way, She added the <br />amendment is intended to provide limitations to prevent such uses from occurring in the future, <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated that lots of a certain size might be able to accommodate more <br />than one access, She added, in her opinion, the City should not restrict that. Ms. Chaput <br />reiterated that there are currently no restrictions at all. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated that points of street access was the concern, adding that large lots <br />don't necessarily need two entrances. She added the amendments are not intended to limit <br />resident's preferences. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that many homes have landscaping rock whieh is used for parking <br />purposes, He asked for clarification with regard to the term "directly into a garage" to define <br />