My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 07-31-2000
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCP 07-31-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:10 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 1:25:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 5, 2000 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson asked whether this can be enforced if such a dwelling already exists. <br />Planner Chaput stated that enforcement is on a complaint basis, and ifthere is a violation, a <br />notice can be sent to the owner. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section II (D), Definitions; Section VI (A) #5, Size; and <br />Section VI (F) # 1 h, Parking Structures, with regard to Item 2, pertaining to accessory structures. <br /> <br />There is no definition of accessory structures in the definitions section of the ordinance. Since <br />there are restrictions on accessory buildings, it should be clearly defined. Also, there is no limit <br />on the amount of accessory structures permitted. Typically, cities limit this to one structure in <br />addition to a detached garage, which is what is proposed. <br /> <br />The accessory structure setbacks are in conflict in some sections (10' for accessory but some <br />principle structures only require a 5' setback) so this language is proposed to be amended. <br />Finally, the term "parking structure" is not defined in the code so it has been amended for <br />"private garage" which is defined. <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 e <br />VI (F), #3 C, Driveways, with regard to Item 4, pertaining to driveways. There are no <br />regulations on the number of driveways that a property has or that parking vehicles in the front <br />yard is prohibited. Plus, there is no language that specifically states that new driveways for any <br />type of dwelling unit must be paved. <br /> <br />There is also concern about existing language that allows for the paving of a driveway to occur <br />right up to a lot line without a setback. Finally, State and County regulations for streets should <br />be confirmed with these regulatory bodies at that time and the code should not list their <br />requirements, in the case that they have changed or are incorrect. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section VI (E) #4 D, Barbs or Spikes on Fences, with <br />regard to Item 5, pertaining to fences. There are regulations for agricultural fences in the City. <br />These types of fences are typically prohibited in cities that do not have agricultural districts or <br />vacant land that may be used for agricultural purposes in the future. Staff proposes that they be <br />prohibited. <br /> <br />The term "agricultural use" is identified as a permitted and accessory use in the City. From a <br />planning perspective, encouraging agricultural uses does not meet the intentions of the <br />Comprehensive Plan. This use should be eliminated from the land use chart so that it is no <br />longer permitted. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section IX (H), Amortization of Nonconforming Use, with e <br />regard to Item 6, pertaining to amortization. In the 1999 Legislative Session, the City's power to <br />amortize land uses was revoked, as stated in Chapter 96-S.F. No. 854. The only uses that a city <br />may amortize are those relating to, " . . . adult-only bookstores, adults-only theatres, or similar <br />adults-only business as defined by ordinance. . ." and for ". . . the prevention or abatement of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.