CCP 07-31-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 5, 2000 8 Commissioner Nelson asked whether this can be enforced if such a dwelling already exists. Planner Chaput stated that enforcement is on a complaint basis, and ifthere is a violation, a notice can be sent to the owner. e Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section II (D), Definitions; Section VI (A) #5, Size; and Section VI (F) # 1 h, Parking Structures, with regard to Item 2, pertaining to accessory structures. There is no definition of accessory structures in the definitions section of the ordinance. Since there are restrictions on accessory buildings, it should be clearly defined. 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 principle structures only require a 5' setback) so this language is proposed to be amended. Finally, the term "parking structure" is not defined in the code so it has been amended for "private garage" which is defined. 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 e 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 for the paving of a driveway to occur right up to a lot line without a setback. Finally, State and County regulations for streets should be confirmed 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. Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section VI (E) #4 D, Barbs or Spikes on Fences, with regard to Item 5, pertaining to fences. There are regulations for agricultural fences in the City. These types of fences are typically prohibited in cities that do not have agricultural districts or vacant land that may be used for agricultural purposes in the future. Staff proposes that they be prohibited. The term "agricultural use" is identified as a permitted and accessory use in the City. From a planning perspective, encouraging agricultural uses does not meet the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan. This use should be eliminated from the land use chart so that it is no longer permitted. Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section IX (H), Amortization of Nonconforming Use, with e regard to Item 6, pertaining to amortization. In the 1999 Legislative Session, the City's power to amortize land uses was revoked, as stated in Chapter 96-S.F. No. 854. The only uses that a city may amortize are those relating to, " . . . adult-only bookstores, adults-only theatres, or similar adults-only business as defined by ordinance. . ." and for ". . . the prevention or abatement of