CCP 07-31-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pronosed Change #2 - Accessory Structures . I question why the term "private garage" is needed, as compared to the original term ("parking structure"). Is the former defined elsewhere in the zoning document? Unless there have been longstanding issues with the original terminology, it should be retained. Pronosed Change #4 - Drivewavs and Parking I) The proposed change to Section VI (F) # I C - removing the "paving" exemption for one and two fiunily residences - is unjustified. There is no reason that proper grading and material selection cannot yield a driveway that is environmentally friendly and aesthetically pleasing, and in some cases may be preferable. If problems occur - such as erosion or tracking materials onto public streets - they can be dealt with by specific ordinances that probably exist already for other reasons such as construction. Further, a paving requirement drives up the overall cost of housing. 2) The proposed new item 7 in Section VI (F) #3 C - as related to parking restrictions - raises several serious issues. 2a) Unless it is defined elsewhere, exactly what may not be parked off-driveway is not stated. I have neighbors who for years have parked boats and motorcycles (both of which are vehicles) at locations other than their driveways, and this has not caused any problems. Such use of private property should not be prohibited, again subject to restrictions on things like erosion and tracking material onto public streets. 2b) The last part of the suggested phase - "no more than three vehicles parked on the driveway on a regular . basis" - is both vague and discriminatory. First, exactly what is a "regular basis"? If such a term is used, it must be defined. Second, the vehicle quantity restriction will impose needless restriction and hardship on several groups. Many families ("fiunily" used in the strictest sense) use their garages to store various things other than automobiles, for several reasons including economic necessity - the inability to afford a larger home. Under the proposed wording, two working parents with several teenage or young aduh children may be unable to have adequate transportation. TIlls is social and economic discrimination and again exposes the city to lawsuits and bad publicity. A driveway should be permitted to hold however many vehicles will fit, and self-congestion will be an inherent limiting factor. A "city" often has bumper-to-bumper on-street parking as well as parking in driveways. The "City" of Arden Hills already restricts on-street parking to daylight hours. Now, this is not good enough, and additional restrictions are needed in driveways because we don't want to look at cars on nearby PRIVATE PROPERTY? Such vehicles are extremely unlikely to block other driveways because they must be parked off-street at night, and in any case they obstruct "pull-out" viewing no more than shrubs, fences, mailboxes, and other objects. Pronosed C~e #5 - Fencing . I) First, given my prior comments about the "Village" of Arden Hills, I disagree completely with the idea that agricultural use of our land is either undesirable or unacceptable, regardless willit the "Comprehensive Plan" defines. To the contrary, agriculture fosters bio-diversity and also is aesthetically desirable. There obviously need to be some restrictions given the population density - no crop-dusting airplanes being an extreme example - but these should not have the specific objective of eliminating agricultural use. TIlls generally is going to happen of its own accord anyway, given the value ofland dedicated to other uses. In my view, the proposed changes to Section VI (E) #4 address "problems" that don't exist.