CCP 08-28-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--ARDEN HILLSCL1YCOUNCIL-=-AUGUST 14, 2000-- _____~__------D which was going to be sold for the purpose of converting it to a multiple family use, and residents came to the Council. She addcd that the Council had fclt it was worth addressing thc Issue. . Acting Mayor Larson statcd that the property to which Councilmember Rem referred was located in an R-l zoning area. Mr. Godeke asked for clarification with regard to zoning districts. Ms. Chaput stated that Noble Road is located in an R-2 zone, which allows single and two-family uses. Katic Nelson, 388 Bucher Avenue, Shoreview, stated she currently lives in a home converted for students, and noted that most complaints are related to garbage and parking. Shc added that the allowed number of unrelated people should be raised. Councilmember Aplikowski proposcd a motion pertaining to Item I. Mr. Lynch stated it would be ncccssary to determine whether the amendments should be adopted individually or as a whole. Acting Mayor Larson stated he would not support the motion. He added that, in his opinion, four unrclated people is sufficient. Councilmcmbcr Grant asked whether, in the Mayor's absence, the voting on the motion would require a four/fifths majority. Mr. Lynch confirmed that a super majority would be required. He added that the ordinancc amendments should bc adopted as a whole and not section by section. Councilmember Rem agreed, stating the amendmcnts were put forward as a single planning case. . Ms. Chaput stated that the Council's recommendations would be incorporated into a fOllnal document for approval at the Council's next meeting. Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section II (D), Definitions; Section VI (A) #5, Sizc; and Section VI (F) #1 h, Parking Structures, with regard to Item 2, pertaining to accessory structures. The definition for "building, accessory" is not inclusive of all structurcs. Since there are rcstrictions on acccssory buildings, it should be clearly defined. Also, there is no limit on the amount of accessory structures pcrmittcd. The accessory structure sctbacks are in conflict in somc scctions (10' for accessory but some principlc structures only require a 5' setback) so this languagc is proposed to be amended. Finally, the term "parking structure" is not defined in the code so it has been amendcd for "private garage" which is defined. Mr. Wcnzel asked whether a fishhouse would be considcred an accessory structure, adding he has a neighbor with six fishhouses in his back yard. Ms. Chaput confirmed it would be considered an accessory structure. Ms. Chaput rcviewed 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 nced 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. The number of