Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITYCOUNCILAUGUST 14,2000 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />driveways or cUTb 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 rcgarding the numbcr of vchicles on a propcrty at one time are addressed by limiting <br />the number of vehicles permitted outside of a garage. Other cities were rcscarchcd specifically <br />on this issue and it was found that it was generally dealt with by limiting thc width of a driveway <br />which in turn limits the number of vehicles that can park at any given time. Generally, cities <br />havc a minimum (not maximum) number of spaccs rcquired of two per dwelling unit. The <br />proposed numbcr of a maximum of three cars on a driveway was a result ofP1anning <br />Commission discussion and the proposed number has not changed from further rescarch. <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 rcquirements, in thc case that they have <br />changed or arc incorrect. <br /> <br />Mr. Peters stated that changcs to this scction would havc a major affect on his client's use of his <br />property. He addcd the garage on the property had been convertcd to a study area and the <br />driveway widened with the necessary permits. He noted the amendment should be broadencd to <br />take multiple dwelling units into account. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated that some property owneTS have circular driveways. Ms. <br />Chaput stated they can remain until the driveway is changed in some way. She addcd 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 accommodatc more <br />than one access. She added, in her opinion, the City should not restrict that. Ms. Chaput <br />reitcratcd that there are currcntly 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 intcnded to limit <br />rcsident's preferences. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that many homes have landscaping rock which is used for parking <br />purposes. He asked for clarification with regard to the term "directly into a garage" to dcfine <br />parking areas. Ms. Chaput agreed that it would not make sense iftherc was no garagc on thc <br />property and it should be changed accordingly. <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Larson stated that the word "those" should be replaced with "these" under <br />"Construction Standards". He agreed that the term "directly into a garage" is not necessary. He <br />added he is comfortable with the limit of three vehicles in the driveway, but agreed this could bc <br />a problem for multiple family dwellings. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch statcd, with regard to voting on the ordinance amendments, that the Planning <br />Commission prcpared the ordinance changes with recommendations for adoption, and must be <br />adopted by a four/fifths vote of all members of the Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated that numerous residents do not have paved driveways, adding <br />she is unwilling to impose restrictions on residents who are not causing any problems. She <br />