2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 6, 2005 7 3. The drivcways shall be constructed within the City standards f()r driveway widths . of a 12 foot minimum and a 22 foot maximum. 4. Thcre shall be at lcast 60 feet bctwccn cach drivcway acccss. 5. Auxiliary signagc shall be installed which idcntitics thc cntry drivc and thc cxit drives. 6. The access drivcs shall bc reviewed by thc City Enginccr and County Traffic Engineer, installation of the access drives can only proceed atter approval of thc access drive design by both thc City Enginccr and County Enginccr. 7. Parking shall comply with the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance requiremcnts of no parking on any arcas except for drivcways and parking lots, and shall not have marc than 4 vchicles parked on any driveway. Chair Sand statcd it appeared applicants had addressed some of the concerns thc Commission had last month. Hc asked if staff was comf0l1able with this new proposal. Mr. Hellcgers replicd he belicved this was a better proposal than what had prcscnted at thc previous meeting. Chair Sand statcd it helpcd applicants included the photographs with thc computer generatcd lines and thanked thc applicants for these. . Commissioncr Modcsctte asked how wide thc cxisting driveway was. Mr. Hcllcgcrs replicd the existing driveway was 19'. Chair Sand stated one of their concems was if the ncw driveways were not allowed, thcn the existing drivcway might have to be widened to allow cars to pass each other easily. Chair Sand movcd, scconded by Commissioncr Thompson to recommend approval of Planning Casc No. 05-09: David Radziej and Rogcr Sabot, 4365 and 4367 Lexington Avcnuc; Drivcway Varianecs, subject to the seven conditions as outlined in statT's April 6, 2005 report. Commissioncr Modesettc asked if staff had receivcd any further comments from thc ncighbors regarding the concerns with this additional drivcway bcing addcd. Mr. Hellcgcrs replicd the neighbors had not been notiticd of this meeting as it was not a public hearing, but he had checked with the City Enginccr and he did not have a concern with this proposal and it also met thc County requirements. The motion carried (3-1) (Commissioncr Modesette opposcd). B. DISCUSSION ON FENCE HEIGHT . Mr. Hellcgcrs stated rcccntly a residcnt inquired about amcnding thc City's regulations tor fcncc hcight. Thc resident had just constructcd a red cedar kncc which was 6 feet 6 inchcs in hcight with ornamcntaI post caps somcwhat higher still. Apparently, thc materials arc scnt to thc knce company pre-cut and whcn thc frame is assembled the fences would be tallcr than the 6 foot hcight currently pcnnittcd. Thc rcsident stated the