CCP 07-31-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 5, 2000 11 Commissioner Duchenes asked, with regard to Item 5, whether the prohibition of agricultural uses will be a problem. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked whether gardens fall under this category. Ms. Chaput stated gardens do not apply. Acting Chair Rye asked whether the prohibition of electric fences will be a problem. He cited a resident who has a farm north ofI-694. Ms. Chaput stated electric fences should only be allowed for agricultural uses, which will be prohibitedShe noted that agricultural uses are not typically permitted in metro area cities and that long range planning for the area doesn't include agricultural uses. Acting Chair Rye asked whether the resident at the farm north ofI-694 would then be required to remove his fence. Ms. Chaput stated he will not be required to remove the fence unless there is a complaint, in which case he would be notified that he is out of compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance and be given a time period to comply. She added this amendment will deter more barbed wire fences from being constructed. Commissioner Galatowitsch stated, with regard to Item 6, that the proposed amendment might be unconstitutional, adding the exact language used in the State statutes should be included.. Commissioner Galatowitsch requested Staff ensure that the language in the City ordinance pertaining to amortization match what was stated in the State legislature. Ms. Chaput agreed. Commissioner Nelson moved, seconded by Commissioner Duchenes to recommend approval of Planning Case #00-11, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, with the following changes: Item 1. Item 2. No change. Under Section II (D) Definitions, "Accessory Building, Structure or Use", 3rd line, replace "principle" with "principal". Under Section VI (F) #3, Traffic and Circulation, "A. Accessibility to Public Streets", 3rd line, replace "to and from nearby public streets" with "to and from a nearby public street". Under Section VI (F) #3 C, Driveways, "7. Prohibited Areas", 4th line, replace "two" with "three". No change. Ensure that language pertaining to amortization of land uses is consistent with the Laws of Minnesota, and include session year. No change. Item 3. Item 4. Item 5. Item 6. Item 7. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, July 31, 2000, City Council meeting. Acting Chair Rye reiterated his opposition to imposing standards for single family dwellings from a philosophical standpoint.