My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 07-31-2000
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCP 07-31-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:10 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 1:25:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 5, 2000 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />Commissioner Duchenes asked, with regard to Item 5, whether the prohibition of agricultural <br />uses will be a problem. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked whether gardens fall under this <br />category. Ms. Chaput stated gardens do not apply. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Rye asked whether the prohibition of electric fences will be a problem. He cited a <br />resident who has a farm north ofI-694. Ms. Chaput stated electric fences should only be allowed <br />for agricultural uses, which will be prohibitedShe noted that agricultural uses are not typically <br />permitted in metro area cities and that long range planning for the area doesn't include <br />agricultural uses. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Rye asked whether the resident at the farm north ofI-694 would then be required to <br />remove his fence. Ms. Chaput stated he will not be required to remove the fence unless there is a <br />complaint, in which case he would be notified that he is out of compliance with the current <br />Zoning Ordinance and be given a time period to comply. She added this amendment will deter <br />more barbed wire fences from being constructed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Galatowitsch stated, with regard to Item 6, that the proposed amendment might be <br />unconstitutional, adding the exact language used in the State statutes should be included.. <br />Commissioner Galatowitsch requested Staff ensure that the language in the City ordinance <br />pertaining to amortization match what was stated in the State legislature. Ms. Chaput agreed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson moved, seconded by Commissioner Duchenes to recommend <br />approval of Planning Case #00-11, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, with the following <br />changes: <br /> <br />Item 1. <br />Item 2. <br /> <br />No change. <br />Under Section II (D) Definitions, "Accessory Building, Structure or Use", 3rd <br />line, replace "principle" with "principal". <br />Under Section VI (F) #3, Traffic and Circulation, "A. Accessibility to Public <br />Streets", 3rd line, replace "to and from nearby public streets" with "to and <br />from a nearby public street". <br />Under Section VI (F) #3 C, Driveways, "7. Prohibited Areas", 4th line, <br />replace "two" with "three". <br />No change. <br />Ensure that language pertaining to amortization of land uses is consistent with <br />the Laws of Minnesota, and include session year. <br />No change. <br /> <br />Item 3. <br /> <br />Item 4. <br /> <br />Item 5. <br />Item 6. <br /> <br />Item 7. <br /> <br />The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, July 31, 2000, City Council meeting. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Rye reiterated his opposition to imposing standards for single family dwellings <br />from a philosophical standpoint. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.