Loading...
1986 03 19 e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 1986 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Bill Ryan, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner. PUBLIC HEARING proposed Zoning Ordinance Draft and Map Public Present David M. Halla Mary Gagne Phillip C. Juntti David Teich Dick Hartung Bill Engebretson Charles & Irene Song James F. Dolejsi Jeff Fox Lawrence Klein Vernon Teich Terry Olson Wally & Joann Griepentrog Gil & Candy Laurent Norman T. Berglund Richard Vogel David O. Hansen Mike Gorra 10095 Great Plains Blvd., Chaska 4610 County Rd. 44, Excelsior 9150 Great Plains Blvd., Chaska 10151 Great Plains Blvd., Chaska 1319 Circle Terrace, Minneapolis 7120 utica Lane 7200 Galpin Lake Road 8121 1st Ave. S., Bloomington 27990 Smithtown Road, Excelsior 9170 Great Plains Blvd., Chaska 220 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska 6360 Forest Circle, Excelsior 100 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska 1371 pioneer Trail, Chaska 1025 Creekwood, Chaska 105 pioneer Trail, Chaska 108 pioneer Trail, Chaska 1680 Arboretum Blvd., Chaska Chairman Ryan stated that this hearing is a continuation of the public hearing held on February 19, 1986. Dacy stated the purpose of proposing a new zoning ordinance is 1) to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan as well as some of the development policies held by the Planning Commission and City Council. She stated secondly, it is to update the ordi- nance as far as design standards to make sure they are consistent with today's uses. She stated that third, it is to provide an official control document that will ensure compatibility between - e e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 2 different districts and uses. She stated that proposed are agri- cultural districts which are A-I and A-2 and located in the rural area of the city outside of the urban service area. She stated that the A-I, is the Agricultural Preserve District, which is to provide an opportunity for property owners desiring agricultural preserve status and the other district is A-2, Agricultural Estate, which is proposed as a ten acre minimum which will be discussed further. She stated that it will allow not only agri- cultural uses, but single family dwellings as well. She stated that the residential districts are broken down into R-lb, R-lc, and multiple family districts from R-2 to R-5. She stated that the R-lb areas match the existing single family developed areas in the City, primarily north of Highway 5. She stated that the proposed minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. She stated that the R-lc district has a minimum lot size of 1 acre in and around the area of Christmas Lake. She stated that R-2 through R-5, multiple family districts are graduated in terms of density, with R-2 allowing 4 units per acre~ R-3, 8 units/acre, R-4, 10 units/acre~ and R-5, 15 units/acre. She stated that the distri- bution of the multiple family districts are around the downtown area and adjacent to the business park. She stated that commer- cial districts are broken down into office institutional district which allows solely as it states. She stated that commercial districts proceed with B-1 through B-5, B-1 being a neighborhood commercial district and proposed to be located in the southeast corner of Highway 5 and 101 where the American Legion is located. She stated that the B-2 is a highway business district which is located along the Highway 5 corridor. She stated that the B-3 is the central business district and located in the downtown area, the B-4 is the general business district located to the west of the B-3 district and proposed on the north side of 5 and west of Powers Boulevard. She stated that B-5 is a fringe commercial district located on Highway 169 and 212 which was created to accommodate the existing commercial uses. She stated that the industrial district is the lOP, Industrial Office Park, matching the area now known as the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Ward Estate and the area located in Hennepin County where the Press and CPT are located. The office and institutional district is to be located in the southwest corner of T.H. 7 and T.H. 41 con- sistent with the present C-l zoning. She stated that on the map, PUD-R designation is for previously approved planned unit deve- lopments such as Near Mountain, Fox Hollow and Pheasant Hill. She stated that also the lakes are labeled with RD which means Recreational Development which is the Shoreland Management designation established by the DNR. Dacy stated that she would go over issues that were covered at the last meeting. She stated that the first issue for the Planning Commission to look at was the rezoning of the Eckankar property. She stated that residents propose that instead of the B-4, R-3, and R-lb districts that the Commission consider R-lc in Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 3 e Dacy stated that the second issue was the northerly ten acres of the Eide property designated on the Comp plan as medium density and the property owner is requesting R-2. Dacy stated that third, the property south of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park that is proposed as R-5, there is a request that the City evaluate realigning of Lake Drive East from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard in a straight east west fashion instead of the curvilinear fashion and change it from R-5 to rOPe Dacy stated that there is a request for cold storage and ware- house units in the A-2 District. Dacy stated that the Lake Susan Homeowners Association is requesting that the north side of Lake Susan be considered either a residential pattern of R-lb and R-3 or that the uses on the north side of the lake be pure industrial and not allow commer- cial uses such as bars, restaurants, motels and hotels. e Dacy stated that six, there is number of comments about the types of agricultural uses and what is being listed in the A-2 and R-Ia districts. She stated that there is a desire for inclusion of the term agriculture in the R-la district and a provision for roadside stands and also that the height of farm silos is accom- modated. She stated that there has also been some comment about feed lots in the rural area. Dacy stated that it has also been pointed out to us that there is an existing shooting range on 169/212 and a shooting range is not presently allowed for in the A-2 district. Dacy stated that the Lakeview Hills property owner on the north side of Lake Riley has requested that the Commission to consider raising the proposed district from R-4 to R-5. Dacy stated that an item brought up by the Commission is the inclusion of language to require that development along the lake be required to notify all property owners abutting the lake about the development. Dacy stated that the last item is the rural lot size issue. She stated that there was considerable comment at the last meeting to keep the minimum lot size to 2! acres. Bill Engebretson stated that he represents Greenwood Shores Association and wanted to ask the Commission to give favorable consideration to their request. e Charles Song stated that in the A-2 and R-Ia the minimum lot size should be 2! acres. He stated that if the Commission read the Sewer Facility Agreement between the City and Met Council, all it e e e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 4 says is a minimum of 2! acres. He stated that it does not say anything about ten acres. He stated that if they want people to move to the city, it is defeating the purpose. He stated that surrounding cities must go hand in hand in developing. He stated that it is necessary to provide 2!, 5 and 10 acres, not just 10 acres. Dave Hansen stated that at the last meeting the vast majority of the property owners in the Chanhassen area are definitely in favor of maintaining the 2! acre minimum size or less. He stated that the Planning Commission is representing the City of Chanhassen which are the citizens. He stated that if it made any sense some of them would agree with it. He stated that there is no basic reason for it except the Met Council. He stated that he feels very poorly about the way this was presented to the citi- zens of Chanhassen. He wanted to know if the deal was already cut with the Met Council? He asked if there was still time to do something about the lot size? Ryan asked staff to explain what the actual agreement was with Met Council. Dacy stated the Lake Ann Sewer Facility Agreement required the City, as a condition of installing the interceptor, to implement a density of one unit per ten acres with a lot size greater than 2.5 acres. She stated that what they are saying to the community is that they have to maintain a development density of one unit per ten acres but you could have a lot size of 2! acres. She stated that if you have a square lot of 640 acres, a one per ten unit density requirement means that there can only be 64 units. She stated that what Met council is saying that you can have sixty-four 2! acre lots. She stated that some how the City has to maintain the one unit per ten acre density. She stated that it can be done with a minimum lot size of 2! acres, 5 acres, or 10 acres. Dave Hansen asked what kind of battle the City gave the Met Council? He asked if the City fought or just gave in on the 2! acre minimum? He asked if this was already signed and packaged and just his wasting time? Ryan stated that the Planning Commission is not an elected body and does not officially represent the City. He stated that the Planning Commission is an advisory body only. He stated that the City Council takes all the formal action. Dave Hansen stated that regardless with who has the power, he stated that it was presented poorly to the people, a public hearing after the fact. Dacy stated that as part of the sewer agreement, they have to implement a one unit in ten acre requirement. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 5 e David Halla stated that the public hearing was nothing more than a dog and pony show. He stated that the notice in the South Shore Weekly News was a joke. He asked how many people go to the grocery and convenience stores for the South Shore Weekly, that is suppose to be the legal weekly paper for the City. He asked why it was not put in the Sailor that they get for free? He stated that it appears to him that the City of Chanhassen is a puppet to the Met Council. He asked if the Commission was working for the people of Chanhassen or the Met Council? Ryan stated that the City of Chanhassen has an official newspaper. He stated that until January, it was the Carver County Herald. He stated that all of these things have been published in the newspaper. Jack Potts stated that he liked the way victoria handles situations like this. He stated that they send a written notice to every taxpayer in that area regarding the issue ahead of time. Mike Gorra stated that he still has not heard the answer as to how the Commission is going to handle the lot size. - Ryan stated that first they will be taking public comment and then will close the public hearing and then the Commission will discuss between themselves what to do. David Halla stated that the area south of Highway 5 is not going to benefit from the interceptor and why can't that area be treated different because they will not benefit? Roger Schmidt asked how conditional use permits in the A-2 Districts would handle contractor's yards? He stated that he had some suggestions on how to address the yards. He stated that the type and distance should be addressed. He stated that he had submitted a letter outlining his concerns. M. Thompson asked if Mr. Schmidt was concerned that he would be surrounded by contractor's yards? Roger Schmidt stated that no matter how well the yards are screened, 200 feet from his front door is not sufficient distance. Linda Carlson asked if once the decision on the ordinance is made, how long will it be in effect? She asked for example, if someone five years down the road had a good idea for a certain area, what, if any, process could they go through? e Dacy stated that once the ordinance is adopted the property owner does have the right to come in and petition for a rezoning. She stated that it is a public hearing process. e e e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 6 Linda Carlson asked why, if the City could meet a one unit in ten acre density with a minimum of 2+ acres, are they trying to change it to ten? Dacy stated that is one of the questions they want to address in the discussion as to weigh the pros and cons vs. a 2t acre, vs. 5 acres, vs. 10 acres and what is the best way to implement that density requirement. Ryan stated that one of the difficulties in having a one and ten density and a 2! acre lot size, it commits the landowner for an indefinite period to have to retain that land if they try to sell it off, then the next person cannot build anything on it. Linda Carlson stated that by making these decisions, she asked what the City is getting itself into? Dacy stated that as far as the ability to subdivide a ten acre lot, it could be done when water and sewer service is provided. Al Klingelhutz asked how long the contract was for? Dacy stated that what the contract does is provides for the cost sharing between Eden prairie and Chanhassen to install the inter- ceptor along with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. She stated that if the City violates the terms of agreement, for example, if the pipe is installed and the City changes the zoning to allow one per 2! unit development in rural area, the Met Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission could pre- vent hook-up in the Lake Ann Interceptor Line. She stated that the contract is to install the interceptor and if the City viola- tes it, they could prevent us from hooking up into that intercep- tor. She stated that the only deadlines involved are that the City has to adopt official controls implementing that one per ten density requirement by May 1, 1987. Al Klingelhutz stated that they are suppose to be able to hook-up to the Lake Ann Interceptor by the year 2000. Dacy stated when the urban service area is filled. Al Klingelhutz asked at that time would the City still have to abide by the one and ten? Dacy stated that when the people will be able to hook-up into the interceptor, then the zoning will have to change to urban size lots. Al Klingelhutz stated in that area but what about the area where there is no service? Dacy stated not until sewer service is provided. e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 7 Al Klingelhutz stated there would be no change until the Bluff Creek Interceptor comes in to service the area south of Highway 5. Dacy stated that was correct. Al Klingelhutz asked if it was possible for farmers who did not want to develop their land to transfer their units to another piece of property and still maintain the one in ten units? Dacy stated that is an issue that the Commission and Council will have to decide. Wally otto stated that it is much cheaper now to make the changes to the ordinance than later. He stated that his experience on a Planning Commission anything planned beyond five years is worthless. He stated the City can put all the restrictions they want on the rural area, and if that area fills up faster than anyone's statistics say that they will, the City will come back and try to change it whether the people want it or not. He felt that there is no rush to take over the land in the rural area, why regulate? e M. Thompson asked what the Planning Commission's role was with the Lake Ann Interceptor? Dacy stated that the only thing the Commission got involved with was the amendments for the Comprehensive Plan which implemented the one unit in ten acre density requirement. She stated that much of the negotiations was through the City Council and they hired Dick Nowlin as the Consulting Attorney. e Ryan stated that the Met Council has not been addressing the western suburbs needs. He stated that they presented a proposal for a forcemain through the north side of Chanhassen. He stated that one of the options that the City of Chanhassen favored was rather than putting a forcemain up there that no one would be able to participate in, to get a gravity main right down through Chanhassen for future use. He stated that the City Council was trying to do what was best for the City in long term. He stated that the gravity main is a lot better than one that runs down the northern city limits. Al Klingelhutz stated that originally Chanhassen organized with other surrounding cities to put in our own interceptor in. He stated that the Met Council stated that they would do it and it would all come out of SAC charges. He stated that now he understands that in order to get certain capacity for Chanhassen, the City will be assessed $482,000 which is another tax burden which it should be paid by the SAC charges. Dacy stated that up until the last moment, the Met Council staff was adamant on the Lake Virginia Forcemain. She stated that e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 8 the method of payment that is there will be an increase on SAC charges as far as new construction and there are existing funds in the utility Fund. Al Klingelhutz asked if the area assessment be deferred until the year 2000, when these people get to finally use the service, will they be charged a metro SAC charge? Dacy stated that he would have to check with Bill MQnk. Dave Hansen stated that based on what is being said, maybe the interceptor should be shelled. He felt that the damages and unknown factors that could result were not worth it. He stated that he has not heard one logically stable answer on the sewer system. Ryan stated that Lake Virginia needs sewer now. He stated that the City of Chanhassen does not need it right now and based on projections will not need it for the next 10 to 20 years. He stated that was what the Met Council said in the first place. He stated that there is valid reasoning in that by putting it in now with one expenditure cheaper instead of with two in the future with the higher prices makes sense. e Wally otto asked if he owned 71 acres and does not do it until the ordinance is adopted, what value is the land to him then? Dacy stated that if the 71 acre parcel is vacant, he can construct a single family home on it. M. Thompson asked if these people all come in to subdivide into 21 acres before the ordinance is adopted would they be allowed to? Dacy stated that the City is obligated to process the subdivision and if they conform to the standards of the ordinance, staff is obligated to recommend approval. Mike Gorra asked if there has been any discussion on how to com- pensate individuals that might lose value of their property? Jay felt that it was infringing on or taking away the property owner's rights. David Teich stated that originally his property did not include agriculture now it is changed to A-2. He asked what the defini- tion of it was? e Dacy stated that maybe you were referring to originally it was defined as "keeping of livestock for personal use only" but now staff is recommending deletion of that and just stating agri- culture as in the A-l District, which is defined as the commercial e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 9 use of land for growing and producing of fruits, vegetables, crops, nursery stock including tree farms and choose and cut Christmas tree sales. Keeping or producing of livestock, poultry and all activities incident thereto. The term does not include animal feedlots, the commercial raising of fur bearing animals nor the operation of riding academies, commercial stables or kennels." She stated that the term feedlots has been pointed out to staff for discussion as to including it in the agriculture district. David Teich asked if the ordinance would allow him to expand his agricultural use? Dacy stated yes he could. Al Klingelhutz asked staff to define what a feedlot was? He stated that his son has 90 head of cattle and wanted to know if it was considered as a feedlot? e Dacy stated that an animal feedlot is defined as land or buildings used for the confined feeding, breeding, raising or holding of livestock and poultry for the concentration of animals as such that vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure. Pastures are not considered animal feedlots. She stated that this is taken from the state statutes. Al Klingelhutz stated that at his son's farm there is no vegetation where the cattle are, so by that definition that would be illegal. Dacy stated that is the type of thing the Commission needs to discuss. Al Klingelhutz stated that they have had twenty homes across from him the last 25 years and they come over and bring their children and visit and have never complained about the noise or smell. Dacy stated that there has to be a distinction between a feedlot that is used for personal use versus a commercial operation where you would have animals shipped in one day and sent out. David Halla stated that he felt that the City was infringing on constitutional rights of the citizens. stated that by placing the ordinance of one in ten acres, the Metropolitan Council would still have a possibilty of putting in a landfill in the future. He felt that maybe the Met Council was planning ahead, leaving enough acreage for possible future needs. e Al Klingelhutz asked that the Planning Commission consider allowing the transfer of units in the rural area. Wally Griepentrog stated that he has a rifle range operation and wanted to know where the ordinance left him? e e e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 10 Dacy stated that the rifle range and gravel operation can con- tinue to operate and will be grandfathered in. She stated that the ordinance as proposed does not list specifically a rifle range in the area. She stated that if the use changes or discon- tinues for one year, then the use has to revert back to a use allowed in the district. Wally Griepentrog asked if he had a fire in the building, would he be able to rebuild it? Dacy stated yes, if it is reconstructed to the exact dimensions. Ryan stated that it will be grandfathered in and can continue as long as the use is not expanded. He stated that it is non- conforming and does not fit with the existing land use. Dave Hansen asked that the Planning Commission and City Council go back to the Met Council and say that the citizens are not going to buy this and see if the City can make a deal with them. He stated that he hates to put his tax dollars into paying off lawsuits. Noziska moved, seconded by Siegel, to close the public hearing. Dacy stated that the question is how can the City deal with the density issue as one per ten and how should the City implement it? She stated that proposed is ten acres~ however, several com- ments were made at the last hearing regarding driveway access, clustering of lot sizes and so on which are all valid points in administering this regulation. She stated that staff looked at the pros and cons of the 2" 5, and 10 acre minimum. She stated that the Commission should look at~ especially in the area served by the Lake Ann Interceptor~ the possibility of another district to make sure there is adequate lot size that can be divided into 2 to 4 lots, at some point when water and sewer is made available. She stated that secondly, driveway patterns should be looked at because most of the streets in the rural area are collectors or minor arterials. She stated that septic system distribution should also be looked and how many can be concentrated in one area. The following was discussed: 21 Acres PROS CONS Allows clustering of home sites to one area of the parcel Difficult to resubdivide Lack of driveway separation requirements Vacant areas not being used for residential purposes are less likely to become unsightly Concentrates septic systems in a smaller area e e e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 11 2t acres PROS More feasible to install a public road at the present time depending on the number of lots to be created Clustering of units may be more economical if systems fail and water and sewer services have to be provided 5/4 acres CONS Lot area too small for uses such as contractor's yards, wholesale nurseries, etc. PROS CONS Allows for resudivision Lack of driveway separation requirements Allows for clustering and service by one access Provides for greater distribution of septic systems 10 acres PROS Provides for a less dense development pattern Discourages smaller subdivisions Distributes septic system sites over a larger land area Provides for a minimum lot size for better control such uses as wholesale nurseries, contractor's yards, etc. Larger land area provides for greater flexibility for resubdivision May be too small for opera- tion of such uses as contractor's yards, whole- sale nurseries, etc. CONS Lot frontage requirements will cause splits along collectors and arterials Although greater flexibi- lity is achieved for resub- division, resubdivision may cause a number of public streets intersecting major collectors and arterials. Lack of driveway separation requirements by the city Areas that are not used for residential purposes will remain vacant and may become unsightly (weeds, junk, etc.) Tax incentives for a ten acre minimum lot area may be recinded by the legislature May force the City to con- sider street acquisition premature to resubdivision e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 12 Tim Erhart stated that most of the people that have attended the public hearings have pointed out a large number of specific reasons why they feel the 2t acres should be approved. He stated that he has not been on the Commission very long and does not know the history of why the ten acres was picked, however, he has not found any real reason why it was picked. He understands that the Met Council is now backing off a little with the minimum requirement and feels that R-la and A-2 Districts should have a minimum of 2t acres provided that parcels do not exceed an overall lot density of one in ten acres. Steven Emmings feels that 2t acres should be the minimum lot size and keep the one unit in ten acre density. Robert Siegel also felt that 2t acres should be the minimum with a minimum buildable area. Howard Noziska stated that there should be a standards for the buildable area because some of the lots could be divided on a steep hill or a wetland. e Mike Thompson felt that the land owners could still come in and subdivide their property before the new ordinance goes through if they want 2t acre lots. He stated that the Planning Commission is just advisors to the Council and he feels the staff and the Council have done an excellent job with the Met Council. He stated that they are glad to hear the comments from the public and felt that they should also voice their opinions to the City Council. He stated that for long range planning 40 acres is the best. He stated that smaller size lots creates a lot of compli- cations for future planning. He stated that he would recommend the Council look at the 10 acre minimum lot size. Bill Ryan stated the staff has done a good job in going through the options. He stated that they are concerned with the accesses on major collectors, where the sewer will be located, and who will be assessed for the sewer. He stated that septic systems can also be a problem. He felt that one in 2t acre density was too dense for septic system spacing. He felt the 4 acre minimum was the right size. e Tim Erhart moved, seconded by Siegel, to recommend the wording be changed for the R-la and A-2 Districts as it regards to minimum lot sizes to be changed to 2t acres and that a method be developed to control the overall density as the agreement with the Metropolitan Council of one unit in ten acres. He also wanted to discuss at the next meeting that lot frontage, depth, minimum driveways and other restrictions be made. Also that spe- cific notation be made so that misinterpretation is not made that 10 acres is the minimum lot size. e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 13 Siegel stated that he would like to leave the specific restric- tions for staff to determine. Dacy stated as an option that the Commission could reserve con- sideration on the rural lot size issue. Erhart, Emmings and Siegel voted in favor. Thompson, Noziska and Ryan were opposed. Motion failed. The Commission decided to act on other items and return to the issue later. Staff presented a memorandum with ten issues that needed to be addressed/changed in the proposed ordinance. 1. Eckankar property: The Greenwood Shores Homeowner's Association is proposing the R-lc District immediately south of the subdivision and progressing to the R-lb District. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Emmings, to keep the proposed zoning with the evening out of the B-4 District. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 4It 2. Northerly ten acres of the Eide property: M. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska, to change the zoning to R-2 District. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 3. Property south of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park: Changing the R-5 area to rop District. Staff recommends the zoning not be changed until the Lake Drive East alignment has been set. Ryan stated that the R-5 transition was made deliberately. Noziska moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to leave the zoning as R-5. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 4. Contractor's Yards - Citizen concern in the R-la Districts Mr. Schmidt asked the Commissioners if they could discuss hours of operation, distance from a single family residence and other requirements for contractor's yards. Noziska moved, seconded by Emmings, to place the following restrictions on contractor's yards in addition to the restrictions listed in the ordinance. e a. Located at least 500 feet from any residence. b. Hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. c. All lighting must be shielded. d. No outside speaker system. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e Planning Commission Minutes Mach 19, 1986 Page 14 5. Request for Cold Storage and Warehouse Units in the A-2 District or Extension of the Industrial Office Park District adjacent to the Gedney site: ~~he Commission felt that the ordinance should remain as wri t- t~en staing that expanding the A-2 district to include this use would not be appropriate. 6. ]~ake Susan Homeowner's Association Request for R-lb Zoning on the North Side of Lake Susan or "lOP-I": The Homeowner's l\ssociation objects to the inclusion of commercial uses in the lOP District, specifically, hotels and motels, restaurants, bars and lodges. ~['he Commission recommended that conference centers be added to the list of permitted uses in the lOP district, and that the ordinance otherwise remain as written. 7. Agricultural Uses '['he agricultural districts should be amended as follows: e a. Page 27 - 5-3-2 Delete "Keeping of livestock for personal use only" and insert instead "agriculture". b. Page 28 - 5-4-2 Insert "agriculture" as a permitted use. G. Page 28 - 5-4-3 Add "roadside stands" as an accessory use. 'rhe Commission felt the above changes should be made and also amended the definition of "agriculture" as follows: ;~griculture: The commercial use of land for raising of livestock and poultry, growing and producing of fruits, vege- tables, field crops and nursery stock, including tree farms 03.nd choose and cut Christmas tree sales. The term does not include the commercial raising of fur bearing animals, nor the operation of riding academies or commercial stables and kennels. 8. Shooting Ranges as uses in the A-2 District: The Commission felt that the ordinance should remain as writ- ten feeling that the proposed use was not appropriate in other areas of the A-2 district. 9. Requesat by Lakeview Hills to rezone the property from the proposed R-4 to R-5: e The Commission felt the map at the subject location should remain as proposed based on the density allowed (ten units/acre). e e e Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1986 Page 15 10. The Commission wanted to include a provision for notifying all property owners abutting a lake when a public hearing application is pending that would affect the use or development along a lake. An option for the Commission to consider is: Adding the following sentence at the end of 3-2-2 on page 19 and 3-3-3 on page 22: "If a development is proposed adjacent to a lake or will affect the usage of a lake, the applicant shall provide the city with a list of prop- erty owners abutting the lake at the time of application and shall be responsible for notifying and meeting with lake homeowner's association groups. The city shall pro- vide mailed notice to the lake homeowners in compliance with the procedures outlined in Article 3, Section 3. The Commission directed staff to include the above in the ordi- nance as proposed. 11. Rural Lot Size The Commission recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance except those sections pertaining to the rural lot size issue, which would be brought back to the Commission as soon as possible for discussion and action. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Siegel moved, seconded by Ryan, to approve the February 19, 1986 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Motion by Noziska, seconded by Emmings, to adjourn the meeting at 12:30 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Barbara Dacy City planner prepared by Vicki Churchil May 20, 1986