05-24-21-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 5, 2021 14 Chair Vijums stated it was nice to see the Council was working to amend the Shoreland Ordinance. He indicated he supported the removal of Regulation #5. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 8:59 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Steven Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, explained he has been a resident of Arden Hills for the past 34 years. He discussed the DNR rules noting they typically applied to rural lakes and not urban lakes. He questioned what the nature of this building was, stating it was his understanding it was an accessory structure to hold waterfront items. He was of the opinion a 64 square foot building was adequate. He did not want to see 100 square foot buildings on every property along the lake. He discussed how small some of the lakeshore lots were and how these buildings would be an eyesore. He suggested the buildings be proportioned to the width of the lot versus a one size fits all approach for these structures. He recommended that these structures be allowed to be electrified. Gregg Larson, 3377 North Snelling Avenue, reported he was a lakeshore owner. He encouraged the City to rethink how it notifies the residents living on Lake Johanna about public hearings. He indicated there were a lot of properties owners on Lake Johanna that did not receive notice of this meeting. He was of the opinion the proposed Ordinance has an error stating Lake Johanna has been classified by the DNR as a recreational development lake since 2014. He discussed the setbacks for recreational development lakes (35 feet) versus a general development lake (25 feet). He was of the opinion that amending the Shoreland Ordinance due to one request was not sound government. He questioned how the City Council came to determine 64 feet of accessory storage space was not adequate. He discussed topography that was in place that would make it impossible for some lakeshore owners to have an accessory structure at the lakeshore. He reported these lakeshore owners had to manage their storage needs within their garage or rental storage units. He believed the current limits have served the City well and noted he did not want to see excessively large structures along the lakeshore as this would block views. He recommended the character of Lake Johanna be preserved. He suggested the City amend the Ordinance to properly classify Lake Johanna as a recreational development lake and that the City add a provision regarding proper notice for lakeshore matters. He recommended a 35 foot setback be required for the applicant’s structure and that the City retain the current structure area limit with minimum setbacks without the 10 foot exception with a sliding scale for accessory structures based on lot width as was proposed by Mr. Nelson. Kye Samuelson, 3493 Siems Court, stated he was not new to this dialogue. He commented he was hoping to work with the City to manage beautification, security and storage for lakeshore properties. He indicated there were some interesting things said regarding proportional dimensions for accessory structures for lake lot sizes. He explained it made sense to consider Lake Johanna was a recreational development lake. He reported he was looking at this issue from a bigger perspective and he wanted to address how to manage modern waterfront items. He stated 100 square feet made sense to him, noting he would like a higher building height to be considered. He liked the idea of making these structures both aesthetically pleasing and functional. He discussed how these structures were an immaterial improvement to the overall beautification, security, storage, properties cleanliness and order for multiple neighborhoods that are on the lake and the guests of the City that come to enjoy these natural resources. Matthew ____________ had difficulty with his audio. Staff encouraged Mr. _____________ to submit his comments to City staff prior to the City Council meeting.