06-07-21-SWS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION—JUNE 7, 2021 2 to the adoption of State rules, the City in 1984 studied the differences between our existing zoning controls and the State Shoreland Management Standards. This research and review was completed by a Shoreland subcommittee. Their recommendations for reclassification of several lakes, and relaxation of lot area and lot coverage requirements were presented to and supported by both the Planning Commission and City Council. On December 26, 1984, the City submitted a preliminary request to the DNR for comment prior to submittal of the formal request. This letter included a summary of City comments for seeking the lake reclassification which were due to existing development and present zoning being relatively compatible with the requirements of General Development, the lot area requirements of Recreational Development classification exceed existing development (95%+ developed) and present zoning, and General Development classification more compatible with development around the lake. The City received a response from the DNR of a willingness to accept all of the requested changes with the exception of riparian lot dimensions for Valentine Lake. Based on that direction, the City Council passed Resolution 85-22, Lake Reclassification and Zoning Provision Modifications on May 13, 1985 to request official approval from the DNR. Senior Planner Jagoe commented in 2019, the City contacted the DNR upon discovery of the discrepancy between the shoreland classification for Lake Johanna. The DNR replied to the City acknowledging receipt of a 1984 request for shoreland reclassification of Lake Johanna, Little Johanna Lake, and Karth Lake from Recreational Development to General Development, but noted that there was no record of ever receiving the resolution, and therefore the DNR did not finalize the classification changes. It was stated that the DNR still concurs with the reasoning supporting the requested reclassifications of these three lakes made in 1984 and is ready to officially adopt the new classifications upon receipt of a resolution. City staff is unsure if Resolution 85-22 was submitted to the DNR and/or if it was misplaced in processing on their end. However, no formal action has been taken to date by the DNR for formal approval. Senior Planner Jagoe reported this past month City staff contacted Dan Scollan, East Metro Area Hydrologist with the DNR, regarding next steps and available options for proceeding with Resolution 85-22. Mr. Scollan has indicated that the DNR has reviewed the 1984/85 documentation and would proceed with approval of Resolution 85-22 as submitted. Their decision in support of the reclassifications is the result of the lake classification factors having not appreciably changed since 1985. Looking at all of the classification criteria holistically, the DNR still agrees with the City's reasoning presented in 1985 and concurs that the area development is still consistent with the 1985 Council request as outlined. As an alternate, the DNR would also process reclassification of just one of the lakes in Resolution 85-22, but would need submittal of a new resolution that requests only the reclassification(s) the City is currently seeking. It should be noted that a change on the City's part in lake classification other than what is noted under current ordinance may result in existing development/structures around that particular lake becoming legal nonconforming due to newly applicable lot dimensional standards (i.e. lot area, lot width, and setbacks). Councilmember Holden asked if lake classification was based solely on the size of the lake. Senior Planner Jagoe explained the DNR has several data points that are used when determining a lake classification.