My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-09-21 Planning Commission
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2021
>
06-09-21 Planning Commission
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2021 3:28:01 PM
Creation date
10/28/2021 3:25:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
161
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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 5, 2021 15 <br /> <br /> <br />Steven Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, explained he has been a resident of Arden Hills for the past <br />34 years. He discussed the DNR rules noting they typically applied to rural lakes and not urban <br />lakes. He questioned what the nature of this building was, stating it was his understanding it was <br />an accessory structure to hold waterfront items. He was of the opinion a 64 square foot building <br />was adequate. He did not want to see 100 square foot buildings on every property along the lake. <br />He discussed how small some of the lakeshore lots were and how these buildings would be an <br />eyesore. He suggested the buildings be proportioned to the width of the lot versus a one size fits <br />all approach for these structures. He recommended that these structures be allowed to be <br />electrified. <br /> <br />Gregg Larson, 3377 North Snelling Avenue, reported he was a lakeshore owner. He encouraged <br />the City to rethink how it notifies the residents living on Lake Johanna about public hearings. He <br />indicated there were a lot of properties owners on Lake Johanna that did not receive notice of this <br />meeting. He was of the opinion the proposed Ordinance has an error stating Lake Johanna has <br />been classified by the DNR as a recreational development lake since 2014. He discussed the <br />setbacks for recreational development lakes (35 feet) versus a general development lake (25 feet). <br />He was of the opinion that amending the Shoreland Ordinance due to one request was not sound <br />government. He questioned how the City Council came to determine 64 feet of accessory storage <br />space was not adequate. He discussed topography that was in place that would make it <br />impossible for some lakeshore owners to have an accessory structure at the lakeshore. He <br />reported these lakeshore owners had to manage their storage needs within their garage or rental <br />storage units. He believed the current limits have served the City well and noted he did not want <br />to see excessively large structures along the lakeshore as this would block views. He <br />recommended the character of Lake Johanna be preserved. He suggested the City amend the <br />Ordinance to properly classify Lake Johanna as a recreational development lake and that the City <br />add a provision regarding proper notice for lakeshore matters. He recommended a 35 foot <br />setback be required for the applicant’s structure and that the City retain the current structure area <br />limit with minimum setbacks without the 10 foot exception with a sliding scale for accessory <br />structures based on lot width as was proposed by Mr. Nelson. <br /> <br />Kye Samuelson, 3493 Siems Court, stated he was not new to this dialogue. He commented he <br />was hoping to work with the City to manage beautification, security and storage for lakeshore <br />properties. He indicated there were some interesting things said regarding proportional <br />dimensions for accessory structures for lake lot sizes. He explained it made sense to consider <br />Lake Johanna was a recreational development lake. He reported he was looking at this issue from <br />a bigger perspective and he wanted to address how to manage modern waterfront items. He stated <br />100 square feet made sense to him, noting he would like a higher building height to be <br />considered. He liked the idea of making these structures both aesthetically pleasing and <br />functional. He discussed how these structures were an immaterial improvement to the overall <br />beautification, security, storage, properties cleanliness and order for multiple neighborhoods that <br />are on the lake and the guests of the City that come to enjoy these natural resources. <br /> <br />Matthew ____________ had difficulty with his audio. Staff encouraged Mr. _____________ to <br />submit his comments to City staff prior to the City Council meeting. <br /> <br />There being no additional comment Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.