1A, Planning Case 09-003, Zoning Code Amendment

Home Browse Search

Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 February 2, 2010 Page 2 Adjacent Lots. On shoreland lots that have two (2) adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both sides, any new residential structure shah be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high water level or the structure setback for the lake, whichever is greater, provided all other provisions of the Shoreland Management Districts are complied with. The Provision may be modified by the City's Zoning Administrator for unique topographical features. The minutes of the November 41 2009 Public Hearing show that, other than question of what fell within the term"structure," there was little discussion or opposition to the proposed changes to the Adjacent Lot Setback Rule. Specifically, there was no request to allow new dwellings to be built closer to the shoreline than the two adjacent homes, or to base the average setback on more than the two adjacent dwellings, which appears to have traditionally been calculated using the "string line" approach. Despite the lack of opposition to maintaining the shoreland setback based on a string line approach of the two adjacent home, the new proposal, issued just last week, is to dramatically amend the Adjacent Lots Setback Rule to read as follows: Subd. 4 Adjacent Lots. Where two or more existing adjacent dwellings have shoreline setbacks that exceed the minimum setback from the ordinary high water level by ten (10) or more feet, the shoreland setback for a new dwelling unit, or an addition to a dwelling, shall not be less than the average of the shoreland setbacks for such existing adjacent dwellings minus ten (10) feet. However, in no case shall the new structure or addition be within the minimum setback from the ordinary high water level as stated in Section 1330.03 Subd 1. Addition of the Phrase "Two Or More" and "Minus Ten (10) Feet" Are Neither Necessary Nor in the Public Interest. According to the City's Procedural Manual, the required submissions for a zoning code amendment includes a statement as to why the proposed amendment is "necessary and in the public interest." Given the significant changes that are being proposed for the Adjacent Lots Setback Rule, the proposed changes should meet this same standard to demonstrate it is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. See, e.g., In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 624 N.W.2d 264, 277(Minn. 2001) (appellate court may reverse an administrative decision if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious); Horbal v. City of Ham Lake, 393 N.W.2d 5, 7 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding courts determine whether the zoning action was "reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious in light of applicable zoning ordinances"). As discussed below, the language the Stantons are objecting to does not meet this standard.