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

Home Browse Search

Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 February 2, 2010 Page 4 b. History Does Not Suggest That The "Minus Ten (10) Feet" Language Is Necessary to Allow a Proper Use of Lake Front Lots. For the lots along Edgewater Avenue that front on Lake Johanna(the "Edgewater Neighborhood"), the existing Adjacent Lot Setback Rule has resulted in a nearly uniform shoreland setback of approximately 100 feet.2 As new homes have been built in the Edgewater Y Neighborhood, the owners have honored the Zoning Code and maintained a consistent shoreland setback of approximately 100 feet. What this shows is the lack of a general need to allow new dwellings or additions to move 10 feet closer to the shoreline. On the other hand, if the "minus ten(10) feet" language is directed at a particular project or projects rather a general need, then the proposed amendment would fall with the purview of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act("MEPA"), or may run afoul of the prohibition on spot zoning. p. See Minn. R. 4410.4600, subp. 26.3 At this point, it is unclear from the record what the driving force behind the "minus ten(10) feet" language is since it was unveiled mere days ago and there has been no public discussion of the language.. But if the action is not exempted from MEPA, it may call for environmental review because a reduction in shoreland setbacks for structures will reduce the shore impact zone, which is defined as the"land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback." Minn. R. 6120.2500, subp. 14c. In certain cases, impacts to shore impact zones require mandatory environmental assessment worksheet. Minn. R. 44 10.10001 subp. 2 and 4410.4300, subp. 36a. Of course, more information would be needed before any determination could be made whether the proposed amendment comes within the purview of MEPA or whether any form of environmental review is required or appropriate; however, it is an issue that needs to be flushed out given the lack of available information on the inclusion of the "minus ten (10) feet" language. C. Allowing New Dwellings or Additions to Existing Dwellings to Reduce the Shoreland Setback, And Consequently the Shore Impact Zone, Is Not in the Public Interest. When the City began the process of potentially amending the Adjacent Lot Setback Rule, the purpose was to eliminate what the City considered a loophole because the Rule referred to "undeveloped shoreland lots." To the extent that such a loophole does exist, the public interest is served by closing that loophole.4 But the same cannot be said for the recent addition of the 2 The lone anomaly a single in le home that was first constructed in the 19 5)Os. g 3 Rule 4410.4600 provides government action that is exempt from the scope of the term p g p p "project" including exempting zoning amendments "unless the action would be primarily for the benefit of a specific project or projects." 4 If the existingstructure is non-conforming Zoning Code Section 1350.04 would apply. It g states, "Nonconforming buildings shall not be increased, enlarged, altered, intensified or extended to occupy a greater area or height on the lot on which the building is located, or moved to any other part of the lot on which the building is located in a way that augments its