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

Home Browse Search

Larkien oilman Larkin Hoffman Daly&Lindgren Ltd. ATTORNEYS 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue south Minneapolis,Minnesota 55431-1194 GENERA!: 952-835-3800 FAX: 952-896-3333 WEB: www.larkinhoffinan.com February 11,2010 Arden Hills City Council Via Email c/o Meagan Beekman, City Planner 1245 Highway 96 West Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Re: Proposed Amendment to the City of Arden Hills' Adjacent Lot Setback Rule Dear Mayor Harpstead and Councilmembers: We represent the family of Mrs. Elizabeth Stanton(the"Stantons"), 1569 Edgewater Avenue,in connection with the City of Arden Hills's ("City")proposed amendment to the Adjacent Lot Setback Rule("Rule"). The Stantons are generally supportive of efforts to close potential loopholes in the Rule. But they, like many other residents of the City, object to the recently proposed"minus ten(10)feet"language I that would allow new homes or additions to be built 10 feet closer to the lakeshore than existing adjacent homes, effectively violating the setback.2 So there is no question,the Stantons are not here to stand in the way of development. Indeed,the evidence shows that many lakeshore lots are being redeveloped consistent with the present Rule. Like so many of their neighbors,the Stantons take issue with language that, while unnecessary for redevelopment,will have significant negative impacts on existing homeowners and overall lake quality. 1 In advance of the February3 2010 Planning Commission Hearin (the"Public Hearin "� g g Hearin""), the undersigned counsel submitted a February 2, 2010 letter containing an objection to language defining adjacent properties to include"two or more"properties. The"or more" language was editorially deleted from the proposed amendment by City staff prior to the Public Hearing and was,therefore, not a point of discussion. The Stantons assume that"or more"is no longer before the Council with the proposed amendment. But if it is going to be considered,we refer the Council to the discussion in my earlier letter demonstrating its impropriety and our stated objections. 2 The"minus ten(10)feet"lan a e was the oint of considerable debate at the Public � g p Hearing, including my February 2, 2010 letter. The objections raised in that letter remain and I would refer the Council to that letter for additional discussion. The point of this letter is to provide additional information to assist the City Council in reaching a proper decision.