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

Home Browse Search

Arden Dills City Council February 11, 2010 Page 2 a. There Is No Evidence of a Need for the"minus ten (10) foot"Language. Because the Adjacent Lots Setback Rule presently refers to "undeveloped shoreland lots"the City was concerned that the Rule, as written,contains a loophole that would allow additions to existing homes to be built closer to the lakeshore than new homes. Closing this loophole and clarifying what"structures"must meet the setback requirement were the stated reasons to amend the Rule. The"minus ten(10)feet"language is wholly unrelated to, and unnecessary to accomplishing these goals. The potential loophole can quite easily be closed with amendments to existing language as follows(idelti and additions)and definitional clarifications of "dwelling": Adjacent Lots. On shoreland lots that have two (2) adjacent lots with existing* ' -es dwellings on both such ad j acent lots, any new residential stf u etur-e dwelling unit,or an addition to an existing dwelling,may shall be setback at least the average setback of the adjacent stmetw e dwellings from the ordinary high water mark or fifty(50)feet,whichever is greater, ---- provided all other provisions of the shoreland management districts are complied with. The only apparent basis for including the "minus ten(10) feet"language is a perceived need to have flexibility to allow development to occur. A review of the evidence,however, quickly dispels this perceived need. There is no evidence in the public record evidencing a need or request to allow new homes or additions to move 10 feet closer to the lakeshore than the adjacent homes. The language was not introduced to the public until mere days before the Public Dearing and at a time when many lakeshore owners were not home to receive notice of the change or to submit comments. Yet, even under those circumstances,the vast majority of public response has been to oppose the"minus ten(10) foot"language. More importantly,there is no evidence to support a conclusion that such language is necessary to allow redevelopment of lakeshore property with new,modern homes. In fact,the opposite is true. Redevelopment of existing lots with new, large,modern homes has occurred without the need to move 10 feet closer. For example,in the Edgewater Avenue area of Lake Johanna, homes have recently been built at 1505 Edgewater Avenue(1999) and 153 5 Edgewater Avenue (1997)that maintained the adjacent lot setback of approximately 100 feet . Attached hereto are PID Reports for both homes showing basic characteristics of the homes and their assessed values. Further,I have conducted a preliminary plat search of other areas of Lake Johanna. Even this cursory search revealed that significant redevelopment with large home has occurred under the existing Adjacent Lot Setback Rule. I have attached hereto PID Reports for some of the new homes (post 1990)that have been built on Lake Johanna. while this is not a complete or thorough analysis of lakeshore development in the City, it is undeniable evidence that new homes can be, and have been,built without the need to move 10 feet closer to the Lakeshore.