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

Home Browse Search

January 3 0, 2010 Ms. Meagan Beekman, Planner City of Arden Hills 1245 Highway 96 West Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 RE: Proposed Shoreland Regulation Section 1330.031, Subd.4 -- Adjacent Lots I am a trustee of the Trust that owns the family residence at 1569 Edgewater Avenue in the City of Arden Hills where my mother Elizabeth Stanton lives. I am writing to comment on and in opposi . g tion to some of the language in the proposed amendment. My specific objections are: (1) the words "minus ten(10) feet"that would allow a shoreline setback that is less than the average setback for existing adjacent dwellings, and(2)the words "or.more"that potentially Y expand the commonly understood meaning of adjacent structure. The amendment, as drafted, seems innocuous on first reading but its effect is insidious. The likely and almost inevitable result is that eventually all of the homes on the lakes in Arden Hills will have setbacks no greater than the required minimum of 50 feet. That will clearly change the character of our neighborhoods—substantially reducing backyard green space between homes and lakes, blocking the site lines to the lakes, and resulting in increased density . g Y that will impact the environment. My first objection is to the amendment language"minus ten(10) feet"that will allow a setback that is less than.the average of the setbacks for existing adjacent dwellings. At the meeting of the Planning Commission on November 4, 2009, the language the public was invited to comment on did not include the concept of"minus ten(10) feet; rather, it simply said that a structure"...shall be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures...", which is the concept of`string line setback' used to protect site lines for existing structures. Indeed the first time the "minus ten(10) feet" concept appears is in the City Planner's Memorandum dated February 3, 2010 which only recently became available and so the public has not had the opportunity to be aware of and consider this detrimental change. The February3 rd Memorandum notes that the proposed change ' p p ange in regulation would remove the apparent loophole that might allow additions to structures to be constructed up to the minimum shoreline setback line. That is a good clarifying change. But reducing the average setback by ten feet will result in lower and lower average setbacks as homeowners tryto extend their structures so that their views to the lake are not blocked. The logical and eventual result is that every Arden Hills shoreline home will be built to the minimum required setback. Of course, that would negatively impact the quality of life and environment around the lakes. What started as an apparent attempt to preserve site lines to the lake will have resulted instead in destroying Y g the character of the Arden Hills community. My second objection is to the inclusion of language that could arguably increase the manner in which the average of the setbacks for adjacent dwellings is calculated. The prior Arden Hills language was straightforward and clear: "the average setback of the adjacent