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

Home Browse Search

structures" which is the string line setback, the purpose of which is to protect site lines for existing structures. The new language is cleverly ambiguous: defining average setbacks with g reference to"two or more existing adjacent dwellings." It is hard to understand how more than two buildings can be adjacent along the shoreline since adjacent is defined as meaning next door to, sharing the same boundary, contiguous. Nonetheless the notion of"two or more existing adjacent dwellings" opens the door for a party who is looking for a way to decrease the calculation of"average setback." As the Commission will recall, in Planning Case#09-022(a request for variance by the Ranallos) heard on January 6, 2010, the petitioners attempted to reduce the string average e g setback, saying in their filing papers: "we have created an average setback by g drawin a line from the adjacent Lot 13 to the east and Lot 16 to the west, (skipping the adjacent Lot 15 to the west)." This was clearly not permissible under the current regulation, as was pointed out at the meeting, but would arguably be permissible if the proposed language were to be adopted. The skipped Lot 15 is the lot of the Stanton family residence where my mother lives. The setback calculated by skipping my mother's home would have resulted in a substantial reduction in the required setback from the customary string line setback. My mother's view to the lake would have been significantly impaired and from some viewpoints lost entirely. As drafted, the proposed amendment proposed is very detrimental to the quality of life in Arden Hills and will have long-term and irreversible effects. I encourage the Planning Commission either to Recommend Denial or to Recommend Approval with Changes,namely the deletion of the words "minus ten(10) feet"and the deletion of the words "or more" from the proposed Section 1330.03, Subd.4—Adjacent Lots. Unfortunately I do not think I will be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on r February 3 d and so I request that this letter be read into the record at that meeting. Sir_ ely yours 11 ,f Ann M Stanton Cc: Peter Coyle, Esq. Michael Mergens, Esq.