Laserfiche WebLink
Staff also �discussed the proposed changes internally amongst Code Enforcement, Parks and <br />Recreation, Public Works, Engineering, and Building. The goal was to broaden the context of <br />which the amended regulations were drafted. In addition to internal discussion, Staff discussed <br />the amendments with the City Attorney, the DNR, Ramsey County Conservation District, and <br />the Rice Creek Watershed District. <br />At their September 21, 2009, work session the City Council reviewed the proposed draft, made <br />additional comments, and directed Staff to bring the ordinance to the Planning Commission for a <br />public hearing and recommendation. <br />At the November 4, 2009, public hearing a number of concerns and questions were raised by <br />both the Planning Commission and residents. The Planning Commission voted to table the <br />proposed Zoning Code amendments to a work session in order to further discuss the issue and <br />provide direction to staff on how to proceed with the proposed amendments. The Planning <br />Commission met at a work session on January 6, 2010, to discuss the concerns raised at the <br />previous meeting. <br />A revised draft was prepared based on the discussions at the previous work session. At that time <br />Staff also included an amendment to the "Adj acent Lots" regulation based on input from the <br />Planning Commission, researching neighboring communities, and internal discussions. On <br />February 3, 2010, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the proposed <br />regulations. The maj or concern brought up at that meeting was in regards to the "Adj acent Lots" <br />regulation and in particular one aspect of the proposed amendment that would remove a <br />shoreline property owner's ability to construct an addition within 50 feet of the lake when <br />adj acent properties exceeded this amount. The proposed language would require all new <br />construction to meet the average setback of the adj acent properties, minus ten feet, as illustrated <br />in Attachment A. <br />The Planning Commission, while agreeing that the vast maj ority of the proposed changes would <br />be to the benefit of the community as a whole could not find consensus on the adj acent lot <br />change in the ordinance. The Planning Commission chose to move the ordinance forward to the <br />City Council with no recommendation. <br />Proposed Amendments <br />Sho�eland Regulations <br />The City Council met at their February 16, 2010, work session to discuss the proposed shoreland <br />regulations draft in its entirety. At that meeting the Council directed staff to make certain <br />amendments to the proposed draft and bring the document back to the Council for a vote. Staff <br />has since made the requested changes. <br />City of Arden Hills <br />City C'ouncil Work Session for Feb�uary 22, 2010 <br />IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases12009109-003 Shoreland Preservation Ordinance (Pending)102-22-10 - RegularMeeting - <br />Shoreland Regulations - Memo.doc Page 2 of 5 <br />