02-22-10-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—February 22, 2010 10 7.B. Ordinance 2010-004 in Planning Case 09-003 to Amend Sections 1305 Subd. 4, 1325.07 Subd. 6, and 1330 of the City's Zoning Code and Approve Publishing a Summary (continued) Councilmember McClung stated he would be voting against the amendment at this time. The Arden Hills housing market is an aging market and the City should not put those properties along the lake at a disadvantage in the housing market. Without the "minus ten-feet" language the requests for variances will be higher as the houses along the lake turn over. Councilmember Grant stated he did not believe there would be many cases in the City where the ten-feet will be taken advantage of. This ten-feet will give residents the opportunity to modernize their homes and update the shoreline. The ten-feet being proposed is a measured response to the need for residents to have some flexibility. Mayor Harpstead stated ordinances are not set in stone and it would be easier for the City to add the additional language of "minus ten-feet" to the ordinance in the future than it would be to remove it. The motion to amend section 1330.03 Subd, 4 was called to a vote. The motion failed (2-3). Ayes—Mayor Harpstead, Councilmember Holden Nays—Councilmembers Grant, McClung, Holmes MOTION: Mayor Harpstead moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to Amend Section 1330.03 Subd. 3 and Add Item C. In no case shall the new structure or addition have,a minimum setback less than the lesser of the adjacent property setbacks. Councilmember Holden stated this would be a good solution to help eliminate some of the "creeping" residents are worried about. Councilmember Grant stated this would be a balanced approach. The motion to amend Section 1330.03 and add Item C. was called to a vote. The motion carried (3-2). Ayes—Mayor Harpstead, Councilmembers Grant and Holden Nays—Councilmembers McClung and Holmes Mayor Harpstead stated the City does need a new ordinance to close the loopholes that currently exist and he would vote in favor of the amended motion. Councilmember Grant stated the amendment that was added is a good way to allow flexibility without being overly flexible and he would support the amended motion at this time.