02-22-10-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—February 22, 2010 8 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) regarding other aspects of the regulation changes. Staff has also received letters of support for the ordinance changes, including the setback language. Councilmember Holden clarified that as the regulations are now, someone could build an addition up to the fifty-foot setback without considering the adjacent lot setbacks. Mayor Harpstead asked if there would still be a variance option available to residents. City Planner Beekman stated that a variance option is always available to residents. State Statute for variances is strict and it is the applicant's responsibility to prove a hardship and this criteria is clearly stated. Councilmember Holden stated the petition references environmental impacts that could happen if homes are built closer to the lake but it does not reference the environmental impacts that current residence are having on the lake by having their yards go up to the lake. She asked where the language "minus ten-feet" came from and why it was being proposed. City Planner Beekman stated the language itself came from a regulation that was borrowed from Shoreview. This is how they regulate their adjacent lots. It was adopted to create some consistency and clarity. Also the "minus ten-feet" language provides more flexibility to property p y owners because several of the lots along the lake are non-conforming or substandard in terms of size and* there are topographical challenges that are unique to lake front properties. The regulations for communities such as Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Shoreview, Roseville, Duluth, and White Bear Lake were reviewed. Shoreview is unique in how they regulate the setbacks. Most of the communities adopted the DNR language and they use the fifty-foot setback and allow additional encroachment when the adjacent structures are closer to the lake. Councilmember Grant asked if a mitigation plan for water run off would be required if the City received a request to encroach the additional ten feet. City Planner Beekman stated that it would not be required as the ordinance is currently proposed. The applicant would be required to get a grading and erosion control permit and they would be required to go through the Rice Creek Watershed District for review and approval but no mitigation controls would be required. The mitigation measures would only be required if the applicant were seeking special permission such as in a variance or a conditional use permit. Councilmember Grant stated those residents that are concerned about water quality could also plant native grass along the waterfront. This would help with filtration and water quality. Councilmember Holmes asked if the "minus ten-foot" language was similar in concept to the porch ordinance in that it allows some flexibility to homeowners without having to apply for a variance.