03-28-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 22, 1994 Ceil Strauss Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 RE: Bluff Defmition Dear Ms. Strauss: We have reviewed your alternative version (or "common sense" version) of the toe and top of bluff definitions which you forwarded in your February 18, 1994 letter. While the "common sense" definitions may have their place, we doubt they are defensible in court if a resident was to disagree with the inspector’s determination. Further, because the "top of bluff" is a critical element in determining a line from which to measure a setback, that line must be so defined such that anyone armed with a topographic survey will consistently define the same line as anyone else with the same information. The technical definition for "top of bluff" solves these problems, but creates another. While the intent of the code suggested by your common sense definition places "top of the bluff" at the obvious break in slope where a steep drop-off occurs, the technical definition for that same situation defines "top of bluff" at a point nearly 50’ back from the obvious break. Adding the required 30’ setback, a structure could be as much as 75-80’ back from the obvious top, clearly not the DNR’s intent (wish, perhaps, but not intent!). The definitions of "toe" and "top" do not necessarily have to use complementary definitions, since they are defined for two different purposes. "Toe of the bluff" is used merely to determine whether a bluff exists. "Top of the blufP is used solely to determine the point from which setbacks are measured. Clearly, the definition of "top of bluff" has a greater concern to the homeowner. Additionally, the impacts we are concerned about are generally within or just above the bluff, not so much at the base (where the results of protection or non-protection of the bluff eventually manifest themselves).