Laserfiche WebLink
Ceil Strauss <br />Januaiy 29. 1993 <br />Page 3 <br />7. <br />n. Limiting the creative, of such lots to just those situa^ons wtiere the non-riparian <br />benefitting properties are directly across a pre existing road from the access lot. <br />C. Limiting the creation of said access lots to only those situations where the parcels <br />on both sides of the road were in common ownership as of the date the ordinance <br />was adopted. <br />D. Defining said outlots as "non-buildable outlots", therefore negating an\ potential <br />future use for building purposes. <br />With these four controls in place, there seems to be no good reason for requiring that <br />minimum lot area for the outlet be the same as for a building lot. After reviewing the <br />August 1988 Statement of Need and Reasonableness, it seems m me that Orono’s <br />ordinance more than adequately mee's the intent of the DNR in limiting or reducing the <br />potential for overcrowding due to "keyhole development^ My sense is that the Council <br />would not want to change our ordinance, as they gave this section quite a bit of thought. <br />Regarding the statutory references, we would be happy to incorporate them in the code <br />if you will provide the correct references. <br />Regjrding the definition of shoreland and the reference to changes from the standard <br />1 000’ boundary where justified by topogra^thic divides - in fact, while we stated dial we <br />would revise the shoreland boundaries where it made sense. I have yet to complete <br />mapping the Shoreland Overlay District onto a topographic base map rthis is m progress <br />- wc -ust spent $45,000 on a set of 1" = 100 ’. T contour interval topo maps for the <br />northern 2 miles of the City) and therefore we have not determined which areas (if any) <br />will be excluded due to topography. <br />Definitions; <br />A Wc would have no proble: with revising our definition of public waters to <br />reference Statute Section I03G.005. Subd. 15 per die 1990 Statute Recodification. <br />Until I received the comment sheet and did some investigating. I had no clue that <br />Chapter 105 had been recodified into Chapter 103!! <br />D Regarding our definition of variance, we reference statutes Chapter^: which I <br />thi^ is still in effect. This is worded exactly as both the model ordiMnce and <br />die statewide standards, so 1 don’t have a clue what Steve is talking about. <br />C. Our definition of "water-oriented accessory structure or facility" is identical to <br />that in the model ordinance and the statewide standards...