Laserfiche WebLink
Ceil Strauss <br />January 29, 1993 <br />Page 4 <br />W <br />D. Our definition of "wetlands", "wetland vegetation types" and "wetland soil types" <br />in Section 10.55 should be adequate and appear to me to contain the necessary <br />references to Circular 39... <br />E. We omitted the definition "building line" (and hopefully any references to it) on <br />purpose. Our zoning code uses the concept of setbacks and required yard?, which <br />makes the term building line ambiguous and unnecessary. V/e would substimte <br />"setback line" or "at the rear line of the required yard" in places where you might <br />use building line. <br />F. We omitted the definition of Commissioner in order that there be no conf^ion <br />with the term Planning Commissioner. Every place that the term Commissioner <br />would have appeared we used the term Commissioner of the Department of <br />Natural Resources. <br />G. Our definition of feedlot is on Page 1 of our ordinance (defined as Animal <br />Feedlot). Perhaps in this case Steve could not see the feedlot for the animals. <br />8 We agree that there should be some legal description of our streams - should this b® by <br />centerline metes and bounds (an expensive process), or can we reference them by listmg <br />all quarter-quarter sections through which they flow? <br />9 When we filed our ordinance with Hennepin County, we made a clerical correctio^ <br />Subdivision 8 so that it reads "Establishment of Shoreland Overlay Distncl. "nje <br />Shoreland Overlay District is hereby defined and established to include the foUowmg <br />lands as referenced in the mao attached hgrefp M ExhiblL A within the City * <br />We didn’t do a separate ordinance that adopts the official map. since I considered that <br />to be part and parcel of the adopted ordinance... Please advise if you think our process <br />was incorrect. <br />10. I ihink Steve is confused on this issue. We do not have a provision that <br />house to be placed closer to the OHWL than the tequu^ settack without vari^ J <br />there is an established building line". Our Council would absolutely disagree with such <br />a concept. <br />We do have an "average lakeshore setback" provision * <br />distance from the OHWI. of the adjacent k- <br />minimum setback requirements esublished m Subdivision *^, * ^ * *. <br />construed as doing so. (Note that at the beginning of our ao^g <br />requires adherence to the most strict provisions when mere is a conflict ^ <br />ordinance.) It does, however, have the effect of foremg a new house to meet the greater