Laserfiche WebLink
It .»memorandumI *Marcfi 5. 1993Z 4C ^ — / A < <br />. i 4C <br />e^*s ohLY <br />»ru ‘^ir^/^;33D* <br />‘b/smiiTJ /4* <br />. ^ • <br />i.;'V« <br />I <br />‘ \ '• • • <br />•'*. ‘ <br />• \» H ♦•J A <br />t>\c>ery <br />de . <br />b OM A L^T\0^ <br />Uo IC. ^ <br />t> <br />4A>irM/«> 20 d' <br />Au. B-Z /wif^ <br />ro^ilibw/S^'iMir <br />i <br />•» <br />r I <br />■ I <br />« <br />' I <br />TO:FROM:Ed PickDNR Kt;5ional Shore land II;. dro : o^ i s tSteve Frost in Consul taiit to the LMCD <br />RE: WOODLAND LAND USE CONTROL REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DNR <br />SHORELAND STANDARDS <br />This review covered various parts of the City Code, including <br />Chapters 3.7.0.9.&10, and a compliance checklist, which were all <br />received in your office on 12/21/92. Several characteristics of <br />the City are important to keep in mind when evaluating its <br />shoreland management controls. First, the City is completely <br />residential in character and its controls contain only one zoning <br />district - Residential. Second, public sanitary sewer service is <br />not available to any lots, so all residences use on-site sewage <br />treatment systems. Finally, the City is almost entirely <br />developed, with only a few opportunities for splits of existing <br />large lots to create new residential building sites. <br />My overall impression of these contiols is very favorable. They <br />are the most complete, accurate, and we 11-prepared set of <br />controls I have yet reviewed. In addition, a very we 11—prepared <br />checklist war, also submitted, significantly aiding my review. I <br />discovered only one relatively minor item which was not either <br />clearly compliant with DNR standards or covered by the City's <br />Flexibility Request. That item is discussed below, followed by <br />two comments. <br />> - <br />DEFICIENCY • * : ' - " <br />The City's standards for Guest Houses contain a 20 foot height <br />limit, rather than the 15 foot DNR standard. However, the City’s <br />definition of "Height of Building" is more restrictive than the <br />DNR definition since it requires height to be measured from <br />"...the lowest elevation of the finished grade at any exterior <br />wall of a building to the highest point of any portion of the,- ’• <br />roof." In my opinion, the City’s setup is essentia1 I y equivalent' <br />to the DNR approach. However, this probably should have been... <br />included and explained in the Flexibility Request.. .* <br />♦ if** * <br />COMMENTS <br />1) ' The City's control s do not'contain f air ly rout 1 he''stdtcments *- "f: <br />regarding statutory authorization, policy, .jurisdiction," - <br />severability, and abrogation and greater restrictions. However, <br />these are not specifically required by the DNR Shoreland; <br />Regulations, and, since the City’s controls were prepared by its <br />.Attorney. I defer to his judgements on these matters. <br />2) The definition of "wetland’ merely references the City’s <br />wetlanu maps, which were preuared by an engineering firm several <br />■i. <br />years ago. <br />the mapping <br />may want to inquire whether the criteria u.sed for <br />('ompatii)le with Circular 39. <br />l\j •' A** • <br />t.