Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />We also concur with the city's proposal to amend the boundary in Section 34, the <br />downtown area. The statutory reference to the need for flexibility clearly was written with <br />this kind of situation in mind-it would not be appropriate to classify the community's <br />historic downtown area as nonconforming uses. We are somewhat uncomfortable, <br />however, with shifting the boundary this close to the river and the resulting uncertainty <br />about such things as the height of new structures that close to the river. We would like to <br />see some assurance that new structures in the historic downtown area would be no taller <br />than the typical downtown structures now found there. <br /> <br />2. Ordinance changes to accomodate urban residential development <br /> <br />We concur with your proposal to allow urban services and to modify lot size requirements <br />so they are compatible with urban lots and the city's comprehensive plan, while keeping <br />the frontage and setback requirements of the wild and scenic standards. We concur with <br />your proposal to remove reference to duplexes, triplexes and quads in unsewered areas. <br /> <br />3. Specific changes to the wild and scenic ordinance <br /> <br />We concur with your I?roposed "bluff' definition. We concur with your proposed 2.5 acre <br />lot size minimum for unsewered lots. We concur with your proposal to allow urban services <br />while retaining the wild and scenic ordinance's unsewered frontage, setback and lot size <br />requirements. Again, we concur with your proposed elimination of duplexes, triplexes and <br />quads in unsewered areas. <br /> <br />The effect of the proposed changes would be to provide the city with greater flexibility in <br />its urban setting, without compromising the "scenic, recreational, natural, historical, <br />scientific and similar values" (M.S. 103F.305) of the wild and scenic rivers program. Thank <br />you for working so hard to arrive at a solution to this long-standing problem. <br /> <br /> <br />~ <br />John Linc Stine, Administrator <br />Permits and Land Use Section <br />DNR Waters <br /> <br />cc: Larry Kramka <br />Dave Hills <br />Steve Johnson <br />