Laserfiche WebLink
If the Council decides to vigorously pursue any number of these policies, <br /> they could then be self - imposed through the adoption of implementation <br /> ordinances or resolutions. <br /> Comment 2 <br /> These are specific comments to particular language referenced by page and <br /> item if numbered: <br /> 1. P. 8, #11 - consider "use of [future) easements" if you <br /> have existing private access easements. <br /> 2. P. 8, #13 - consider deleting "clearly" which also imposes <br /> a self- imposed and unnecessary standard. <br /> 3. P. 8, #20 - setback requirements for new development - as <br /> part of your transportation plan, you may wish to consider <br /> the provisions of M.S. 505.1792, a copy of which is <br /> enclosed, which permits the city to identify future streets. <br /> 4. P. 12, #14 - under M.S. 327, a political subdivision may <br /> not discriminate against manufactured homes, although their <br /> location may be addressed by non - discriminatory provisions <br /> of a zoning ordinance. You may wish to delete item #14 in <br /> its entirety, then by way of the zoning ordinance place <br /> restrictions on all single family, detached dwellings which <br /> is presently accepted. For example, it is permissible to <br /> require a minimum width for homes located in a single <br /> family district which applies to all such structures but <br /> effectively prohibits narrow manufactured homes. <br /> 5. P. 12, #21 - high density housing is frequently placed <br /> between single family residential districts and commercial <br /> districts as your proposed plan discusses in later sections. <br /> How does one determine whether the high density housing <br /> project is "utilized specifically as a buffer... "? The <br /> Council is leaving itself open to defending an allegation <br /> that this policy is being violated. You may wish to <br /> delete this item in its entirety. <br /> 6. P. 19, #1 - consider elimination of "to the greatest extent <br /> possible..." Your ordinances will assume compliance with- <br /> out exception. <br /> 7. P. 19, #5 - under M.S. 105.485(6), the city was required <br /> to adopt a municipal shoreland management ordinance on or <br /> before April 1, 1974. Assuming that the city has adopted <br /> such an ordinance approved by the Commissioner of Natural <br /> Resources, any reference to the DNR's standard or any <br /> Anoka County ordinance is irrelevant. For that matter, as <br /> you are aware, county ordinances do not apply to lands <br /> -3- <br />