There's what the ordinance says and what many of us who were around at the time believe was the intention of the city council at that time. I think they felt that they were setting a very high threshold in order to vary from the limits in the Shoreland Ordinance.
Unfortunately, none of those folks are on the Council any longer and the tenor of the current Council is much different - clearly willing to compromise rather than hold the line to the limits of the Shoreland Ordinance. Harvey Zuckman ECCO Gary Farland writes: > Nowhere in the editorial did it reference > the central issue: whether to uphold the Shoreland Overlay District ordinances. These > ordinances say that buildings are limited to 35 feet tall within 1000 feet of our waterways, > and were passed after the awful Lake Point building was built that destroys the view from > the east side of Lake Calhoun, the most used part of our chain of lakes. Without commenting on the worth of tall buildings, isn't it fairer to say the Shoreland Overlay District requires *additional city review* to exceed 35 feet tall within 1000 feet of waterways. I've been told it's not technically a prohibition, but requires a heightened level of scrutiny. Not taking sides here, just want a better sense of what the ordinance does and doesn't say. David Brauer Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
