Laserfiche WebLink
flooding of these structures. Proposed revisions to this Item and the above-described- <br /> subitems will require boathouses and other wateroriented accessory structures to be elevated <br /> properly to prevent flood damage. Subitem(3)proposed language would allow such <br /> structures to be flood-proofed(constructed of water-resistant materials)rather than elevated <br /> on fill in appropriate circumstances. This will make such structures much more convenient to <br /> use for their intended purposes than if they were elevated several feet on fill. However,it also <br /> makes them more vulnerable to damage from ice and wind action than elevated structures, so <br /> a caution statement is also presented for situations where long-duration flooding is likely(i.e. <br /> lakes without outlets). <br /> The statement in item C regarding bluff impact zones is needed to ensure that structures or <br /> accessory facilities are not placed within the bluff impact zones. It is reasonable to exclude <br /> stairways and landings from this provision since stairways and landings are facilities needed <br /> for achieving access up and down the steeply inclined areas associated with bluff areas. <br /> (Provisions for their installation are included elsewhere in these rules.) Exclusion of all other <br /> structures and facilities from bluff impact zones is necessary because of the accelerated <br /> amount of erosion that often accompanies development here and because these areas are <br /> typically unsuited to development by nature of their steepness, soil type or because the <br /> placement of development can substantially alter the natural appearance of bluff features in <br /> shoreland areas. Not allowing development in these areas is reasonable since the natural <br /> resource values of shorelands will be protected. <br /> •• • • •• I - • _ - , apes is nee•ed to require local governments to <br /> evaluate the potential erosion impacts to shoreland areas and subsequent sedimentation and <br /> degradation of water bodies that may result from the development of steep slopes. It is <br /> reasonable to require that conditions be attached to the issuance of shoreland development <br /> permits an steep slopes if the proposed development is determined to have potential for <br /> creating soil erosion or visual impacts as viewed from the surface of the water. Additional <br /> reasons for the proposed treatment of steep slopes as a special management area is justified <br /> by review of existing county soil survey documents.These documents show that generally, <br /> steep slopes are prone to soil erosion or stability problems and care should be taken when <br /> developing in these areas. <br /> Item E is needed to ensure that development does not encroach upon unplatted cemeteries <br /> protected by Minn. Stat. Sect. 307.08. It is reasonable to require that permission to construct <br /> within 50 ft. of such sites be obtained from the State Archaeologist office since that office is <br /> responsible for comprehensive statewide management of such sites. Further, it is reasonable <br /> to prohibit the placement of structures on significant historic sites, since the construction <br /> activity and placement could adversely affect the values of the site unless and until <br /> appropriate information is collected at the site. The state Archaeology Office requested a <br /> provision of this order to ensure that future development activity will be sensitive to <br /> preserving and protecting cultural resources of this nature. <br /> In item F only two minor editorial types of changes are proposed. <br /> Item G provides provisions for the height of structures. The Shoreland Committee decided <br /> that a structure height standard should only apply within residential districts of cities, and <br /> that it should not apply to churches. The Committee also decided that, since many cities use <br /> the Minnesota State Building Code (based on the national Uniform Building Code), the <br />