My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-25-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
04-25-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2023 3:03:16 PM
Creation date
12/8/2023 3:01:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
TO:Planning Commission Members <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />DATE;April 12, 1994 <br />SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment - "Top of BlufP Definition - Public Hearing <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - ProfKJsed Ordinance <br />B - 3/29/94 Lener to DNR <br />C - Memo and Exhibits of 3/24/94 <br />This is a public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the definition of "top ot blufi <br />The current definition is as follows: <br />"Top of the bluff means the higher point of a 50’ segment with an average slope <br />exceeding 18%. <br />The proposed definition is: <br />"Top of the bluff" means that point on the cross section of a bluff below which the slope <br />becomes more than 18% and above which the average slope for a distance of 50’ or <br />more is 18% or less. <br />The reasons and rationale for this proposed amendment are contained in the March 29, 1994 <br />letter to Ceil Strauss of the DNR, and in the memo and exhibits to Council of March 24, 1994. <br />Briefly, the definition of "top of bluff" is used foi determining the point at which bluff <br />protection setbacks are measured. The current definition can result in a setback of un to 70’-80 ’ <br />from what a rational person would consider the "top" or shoulder of the bluff. The DNR <br />suggested a "common sense definition" which staff rejects on the basis that it is quite subjective <br />and not defensible. <br />The prop<\'. a definition developed by staff uses 18% slope as the break point between land that <br />is blufi and that which is not a bluff. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Please review uiC attached exhibits. Staff recommends approval of the proposed definition <br />amendment. <br />ch /
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.