05-26-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orono has defined "sleep slope" as one exceeding 18% to keep it compatible with an existing cutoff in its subdivision ordinance. Steve Prestin noted that in an early draft of the shoreland pegs. 18% was the cutoff for defining a bluff. However, a review committee changed that cutoff to 30% and then included the term "steep slope" to cover slopes of 12% to 30%. Jay Blake mentioned that Minnetrista currently has a setup where development on slopes of from 12% to 30% requires a thorough review, while slopes steeper than 30% must not be altered and must be protected by donation of an easement to the City covering these areas. Gaffron commented that such an approach might be useful to Orono. Impervious surface limits prop'^sed by Orono are more refined than the straight 25% coverage limit in the DNR regs. Orono's aporoach includes: - No impervious surface within 75 feet of OllWL - 25% coverage limit from 76 - 250 feet - 30% coverage imit from 251 - 500 feet - 35% coverage limit from 501 - 1000 feet Allowable impervious can be transferred back, but not toward the shore. Since a survey is required for building, most landowners opt to have the surveyor do the impervious calculations. The City has had this setup for some time and has been experiencing 20 to 30 variance requests per year. Gaffron mentioned these are often granted to allow 30 - 35%. Several members asked about details of administration and enforcement of these standards. These included questions about how plastic or fabric materials often used under decks, behind rip-rap, and under gravel or wood chip landscaping is handled (Orono counts it as impervious in most situations). Another question inquired abcut how the City handles piece-meal driveway paving, landscaping, and other projects that do not individually require permits, but which can add considerable impervious surface over time. Gaffron responded that Orono is as strict as they can reasonably be (i.e. all drives are considered impervious), but that enforcement is often a problem. Prestin commented that these and other shoreland management isuues such as controlling vegetation removal are difficult to enforce if landowners are determined to get around them. He suggested a concerted, long-term educational effort to convince people to manage their land properly as a way to reduce these problems over time. Generally, members seemed to accept the Orono approach, but with some reservations about enforcement. DNH is willing to accept it. The last Orono flexibility issue discussed was their request for retaining an existing 30 foot height limit. Since this issue was on the agenda (item III.), members thoroughly discussed it at this time. Gaffron mentioned that Orono nad used a definition which started measurement at the lowest grtde. but has switched to the UBC approach. Prestin asked whether cities evaluate height from existing or proposed grade configurations. Comments indicated that "proposed" grade is used most commonly. Several members did acknowledge, however, that when combined with the UBC measurement procedures and a 30 or 35 foot limit, this can result in houses that appear quite high from the lak<‘. There were some comments that starting the measurement from the lowest grade would help some, but the concensus wa.s that the UBC approach should be retained because that is what they use outside _