Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020-1479-03-100 (3) CR01/X %1-1u" PLANNING &. ZONING A. April 1, 2008 File Ref: SE0159 Kernon Bast 400 South 2°d Street Hudson, WI 54016 < % «" Re: St. Croix County Special Exception—Filling and Grading in Shoreland District x`.. Parcel#s: 36.29.19.(3022-3046,3048, and 3049),Town of Hudson Code Administrau 715-386-4680 Dear Mr. Bast: Landlnformation 8,<' The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment (Board) has reviewed your special exception Planning 715-386-4674.Al"" request for filling and grading in the Shoreland District of two unnamed ponds in the Cottonwood South Subdivision in the Town of Hudson. After the hearing on March 27, 2008, Real Prrty the Board approved the special exception request with conditions. The enclosed document is 715 -4677 the formal decision regarding the application. k.« R4WC g 5-386-4675 You must obtain any other required local, state, and federal permits and approvals. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. V& Sincerely, Jenny Shil cox Land Use Specialist/Zoning Administrator f Enclosures: Formal Decision CC' Clerk, Town of Hudson Steve Olson, St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department Kevin Grabau, St. Croix County Code Administrator Came Stoltz, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ST.CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1 101 CARMICHAEL ROAD,HUDSON, W/ 54016 7153864686 FAX PZC@CO.SAINT-CROIX.WI.US WWW.CO.SAINT-CROIXAM.US � + • i FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS,AND DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST.CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN File: SE0159 Applicant: Kemon Bast,property owner and project developer Parcel ID#s: 36.29.19.(3022-3046, 3048, and 3049) Complete Application Received: February 4,2008 Hearing Notice Publication: Weeks of March 9 and 16, 2008 Hearing Date: March 27,2008 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Having heard all the testimony,considered the entire record herein,and visited the site,the Board makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1. The applicant is Kernon Bast,property owner and project developer of Cottonwood South Subdivision, with Jon Sonnentag,AC/a,Inc., acting as his agent. 2. The site is comprised of Lots 1-25 and Outlots 1 and 2 in the Cottonwood South Subdivision,which is located in the SW '/4 of the SE '/4, SE '/4 of the SW '/4, and NE '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 36,T29N, R19W,Town of Hudson, St. Croix County,Wisconsin. 3. The applicant filed with the Board of Adjustment an application for a special exception permit for filling and grading an area exceeding 10,000 square feet on Lots 1-25 of the Cottonwood South Subdivision located within in the Shoreland District of two unnamed ponds pursuant to Section 17.29(2)(d) of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. Specifically,the applicant wishes to be able to conduct filling and grading activities for the construction of single-family homes, driveways, and sanitary systems on Lots 1-25 without having to obtain separate special exception permits for each. Special exception permits for groupings of parcels, contiguous or noncontiguous, are allowed pursuant to Section 17.70(7)(c)of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. 4. The applicant is the developer of the subdivision as well as the property owner, and will retain ownership of each lot until construction of the home, driveway/impervious surfaces, and storm water facilities is complete. Erosion control and storm water measures were installed for the subdivision as part of the platting process and are currently being maintained by the applicant. According to the Long- Term Storm Water Maintenance Plan for Cottonwood South,the Town of Hudson will take over maintenance of the storm water measures when the storm water maintenance assurance is returned and other conditions mentioned in the Plan are met.The storm water facilities were designed in accordance with NR 151 standards to accommodate storm water runoff from each of the lots assuming build-out. Drainage easements have been recorded on the face of the plat.Prior to construction on each lot, the applicant proposes to submit to and have approved by the Zoning Administrator a construction plan and checklist including a project narrative, construction schedule, contractor list and contact information, site plan with erosion control measures, a review fee, financial assurance,and other supporting materials. Construction has already begun on six lots within the subdivision.Erosion control measures are not in place on five of those lots, and sedimentation and erosion has been observed in constructed storm water ponds and ditches within the subdivision. 5. With conditions requiring the prior submittal of detailed plans (with appropriate review fees and financial sureties) for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator before starting construction on any individual lot; limiting disturbance on steep slopes; implementing and maintaining proper erosion control measures on each lot before, during, and after construction; and providing for the long-term operation and maintenance of all storm water features within the subdivision, this request will not violate the spirit or general intent of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance and will meet the requirements of Sections 17.70(7)(a) and 17.70(b) of the Shoreland District regarding potential 0 negative environmental impacts to the two unnamed ponds. 6. This property is located within a primary environmental corridor as identified by the St. Croix County Development Management Plan 2000-2020. With the conditions listed in Finding#5 above, this request will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the St. Croix County Development Management Plan 2000-2020 aimed at conserving and protecting woodlands and their related benefits for wildlife habitat, protecting steep slopes and controlling erosion and sedimentation from development, identifying and protecting environmental corridors,and guiding development to locations and conditions that minimize adverse impacts to natural resources. I 7. With the conditions listed in Finding#5 above,this request will not be contrary to the public health, safety,or general welfare,nor will it be substantially adverse to property values in the neighborhood,or constitute a nuisance. 8. The Town of Hudson Town Board has not submitted a recommendation on this request. On September 24,2007,the Town of Hudson executed the Long-Term Storm Water Maintenance Plan for Cottonwood South. 9. The St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department has reviewed the application and visited the site, and has expressed that it supports the general idea of granting one special exception permit for all lots associated with the Cottonwood South Subdivision. The Department confirmed that all storm water management has been addressed for the entire land division,but expressed concern about the overall effectiveness of the already established storm water features,which could be compromised by sedimentation from inadequate erosion control and site stabilization during construction on each lot. The Department feels that the sample plan provided by the applicant will address the majority of concerns with lot disturbance; however, it recommends additional information on the location of temporary stockpiles,winter cessation plans, and temporary seeding to control erosion. The Department also requests clarification on who will be responsible for inspecting and maintaining the erosion control and vegetation establishment on the site, and recommends immediate action to control erosion on the lots currently under construction. 10. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the application and stated that it would not object if the County approves one special exception permit for the applicant because the applicant is the landowner, developer, and builder of each dwelling. DECISION On the basis of the above Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law, and the record herein,the Board approved the special exception request,with the following conditions: 1. This special exception permit allows the applicant to disturb an area of 10,000 square feet or greater on slopes not to exceed 24.9 percent in order to construct a single-family dwelling, driveway, and sanitary system on Lots 1-25 of the Cottonwood South Subdivision in the Shoreland District of two unnamed navigable ponds in accordance with the plans submitted on February 4, 2008, and as provided in the conditions below.Approval for this special exception permit does not include any additional grading and filling, tree removal,uses, or other development activities. This approval includes after-the-fact approval for the lots already under construction. 2. Prior to commencing construction on each lot, the applicants shall obtain any other required local, state, 2 or federal permits and approvals,including but not limited to a County sanitary permit and a Town building permit. 3. Within 30 days of this approval or at such later time as weather permits but no later than 60 days, the applicant shall install silt fencing and other erosion control measures as deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator on the lots already under construction(specifically Lots 5, 12, 20,23 and 24). The applicant shall also remove sediments from the ditch adjacent to Lots 12 and 14,and stabilize the erosion occurring on the banks of Pond 4 adjacent to Lot 20.The applicant shall notify the Zoning Administrator when this has been completed. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining the erosion control measures and establishing permanent vegetation on each lot until ownership is transferred, at which time the new property owner shall be responsible. 5. Prior to commencing construction on each lot,the applicant shall submit to and have approved by the Zoning Administrator a construction plan and checklist including but not limited to a project narrative, construction schedule,contractor list and contact information, and site plan with erosion control measures as outlined in the application.The plan shall also include additional information on the grading limits, location of temporary stockpiles,winter cessation plans, and temporary seeding to control erosion. The plan shall be accompanied by a$100 nonrefundable staff review fee and a cash compliance deposit for the lot.The compliance deposit for the six lots under construction shall be $1,100 each, and the compliance deposit for the remaining lots in the subdivision shall be$300 each. The cash compliance deposit will be held by the Zoning Administrator until construction is complete, permanent vegetation has been established, and the project is found to be in compliance with the conditions of this approval, at which time the deposit will be refunded in full. Upon completing construction on each lot, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator photos of the completed construction and certification from the project engineer that the construction has been completed as approved to serve as proof of compliance. Within 30 days of this decision, the applicant shall submit after-the-fact construction plans,review fees, and compliance deposits for the six lots already under construction. 6. Prior to commencing construction on each lot,the applicant shall install the erosion control measures in accordance with the approved plans. During construction,the smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as possible. Upon completing construction, temporary ground cover such as mulch shall be used,until permanent cover has successfully established. Phosphorous fertilizers shall not be used to establish and maintain vegetation on the disturbed area of the site, unless a soil test confirms that phosphorous is needed. 7. Any minor change or addition to the project,including but not limited to the location of each home site on the plat and changes to the erosion control measures on each lot, shall require review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to making the change or addition. Any major change or addition to the originally approved plan will have to go through the special exception approval process. 8. The applicant shall have ten(10)years from the date of this approval to complete construction on Lots 1-25. Failure to do so shall result in expiration of the special exception permit. If the special exception permit expires or ownership of a lot or lots is transferred before construction is complete, the applicant or new property owner will be required to secure a new special exception permit before starting 3 • 0 construction as required by the Ordinance at that time. The applicant may request extensions of up to •'� six months not to exceed a total of one year from the Zoning Administrator prior to the expiration of the permit in the event that additional time is needed to secure other required permits and approvals. 9. These conditions may be amended or additional conditions may be added if unanticipated circumstances arise that would affect the health and/or safety of citizens or degrade the natural resources of St. Croix County. Conditions will not be amended or added without notice to the applicants and an opportunity for a hearing. 10. Accepting this decision means that the applicant and all property owners have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of this decision. The following vote was taken to approve: Struemke,yes; McAllister,yes;Luckey,yes; Chairperson Malick, yes.Nelson was not present. Motion carried. APPEAL RIGHTS Any person aggrieved by this decision may file an appeal in St.Croix County circuit court within 30 days after the filing date shown below,pursuant to Sec. 59.694(10),Wisconsin Statutes. St.Croix County assumes no responsibility for action taken in reliance on this decision prior to the expiration of the appeal period. St.Croix County does not certify that the identity of all persons legally entitled to notice of the Board of Adjustment proceedings,which resulted in this decision,was provided to the County. If an appeal is taken of this decision,it is the responsibility of the appellant to submit at his/her expense a transcript of the Board of Adjustment proceedings to the circuit court.The Planning and Zoning Department can be contacted for information on how to obtain a transcript. It is the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to submit its record(file)of this matter to the circuit court. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Signed: L Clarence W. Malic ,Chairp s 6-7 Date Filed: 04/01/08 4 III BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARING MINUTES January 24,2008 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Malick at 8:34 a.m. A roll call indicated that Sue Nelson, Jerry McAllister, and Linda Luckey were also present. Chuck Struemke arrived at 8:40 a.m. Staff included: Jenny Shillcox,Zoning Specialist; Kevin Grabau, Code Administrator; David Fodroczi, Director; Steve Olson, Land and Water Conservation Department; Becky Eggen, Recorder. Staff confirmed to the Board that this was a properly noticed and published meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. in the County Board Room of the Government Center in Hudson. Unfinished Business Gary Elert—After-the-Fact Special Exception (Tabled October 25 2007) On October 25, 2007, the Board of Adjustment tabled its decision on the applicant's after-the-fact special exception request for a limestone stairway that he installed on his lot in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District in the Town of St. Joseph. Staff presented the application and the staff report. The Town of St. Joseph did not submit any additional comments on the tabled matter. The St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department did not submit any additional comments on the tabled matter. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources did not submit any additional comments on the tabled matter. Staff recommended that the Board table their decision until its regularly scheduled March 27, 2008 meeting as requested by the applicant. Nick Vivian, applicant's current attorney, signed an oath and spoke in favor of the request. Survey Map (Exhibit 5) was distributed. Ogden Engineering did the survey regarding the issues with the stairway and the retaining wall. The City of Stillwater is going to get their adjoining land surveyed as well. The City of Stillwater is going to deal with the property owners on a one-by-one basis. Elert has done what he could do and the rest is up to the City of Stillwater. He is going to work with the City on an easement. The stairway was already in place when Elert purchased the property in 2000,but he has enhanced it. Vivian would like to have this application tabled to allow the City to have more time. Motion by Nelson, second by Luckey to table the application until the April 2008 hearing. Motion carved unanimously. The Board recessed at 9:08 a.m. The Board reconvened at 9:14 a.m. Kingston—Lenzen Administrative Appeal (Tabled January 3,2008) The appellants are appealing an administrative decision that a proposed principal structure in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District would require a variance to be located within 40 feet of the bluffline of non-direct facing slope preservation zones in the Town of Troy. Staff summarized the appeal and staff report. Staff provided the Board with two additional exhibits,including a letter from the St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Committee supporting staff's interpretation of the Ordinance (Exhibit 9), and a revised color drawing illustrating the appellant's determination of the slope preservation zone (Exhibit 10). The Troy Town Board did not submit any comments on the appeal for the Board's review. The St. Croix Land and Water Conservation Department commented on the revised plans submitted on December 19, 2007, and did not support the encroachment of the southwest corner of the proposed principal structure within the 40-foot setback of the bluffline as depicted in the plans. They stated that the bluffline drains directly towards the river and allowing a structure to be constructed within the setback increases the potential for slope failure due to vegetation removal,heavy equipment operation, and concentrated flow of runoff. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources stated that the Department does not have record of the 2002 bluffline determination referenced in the application, nor does the Department agree with the appellants' statement that the current interpretation of the Ordinance would not allow the proposed single-family home to be placed within the allowed area on the site. They did affirm that the Department believes that St. Croix County staff made the correct interpretation of bluffline and setback in accordance with the County's Riverway Ordinance language. Stu Krueger, attorney for the appellants, signed an oath and spoke in favor of the administrative appeal. He provided the Board with a definition of"Slope Preservation Zone" as he felt was read by staff(Exhibit 11). He testified that the area southwest of where the homestead will go should not be considered bluffline because it does not slope towards or riverward to the River. He said geographically it does not go toward the river. If it does not drain directly towards the river, it shouldn't be considered bluffline or slope preservation zone. James Filkins of Ogden Engineering, surveyor for the applicants, signed an oath and spoke in favor of the appeal. He described how he determined the boundaries of the slope preservation zone for the drawing he had prepared for the appellant. He also described how he did the cross sections indicated in the drawing. He provided the Board with the compass bearings for the cross sections (Exhibit 12) and a large version of the drawing he had prepared for the appellant (Exhibit 13). Dan Bauman, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, signed an oath and spoke to the request. He stated that the intent of the state administrative code for the Lower St. Croix Riverway District, NR 118, was not only to protect the view from the river, but also to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. He testified that"towards" as defined by the appellants addresses only natural scenic beauty, and does not address pollution. He also testified that the Department does not agree with the appellants' statement that the have the least environmental impact.He said it would not have to be a wood bridge. It could be a clear span bridge. He said the purpose of the bridge is to get over the ravine to get to another part of the property to access the river. He stated that the bridge is 40 feet back from the bluffline. No trees would need to be replaced,because there are no trees being removed in the slope preservation zone or bluffline. The structure is 30 feet high. Louie Filkins, Ogden Engineering, signed an oath and spoke in favor of the request. He testified that the storm water management plan met County, DNR and Town of Troy requirements. He has worked with this property for 10 years. The 100 year peak storm flows are reduced after the structure has been created. The bridge is going to disturb less ground compared to a stairway or a lift. The home will be placed at 4%-6% slopes. The Board recessed at 11:17 a.m. The Board reconvened at 11:26 a.m. Kernon Bast Administrative Appeal—(Tabled January 3 2008) The appellant appealed an administrative decision that filling and grading in excess of 10,000 square feet within 1,000 feet of the OHWM of a navigable pond requires a special exception permit per the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. Staff previously presented the application and staff report at the January 3, 2008 meeting. Dan Bauman with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources signed an oath and spoke to the appeal. He calculated the OHWM for the ponds in question. This site was one of the better ones he has seen in terms of erosion control. He agreed with staffs determination of the Ordinance. Since the developer is the one maintaining the storm water, the DNR did not have any issues with a blanket special exception permit being issued for the development. The department is willing to work with county staff to research the 10,000 square feet rule to see if it is still adequate. Jon Sonnentag, Ac/a Consulting, Inc., signed an oath and spoke in favor of the appeal. He said that Bast felt that he had met the intent of the ordinance to protect the bodies of water when the subdivision was being reviewed by county staff and would not need individual special exception permits for each individual lot. He said there will be average homes on each lot. They would like to see a blanket special exception permit to be issued for all of the lots and allow more time for discussion. Bast would just like the issue resolved and get the fees and designs all ironed out. There could be general standards for all lots and a process for review of the individual lots. The spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance has been met other than the 10,000 square feet for filling and grading. Brent Johnson, appellant's attorney, signed an oath and spoke in favor of the appeal. They are appealing that they need a special exception permit for each and every lot. They would like one special exception permit for the entire Cottonwood South subdivision. He would like to have the appeal granted so they can submit their special exception application for all the Cottonwood South lots and keep the process moving. 4 current interpretation of the Ordinance would not allow the proposed single-family home to be placed within the allowed area on the site, and reaffirmed that the Department believes that St. Croix County staff made the correct interpretation of bluffline and setback in accordance with the County's Riverway Ordinance language. The Board recessed at 9:59 a.m. The Board reconvened at 10:05 a.m. Kingston—Lenzen Special Exception and Variance (Tabled January 3,2008) The applicants requested two special exception permits in order to construct a principal structure and associated accessory structures in the Lower St. Croix Riverway in the Town of Troy. Item#1 is a special exception permit for filling and grading within 40 feet of a slope preservation zone. Item#2 is a special exception permit for filling and grading 10,000 square feet or more outside of the slope preservation zone. Item#3 is a variance to construct an accessory structure(bridge/walkway) in the slope preservation zone in the Lower St. Croix Riverway. Staff presented the application and staff report. The Troy Town Board had conditionally approved the revised plans(excluding the bridge)under the Town of Troy's Riverway Ordinance. The Town Board did not submit any comments on the special exception and variance requests for the Board's consideration. The St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department reviewed the revised plans and found the storm water and erosion control plans to be in compliance with the applicable standards in the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. They also recommended that the applicants record an affidavit referencing the storm water, erosion control, and vegetation management plans against the property. They also stated that they do not support the location of the southwest corner of the proposed house encroaching within 40 feet of the bluffline since it drains directly toward the river and allowing such structure to be constructed within the setback increased the potential for slope failure due to vegetation removal,heavy equipment operation, and concentrated flow of runoff. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources reviewed the original application and stated that the Department does not have record of the 2002 bluffline determination referenced in the original application materials. They affirmed that the Department believes that St. Croix County staff made the correct interpretation of bluffline and setback in accordance with the County's Riverway Ordinance language, which is the subject of an administrative appeal. Staff recommended tabling the decision pending the decision on the administrative appeal. Dan Baumann with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources signed an oath and spoke to the request. He agreed with staffs recommendations. Bruce Lenzen signed an oath and spoke in favor of the request. He handed out the special exception decision of the land division and CSM from 2002 (Exhibit 11). He said that the structure with full tree coverage and leaf off conditions cannot be seen from the 250 feet mark of the OHWM. He felt that the gazebo was part of the structure. His position is that the bridge would not be in the slope preservation zone. The bridge would Motion by Struemke, second by Nelson to deny the administrative appeal without prejudice to their right to submit a group special exception application. i Motion carried unanimously. The Board recessed for lunch and site visits at 12:30 p.m. The Board reconvened at 2:13 p.m. Struemke was excused and absent. Struemke arrived at 3:35 p.m. Decisions After hearing the testimony and reviewing the material in the record,the Board rendered the following decisions: Kingston—Lenzen Administrative Appeal(Tabled January 3 2008) Motion by McAllister, second by Nelson to deny the administrative appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination that a proposed structure would require a variance for encroaching within 40 feet of 12 percent slopes that do not directly face the St. Croix River in the Lower St. Croix Riverway based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. The appellants are Terrence and Peggy Kingston, property owners, with Bruce Lenzen, Bruce Lenzen Homes, Inc., acting as their agent. 2. The site is located at 292 Brugler Court, Part of Government Lot 2, Section 12, T28N, R20W, Town of Troy, St. Croix County, Wisconsin. 3. The appellants own a 7.04-acre lot that is within the Lower St. Croix Riverway District and directly abuts the St. Croix River. Over half of the lot is comprised of steep slopes over 25 percent, with ravines to the north, south, and west, and a large plateau area along the east end of the lot closest to Brugler Court. The appellants propose to construct a 3,660 square foot single-family residence with a 1,700 square foot attached garage, 900 square foot deck, 244 square foot gazebo, 483 square foot front porch, and 272 square foot screen porch on the plateau area. The proposed principal structure will be located approximately eight feet from the steep slopes and bluffline to the north and west, and 40 to 100 feet from the steep slopes and bluffline to the northwest. A circle driveway and parking area will add another approximately 15,500 square feet of impervious coverage to the site. Storm water runoff from the impervious coverage will be directed to two infiltration trenches located adjacent to the bluffline, and one infiltration pond in the center of the circle driveway. The total disturbed area for the project will be approximately 45,300 square feet. The appellants have already clear cut much of the proposed building site and have been working with County code enforcement staff and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to bring the property 5 back into compliance with the vegetation management standards in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District. 4. The appellants filed an application with the St. Croix Count Board of Pp pp Y Adjustment for an administrative appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination that the appellants' proposed structures would require a variance for encroaching within 40 feet of 12 percent slopes that do not directly face the St. Croix River in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District pursuant to Section 17.70(6)(a) of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. 5. Section 17.36 G.5.a.c(2) of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance(Ordinance) requires that all structures be set back 100 feet from the bluffline in the rural residential management zone, in which the appellants' property is located. This setback can be reduced to a minimum of 40 feet from the bluffline if the following performance standards can be met: • The structure does not protrude above the bluffline as viewed from at or near the mid-line of the river or from 250 feet riverward from the OHWM whichever is less. • The structure is not located in a slope preservation zone. • The structure utilizes building materials that are earth tone in color and of a non-reflective nature, except that windows may be made of ordinary window glass or non-reflective glass, but may not be made of glass designed to reflect more light than ordinary window glass. • The structure is visually inconspicuous. 6. Section 17.09 of the Ordinance defines bluffline as: "A line along the top of the slope preservation zone. There can be more than one bluffline. " 7. Section 17.09 of the Ordinance defines slope preservation zone as: "The area riverward from the bluffline where the slope towards the river is 12%or more, as measured horizontally for a distance of not more than S0 feet or less than 25 feet." 8. For the purpose of this application, "riverward" and "towards the river" mean draining directly or indirectly to the St. Croix River, and/or being able to see the St. Croix River. Upon visiting the site and viewing the river, including viewing the river along the compass bearings provided by the appellants,the Board concludes that the 12 percent and greater slopes to the north, west, and south of the proposed homesite are"riverward" of the bluffline and "towards the river," as originally interpreted by the staff. 9. Section 17.36 F.3.a.4. of the Ordinance identifies filling and grading standards applicable to slope preservation zones that do not directly face and do not drain directly to the river. Section 17.36 H.3.c. of the Ordinance states that no filling and grading is allowed in slope preservation zones that directly face and/or directly drain to the river. These standards clearly establish that a slope need not 6