HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-20 PACKET 08.A.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING ITEM A
DATE 10/20/1
PREPARED BY: Community Development Howard Blin
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST:
Consider adopting a resolution providing comment to the first draft of the Mississippi River
Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) rules.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution.
BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A
BUDGETED AMOUNT
ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION:
❑ PLANNING
❑ PUBLIC SAFETY
❑ PUBLIC WORKS
❑ PARKS AND RECREATION
❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS
F ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY
n
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
107TA11111111
MEMO/LETTER: Memo from John M.
RESOLUTION: Draft
❑ ORDINANCE:
❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION:
❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION:
❑ OTHER:
ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS:
$N/A N/A
ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE
REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
1:1
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
1:1
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Burbank dated 10/15/10
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: M ❑ DENIED
/�s 24>4 - mey
CITY OF COTTAGE GRO\/f7=
MINNESOTA
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator
FROM: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner
DATE: October 15, 2010
RE: Resolution Providing Comment to the First Draft of the Mississippi River Corridor
Critical Area Rules
The City Council is requested to consider adopting a resolution providing comment on the first draft
of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) rules.
The MRCCA was established by the State in 1976 to protect the Mississippi River through the met-
ropolitan area. The Critical Area extends from Dayton, Minnesota on the north, to Prescott, Wiscon-
sin on the south and includes lands near the river in Cottage Grove. The MRCCA includes rules
administered by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that cities were required to
adopt. These rules control development, density, building heights, and setbacks for structures.
These rules have remained unchanged since the 1970s.
The 2009 Minnesota Legislature directed the DNR to update the critical area rules. Since that time,
the DNR led a rulemaking process that included cities as well as environmental organizations and
others with interest in the river.
The new draft rules include the establishment of new tiered districts along the river dependent on
proximity to the river and existing land use conditions. The first draft of the new rules is out for public
comment. The initial review of the process and draft rules are that they are heading in a positive di-
rection, but will require further modification and alignment with the enabling legislation before they
are satisfactory. In some instances the proposed rules are less restrictive than current performance
standards in the Cottage Grove City Code. The new rules increase the available density in all resi-
dential districts along the corridor in Cottage Grove. The new rules increase flexibility of develop-
ment in industrial areas such as 3M Cottage Grove. There are concerns that some of the proposed
rules hinder local controls over development projects. Representatives from all impacted cities in the
MRCCA have been meeting at the League of Minnesota Cities to discuss the rules process. A copy
of the new proposed districts for Cottage Grove and the draft rules relating to uses and subdivision
has been included. A draft resolution providing the City's comments has been included for consider-
ation of adoption by the Council.
TrITITTIMT, 11 4 •.F +L
That the City Council adopt a resolution providing comment to the first draft of the Mississippi River
Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) rules.
WHEREAS, the Mississippi River Critical Corridor, a 72 -mile section of the Mississippi
River extending from Dayton and Ramsey to the confluence with the St. Croix River, was first
established in 1976 and was reaffirmed with Executive Order 79 -19; and
WHEREAS, the original intent of the Corridor was to:
® To protect and preserve a unique and valuable state and regional resource for the
benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens for the state, region, and
nation;
® To prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this state, regional and national
resource;
® To preserve and enhance its natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historical value for the
public use;
® To protect and preserve the river as an essential element in the national, state and
regional transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems; and
® To protect and preserve biological and ecological functions of the corridor; and
WHEREAS, the 2009 Minnesota Legislature authorized the Department of Natural
Resources to establish rules for the Mississippi River Critical Corridor requiring the DNR to:
a Determine the appropriate number of districts within each municipality;
® Take into account municipal plans and policies, and existing ordinances and
conditions;
® Take into account municipal plans and policies
® Take into account existing ordinances and conditions;
® Consider the protection of key, identified resources and features; and establish, by
rule, minimum guidelines and standards for the districts, which shall include:
• The intent of each district;
• Key resources and features to be protected or enhanced.
Resolution No. 2010 -XXX
Page 2 of 2
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cottage
Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota,
1. Supports the recognition of the multi faceted character of the Mississippi River
and along the defined critical corridor and urges the DIVR to develop balanced
rules that recognize and strengthen the interrelation, dependence and success of
all the unique uses; and
2. Supports the accounting for existing natural and developed physical conditions
as well as City ordinances, plans and policies in the rulemaking process; and
3. Encourages that the final rules allow for flexibility in design control and approval
at the local level for all development and redevelopment projects that will strike a
balance in the preservation and enhancement of the environmental, cultural,
recreational, and economic functions within the corridor; and
4. Supports the use of the proposed tiered land use designation district approach
Passed this 20th day of October, 2010.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk
1973 Minnesota passes Critical Areas Act of 1973 (MN Statutes, Chapter 116G)
EQB adopts rules to implement Act (MN Rules, parts 4410.8100-4410.9910)
1976 Mississippi River and adjacent corridor designated a state critical area by Governor Wendell
Anderson (Executive Order No. 130)
1979 Designation continued by Governor Albert Quie (Executive Order 79 -19)
Metropolitan Council acts to make designation permanent (Resolution 79 -48)
1988 Mississippi National River and Recreational Area ( MNRRA) established by Congress as unit of
NPS ( MNRRA shares same boundary as Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area)
1991 MNRRA designated a state critical area per Critical Areas Act (MN Statutes, section 116G.15)
1995 Responsibility shifts from EQB to DNR by Governor Arne Carlson (Reorganization Order 170)
2007 Legislature directs DNR to prepare report on the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area
(Completed January 2008)
2009 Legislature amends MN Statutes, section 116G.15 and directs DNR to conduct rulemaking for
the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MN Laws 2009, Chapter 172, Article 2, Section 5.e.)
® 30 communities along corridor (21 cities, 5 counties,
Pa m/
4 townships) + several quasi - governmental entities.
Most have adopted critical area plans and ordinances.
eNlon
® EO 79 -19 establishes four land use districts:
Rural Open Space �f
Urban Open Space
Urban Developed I
Urban Diversified
® EO 79 -19 establishes performance standards and I. Hennepin
guidelines for each land use district. i
a Local government units (LGUs) administer and
enforce a variety of regulations to meet the —�
performance standards, which has led to general
concern regarding consistency and sufficiency to T
protect key resources and features.
® Critical area is cooperatively managed:
Mississippi River Cri ical Area
DNR Role: Adopts rules; reviews /approves Boundary and Districts
plans, ordinances and amendments thereto; and = Nrelppe°sp�e
reviews development proposals requiring a
urban tlevNOpetl
hearing for consistency with EO 79 -19, e tlnersmatl
'�„ uroen ogee space
' $ 25 0 SN,IIeS
Anoka
Prepared br .Minnesota DNIt - Divisioe of 11 aters 12/04/09
NPS Role: Has provided funding assistance to local, regional, and state agencies; encourages
LGUs to meet critical area standards and incorporate voluntary MNRRA policies into plans; and
provides stewardship, education, interpretation, and historical and cultural resource protection.
Met Council Role: Reviews plans for consistency with regional policies, EO 79 -19, and
MNRRA policies and submit recommendation to DNR; and provides technical assistance to
LGUs adopting or amending plans.
LGU Roles: Adopt approved plans and ordinances, and administer and enforce them in
accordance with EO 79 -19.
The legislation authorizes the DNR to adopt rules and requires the DNR to:
• establish, by rule, districts within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. The DNR must:
- determine appropriate number of districts within each municipality,
- take into account municipal plans and policies, and existing ordinances and conditions, and
- consider protection of key, identified resources and features.
• establish, by rule, minimum guidelines and standards for the districts to protect key resources and
features and use them when approving plans and regulations and reviewing development permit
applications. (LGUs are also required to use them when preparing plans and regulations.)
• create a preliminary bluff map at the outset of the rulemaking process, refine it as part of the
process, and adopt a final bluff map at the end of the rulemaking process.
• begin rulemaking by January 15, 2010 and notify LGUs of rulemaking 30 days prior to beginning.
The steps in the rulemaking
process are provided in
MN Statutes, Chapter 14.
Iss@ge 2 J'rep o.red b Ail inn eso la DNR " - Division of 11 "a(ers 17/04/09
The DNR will involve the public, LGUs, and other agencies and stakeholders in the rulemaking process.
For more information, visit the project website: htt /Irnndnr.cov /waters /watermomt section /r -Hral area Lrulemaki ng litml
Proposed MRCCA Land Use Districts v.6.1 (0810412010)
CA -1. This district is limited to specific publicly -owned existing and planned future park lands and
natural areas adjoining or readily visible from the river.
Intent: Lands within this district will be managed to conserve and protect existing and
potential recreational, scenic, natural and historic resources for the use and enjoyment of
the surrounding region. Natural shorelines will be protected and restored, and public
access to the river will be encouraged.
Standards: These lands will be subject to restrictive vegetative management and shoreline
buffer standards. Structures will be lower in height than in other districts and set back and
screened from the river unless a waters -edge location is essential.
CA -2. This district includes rural lands that are riparian or readily visible from the river, as well as
privately -owned islands.
Intent: Lands within this district will be managed to preserve the rural character, and
protect and restore existing scenic, natural, and historic areas.
Standards: Structure heights will be lower than in other districts and vegetative screening
will be required. In riparian areas, shoreline buffers will be required for new development.
Lot size and density will be regulated. Conservation subdivisions and open space
preservation will be encouraged for all new development. Structure setbacks will be greater
than in other districts.
CA -3. This district includes developed neighborhoods that are riparian or readily visible from the
river, or adjoining land in District CA -1.
Intent: Lands within this district will be managed to protect the scenic and natural values of
the river corridor.
Standards: Structure heights will be lower than in other districts and vegetative screening
will be required. Structure setbacks will be greater than in other districts (but not as great
as in Districts CA -1 and CA -2). In riparian areas, shoreline buffers will be required for new
development. Lot size and density will be guided by underlying zoning.
CA -4. This district includes historic downtown areas where the developed landscape extends to
the shoreline with predominantly mixed uses and, frequently, small lots.
Intent: Lands within this district will be managed to protect historic and cultural resources
and provide public access to the river.
Standards: Controls will focus on protecting historic and cultural resources and limiting
height of new structures to ensure consistency with surrounding development. Shoreline
vegetation will be preserved or reestablished. Lot size and density will be guided by
underlying zoning.
CA -5. This district includes non - riparian lots separated from the river by distance, development
and /or a transportation corridor. The land in this district is not readily visible from the river surface
or ordinary high water level of the opposite shore.
Intent: Lands within this district will be managed with more flexibility, except where
development may affect the river corridor.
Standards: Lot size and density will be guided by underlying zoning. Structure heights will
be limited to minimize visibility from the river.
CA -6. This district includes highly urbanized mixed -use lands that are a part of the urban fabric of
the community. These areas may include urban park lands and institutions, and commercial and
industrial uses that are both river - dependent and non - river - dependent.
Intent: Lands within this district will be managed in a manner that allows for change and
transition without negatively affecting important features of the river corridor.
Standards: In riparian areas, shoreline vegetation should be preserved or reestablished
and stormwater management will be required. Public access to the riverbank should be
maintained or provided where practical. Lot size and density will be guided by underlying
zoning. Structure heights will be limited to ensure they do not block views of bluffs and river
features.
CA -7. This district includes the downtown urban cores of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Intent: Lands within this district will be managed with the greatest flexibility.
Standards: Building heights will not be limited in these districts, though tiering will be
encouraged. Dimensional standards will be guided by underlying zoning. Where practical,
public opportunities to view the river or access the riverfront should be provided.
•
r
�I
a
i v
I+
II'i G
4' 0 m
O
N
bo
y v C G
d � N N
Z C °
i
m
M jn O ry o
s
N O
a
O
o o m y
Z N Q
� Q Q
m U M ID
C Y
C V U
O G G a 'O O E #
L m n m > E _
Q = = N p G #
Ou L .
v v p ' m
E v E u c= n
a v v v
a Y N Y Q a
.L '.O L 3 m g ' O -- 6 m L a
v m 3 v
c -p
H N +L+ w> ti •d+ > O a 0= o G
® G G to ,C to ' ' N U C N C m
# G # v to
Ln
"a p; m o p c t0 w E
q - a C ° O Y E m a O' _ L a te'
M N ._ N a Q >) J Q Q a
E D o
G v G v 3 E o
u v m w m '° c o. n m
® Y N a N O ° - m 3 O a a
H In Z Q' Z Q LL m N J m °p
o x ,
OJ
IM ,
m
v
N � N
v v
bA
0 cu
u
v ++
°� £
N lul to (6 N N a Q v
to
� 3
v
L c v y a m G Q m
o v 3
L -„5 o E m
m o v V" .' G 3 H
; ? _ o s
' N v m v - m m �n
'a O Q N GL vi N_
m �n a p 'O m N
0 m
m -O lD O 'po a
O u u S pp 3 m
'^ O L m = a V a G
_ u U
= `n o
c N v O
E N a
m O to E > O i6
v C a a N
0... -u o m s o o v
.. �.. . G _ m-I N Al
u Y
N> m ¢ $ f m i
C a L Q
Q N
° v E E
0
O G a v m N O
v to L N v ,}; s a 0
0 to
to
U N O O
•�'' _C u N C + W E
X°
v v
a Y
O
o O L o a° o a
'E ,�- '�., " a E u m p N
�t ON
o N a N G
,ED u m a m O p
° s v
Q
v �-' m V O p Y
o. ° o. •v m m 3= s s
c to
m Q Y N O O
-°
m N Y U N C N
r N
to G E tlo N
e-1 Q N u (V U • N y Y j G G
O i
U Q Q ' a a t yVlj a m '4'
W U p
to G N
Y a G
p
to to ° p- N G L N
y 0
S 4= ® 'O u Y N Q a vt
OJ
S
m
v -6
U �
p� O
U 9.
m
i N
c m
N N
N O
� O
O N
Q
N
1=
o
O f p
O
Q u
a m
c �
m �
N a
O 1
0 0
N 4-
N
O O
N
3 °-
v v
c �
'O >
c m
m �
Vf N
� U
i N
m c
Q
Y y
o _
N
� c
ai
c
= o m
c
O C
Y O
T 'N
Q � v
m � �
N m
� c �
= O
F N O
N J N
O
r O �
N � W
p X
� N
m . N
a+ fiY
O- O O '
m #
a #
v
- a
t7
v
w
L
N
N
W
v
N
U
R
E
d
O
H
O
OJ
C
v
t m N
C
d
�
° �°.
01 OL
y
d J
c
N
OO.: M
'6
O. W:
w :
8
e
e
w
`oa
m
v
- a
t7
v
w
L
N
N
W
v
N
U
R
E
d
O
H
O
OJ
v
° �°.
c
N
OO.: M
'6
O. W:
w
`oa
7
E
N
m
G 1
m
N
6J
OL
w
fl.
L
O.
A
O
,m
N
m
0
U
m
O
O—
Y.
N
0
Q
O. a
yy
++
O
C .O
a
O
C
L
O L
3
N
y Y
U
U
14
4 m
_
-7z
R
C
C
H
U
U
c �
C
N
u
�
W
m
L
L
C
L
d
O
C
O
m
P Q
C
O
V
N
C
V)
R
C
6 0
a
v _
a
U
O W
G E
a
t
-Y
a E
6 v
s
a �
° u
c y
o
s o
° Q
u �
°
O p
E
N
Q
E q
° v N
a � o
° G M
° W
t L v
� v
j .
= a �
O D
0 3 H
ry o a
r �
O u
� 3
Q O LL
O � v
O, O
E a .
v
o °
a
° a
3 ° y
v ° �
h n
o ¢ s
p
v ° �
v � v
o E 6
d � °
W O Q
3 a v
d 6 «
O ^ O
V
u � i
= a
0
6 O Q
° u a
n
m =
ova
v
2 0
v v
h H 4
y • m m
O
O
L
V
b
C
V
3
m
E
c
a'
a
0
b
w
°
O
0
0
O
F
V°
c
°
v
a
K
W S
� a
b v
� E
o
h v
s 3
S
N
2 c
`c c
v °
V
o �
tip, E
O O
h ti
M
a
C
z
0
n`
a
e
N 9
n j
w
a i d `R L m
N p y c
E 12
oan$ o v '.max
� c
C .
Y
m
m
_ d
c
v
g
v �
a s
o
ai y.��
a cn
tii
�k+�
v �
d °'✓ O� a p w
m' v
m =-
�
m Q a L
N
c
z
N
a
Yi
a'
M
v i o
=
c n
d p
y
m m C
La�2
�
r o
m , ax
.fit ..
N
O
O
L
V
b
C
V
3
m
E
c
a'
a
0
b
w
°
O
0
0
O
F
V°
c
°
v
a
K
W S
� a
b v
� E
o
h v
s 3
S
N
2 c
`c c
v °
V
o �
tip, E
O O
h ti
M
a
C
z
0
n`
a
e
a a 0
2£� S am _z c _ — ` a
y o =
i C ]» G X k O m C O 4- 'O O 6'✓ n E
C Q C £� t
y
o re _ f 9 E L x
u 2 c q pc E
y y a. m o °_' a m
C a� ° $ 4 ° f « -
` c o
a N s
x o Es mam �p O r
0 :
a£a m'n3 �
c N
a yocC�' c ovcmoNiooi
o f E
o
ry
C 3 o c p o l Y u E
a° a
t o
a o a a= c
a A
o `
> >
5B -., n
O+
a e:3.LL
wgtm ac
bs
3
o a t a
m
A �
A
N y'
N E
f
A
a'
ro
� - n
r
v
0
v
z
^ O
3 + r
O
a
o
�
o
o �
N «
v,
b
o
o
N
i
H
u n N c
L
N
t
v
.- o a 3
�
v T
C
Y4 a N w
At yy
0 m v-�
- c
. Una
c c C
c
c o
2 a
k
0
0
0
v
0
0
c
v
V
s
c
E
c
a'
0
b
O
O
A
a
4
0
E
c
O
v
c
s
n
� a
� E
a
L a
' 3
O °
N i
U
a o
a £
�n
o
3
°
3
m
ca
w
L w
ti a
O+
bs
w
A
2
N E
f
A
a'
ro
a
a �
btq tly
a _
nnS "azc$c�"'w 3a
Hit c n o,o,w o
g c,n tl m *. y Q 2 3 Zn a
wtt Ao
eo" Z ° , ._.yam o
y v a
ro v
m � a
i�qu y _ zz
�9:3Y T... 9 y cO I O bv v a�O
9 ',ms, m y ror 3 0
0
n 3- ro o
o _ _
a 9 n c
o a E E m d v
y j t E E ° o
- e g
° c
a n o A E ro
0 9
z r E E
p C N 9 S m O
o v ry o
� o
v c Z
o _ N E
o � m
y o u
'o o
°s
O
N
G
6
O
Q
'O
H
E
E
E _
O
E E
v 8
h c
Jv E16 =s
-
_ — E
� ° n
3 -
_ o c co c
9 6 Z u 6 L
i v
-i� os E a`ot
c
d
m
x
9�
a
v
a
m
E
E
E _
O
E E
v 8
h c
Jv E16 =s
-
_ — E
� ° n
3 -
_ o c co c
9 6 Z u 6 L
i v
-i� os E a`ot
c
d
m
a
v
a
m
0
n
m
L
p
E`
`o
£
v
a
v
s
`o
nc
v
m
i
N
m
d
x
0
0
6
2
O
F
v
0
0
6
z
w
0
0
o LL
d
0 0
0 0
o
r E
o �
E E
0 0
m
m E
E .E
o .=
0
v 3
m
c o
o `c
VA
•
•
Y
u
rs v
v
Q m
� C7
v
O
J
v
C7
B
N
s
m
w
E
++
f0
m � �
.
s �
v v �
C 3
ao c v
v v �
3 s
a
N
N
y
.0
(A
o
RJ
N
VA
•
•
Y
u
rs v
v
Q m
� C7
v
O
J
v
C7
B
N
s
m
w
c s
r
c0 L
C 3
3
N
y
a
(A
o
J
N
u
Y
a
U
R #
�
c s
r
•
CJ
LT
LIJ
r
O
xY
19
rl
9
ci
O
70
2
. 0
N
>
0
o u
>
c
vs
0
0
w
'c
m w
o
o
>
1.
'B
O
D
>
0
0
c
0
E
>
CL
2
m
0
w u -
0
1
0
0
0
o
.2
i5
a V C Uj Al
0
o
v
>
0
E
E
F
>
>
w
o
u
o
u
<
w
o o
no
0
U
v
u
c
O
L
a
a
a
c
0
v
IL- a
E
o v
� c
c 6
N `)
� p
N V
N Q
O C
C
� O
s C
O
S >
O s
v w
Y m
0 °
Y �
Q
N
s
a
d
«
V v
v
v
7
E
a V
o a
� Q �
Y v
a
O s
v � N
� y N
a m
° a o v
w m
v a
�3w
v
v c v
y _
L
x v 3
O v p
L c 0
O a ° O
o � � v
o m
m o II
c a
L L a
c
N ry N
m v �
s° o
is In In a`
0
0
5
o,
v
0
z
0
z
O
c
E
C
v
0
v
a
v
`o
v
6.
0
0
In
N
II
�n
N
II
c
C
N
¢
a
o
a
ttt
O
N
N
Q
Q
Z
Z
a
v
N N
mw ciNUL
a Onaai
NYY�I
O\
'C
N
H
o E o
O a
c
p E� '«. �
9
y h
- f0
.
v v a m
V
N c
N m
vaa
Iva u
NN a"
N
Y
Y
y � N
-
W u
c.Q E
c a
w Y
N
,o o
>,°
E
a
E c
L a c E v
�, c
R::E
�'c °° c
o v m o
c v a c
'c O N
O N O C
O N L
o a o v c a
m o'
Y
6 v v
vI
v o `""
� E m c a c
2
° o v E �
Y
o� �. c
.w'.
ua
-�°�
a t7
o
3 v � Y a v
3 a �
E
_ C
_
c
c°
m
v c N
v o E is c �o
-°
b
y
µ
�"..
G.
m
c
c >
fkus
'a
ti
m
ac
ca
v
u
c
O
L
a
a
a
c
0
v
IL- a
E
o v
� c
c 6
N `)
� p
N V
N Q
O C
C
� O
s C
O
S >
O s
v w
Y m
0 °
Y �
Q
N
s
a
d
«
V v
v
v
7
E
a V
o a
� Q �
Y v
a
O s
v � N
� y N
a m
° a o v
w m
v a
�3w
v
v c v
y _
L
x v 3
O v p
L c 0
O a ° O
o � � v
o m
m o II
c a
L L a
c
N ry N
m v �
s° o
is In In a`
0
0
5
o,
v
0
z
0
z
O
c
E
C
v
0
v
a
v
`o
v
6.
N
R
°O
m
CJ
V
c �
G
}o
C
L
7
V
m
i
m
C
• C
O
C
O
N
C Q
C
O
N
C
C O
C
Q
O
GJ
C
d
C
C
_m
d
C
m
N
C
O
• N
.
3
N
c o w o o
_ o a
0 0 ° E o
a a
- v 2 o
_ � O
E� h�
w o 0
a c o G o Y CE x o v
88°
m
N a noa c v 2'_ £� n h n °. o.E _ mt
2 c
L . 7$ E >
`. tD n L H in v O h •O a L N .P Y v � O
O 'O o^ a 'E
J .4
y
.?. i" n 3 0 a E v c .v o v m c
I - 0 o c 6 5 c m?
' m n E` o
c v o c E> °on, w 9 m o
o w .. ' a E .. � o� m o w °° � m �^
v a ai _ a n t5 E
a v
c
o
v L
A v
O
V U
D ti
m
� 3
0
o ¢
L Q
a L
b
i
0 5
a` a
c t
F c
o
0
c a
0 0
c w
c
o
t �
a_
C
d
C
C
FL
FL
C
ro
N
d
N
S
N
r C
ya
o
� v r
c o
° ° m
� � n
y � r
O °
c v c
v
w `o
a �
o ¢
0
ry ` Ss
� 3
a
° � v
t 'a o
c
3
v O �
Ea
a o
o L a
m a
O �
3 c S
v o h
£ � a
o
v ° ¢
v
¢ � o
v i o
v a a
3 a v
a o
c a
a h
n -
a
0
v -0
c v a
v
z o
¢� q
Y w �
F I 4
0
E
c
z"
z
c
0
4
O
g
4
v
o
-
v «
0
A
a_
C
d
C
C
FL
FL
C
ro
N
d
N
S
N
r C
ya
o
� v r
c o
° ° m
� � n
y � r
O °
c v c
v
w `o
a �
o ¢
0
ry ` Ss
� 3
a
° � v
t 'a o
c
3
v O �
Ea
a o
o L a
m a
O �
3 c S
v o h
£ � a
o
v ° ¢
v
¢ � o
v i o
v a a
3 a v
a o
c a
a h
n -
a
0
v -0
c v a
v
z o
¢� q
Y w �
F I 4
0
E
c
z"
z
c
0
4
O
g
4
o
�
V
�
N q
v c _
n
- o
s o E
-
«
� 0 . 0 '3 v= '� n = v a
r
-
o n
o
v s 3 L
o = v
Y a v E v E
:
3 z° ' E
¢�
2 ti ry
rri
2
-
O
N C N
U
n _
u \
'�°::"
ao�
3tc
Ao i
„�31a� a
_
�� G ooa coc
CY'o\'ti os m E
m
E O O
s p n
p O v a�
y
p�Op
E x m
a
c
`o o°
I
£
s
c.
5 _
c
c
Ei
p Ecr v
t
a c
1
�
L v.
S
V E
E c
O
L
,. c z �`S� �S -¢ c m E o ° �i a° v o E¢ F a o n
m G A
N 6 O
`v
c y
0
E
o �
3
c
0
0
0 0
0
Z -
a 3
p E
L
w � a
v
W
N
3 —
s 3 N =
o = E a
H � o
v `o Nn
a° o n
O = �
C d O p o
Y
a w vcq
a a o
v
v ? rea
3 E v E
t v 3
m m A �o cti
v
v
i�5vra
0 0 0 0
p m t i m o
9 } h N
b0 8x z6
O
3
o �
c o v
S
vz.
v O n m
��S
.n
IN
� E �
S�
0
—
zo o a
!q.
S
V E
E c
O
L
,. c z �`S� �S -¢ c m E o ° �i a° v o E¢ F a o n
m G A
N 6 O
`v
c y
0
E
o �
3
c
0
0
0 0
0
Z -
a 3
p E
L
w � a
v
W
N
3 —
s 3 N =
o = E a
H � o
v `o Nn
a° o n
O = �
C d O p o
Y
a w vcq
a a o
v
v ? rea
3 E v E
t v 3
m m A �o cti
v
v
i�5vra
0 0 0 0
p m t i m o
9 } h N
b0 8x z6
Work group members from all four geographic stretches of the Mississippi River Corridor Criti-
cal Area (MRCCA) gathered on August 12, 2010 to provide input on preliminary draft stan-
dards. Attending the day -long meeting were 48 work group members from across the 72 -mile
corridor, as welt as over 100 observers - including agency representatives, landowners, inter-
ested citizens, elected officials, and others - many from the Northwest area of the MRCCA.
DNR staff began the meeting by revisiting work group roles, reviewing the MRCCA rulemaking
process and timeline, and providing an overview of the preliminary draft standards. Work
group members then assembled in smaller groups comprising a cross - section of geographic
areas, interests and viewpoints. These groups spent the remainder of the work day rotating
through six stations, each focused on one of the following sets of potential standards:
• Dimensional Standards by District
• Bluffs Et Steep Slopes
• Water Quality
• Vegetation Et Buffers
• Uses Et Facilities
• Subdivisions Et PUDs
Overview of Mork Group Et Public Involvement
This was the third in a series of scheduled work group meetings convened by the DNR. Work
groups were selected in February to represent a balanced and broad cross - section of the pub-
lic along each stretch of the river corridor. All work groups first convened in March to share
initial ideas and concerns on the rutemaking. In June, the DNR and NPS met with each of the
four work groups separately to get input on preliminary draft districts and district boundaries.
This meeting focused on getting input on preliminary draft standards.
From the beginning, work group members have been asked to provide their knowledge and
expertise to help make the rules workable and effective, and to share information and seek
feedback from their colleagues and associates with similar interests. As a result, the rulemak-
ing has generated a high level of public interest, evidenced by the large number of observers
attending the August meeting. At the meeting, observers were invited to listen, and were
provided with handouts and forms to use for submitting comments and questions; however,
active participation was limited to work group members. Because of the public interest at the
meeting, the DNR added an hour -long informal question and answer session at the end of the
meeting. To ensure there is an opportunity for interested parties to review and comment,
the DNR has posted the draft materials that were provided to the work groups on the project
website. The DNR also plans to hold one or more public meetings in September to answer
questions and receive feedback while the rules are being drafted. Information about the
meetings will be posted on the website and sent to parties on our mailing list.
MRCCA Rulemaking Project -Work Group Meeting #3 Summary Report - August 2010
Minnesota
W ork rou Meeting Summar
oE?aatoertc�
MRCCA Work Group fleeting 3, Wellstone Center, August 12, 2010
Guidance for Preliminary Draft Standards
As part of its rulemaking directive, the 2009 Legislature required the DNR to establish, by rule,
new districts for the MRCCA, and to establish, by rule, minimum guidelines and standards for the
districts. The DNR developed preliminary draft standards using information from existing plans
and regulations, local governments, as well as the work groups and members of the public:
• Executive Order 79 -19 (EO 79 -19) has been guiding land use in the MRCCA for over 30
years. The DNR looked to the performance -based requirements for plans and regulations
in the Executive Order, as well as the Executive Order's Interim Development Regulations
that were in effect until local governments adopted EQB- approved ordinances. A number
of communities used the interim regulations as the model for their adopted ordinances.
• The MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan contains voluntary goats and policies that
most communities have already adopted into their plans for the MRCCA.
• State rules are in place to govern development in shorelands and work in public waters
(Minnesota Rules, Chapters 6120 and 6115, respectively). The DNR has drafted potential
updates to both sets of rules, and has incorporated some of their provisions into the pre-
liminary draft MRCCA standards as well.
• Other agency rules and regulations are also in effect in the MRCCA. The preliminary
MRRCA standards will reflect and respect these authorities, and will avoid redundancy
and duplicative or conflicting regulations.
• LGUs have provided feedback on issues they have encountered administering and enforc-
ing MRCCA plans and regulations for the past 30 years, and information on their commu-
nity plans and regulations.
• Work groups and members of the public have provided information, opinions, and best
management practices through the request for comments and the project website, work
group meetings, and in letters, e -mails and phone calls.
�' • �.a0
Common Concerns
Work group members provided excellent, but often varied, feedback on the preliminary draft
standards. Commonly raised concerns at all stations included:
® Nonconformities: There was concern with the potential creation and subsequent regu-
lation of nonconformi ties. Work group members requested clarification on whether the
standards would apply to existing development, and what type of new development
would compel conformance. Some local governments also questioned whether a recent
Supreme Court ruling will limit LGUs' ability to grant variances if structures and lots
become nonconforming.
® Local Control /State oversight: Some work group members felt that local governments
are doing a good job of protecting the MRCCA and should be given maximum flexibility
to do what's best in their community. Others felt that local governments aren't doing
enough and that consistent standards and broader oversight are needed because the
river corridor is a regional and state resource that extends beyond any one local gov-
ernment's authority.
® Change: Some work group members wanted to get a better sense of what is changing,
particularly in their communities. They expressed concern over the costs of imple-
menting different regulations. in some instances, LGUs pointed out preliminary stan-
dards that are more restrictive than what currently exists in local ordinances, while
other LGUs pointed out preliminary standards that are the same or less restrictive.
® Rationale Many work group members questioned the purposes of the preliminary
standards, and felt that they would be able to provide better comments if they un-
derstood what the standards are trying to accomplish. Several work group members
wanted research findings that support the preliminary standards.
MRCCA Rulemaking Project -Work Group Meeting #3 Summary Report - August 2010
Balance: There was a broad range of opinion on how specific the standards should be.
Some work group members felt that the standards were too broad, and didn't take in-
to account conditions unique to each stretch of the river. Others felt that the state
standards should provide a minimum baseline for protection, and pointed out that
communities can always be more restrictive to address special circumstances.
Definitions: White some definitions were provided for terms used in the preliminary
draft standards, many work group members requested a complete set of definitions
since they inform the standards. Better definitions were also requested for terms such
as access path, development, established grade, expansion, improvement, replace-
ment, and structure.
Park Development: Regarding height, setbacks, impervious coverage limits, bluff Et
steep slope protection, and vegetative buffer requirements, many work group members
felt that existing (or planned) buildings on public parkland were too limited by pretimi-
nary standards in the CA -1 district, and suggested that park development be guided by
master plans approved by the Met Council rather than by the rules. Many cautioned that
the DNR needs to justify why it is needed and reasonable to have standards that vary
widely by district and for public and private development.
Consistency: Many work group members stressed the importance of MRCCA rules being
consistent with other rules. This includes shoreland and ftoodplain rules, EO79.19 as
well as local official controls.
Dimensional Standards by District
® Height: Many local governments suggested using the building code's definition of height.
Some work group members suggested that height be measured by average stories, and
that each district should allow a set number of stories. Others suggested that height be
governed by underlying zoning, and pointed out inconsistencies between the preliminary
draft standards and the existing underlying zoning. In Minneapolis, for example, CA -6 al-
lows 65 -foot buildings, white the underlying zoning district limits height to 45 feet.
® Flexibility with Performance Standards: There was a desire to increase flexibility
through the use of performance standards. For example, structure height could be in-
creased if the visual impact is mitigated with a vegetative buffer, increased structure
setback, or other means. Impervious surface credits could be given for pervious pavers
and other practices.
® Lot Size: LGUs in the developing portions of the MRCCA pointed out that the tot sizes de-
fined by the Met Council need to be used. For example, Dayton allows 2.2 tots per acre
in its comprehensive plan, while the preliminary standards indicate 2 lots per acre. Ram-
sey also noted that it is guided to grow at a minimum density of 3 tots per acre over the
next 30 years.
® Impervious Surface Limits: Many LGUs felt that their approved surface water manage-
ment plans should be used to regulate impervious surface limits.
Bluffs Et Steep Slopes
® Definitions: Work group members generally supported consistent terminology and de-
finitions across state -land use programs (Shoreland, Wild & Scenic River, and MRCCA),
as tong as bluffs, very steep slopes, and steep slopes were protected per EO 79 -19.
Some expressed their opinion that it was the legislature's intent to define bluffs diffe-
rently in the MRCCA than in Shorelands, and that the preliminary definitions excluded
many areas and features that should be protected. It was also suggested that the defi-
nitions contain a minimum rise and a minimum run, reduced rise and run, minimum
area requirements, and clarification that they are natural, topographic features.
® Bluff Setbacks: LGUs with public land in the CA -1 district were concerned that the
proposed bluff setback would inhibit park development, and suggested more excep-
tions and /or better design standards for public buildings and facilities. LGUs with land
in the CA -2 district were concerned that the proposed setbacks would result in existing
MRCCA Rulemaking Project -Work Group Meeting #3 Summary Report - August 2010
lots becoming unbuitdable. They wanted clarification on whether substandard lots
would be buildable without a variance, and whether nonconforming structures could
be expanded or improved landward of the required setback. Most work group members
supported the 40 -foot setback proposed in the other districts, but some felt it was in-
sufficient.
Setback Averaging: Opinions differed on setback averaging for "top of bluff" setbacks.
Those in favor felt that averaging provides LGUs with flexibility for the expansion of
nonconforming structures and new development on lots that would otherwise become
substandard. Those opposed felt that averaging shouldn't apply to bluffs due to the
need for greater protection along these sensitive features, regardless of whether they
have been developed in the past. Some proposed limiting expansion if averaging is
used.
Slope Preservation Zone (SPZ): Work group members generally supported the concept
of the SPZ, particularly for protection along the top and toe of bluffs and very steep
slopes. Some felt that protection along the top of the bluff should extend further than
20 feet. Many requested clarification on whether nonconforming structures in the SPZ
could be torn down and reconstructed in the same footprint, whether vertical expan-
sion or improvement would be allowed, and what design specifications apply to public
roads and recreational facilities. Some work group members were concerned that the
preliminary draft bluff and slope preservation standards would inhibit road construc-
tion, and redevelopment of prime commercial and industrial areas currently located
on or near bluffs and steep slopes.
Performance Approach: Some work group members felt that the DNR should establish
standards for development on bluffs and steep slopes that vary based on underlying
geology and soils. Some supported a performance -based approach to allow certain de-
velopment within bluff setbacks and the SPZ, white others felt these areas should be
off limits.
Dater Quality
• Compliance with other Agency Regulations: Some work group members felt the draft
standards provided only a baseline level of water quality protection, and additional
standards are needed, while others felt that existing water quality protections are
adequate.
• Impervious Surface Coverage Standard: Many questioned the need for a dual track
approach for impervious surface coverage standards, since most or all LGUs have an
approved and adopted stormwater and erosion and sediment control plan.
• Land Alteration Thresholds: Significant discussion took place regarding the appro-
priateness of the grading and fitting limits in the SIZ, and erosion and sediment control
disturbance thresholds. Opinions varied on whether these levels were too high or too
low; however, many suggested clarity and justification for the numbers used.
• Rock Riprap, Retaining Walls and Riverbank Stabilization: Discussion varied over
whether standards should discourage "hard armoring" versus bioengineering tech-
niques. Some felt that rip rap is needed for erosion control and questioned the
science regarding bioengineered methods being better for water quality. Others felt
that vegetation and bioengineering techniques - such as live fascines, erosion control
blankets, and biologs - were appropriate techniques to include in the standards.
Vegetation Et Buffers
• LGU Education Ft Outreach: Many LGUs felt that this was a burden, an unfunded
mandate, and that it should be the state's role to provide educational materials. Oth-
ers felt that a lot of information was already available to LGUs.
• Buffer Establishment: Work group members generally felt that buffer establishment
should be proportional to the impact of the new development and/or expansion of
nonconformity of existing development.
MRCCA Rutemaking Project -Work Group Meeting #3 Summary Report - August 2010
Variability of Standards: Some work group members suggested that vegetation stan-
dards be variable by geographic area, district, and/or use.
Vegetation outside SIZ and SPZ: Some work group members felt that additional vege-
tation standards outside of shorelines and SPZ should be included.
Clarity: Work group members requested clarity in defining buffers and buffer vegeta-
tion requirements. For example, do buffers always need to include trees? What about
buffer areas for new development where trees and shrubs don't currently exist?
Uses €t Facilities
• Uses Generally: There was general concurrence that uses should be governed by un-
derlying zoning.
• Water- dependent Uses: There was concern that only water - dependent components of
a facility should be exempted from structure setbacks; other components should meet
setbacks and some advocated for screening of these components. There was much
discussion regarding whether restaurants generally, and dining facilities at parks or
marinas should have to meet the structure setbacks.
• Aggregate Mining: There was not broad concern about the preliminary draft aggregate
mining standards, but some work group members felt aggregate mining should not be
permitted if visible from the river, nor below the btufftine.
• Signs: There was general concurrence that signs that are not visible from the river
should not be regulated, although several individuals disagreed. There was common
concern that the proposed standards should be much clearer about what signs were
regulated (advertising versus safety, potentially historic signs, directional $ safety re-
lated signs, and building naming signs). There also was concern the size limitation for
signs would be problematic.
• Utilities: There was general agreement that local governments should not be required
to regulate utility distribution lines and facilities through CUP.
• Scenic Overlooks: There was common interest in ensuring that vistas and views of the
river (particularly for trail and recreational facility users) would not be prevented by
screening requirements.
• Private Roads, Driveways rt Access Paths: There were many concerns about width
and slope restrictions for private roads and driveways; there was much confusion about
the definition of 'access path' i.e., is this a motorized or walking path to the river.
• Parking Areas: There was general agreement (with dissent by some) that existing local
and regional requirements were sufficient to address stormwater runoff from parking
areas.
• Convenient Corridor: Several members stated their concern that the MRCCA should
not serve as a convenient corridor for new road or utility placement.
Subdivisions ft PUDs
• Local Discretion: It was felt by many that subdivision regulations should be left with
LGUs, and there is no need to include standards in the rule- making.
• Riparian Lots: Some work group members were concerned that the preliminary draft
standards would not allow riparian tots and requested clarification that riparian tots
would be allowed.
• PUDs: Work group members requested clarification on how PUDs would work under the
preliminary draft standards. Specifically, who gets to negotiate and make the final deci-
sion? Does the DNR have to approve PUD's and conditions?
• Subdivision Definition: Many work group members propose to keep the same definition
for subdivision as in Executive Order 79 -19, which is two tots, not three, and includes re-
divisions.
MRCCA Ru(emaking Project -Work Group Meeting #3 Summary Report - August 2010
Open Space Dedication: Many questions arose regarding who manages and maintains
open space. Several LGUs noted they can't afford to do this. Some work group members
felt there is over emphasis on defining open space dedication as proposed, and that LGUs
should administer this under existing subdivision regulations. They also pointed out that
no provisions are included to allow cash in -lieu of dedication as used to be in EO 79 -19.
Many were also confused over the table outlining minimum open space requirements by
district, especially where it reads "Underlying (min - 25%) ". Clarity was requested on
whether 25% of the parcel needs to be set aside as open space, and concern was ex-
pressed that this would not work well in dense urban areas where lots are small. The
concept of "open space banking" was also proposed.
Conclusion
The meeting ended with an informal question and answer session to allow work group mem-
bers and observers to ask questions and express their concerns regarding the rulemaking.
Work groups will reconvene sometime this fall to provide input on additional rule compo-
nents, including purpose and scope, definitions, and administrative provisions such as local
planning requirements; DNR, Met Council, LGU, and other agency duties; nonconformities;
and mitigation. DNR staff will then complete a preliminary draft rule and supporting docu-
ments, including a Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR). After approvals from the
commissioner and governor, the Notice of Intent to Adopt Rules wilt be published in the State
Register, and DNR will proceed to formal rulemaking, currently anticipated for spring 2011.
MRCCA Rulemoking Project -Work Group Meeting #3 Summary Report - August 2010