Loading...
2014-07-22 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA July22, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Adopt Agenda 4.Approve June24, 2014Planning Commission Minutes 5.Public Hearings(7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter): a.Case No. 2014-19: Mark Gergen, on behalf of Corey Morrisette and Gail Darling.Subdivision Request for Lot Split at 641 Callahan Place. 6. Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area – DRAFT Rules Review and Discussion 7.Verbal Review 8.Staff Annoucements 9.Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Pleasecontact City Hallat 651.452.1850 with requests. 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES June 24, 2014 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: Robin Hennesey.Others present were Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of May 27, 2014 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2014, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2014-13 th Ken and Mary Kay Noack, 677 – 4 Avenue Subdivision Request for a Lot Split, Lot Width and Detached GarageSize Variances, and Wetlands Permit Planner Nolan Wallreminded the Commissionersthat this is a continuation of the public hearing that was opened at the last Planning Commission meeting. New notices for tonight’s meeting for this discussion topic were published and mailed. The applicant submitted a revised survey and an amended application package for consideration. Planner Wall then highlighted the changes from last month and the Standards of Review applicable to the variance requests. Staff recommendeddenial of the proposed subdivision and lot width variance requests. Being dependent on those requests being approved, staff recommended denial of the detached garage size variance and wetlands permit requests as well. June 24, 2014Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 1 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2 Commissioners asked questions regarding the need for the variance request for the placement of the current accessorystructure no matter how the lot is split, the length of the current lot frontage, discussions had with the applicant and the recommendations of staff proposed at the last meeting, lot frontage lengths in the neighborhood, when the detached garage was constructed \[before or after the change in the frontage length requirement\], and what could be proposed to make the lots compliant. Mr. Ken Noackwas present and explained his reasons for the requests. He also answered questions from the Commissioners regarding the replacement of the current garage to enable the lot to be split in compliance, history of the lot, location of rights-of-way, and other options. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Jeff Closmore, 1527 Vandall, was in support of this application and questioned the Findings of Fact for denial of the request. He noted that he grew up in the same neighborhood and that the garage in question has always been where it currently is. The garage has become a fixture in the area, has always been well maintained, and adds flavor to the neighborhood. Mr. Dean Verdoes, 1509 Dodd Road, stated that he personally would be very happy to see a house on the proposed lot. The property has always been perfectly maintained and he would be very comfortable with a house on that site. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Commissioner Viksnins noted that he was struggling with the language that the ‘practical difficulties cannot be created by the applicant or based on economic considerations’ and how to get around what appears to be an economic consideration that they are not supposed to take into account. Commissioner Roston agreed with Commissioner Viksnins comment and believed the Commission was in an unfortunate position of being stuck with the rules that they had and their job was to apply the rules. If the City Council wishes to make a different decision they can but the Commission would need to examine the rules and make a recommendation. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the side lines being perpendicular were a requirement of the code or a preference. Planner Wall replied that it is a requirement of the code. Commissioner Hennes asked if staff had taken into consideration that there are many lots in the area having less than 100 feet of frontage. Planner Wall replied that staff had taken that into June 24, 2014Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 2 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3 consideration and they tried to present objective findings for both sides of the argument. Discussions were had with the applicant and other options explored; however, it had been an issue that was raised with the location and size of the existing detached garage that there would be problems with the code. Commissioner Roston noted that if there is a neighborhood that has this characteristic, the question should be if there should be another residential zoning district with another set of standards. There are communities thathave multiple residential zoning districts. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, LOT WIDTH VARIANCE, DETACHED GARAGE SIZEVARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT REQUESTS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The proposed subdivision does not meet the lot width standards and is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Code. 2.The practical difficulties associated with the lot width variance request are not unique to the property. They are created by the applicant’s desire to maintain the existing detached garage on Parcel A, which resulted from the required lot combination in order to demolish the former dwelling on Parcel B. 3.The applicant has other options for subdividing the subject parcel in compliance with the Code. 4.In order to facilitate a compliant subdivision of the subject parcel and eliminate the need for the variance requests, the existing detached garage can be demolished and reconstructed on Parcel A in compliance with the Code requirements. 5.The detached garage size variance and wetlands permit requests are no longer relevant if the proposed subdivision and lot width variance requests are not approved. Commissioner Viksnins expressed his desire to come up with a creative solution but was currently unable to do so. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she was troubled as this was a family property that had been in the family for many years and it is intended to stay within the family. However, they seem to be caught up here on some code requirements that just do not fit the situation. She does not have a creative solution around it but wished something could be done that would permit this to happen so that these folks are not required to tear down a garage that has been there since 1962 or not subdivide the property so the family can all live in one area. AYES: 4 NAYS: 2 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 1, 2014 meeting. June 24, 2014Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 3 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4 PLANNING CASE #2014-17 Ned Rukavina and Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane Front and Side Yard Setback Variance Requests Planner Nolan Wall presented that staff report and explained that the applicant requested variances from the front and side yard setback standards to construct an addition to their single family dwelling. The subject parcel is .48 acres, contains a dwelling and a two-car attached garage with cul-de-sac frontage. The property is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential development. The applicant intended to construct an addition to enlarge the garage with an additional stall, add a mud room and small studio, and remodel the kitchen. The existing dwelling, including the existing attached garage, is within the required setbacks for this district. The addition wouldencroach eleven feet at its greatest dimension into the front yard setback and would encroach five feet at its greatest dimension into the side yard setback. The entire addition would encroach approximately 222 square feet into both required setback areasand would extend the existing structure as much as fifteen feet closer to the street. The subject parcels location on a cul-de-sac does cause a curvilinear front yard setback line, which according to the applicant makes square structures difficult to fiton the lots. The proposed site plan also indicates an expanded driveway within two feet of the property line. The code does require a five foot setback from side lot lines, which would require an additional variance if an alternate design could not be accomplished. Planner Wall then explainedthe Standards of Review that would apply to this application. Staff recommendeddenial of the variance requests for construction ofthe proposed addition within the required front and side yard setbacks. Commissioners asked questions regarding the nature of the application and why the variance for the driveway was not included. Mr. Ned Rukavina was present to explain his request and to answer questions from the Commission. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Fieldasked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 June 24, 2014Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 4 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5 Commissioner Roston commented that he was not unsympathetic to the desire to not block windows and to have a third car stall; however, given where the ordinance is and what the rules are for variances he did not see any way to reconcile this request with the language they have to apply. Commissioners Viksnins agreed with these comments. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she believed this applicant to be different than the one before in that this one probably has a solution even if unacceptable to the applicant. However, she is unaware of how to get over the hurdle of the variance requirement when there seems to be possible design solutions that are available. COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The proposed dwelling and garage addition’s encroachment into the required front and side yard setbacks is inconsistent with the intent of the Code to promote green space, preserve adequate drainage and utility easement corridors, and allow for adequate buffering between structures. 2.An addition to accommodate another garage stall may be accomplished without the need for a setback variance. 3.While inconvenient or less desirable, an addition to expand the existing dwelling could be accomplished by expanding other portions of the dwelling without the need for a variance. 4.The proposed encroachments into the required setback areas constitute an unreasonable use of the setback area and will substantially increase the footprint of the structure towards the street, both of which are out of character for the neighborhood. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 1, 2014 meeting. Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area – DRAFT Rules Update Chair Field noted that the Commissioners received a copy of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area – DRAFT Rules Update and a copy of the map. Planner Wall introduced the materials for discussion and for questions. He also noted that staff had some proposed changes and wished to collaborate with the Commission on those proposed changes, and how this critical area rules may impact properties currently in existence and future development within the critical area. June 24, 2014Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 5 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6 Verbal Review Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2014-16 SAC Wireless on behalf of AT&T and the Ridge South Condominium Association 1860 Eagle Ridge Drive Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a wireless antenna facility •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2014-14 Michael and Michelle Bader Concept Planned Unit Development Plan •Discussed by the City Council and no action was taken Staff Announcements June 17 City Council Meeting –an extension to the development agreement for the Lemay Shores Development was approved. That extension would go through the end of the year. Topics for the July 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting: Mississippi River Corridor Critical AreaDiscussion o Information regarding some potential code amendments o City Council did consider institutional zoning at their workshop meeting and will continue to discuss the preferred route –additional amendments in the current zoning ordinance or the establishment of an entirely new institutional zoning district, both of which would be lengthy processes. Chair Field reminded the Commissioners and staff to keep in mind that any solutions they may present to an applicant does not necessarily mean that suggestion would be approved – or even be allowed to be approved. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:26 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 June 24, 2014Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 6 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7 DATE: July 22, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-19 Subdivision Request for Lot Split APPLICANT: Mark Gergen/Cory Morrisette and Gail Darling PROPERTY ADDRESS: 641 Callahan Place ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 12, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, on behalf of the property owners, is seeking approval to subdividethe subject parcellocated at 641 Callahan Place. The request requires City approval before being recorded with Dakota County. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is approximately 1 acre (43,510 square feet) and contains an existing single-family residential dwelling (see attached Site Map). The parcel is zoned R-1 and is guided for low density residential development. The applicant has a purchase agreement for the entire subject parcel contingent on the City’s approval of the subdivision request. If approved and purchased by the applicant, the existing dwelling would be demolished and two new single-family homes would be constructed. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR, Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.50 acreseach, isconsistent with the LR maximum density of 2.9 units per acre. R-1 One-Family Zoning District Title 11-3-2 of the Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. According to the Certificate of Survey included as part of the application submittal, and shown in the table below, both proposed parcels meet the R-1 lot standards. 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8 StandardParcel AParcel B 15,000 sq. ft.21,679sq. ft. 21,722sq. ft. Lot Area (0.34 acres)(0.50acres)(0.50acres) Lot Width100 ft.100ft.100ft. The Certificate of Survey includes the required setback lines for any future principal structures on the properties; actual compliance will be verified upon submission of building permit applications based on the proposed dwellings’ design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subdivision request with the following conditions: 1.The existing single family dwelling is demolished prior to the subdivision being recorded by Dakota County. 2.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 3.Street reconstruction assessment fee,as part ofCallahan Place Improvement 2008-04, iscollected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 4.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 5.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site planwith associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Departmentas part of any building permit application. 6.Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. ACTION REQUESTED 1.Recommend approval of the subdivision request, based on the finding of fact that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the subdivision request, based on the findingof factthat the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial Site Map 2.Planning Application, including supporting materials 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9 Planning Case 2014-19 City of 641 Callahan Place Mendota 060 Heights Date: 7/14/2014 SCALE IN FEET 632 636 638 640 646 4 3 9 631 635 641 647 645 164 169 632 640 642 646 Aerometrics GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11 Date: *´«¸ ΖǾ ΑΏΐΓ To: .®« ­ 7 «« #¨³¸ ®¥ -¤­£®³  (¤¨¦§³² From: - ±ª '¤±¦¤­ -¨«¤² 2¤ «³¸Ǿ 2¤¯±¤²¤­³¨­¦ '±¤¤­7®®£ $¤²¨¦­ "´¨«£ Regarding: 0±®¯¤±³¸ «®¢ ³¤£  ³Ȁ ΕΓΐ # «« § ­ 0« ¢¤ -¤­£®³  (¤¨¦§³²Ǿ -. ΔΔΐΐΗ Interest: 7¤ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ § µ¤   ¥´««¸ ¤·¤¢´³¤£ 0´±¢§ ²¤ !¦±¤¤¬¤­³ ®­ ³§¤  ¡®µ¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢®­³¨­¦¤­¢¸ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¢®´«£ ¡¤ £¨µ¨£¤£ ¨­³® Α parcels. /´± 2¤°´¤²³Ȁ 0¤±¬¨²²¨®­ ³® £¨µ¨£¤ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨­³® Α ²¨­¦«¤ ¥ ¬¨«¸ §®¬¤ ²¨³¤²ȁ /´± ¨­³¤­³¨®­ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸Ȁ /´± ¨­³¤­³¨®­ ¨² ³® ¡´¨«£ Α ¢´²³®¬ ²¨­¦«¤ ¥ ¬¨«¸Ǿ ­¤¶ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ §®¬¤² ¡¸ '±¤¤­7®®£ $¤²¨¦­ "´¨«£ȁ 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17 DATE: July 22, 2014 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Mississippi River Corridor Critical AreaRulemaking BACKGROUND The Commission was provided a packet of information last month concerning the DNR’s rulemaking process to amend the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area rules. Prior to responding to the request for comments, Staff is seeking input and questions from the Commission on the proposed rules. The rules are highly technical and the proposed revisions are not entirely applicable in Mendota Heights. Staff has reviewed the draft rules and has the following comments: 1.“Bluff”and “Bluffline”Definitions \[Part 6106.0050 Definitions, Subp. 10 & 12\] Proposed definitions “Top of bluff” means the higher point of the highest horizontal ten-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. “Bluffline” means a line delineating the top of the bluff. More than one bluffline may be encountered proceeding landward from the river. Current definitions (Title 12-3-4) Bluff: Not defined Bluffline: The line along the top of a slope connecting points at which the slope becomes less than 40%. Comments While the setback from the bluffline/top of steep slopesremains the same for residential properties in the critical area within the City(40 feet), the revised definitions may create additional hardships for already developed properties to make improvements which would have complied with the setbacks based on the current definition. Revision of the “bluff” and “bluffline” definitions to areas with an average slope over 18% is too flat and is a common slope from the front yard to the back yard of a walkout home. The City would support a revised bluffline definition to at least 25% or greater. Or, only apply the 18% slope definition if the 18% is over a 100-foot run distance or greater. 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18 2.“Steep Slopes” and “Very Steep Slopes” Definitions \[Part 6106.0050 Definitions, Subp. 74 & 85\] Proposed Definitions “Steep slope” means a natural topographic feature with and average slope of 12-18%, measured over a horizontal distance equal to or greater than 50 feet. “Very steep slope” means a natural topographic feature greater than 18% (summarized). Current definitions – NOT DEFINED Comments As defined, steep slopes are common in yards throughout the City and are not generally regarded as “steep.” A 33% slope (3:1) can be still be mowed and would be defined as “very steep.” 3.Duties of Commissioner \[Part 6106.0060 Administration of Program,Subp. 5(B)\] The development and adoption of the required plan and ordinance amendments will be costly to local governments. The draft rules indicate the DNR will provide “advice and assistance” in this process. Will assistance include funding or other cost-sharing opportunities? 4.Duties of Local Governments \[Part 6106.0060 Administration of Program, Subp. 7(D)\] The City’s current public hearing notice requirement is not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) daysbefore the meeting.Application submittal deadlines are typically less than 30 days before the public hearing date. The proposed 30-day notice requirement for the DNR, NPS, and surrounding jurisdictions does not comply with the City’s current regulations and would require significant policy changes for compliance. 5.Contents of Ordinances \[Part 6106.0070 Preparation, Review, and Approval of Plans and Ordinances, Subp. 5(A)\] As proposed, local ordinances must“substantially comply” with the MRCCA rules, including definitions. Many of the proposed definitions included in the draft rules are inconsistent with those in theCity’s zoning ordinance. Substantial compliance is vague and the rules should defer to the local government’sdefinition for common zoning terms such as structure and lot width, in order to promote consistency. 6.District Boundaries(Part 6106.0100 Districts) The existing MRCCA boundary remains unchanged. While we support the intent behind the critical area corridor, we would request consideration of revision of the boundaries within Mendota Heights, as it currently encompasses too many unaffected properties, especiallywithin the proposed CA-SR District. The existing boundariesdo not follow parcel boundary lines in some cases andshould include the entire parcel. The following proposed critical area overlay districts are located in Mendota Heights: CA-ROS:Rural and Open Space District (Fort Snelling State Park) CA-SR: Separated from River District CA-RN: River Neighborhood District 7.Nonconformities \[Part 6106.0080 Administrative Provisions for Ordinances, Subp. 3\] The draft rules would allow expansion of legally nonconforming principal structures that do not meet the revised setback requirements, provided that such expansion does not extend further into the new setbacks. We would suggest additional language that allows the reasonable use of properties already developed under the existing rules and excluding them from the proposed 18% very steep slope/top of bluff definitions at the City’s discretion. 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19 8.Structure Height \[Part 6106.0120 Dimensional Standards, Subp. 2(A)(4)\] Proposed Standards CA-ROS: 35 feet CA-RN: 35 feet CA-SR: TBD by local government underlying zoning, provided the structure’s height is generally consistent with the height of existing surrounding development as viewed from the OHWL of the opposite shore. Existing Standards (zoning districts within the Critical Area Overlay District) R-1: 2 stories or 25 feet, whichever is less MR-PUD:2 stories or 25 feet, whichever is less B-1: 3 stories or 35 feet, whichever is less B-1A: 4 stories or 45 feet, whichever is less Comments As proposed, the City’s existing building height standards for the R-1, MR-PUD, and B-1 Districts are stricter and supersede the draft rules. The Xcel propane plant is zoned B-1A and would be the only property potentially impacted in the proposed CA-SR District, if it were to be redeveloped in the future. However, the proposed standard requiring consistency with heights of surrounding development as viewed from the opposite shore could cause a significant burden on the applicant to provide the appropriate information and for the City to verify. This also does not seem to account for structures under the height requirement or existing nonconforming structures, both of which could negatively impact the implementation of this standard. BUDGET IMPACT Once adopted, the amended rules will require the City to amend the existing Critical Area Overlay District standards.In addition, the MRCCA section ofthe Comprehensive Plan will have to be amended. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commissiondiscuss the proposed MRCCA Rules and provide comments and follow-up questions for Staff in preparation of the City’s formal comments to be submitted to the DNR. Attachments(3):MRCCA Bluff Maps (2) St. Paul Pioneer Press Article A NOTGNIXEL S EV StarTribune -Print PagePage 1of 2 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22 DNR land-use rules draw concerns along the Mississippi riverfront Article by: Jim Anderson Star Tribune July 3, 2014 - 11:49 PM A renewed attempt to revamp land-use rules along the stretch of the Mississippi River that runs through the Twin Cities area is once again pitting cities and development interests against environmental concerns. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is about St. Paul riverfront. halfway through a two-year process that jump-started an earlier David Brewster, Star Tribune attempt to set the rules that would affect 21 cities, five counties and four townships along a 72-mile stretch of river from Dayton to Hastings. DNR listening sessions The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources The effort has two purposes: formalize into law rules that were (DNR) will hold three public information meetings in created by executive orders in the late 1970s by Govs. Wendell July to present information and receive comments on proposed rules for the Mississippi River Corridor Anderson and Al Quie, and update those rules to reflect the Critical Area. The meetings will run from 6:30 to 9 p.m.: changes that have taken place along the river. ¤ July 16, Greenhaven Golf Course, 2800 Greenhaven Road, Anoka. The first attempt to do that fizzled in 2011 as differing interests ¤ July 22, Nova Classical Academy, 1455 Victoria Way W., St. Paul. clashed. The DNR, hoping things go smoother this time, is asking the public to weigh in on a new draft of the rules at meetings this ¤ July 24, SchaarÓs Bluff Gathering Center (Spring Lake Park Reserve), 8395 127th St. E., Hastings. month. Each meeting will include a presentation and discussion scheduled from 7 to 8 p.m. and In St. Paul, which has ambitious plans for redeveloping its opportunities to visit with DNR staff the rest of the time. downtown riverfront, the proposed rules and the process are The DNR will accept comments on its working draft of rules through Aug. 15. The comment period is intended raising alarms, said Matt Kramer, president of the St. Paul Area to gather feedback on the draft rules before they are Chamber of Commerce. The cityÓs plans include the likely revised and proposed for formal rule adoption. demolition of the former Ramsey County jail and West Publishing More information is available on the DNRÓs project website at complex. www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/rules/mrcca/index.html. Jim Anderson Almost 2,000 buildings and nearly 3,000 parcels of land in the city would come under new construction limits near bluffs and steep slopes along the river. ÐOne of my concerns with the whole process is that itÓs been much more informal than the last time through; the DNR seems to be just kind of moving along on this,Ñ Kramer said. ÐBut wait a sec Ï this is a significant economic impact.Ñ Under the proposed rules, the redevelopment of the West site, for example, probably would require a variance, he said. ÐAnd who knows if that variance will be granted?Ñ Existing buildings could be affected, too, because any alterations or expansion would require approval and could be restricted by new limits. Local governments also would be encumbered with the cost of rewriting their local zoning ordinances, training staff, enforcing the regulations and adjudicating disputes. ÐThis imposes significant costs on every community in the river corridor,Ñ Kramer said. The city, chamber, St. Paul Port Authority and Ramsey County plan to meet jointly and soon with DNR officials to present their concerns formally, he said. River advocates worried Meanwhile, the Friends of the Mississippi River, the chief environmental advocate for the waterway, has major concerns of its own, said Whitney Clark, the groupÓs executive director. In developing the draft, the DNR has spent months meeting with officials in every community affected by the rules. One result was a Ðflexibility provisionÑ that would allow cities to rewrite local zoning ordinances that donÓt fully comply with the rules in certain cases. ÐThatÓs just not acceptable,Ñ Clark said. ÐWhy have a rule that says, ÒYou have to follow these rules unless you donÓt want to, then maybe weÓll let you break them?ÓÑ The draft also allows the DNR to change boundaries of land-use districts created by the rules, opening up a slippery slope that could expose the river to development where it was never intended, he said. The rules weaken scenic protections by allowing taller buildings along the river, including some of its most beautiful stretches: the gorge near the University of Minnesota, West Side Flats, Pine Bend Bluffs in Inver Grove Heights and the bluff lands of eastern Dakota and southern Washington counties. Dan Petrik, who is coordinating the project for the DNR, said some of the fears about riverfront properties being classed as ÐnonconformingÑ are overblown and based on a misperception of what the new rules will mean. ThatÓs why the agency has gone to great lengths to gather feedback and explain their implications. The river corridor is also a national park Ï the Mississippi National River and Recreational Area. For that reason, said John Anfinson, the parkÓs acting superintendent, the resulting rules should protect what makes the river not just a local and state resource but one with national and even global significance. ÐOur job is to help cities on the river to look beyond their own boundaries, to see the bigger picture,Ñ he said. ÐI get very clearly that locals want to do their own thing Ï thatÓs just natural. But the Mississippi River is worthy of high consideration.Ñ http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=265778591714201 //4 StarTribune -Print PagePage 2of 2 7/22/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23 He said the federal agency supports rules that set a high protective standard, are consistently enforced and reflect why the area known as the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area was created. ÐIf we really believe this is a great river, one of the great rivers of the world, shouldnÓt that reflect what we do along it?Ñ Anfinson asked. ÐWhy canÓt we have a corridor that celebrates the river and does the right thing by it? The better we do by the river, the better we do by the cities along the river.Ñ Jim Anderson ¤ 651-925-5039 © 2014 Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=265778591714201 //4