Agenda - Council Work Session - 01/11/2011

Home

Dimensional Standards: The City of Ramsey does not have any major issues with Page 1 of the Dimensional Standards sheet. We somewhat object to the 200' structure setback from the OHW. The City HIGHLY objects to introducing structure setback for tributaries beyond the boundaries of the MRCCA. The draft rules identify the Rum River as a tributary for the Mississippi River. We ask that the DNR clarify that these rules would not extend beyond the boundaries of the MRCCA, to avoid any confusion of potential overlap of regulations. We find the building height definition generally acceptable, although it does not match the City's definition of building height. Building height restrictions shall allow for two -story residential dwelling structures. Bluffs and Steep Slopes: The City finds the Preliminary Bluff Map a helpful tool in determining where bluff setbacks apply. It appears that bluff setbacks are consistent with adjoining communities and the City finds this acceptable. However, again, the CA -2 standards are, in the opinion of the City of Ramsey, excessive as it relates to the remaining land use districts. Setback standards in the CA -2 district shall either be revised to a more acceptable standard, or remaining areas in Ramsey shall be revised to CA -3. The draft rules state that development may be allowed on steep slopes under certain conditions. Please clarify who determines those conditions as listed in the draft rules. Water Quality: The City has an approved comprehensive surface water management plan. We find this to be adequate measure for protection of water quality, and thus find that the intent of the MRCCA is met, and we should not be subject to additional review and performance standards. Vegetation Management: We do not object to certain vegetation management standards. We object to the size of the SIZ in the CA -2. Certain vegetative removal should be allowed to enhance the enjoyment of this critical resource. We question the viability of requiring the City to implement an LGU program to encourage further protection. We do not have the resources to implement such a program at this time. If the DNR can provide the City with such resources, we will assist as best as possible in distribution of such materials. We oppose requiring restoration at time of expansion of any non - conformity. The language appears vague in the statement `mitigation will be proportionate to the impacts of the development'. We would like to explore certain incentive -based programs to encourage restoration at time of expansion, as opposed to firm requirements. We certainly see the benefit of natural vegetative screening along the river, both from an aesthetic and functional standpoint. As you can see on the future land use map on page 1 of this letter, a large majority of any remaining riparian areas are guided for park/open space. We feel we should receive open -space credit for these areas we have already guided for the purposes of natural resource conservation and recreational opportunities. Uses: The City finds the Uses section generally acceptable, with the exception of screening standards of signs. We find this a difficult standard to enforce, as much of the screening will be subject to off -site vegetative screening outside of the control of the property owner.