Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/09/1995

Home

Page 2 9.21.07 9.21.07 9.21.07 The Wild and Scenic River and Critical Area standards make no distinction for size of trees, shrubs, and vegetation for the standards for clear cutting -- it applies to all vegetation. A tree is defined biologically, not by size. Also, the definition of Clear-cutting does not meet either the Wild and Scenic Rivers, under MN Rules, part 6105.0040, or even the Iess restrictive Critical Area definition. Change: Clear-cutting The removal of an entire stand of ~'oe~ vegetation. Subd. 1. both a. & b. Maximum Ba}itdi~g StructUre Height. Under MN Rules, part 6105.0110, subp. 3, item D., the minimum standard for a Wild and Scenic River ordinance is that structure height shall not exceed 35 feet. This is also the height standard for the Critical Area standards. The City may choose to. be'~' 'mere restrictive' than this maximum, but the Commissioner could not ~rtify a less restrictive provision than what the rules allow. Subd. 1. both a. & b. Maximum Impervious Surface. The 30% standard is imperative for lots along this Wild and Scenic River/Critical Area, espe. cially the lots that are 20000 and 40000 square feet. The rationale for mammum impervious surface requirements has just as much to do velocity and volume of runoff, density of development, and even more so the protection and preservation of the values which caused the river to be designated as a Wild and Scenic River and Critical Area in the first place. It absolutely goes against the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Executive Order 79-19 to cover 50% or 75% or 90% of these.protected lots within the District with concrete, buildings, and impermous surfaces. Impervious surfaces, as asterisked in a. and which should be asterisked in b., are all structures, surfaced roads, parlc[ng lots, and other impervious areas. What are the "State and local water quality standards" referencedg. We have no problem with the addition of this requirement if performance standards are included, but this reference cannot take the place of impervious surface maximums to meet the intent of the statutes. Subd. 7. c. 2. (e). With the omission of (5), change (6) to (5). Comments for Scenic River 9.23 -- Rum River Section Comments [Underlining of proposed ordinance language denotes additions, strikeouts of proposed ordinance language note deletions.] 9.23.05 Subd. 2, items 1 and 2. We are concerned about what your targeted "governmental" unit is in changing this provision. Is it the county? If it is the state, there is no doubt that the state must conform their campgrounds to the management plan specifications. However, oUr Attorney General's Office advises us that that does not mean that the agency's judgment as to that conformance must be subordinated to the city's by applying for a permit. It has been the tong-standing law and policy of the State of Minnesota that state government is not subject to local zoning permits and approvals. Statutes apply to the state only to the extent expressly stated.