My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 08/04/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Environmental Policy Board
>
2014
>
Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 08/04/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 12:06:02 PM
Creation date
8/18/2014 9:30:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Environmental Policy Board
Document Date
08/04/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Environmental Policy Board (EPB) 5. 2. <br />Meeting Date: 08/04/2014 <br />By: Tim Gladhill, Community Development <br />Title: <br />Receive Update on Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area <br />(MRCCA) Rulemaking Project and Consider Official Response <br />Information <br />Purpose /Background: <br />The purpose of this case is to consider an official response related to the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area <br />Rulemaking Project. The attached document is a proposed response to the DNR containing a number of technical <br />recommendations. The comments are intended to aide in the final form of the draft rules. The number of comments <br />included is not intended to measure the level of support or lack thereof. When considering as a matter of land use <br />policy if the draft rules fit within Ramsey's land use vision, Staff desires policy feedback on the following broad <br />topics: <br />1. Are the proposed land use districts appropriate for existing development patterns and future land use goals? <br />2. Do we feel the proposed dimensional standards (lot size, setbacks, structure sizes, etc.) are the minimum <br />standards necessary to achieve the stated objective of the MRCCA and the 2013 Legislative Direction, or do <br />we feel these minimum standards are too aggressive? <br />3. Do we feel the standards for public uses are appropriate for the goals of our public spaces, most notably the <br />future Mississippi West Regional Park and future river crossing? <br />4. Should additional vegetative management and land alteration standards (including rock riprap and retaining <br />walls) exist within this corridor than in other areas of the community in order to protect the resource as stated? <br />5. Should the City require permits for activities such as bank stabilization, erosion control, and vegetation <br />management? <br />6. Should developers be required to set aside protected conservation areas as part of a subdivision approval? <br />The purpose of the rulemaking as directed by the legislature is to ensure that the MRCCA is managed as a <br />multi - purpose resource in a way that: <br />1. Conserves the scenic, environmental, recreational, mineral, economic, cultural, and historic functions of the <br />river corridor. <br />2. Maintains the river channel for transportation by providing and maintaining barging and fleeting areas in <br />appropriate locations consistent with the character of the Mississippi River and riverfront. <br />3. Provides for the continuation, development, and redevelopment of a variety of urban uses, including <br />industrial and commercial uses, and recreational and residential uses, where appropriate, within the <br />Mississippi River corridor. <br />4. Utilizes certain reaches of the river as a source of water supply and as a receiving water for properly treated <br />sewage, storm water, and industrial waste effluents. <br />5. Protects and preserves the biological and ecological functions of the corridor. <br />b. The Metropolitan Council shall incorporate the standards developed under this section into its planning <br />and shall work with local units of government and the commissioner to ensure the standards are being <br />adopted and implemented appropriately. <br />c. The rules must be consistent with residential nonconformity provisions under sections 394.36 and <br />462.357. <br />Notification: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.