Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017

Home

defined slope percentage is measured. Many local government definitions do not address the difference between natural and man-made slopes. Because of vague definitions and variations in the administration of local ordinances, the placement of buildings along bluffs, land alterations on bluffs, and vegetation management practices on bluffs are all inconsistent across the MRCCA. These inconsistencies coupled with the potential catastrophic impacts of unsafe bluff development support the need to redefine and reestablish development guidelines for those areas of the MRCCA with bluffs. Determining New Bluff Definitions The development of the bluff definition in the proposed MRCCA rules was premised on the dual goal of protecting sensitive bluff features while minimizing the creation of new nonconforming structures within areas of significant existing development. In an effort to achieve the latter goal, the 18 percent slope parameter was retained from Executive Order 79-19 because it was a standard widely adopted by local governments and accepted by environmental organizations. The DNR in consultation with local governments and other stakeholders then used GIS imaging to evaluate six combinations of bluff height and width parameters within the MRCCA. The purpose of this analysis was to determine which height and width parameters would meet the dual goals of minimizing nonconformities while protecting bluff systems. The analysis began with a preliminary bluff map that had been prepared by the DNR in 2009 in response to a legislative directive that defined bluffs as having a slope of 18 percent or greater with a vertical rise of at least 10 feet. Minn. Laws 2009, ch. 172, art. 2, § 27, subd. 4 (pages 2484 - 2485) codified at Minn. Stat. § 116G.15 (2010). During the 2009/2010 rulemaking process local governments pointed out that this definition would create many nonconforming structures. While the 2013 Legislature repealed this bluff definition, the 2009 map was used as baseline for comparing other alternatives. Cf. Id. and Minn. Stat. § 116G.15 (2015). Figure 4 compares the 2009 baseline definition and the proposed bluff definition. It shows that many existing structures (building footprints outlined in red) are captured by the 2009 bluff definition (shown in purple) and would thus be nonconforming structures under that definition, creating problems for property owners and local governments. Alternatively, significantly fewer structures were captured by the proposed bluff definition (shown in green), but the definition still 18% slope. 2511 rise. 25 tt width (proposed alUR definition) J Existing Structures - 18% slope. 10 It rise. no minimum width (definition in MS 1164.15. subd.4.(c) Figure 4: Comparison of bluff definitions. The areas shown in purple would be covered under the 2009 (baseline) definition; the areas in green are covered by the proposed definition. 24