My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:27:24 AM
Creation date
3/14/2017 1:32:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
02/02/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
382
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
• CA-UC: The urban cores of both Minneapolis and St. Paul are highly developed, with <br />redevelopment planned in the future. In the "urban core" district that applies to these <br />areas, height is governed by underlying zoning standards, with consideration given to <br />building placement to minimize visual impacts of new development. <br />Measurement methods. To assure consistency across the MRCCA, this subpart establishes a <br />protocol for measuring structure heights across the MRCCA. Height is measured relative to the <br />Mississippi River. Since managing the impact of development on river views is a high priority for the <br />MRCCA program, structure height is measured from the side of the structure facing the river. <br />Exempt structures. The DNR is allowed by statute to provide exceptions to guidelines and standards <br />governing individual districts. Minn. Stat. § 116G.15, subd. 4 (2015). Subpart 2 recognizes the need <br />to exempt certain properties from the height requirements for individual districts. Part 6106.0180 <br />of the proposed MRCCA rules lists the types of structures that would be exempt from the height <br />requirements of this subpart. These exemptions are based on exceptions that already exist in local <br />MRCCA ordinances, and on stakeholder input during the rulemaking process. <br />Conditional use permit criteria. A conditional use permit is a discretionary permit granted by a <br />zoning authority that allows certain uses in a particular zoning district only as permitted by the <br />zoning authority and with specified conditions. In two of the districts (CA -RTC and CA -UM) <br />structures with heights exceeding the building height requirements of the district may be allowed by <br />conditional use permit. This subpart sets out the criteria that should be used by local governments <br />when determining whether to grant a conditional use permit allowing deviation from these height <br />requirements. The criteria are designed to assure that the visual impact of buildings that are <br />proposed to exceed the height limits are minimized to the greatest extent possible, and provide <br />examples of techniques that can be used to minimize the visual impacts of the proposed buildings. <br />These provisions are designed to inform and guide local governments in their consideration of <br />conditional use applications. <br />Subpart 3. Location of structures. Structure setbacks from the river and from bluffs are essential to <br />protect the natural resource values of primary conservation areas and to protect public safety across the <br />MRCCA. The proposed setback requirements will result in minimal changes to zoning requirements <br />already in place in local MRCCA ordinances. Specific setback requirements imposed by the rule include: <br />OHWL setbacks and the shore impact zone. A near shore area is a sensitive and complex natural <br />system that sustains fish and wildlife and protects the water body from erosion and non -point <br />pollution. This subpart establishes setback requirements from the Ordinary High Water Level <br />(OHWL) and prohibits structures and impervious surfaces in the particularly sensitive shore impact <br />zone (the area located halfway between the OHWL and required OHWL setback as defined in <br />proposed Minn. R. 6106.0050, subp. 68) to protect these vital resources. <br />Setbacks from the OHWL were originally set out in Executive Order 79-19. These setbacks were the <br />subject of much discussion and concern during the rulemaking process. One of the primary <br />concerns was the possible creation of nonconforming structures. The DNR evaluated a variety of <br />potential setback standards, including the Interim Development Regulations in Executive Order 79- <br />47 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.