3.0. BASR 09-28-2004 • "/
City of
Elk -�
River
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustments
FROM: Michele McPherson' ctor of Planning
DATE: September 28, 2004
SUBJECT: Case No. V 04-06
Request by Metro Plains (Bluff Block, LLC) for a Variance to the
Wild & Scenic River Setback
Staff,in its continued review of the request by MetroPlains for a Wild&Scenic and bluff
• setback variance, has determined that based on the 1999 agreement with the Minnesota
Depail.iuent of Natural Resources,a variance for the setback to the Wild and Scenic area is
not required.
Attached please find the necessary background information and a letter from Rebecca Haug
Environmental Technician,regarding this issue.
•
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2004\V 04-06 MetroPlains\9 28 04 memo pc.doc
ECity lk
September 14, 2004
River
Patty Fowler, DNR Area Hydrologist
940 Industrial Drive S., Suite 103
Sauk Rapids,MN 56379
RE: Wild and Scenic River Setback Variance
Dear Ms. Fowler:
This letter is regarding the letter I sent you dated August 27, 2004 regarding the Metro Plains
Downtown Redevelopment Project in the City of Elk River. The developer is proposing to
construct an approximate 10,000 square foot commercial space, 68 units of for-sale housing
and underground parking in a structure encompassing current businesses along the
Mississippi River and Main St. in our historic downtown. The project is situated along the
Mississippi River in the S '/z of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 34,Twp 33, Rge 26, Sherburne County,
Minnesota.
• In 1999, the City and DNR had lengthy conversations about the Wild& Scenic boundary
and the draft DNR Wild and Scenic River Ordinance. I have attached a letter dated March
18, 1999 to Larry Kramka from Stephen Rohlf regarding proposed revisions for the City of
Elk River from the draft DNR Wild and Scenic River Ordinance. Also attached is a letter
dated June 16, 1999 from John Linc Stine,Administrator for Permits and Land Use Section
of the DNR. The DNR concurred with the City's new boundary and ordinance
amendments which removed existing businesses from the Wild& Scenic River District.
After reviewing these letters,it appears that the above project does not need a variance from
the DNR for the bluff setback since it is outside the Wild and Scenic River boundary for the
area.
Sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused. If you have any questions,please
contact me at (763) 635-1068. Thank you.
Sincerely,
4-11-64#--
Rebecca Haug, Enviroi iiental Technician
cc: Vern Hanson, Metro Plains Development
Rick Blom,John Oliver&Associates, Inc
• Cathy Mehelich,Director of Economic Development
.-(
`)
l
• of k
River
March 18, 1999
Larry Kramka
MN DNR Division of Waters
4140 Thielman Lane
Suite 203
St. Cloud, MN 56302
Subject: Wild and Scenic River District
Dear Mr. Kramka,
The City of Elk River is proposing revisions to the DNR's draft Wild and Scenic River
Ordinance to make it compatible with its Comprehensive Plan. The current Wild and
• Scenic River Ordinance economically precludes the city from providing urban services to
certain areas where it feels these facilities would be beneficial to both the orderly
development of the city and water quality. In addition,the city is proposing revisions to
the Wild and Scenic River District boundary so it excludes two areas of commercial
development that existed prior to the District's creation.
The City Engineer surveyed a new proposed boundary for the District through Sections 2,
3, 10, & 11, T 32N, R 26W that excludes one of the areas of commercially developed
property that was in existence prior to the Wild and Scenic River District being
established. The other commercial area in the Wild and Scenic River District is Elk
River's historic downtown. The city is proposing that the Wild and Scenic River District
is forty (40) feet from the ordinary high water mark through Section 34, T33N,R26W, so
it excludes the historic downtown area.
Both the city's revised ordinance and a map depicting the boundary change through
Sections 2, 3, 10, & 11 T32N, R26W are included with this letter. An additional map of
Section 34, T33N,R26W is also attached.
The city contends that its proposed changes to the Wild and Scenic River Ordinance and
district boundary do as good of a job as the current ordinance and district boundary in
regards to aesthetic issues along the Mississippi and an even better job of dealing with
• water quality and quantity than the DNR's version. The following discussion points out
the proposed changes and the city's rationale:
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
1. Boundary changes to accommodate existing commercial uses
MS 103F.325 states "For each river proposed to be included in the wild and scenic rivers
system, the commissioner shall prepare a management plan, without unreasonable
restrictions upon compatible. preexisting, economic uses of particular tracts of land, to
preserve and enhance the values that cause the river to be proposed for inclusion in the
system".
A. Unreasonable restrictions upon preexisting, economic uses
The two commercial areas that are proposed to be removed from the Wild and
Scenic River District were in existence prior to the district being established.
Creating forty non-conforming businesses within one community by a legislative
act is, in any sane person's mind, unreasonable and must be rectified. Many of
the businesses affected are separated from the river by a 20,000 car a day
highway, but nobody would suggest that MnDOT make this road non-conforming
and phase it out.
B. Preserve and enhance the values that caused the river to be proposed for
inclusion in the system
Boundary change in Sections 2, 3, 10, & 11, T32N,R26W
Potential negative effects to the Mississippi River caused by this commercial
development can easily be mitigated. The city's proposed boundary for the
Highway 10 area is located at the crest of the wooded ridge along the river to give
maximum elevation for screening for the river from the commercial uses. The
proposed boundary is approximately 1/4 mile from the river. City sanitary sewer
and controlled treated storm sewer will address water quality and quantity issues.
Finally, the city is proposing that any commercial development in this area that is
River
District Boundary be required
within Fifty (50) feet of the Wild and Scenic Ri az'Y q
to gain approval of a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit process
(with public hearing and notification of the Commissioner) is an adequate
mechanism to control vegetative clearing, signs, aesthetic, etc.
Boundary change in Section 34, T33N, R26W
The Original Wild and Scenic River District regulations were sensitive to the fact
that this area was already developed. Lot widths, lot sizes and setbacks reflected
the existing conditions. What was not taken into consideration when the Wild and
Scenic River District boundary was established was that it included a portion of
the historic downtown area of Elk River and made these businesses non-
conforming because commercial uses are not allowed.
ID Like most communities built in the 1800s,the businesses in this area turned their
backs to the river. The City of Elk River,working with the business owners, is
trying to rectify this and enhance the view from the river. The city's proposed
new boundary removes these business from the Wild and Scenic River District.
• The proposed boundary will also remove the impediments to enhancing these
businesses and consequently the aesthetics along the river can be improved.
2. Ordinance changes to accommodate urban residential development
Urban services being provided to residential development along the Mississippi River
will not detract from the values that cause it to be included in the Wild and Scenic River
District. Undoubtedly, water quality is better served by residential development with
urban services versus on-site septic systems. In addition, controlled storm water with
adequate treatment and retention, as is the case with urban development under best
management practices,better addresses run-off quality and quantity than does the typical
storm water plan in a rural subdivision.
What will detract from these values are more houses being allowed along Mississippi
and/or allowing houses to be closer to the river. The city proposes to keep the frontage
and setback requirements as specified in the DNR's ordinance. Consequently,the
number of houses allowed along the river and how far back they are from it is not
changed from the city's version of the ordinance to the DNR's. However, the city would
like certain areas to develop with urban service,providing the benefits listed above.
Regrettably,the lot sizes proposed in DNR's draft ordinance economically preclude the
• creation of lots that are served with urban services. The city is proposing to modify these
lot size requirements so they are compatible with urban lots and its comprehensive plan
and can see no negative effect on the Mississippi River by doing so.
Finally the city is proposing to remove reference to duplexes, triplexes, and quads in
unsewered areas because it is felt that these structures concentrate septic systems too
densely.
3. Specific changes to the DNRs version of the Wild and Scenic River Ordinance
As you can note, the City of Elk River is proposing very few changes to the ordinance.
The changes are as follows:
A. The definition of a"Bluff' from the Shoreland Ordinance is proposed to be
added.
B. The city is proposing that all unsewered riparian and nonriparian lots in the
District be a minimum of 2.5 acres. The current ordinance allows 20,000
square foot riparian lots and 40,000 square foot nonriparian lots in some areas.
The city feels these lot sizes concentrate septic systems too densely.
C. The city's ordinance allows urban services anywhere within the city limits,
but does so with the current ordinance's unsewered lot frontage (100 feet),
setback (100 feet) and minimum riparian lot size (20,000 square feet).
• Nonriparian lot sizes are proposed to be those dictated by city code. The
exception to this is in Sections 33 & 34, T33N, R26W, where the current
ordinance allows riparian lots at 15,000 square foot, with 75 feet of frontage,
and a 75 foot setback. The city's proposed ordinance does not change the
requirements in this area.
D. The city's proposed ordinance eliminates duplexes, triplexes, and quads in
unsewered areas because it is felt they concentrate septic systems too densely.
In addition to the changes to the Wild and Scenic River Ordinance, the city is proposing a
change to Section 900.12 of the Elk River City Code of Ordinances entitled, "Permitted,
Accessory, and Conditional Uses by District"that requires a conditional use permit to
develop within 50 feet of the Wild and Scenic River District Boundary. This change
affects land in Sections 2 and 11, T32N, R26W. This area is Zoned C-3 -Highway
Commercial. A copy of that proposed change is attached
As you can see, the city's proposed changes are relatively few, however, they provide two
major benefits over the existing Wild and Scenic River Ordinance and boundary. First,
the proposed boundary changes correct situations that should not have never been created.
The proposed boundaries move the existing businesses out of the Wild and Scenic River
District without sacrificing the values of the District. Secondly,the proposed changes to
the Ordinance allow the benefits of urban services without sacrificing the values of the
District, because frontage and setback requirements remain unchanged.
• As you know, several businesses have been waiting for building permits since 1996,
while the city has been trying to resolve its issues with the DNR regarding the Wild and
Scenic River District. These businesses are getting extremely impatient. Time is of the
essence. It is my impression that the city is not willing to wait any longer for the DNR's
planning process to reach its prolonged conclusion and will be acting on the changes
referenced.
The ordinance amendments and proposed Wild and Scenic River District Boundary
changes will formally be in front of the Elk River Planning Commission on May 25, 1999
and the Elk River City Council on June 21, 1999. I am confident you will find the city's
proposal logical. If you have any questions,please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
2
Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator
•
JUN18 120
y�P� pF MINIy`c'0,„
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
• r-li
v J¢
A ft,
o 500 Lafayette Road
F .10 St.Paul, Minnesota 55155-40_
°FNATIJRP DNR Waters, Box 32
651-296-0440
June 16, 1999
Stephen Rohlf
Building and Zoning Administrator
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
P.O. Box 490
Elk River, MN 55330
Re: Wild and Scenic River Ordinance Amendments
Dear Mr. Rohlf:
Thank you for your letter to Larry Kramka dated March 18 (which we received May 12)
describing proposed changes in the Wild and Scenic River Ordinance in the City of Elk
• River. We understand and concur in the city's need for greater flexibility in developed
urban areas. Comments of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources follow, in the
same order as discussed in your letter.
1. Boundary changes to accomodate existing commercial uses.
Your letter correctly references M.S. 103F.325, Subd. 1(a): "For each river proposed to be
included in the wild and scenic rivers system, the commissioner shall prepare a
management plan, without unreasonable restrictions upon compatible, preexisting;
economic uses of particular tracts of land, to preserve and enhance the values that cause
the river to be proposed for inclusion in the system." (Emphasis added.) It would also be
appropriate to reference M.S. 103F.325, Subd. I(b)(4): "include proposed rules governing
the use of public lands and waters within the area, which may differ from statewide rules
to the extent necessary to take account of the particular attributes of the area."(Emphasis
added.) We feel the statutes clearly give us the flexibility necessary to accomodate the
existing commercial uses described in your letter. °
We concur with the city's proposal to amend the boundary in Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11 to
provide continued protection for the crest of the bluff but also to provide flexibility for the
existing commercial properties along Highway 10. We agree with you that the 50-foot
buffer you propose(which would require a conditional use permit)would adequately protect
• vegetation and visual character.
.DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer I11' Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a .
Who Values Diversity Itli Minimum of 10%Post-Consumer Waste
We also concur with the city's proposal to amend the boundary in Section 34, the
downtown area. The statutory reference to the need for flexibility clearly was written with
• this kind of situation in mind—it would not be appropriate to classify the community's
historic downtown area as nonconforming uses. We are somewhat uncomfortable,
however, with shifting the boundary this close to the river and the resulting uncertainty
about such things as the height of new structures that close to the river. We would like to
see some assurance that new structures in the historic downtown area would be no taller
than the typical downtown structures now found there.
•
2. Ordinance changes to accomodate urban residential development
•
We concur with your proposal to allow urban services and to modify lot size requirements
so they are compatible with urban lots and the city's comprehensive plan, while keeping
the frontage and setback requirements of the wild and scenic standards. We concur with
your proposal to remove reference to duplexes, triplexes and quads in unsewered areas.
3. Specific changes to the wild and scenic ordinance
We concur with your proposed "bluff' definition. We concur with your proposed 2.5 acre
lot size minimum for unsewered lots. We concur with your proposal to allow urban services
while retaining the wild and scenic ordinance's unsewered frontage, setback and lot size
requirements. Again, we concur with your proposed elimination of duplexes, triplexes and
• quads in unsewered areas.
The effect of the proposed changes would be to provide the city with greater flexibility in
its urban setting, without compromising the "scenic, recreational, natural, historical,
scientific and similar values"(M.S. 103F.305)of the wild and scenic rivers program. Thank
you for working so hard to arrive at a solution to this long-standing problem.
ly yours,
John Linc Stine, Administrator
Permits and Land Use Section
DNR Waters
cc: Larry Kramka
Dave Hills
Steve Johnson
• •