The URL can be used to link to this page

01-191Council File # b � � �9 \ Ordinance # ��.as Green Sheet # ORDINANCE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Re£erred To ttee: Date eZ6 Mississippi River Comdor Pian 3 WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the Mississippi River Corridor Plan as a chapter of 4 the updated Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and 5 6 WHEREAS, the Mississippi River Corridor Plan was the subject of a public hearing before the City Council 7 on February 28, 2001, and 9 WHEREAS, the Mississippi River Comdor Plan outlines the City's policy related to protecting the river's 10 natural resources, affirxning the future of the working river, connecting neighborhoods to the river, and 11 adopting urban design principles for river corridor redevelopment; and 12 13 WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.864, Subd. 2, Saint Paul is required to update its 14 Comprehensive Plan regularly; 15 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul adopts the 17 Mississippi River Comdar Pan as an amendment to the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan contingent on fiirther 18 review by the Department of Natural Resources, the Metropolitan Council, and the Nafional Pazk Service; and 19 20 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mississippi River Corridar Plan replaces the Saint Paul Mississippi 21 River Corridor Plan, adopted in October, 1981 and amended in November, 1987, as the river conidor chapter 22 of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. Requested by Department of: Plannin4 & EconOmic Develonment By Form Approved Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� By: _� _7 � // � / by Citp ��[to�ney � �`/ ��. g � � � � � Approved by Mayor or Submission to Council Approved by Mayor: Date !VY ay: aY: �`�- � r � Adopted by Council: Date �,�� pp ` U DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL: PED DATE IlVITIATED GREEN SHEET Nor 111225 Q 1��` 12 Feb 2001 ' CONTACf PERSON & PHONE: � IN AI'E m111niApA'1'E Martha Faust 266-6572 z nErnirrn�r Dix. s crrr courrcn, MUS� ON CQUNCII, AGENDA BY (DATE) �IGN 3 CITY ATTORNEY = CITY CLERK G T n f_ 1VIJMBER —��CIAL SERV DIR. F[NANCIAL SERV/ACCTG (T. Meyer) �O �T�� FOR 4 MAYOR(ORASST.) CIVII.SERVICECOMbIISSION )�� ROU'i'ING 1 Tom Harren —� �/n,/ � P�� G LT� I7 ORDER TOTAL # OF SIGNAI'URE PAGES 1(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTiON REQUESTED: RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAI, SERVICE CONTRACI'S MI1ST ANSWER 1'fIE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: A PLANNING COMI��IISSION I. Has [his person/f¢m ever worked under a conhact for this depaz[ment? CIB COMbIITTEE Yes No CIVII, SERVICE COMIvIISSION 2 Has this perso�/firnt ever been a ciTy employee7 Yes No 3. Does this persoNfi�m possess a skill not noxmally possessed by any cursent city employee� Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTIINITY (Who, What, W6en, Where, Why): Mayoral Transmittal and draft Council Resolution for adoption of the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan. ADVAN'i'AGES IF APPROVED: The Planning Commission has recommended the Mississippi River Corridor Plan to the City Council for approval as a chapter of the City Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing sponsored by the City Council to consider the new Mississippi River Corridor Plan will be held on Wednesday, February 28, 2001. A draft Council Resolution approving the Plan (contingent on DNR, Met Council, and National Park Service approval) is attached, to be jointly introduced by those Council members whose wards include the State Designated Critical Area of the Mississippi River (Benanav, Harris, Coleman and Lantry). DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: None DISADVANI'AGES IF NOT APPROVED: The Mississippi River Corridor Plan will not become part of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION: COST/REVENUE BUDGETED: I�[JNDING SOURCE: ACTIVI'1'YN[JMBER: . . Budget code: FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) ' . �' e , E � V � �° S� �i i t� 4 K\ShareA�Ped�Fa�stVLVautiverCmndorPlen�gmshLfim Y ... r F�� 1 �'i{TY ,4TTORNE�I � a,-,�i C �Y �F' .Stillv 1 PA�. 390 Ciry Hall Te[ephone: 65I-26Cr8510 Norm Colemars, M¢yor IS West%Ilogg Bo�levard Facsimi[e: 65I-22&8513 SainrPaul, MN55102 J8X1U3Ty 29� 20�1 City Council President Dan Bostrom Councilmembers Dear Council President Bostrom and Councilmembers: I am pleased to transmit and recommend for your adoption a new Mississippi River Corridor Plan, a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. This new plan will replace the river corridor chapter adopted in 1981, and last amended in 1987. The Planning Commission sponsored a tharough community discussion in the process of developing this Plan. This new River Corridor Plan marks the City's policy coxnmihnent to protecting the river's natural resources, affirming the future of the working river, connecting neighborhoods to the river, and adopting urban design principles for river corridor redevelopment. In so doing, it reinforces the vision of the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework and extends it to the enrire river valley in Saint Paul. The plan will satisfy State Critical Area requirements, as administered by the Minnesota Deparhnent of Natural Resources, and will demonstrate the City's commitment to the voluntary Mississippi National River & Recreation Area policies, consistent with Saint Paul's efforts to be a good stewazd of this precious natural asset. I recommend adoption of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan contingent on approval by the Metropolitan Council, DNR, and National Park Service srill to come. Sincerely, �(�� (�� Norm Coleman Mayor G�1-i9/ city of saint paul planning commission resolution fle number o0-�9 date 12-is-oo A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE SAINT PAUL MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR PLAN WHEREAS, a new Mississippi River Corridor policy plan is an important component of an updated Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan needed to both inform City environmental protection and development policy and meet the comprehensive planning requirements of the Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355; and WHEREAS, an issue paper entitled Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan: Framing the Discussion published in March, 1999 provided for extensive community discussion of Mississippi River Corridor policy issues; and WHEREAS, a draft Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan published on August 25, 2000 has been discussed in numerous community meetings; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Saint Paul Planning Commission on October 20, 2000, notice of which was published in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger on October 10 and 11, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Commission finds broad community support for the policy directions recommended by the plan and has made revisions to the draft in response to specific concerns raised and information provided in the course of the community discussion and public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul approves the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan as an element of The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, contingent on review by the Department of Natural Resources, the Metropolitan Council, and the National Park Service; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan to the Mayor and to the Saint Paul City Council for preliminary adoption and for inclusion in The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. moved by Gordon seconded by Donnelly-Cohen in favor Unanimous against // o1�J9/ � �1T1 2 / 2 �/ Q / 127 West Winitred St. 7 r 1 � � S1DLi /'#�� St. Paul, MN 55107 N G ( �j `• � ��Phone (612) 293-1708 • �' ,�1�It1,�101� /�Q{A� �-�/�res �� Fex (612} 293-011� Ml`ss - /Lr1.�zCorn2Lr Febniazy 28, 2001 Dear Planning Commission: On behalf of the West Side community, the West Side Citizens Or¢anization appreciates ihe opportunity to review and comment on the dra£t Mississippi River Corridor Plan Z000 update. The Mississippi River bounds the neighborhood on three sides and the bluffs and slopes form the neighborhood. More than half the bVest Side is within the sfate Critical Area and MNRRA boundary. This policy and implementation document wifl guide how new development enhances the river and the neighborhood. Its fcnal form is of vital importance to the neighborhood, and the neighborhood organizations such as the Bluff Task Force aze essentiat to its imptementation. The following comments were deveIoped by a task force representing numerous neighborhood committees and adopted by the WSCO Board. Comments are also based on the past five years of community participation in the development of riverfront development principles and the neighborhaod plan, Back to the Flzture, which shouid guide fufure development. The plan is well v��ritten and emphasizes neighborhood connections to the river We offer the £ollowing additions and changes. Section l.l ➢ The West Side community generally supports the five strategies and applauds the city's po(icy • of zemoving bil] boards \�/e request the £oIlowing additions and clarifications: ➢ In strategy l, biuffs and riverbanks should also be restored and the cause of damaoe, such as stormwater outflows and vegetative cutting, shou[d be dealt with ➢ In strategy 2, river-dependent emerging businesses, such as boat repaiz, should be recognized Although the West Side supports such housing if it can be designed to be river enhanciag, housing should not be portrayed as equally ziver-related (see lack of priorities in section 5.1.1. ➢ In sirategy 3, early industrial and economic uses should be added to the list of cuitural resources in recognition of beer brewing, mushroom fuming, brick making and other activities reiated to the caves the Lilydale Park. ➢ In strategy 4, add a bullei affirzning ihat design standards wii] incorporate the i��ississippi Nationai River anc� Recreation Area G�It' site design policies (the West Side pian, Back �o the Futvre District 3 plan supports �! RRA policies for all corridor development). ➢ The last bullet should a�rm that buildings fit into "existing neighborhoods" by adding those t�vo words after "topography" Section 2 The West Side community supports this section's emphasis on the ecologicai function o£both the • river corridor and the watersheds that feed the river and the depiction of a bninnced approach as illustrated in £igure 2.3. a/-! 9/ Section 3 • In 3.1, the West Side community supports the emphasis on watersheds, parks and open space and neighborhood preservation. The description of different river corridor chazacteristics should include the blufftop historic neighborhoods of the West Side and Aayton's bluffs. All new development should support the physical and cultural uniqueness o£existing neighborhoods ( Section 3 2 visions should also include recognition o£river corridor neighborhood pians. In particulaz, the West 5ide riverfront development principles St. Paul on the Mississippi Framework ��est Side Precinct Plan, the West Side Back to Our Puture ]ong range plan and the West Side Flats Design Strategy attached to these comments. The description a£topography on 3.4 should mention probtem areas. For example, the associated large parking azeas mentioned in the lowIands are not topographic forms, rather, are uses that aze harmful to the form and function of lowlands. Section 4 4.1.2 West Side Bluff management is being addressed by the WS Bluff Task Force in conjunction with St. Paul Parks and �tecreation department. Explicit recognition ofthis work should be included in the plan. 4 1,3 The description o£the downtown area should be clazi5ed. Use of the term downtown would not include the West Side Any exceptions allowed should be subject to special condition use permit. 4.1.5 The language regarding possible allowance of construction in bluff impact azea is too vague � and could be applied to any situation. We recommend simply preserving the impact area without exception Native vegetation should be re-established in this area where possible. The West Side Precinct Plan calls for a blu££top trail which should be addressed in the plan 4.4.6 Don't just encoura2e enforcement of floodplain and wetland protection po]icies, commit to enforcing those you aze required to enforce. 4.4 8"�he city should develop its own programs, where appropriate, to accomplish the proteCions recommended 4 4.9 I` only recreational, but commercia] uses impact should be addressed. Section 5 5.5 1 The West Side is not downtown. If you expect a"dawntown" exemption to apply to the West Side, you must so specify. The criteria for "river related" are so broad, any development in the city could qualify. Re� write the criteria to be truly river retated. E.�, river related as specified in 5.2 1 5.1.2 To be consistent w�ith MNRRA plan, exemptions should only be allowed for river re]ated uses. • Section 6 6 1 1 We are unsure what is meant by limitiag Cherokee Puk bluff to preservation. The West Side considers vertacal connections important for use o£Lilydale Regional Pazk oi-� q� • 6.1.2 Add "will require" before "all public facilities". Section 7 The West Side community agrees with many o£the urban design principles, including infill and new grid-pattern neighborhoods and fitting development into existing neighborhoods, some critical policies should be included or changed. ➢ 7.1.1 should include adoption of the West Side riverfront developznent principles for new villages on the West Side and state what they are. That document defines the meaning o£ connections to the river and integration into the existin� neighborhoods. ➢ 7.1.8 should include a policy of establishing green corridors along the river — between all buildings and the river notjust greening stzeets to the river. The community supports the ivINRRA-suggested 100-foot setback (d 40-foot native vegetation corridor, where feasible) as part of restoring the ecological funcYions of the corridor including its importance as a flywa_y and its water quality. ➢ View protection in 7.2.1 focuses on the views from Kellogg Park to the West Side and along only Wabasha 5treet. The section should protect views from the West Side bluffs to the river and not eliminate Robert Street. Residents of the bluff top neighborhoods have repeatedly expressed a concern to W SCO that buildings not obstruct their views of the riverfront. Though the community participated in and supports the city's topographic approach to providing some flexibifity in height standards for landmarks, WSCO is on record as objecting to ANX building � on the West Side that exceeds 65 feet (see letter regarding the 40-acre study). The community supports the MNRRA policies o£keeping river£ront buildings in low profile with some elevation back frosn the river. ➢ Suggested design guidelines for the West Szde flats on page 49 should inciude limiting buiiding heights along the riverfront, not just along Wabasha. Some residents strongly support the existing 35-foot limit Others suggested 35' to 65', depending on viewsheds and closeness to rivecfront. The natural resource design guidelines should include continupus �reens�ace along the river's edge, not just public space. The section on access and connections should include improved pedestrian connections between the West Side neighborhood and any new development. As metnioned previously, the city should make a commitment in this section to the West Side riverfront design principles and the MIvRRA suggested design guidelines in the C�, appendix C. ➢ A section 7,4 should be added to address guidelines for the expansion of existing businesses. This is not Addressed anywhere in the document, despite the continuation of major industrial uses within the West Side Flats, other industrial and eommercial uses throughou; the corridor, and the expansion of homes and other buildings within the corridor. The policies shouid cleatly state the river enhancing standazds that wili he applied to e�cpansions and should protect existing businesses if they follow these practices and especially if they are river dependent The city should consider establishir,g a�znd to provide an incentive for property owners enhance the � river corridor through better runoff management, protection of native vegetation and so on v/ / y/ ➢�'he plan also does not acldress transportation and public uses such as the airport. WSCO . strongly supports maintaining the floodplain functions within the airport, and would not support any furthcr diking of that area, We call £or a reduction of parkiag and pavement in the flats. Section 8 Tlxe in�plen�entation section should be ex�anded to e,xplain the types of ordinanee changes tk�e city is proposing. Will the city continue to have an overlay district that establishes standards to protect aitd enhance natural aad cultural resonrces while referencing underlying zoning distriets for land use9 Does the city support maintaining the functions of the floodplain? ➢ Policies for bluff protectioa� nre contradictory and confusing. Is the policy to limit developmexlt on and 40 feet back £rom 12% slopes, from 78% slopes or not? The standard should be protection of bluffs, reduction of runoff, prevention o£ erosion and restoration of native vegetation along the 40-foot lmpact area. �'he standard for exceptions from a 40-foot setback from the 12% or 18% slopes should be made clear, Curzent statement of "allowing development on slopes thaC exceed 12% and 18% slopes should be changed. ➢ Paragraph 7 for adopting site design standards should state a goal of adopting standards consistent �n�ith the MNRRA C1�IP site design standards that adapt suggested appendix C design standazds to local needs. ➢ Section 8.2 should include timing and process for adopting site design standards and should ensure that all public and private development will adhere to thent or mitigate any effects �or . exceptions. ➢ Section 8.3, '�'he West Side community supports the continuous river comdor trail on the west sids of the river and requests the city complete identiftcation of and reservation of easements for, the river trail from Robert to So. St. Paul A Section 8.4, The West Side community supports heritage pzeservation and requests specif�c mention be made of the Xoerg Brewery, caves, and hSstoric stairs and connections that should be preser��ed and restored between the upper blu£fs and the flats. We also would like more aggressive effozts by the city to have the plaa certified by MI��TtRA so the city is eligible £or £ederal funds to establish intezpretative trails and kiosks in the West Side and from Harriet Island through Lilydale Park. The implementation of the Lilydale Park plan and one trail connection between Cherokee and Lilydale portions of the regional pazk should be made priority. Pigure W. Does not include important views from West Side bluffs to and across the river. Thank you for your consideration of our coraments. Sincerely, � V a'k • Bruce Vandal President 0/-l9/ � DEPARTMENTO�PLANNING & ECONOM[C DEVELOPMLT;T Bri¢n Seeeney, Directa� SAINT PAUL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[em¢n, Mayor 15 West Four�h Street Telephare: b.il-?G6-6�G.i Saint Paul, :LfN 55102 Facsimile 65l-2?8-32G1 vC�t",_"..` �cSuv.'G� t',.r,y;, ��._ Public Hearing Notice ; � � � � �� ,_� The Saint Paul City Council will hold a public hearing on the Mississippi River Corridor Plan Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Room 330, City Hall The Saint Paul City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan as a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the draft Mississippi RiverCorridorPlan are available: • at Saint Paul branch libraries. • via the web at: httq://www.ci.stoaul.mn.us/ped/. If you would like to comment on the Mississippi River Corridor Plan: 1) You may testify at the City Council Public Hearing; 2) You may submit written comments to: Planning Administrator, Department of Planning & Economic Development, 1100 City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, Saint Paul, MN 55102. Questions can be directed to Virginia Burke (651/266-6661) or Martha Faust (651/266- 6572) at the Department of Planning & Econorriic Development. • • lIi\ �ESOT� HISTORIC:IL SOCIETY February 14, 2001 ,a�/a `��O 1 �� iU.z,� �e y r.v�� v��'u. � i�55 , �� Yt�/1 �'"'' •�IG • Mr. Jack P. Maloney 580 Otis Avenue St. Paul, NN 55014 Deaz Mr. Maloney: The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is in receipt of your letter dated 2/2/01 requestin� an opinion from our office as to the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of the Meeker Island Lock in St. Paul. As you know, the Meeker Island Lock was part of an early 20` century attempt to bring regular water transportation to Minneapolis. The Corps of Engineers initial plan involved two locks and dams, one near Fort Snelling to be called Lock and Dam #i and the other to be just above the Lake Street bridge (neaz Meeker Island) to be called Lock and Dam #2. Work started on Lock and Dam #2 in 1899 and was completed in 1907. This was the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River. The steamboat Itura was the first vessel to pass through the lock on May 19, 1907. Work was started on Lock and Dam #1 in 1903, but in 1910 hydroelectricity advocates succeeded in convincing the Corps to build a high dam at Lock and bam #1. This eliminated the need for the Meeker Island structure, so the top five feet of Dam #2 were demolished in 1912 and the lock chamber was abandoned. Lock and Dam #1 was completed in 1917. Lock #2 on the east side ofthe river is still visible from the Lake Street bridge. The significance of Lock and Dam #2 is clear. Not only was it the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River, but it was an important part of the power struggle between the cities of Minneapolis znd St. Paul regazding the development of hydroelectricity and which city �vould be the head of navigation. It is eligible under National Register Criterion A;n the azeas of En�ineering and Transportation. The fact that the lock chamber survives virtually intact and the base of dam exists on the riverbed sue�ests that the site retains sufficient integrity to convey its sigaificance. There is also the possibility that remnants of the access road and the dam construction camp exist as contributin� elements. Unfortunately, our office does not have the staffin� resources to prepaze the National Re�ister nomination at this time. If you wish to immediately pursue nomination of the property, it will be necessary for you to supply us with a completed National Register form and any required supportin� documentation. You may wish to retain the services of a consultant to complete the nomination. A list of consultants is attached. Please note that inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement. :fa.il�ELLnCG$pl"LLIaRllR6=T y!ATP:1CI..�IIS\Ecp1'.Ais1V3-19Ub'TELEP[IUAF�fi51_�a��F�or 0,-�9 r • You may also ask to have this property added to a list of properties for which nominations will be prepazed by this office when there are sufficient resources. I cannot give you an exact time when this might occur. It may take several years from being added to the list of possible nominations to the presentation of a completed nomination to the State Review Board. For now, the Minnesota SHPO considers the Meeker Island Lock and Dam to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Sincerely, � Scott Anfinson National Register Archaeologist, MnSHPO Cc: Martha Faust, St. Paul PED �� . � 01�14'/ � CJ • February 26, 2001 Honorable Members of the City Council Office of the City Council City Hall Saint Pau1,1�dN 55102 Dear Council A4emUers: �I,�gloi �� .��ti� �1i9.w C� r ��r9 o n ��wc1 (`1 � y 5. �'t � V-2/� l j2 � r i C�D'1 � � C;w. We respec[futly submit for }•our consideration the attached modest comments on the latest version of the,�lississiypi Rn�er Corridor Pla�v The most recent document has effectively captured the input and vision of many community members. It has some strong and inspiring aspects to it, most notaUly, objectives to pro[ect the bluff lands, preserve and restore native plant and anunal habitats, encourage protection and preservation of the floodplain and wetlands, protect water quality. Tet, at the same time, these good objectives could be better articulated �vith respect to bluff protection 2nd ecologically progressive landscape guidelines. Therefore, while �ee congratulate the Citp on all the effort it has put into the plan, we respectfully ask that the City Council consider several changes (attached). OveraIl, we hope fhese changes �citt only strengthen thc documcnt towards thc ccological goals that we sharc. In designating the \lississippi River cotridor as a state critical area, the Legislature recognized that the coiridor possessed natural systems "of greater than local sign�cance." They further recognized that "developmenL..could result in irreversible damage." �V'e share «'ith the City Council the hope that Saint Paul «'ill continue to be the model in balancing economic development and environtnental enhancement. Thank you again for the opportunity to share these comments with }'ou. �Ve cannot emphasize enough ho�v much �r'e respect all the Council�s �cork on behalf of improving the qualitv of life in our city. With hi�h regard, Deborah Karasov Deborah ICarasov, PhD, A4I.A Landscape Planning and Policy Great River Greeaing 651-690-4077 35 �L'est Watex S�eet Smce 207 Sam! Paul MN 55107 _o_ P 6516659500 F 651 G659<09 __�ri_�_�cv�v:_�,,,orn Pmtedonl�T/occydcdpapa o�-�g/ � CODfAfEA'TS ON THE DIISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR PLAN (DECEbIBER, 2000) OB7ECTII E 4.1 PROZECT THE BLUFFL4ADS OF THE RI F�R CORRIDOR The City intends to protect the Utuff-lands but allo�vs e�ceptions to bluff protection policies (4.1.3) and steep slopes. These statements negate key Critical Area policies. Later in the document (6.4.2 and 7.3), the City proposes additional structures, bluff drives, "developed overlool:s" and other connections on the bluff. While public access is unportant, these building actions need to be closely evalua[ed for their impacts and should not be supported as a blanl: matter of policy. 4.1.3 Change the sentence that allows esceptions for public structures related to recreation, access and connections. Instead, note that these public structures (e.g., bridges, retaining �t alls, sign monuments, and stainvells) should be e�amined on a case by case basis, allowing tltem onlV if lhey do not ureveisibly affect critical ecological resources. 4.1.4 The City should prohiUit residential development on slopes [hat esceed eighteen percen� not only on slopes greater than t�t�elve percent Should this Ue an impossible change for the city, at the � least, the document should add (afrer [he sentence prohiUiting residential developmeni on slopes esceeding t« elve percent): The City «ill accept • residential development on slopes that esceed m elve percent only if the project meets a strict hardship standard and if it does not irreversibly affect critical ecological resources. REL-1TED POLICIES: 6.4.2 Change the sentence to read that "Connections...MAY be unpro��ed... Add that any shuctures (such as ramps, ��'all.�vays, and stairs) must be evaluated on a case by case basis for their impact on the bluff. Also such connection should be uncommon. 7.? See belo�v for recommended changes to Desien Guidelines. 8.1.7 The casual reference here to variances is ver}� troubling. We ��'ould recommend that the Cit} emphasize that an}� variances with respect to bluff unpact area and steep slopes must first meet a strict hardship standard. Also, at the cer}� least, add to the criteria: AZodifications t� ill not be accepted if there is irreversible damage to significant ecological and aesthetic resources. Additionall}�, The Cih� should eliminate the statement, "Encourage cie�atcd structures and retaining ��'al1s." There are man}� natural and naturally appearing wa�•s to protect s[eep slopes, and in most cases retaining walls are aet� unnatural. OBTECTA� 4.2 PRPSERL�'A.�� RESTORP RATNE PLAM�L\DRNLIL4L HABIIATS 4.2.2 This policy states the city will encourage use of native vegetation. Instead, the city should require it. • 35 W'est Watex SheeC Smte 201 Sav�t Fav] MN 55; 07 _v_ P 651 C659500 F b51 e659409 wVO�er__�r�=�c-i�i�i� Pcui[eden IOJ%icrycicdpap<t or/y� � OBJECTIF�' S.1 CON77AriJE CO,tL1 fERCL4L AND INDUSTRIAL LAhD USES... �.l A The City should require screening of industrial development, not merely encourage it. 7.3 DESIGNGUIDELIA'ES The objectives of the design guidelines are quite admirable: greater pabtic access, preservation of public vie�vs, good stormwater management, e�panded urban forest, and sensitive urUan fabric are all objectives �ve share. At the same time, [he guidelines are here and there missing aitical pieces; [he omissions ultimately may ]ead to development that undermines those admirable objectives. In particular the design guidelines need the following statements for each development site: UPPER LANDING Access and Connectious • Add: Design streets for pedestrian scale and safety and �vith livable communit}� desigtt solutions. • �'icws and \'istas • Add: Ecaluate all plans to cteate views from the bluff within the conte�t of an overall bluff management plan. [Creating vie��•s requires cutting natural vegetation, and this should only Ue done �� i[hin a larger bluff vegetation management pian.] Stormwater • Add: Atinimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. AD \Z Access and Connections • Add: Design streets for pedestrian scale and safet}' and �vith livable communin� design solutions. • Lliminate: "Create a bluff drive as a 1oca1 residential street atop the lower bluff." Views and Vistas • Add: Eval�ate all plans to create views from the blutf within the contest of an overall bluff manaeement plan. [Creating � ie�vs requires cutting natural vegetation, and this should only be done �vithin a larger bluff vegetation management plan.] • 35 West Watec S7eeC Sm[e 201 Sunt Paul IvL�1 55107 _o_ P 6516659500 F 6516G59409 wv �za=rvma-_nn�v.o� PMtcd en SOT/o �ccydcd p�ec � � � . � sto�,�t� • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within de��elopment. Development Pattern • Finally, c��e appreciate that the document has removed specific height numbers with refei'ence to thc dcsircd building cdgc. Howcvcr, �xc are surc that thc City would not ticant thc promotion of a"higher edge" to perceived as an ingenious way to avoid the esplicit commitment to the 40-foot hei�ht restriction (as requued by the Critical Areas Plan J P,s notecl repeatedly by many neighborhood and community groups, the cunent fashion for a "building ed�e" should not blind us to the wisdom of the Departrnent of Namral Resources in establishing that restriction. \Ve sug�est that all recommendations with respect to height be eliminated, especially given the careful work of the Shepard-Davern Task Force in dealing tvi[h this issue. "ihanh } ou again for your conslderation of these comments. 35 �Y✓est Water C��: c�ce 201 C�� Faul \�N 5 107 _o_ P 651 GG59500 F 6':6659409 ___v!eqm_�.en:��oio FcnttC^n107Y vccycicdpapcc 0�-15! LJ CIT'Y OF SAIN'f PAUL h'onn Colemm; blayor DAT�: March 6, 2001 TO: City Councilmembers DEPARTMENT OP PLAi�NING & GCO: fOMIC DHVELOP�[E\T Bfim: S�s�eeaey, Direaor 25 1'Jest Four7k Street Te[ephorte: 651-266-6565 Sni�ttPaui, MNS510? Fatsimife: 651-2?8-3?61 FROM: Virginia Burke, 651-266-6661 �g Martha Faust, 651-266-6572'l�'� RE: Mississippi River Corridor Plan: Pub]ic Hearing Follow Up At the conclusion of the public hearing on the tLlississippi River Corrirlor Plan, held on • Wednesday, Febniary 28, 2001, Councilruembers Harris and Lantry� requested that staff provide a written response to public testimony received. Staff responses to testimony from Great River Greening, Friends of the Parks and Trails, the Highland District Council (District 15), and the West Side Citizens Organization (District 3) are attached. Please contact us if you have an}• questions. • v�-�g. ( Proposed Amendments to the Mississippi River Corridor Plan (to be introduced by Harris � and/or Lantry): Text Changes Chapter 3, number 3, p, ll: "The chazacter of river valley land uses also changes considerably, from the quiet, residential character of the gorge, to the mixed commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street corridor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preseroed blufftop neighborhoods in the West Side. Da�ton's Bluff, and Highwood neighborhoods." {Reference stafFresponse to WSCO, p.l #5). 2. Chapter 5, paragraph 3, p. 32: "In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor currenfly has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 bazges and a total design capacitv of 574 bazees (Fieure Rl. (Reference staff response to Friends, p3 #8) 3_ Chapter 6, Objective 6.3, p. 39: "On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport, and in the Pig's Eye Lake area a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacenY to the river for safety and environmental reasons." (Reference staff response to Friends, p.5 #I 1) 4. Chapter 7, paragraph 2, p. 48: "On the following pages aze suggested guidelines for the West Side Flats, Upper Landing, Koch-Mobil and ADM sites, and the Shepazd • Davem azea. The individual guidelines should not be viewed as mandates, and it is unlikely that any project will be able to fulfill every provision. Rather, collectively they provide a vision for redevelopment that enhances the river corridor, respects this precious amenity, and strikes a batance between economic development and resource protection. This list is not e�chaustive. These suggested guidelines will be used as the basis for the ne�ct step in the regulatory process (see Section 8.1.8)." (Reference staff response to Greening, p.4 #7) '--- '- ' - .. . .. _ • _, .. ..3.*h°�X:sfi..^4Q --�-- L'tlap�er-8,�lumDerl,p�L"-tonsmercrea�YYt�2�c'�riifi.rarorsi2ii?r,�Ej�':,u- �-_..-- river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river comdor modification requests for development on slopes exceeding 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact azea (40' from the bluff line). The intent is not to encoura�e river corridor modificarions_ buf to orovide the Plannin¢ Commission with further Quidance when considerine modification requests. Such criteria may address, but aze not limited to, the following factors:" 6. Chapter 8, number 8, p. 52 "With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design guidelines for major river corridor redevelopment sites � n , � > _ ', where no euidelines have yet been written. The design Mazch 7, 2001 Page I of 3 . ot-t9l � guidelines will be sensirive to the purposes of this Plan, and will clarify how the form and scale of development can incorporate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public enjoyment of the river. It is e�cpected that such guidelines will be implemented through a variety of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Village Zoning project, site-specific guidelines, and possibly through design districts (a concept that is currentiy being developed). The Shepazd-Davern redevelo area alreadv has created desi�n euidelines throueh a 1999 Small Area Plan. Appendig B shows illustrations for the five redevelopment sites based on the work of the Design Study. "(Reference staff response to Deuberry) 7. Chapter 8, Section 8.2, p.53: "Site Plan Review Guidelines. Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate provisions for public access to the river, connections to exisfing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic qualiry, and measures to address adverse environmental impacts of new development. The Citv will work with the Department of Natural Resources to deterxnine if amendments to site lan review uidelines are necessarv. This will occur durin the Ordinance revision nrocess which will foilow adoption of this Plan. (Reference staff response to WSCO, p.6 #16) • 8. Appendix B, p.58 Add to: Significant Archaeological Sites (identified by State Historic Preservation Office): Meeker Island Lock & Dam fdetermined eligible for National Register but not vet officiallv hstedl �— C , J Policy Changes 10. Policy 4.13, p. 20: "To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional structural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Further exceptions are mav be allowed for a limited number of low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. Such structures should be uncommon. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code." (Reference staff response to Greening, p.l #1) 11. Policy 5.2.1, p. 33: "Bazge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port ternunals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. (The businesses at Bazee Terminal #1 are all river related.) River-related land uses are those with an economic or operational need for a river location." (Reference staff response to Friends, p.4 #9) March 7, 2001 Page 2of 3 oi-�q � 12• Policy 6.4.2, p. 41: "Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river �i}} � mav be improved by adding a limited number ofpedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, watkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats." (Reference staff response to Greening, p.2 #3) j3• Policy 7.13, p. 45 In Upland azeas such as the Gorge, the City encourages preserving and enhancing the existing modified grid pattem of streets and blocks. In portions of Battle Creek and Highwood, development form follows a suburban or exurban pattern with cul- de-sacs and meandering roads that follow topography. In these neighborhoods without a connected street system, the City supports creaYing a connected system as redevelopment or major subdivision occurs, to the extent that it is com atible with to o a h. • March 7, 2001 • Page 3of 3 0 �•�9� Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City � Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. 1. Current Policy 413 To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional sh development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevazd. Further exceptions aze allowed for low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code. Background: This policy was discussed at length with the CPC. Case-by-case evaluation would happen as a matter of course, so staff would not recommend restating an existing practice. Staff Recommendation: Amend policy 4.13: "To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional structural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevazd. Further exceptions are mav be allowed for a limited number of low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. Such structures should be uncommon. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code." . 2. Current Policy 4.1.4 In order to protect steep slopes and minunize erosion, and consistent with Executive Order 79-19, the city will continue to prohibit residential development on slopes that exceed eighteen percent. Consistent with the MNI2ItA standard for commercial and industriai development, the city will continue to restrict industrial and commercial development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. Background: The Planning Commission does not believe it is prudent for the city to prohibit residential development on slopes greater than twelve percent (nor do we believe it would preclude the City from reaching Tier II status). Site pian review is already required for any development on slopes greater than twelve percent. When ordinance revisions occur (under the direction of DNR), we may be required to add additional provisions to our site pian review requirements to be consistent with Critical Area. Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.1.4 as written. 3. Current Policy 6.4.2 Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river will be improved by adding a limited numbez of pedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, walkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats. Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission • PC Planning Commission RC River Conidor Page I of 4 o t-�q i • Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Background: The CPC amended this policy to respond to Greenin�'s original comments submitted to the Planning Commission, and also in response to a comment from DNR. In response to the October comments, this policy was qualified to refer only to "a limited number" of new connections. Case-by-case evaluation would happen as a matter of course, so staff would not recommend restating an existing practice. Staff recommendation: Amend policy b.4.2: Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river � mav be improved by adding a limited number of pedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, walkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats. 4. Current Section 8.1.7 Consider creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river corridor modification requests for development on slopes exceeding 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact area (40' from the bluff line). Such criteria may address, but are not limited to, the following factors: • Retain the natural slope lines of the site, as seen in profile. Restore the vegetation lines which convey the slope lines. Roof pitch should match slope angle. • Screen new buildings. • : Slopes facing the river should look natural to the greatest extent possible. Stagger or step building units according to the topography. • Plan buildings, drives, pazking areas, and landscanine to acknowledge the natural contour line of the site. • Provide parking on the uphill side behind buildings. • Lot coverage. • Location of building on lot. • Regulate building design, e.g. materials, bulk, shape, height, color. • Areas with a certain pitch of slope (e.g. g�eater than 12% and less than 18%) shall not have an impervious surface coverage greater than a certain percentage (e.g. greater than 25%). • Encourage elevated structures & retaining walls. - No increase in runoff from the site (from rainfall, septic systems, irrigation). • Minimal removal of deep-rooted woody vegetation. Background: The intention has always been to strenethen the criteria for considering rivercorridor modifications for construction on steep slopes. River conidor modifications do periodically occur, and the Planning Commission has requested additional provisions to ensure that any disturbance is minimized. It is premature to try to finalize ordinance CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Plannin� Commission • PC Planaing Commission RC River Corridor Page 2 of 4 o�-��t � Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City � Council Public Hearing. Responses aze coded to specific comments in (etter, attached. Ianguage in the plan: we wilI continue to wotk with DNR on deveIoping the exact ordinance language. Staff Recommendation: No change to 8.1.7 as written. 5. Current Policy 4.2.2 The City will encourage use of native vegetatzon ar other compatible floodplain vegetation in redevelopment projects. Where appropriate, when redeveloping or stabilizing the river's edge, soil bio-engineering techniques and native plantings will be used in combination with more traditional engineered solutions. In the more formal landscape treatrnents occurring along the downtown riverfront, the shoreline will be strengthened with native vegetation, including native trees and shrubs. Throughout the river corridor, the City will encourage integration of future growth and development with restoration programs that reconnect and restore remnant natural communities and biological diversity. Background: The Zoning Code provisions already.require natural vegetation to be restored after any constnzcrion project, which satisfies the Criticai Area requirement fo retain e�sting vegation and landscaping throughout the river corridor. This policy was amended to resoIve a concern raised by MNRRA staff earlier in the process. • Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.2.2 as written. 6. Current Policy 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the . opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of waIls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside --- ------- SL.^.=2ga ar�a�a,g �F�PrP_ ci.1Ch SCr£eT�i22 T�Wlll_ROt 3(Ie171IDeII1 t0 bllS1IIeS5 OpeTahORS. Background: The basis for this policy is the Critical Area requirement that "local plans and regulations shall include provisions to provide for the screenin� o£ existing development which constitutes visual intrusion, wherever appropriate..to protect and preserve aesthetic qualities of the river cosidor." (C.2.e.(4)) The Critical Area requirement is met through this policy and site plan review requirements already in place. MNRRA staff requested that the City, above and beyond the Critical Area requirement, suppozt and encourage the use of vegetative screening, and that request was incorporated verbatim. Key: CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Plannin� Commission . RC River Corridor Page 3 of 4 0�-19/ C � � • Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. 7. Key: CPC PC RC are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.4 as written. Current Section 7.3 Design Guidelines (for 5 xedevelopment sites) Background: Despite clarifying the introductory language to this section, there continues to be a misperception that those objectives listed in 73 aze a definitive, final list for each site. They are not (as is noted both in 73 and Chapter 8). We believe it would only spur more confusion and interest if we continue to add objectives to this section. Staff Recommendation: Add another clarifying statement to paragraph 2, page 48: "This list is not exhaustive." And "These suggested guidelines will be be used as the basis for the next step in the regulatory process (see Section 8.1.8)." Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission Planning Commission River Corridor Page 4 of 4 bt-\9 � February 26, 2001 Honorable Members of ihe City Council Office of the City Council City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council Members: a��g�o� C� � �� .�� yy � �4.� �9rr.��on� �`'1�55_ Jl� ✓-i/� �✓ric�D'1 ��Ow. �ue respectfully submit for your consideration the attached modest comments on the latest version of the Mississip�i River Corridor Plan. The most recent document has effectively captured the input and vision of many community members. It has some strong and inspiring aspects to it, most notably, objectives to proteci the bluff lands, preserve and restore native plani and anunal habitats, encourage protection and preservation of the floodplain and weUands, protect �vater qualiry. Yet, at the same time, these good objectives could be better articulated with respect to biuff protection and ecologically progressive landscape guidelines. Therefore, while we con�atulate the City on all the effort it has put into the plan, we respectfully ask ihat the City Council consider several changes (attached). Overall, we hope these changes �vill only strengthen the documcnt towards thc ccological goaIs that we sharc. In designating the n�Iississippi River comdor as a state critical azea, ihe Legislature recognized that the wrridor possessed natural systems "of greater than local significance." They further recognized that "development... could result in irreversible damage." We share with the City Council the hope thaT Saint Paul will conYinue to be the model in balancing economic development and environmental enhancement. Thank you again for the opportunity to share these comments «�ith you. ��e cannot emphasize enough how much we respect aII the Council's �;�ork on behaif of improving the quality of life in our ciTy. With high regard, Debarah Karasov Deborah Karaso��, PhD, MLA Landscape Planning and Policy Crreat River Greening 651-690-4077 � 35 Q'est Watez SheeC Sm� 201 • Cunc paul MN 55107 _o_ P G516659500 F 6536659a09 ww�t?—_m_�c-�� y PMttdon 107%rttycicdpeper � � CObIDIENTS OV THE �1 fISSIS5IPPl ffiVER CORRIDOR PLA�V (DECENBER, 2000) �J OBJECTZVE4.1 PROTECTTHEBLUFFLAA�DSOFTHERIVERCORRIDOR The City intends to protect the bluff-lands but allo�es e�ceptions to bluff protection policies (4. L3) and steep slopes. These statements negate key Critical Area policies. Later in the document (6.4.2 and 7.3), the City proposes additional structures, bluff drives, "developed overlooks" and other connections on the bluff. While public access is importan� these building actions need to be closely evaluated for their impacts and should not be supported as a blank matter of policy. �y 4.1.3 Change the sentence that allows e�ceptions for puUlic structures related to recreation, 'r�' access and connections. Instead, note that these public sWctures (e.g., bridges, retaining walls, sign monuments, and stainvells) should be esamined on a case by case basis, allowing them only if they do not irreveisiUly affect critic2l ecological resources. �$ 2 #3 �� '� S 4.1.4 The City should prohibit residential development on slopes that esceed eighteen percent, not only on slopes greater than hvelve percent. Should this be an impossible change for the city, at the very least, the document should add (after the sentence prohibiting residential development on slopes e�ceeding hveh�e percent): The City FviLl accept residential development on slopes that exceed ri� elve percent only if the project meets a stiid hardship standard and if it does not ineversibly affect critical ecological resources. RELITED POLICIES: 6.4.2 Change the sentence to read that "Connections...n4AY be 'vnproved..." Add that any structures (such as ramps, wall.�vays, and stairs) must be evaluated on a case by case basis for their impact on the bluff. Also such connection should be uncommon. 7.3 See below for recommended changes to Design Guidelines. 81.7 The casual reference here to variances is very troubling. We would recommend that the City emphasize that any variances with respect to bluff impact area and steep slopes must first meet a strict hardship standard .Also, at the ver}� leas� add to the criteria: Modificafions will not be accepted if there is irreversible damage to significant ecological and aesthetic resources. Additionally, The City should eliminate the statemen� "Encourage clevated shuctures and retaining «�alls." There are many natural and naturally appearing ways to protect steep slopes, and in most cases retaining walls are very unnatural. OBJ&CTTL� 4.2 PRESERVE M'D RESZORE NAZIL'E PLRNT AA�D RNLt4AL HABIZATS 4.2.2 This policy states the city will encourage use of native vegetation. Instead, the city should require it. � 35 West Watei Stxee; Swte 201 $a�nt Paul MN 557 07 _o_ P 651G659500 F 657G65a409 _.r:�i�a_r�. Prmtcdenl0�%�aycicdpape� b(-1R 1 � OBJECTNE S. I CONfINUE COA2AfERCIAL AND IND USTRIAL L9ND USES... �' (p 5.1.4 The City should require screening of industrial development, not merely encourage it � �. 7.3 DESIGNGUIDELlNES The objectives of the design guidelines are quite admirable; greater public access, preseivation of public vietvs, good s[orntwater management, expanded urban forest, and sensitive urban fabric are all objecrives we share. At the same time, the guidelines are here and there missing critical pieces; fhe omissions ultimately may lead to development that undermines those admirable objectives. In particular the design guidelines need the follo�c�ing statements for each development site: UPPER LANDING Access and Connections • Add: Design streets for pedeshian scale and safety and with livable community design solutions. Viervs an@ Visfas • • Add: Evaluate all plans to create views from the bluff within ihe context of an overall bluff management p]an. [Creating vieu�s requires cutting natural vegetation, and ttris should only be done within a larger bluffvegetation management plan.] Stormwater � Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. ADM Access and Connections • Add: Design streets for pedestrian scale and safety and with livable communiTy design solutions. • Eliminate: "Creaie a bluff drive as a local residential streel atop the lower bluff." t�'ie�vs and Vistas • Add: Evaluate all plans to create views from the bluft �vithin the context oFan overall bluff management plan [Creating eie�es requires cutting naturai vegetation, and this should only be done «�ithin a larger bluff vegetation management plan.] 35 West Water $treeC Su�te 201 � Sun� P�ut MN 55107 _o_ P 651GG59500 F 6516G59409 m_� �rc_�i• Pnntcd en 100% �ccJded papa 01-19/ • Natural Resources • Eliminate: "develop overlooks" as part of the first sentence dealin� with blufftop. [Excessively developed overlooks may not be environmentally appropriate.] . Add: Encourage preservation of existing native landscapes, encourage plantin�s of native materials in naturalized massin�s to enhance or create natural habitats. Stormwater • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. Urbzn Forest • Add: Re+ntroduce and connect the urban forest within and around redevelopment. [Canopy trees afone is not forest.] IiOCH MOBIL Access and Connections • Add: Desian streets for pedestrian scale and safety and with livable community desi�n solutions. • Eliminate: "Create a bluff drive as a local residential street atop the lower bluf£" Views and Vistas � • Add: Evaluate all plans to create views from the bluff within the conte�t of an overall bluff management plan. [Creating views requires cutting natural vegetation, and this should only be done within a larger bluff vegetation management plan.] Nntura] Resources • Eliminate: "develop overlooks" as part of tl�e first sentence dealin� with bluffrop. [Ezcessively developed overlooks may not be environmentally appropriate.] • Add: Encourage preservation of existin� native fandscapes, encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natural habitats. Stormw�ter • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. SHEPARD DAVERN (are these necessary when there is already more detailed guidelines in the Shepnrd Davern plan?) Access nnd Connections - • Add: DesiQn streets for pedestrian scale and safety and with livable communiry desi�n solutioos. C� oi-�`� t � scormwac« • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. Development Pattern • Finally, we appreciate that the document has removed specific height numbers with reference to the dcsired bu$ding edga Howevcr, wc are sure that the City would not want the promotion of a"higher edge" to perceived as an ingenious way to avoid the e�plicit commitment to the 40-foot height restriction (as required by the Critical Areas Plan.) As noted repeatedly by many neighborhood and community groups, the current fashion for a "building edge" should not blind us to the wisdvm of the Departrnent o£Natural Resources in establishing that restriction. We suggest that all recommenda6ons with respect to height be eliminated, especially given the careful work of the Shepard-Davem Task Force in dealing with this issue. Thank you again for your consideration of these comments. � 35 West Watex Steet Smte 201 � ._ Sunt Paul MN 55707 _<>_ P G5I6G59500 F G516659409 wYrpie?=�..c•N»r�nv �vPnn[cdonlOG%cecycledpaper O!-tQ/ • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 CiTy Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. 1. Policies 4.1.3 and 4.1.5, referencing Secfion 8.1.7. Background: The intention has always been to strengthen the criteria for considering river corridor modifications for construction on steep slopes. River conidor modifications do periodically occur, and the Planning Commission has requested additional provisions to ensure that any disturbance is minimized. It is premature to try to finalize ordinance language in the plan: we will continue to work with DNR on developing the exact ordinance language. Staff Recommendation: No change to section 8.1.7 as written. 2. Policy 4.2.5 In all new developments, threatened and endangered wildlife habitats shail be protected from alterations which would endanger their survival. Background: It's not plausible for the City to commit to protecting any area otl�er than those it manages or over which it has review authority (i.e. new developments). � Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.25 as written. 3. Policy 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce fertilizer and pesticide runoff into the river. Background: Water-quality related policies (Objective 4.4) are ultimately the domain of the City's surface water management plan (to be written by the Sewer Utility division of Public Works following completion of the Capitol Region Watershed District's plan in 2002). Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.4.5 as written. 4. Policy 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. Background: The CPC clazified this policy at the request of DNR and Friends of the Parks and Trails. However, the only poZicies (as opposed to regulations) that Saint Paul can enforce are our own. It's a subtle distinction. Key: • CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page lof 5 oi--i°� i StafFresponse to Feb. 28, 200] ]etter from Friends of the Pazks & Trails of SY. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.4.6 as written. 5. Policy 51.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or should enhance the river environment. ( New development on the north side of fhe river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of e�sting Plans, and in all other respects should be consistent with the goaIs and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new developmenT include: •. having an economic or operational need for a river location •. supporting the attsactiveness of surrounding neighborhoods •. sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements •. offering public access to and along the river •. maintaining views of the river •. cleaning up polluted areas on the site • meeting or exceeding applicable natural resource policies in this Plan (This list is not prioritized, nor do all criteria have to be met for a land use to be considered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new developments should meet as many of these criteria as possible. ) $ackground: Downtown was exempted from this policy to acknowledge that having a relationship to the river is not the most important purpose of a Central Business District, and that downtown development is driven by many factors unrelated to the river. For example, if tkris policy was applied to the downtown area, many of the current uses could probably not be built there today (District Energy Plant, Ramsey County building/former . . . -- _--__._- --� _..-- v�25i F }^R.`�C:.^.g$�j2.C�wt�. W2_TL�P.?' Rd. J211�. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.1 as written. 6. Policy 5,1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beaufify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening wilI not be a detriment to business operations. Key: CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee ofthe Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 2of 5 � � . OI - 191 • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearin�. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Background: The basis for this policy is the Critical Area requirement that "local plans and regulations shall include provisions to provide for the screening of existing development which constitutes visual intrusion, wherever appropriate..to protect and preserve aesthetic qualities of the river corridor." (C.2.e.(4)) The Critical Area requirement is met through this policy and site plan review requirements already in place. MNRIZA staff requested that the City, above and beyond the Critical Area requirement, support and encourage the use of vegetative screening, and that request was incorporated verbatim. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.4 as written. Section 5.2 Text reference to Port of St. Paul (page 32). Background: This document refers to the St. Paul Port as those areas over which the St. Paul Port Authority or City of St. Paui has jurisdictional authority. For that reason, it does not discuss the terminals ar fleeting capacity in Minneapolis or the Minnesota River even though the functions of the those terminals are undeniably intertwined with those in St. • Paul. Staff recommendation: No change to text as written. 8. Section 5.2 Text reference to "practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges" (page 32). Background: MnDOT distinguishes between fleeting area Design Capacity and fleeting azea Practical Capacity. The practical capaclty of a fleet is 2/3 to 3/4 of its design capacity because there must be room to maneuver so that an individual barge can be taken from the fleet. The practical capacity of a fleeting area is the better indicator of the number of bazges that can fleet in a fleeting area. However, the design capacity is the absolute maximum number of barges that can fleet, so is a useful indicator as well. Staff recommendation: Amend text: "In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor cunently has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges and a total desien capacitv of 574 bazges (Fiaure R�." 9. Policy 5.21 Barge Terminal #l, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission . PC Plannin� Commission RC River Corridor Page 3of 5 OI Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey CounTy, • submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. non-river-reIated businesses with river-reIated businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. River-related land uses are those with an economic or opesational need for a river location. Background: Policy 5.1.1 already addresses new development needing to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or enhancing the river environment. Policy 5.1.2 already addresses expansions of existing businesses. Policy 5.13 already addresses modifications or additions To exisYing industrial uses. This policy addresses industrial uses in areas controlled by the St. Paul Port Authority. It is the staff position that these four policies together constitute the appropriate City stance. This policy could be clarified Yo indicate that businesses at Barge Terminal #1 are already river-related. Staff recommendation: Amend policy 5.2.1: "Bazge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. (The businesses at Bar�e Terminal #1 are ail river-related.) River-related land uses aze fhose with an economic or operational need for a river location." 10. Policy 5.2.3 The City will continue to regulate the impacts of commercial navigation facilities on existing development, the natural environment, and the immediate neighborhood through its Special Condition Use Permit process. Background: 1) The SCUP process already requires scrutiny of any proposed new commercial nauigation facility. It was the staff and committee's opinion that "noise and visual impacts" of any proposed development is already covered by existing Code language: "compatibility with existing aad ariticipated development; compatibility with ______bielogic_a.nd oLher nahu-al communities" and standazds for protecfion of shorel - �-------- - - -- '--- -- —� --- - - wetiands, bluffs, wildlife and vegetation, and water quality. (Sec.65S03, 65.410) 2) Staff were advised by representatives of the commercial navigation industry that casual fleeting by bazges only happens in emergency situations. DNR staff admitted that the problem of casual barge fleeting is an outdated problem that has lazgely been resolved in the past 20 years. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.23 as written. 11. Section 6.3 Text reference page 39: "On the river's west bank, in azeas near the Saint Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 4of 5 • C� 0�-�4! • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Paul Downtown Airport and Pig's Eye Lake, a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons." Background: Staff know that Pig's Eye Lake is on the east side of the river. Staff recommendation: Amend text: "On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paui Downtown Airport, and in the Pig's Eye Lake azea, a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons." 12. Section 8.1.1 Review and amend current River Corridor overlay zoning districts and map. Cunently, river corridor overlay zoning consists of four districts, with two distinct functions. The districts labeled RC-1 and RC-2 together protect the floodplain. The districts labeled RC-3 (Urban Open District) and RC-4 (Urban Diversified District) are intended to guide the character of development, but aze confusing and contribute little to the overlay. Underlying zoning districts determine land use. General standards for environmental protection apply to the whole river conidor, regardless of the overlay districts. Consider splitting the current River Conidor overlay into two: a"floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RC-1 and RG2 which governs the floodplain, and a single • district "Mississippi River Critical Area" or "MRCA" combining RC-1, RC-2, RC-3 and RG4, and which addresses Critical Area requirements Background: Disagree with the assertion that to combine all of the RC overlay districts into a single would eliminate the 40' height provision in RC-3. This idea is something that city and DNR staff have only had very preliminary discussions about. DNR is interested in the idea of a single overlay for the Critical Area; and DNR has the final approval authority over any such change. Any such proposal would require public review and comment. Staff Recommendation: No change to section 8.1.1 as written. • CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Pla�ning Commission PC Plannin� Commission RC River Corridor Page 5of 5 bl { / e ,�rcs and s'1� St Paul acid �:,�,�� cou 1621 Beechwood Ave. St. Paul, MN 55116 651-698-4543 w�wv.friendsoftheparks.org Presiden[ Roben Nethercut Vice Presidents Ieanne Weigum Treasurer lames R. Bricher Direc[ors Craig Andresen Perry R. Bolin Theresa Bradshaw Thomas T. Dwight Neit Franey William Frank Esther Kellogg Mazilyn Lundberg Mark M. Nolan ]anet Olson Larry Peterson Scott Ramsay Pierre Regnier ]erry Seck Marsha Soucheray Jerrilyn Thompson Direcror Emeritus David Lilly Tniman W. Porter Ez Officio Dan Collins Thomas Eggum Mazc Goess Gree Mack Terry Noonan Vic Wi[tgenstein Executive Director and Secretary Peggy Lynch Mississippi River Bluffs Project Manager Gndy Schwie � � Z February 28, 2001 TO: St. Paul City Council Members From: Friends of the Parks and Trails of St. PauI and Ramsey County Bob Nethercut, President The Friends of the Parks and Trails has reviewed the Mississippi River Corridor Plan and would like to suggest changes. • The Friends are pleased that some of our recommendations to the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the River Corridor Plan which is being reviewed tonight. However, our main concern about this plan has always been that it achieve Tier Two requirements of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). It dces not achieve Tier Two and we question whether it even meets the basic requirements of the State CriUCal Area Law. The City of St. Paul has more shoteline on the Mississippi River than any other coaununity on the River. The designation of the Mississippi River as a Critical Area by the State of Minnesota and the designation of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) by the federal government shows the deep concem by the state and federal governments about the protection of the Mississippi River and its comdor. The City has a tremendous responsibility to protect the river comdor. Unfortunately, this current plan encourages development loopholes which will ensure that the look of the St. Paul Mississippi River Comdor will be driven by developers, not by the protecfion of the River envisioned by the legislators who passed the State Critical Area Act � who later designated the Mississippi River a permanent Critical Area. Nor will it be protecte by the MNRRA Iegislation wIuch was authored by Representative Bmce Vento to provide national protecrion to our state and nafion's greatest natural resource, the Mississippi River. There are major gaps in this current plan: * Variances appeaz to rule development * There is no definition of the Port of Saint Paul. The Port of St. Paul includes the City of Minneapolis and communities on the Minnesota River which accommodates most of the grain ternunals. _* Zeningcodes xecommendations could elinunate the cusent 40 ft. height restrictions. We recommend changes in the following policies: * 4.1.3. The City will continue to prohibit residential development on slopes that exceed eighteen percent...and restrict industrial and commerciat development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. * 4.1.5 The City will continue to preserve the biuff impact area (forty feet landward of the binff line) in a natural state. Yet on page 52, #7 suggests creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification...for development on slopes exceeding 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact area. If variances are encouraged by the City of St. Paul, as this document certainly appears do, the reeommendations prohibiting development on steep slopes or with tlae bluff impact area, are worthless. �` 4.2.5 In all new development, threatened and endangered wildlife . habitats shall be protected from alterations which would endanger their a - t9/ • February 28, 2001 Page Two Mississippi River Corridor Plan survival. Recommendation: eliminate "in a11 new development". '�` 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce � 2 fertilizer and pesticide runoff it�to the river. Recommendation: � The City should set an example for shoreline areas by restricting turf areas near the river and public Zands surrounding lakes. '�` 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed �� management organizations and floodplain and wetland protection policies. 12ecommendation: Replace "support" with "require ". '�` 5.1.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the S ordinary high water mark should have a relationship to the river, a need for a .� river location, and(or should enhance the river environment. {New development on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd. is exempted from this policy). Recommendation: Eliminate the exemption of downtown Saint Paul from this policy. �` 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river �(p or the opposite shoreline. The City support the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage • the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening will not be a detriment to business operations. Recoznmendation: Screening of industrial buildings and outside storage areas is required by using native vegetation. � Objective 5.2 This section is very deceiving when describing the Port of Saint Paul. We ,� recommend an addition to this section identifying the total area of the Port of St. Paul which includes not only the City of St. Paul, but all of the terminais on the Minnesota River. The text mentions the "total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges". In actualiry there is space to fleet 574 bazges. The text itself states "at peak times, barge fleets sj� � fill fleeting areas to their masimum capacity." Recommendation: Insert - The Saint Paul river corridor currently has a total capacity for fleeting 574 barges. * 5.2.1 Barge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's �,i� � policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river related business at �� Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts... Recommendation: Change this to read - All industrial sites should be used for river related industries. '�` 5.2.3 The City will continue to regulate the impacts of commercial navigation facilities on existing development, the natural environment, and the �(0 immediate neighborhood through its Special Condition Use Permit process. Recommendation: replace with: Noise and visual impact of commercial navigation must be considered on sites before renewing permits on existing areas and before additional barge • activities or fleeting can be considered. No casual fleeting will be allowed in the river corridor. o�-i� � February 28, 2001 Page Three Mississippi River Corridor Plan Objective 5.3 The Port Authority has donated over 1800 acres of land to the City, to be used for open space and recreation in perpetuity. Those lands now in park use include Crosby Lake, Pigs Eye Lake, and Pickerel Lake. While this may be true, the statement is deceiving. Crosby Lake was never an industrial site. In the 1960's wken the Ciry wished to purchase Crosby Lake for a park, they kad reached their tevy Iimits and so were unable to purchase the site. The Council asked the St. Paul Port Authoriry, which also levies taxes but has no limits, to purchase the site for a pazk. The Port Authority then owned the land and leased it to the City for $1 a year. The Port Authority eventually turned over the deed to the City of St. Paul. The Port Authority did turn over property in the Pig's Eye Lake area to the City for a pazk, but This was after the f�rst River Corridor Plan was rejected by the Environmental Qualiry Board because of plans the Port Authority had to develop the area. �(� Objective 6.3. On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport and Pig's Eye Lake,.... Conection: Pig's Eye Lake is on the east side of the river. �` 8.1 Zotting Code Revisions. Consider splitting the current River Corridor overlay into two: a"floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RGl and RC-2 which governs the floodplain, and a single district "Mississippi � f 2 ' River Critical Area" or "MRCA" combining RGl, RG2, RC-3 and RC-4,... Combining all of these districts would eliminate the 40 ft. height restriclion which now prevails in RC-3 district. Recommendation: Eliminate this poZicy. The City of St. Paul has a heavy responsibility in protecting the St. Paul River Corridor. As• the capitol city, with more shoreline than any other community, it is important to recognize the unique role played by the Mississippi River in our community, the state and the nation. We urge you, the City Council, to demand that the protections of the river corridor aze cleaz and concise in the new River Corridor Ptan. Thank you for this opportuniry to comment on the pian. . o�-!9t . Staff response to verbal testimony by Laura Deuberry, President of Highland District Council, at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Ms. Deuberry stated that the Highland District Counci[ wants the design guidelines from the Shepar�l Davern Small Area Plan incorporated into the River Corridor P[an. Background: Highland District Council also made the same comments at the Planning Commission public hearing. Our response is that the S-D Small Area Plan (and therefore the design guidelines) are already adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The nelghborhood plan is the appropriate place for that level of specificity. While the River Corridor Plan Design Study did look at Shepard-Davern, along with other riverfront redevelopment sites, the intention is not to dilute or amend those design guidelines that are part of the S-D Small Area Plan. However, we could make these distinctions more clear in the River Corridor Plan. Staff Recommendation: Amend section 8.1.8 "With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design guidelines for major river corridor redevelopment sites , , - ', where no euidelines have yet been written. The design guidelines will be sensitive to the purposes of this Plan, and w111 clarify how the form and scale of development can incorporate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public • enjoyment of the river. It is expected that such guidelines will be implemented through a vaziety of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Village Zoning project, site-specific gu3delines, and possibly through design districts (a concept that is currently being developed). The Shepard_ Davern redevelopment area alreadv has created desien euidelines through a 1999 Small Area Plan. Appendix B shows illustrations for the five redevelopment sites based on the work of the Design Study. " � Of-lS� Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. WSCO submitted this letter to the PC in November. At that time, the CPC discussed these comments carefully, and many of the requested changes were made. Comments that have already been addressed aze coded as #1. 2. WSCO requests that the Mississippi River Comdor Plan adopt, support or reference various aspects of the West Side Back To Our Future long range plan, West Side Flats Design Strategy, and/or the West Side Riverfront Development Principles. This is a corridor-wide plan, and therefore must be more general than neighborhood-specific plans. Another reason is to manage the length of the plan. Neighborhood specifc plans (such as the Shepazd-Davern Small Area Plan) become part of the Comprehensive Pian through a separate process. City staff aze currently working to summarize the West Side Back To Our Future plan for adoption as a Comprehensive Plan element. 3. Summary, Strategy 2: Along the riverfxont and its floodplain, new development should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river locafion, or the capability to enhance the river environment Industrial and commercial uses, as well as housing may all fit these categories. Background: Policy 5.1.1, Objective 6.4 , and Chapter 7 provide sufficient safeguards to guarantee appropriate housing development in the river corridor. Staff recommendation: No change to text. 4. Summary, Strategy 4 __ ?a „ r., ,..a_ cta f fr m,___, __ rs were involved in the Design ,.a^- g.-..��_ �£ _o _ M�TRRA an_d_DNR and othe - -- - --- Study that generated urban design policies listed in objectives 7.1 and 7.2 and summazized in this section. These guidelines are more appropriate to St. Paul sites than the generic MNRRA site design standards, which were intended to be adapted to local needs before adoption. Staff recommendation: No change to text. 5. Staff recommendation: Amend texf 3.1.3: "The chazacter of river valley land uses also changes considerably, from the quiet, residential chazacter of the gorge, to the mixed Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page l of 7 • � . OI-19/ • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 ]etter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 CiTy Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street comdor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preserved blufftop neighborhoods in the West Side. Davton's Bluff, and Highwood neighborhoods." 6. Policy 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. Background: The CPC clarified this policy at the request of DNR and Friends of the Parks and Trails. However, the only policies (as opposed to regulations) that Saint Paul can enforce aze our own. IYs a subtle distinction. Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.4.6 as written. Policies 4.4.8 and 4.4.9 4.4.8 The City will support programs to better manage and decrease the voluxne of toYic waste in the river corridor. 4.4.9 Protect streambanks and water quality from the negative impacts of recreation. • Background: Water-quality related policies (Objective 4.4) are ultimately the domain of the City's surface water management plan (to be written by the Sewer Utility division of Public Works following completion of the Capitol Region Watershed District's plan in 2002). Staff Recommendation: No change to policies 4.4.8 ar 4.4.9 as written. 8. Policy 51.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or should enhance the river environment. ( New development on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of existing Plans, and in all other respects should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new development include: •. having an economic or operational need for a river location •. supporting the attractiveness of surrounding neighborhoods •. sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements •. o£fering public access to and along the river •. maintaining views of the river . Key: CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Plannin� Commission RC River Corridor Page 2of 7 ol-1R � Staff response to Feb. 28, 200] letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in tetter, attached. cleaning up polluted areas on the site • meeting or exceeding applicable naturalresource policies in this PIan (This list is not prioritized, nor do a11 criteria have to be met for a land use to be considered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new developments should meet as many of these criteria as possible. ) Background: The list of criteria as written in this policy is adopted from MNRRA with nzinor word changes and MNRRA staff did not request any changes to it. The CPC rejected the following original MNRRA criteria as unworkable or too vague to offer meaningful guidance: • removes blighting influences • provides high quality building and landscape design • compatible with the riverfront environment • provides visual open space • retains or xestores natural shoreline appearance • contributes to natural, cultural, or economic resource appreciation, protection, and enhancement Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.1 as written. 9. Poliey 51.2 Expansions of exisfing uses in the floodplain or within 300 ft from the ordinary high water mazk aze acceptable. Expansions should be consistent with the natural resource protection policies laid out in this Plan. Expansion of uses on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevazd should be consistent with natural resource protection policies where practical. --- - __ _ _ .. , g -„ _ �• � �� .., ,;f�. A��TZP t,e. Na.+�.'�^.aLPa_�SService_staff: --- ---- YS'dCl{ f011llfi: - t'flI5 - - iC' 't5'-f:t7ii3i Cir� W�a�rt -ii i- MNRRA staff advised us that "the plan will not discourage existing ]and uses in the corridor from expanding existing facilities if the expansion is consistent with resource protectiott poIicies contained in the (MNRRA CMP). .. Expansion standards will continue to be established by local govemment. Expansion, in general, will be acceptable as long as it does not create or increase nonconformity with the MNRRA plan." (MNRRA CMP p.16) Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.2 as written. CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plannin� Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 3of 7 • . . at-!91 • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Heazing. Responses are coded to specific comments in Vetter, attached. 10. Policy 61.1 Large azeas of open space that aze currently undeveloped should preserve fish and wildlife resources, plant communities, and biological diversity. Some open space azeas may be suitable for passive recreation (e.g. trails for hiking, biking, bird- watching); others, such as the Pig's Eye Lake area and the bluffs at Cherokee Park should be limited to preservation. Background: This policy satisfies MNRRA's policy to preserve river corridor open space in a natural state. Staff would not recommend that the Cherokee bluffs, which are on a very steep grade, be opened for new trails or other vertical connections. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 6.1.1 as written. • 11. Policy 7.1.8 The City should connect new and existing neighborhoods to the river by greening key streets that connect to the riverfront or river parkways. Background: WSCO's concern is addressed by policy 4.2.4: "The City will continue to enforce the 50 foot shoreline setback for structures. In addition, the City will support efforts to restore the shoreline to a more natural chazacter within 100 feet of the river to facilitate wildlife movement, and to improve the aesthetic appearance of the floodwall. Such efforts must be compatible with current channel design and flood control management, and exceptions are made for park buildings, marinas, and other commercial or industrial river-dependent uses. Redevelopment should include removal of unused docking facilities (i.e., at the Koch-Mobil site)." Staff recommendation: No change to policy 7.1.8 as written. 12. Policy 7.2.1 In Low Land azeas, new development should employ building envelopes that heighten the experience of the river corridor by preserving public views to the top of the High Bluf£ Public views from the Uplands or Tenace to the water edge of the opposite side of tl�e river should be ma�cimized. Background: The policy language does not "focus on the views from Kellogg Park to the West Side and along only Wabasha Street". Think this issue has been resolved already; at the time this comment was originally made, the West Side Flats 40 Acre Study was underv✓ay. Maximum building height for the West Side Flats without a SCUP is 65 feet. Staff recommendation: No change to Policy 7.2.1 as written. r1 L_J Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plannin� Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Conidor Page 4of 7 oi �� I Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, � 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. 13. 14. A proposed section 7.4 to address guidelines for the expansion of existing businesses. Background: WSCO's concern about the expansion of existing businesses is addressed in policies 5.1.2 and 5.13. Staff recommendation: No change. Section 7: Comments regazding transportation, the airport, and pazking/pavement. Background: With very few exceptions, the plan did ttot take on issues that weren't directly related to Critical Area or MNRRA, The airport as a land use issue is such an example. Regazding the comment on pazking and pavement reduction, policy 7.1.6 calls for "underground parking wherever possible to minimize impervious surface". Staff recommendation: No new changes to the plan. I5. Secfion 8.1 Paragraph 7- paragraph 8 in the current version of the P1an.With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the Ciry, working with the � Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design guidelines for major river corridor redevelopment sites... Background: Staff from MNRRA and DNR and others were involved in the Design Study that generated these design guidelines. These guidelines are more appropriate to St. Paul sites than the generic MNRRA site design standazds, which were intended to be adapted to local needs before adoption. Statf recommendation: No change to section 8.1.8. 16. Section 8.2 Site Plan Review Guidelines Site plan review is Yhe mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Conidor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guideiines would reevaluate provisions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse environmental impacts of new development. Ke CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plannin� Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page Sof 7 • 0 � - 19/ . Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Staff recommendation: Amend Section 8.2: Site Plan Review Guidelines. Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate provisions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse environmental impacts of new development. The Citv will wark with the De�artment of Natural Resources to determine if amendments to site olan review Quidelines are necessarv This will occur durinz the Ordinance revision�rocess which will follow adoption of this Plan 17. Section 8.3 Park & Trai] System Development The City Parks & Recreation Plan (1996) includes an implementation plan for park resource protection, park land acquisition, scenic overlook clearance, environmental education and interpretive programs, and development of trails. Park plans include completion of the regional Mississippi River Trail on both sides of the river, connecting to trail segments in adjacent municipalities. • Background: The intent of this section is to indicate that implementation of the park and trail system is the purview of the Department of Pazks & Recreation and the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan element. Discussions about the alignment of of the proposed trail from Robert Street to South St. Paul aze already underway, and include staff from Parks, Public Works, the Port Authority, the City of St. Paul and the Riverview Development Association (REDA). Staff recommendation: No change to section 83. 18. Figure W- Figure X in this version of the Plan Background: The CPC considered this comment when it was first made in October. The drawing is one of the illustrations generated by the Design Study. Granted, it is but one example of a important viewsheds in the river corridor, but we thought it useful to show an illustration of a view analysis to support the policies in Objective 7.2. Staff recommendation: Don't change or eliminate Figure X. • CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 6of 7 ol-�g 1 � Staffresponse to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, � 2001 City Council Public Heazing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. • CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plamming Commission � PC Planning Commission RC River Conidor Page 7of 7 o � V]t,i�T 2 / 2 �/ Q � 127 West Winifred St. .�r� 1 � � �� St. Paul, MN 55107 CIT�ENS �� '��'�' " '(/ - '��Phone (612) 293-1708 � ,. ORGANY7A.TZON ecv C��res ��, . 2 -015 M�� • /1,�T.�eit �zlmQ/�n Fea (612) 93 ] February 28, 2001 Deaz Planning Commission: On behalf of the West Side community, the West Side Citizens Oraanization appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Mississippi River Conidor Plan 2000 update. The Iviississippi River bounds the neighborhood on three sides and the bluffs and slopes form the neighborhood, More than half the West Side is within the state Ccitical Area and MtNNRRA boundary. This policy and impletnentation document will guide how new development enhances the ziver and the neighborhood. Its final form is o£ vital importance to the neighborhood, and the neighborhood organizations such as the Bluff Task Force are essential to its implementation. The following comments were developed by a task force zepresenting numerous neighborhood committees and adopted by the WSCO Board. Comments are also based on the past �'ive years of community partici�ation in the deve]opment o£riverfront development principles and the neighborhood plan, Back to the Yl�ture, which shoutd guide fufure development. The pian is well wriften and emphasizes neighborhood connections to the river. We o££er the £oliowing additions and changes. Section I.1 � ➢ The'West Side commuztity generally supports the five strategies and applauds the city's policy of zemoving bill boards �ue request the following additions and clarifications: � � ➢ In strategy Z, bluffs and riverbanks should also be restored and the cause of damage, such as stormwater outflows and vegetative cutting, shou(d be dealt with- ➢ In strategy 2, river-dependent emerging businesses, such as boat repair, should be recognized. � j Although the West Side supports such housing if it can be designed to be rivez enhancing, housing should not be portrayed as equally ziver-related (see lack of priorities in section 5.1.1. ➢ In strategy 3, early industrial and economic uses should be added to the list of cultural resources �#. � in reconnition of beer brewing, mushroom fuming, brick making and other activities related to the caves the Lilydale Park. ➢ In strategy 4, add a buliei affirmin� that design standards will incorporate the Mississippi �� National River and Recreation Area C.t�' site design policies (the West Side plan, Back �o the Future bistrict 3 plan supports MNRRA policies for all corridor development). ➢ The last bullet should a�rm that buildings fit into "eacisting neighborhoods" by adding those � ( t�3�o words a�ter "topography" Section 2 • The West Side coramunity supports this secdon's emphasis on the ecological funaion o£both the river corridor and the watersheds that feed the river and 4he depiction of a bfllflnccd approach as ilIustrated in figure 2.3. oi-i9 � Section 3 ��j In 3.1, the West Side community supports the emphasis on watersheds, parks and open space and � neighborhood preservation. The description of different river corridor chazacteristics should include the blu£T�op historic neighborhoods of the West Side and Aayton's bluf'fs. All new development should support the physical and cultural uniqueness o£existing neighborhoods ( Section 32 visions should also inctude recognition o£river corridor neighborhood plans. In �f 7i particulaz, the Wesi Si@e ziverfront development principles, St. Paut on the Mississippi Framework West Side Precinct Plan, the West Side Back to Our Future Iong range plan and the West Side FIats Aesign Suategy attached to ihese comments. 'I'he description o£topography on 3.4 shoutd znention problem azeas. For example, the associated large parking areas mentioned zn the to�vlands are not topographic £orms, zather, are uses that are harmful to the form and function o£lowlands. Sectiott 4 4.1.2 West Side Bluff management is being addressed by the WS Bluff Task Force in conjunction '�' ! with St. Paul Parks and ltecreation department. Explicit recognition of this work should be included in the plan. 4].3 The description o£t6e downtown area should be clarified. Use o£the term downtown would �. � not include the West Side. Any exceptions allowed should be subject to special condition use petmit. 4.1.5 The language regarding possible allowance of constcuetion in b1u£f impacY uea is too vawe ,�{. � and could be applied to any situation. We recommend simply preserving the impact area • without exception Native vegetation should be re-established in this area where possible. ��'L —� The West Side Precznct Plan calls for a bluff top trail which should be addressed ia the ptan. � 4.4.5 Don't just encourage enforcement of floodplain and we[iand protection policies, commit to � en£orcing those you are required to enforce. � 4.4.8 The city should deveIop its own programs, where appropriate, to accomp[ish the protections ��. recommended , � 4 4.9 Not only recreational, but commerciai uses impact shoufd be addressed. SectiOn 5 5.5. I The West Side is not downtown. Tf you expect a"downtown" exemption to apply to tfie West Side, you must so specify. �"$ The criteria £or "river related" are so broad, any development in the city couid qualafy. R� write the criteria to be truly river related. E.g. river related as specified in 5.2.1 5.1.2 To be consiscent with NINRRA plan, exemptions should only be allowed £or river related .� Q uses. Section 6 6. I I We are unsure what is meant by limiting Cherokee Pazk bluff to preservation. The West . �.�� Side considers vertical connections important for use of Lilydale Regional Pazk. O/-/9/ ��} / 6.1.2 Add "will require" be�'ore "all public facilities". Section 7 The West Side community agrees with many o£the urban design principles, including infill and new grid-pattern neighborhoods and £tting development into existing neighborhoods, some critical policies should be included or changed. ➢ 7. I.1 should include adoption of the West Side riverfront development principles for new �'� villages on the West Side and state what they are. That document defines the meaning of connections to the river and integzation into the existing neighborhoods. ➢ 7.1.8 should inciude a policy o£ establishing green corridors along the river — between all buildings and the river not just ozeening streets to the river. T'he community supports the '� (( I�NRRA-suggested 100-£oot setback (d 40-foot native vegetation corridor, where feasible) as part of restoring the ecological funcCions of the corridor ine(uding its iinportance as a flyway and its water quality. ➢ �k12� • View protection in 7.2.1 focuses on the views from TCellogg Park to the West Side and along only Wabasha Street. �he section should protect views £rom the West Side blu£fs to the river and not e]iminate Robezt Street. Residents of the blufFtop neighborhoods have regeatedly expressed a concern to t�JSCO that buildings not obstruct their views of the riverfront. Though the community participated in and suppor[s the city's topographic approach to providing some flexibility in height standards for landmarks, WSCO is on record as objecting to ANX building on the West Side that exceeds 65 feet (see letter regarding the 40-acre study). The community suppoRS the MNRRA policies oPkeeping rivezfront buitdings in low profile with some elevation back from the river. ➢ Suggested design gvidelines for the West Side flats on page 49 should include ]iraitSng buiiding heights atong the riverfront, notjust along Wabasha. Some residents strongly support the � y existing 35-foot iimit. Others suggested 35' to 65', depending on viewsheds and closeness to riverfront. The natural resource design guidelines should include continuous �reenspace along the rivez's edge, not just public space. The sectzon on access and connecYions should include improved pedestrian connections betwaen Yhe West Side neighborhood and any new developtnent. As mezrtioned previously, the city should make a commitment in this section to the West Side riverfro�t design principles and the MNRI2 A suggested design guidelines in the C_VIP, appendix C. ➢ �ti3 • A section 7.4 should be added to address guidelines for the expansion o£ existing busanesses. This is not nddressed anywhere in the document, despite the continuation of major industrial uses within the West Side F]ats, other industrial and commercial uses throughout the corridor, and the acpansion of homes and other buildings within the corridor. The poiicies should clearly state the river enhancin� standards t6at wif] be applied to acpaosions and should protect existing businesses if they follow these practices and especially if they are river dependent The city should consider establishing a£und to provide an incentive for property owners enhanee the river corridor through better runoff management, protectioa o{native vegetation and so o❑ ni-�q 1 ➢ The plan also does not address transpor[ation and public uses such as the airport. WSCO .#�1� strongly suppozts maintainzng the floodplain functions wittiin the airport, and wouid not support � any further diking of that area. We call £or a reduction of pazking and pavement in the #tats. Section 8 The implementation section should be expanded to explain the types of ordinance changes the city is proposing. Wilt the city continue to have an ovezlay district that establishes standazds to protect and enhance natural and cultuzal resourees whife referencing underlying zotting distriets for Iand use? Does the city support maintaining the functions of the floodplain? ➢ Poiicies for bluff proteetion are contradictory and confusing. Is the policy to limit development on and 40 feet back from 12% slopes, frozn 18% slopes or not7 The standard shoutd be � � protection ofbluffs, reduction o£runoff, prevention of erosion and restoration o£native vegetarion aloz�g the 40-foot impact area. The standard for exceptions from a 40-foot setback from the l2% or � 8°/a slopes should be made ctear. Current statemeni of "allowing development on slopes that exceed 12% and 18% slopes should be changed. ➢ Pazagraph 7 for adopting site design standards should state a goat of adopting standards ,� � l� consistent urith the IvZNRRA CMP site design standards that adapt suggested appendix C design standards to local needs. ➢ Section 82 should include timing and process foz adopting site design standards and should � �(� ensure that all pubtic and pzzvate development will adhere to thent or mitigate any effects £oz exceptions, • ➢ 5ection 8.3. The West Side community supports the continuous river corridor trail on the west � ��, side of the river and requests the city coznplete identification o£ and reservation of easements for, the river trail from Robert to So. St. Paui. ➢ Section 8.4. The West Side community suppozts heatage preservation and requests specific mention be znade of the Xoerg Brewery, caves, and historie stairs and connectzons that should be preserved and restored between the upper bluffs and the flats. We also would like more aggressive effons by ihe city to have the plan certified by N:fN"RRA so the city is etigible for £ederai funds to establish interpzetative trails and kiosks (n {he 4Crest Side and "norn I-zarriec Island through Lilydale Park. The implementation of the Lilydale Park plan and one trail connection between Chero�ee and Lilyda(e portions of the regional pazk should be made priority. �� Figure W. Does not include important views £rom West Side bluffs to and across the river. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, � �� Bruce Vanda2 President C� o� t MISSISSIPPf R1VER � � � . � � - . � T H E S A I N T P A U L C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N �" �, > \ '. ; � ; �� e' � ;�:, ;:_� . . ��, bi- �4 � The citywide portion of the Saint Paul Comprehensive PIan consists of the foilowing as of adoption by the Saint Paul City Council in 2001: Plan Summary and Generat Po6cy Land Use Plan (1999) Housing Plan (T 999) Transportation PIan (199n Parks and Recrea5on Plan (1997) Library Services Plan (1996) Water Conservation and Emergency Response Plan {1996) Mississippi River Corridor Plan (1987, update to be completed in 2001) Sewer Plan (1950, update in progress) Implementation (1999) A separate Area Plans volume identifies all small area plans and district plans ±n2• n�ve been officially aciopted_ as amendme�ts or addenda to the Comprehensive P(an. ft also indudes summanes of all area plans that have been adopted in summaty form under the current neighborhood planning policy. The Plan is subject to amendment, and a publication no5ng all amendmer�ts in force will be available after ame�dments are adopted. Plan documents are available at the Saint Paul Public Library and copies may be obtained from the DepartmeM of Planning and Economic Development, 25 W Fourth Sheet, Saint Paul, MN 55102, telephone: (651) 266-6573. (The Water Conservation and Emergency Response Plan is published separately by the Sairrt Paul Water Utility and is not available from PED or on-line.) As preparation can be completed, most or all chapters will be accessible from the City of Saint Pauf web page at ci.stpaW.mn.us (departments, PED, comprehensive planJ. Contents � � � Executive Summa►Y ..............................................5 Q IMroduction....................................................8 � 2.1 Purposes ...... .............. - .........8 2Z Le�islative History and River Corridor Plan Back�round .....9 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Setting ...................................................11 � � 3.1 Planning Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: City and Other Plans .....12 3.3 National'IYends . . . . . .. . .. ... .. . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 3.4 Typology of River Landforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Nat�ara] Systems Strategy: s Profeet the River as a Unique Ilrban Eeosystem ........18 4.1 Bluffs ............................................19 4.2 t3alive Plant & Animal Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.3 Floodplain & Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 4.4 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Economic Systems Strategy: � Sustain fhe Economie Resources of the Working River .. 29 5.1 Commercia] & Industrial Land and Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . .29 5.2 Commercial Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3; 5.3 Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .34 Social Systems Strategy: i Enhance the City� Quality of Life by Reconnecting to the River .........................................36 6.1 Visitor Use ........................................36 6.2 views ............................................38 6.3 "17ails . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .39 6.4 Neighborhoods ....................................40 6.5 Historic & Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Urban Desi,gn Sffategy: � Use UrLan Design to Enhance the River Comdor�s Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 7.1 Development Pattems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 7.2 Built Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 7.3 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites ......48 a a • c .'e a a . E i ( » e f E Comprehensive Plan 3 pt- i� � Implementation ................................................51 � 81 Zoning Code Revisions _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 82 Site Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.3 Park & "[7ai1 System Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.4 Heritage Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 APPendices...................................................55 x Appendix A, Design Study Illustrations for Redevelopment Sites ........55 Appendix B. Historicai and Archaeological Sites/Structures . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Appendix C. Databases ........................................59 • Minnesota Natural Heritage Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 • Minnesota Land Cover Ctass�cation System pvILCCS) ......65 Appendix D. Water Management and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Appendix E. Public ParticipaUon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Appendix F. Maps & Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 • Slope Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 • Significant Vegetatrve Stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 • Wetlands and Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 • E�sting Storm Sewer Discharge Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 • Naharal Drainage Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 • Barge Faalities and Fleeung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 • Transportation Fadlity Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 • Parks, Open Space, and BoatAccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 • F�sbng Tlrews 6z Overlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 • Utility Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 • Existing and Proposed Trai15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 • River Corridor Historic Sites 6e Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 Credits...................................................94 4 City of Saint Paul Summary he Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan describes the T Mississippi River in Sain t Paul as a series of in terrelated systems: natural, economic, social, and built. Just as the River Corridor has been shaped by lustory, decisions about devel- opment and change will influence each of these systems for future generations. Thus, this plan focuses on protecting the resources that support our community, and on the management of human activiry and the physical environment. Saint Paul is rediscovering and redefining its relationship with the Mississippi River. Increased environmental stewardship and establishing connections to the river are central to this rediscovery. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan reinforces the body of river-related planning already completed in recent years. Those plans which are most influentiai come from within and outside the City: the 1999 Land Use Plan, the Saint Paui on the Mississippi Development t7amework, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan, and the State Critical Area program. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. The Water Management Plan will be written after the River Corridor Pian is completed. The current Mississippi River Corridor Plan was adopted in 1981, and amended in 1987. After public hearings and consideration of public comments, the Saint Paul Planning Commission will forward the plan to the City Council. The City Councii wil] review the plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the National Park Service for joint review. After receiving comments from these agencies, the Ciry Council will adopt the final plan. There are numerous entities with jurisdiction over the Mississippi River, ran�ing from local to fed- eral units of �overnment. The City intends that its plans and ordinances for the river corridor be con- sistent with those of these governmental partners. Figure A �s � � � �. �� c � Comprehensive Plan 5 lnterjurisdictional Governance bl-��) Strategy 1: Protect the River as a Unique Urban Ecosystem ♦ Undeveloped bluffs should be protected, stabilized, and restored through acquisition, use of native species, building setbacks, and by prohibiting development on the bluff face. ♦ The River Corridor contains sensitive natural resources. The f�oodplain and shorelines, wetlands, and natural habitat found throughout the River Corridor should be protected and sustained. ♦ The City supports the green corridors project of the Minnesota DNR. The goal is to establish regional greenways around hi�h quality native habitat remnants, thus providing continuous habitat corridors for native plant and wildlife species. In Saint Paul, the river valley and the Trout Brook reach are parts of the DNR plan. ♦ Working with its watershed partners, the City wilI continue to identify means for improved stormwater management. Public education will con- rinue to be an important way to help protect water qualiry. Strategy 2: Sustain the Economic Resources of the Working River ♦ The City supports continuation of the working river and commercial nav- igation in Saint Paul. The economic importance of commercial navi�a- tion to Saint Paul, Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest is significant. The environmental benefits of barging over other haulin� modes (air quality, traffic congestion, etc.) have been well documented. ♦ The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-relat- ed businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases eapire. ♦ Along the riverfront and its floodplain, new development should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, or the capability to enhance the river environment. Industrial and commercial uses, as well as housing may all fit these categories. Strategy 3: Enhance the City's Quality of Life by Reconnecting to the River ♦ Parks, open space, and trails are an important way of allowing people to come the river. The City is working on a number of initiatives, including g City of Saint Paul the realignment of Shepard Road, to increase park and open space alon� the river. Over time the city's riverfront open space system will become more continuous and river-related. The Ciry will also complete a contin- uous Mississippi River Trail along the entire length of both sides of the �; river. _ ,,. ♦ The views afforded by ma�nificent bluffs in Saint PauPs river comdor are part of what makes the city a special place. There are opportunities in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corridor, Battle Creek and Highwood neighborhoods to create additional view points to the river. To enhance river corridor views, all billboards should be removed from the river corridor and not replaced. ♦ New neighborhoods are part of creating connections to the river. In strategic River Corridor locations, following adopted desi�n principles, new urban villages should be established. ♦ Cultural resources in the river corridor include early settlements, historic structures, and architecturally unique bridges. These resources should be preserved and restored, as they are integral to the character and history that defines Saint Paul. Strategy 4: Use Urban Design to Enhance the River Corridor's Built Environment ♦ New development should estabiish "traditional" street and block pattems to enable people to experience the river through visual and physical con- nections. These traditional street patterns will restore connections between neighborhoods further upland and the river. ♦ Primary view corridors should remain open and unobstructed. Accordingly, the scale of new buildin�s in the river corridor should relate to topography, and should preserve critical public views. :. :� � �,,. :. � � �.;;� .� � �'. � � �. � ;� � a � : � � : �� w � � Comprehensive Plan 7 o1-t�l Introduction T ere are multiple facets to the rfver's role in the city and re�ion--as an ecological system, as a cultural and historical resource, as a public ameniiy, as a focus for recreational activiry, for commercial and industrial actrviry, and increasingly The Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Other plan chapters address Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Housin�, Water Management, Transportation, Sewers, and Libraries. The River Corridor Plan will guide use and development along the Mississippi River, while protecting the river's ecological function. There are multiple facets to the river's role in the city and re�ion — as an ecological system, as a cultural and historicaI resource, as a public amenity, as a focus for recreational activity, for commercial and industriai acrivity, and increas- ingly for new residential development. The River Corridor Plan will help Saint Paul realize the full potential of the river as the ciry's symbolic `front yard." The River Corridor Plan recognizes that the ecologicai function of the river is not only affected by activity throughout the river corridor as defined in this plan, but also by activity in the watersheds that feed the river. 2.� n�rposes The purposes of the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan encompass its designation as a state critical area and as a national river and recreation area — the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area — as weIl as its role as a multi-purpose resource for the ciry, state and region. These are: ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corr[dor as a unique and valuable resource for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the cirizens of the city, state, and region. ♦ To restore and establish the unique urban ecology of Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. ♦ To reinforce the Mississippi River Corridor as Saint Paul's front yard, and the backbone of a community-building network eatending beyond the shoreline and into the fabric of surroundin� neighborhoods. ♦ To manage the Mississippi River Corridor as an important economic resource for river- related industries and commercial navigation for the city, state and region. for new residential ♦ To expand opportunities for using the Mississippi River Corridor as a city development. amenity and enhance citizens' quaIity of life, including increased public access, recreation and education. $ CILy Of SQII![ PQUI ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as an essential element in the federal, state, regional and local recreation, transporta- tion, sewer and water systems. ♦ To prevent and miri�ate dan�er to the life and property of the citizens of the city, state and re�ion. ♦ To preserve, enhance and interpret the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor's historic, archeolo�ical and ethno�raphic (cultural) resources. 2.2 Legislative History and River Corridor Plan Sackground In the past twenty five years there has been an increased le�islative focus on environmental stewardship of the Mississippi River. The first major effort, authorized by state law in 1976, was the designation of the Mississippi River Corridor within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as a State Critical Area. The Critical Area program required coordinated planning amon� communi- ties in the river corridor to resolve land and water use conflicts, and to pre- serve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cuitural and historical value of the river for public use. Cities were required to establish protection of the river resource through planning and related ordinances. In response, the Saint Paul City Council adopted a Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan in 19S 1, with policies for managing this important resource Comprehensive Plan 9 � r� �� °� �:, � � � � � M' u � � � � � �� & �� , ,� y� MF A .] �_ � b1-�°� i and balancing open space use with industrial and commercial development. This plan fizlfilled the state's tequirement for a Critical Area Plan. It also became a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and was last amended in 1987 to incorporate the 1986 Riverfront Pre-Development Plan. Recent sTate law has required all Twin Cities municipalities to update their comprehensive plans, and Saint Paul has nearly completed this effort. As part of the required update to comprehensive plans, the City will also review and revise its river corridor-related zoning re�ulations. To further guarantee effective management of the river resource, the ti.S_ Congress designated the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the national park system. The boundaries of the MNRRA corridor are identical to Yhose of the Critical Area, the 72-mile cor- ridar of the Mississippi River stretching from the Crow River in Anoka County to beyond the Ciry of Hastings, and including Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The MNRRA designation led to the creation of a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) with policies related to land and water use, resources management, and visitor use and interpretation. This updated River Corridor Plan responds to the vision for the Mississippi River outlined in the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, as well as the continuing requirements of the Critical Area program. x�o.z� � BNRs NaocePlvtt&Mimy Haeiaa Flootlpain & WeUa��; waw�warny :'✓. -- e�nn��, : IhbanOeig� .,, Oe�apmarcrava�a ,.. &uE Fam EconamiRgaurtes- � wm�y w� tmm�ewl & )nOistr¢l �aiw &waterllse �e� a,r�a� �:c. �.,:_ - - .__. _ . snaa� Nmh aAmmmes �. ure Yexs raas �� xamrc a Qilocal Raau�s � 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies In response to the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, and as part of the City's own process of updating its comprehensive plan, this Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan outiines four strategies for future manage- ment of the river corridor. The four strategies focus on iae various sysieir�s re�ated to the river: natural systems, economic systems, social or human systems, and built environ- ment. The River Corridor Plan seeks to balance these strategies, all of which are interrelated and affecting each other. ip Ciry of Saint Paul The Setting 3.1 Planning Assumptions The main assumptions that underlie the recommendations in this River Corridor Plan are: 1. For nearly a century, the Mississippi River's role as primarily a trans- portation and industrial corridor led the city to think of and treat the river as its "back yard". The city is now gradually rediscovering and cele- bratin� the river as its fzont yard -- a majestic and unparalleled natural amenity which unites neighborhoods and downtown. Part of this redis- covery includes the opportunity over the next l0 to 20 years to create new neighborhoods near the river. 2. The river and its reaches are more than a thin ribbon moving through �' the city. The river corridor should be viewed as a watershed model, an �" ��,: entity that incorporates elements, communities, and patterns from well ��,�� : � beyond the river itself. �� F �� 3. The character of the river valley changes over its 29 miles. The river valley contains a variety of landforms, from the low lands along the river's edge to the high bluffs. The character of river valley land uses also changes consider- ably, from the quiet, residential character of the gorge, to the mixed commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street corridor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preserved blufftop neighbor- hoods in the Highwood neighborhood. , .- � � "°i; �� ✓///�/'/"/„i � ��,> ��r� West 4. Parkland and open space are the predominant ��d9ej s uses of riverfront land in Saint Paul. Most of this land will remain unchanged. There are however, many opportunities to explore additional access, preservation, and restoration projects throughout the parks/open space system. When development in these areas does occur (the enhancements at Harriet Island, for example), it should be in the context of preserving the river corridor. v �; F� . < _� • ; � : „ .� , ��;� � � � �� -� � �, � F �� ,. �� - �._��.� � :� q�"tei�n 5t Paui I t[�e Fla�s £ � Y � _, i �, ,,. � tafay�ite.8r,�z,;� te � � _ Central Valley Comprehensive Plan 11 oi- �� Figure E Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Boundary � �,o�,�o .� �� e.�..., ,� i �� - -- , . xexxennco _ , , . _.... � ------- �d ,-'- � Q y G 1 ✓ � � �� 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: City and Other Plans In the past five years there has been a tremendous amount of river-related planning, both by the Ciry of Saint Paul and by other organizations. These visions and plans have focused on Saint Paul's Mississippi River corridor in an evolutionary and remarkably consistent manner, and include the following: Smnt Paul Comprehensive Plcm (Parks sz Recreaaon,TY�msportarion, cmd I�d Use chapters) Completed in 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively. In addi- tion, there are Small Area Plans and other nei�hborhood plans for the river corridor that have been recognized by the City Council, or adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these plans aze currenfly being written. Mississippi Nalional River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan National Park Service, Mississippi River Coordinating Commission and the U.S. Dept. of the Interior. The MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan was approved by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior in 1995 and is intended to provide widance for manag- ing the river corridor for the next 10-15 years. The plan's �oals are to 1) preserve the unique and significant resources of the Mississippi River Corridor in the Twin Cities metro area, 2) encoura�e the coordination of federal, state and local efforts, and 3) provide a comprehensive manage- MISSISSIPPI NATiONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA ,�.. i .m�u. w. n " r .� e_��. � ' MWNESOTf� � �� RAMSEYLO � `y� ;t� �»�� > tW45XINGiONCO �� j �,.�� / oa�ornco j - ecm�n g 12 ment plan to assist the State of Minnesota and local govemments in man- aging developmern in the corridor. The MNRRA vision advocates the pro- tection of both the working YIVEY 13t�t i'fiE iid�u78i itVei ecosystem. The MNRRA plan suggests a voluntary set of additional policies that cities may adopt to enhance preservation of the Mississippi River corri- dor as a national park, referred to as "Tier II" poli- cies. ('Tier I" policies are required by existing State Criticai Area policies and regulations, and should already exist in cities' river City of Saint Paul plans and ordinances.) Local �ovemments should work with the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources and the National Park Service to incorporate MNRRA policies into their river corri- dor plans and ordinances. Saint Paul�s Central River valley Development Framework - Project of the Design Center for the American Urban Landscape (Bill Morrish), Colle�e of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota. This project, completed in 7une 1995, served as one of the foundations for the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework that was complet- ed in 1997. In conjunction with its Case Study Integ�'aling Urban Design and Ecology project and newsletters (August 1994 - May 1995, six newsletters), the Design Center compiled an urban design inventory of Saint Paul's phys- ical resources in the form of maps that visually display the city's physical resources connected to the Mississippi River. These Saint Paul-Mississippi River contextual maps highlight Saint Paul's unique river valley landscape and ecology, including its valleys, reaches, bluffs, landings, neighborhoods, vegetation, wildlife and the potential connections among all of these unique resources. The goals of this project were to identify the following for Saint Paul's Central River Valley: i) image, identity and orientation, 2) com- munity gathering places, 3) connections and continuity, and 4) river-related projects and locations. Metro Greenprint: Planning for Nalure in the Face of Urban Growth - Greenways and Naturai Areas Collaborative. In 1997, this collaborative project involving a group of citizens from around the seven-county Twin Citles Metropolitan Area included representatives from metro counties, watershed districts, Dept. of Natural Resources, Greening the Great River Park, University of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, Friends of the Mississippi River and T7ust for Public Land. The Metro Greenprint outlines a vision and specific strategies for creating a re�ion-wide network of natural areas, open spaces, parks and greenways while accommodating urban �rowth in the "IWin Cities metro area. The vision focuses on identification of natural areas and open spaces and potentlal connecUons between them, along with recommended conservation techniques and funding strategies. The Mississippi, Minnesota and Saint Croix river valleys represent a significant portion of this �reen network. Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework - City of Saint Paul, Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, and the Capital City Partnership. The City's most comprehensive vision for the Mississippi River was outlined in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework in June of 1997, Comprehensive Plan 13 ot-�� 1 following more than two years of intense work by the community, City staff, and other or�anizations. The Framework calls for reconnecting the city's downtown and neighborhoods to the river by restoring the river val- ley's and city's natural environment, creating new urban villages near the river and creating a physically appealing and vital downtown environment. The Framework is based on "an implicit understandin� that quality of life - the abiliry of a city to effectivety balance economy, environment and society - provides a primary competitive advan[a�e in an increasingly globalized world." The FYamework outlines the followin� ten principles that represent an integrated approach to city building: ♦ Evoke a sense of place. ♦ Restore and establish the unique urban ecology. ♦ Invest in the public realm. ♦ Broaden the mix of uses. ♦ Improve connectivity. ♦ Ensure that buildings support broader city-building goals. ♦ Build on existin� strengths. ♦ Preserve and enhance herita�e resources. ♦ Provide a balanced network for movement. ♦ Foster public safety. Aithough the Framework is not part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the plan's vision, ten principles and recommendations were endorsed by the City Council as the guide for the City's development policies downtown and along the central riverFront and should be incorporated, as appropriate, into the City's Comprehensive Plan updates and amendmenEs. The ten principles are incorporated into the Land Use Plan (1999). Riverfront Action Strategies - Saint Paul Port Authority. Completed in 1999, this document highlights the importance of the Mississippi River and Saint Paul Port to the Upper Midwest economy. As a working river, the Mississippi is part of an intermodal freight transportation system that enables agricultural producers throughout the Tlpper Midwest to compete in the giobal market. This strategy document signals the Port Authority's commitment to maintain shipping-related uses in its riverfront facilities. It also expresses the Port Authoriry's commitment to beautify industrial sites, to clean up roadsides and riverbanks, and to manage stormwater on-site. i4 City of Saint PQUl ��?�;� �� „�� , y �j � ,, :� ,. � �..._ / A � / N _, , m4�' Visions of the Mississippi River Corridor Cemral River Valley Dev. Fmmexrork tMmrish} �ggs St. Paul on the Miuissippi Dev. Fmmevrork isr9� River Corridor \ Design Sfudy 2000 Porks and Recreafion Wan 19% Tramportation Plun 1997 Innd Use Plun 7998 �iverfrom Action Shategies Minnesota (Port Authority) �� p 1949 Des+ natian 1976 MNRRA Comp. M mt. Metro Plan 1s�sr5 Greenprims i997 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites - Saint Paul PED, Saint Paul Design Center. To complete this River Cotridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, along with the Saint Paul Desijn Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment sites. The study was conducted in early 2000, with consuitants from the Cuningham Group and Close Landscape Architects. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. An intergovemmental working group, chaired by the Planning Commission, and including the Department of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council and National Park Service assisted in this process. The results of this study provide the basis for poli- cies in Chapter 7 of the plan; recommendations for the five redevelopment sites can also be found in Chapter 7 and Appendix A. Together, these planning efforts have established a new framework for thinking about the Mississippi River, and Saint Paul's place on it that emphasizes thinking of the river and the city as an integrated living ecosys- tem within a larger regional setting. The intent is to restore the river's nat- ural ecolo�y, to establish and improve green connections between neigh- borhoods and downtown and the river, and to support urban intensification consistent with a river setting, while maintaining the working river. Collectively, these visions provide a map for stewardship and use of the river in the next century. This Mississippi River Corridor Plan brings these visions together in one document for the entire river corridor in Saint Paul. �:� �:s �.� � � � � ' � �� F� y � � � R � � f3 � % Comprehensive Plan 15 O( 1`� 1 3.3 National Trends Nationwide, certain trends have emerged pertaining to urban riverfronts. There has been a resurgence of interest in the recreational use of riverfront land, and communities nationwide are creating new trails, green space, promenades, and other recreational amenities. As industries that tradition- ally were located on the riverfront have changed, industrial land is tumin� over and being redeveloped to create housing and entertainment-oriented commercial activity. Finally, there is increased awareness and interest in the ecological function of rivers and the watersheds that feed them. Disastrous floods in past years have served as reminders that watershed management plays an integral role in protectin� rivers and the communi- ties along them. Figure G River Valley Landforms 3.4 T�polog,y of River Landforms '; ti Miss:ssippS Rver :�aLP;c �s c�mprise� of a range of landforms, each with unique characteristics and requiring specific responses. while most of this plan's policies apply to the entire river valley, many of the Urban Design policies of this plan are tailored to the specific landforms, described below: ♦ The River's Edge is characterized by natura! shoreline ve�etation in parkland or natural areas. The River's Edge downstream of the High Bridge is stabilized with a variery of man-made treatments for the pur- pose of channel maintenance, including rock rip rap and walls. ♦ The Lowlands are the lands adjacent to the River and are either flood prone or formerly flood prone lands. Lowlands provide critical habitat for migratory birds, yet developed areas in the Lowlands are nearly devoid of tree canopy. The Lowlands are generally characterized by mixed man- ufacturing or office uses, dedicated public parks and open space, or 16 City of Saint Paul cleared and vacant lands. Lar�ely redeveloped for industry, buildin�s in the Lowlands tend to be lar�er floorplate structures with associated lar�e parkin� areas. ♦ The Low Bluff is landward of the Lowlands. It is �enerally characterized by a varied ed�e of dense woods and open views, sometimes eroded or over�rown. There exist occasional and dramatic bluff face/rock outcrops expressin� the natural �eolo�y of this valley, althou�h the elevation chan�e of the Low Bluff is less striking than the Hi�h Bluffs (described below). Access from the Lowlands throu�h the Low Bluff is somewhat limited. The Low Bluff is less le�ible as either habitat or public open space than the High Bluff. ♦ The Terrace is the generally flat area located between the Low Bluff and the High Bluff. The elevation of the Terrace ranges in between 740 and 780 feet above sea level. At locations throughout the valley, the Tenace makes transitions into River Reaches and Ravines. The Terrace is gener- ally fully developed, and characterized by mixed use commercial and industrial lands transitioning from rail oriented manufacturin� to ser- vice/convenience uses. The Terrace also contains multi-story housing with smaller fragmented pockets of single family homes. ♦ The High Bluff is located landward of the Tenace, and is the most rec- ognizable feature of Saint Paul's visually stunning river valley. The High Bluff is characterized by a nearly vertical limestone bluff face in many areas. In other areas, the High Bluff is covered with a continuous, often dense canopy of overstory trees with occasional openings for views and limited public access. The High Bluff is an environmentally sensitive area that is highly susceptible to erosion and associated loss of vegetation and animal habitat. Selected roads traverse the High Bluff, creatin� pri- mary connections between the Terrace and Uplands (described below). ♦ The Uplands are the areas located above the highest bluffs. The Uplands are flat or gently sloping, and are generally characterized by mixed resi- dential neighborhoods coming to the ed�e, with occasional multi-story multifamily structures and institutional landmark buildings. The urban forest of the Uplands generally consists of boulevard trees. A map showing the general location of these landforms throughout Saint Paui can be found in Chapter 7. � �� r , � � a �: � Comprehensive Plan 17 v �� i St�ate�y 1: Protect the River as !ls the twenry-first century begins, the ciry has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning W111C�I bQIQt2CeS environmental, COIriIriilllits7, QIIC� economic imperatives. The Mississippi River, as it weaves throu�h Saint Paul, is part of a complex ecosystem, and is a unique and valuable naturai resource. The river has been desi�nated by the Minnesota State Legislature as a State Critical Area, and by the U.S. Congress as a nationally significant commercial navi�ation system, a National River and Recreation Area, and an American Heritaje River. The history of Saint Paul has always been closely ued to the Mississippi River, but over time, development has heavily impacted many of the river's indi�enous landscapes. As the twenty-first century be�ins, the City has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning which balances envi- ronmental, commanity, and economic imperatives. This approach moves the City in the direction of thinking of the river, river valley, and developed areas as an integrated living ecosystem. The City will provide for the continuation of a variety of urban uses, including industrial, commercial, and residential within the river corridor, while stren�thening its commitment to preservin� the natural resources of the river corridor. The intent of this chapter is nei- ther to discourage future development, nor to promote wholesale restora- tion of the natural environment. Rather, natural resource mana�ement poli- cies will be strengthened to enhance the urban ecosystem in the Mississippi River corridor, and improve the quality of place in Saint Paul. Saint Paul currently uses river corridor overlay zoning to protect natural resources throughout the state-desi�nated Critical Area of the Mississippi River. Overlay zoning restricts what type of development may occur in the floodplain, and applies strict standards for development. These standards include development setbacks 18 irom tne river, and prohibi�ir�� development on steep slopes. This chapter addresses protec- tion of bluffs, native plant and animal habitats, wetlands and floodplain, and water quality. (Appendix F contains maps that show the location of steep slopes, si�nificant vegetative stands, wetlands, the floodplain, storm water discharge points, and natural draina�e routes.) City of Saint Pau! Figure H Natural Shoreline Objective 4.1 Protect the blufj�lands of the river corridor Saint Paul's natural topo�raphy relates much of the city to the river. Bluff formations framin� the Mississippi River reinforce the city's unique natural settin� ar,d contribute to Saint Paul's character and sense of place. The topo�raphy of the river valley varies considerably. Alon� the West Seventh corridor and West Side, there are distinct hi;h and low bluffs separated by a terrace. In the so-called "river �or�e" between Saint Paul and Minneapolis and in the Highwood neighborhoods, however, the hi�h bluffs descend dramatically to the river, or adjacent low land areas. Likewise, the location of bluff areas relative to the river varies from the �or�e where the river lies directly below the biuffs, to portions of the Hi�hwood and west Side neigh- borhoods where the bluffs are set back more than a mile from the river. While the bluffs, ravines, and tributary areas are an attractive and unique urban amenity, they are a fragile part of the river ecosystem. Historically, both Ramsey Counry and the City have been active in protect- ing and restoring bluff lots with steep slopes facing the river. Ramsey County has acquired lots between Upper and Lower Afton Road for perma- nent county park ownership. Over the past several years, the City has used Federal ISTEA funding to acquire lots between Lower Affon Road and Highwood Avenue to be permanently dedreated as city parkland. Saint Paul aLso currently maintains a required bluff setback for development, and pro- hibits development on steep slopes along the bluff line to prevent erosion, and to maintain the natural, vegetated appearance of the bluff line visible from the river. Policies: 4.1.1 The City will continue its program to acquire lots on the bluff face as funding opportunities arise, extending the program to include lots south �� . .:, � � � K� ,� :� ;;,� �� c ;n :v ``o ;� � �F � �� '_ � Comprehensive Plan 19 O1-�`�1 of Highwood Avenue. Private efforts to acquire lots for open space dedi- cation are encoura�ed, as are actions by Ramsey Counry to convert lots acquired through tax forfeiture to permanent public park ownership. 4.12 The City will support efforts to stabilize all bluffs in public ownership through re- introduction of native species and visitor use management. Efforts such as those by Friends of the Parks and Trails and the West Side Bluff Task Force to create bIuff management pIans for the �or�e area and the West Side bluffs, respectively, are encoura�ed. The West Side bluffs, in particular, are in need of management and stabilization. 4.1.3 To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional struc- tural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Further exceptions are ailowed for low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. The City wiIl define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code. 4.1.4 In order to protect steep slopes and minimize erosion, and consis- tent with Executive Order 79-19, the City will continue to prohibit resi- dential development on slopes that exceed ei�hteen percent. Consistent with the MNRRA standard for commercial and industrial development, the City will continue to restrict industrial and commercial development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. 4.1.5 The City will continue to preserve the bluff impact area (forty feet landward of the bluff line) in a natural state. Objective 4.2 Preserve and restore native plcmt and animal habitats Saint Paul is located at the meeting of the prairie and eastem hardwood forests. Despite the changes accompanying urbanization, a variety of habi- tat types continue to exist today within the river comdor, including rem- nant savannas, prairies, river edge wetlands, riverine areas, the bluffs, as weIl as the river itself and its floodpiain. The Department of Natural Resources inventories rare species and natural communities, and accordin� to the its Natural Heritage Database, there are 55 known occurrences of such species or communities in Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. These include Bald Eagles sighted in the Pig's Eye Heron Rookery and Battle Creek Regional Park, Blanding's Turtles sighted at Lilydale Regional Park and Hidden Falls - Crosby Park, several types of mussels, and a variety of other plant and animal species. (For a full listing, see P.ppendix C.) Particularly near downtown Saint Paul, remnant landscapes and the animal 2p City ofSaint Panl habitats they contain have historically become dis- connected from the larger river ecosystem, and their long term viability is continually challen�ed by the effects of urbanization. Fortunately, there are many opportunities for preserv- in� and restorin� native plant and animal habitats throu�hout the river corridor. Great River Greenin� has played an instrumental role in restoring vegeta- tion throu�hout the river valley, with the �oal of cre- atin� a connected �reenway for mi�ratin� son�birds and improving the ecology of the Mississippi River valley in Saint Paul. Over the past several years the or�anization and its volunteers have planted more than 30,000 native trees and shrubs and 25,000 native wildflowers in the river corridor near down- town. Addressing the downtown area, the Saint Paul on the Missrssippi Development Framework has signaled the need to improve the balance between the natural and built environments through protection of native '" �a . vegetation and improved river edge treatments. The redevelopment plans for Harriet Island Regional Park and the East Bank Mississippi River Trail = <��..:� Corridor are examples of this shift in approach, as they call for redesigning ��;�- river edges to incorporate both hard edge and indigenous vegetative treat- �� ments. Of course, projects to restore natural shorelines must be compatible �� with the requirements of channel design and flood management. , Policies: 42.1 To the greatest extent possible, existin� mature trees and native veg- etation will be preserved in site development projects. In the Highwood neighborhood, the City will continue to enforce the Tree Preservation District standards to maintain a maximum vegetative canopy. 4.2.2 The City will encourage use of native vegetation or other compatible floodplain vegetation in redevelopment projects. Where appropriate, when redeveloping or stabilizing the river's edge, soii bio-engineering techniques and native plantings will be used in combination with more traditional engineered solutions. In the more formal landscape treat- ments occurring along the downtown riverfront, the shoreline will be strengthened with native vegetation, including native trees and shrubs. Throughout the river corridor, the City will encourage integration of fizture growth and development with restoration programs that recon- nect and restore remnant natural communities. 4.2.3 The Ciry will continue to support the efforts of organizations such as Great River Greenin� to restore native grasses, shrubs and trees alon� the riverfront downtown and elsewhere in the river corridor. � �� 4� �� e� Comprehensive Plan 21 c�1-t�1 4.2.4 The City wiIl continue to enforce the 50 foot shoreline setback for structures. In addition, the Ciry wiil support efforts to restore the shoreline to a more natural character within 100 feet of the river to facili- tate wildlife movement, and to improve the aesthetic appearance of the floodwall. Such efforts must be compatible with current channel design and flood controt management, and exceptions are made for park buildings, marinas, and other commercial or industrial river-dependent uses. Redevelopment should include removai of unused docking facilities (i.e., at the Koch-Mobil site). Figure K Trail between Warner Road and the Mississippi River 4.2.5 In all new developments, threatened and endangered wildlife habitats shall be protected from alterations which wouid endanger their survival. 42.6 The City will integrate its plans with the work of the DNR's Metro Greenways and Naturai Areas Collaborative. This metro area collabora- tive has identified hi�h quality native habitat remnants which could be linked into regional greenways, providin� continuous habitat corridors to support native plant and wildlife species. Many potential greenway opportunities e�st in the East Metro area, includin� Saint Paul. Objective 4.3 Protect cmd preserve floodplain cmd wedcmd areas in the city Fiwre L The last comprehensive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 5�u�` f L.ti:� .c.�;.^.�-p'dl'� flr�vin�ain OCCtl^'v� ln 1qRg.. c;rce that tme LWO Ben Thompson's vision of y � r�••• "The Great River Park" � City of Saint Paul major fiood events occurred in 1993 and 1997, and other chan�es have occurred in the floodplain. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers has completed a multi-year flood protection project on the West Side which will result in removal of the West Side Flats from the floodplain, because the new higher levee will control a 500-year flood. As a result of these chan�es, the City, DNR and the Corps of En�ineers are workin� to�ether to update the City's Flood Insurance Study. The Flood Insurance Study update includes changes to the cross-sectional area caused by development and revisions to the hydraulic model that incorporates these changes. FEMA and DNR will review the Flood Insurance Study update followin� submis- sion and make an approval decision (concludin� in 2001). FEMA's process will result in revised floodplain boundaries in the river corridor and accom- panying changes to FEMA flood insurance rate maps and the City's flood- way and flood fringe zoning districts. Wetlands also play an important role during floods, and for controlling stormwater. Their flexible storage capacity allows flood waters to be released slowly, reducing flood damage. In the era when most of Saint Paul's neighborhoods developed, modem ecosystem knowledge was lack- ing, and wetlands and creekbeds were routinely drained and filled. Through zoning and site plan review, Saint Paul began protecting wetlands in 1994, after passage of the state Wetlands Conservation Act. The Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (fiznded through state lottery rev- enues), has provided financial resources to communities, including Saint Paul, for wetland restoration projects. The restoration of Ames Lake — for- merly the Phalen Shopping Center site — is one such example. Other opportunities for restoration exist, including efforts by the Lower Phalen Creek Restoration Project to connect Swede Hollow Park to the river by restoring lower Phalen Creek in the ravine between Dayton's Bluff and Lowertown. As our understanding of watersheds continues to evolve, the need for careful management and planning in wetland and floodplain areas of the city is assumed. Policies: 4.3.1 The State of Minnesota, through the Department of Natural Resources, allows new development to occur in the Mississipi River floodplain up to a one-half foot increase over the 100-year flood eleva- tion. The City will enforce the state floodplain encroachment limit so that small increments in development do not gradually degrade the floodplain. 4.3.2 Recognizing the need to treat wetlands as a valued resource, and assuming its responsibility to administer the Wetlands Conservation Act, the City will protect earisting wetlands and encourage restoration of degraded wetlands. Comprehensive Plan 23 p�-�ql T e water quality of the Mississippi River is directly connected to the activities in the surrounding :.��rsH��. Objective 4.4 Protect water quality through comprehensive and coordinated watershed mcmagement The water quality of the Mississippi River is directly connected to the activi- ties in the surrounding watershed. Pollution comes from both direct, or point sources, such as a sewage treatment plant discharge, and from non- point sources, such as stormwater tunoff. The lar�est source of nonpoint source pollution into the Mississippi is the Minnesota River, which contains significant amounts of a�ricultural runoff from outside of the Mississippi River Corridor. The Minnesota Pollution Control A�ency is attemptin� to address this problem, which is complex and will take e�ctensive time and funds to correct. While all sources of pollution will be addressed, the City's program witl focus on city stormwater runoff pollution prevention due to the relatively �reater impact this source has on the river. SEWER SEPARATION PROC:RAM Historically, Saint Paul's original sewers drained direct]y to the Mississippi River ar to several natural streams that in tum drained into the river. The oldest sewer on record in Saint Paui was built in 1856. At the time it was standard engineering practice throu�hout the country to convey both storm water and sanitary waste to receiving waters in one pipe. However, by the early 1920's it was becoming apparent that the Mississippi River was pollut- ed and something had to be done. In 1938, the first sewage treatment facili- ty on the entire Mississippi River went into operation. Minneapolis and Saint Paul each financed and built their own interceptor sewers and shared the cost of building the treatment piant. Dry weather flows were then treat- ed prior to emptying into the river, but during rainstorms, when the flows exceeded the sewer's capacity, combined sewer overflows (rainwater and sewage) continued to pollute the river. In 1985, after years of siudy and discussion, sewer separation-vi�as deter- mined to be the most economical method to abate combined sewer over- flows to the Mississippi River and to meet federat and state water quality standazds. At this time the Minnesota Poilution Control A�ency directed Saint Paul, Minneapolis and South Saint Paul to develop a new plan for combined sewer overflow elimination and for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to incorporate each city's plan into an overall metro plan. In response, Saint Paul developed the Comprehensive Sewer Plan for the City ofSaint Paul. Although Saint Paul began separating its combined sewers in 1960, by 1985, only half of the city was served by separate sanitary and storm sewer systems. The ten year program initiated in 1986 was a massive undertaking with over $172 million in designated projects (1984 dollars). 24 City of Saint Paul The sewer separation program has led to significant improvement in the quality of the Mississippi River. The followin� are viewed as indicators of the improved water quality: ♦ Pollution-sensitive Hexa�enia mayfly have retumed to'IWin Cities' stretch of river after a 30 year absence. ♦ Metropolitan Council Environmental Services' monitoring data shows a si�nificant drop in fecal bacteria leveLs in the river as a result of sewer separation. ♦ Bald eagles have returned to the Twin Cities' stretch of river. ♦ Fish population and diversity have recovered from 3 species to over 25 species. ♦ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has established catch and release fishing regulations to protect trophy sized walleyes that are being caught from the metropolitan stretch of Mississippi River. The completion of Saint Paul's sewer separation program has achieved the overall purpose of cleaning up the river, demonstrating the City's commit- ment to improved stewardship of the river envixonment, and exceeded its performance goals. The city now has two completely separate sewer sys- tems, one cartying surface water runoff and the other one carryin� sanitary sewage. But the work of protecting and restoring the Mississippi River goes on. The partners involved in this project will continue to address the issues that affect the Mississippi and our environment. AWARENESS EDUCATION Saint Paul falls within the boundaries of four watershed management organizations, each of which develops a comprehensive watershed plan. Saint Paul's new Water Management Plan will be completed by the Public Works Department two years after the completion of the watershed management plans. The four watershed management organizations are I) Capitol Region Watershed District, 2) Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District, 3) Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, and 4) Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization. Saint Paul has been actively educating its resi- dents about water quality issues for years. Early Photo courtesy of Fnends of the Mississippi Id'ver ✓� � ; : � �� • : ,� � Comprehensive Plan 25 bl-�`� � efforts began to eaplain the need for the Sewer Separation Program and the associated benefits to the Mississippi River. Currently, the City and the Friends of the Mississippi River are working in partnership on the Storm Drain Stenciling Program. Since 1993, the City has worked with thousands of volunteers to stencil a message, "Don't Pollute Drains to River", next to storm drains and to distribute door hangers to the surrounding neighbor- hood. In addition, City staff are working with schools in Saint Paul on watershed education projects. Saint Paul is also a Watershed Partner, which is an award winnin� partner- ship of inetro area agencies, non-profit groups and local units of govemment. Watershed Partners developed an educational watershed exhibit, which is used at venues across the "IWin Cities every year, including the Minnesota State Fair. The Partners are currently involved in a metro wide media cam- paign which involves news print and radio messages as well as printed gro- cery store ba�s and magnets. Efforts to promote better pubIic awareness can have a profound impact on reducing nonpoint source pollution. Figure N Watershed Management Organizations 26 City ojsaint Pau] The Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory provides guidelines for safely eatin; fish cau�ht in the Mississippi River where it flows throu�h Saint Paul, per the Minnesota Department of Health's Minnesota Fish Consumplion Advisory (available on the DNR web site). Fish in Minnesota's lakes and rivers are monitored annually for the amount of inethyl mercury and PCBs present. WATER MANAC:EMENT AND REGULATION Water management and rewlation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. See Appendix D for the entities that are responsible for water man- agement in Saint Paul. Policies: Most of the policies cited in this chapter will be replaced and more fully addressed by Saint Paul's Water Management Plan, which will be complet- ed by April, 2003 . 4.4.1 Continue participation in existing watershed management programs �; :-. and in developing the City's stormwater permit program and local water management plan. Coordinate municipal activities that affect water qual- z�� ity as part of the stormwater discharge permit and the local water man- �_� agement plan. 4.4.2 Strengthen city-wide education programs that address watershed awareness and stewardship. 4.4.3 The Ciry encourages a reduction in use of chemicals for fertilizer and pest control in residentiai areas and on public land, and support sustain- able land treatment activities and integrated pest management practices. 4.4.4 The City supports minimizing direct overland runoff and improving the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce fertil- izer and pesticide runoff into the river. 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. 4.4.7 The City supports using stormwater management elements such as ponds and swales to unite development areas with the natural environ- ment. Emphasize what these elements add to site development in terms of aesthetic benefits and cost- effective stormwater management. Incorporate public use as a site amenity whenever possible in designin� stormwater management systems. Comprehensive Plan 27 °� � � � .` � . :: � � n � � �s � � Q � � �- � � � � � � � � o�- �� 4.4.8 The City will support programs to better mana�e and decrease the volume of toxic waste in the river corridor. 4.4.9 Protect streambanks and water quality from the ne�ative impacts of recreation. 4.4.10 The City will support re�ional pollution prevention and control plans for the metropolitan area. 4.4.11 The City supports programs to develop and implement spill preven- tion and response pians for the river. 2S City of Saint Paul St�ate�y 2: Sustain the Economic The Mississippi River will continue to function as a major commercial naw igation resource for Saint Paul, the Twin Cities and the Upper Midwest, connectin� the area to the Inland Watenvay System, the Gulf of Mexico and international markets. River-related, shipping-related, and river dependent industries will continue to locate in the river corridor, contributin� to the city's diverse economy and job market. Three of Saint Paul's 29 miles of riverfront are presently dedicated to industry. (Appendix F contains a map of commercial navigation facilities and barge fleeting areas.) Objective 5.1 Continue commercial and industrial uses of river corridor land and water, consistent with the Saint Paul Land Use Plan Industry and commerce are an important function of the river. The City recognizes that commercial and industrial uses of river corridor land will continue. Given the continued mix of land uses in the river corridor, carefu] planning for the use of land along the river's edge is warranted. The City rec- ognizes that the use of land in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark has the potential for serious adverse effects on the river if not properly managed. As a matter of course, all development must comply with existing regulations goveming the floodplain and river corridor. Policies: 5.1.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, and/or should enhance the river environment. (New develop- ment on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd. is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of existing Plans, and in all other respects should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new development include: ♦ having an economic or operational need for a river location ♦ supporting the attractiveness of surroundin� neighborhoods ♦ sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements ♦ offering public access to and along the river ♦ maintaining views of the river ♦ cleaning up polluted areas on the site ♦ meeting or exceeding applicable natural resource policies in this Plan Sii.. .. � �� v � � � � � � � � � � 3k a � M � ! � � � Comprehensive Plan 29 OI—►q1 Figure O River Corridor South Development Opportunities 5.1.2 F�pansions of existing uses in the floodplain or within 300 ft from the ordinary high water mark are acceptable. Expansions should be con- sistent with the natural resource protection policies laid out in this Plan. Expansion of uses on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard should be consistent with natural resource pro- tection policies where practical. 5.1.3 The City supports continuation of industrial uses in appropriate por- tions of the corridor as indicated in the Land Use Plan and shown in Figures O and P. Modifications or additions to industrial uses in the river corridor should be supported only when they have no significant adverse impact on water quality or air quality for the river corridor and adjacent neighborhoods, and when they do not substantially impair the visual char- acter of the corridor from adjacent neighborhoods or from the river itself. -- ^ '�.' - �"�`�'�E?:� �� `F �° .� ` � �`�� --. ��'a��`�� e ��`�` � ``.�:, ,,,..< 4t \ � �`:.�� + S. � � �"ix' . ��: � �� +4n ' ��Src � � � 4\ y\� .ti Park Restoration Concord - Robert (Commeraal) I '—� �Sid�e I Harriet island / S. Bridgehead Esp�a�de (urtran v��) Soufhport (Industrial) � `�` $ e� � ` � °=_ - R { e� x �� . � � �i r � _ te,� , . E° . a,µ : ._ i � � '��. _ �rs" �. /� %� -� t � .'{ '• '.�.��v/�i��. .�i-.. �, � � .'% .� � : 3 7 `� xe � . r : ,�� . '' � � <�. +,�`\ .- - � t �r:.•, .. .3f X:� { � - \ X r ( ^y'X :._ _ � • ,:L�.• .�."s� 1 � , i `R� � _ = .� Highwood �; ` - "� ;.; � ' � _ �<�s? (more houses�'�, - ;:,�° - "-i _� � >.,. ------ - ... ., °�:: =_� Indus6y BUrkhardt(Housin9) t - _� x.; : � '`°'; "::� ' n ( ��E S �:.I � r}�-:. � Yi��All'✓' - ��:� tv j ij �y ',� n . ' ,��P`s+3 �� ,� �.' a. 6 }°f Sv �' � \ ..�.� :Y� 5 <� I, The boundary shown does not correspond to the Cridcal Area/MNRRA boundary. 30 City of Saint Paul Pedestrian � _.='ff.'��i�._;�....:,'_�"�_;f.-,�'.'�s...,.- �u'�c ADM/Metalcote (Study Area) !�; � Koch-Mobil (Housing) J ��'`;" �=a°�^>��:%F�`CrosbyLake(Industrial) ° ' a '.."�� %� ; Sites ` �" �" " �=��"°` -�n•�� Shepard Davem �°�_ �:��-� � (RedeveiopmentArea) The boundary shown does not conespond to the Critica] Area/MNRRA boundary. ""�"''"'`' � Y�ure P ° _ 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening will not be a detriment to business operations. Objective 5.2 Recognize the Mississippi as a worldng river and support the continued operation of commercial navigation facilities The shipping industry is of cnzcial importance to Saint Paul, greater Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest. Located 1,800 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico, the Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intermodal freight trans- portation system, where barge, rail, and truck traffic intersect. Agricultural products and other bulk materials are brought by rail and truck from throughout the Upper Midwest, and transferred to barges that travel to Comprehensive Plan 31 OI- ►R t downstream river ports. Grain exports from Midwest producers make up nearly 90 percent of the car�o bound downstream. Approximately six percent of grain exported from the U.S. to world markets travels through the Saint Paul Port. Other materi- als are brought up the Mississippi River by bar�e and distributed to destinations throughout the re�ion by rail and truck. At peak capacity, more than 16 million tons of commodities can be han- dled through the Saint Paul Port annually. Figi�e Q Barge Fleeting L ocated 1,800 miles inland from the Gr.r�f of Mexico; the Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intezmodal freight transportation system, where barge, rail, and iruck irafJic intersect. There are both economic and environmental benefits to usin� barges to transport goods, rather than raiI cars or trucks. Barges move frei�ht a greater distance per gallon of diesel fuel than rail or truck. One ton of com- modities carried by barge travels 514 miles per gallon of fuel, compared to only 202 miles by rail or 59 miles by truck. Barges also release fewer pollu- tants per gallon of fuel bumed than rail or truck. Barges release only .42 pounds of pollutants per gallon of fizel burned, compared to .59 pounds released by rail cars and .75 pounds released by trucks. (Riverfront Action Strategies, Saint Paut Port Authoriry, January, 1999.) Barges fleet in designated fleeting areas, as permitted by the DNR, Army Corps of En�ineers, and U.S.Coast Guard. The permit issued by the Corps and DNR specifies the length and width of the fleeting area. Barge fleetin� areas are permitted in Saint Paul's Floodway District (RC-1), subject to a special condition use permit, as approved' by ine'riannin� Commission. Designated fleeting areas are mapped, see Appendix F. In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor currently has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges. Permitted fleeting areas are considered adequate to meet current and near-term fleeting needs and accommodate fluctuations in river transportation. The volume of commercial river traffic has and will continue to fluctuate considerably over time in response to tocal, regionai, national, and intemational needs and markets. At peak times, bar�e fleets fill fleeting areas to their maximum capacity. If a new fleeting area were desired, a permit would have to be procured through the above a�encies. The MNRRA Comprehensive Management PIan identified the need for a Surface Water Use Management Plan. Such a plan would provide �uidance on suitable locations for additional barge fleeting and mooring areas; suitable g2 City of Saint Paul locations for dredge material disposal sites; economic impact of surface water use; potenrial regulatory use controLs and other measures for minimizin� con- flicts between commercial navi�ation and recreational boating use and amon� recreational uses; monitorin� and evaluatin� river system surface use capaciry, includin� considerations of physicai, biolo�icai, social, and safety limits; evaluating the potential for bottom disturbance, sediment resuspension, and shoreline disturbance from bar�e activities and recreational boatin�; and developing altematives to expandin� existing or creatin� additional commer- cial fleering areas, barge moorin� areas, and recreational boatin� facilities. The City a�rees that these questions should be better understood, and should be evaluated region-wide. The Metropolitan Council has formed an advisory committee to fiuther scope out many of the questions identified for the MNRRA Surface Water Use Management Plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be the lead agency in complet- ing such a plan, working with local govern- __ ,,. ments and other affected state and federal �- agencies. It is recommended that barge fleeting areas and marinas be separated by 200 feet for safety reasons. "IWO hundred feet is approxi- mately the length of one barge, so separa- tion by this distance permits visibility of smaller recreational craft. Empty barges ride high in the water (16-20 feet above the water line), so a tow boat operator may not otherwise see recreational boat traffic around marinas. There are two marinas cur- rently in operation, Harriet Island Marina and Watergate Marina in Crosby Park. There are also boat launches at Hidden Falls Park and in Lilydale Park near Pickeral Lake. Policies: 5.2.1 Barge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river- related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. River-related land uses are those with an economic or operational need for a river location. x �; ,h -� :.� � �� - x �� ;;� � Comprehensive Plan 33 OI-l�li 522 A commercial landing for interstate cruise lines will be maintained at Lambert's Landing (Lower Landing Park), in conjunction with other activities at Lambert's Landing, e.�. loading of supplies. A landing for local excursion boats will be maintained at Harriet Island Marina. 5.2.3 The City will continue to re�ulate the impacts of commercial navi�a- tion facilities on existing development, the natural environment, and the immediate neighborhood throu�h its Special Condition Use Permit process. 52.4 The City will minimize water use conflicts and improve safety by separating commercial and recreational boat faciiities, where practical. A) If new or expanded bar�e fleetin� sites are proposed, and if other- wise permitted by State and federal agencies, fleeting sites should be located adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses and at least 200 feet from any marina or boat launch, B) New marinas or boat launches should be located at Ieast 200 feet from any barge terminal or barge fleeting area. Objective 5.3 Parsue clecmup and reclamation of polluted sites Much of the Mississippi River Corridor in Saint Paul has historically been used for industry, because the river was the first major transportation route. Polluted sites are concentrated where heavy manufacturing, rail yards, and other industrial activities were common. Other sources of contamination are landfills and underground storage tanks. The Metropolitan Council esti- mates that at teast a third more land is poIluted than is currentty identified. An area with significant contamination is Pi�'s Eye Dump, located in the flood plain of the Mississippi River just east of downtown Saint Paul and to the north of Fig's Eye Lake. At 319 acres, the site contains the largest dump in Minnesota. During its 16 years of operation (1956-1972), the dump received 8.3 million cubic yards of municipal, commercial, and industrial waste from Saint PauI and surrounding communities. Durin� the summer of 1988, the site (covering approximately 300 acres) caught fire and bumed intermittently for two months. In 1989, it was designated a Superfund site. The City has completed a Remedial Altematives and Response Adion Plan (RAP) which details remedial alternatives for the site. The RAP calls for plant- ings, covering much of the site with two feet of soil, and rerouting sections of Battle Creek. The City owns most of the site, and the site is designated as passive use parkland. The RAP was approved by the MPCA in May 2000. The 34 City of Saint Paul State legislature has authorized two mulion to begin remediation, of a total remediation cost estimate of 9.1 million. Funding for cleanup of polluted land is most readily available when the land will be redeveloped to yield jobs and increase the tax base. This has the effect of favor- ing industrial and commercial redevelop- ment projects. It can be difficult to find funds for cleanup of polluted land that is to be converted to green space or park land. Legal questions about ownership must also be resolved. To date, legisla- tive initiatives have been proposed to address this need, but none have been passed. The Port Authority has donated over 1800 acres of land to the City, to be used for open space and recreation in perpetuity. Those lands now in park use include Crosby Lake, Pigs Eye L.ake, and Pickeral Lake. '= � z :: _,"; s'�:,,,,j..r .„� .��, , � c�a�.,�-�s, � ._. l �. /� 1�� .% ;' 9 `$ t ,. 4 ��\;.,��.��' � .. � �� - -".•• a€; a;e: �.� �..`. = _ , .:; �� j,� ':'��l�j�`f�-�. �� `' �.;-.°=�-:.'�� ;' acs� a ti ��`..;__ . � ;-, , uwor� - �. _ - ._ _ �;�}.:. > •', ` ':,- y '��'.,�`� , ��..,^"r . �ti�' x� �` \` �- > � � ,�. � y ... y � 5: u. �. , � � � � �4 � � �� h �5. ._ y '-. � � � `� � ,; � ,� :� .� , — - `, , a _ _.—._ y. . i z. �� `4' 1 i 4 �t ... ` 'i ` � ^ . :z ,� - °,'�.�`. . � � , i�`, �. Policies: 5.3.1 Working with the Port Authority, the City will seek opportunities to ciean up polluted river corridor lands. 5.3.2 The City will monitor and support initiatives that will facilitate cleanup of polluted land to be reused as green space. 5.3.3 The City will balance open space use and industrial and commercial use of the Pig's Eye Lake area. Cleanup of Pig's Eye Dump should pro- ceed as laid out in the Remedial Altematives and Response Action Plan (RAP) approved by MPCA. Industrial uses along Childs Road and the rail- road tracks will continue. Open land (which includes the Heron rookery at the southern tip of Pig's Eye Lake ) will continue in environmentaliy protected status. Comprehensive Plan 35 o�-�� St�ate�y 3: Enhance the City's to the River T e river provides The Ciry has the opportuniry to redefine the Mississippi River as the "front dooY' to the city, a deserving role for the city's most unique natural resource and a tremendous source of community pride, identity and vitality. The river provides the city with its most powerful sense of place and its most attractive naturat amenity. Saint Paul can redaim its herita�e as a river city by reconnecting its downtown, nei�hborhoods and recreational areas to the river and establishing a better connection between its built and the city wit12 its natural environments. Recreation opportunities, housing, and mixed-use mOSt pOWe1fW development will increase in the corridor, creating urban nei�hborhoods with visual and physical access to the river. (Appendix F contains maps Seztse of p1aCe and showing parks, trails, overlooks, and historic sites and districts.) its most attractrve natural amenity. Objective 6.1 Enhance opportcmities for recreational use of the riverfront by local visitors and tourists, utilizing parks, open space and physical access to the river The picturesque, natural environment of Saint Paul's river corridor provides many desirable open spaces for ciry residents and tourists to play and relax. Saint Paul's twenty nine miles of river shoreline is the longest stretch of riverfront of any municipality in the TWin Cities metropolitan area and repre- sents one of the city's most significant public amenities. As riverfront indus- triaI land has gradually been converted to parks, park land has become the � ,__a - - . 1 � �;Yre; t ;i:'�: r r�i r singie iarges[ [tse o� rivefr�zt .ar��.�� Sa::�� Pau�. .1. n he ..�. _�_, several large re?ional and city river parks eacist, includin� the following: ♦ Harriet Island Park ♦ Cherokee Park ♦ Crosby Farm Park ♦ Indian Mounds Park ♦ Batfle Creek Park ♦ Kellogg Mall Park ♦ Lilydale Park ♦ Raspberry Island ♦ Hidden Falls Park ♦ Pigs Eye Lake Park s Lower Landing Park ♦ Mississippi River Boulevard Opportunities for further expansion and enhancement of river parks and open spaces exist. As stated in the City's Parks & Recreation Plan, the City will pursue opportunities and partnerships to acquire land specifically for 36 Ciry of Saint Paul open space and naturalresources protection according to any ofthe fol- lowin� criteria. ♦ Areas containing species included on the State or Federal list of endan- gered or threatened species; ♦ Areas representin� si�nificant landforms, native plant communities, sen- sitive habitat, or historical events; ♦ Areas that connect existin� components of the open space network; and ♦ Areas adjacent to existing parkland/open space. In addition to threatened and endangered species, the State of Minnesota classifies species of "special concern". (Listed in Appendix C). While this category does not have the same rewlatory status as threatened or endan- �ered species, areas that contain these species and their habitats should also be considered for preservation. Riverfront redevelopment activities can provide opportunities for e�ansion and enhancement of the city's riverfront open space system as well. The Saint Paul Renaissance Project, sponsored by the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, marks a substantial effort towards this end. The Renaissance Project is an integrated network of public spaces, parks, trails, greenways, and connections that relinks Saint Paul's downtown and its neighborhoods to the Mississippi River. The network builds on investments currently underway and emanates from the Saint Pavl on the Mississippi Development Framework. Within the river corridor, many of the existing adjacent open spaces are connected and established as re�ional parks, includin�: Harriet Island- Lilydale-Cherokee, Mississippi Gorge-Hidden Falls-Crosby Farm and Battle Creek-Pigs Eye. Potential eapansions, connections and enhancements of the river corridor open space system include the restoration of the Lower Phalen Creek area, connecting the river and Swede Hollow Park, and a restoration of the 17out Brook Reach, with a trail connection to the Willard Munger IYail. Other enhancements of the river corridor open space system include development of a Pigs Eye Greenway, renovation of Raspberry ` ,; �..�. � a � �, ,,� .,� ; � a� `� �� Comprehensive Plan 37 b1- �9 l Island, a major renovation of Harriet Island LilydaIe Regional Park, and new open space created by the realignment of Shepard Road. The reali�nment of Shepard Road just west of downtown will significantly increase pubiic access to the river in that area of the river corridor. Policies: 6.1.1 Large areas of open space that are currently undeveloped should pre- serve fish and wildlife resources, plant communities, and biological diver- sity. Some open space areas may be suitable for passive recreation (e.�. trails for hiking, biking, bird-watching); others, such as the Pig's Eye Lake area and the bluffs at Cherokee Park should be limited to preseroation. 6.12 The City will continue to add to its riverfront open space system, making it more continuous and river-related. 6.1.3 The City will require dedication of river corridor parkland as part of river corridor land subdivisions or plantted development approvals. Objective 6.2 Preserve and improve existing views to the river cmd bluj�s, cmd develop new ones Saint Paul's river corridor, with its magni£cent bIuf�s, cavemous �orge and wide river valley provides many unique and scenic views. Visual access to the river, the bluffs and the river corridor provides a sense of place for the general benefit of the public, both city residents and visitors. The various 38 forms of public visual access to the river consist of scenic river views, extended view corridors, overlook points, observation platforms, bridge crossings, bridgeneacis and bluff stairways. Many of the best views of the river exist at key blufftop sites, including Indian Mounds Park, Upper West Side, Kello�g Mall in downtown Saint Paul, and Mississippi River Boulevard. Opportunities exist to create additional river view points in some areas of the city. The neighborhoods in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corri- dor, Battle Creek, and Highwood currently have few established public view points to the river. City of Saint Paul Figure U Overlooldng the river Recently, with funds from multiple sources, blufftop properry off Sprin�side Drive in the Hi�hwood neighborhood was acquired and dedicated for passive public views. Such actions support this objective, and help to proted the bluffs themselves as described in Chapter 4. The City is currently considerin� a policy to remove all biliboards from the River Corridor. Accordin� to a 1999 inventory, fifteen billboards would be tar- �eted for removal from the river corridor if such a policy with associated ordinance is adopted. Policies: 62.1 The City will work with the river corridor neighborhoods to identify additional river views or view corridors. River views and overlook points should be linked to the city's walking paths and trail system, whenever feasible. 6.22 All billboards should be removed from the River Corridor and not replaced. The City encourages efforts by neighboring communities to remove River Corridor billboards as well. 6.2.3 The City will encourage the placement of public utilities undeground. Objecrive 6.3 Provide a continuous, safe pedestrian and birycle trail along both sides of the river, that is connected to the city and regional trail system Pedestrian and bicycle trails are an important way of connecting the city and the river. Such trails also provide environmental and transportation benefits. The City's Parks and Kecreation Division is working towards a continuous trail system along both sides of the river with the potential to connect major parks, open spaces, historic sites, view points and public access areas in the river corridor. Impiementation of the East Bank Mississippi River Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan will provide a continu- ous river trail through the city on the east bank (or north side) of the river. The East Bank Mississippi River Regional Trail is designed to link other city trails, including the Saint Paul Grand Round Loop, Phalen Creek Trail and the Capitol Route Trail, and existing and proposed trails in neighboring jurisdictions. On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport and Pig's Eye Lake, a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons. The west bank river trail is planned primarily as an off-road path, with some on-street bike lanes planned near the airport, and on bridges. At Lilydale Regional Park, the goal is to make the trail completely off-road if an oppor- tunity arises in conjunction with the railroad. y�- ,: : � �-� �; , � � � � � � � � � � � �,; � � � � � � � , ,„... ... .,. � � � , � � � Comprehensive Plan 39 OI-t � Policies: 6.3.1 As designated in the Parks & RecreaUon Plan, the City will complete a continuous Mississippi River Trail as close as practical to the river along the entire len'th of both sides of the river, including bike lanes on bridge crossin�s. 6.3.2 Existing and new river trails will accommodate a variety of non- motorized recreational uses, includin� walkin�, jo�gin„ bikin�, skatin� and sld touring. Bike and pedestrian paths will be separated from each other where physically possible. 6.3.3 The City will coordinate development of the river trail with existing and proposed trails that connect to Saint Paul's river corridor, including city, regional and neighboring communities' trail systems. 6.3.4 The City will pursue easements or public acquisition for future river trail connections in new and existing developments in the river corridor. The City will pursue opportunities as appropriate to acquire future aban- doned railroad right-of-ways and appropriate tax-forfeited parcels for acquisition and possible river trail development. Objective 6.4 Support new housing development in the river corridor, through creation of urban villages. Extend neighborhoods toward the river Especially near downtown, the opportunity exists to create new mixed-use river corridor nei�hborhoods that reconnect the city to the river. This is also an oppommity to create highly desirable housing that helps achieve the City's projected housin� growth target for 2620. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Fromeworks Ten Principles present a holistic approach for reestablishing river corridor neighborhoods. The Saint Pavl Land Use Plan fur- ther articulates the Ciry's vision of Urban Villages as the predominant model for neighborhood development. Strategic locations with highest potential for neighborhood development include Upper Landing/Irvine Park, the West Side River Flats, Lowertown, and the Koch-Mobil and Shepard-Davem sites. The City recognizes that new deveIopment in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the river should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, and/or should enhance the river environment (discussed in more detail in chapter 5). It is appropriate to consider housing and neighbor- hoods river-enhancing, if careful site planning addresses public access and connections to the river, view corridors and vistas, use of native vegetation in landscaping, and natural resource and stormwater mana�ement. See chapter 7 for further discussion of policies for new development. 40 Ciry of Saint Paul Policies: 6.4.1 In strate�ic river corridor locations adjacent to existin� nei�hbor- hoods, the City supports redevelopin� vacant and underused industrial land sites as new mixed-use urban village nei�hborhoods that help reconnect the city to the river. 6.42 Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river will be improved by addin� a limited number of pedestrian xoutes (stairs, ramps, walkways) betv✓een the bluff elevations and the river flats. Objective 6.5 Encourage protection and restoration of river corridor cultural resources, incluAing historic structures, cultarally significant landscapes, and archaeological and ethnographic resources Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor, as the birthplace of the City of Saint Paul, contains a variety of important cultural and historical structures and sites. The river corridor's designated historical sites include early Native American river settlements and burial grounds, historic urban districts, river-related recreational buildings, stately public institution and trans- portation buildings, grand private homes, and architecturally unique bridges spanning the Mississippi River. Early economic activity in the river corridor included beer brewing, mushroom farming, and brick making. Nationally designated historic sites in Saint Paul's River Corridor are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (See Appendix B.) The National Register is administered by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), which has ultimate responsibility for evaluating and nominating new sites to the National Register. Locally, Saint Paul's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), created in 1976, is a certified local govemment historic preservation program with responsibility for identifying and recommending historic buildings, sites and districts within the ciry. A historic survey and designation project for the entire city of Saint Paul is currently underway. Currently, officially designated historic places consist of structures, sites, districts and objects only. A number of important archaeological sites and landscapes exist in the river corridor that do not contain historic structures. These sites and landscapes have been identified by SHPO, however only one site (Indian Mounds Park) has been designated historic on the National Register. A comprehensive inventory of potentiai local historic landscapes, archaeologicai and ethnographic sites is needed to ensure protection of ali historic and cultural resources in the river corridor. ..�' �� : � Comprehensive Plan 4i or-i 9 I Opportunities exist for restoring historic sites in the river corridor as an element of riverfront development plannin�. The Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse on Raspberry Island, the Harriet Island Pavilion as part of the Hamet Island Master Plan and the various historic river caves are prime examples. Reconnecting the Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic Districts to the river and their historic roots as Saint Paul's upper landin� and Iower landing also provide key opportunities to restore the riverfronYs historical resources. At the Upper Landing site, the Head House was one of the first a�ricultural transfer stations on the Mississippi River. The Head House should be studied to determine its potential for reuse, perhaps in conjunc- tion with redevelopment plans. One of the buildings currently occupied by the U.S. Post Office at Kel]ogg Blvd. and lackson Street (adjacent to Lambert's Landing) is an example of Art Deco style architecture. If this buiid- ing or the Concourse of the Union Depot become available for reuse, this Plan supports reuse that is consistent with the vision for downtown and principles laid out in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework. Policies: 6.5.1 The City encourages the use of historic properties in public and pri- vate riverfi development plans, particularly where interpretation of hisYOric themes is planned. Stnactures and landscapes listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and those designated as local sites should be preserved in their present condition, if that condition allows for satisfactory protection, maintenance, use, and interpretation. 6.5.2 The City encourages the e�pansion of open space land use where needed to preserve si�nificant archaeological, landscape and ethno- graphic resources. 6.5.3 The City encourages economic activities that preserve and rehabili- tate historic resources in tne river corridor. 6.5.4 With the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the City supports the creation of a Saint Paul Historic Preservation Plan that includes establishing a comprehensive inventory of all historic, archaeo- logicai, cultural anQ ethnographic structures and landscapes in the river comdor. 6.5.5 The City wiil work to restore the former connection of river corridor historic districts (Lowertown and Irvine Park) to the river, by encoura�- ing development that is compatible with existin� nei�hborhoods. 42 City of Saint Paul St�ate�y 4: Use Urban Design to Built Environment The desi�n of public and private spaces powerfully affects our perception of the quality and character of place. Where the city comes to the Mississippi River, the urban fabric has potential to reflect and glorify Saint Paul's natural setting. The river corridor's varied landforms and existin� development pat- terns pose opportunities and challenges for new development to enhance the river valley by providing access to the river and reinforcing continuity in the existing urban fabric. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development F7amework has become the City's essential reference for guiding new development in and around the downtown riverfront. This chapter draws heavily from that work. The inten- tion of this chapter is to support and reinforce the principles articulated in the Framework while considering the entire River Corridor and implications for all of its land typologies. Urban Structure and Land Forms The river corridor's urban structure is a multi-layered patchwork of movement systems, land uses, and built form. Movement is multi-modal, characterized by rail lines, major arterials, nei�hborhood streets and trails. West Seventh Street, or Old Fort Road, is especially significant because it is the city's longest arterial running parallel to the river. It is also a major growth corridor connecting to downtown. Shepard Road is another significant river road. It nxns parallel to the river and West Seventh Street, and will soon be rebuiit as an improved and slower speed parkway east of Randolph. Cunently, Shepard Koad acts as an impediment to river access and experiences. The north side of West Seventh Street is characterized by the ordinal grid. Generally, because of the change of land use from residential to industrial, this grid of streets is not continuous across West Seventh. It extends across into pockets of small residential areas, but because of the grid's spotty nature, residential neighborhoods south of West Seventh do not create a continuous urban fabric. The Terrace and Lowlands are important locations that provide the opportu- nity for meaningful connections from the Uplands to the river. Cunently, the Terrace along West Seventh Street is perceived as disconnected from the Upland neighborhoods of Saint Paul because so few streets traverse the bluff. In fact, the only connections are from the main streets of the Upland . �� has � � � � � � � � a �� : �, � �� .� �Po � A� �� Comprehensive Plan 43 oi-�� Figure V River VaNey and Critical Area boundary grid (Snelling, Randolph, St. Clair, Grand/Ramsey, Fairview/Edgcumbe) that extend down the bluff as parkways or major river avenues. For the same reason, the Lowlands on the West Side also seem disconnected from the Uplands. Topo�raphically, the Terrace corridor is formed by the High Biuffs on both sides of the river. Atop the bluffs lie several high points and landmark buildings, providing a series of vistas visually connectin� neighborhoods to each other. Natural reaches are formed where the bluffs are interrupted by the ravines. These reaches provide further opportunities to connect the Terrace and river valley to the Upland neighborhoods. The map below shows the approximate location of the landforms that make up the river valley and its reaches in Saint Paul. The map also shows the boundary of the Critical Area, which contains the entire length of the river in Saint Paul. While the influence of the river valley clearly eatends beyond the Critical Area boundary, the policies in this Plan aze under- stood to be Imtited to the Critical Area in Saint Paul. 44 Ciry of Saint Paul Objective 7.1 Development of new streets, blocks, and neighborhoods in the river corridor should continuously reinforce connections with the natural environment of the river valley and the surrounding urbrm fabric The s�eet grid, or pattern of streets, blocks, and open space formin� public and private spaces, determines both the movement patterns and develop- ment patterns of a district. These development pattems provide an impor- tant opportunity to connect with and e�cperience the river. The best exam- ple of this in Saint Paul is in the West Side blufftop neighborhoods west of Wabasha/Humboldt, where blocks are small and connect regularly {at least every 400 feet) with a riverview street, park or sidewalk. In other areas, particularly the West Side Lowlands, redeveloped industrial "superblocks" have the effect of isolating blufftop neighborhoods from the river. The poli- cies below do not preclude industrial redevelopment on industrially-aoned land. However, other redevelopment should consider the opportunity to reestablish meaningful connections to the river. Policies: 7.1.1 In the Lowlands, new urban villages (as defined in Objective 6.4) should establish an urban street grid that provides access to the river's �� °° `'�' edge. The City supports utilizing historic street patterns when re-creating � ��° street grids. If a historic grid does not exist, new urban villages should .,�;;; ; s.. �� establish a fine-grained system of blocks and streets. When feasible, new - development should also assure urban continuity by integrating all new street and block pattems into existing traditional patterns. 7.1.2 The Tenace along West Seventh Street is a major corridor that should have better street connections across West Seventh. The City supports creating new block and street pattems south of West Seventh Street that create continuity across West Seventh. New block and street pat- terns on the Terrace should maximize connections to the bluff edge to enhance the sense of proximity to the river. 7.1.3 In Upland areas such as the Gorge, the City encour- ages preserving and enhancing the existing modified grid pattem of streets and blocks. In portions of Battle Creek and Highwood, development form follows a suburban or exurban pattem with cul-de-sacs and meandering roads that follow topography. In these nei�hborhoods without a connected street system, the City supports creating a connected system as redevelopment or major subdivision occurs. � ,�,, � �:; � l . � ` f =, ;.. f. : xJ k F �� z � �� q a' a _„ �� ;�., Comprehensive Plan 45 t�l � 7.1.4 Infill development in the Uplands should be scaled and desi�ned to be compatible with and reinforce the existin� physical fabric_ 7.1.5 Street design should accomodate all modes of movement (bicycles, pedestrians and cars). Streets and other public rights-of-way should provide physical and visual connections between river valley neighbor- hoods and the river's edge. 7.1.6 On urban infiIl and redevelopment sites in the river corridor, the City encourages under�round parkin� wherever possible, to support "traditional" urban development patterns and to minimize impervious surface. 7.1.7 New and reconstructed brid�es or other "�ateways" should be designed to be attractive and inviting and masimize the sense of con- nection to the river. This can be accomplished with signage, landscapin� treatments, omamentallighYin� and railings, comfortable sidewalks, and special architectural elements. The Wabasha Bridge and Marshall Avenue Bridge are good examples. New river crossin�s should be mini- mized, and new and reconstructed bridges should be located in the same corridor as the structure they replace. 1.8 The City should connect new and e�stin� neighborhoods to the river by greening key streets that connect to the riverfront or river parkways. Objective 7.2 Consistent with an urban setting, the design of new buildings should reflect the river corridor's natural chcu�acter and respond to topography by preserving Cl'ItICQI pilffllC V1eLYS. 46 Built form and buildin� envelopes are a function of height, densiry and floor plate size. In the river corridor, buildin� scale becomes very important as it relates to topography, views and the sunoundin� urban fabric. Recently, the Ciry has become much more attentive to this, and now encourages buildings whose scale responds to the surrounding neighbor- hood context, topography and the public realm. In general, it is important to pre- serve public views both of the river from the city and neighborhoods, and from the City ofSaint Paul Figure X DowMown RiverfrorR: critical pubiic views river back to the city. However, Saint Paul is an urban condition. Occasionally, it is permis- sible and even desirable to allow selective excep- tions for medium-scaled landmarks. � �_ ,,.��:: „ i ; �.,,y �� -�° � �y�.�.. '_ _ _ -_' Policies: 72.1 In Lowland areas, new development should employ buildin� envelopes that heighten the experience of the river corridor by preserv- in� public views to the top of the High Bluff. Public views from the Uplands or Tenace to the water edge of the opposite side of the river should be maximized. 7.22 Along urban growth corridors such as West Seventh Street, building envelope standards should be used that recognize not only the importance of the river as a scenic watenvay and the corridor as a natural resource, but also the needs and appropriateness of massing and density in an urban environment. 72.3 In redevelopment areas along the West Seventh Street Terrace, the street hierarchy of the grid should be reinforced by creating building envelope standards that recognize the importance of locating taller buildings on wider streets and shorter buildings on narrower streets. 7.2.4 On the West Seventh Street and Concord Street Terraces, the City supports designing buildings with equal consideration given to their visi- bility from the river and to their visibility from the Uplands. The City sup- ports maintaining building heights that maximize public views of the high bluff lines from the high water mark on the opposite side of the river. Planning for Terrace redevelopment sites should be careful to con- sider views of the Terrace from Fort Snelling as referenced in the Design Criteria for the Shepard-Davem zoning overlay. 7.2.5 Building design should add vitality to the street and sidewalk by pro- viding street- level windows and active street-level uses, semi-public spaces in front of buildings, and front doors facing the street. 72.6 In Upland areas, the general character of the existing silhouette of lower- profile buildings alon� the edge should be maintained. Development should also respect the mature tree canopy at the bluff edge of the Uplands with buildings forms that do not dominate the canopy's natural height. However, occasional, modest exceptions to the silhouette with medium-scaled landmark buildings are allowed. � : ,, �> �� Comprehensive Plan 47 OI 7.2.7 The City supports the use of "green," or ener�y efficient buildinQ techniques in new developments. 7.3 Desigrt Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites As described in the Setting Chapter, to complete this River Corridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, alon� with the Saint Paul Desi�n Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment sites. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. Ideally, new development should provide greater public access to the river, preserve significant public views, improve stormwater and the urban forest on site, and reinforce and complement the sunounding urban fabric. Tllustrations of how On the following pages are su�gested guidelines for the West Side Flats, rhese guidelines might Upper Landing, Koch-Mobil and ADM sites, and the Shepard Davem area. be applied am be found The individual guidelines should not be viewed as mandates, and it is in AppendixA. unlikely that any project will be able to fulfill every provision. Rather, co]- lectively they provide a vision for redevelopment that enhances the river corridor, respects this precious amenity, and strikes a balance between eco- nomic development and resource protection. These suggested guidelines will be used as the basis for the nea�t step in the re�ulatory process. Figure Z River Corridor RedevetopmeM Sites qg Ciry of Saint Paul O/-!9/ Site: WES? SIDE FLATS Location Between Robert and Wabasha, Mississippi River and Plato Access and Connections • Extend adjacent streets into and through che redevelopment site. Preserve the rail corridor as a poten- tia] �reenway corridor. Views and V'LStas • Preserve views of the West Side Bluffs from Kellogg Park. • Ensure views of the dverfront by ori- enting streets perpendicular to the river. Development Pat[ern • Create a concentration of taller build- ings and activity and the intersection of Plato and Robert. • Create small blocks, bound by public right-of-way, that can be developed incre- mentaliy and in response to market con- ditions. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space along the riveYS edge. • Extend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native landscapes; encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natural habitats. Stormwater • tntegrate stormwater management elements with natural habitats, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater dischazge. Urban Forest • Reintroduce the 'urban foresY with- in/around redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active / passive recreational use with paths, overlooks, seatlng azeas, courts/fields. • Pcovide visible/accessible connec�ons to neighborhood and regionai parks, traiLs and open space systems. Site: UPPER LANDINC� Location: Beriveen the High Bndge and Chestnut nve., Mississippi River and Irvine Park Neighborhood Access and Connections • Provide multiple connections to Shepard Road, an urban boulevard. wews and V'�stas • Provide an anchoring public space that celebrates the Chestnut Street / Cathedral axis and arrival to the river. • Provide view corridors through the site from potential lower bluff overlooks (not in redevelopment sites) to the river. Development Pattern • Create smali biocks that can be devei- oped incrementally and in response to market conditions. • Create a series of linMng pubiic and privaCe spaces onented co both the river and to Shepard Road as well as oCher sig- nificant spaces, views and ]andmarks, such as the High Bridge and downtown. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space along the river's edge. • Fxtend ]andscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native landscapes; encoura�e plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natura] habitats. Stormwater • Integrate stormwater management elements with natural habitacs, pubiic open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater discharge. Urban Forest • xeintroduce the 'urban forest' with- in/azound redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active i passive recreationa] use with paths, overlooks, seating areas, courts/fields. • Provide visible/accessible connections to nei�hborhood and re�ional parks, trails and open space systems. Site: KOCH MOBIL (Also ADM site) Location: Between Randoiph and West 7th; W. 7th and Mississippi River Access and Connections • Extend existing streets �nto and through the redevelopment site. • Fstend Victona Street through the site t0 jOiTl M071tiC'dl AvEnue. Create a"Bluff Drive" as a local resi- dential street atop the lower bluff park [ha[ connects West 7th to the R�ver Valley. �ews and Vistas • Create multiple views of the river vaI- ley where street5 intecsect the bluff drive. Development Patterns • Organize street and block development around a wide street or ]inear park that connects Wesi 7th Yo the River valley. Natural Resources • Provide a continuous new public ed�e along blufftop with native landscapes, pedestrian pathways and developed over- looks. • Fxtend landscaped "green fingers" inro new development areas alon� new streets and public pa[hways. Stormwater • Capture runoff on exisnng and newly Comprehensive Plan 49 OI-i`�I developed sites and begin water treat- ment, infiltration process (parking lots, rooftops, terraces). • tntegrate final treatment, infiltration and detention systems into the public edge behind the blufftop and into the pat- tem of pazks and squares, streets and public pathways. • Provide surface system of catchmeni areas, swales, infil�ation and detention areas. Urban Forest • Install canopy trees on all new streets; infill canopy trees on e�sting streets. • Develop natural forest along bluff top and bluff face with groves of native trees, grasses and other piantings. Public nmenities • Link public edge to new pazks, squares and to existing neighborhoods and regional parks and trails with land- scaped sueets and public pathways. • Naturalize Shepard Road landscape wi[h prairie and informally arranged groves of trees. • Extendiandscaped'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. Stormwater • Develop inte�rated, comprehensive surface stormwater'treatment train' with swales, weUands and ponds to address water quantity / quality issues. • Integrate stormwater management elements with natural habitats, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. Urban Forest • Infil] canopy trees on existing and redeveloped street grid. • Provide natural �roves of native understory and canopy trees along Shepazd Road and the public edge along The blufftop. Site: SHEPARD DAVERN Location Between West 7th and Shepard Rd.; Between Davem and Alton Streets Access and Connections • Extend exis[ing streets into and through the redevelopment site. • Consider creating a d"uect connection between St. Paul Pkcvy. and Alton Street. • Provide mid-block pedestrian connec- tions between neighborhood and Shepazd Road. wews and l�istas • Preserve natural views from the River to the high bluff by setting buildings ail buildings back from the low bluff and by providing generous �ee plantlng on Shepard Road Development Paitem • Provide neighborhood green public spaces on which new residenrial development can be focused. • Enhance existing public edge with native landscapes (oak savanna and prairie), improved paths and developed overlooks. Public Amenities • Enhance continuous public edge along bluff top with new access stairs ro Crosby Park, new overlooks, sitting areas, infor- mation kiosks, bike racks and other amenities. • Link public edge to neighborhood parks and squares and re�ional trail sys- tems aiong landscaped streets and public pathways. • Provide improved crossings of Shepard Road with enhanced crosswalks, signalized crossings and other amenities. 5o Ciry of saint Paul Implementation 8.1 Zoning Code Revisions There will be si�nificant zonin� text amendments related to implementa- tion of this Plan. This Plan is unrelated to the Mississippi River Floodway Study by FEMA, which will yield chan�es in the floodway delineation for the City's zoning map. However, those changes (which will include changes to the river corridor overlay Floodway and Flood Fringe districts) will inform the process of making river corridor zoning code and overlay map revi- sions. The main zoning recommendations from this River Corridor Plan are: 1. Review and amend current River Corridor overlay zoning districts and map. Currently, river corridor overlay zoning consists of four districts, with two dis- tinct functions. The districts labeled RG 1 and RC-2 together protect the flood- plain. The districts labeled RG3 (Urban Open District) and RC-4 (Urban Diversified District) are intended to guide the character of development, but are confusing and contribute little to the overlay. Underlying zoning districts determine land use. General standards for environmental protection apply to the whole river corridor, regardless of the overlay districts. Consider splitting the current River Corridor overlay into two: a°floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RGl and RC-2 which govems the floodplain, and a single district "Mississippi River Critical Area" or "MRCA° combining RG1, RC-2, RC-3 and RG4, and which addresses Critical Area requirements. 2. Add requirement of 200-foot spacing between marinas or boat launches and barge fleeting areas. 3. Add criteria for new uses in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark: having an economic or operational need for a river ]ocation; supporting the attractiveness of surroundin� neighborhoods; sus- taining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements; offering public access to and along the river; maintaining views of the river; cleaning up polluted areas on the site; meeting or exceeding natural resource policies in this Plan. (These criteria do not all have to be met for a land use to be con- sidered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new development should meet as many of these criteria as possible.) 4. The current primary zoning districts RCR-I, RCC-i and RCI-I are not partic- ularly effective in terms of standards, and are in some cases inconsistent with the City Land Use Plan's vision for mixed-use urban villages. This Plan sup- ports redefining these zoning disiricts to meet current development concepts. >�� : A � �� ._� � � � � � � �; � � � � � Comprehensive Plan 51 O(-l�l � 5. Together with the Department of Natural Resources, review/amend River Corridor section of the Zoning Code (Chapter 65) for other necessary changes. In addition, staff will work to clarify and streamline langua�e wherever possible. 6. Create zoning definitions for toe, top, and face of bluff. 7. Consider creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river corridor modification requests for development on slopes exceedin� 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact area (40' from the bluff line). Such criteria may address, but are not limited to, the following factors: ♦ Retain the natural slope lines of the site, as seen in profile. Restore the ve�etation lines which convey the slope lines. Roof pitch should match slope an�le. ♦ Screen new buildings. ♦ Slopes facing the river should look natural to the greatest extent possible. ♦ Stagger or step building units according to the topography. ♦ Plan buildings, drives and parking areas, and landscaping to acknowl- ed�e the natura] contour line of the site. ♦ Provide parking on the uphill side behind buildin�s. ♦ Lot coverage. ♦ Location of building on lot. ♦ Re�ulate building design, e.g. materials, bulk, shape, hei�ht, color. ♦ Areas with a certain pitch of slope (e.g. �reater than 12% and less than - � - : P �--- --- -- 18% shall not have an im ernous surface coverage greater than a certain percenta�e (e.g. greater than 25%). ♦ Encourage elevated structures & retainin� walls. ♦ No increase in runoff from the site (from rainfall, septic systems, irrigation). ♦ Minimal removal of deep-rooted woody vegetation. 8. With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design �uide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites (Upper Landing, West Side Flats, Koch-Mobil, and Shepard Davem). The design widelines will be sensitive to the purposes of this Plan, and will clarify how the form and 52 City of Saint Paul scale of development can incorporate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public enjoyment of the river. It is expected that such �uidetines will be implemented throu�h a variety of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Villa�e Zonin� project, site-specific �uidelines, and possibly through desi�n districts (a concept that is currently being developed). Appendix A shows illustrations for the five redevelopment sites based on the work of the Desi�n Study. Current state law provides that zonin� must be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan within six months of the Plan's adoption, which puts the zoning deadline in ,200X . Given the extent of likely river corridor zon- ing text amendments, and the already numerous zoning chan�es from the Land Use Plan, it will likely take the City longer to complete the zoning changes that are proposed in this pian. 8.2 Site Plan Review Guidelines Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate pro- visions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view comdors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse envi- ronmental impacts of new development. 8.3 Park & TYail System Development The City Parks 6z Recreation Plan (1996) includes an implementation plan for park resource protection, park land acquisition, scenic overlook clearance, envi- ronmental education and interpretive programs, and development of trails. Park plans include completion of the regional Mississippi River TYail on both sides of the river, connecting to trail seoments in adjacent municipalities. Other open space and greenway projects in or near the river corridor are shown, see fiwre AA on page 54. 8.4 Heritage Preservation Opportunities exist for the preservation and/or enhancement of the historic character of the river: fi'i. y ./ � � Y� z ; �z � : � ' � � • �� :; �� ,. � �r <- � �% �. n Comprehensive Plan 53 b1 � Figure AA River Corridor Open Space and Gree�y Projeets Trou[ &ook{ower Pwen Cmet Greerrway �� Ne�ghbasoal RgsEye Greenscape 'lan Rrver mg PfOJeC6 "�y�"` ��" � Hamx IvaM Regtonai �� PzM1 Maue� Plxn EzII 83r1k Misusippi Rrver Regiona� Trail Mass Ran 135E Bicyde/Petlesman Corierexion Forz SnenGg Maser Wan ♦ Enhance visitor access and historical interpretation of Rumtown (across from Fort Snelling, on the riverfront) and Fountain Cave (currently marked with a historical marker at Shepard Road and Randolph Avenue). ♦ Implement Saint Paul Gateway Design Project (Route 5 entry into the city), reuse of the old stone bridge abutment at Gannon and Shepard Road, historic streetscape improvements to the Shepard-Davem area. ♦ Connect Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic DistricTS to the riverfront. ♦ The historic Intercity Bridge (more commonly known as the Ford Brid�e) --- ISSC11EQiIlBQ� LO De ZeQeC1Ce� 3rit��TeStYYfdCC�l �Cgi�tlFt�g iit-5'�Jiifi� 2vvv. -- Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities as part of con- struction. Include wide sidewalks, omamental lighting and railings, bike lanes, and viewing decks with benches (sirniIar to those added to the Marshall Avenue Bridge). ♦ Install signage at the scenic overlook by the Ford Motor Company to explain the historic significance of the Ford Bridge and the importance of the I.ock & Dam No.l. The si�n should indicate that a visitors' center is across the Ford Bridge. 54 City of Saint Paul oi-!9/ Appendices Design Study Illustrations for Redevelopment Sites Below are examples of the possible application of su��ested design �uide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites, described at the end of Chapter 6. The drawings are for illustrative purposes only. S RECEVELOPMENT SITGS 5rs UPPERtPNDING �-1� ��/ �� rypol0gy LOW Lanrk 1✓ �/��> ?:.�e / LOCa9on &I�n�H�Rrvc�tlMneP2rkNe5h�borirootl � E .�. , ' %i �� " �v C / / ��/ ..` /`r ��. l8varyqi `, �� / M° � `J Gmtlelines' � kPuessandCOnnecumsPrauxlemuNpkmnnttMnSroSheparEROatl.anu�banboulevard �uimw ra. 8� umwsantlu5as� AonEesancAanngpudiapaceNatceleErztesfieChesmNStree�l CaNeE21 adsanC artual toNe river. a „� C:YrewsandVd+asPrmMexewmrtitlarsNraughNestefiompoteneallovrerbluROVeMOks MN++u+ (notmretlevtlopmeMSAe)toNenver bow.au �.DxvelopnmtPaltem' CieMesm8lMOd�sUwtcu+hetlevelo�m.cemenaltyafM�apao- sivelyto maACetwnEiAOns E �evbqxnentPatlem'CrealeasenasoflinkngpublicandpnvarespacesonenledmboNfie ricer and ro Shepard RoaE az well as olner sigmf caM spares, rews anE IaMmarks such as ___'_""' NeHgh&MpeandCOwnlawn. =:actcx_:cPaz _�sbWOUigMgesNEefinepubl:csUeelsandspaceazindcatetlan BuJISWCUreCOm�srteMap A. NaWralR�ueces.ProntlewntinuousWb6capenspaceabngnversedge B. NaWrdlResoumsEaffinElantlscapeC'C�2WFxgerSuMOnewCerelapment0lockspnned ing vnM pudm open space alorg Ne mrer. C.NahaalRPSOmws.EnmurdgeP `�aGonofavsOngnanuxkntlscapes.encouageolanb�gs ofna6vemalerielsinnaW�a6xedmam�gsWa+hancewaealenaW2l�abihdk D.Slumv.ata:Integateslortnv.atxelemenSVnNreWrzlhaWlaS,pubRCOpenspaceareasan0 park/reneaGmoPP�nNes E SWmeaNrRetlucefherazeanCimprovetl�equairyaistwmwaterGisdiarye IlpperLaqmgGremStrucNreCartquAeMap F.UNanFOreStftentroducelne'mbanfarsl'u+NiNarountlmEevelopmentareas Theterms"Highest","MetliUm",a�M"lowasPCOrrespontltoth�s G RibkAmen2es'SUppoM1amzofarnve/passrverecreffioivJUSevnNpaNS.ovglooks irMivitlual srte, aM shoultl not be mterpratetl as a unHOmi stantlartl. �� H WbfrcNrenOies�ProxtlaYS�bpJacse55�blecmneclansbnrighborhoMandregionalpaks, traJSaiMOpe�spacesyskms Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 55 OI-Iq � 5 bcmKtl�Frtb x�vsmriqnewn mm � �% SITES 5k� WESi510EFLATS Lantl Classfiaeon Low tsiMs Laatian: BeMrenRobe�tandWabasha, � MassvVFRwtntl%afo �..�"� Guideiines: A Aa>s antl Cm��a: Ebentl �jacYn[ stree5 mto aM �hrough Ne retlevebDmen [ ��, sP &4¢� tntl CrnneUOns: Pmsef ve me rdJ mntlar as a potaiAal areenway prriCa aw.�u CViEwsaqVSd�P�es�neviexsofNeWg[SWePlutfshomKelloyc�ark �! � 'a'°.i �. Envvev�ewsattlieriveGontb/o�ntirgsveetsperyenWwlaro Nemer E OevebpmeMPal@ms Qealesr.al Wacks,bountlby qNlicnghtcf.rdy Nazw� he tleudapetl inrremanGOy ak respansvety b marlretm�MNons W �� re F:Deveb�nentPallem:Crealeam�nvlwnofdlerouddmgsantlacM.ryanCme � inte(sectmMPlatoaMRabM. G: 6utlFOrtn:Praui!em9wrttl W4TV+9�rotlefine WblcstreetsanC Wacesas i�ccalm an Budt Struwre CwnposAe hl�. A NaW21R¢mumes RavdeomErcwus puEGCOpenspa�¢a'ong nverSeESe. & NaEaal Rgowces:Exk'k�a^tlsaP�'GremFu9�s mbrewde�mJOpmentdocNSmn+ect mgvnN WbGCapenspaealm9lhemre. C. WhuaiPaour�EnmivageWtservaGC^ofexvsi^5natr.e Wesapes.enmw2oetlanings d napve iR@ri�s in ndWtdf Stl md55in55 �o tliill�la Or peak n2Wfd hffirta6 �. SIDmrxaza. MRg2@sGnmw�xrJena�6xin�aWrd hatitais. Wb6copais�awareasaitl paiklreoeatianWW�nNes. E Stdmw#u: Re�eNera�antlenGmue�heQUaiRJofRamwa�idsUarye �� F.U`banFVasCRemWCU�eNetubankresCwAhiNarowtlrMevNOpmen[areas Theterms"Hi9�r,"Medum".a�W"LOwest"wnesPOMtothis GPUdzArsrarAS.9�tanexota2wlP�'+�a:earzcwr�usewAhPaCS.ovenxxs. iMividualsite.aiWShoWtlnotbeinferP�tedasauNb�msb'Wartl. �p�yama5.mu�ks. H. Pudiefmmmes Prwdeveb'mJa¢ess�kmnnec6oersWneghborhaNaMreymalpaks. trakand W�sPaerys�s. �d.� w� � e m�nr e�va`w EW. Sip nDM La�d Classifiqtion. Tertaa laaEOn. BeMea�RaAWPhAVe.TomnWAVe.and5hepaNRa GuiEelines: A Omr�taqConnerlMZ exkntlezstmgstree6iMOaid NmughNeretlevxbpmen; �. B:P�sarMCOnnectimsCre�eaElvROnve azabealmsEenAaistreetampnebxerduff � C:ViewSaMVisgsC�emWE�tlewe+sdNencerrdieywTe�e5uee6minsecttlieWUMOr.ve. � O.Da.efoprentPaMmcq'ga�streetad�bdicde�xWPm¢o(aroundawAeSseetorYnear pakwlvdf annetl5Wetl7"mlheWwrUalley -�emn _--- - eaaivM��noddereameoD�ndmssl�smddn,ew�cso-ee5anas�sacr.a�ton 8uu StrucNre CanposM Map AONCBU1tSrvcNrefdrpwi@Map ANa6valRaartas:PtmvdemnnnwusnewWG'taigpa�mgbluRk9vnMnz4�elanCSCa�es p� pathxays ark tlev�ape0 a�erlooks. @NaWrdRxwmrezFi�rd `I�W..ape7�9re�bngerS'mlonewtlevzbFm'srtareasab^9r�v Strce6arMpubticpaNways. C:Soimwater. Cgppp¢rvrorrmeys6nystlneMytleveWpetlsiRSantlbegmwalertreaCnenl tnfiltraAan W�(PaM^9lol� roofmps.rotra�s) P. Sbmwae:RV.iOpyvrfxxyyyy¢mufcdTt�men[a�s,ay�aks,mfiltraAOna�tltlCeneonzrezs E Svmava�:nlegaleS'tltrratrnaiCmftEationadQelO�Dansyslg^mroP�'keGCeEehiM bW�p�eiimmev� d�lsanaswN�.seeelsaMOUni�cpamways F: UrEariFaotNSdYrenopytreesanallrewstreeE:rtifiOmiopytreesan�tvgsrceels_ G Ileban Fuest Devebp naAVal firessalmg W W Kp antl bkMhce vnN gmves of nalrve frees. P➢M.GremSwmeeCamP��D 9�saitlofierd��gs • Thetertrs"HighesC."Metlium"�arid"LowesCCOrtaFn�MNtltis H:Wd'cAmeniu6:�nkW�kedSabriew7aik5,`Avaresantltoewstiiyirei5hbomaoCSanC indivitluaFSite,antlshaWtlnotbemterpretedazaunifamsfandartl. �°��"°��anEpublicpaNways Mx R¢p.�etlew•AierpppmGSesieNl mnanitlumialbrL+.eMaa+apl¢ fupi.c f_1re h:p u� � ce aueen h 0e tomphev.a Pan �pr4zR la.) am I.y oRce�r w*r rcn ey ms mwr,em 56 City of Saint Paul +y�vue/� ,�v,r,� .m, o�-i9/ � �v � (.wemgl e�a.�r aemo ro. P>+a��w �� eiadroran • wr�s e�ea�c Fsr �� L SM KpCHk081L La�d ClassifiaWn. ieirnx Laabn. Be.lmenRanddG�aM1�WG]Lh: W�l]raMAFStisSppiRrvz Guidelines: A..crsak Cannecbxsa�CevsGgsYV25irc.oaMyuc ch Nera'erekq.-cn:Y.e 3'AOx55mMCNnY.'sn WaiCVUmaRvax�e�mu5M19�esZev;cin6'ynteal:.w_nue C: PccvsxMCanneWx+sGrdza'0�LlArve'aabalresdenaalsYeet9MmenxerClw D: YgxsaMVa6sUr�temaJ�xtvsoltlremcv�leywhgestree5inte�qLYe�u.°tlmre. E De�elcpr�IPYJens.Ckgafvestreelmitldakde�ebp'�:arou�tlawtlestr�[ar:mcar pafRxh. rJ�a�n:�ts West7^romewvervaeey. F:�,nc�, v�o�naeremn�tr,�ye,�esma�sv�uKSrce�a�ascxes�macareax a:at se��e caroosne n+a�. A NaCCAResources'.RovdemntinuwsnewWN¢W9eabngGUflbFwMnmrelantls¢RS. aecesm�, vamwan �+a ae�aa� wuioo�s. 8� NaWrdRZSwrt,es.ExlaiOWduapetl'grcmfrgerYinroneweeveAOPmer.tareasabn9nnv stree6antlpubUCpalhways C: Slanmwdter.GP�N^�o^�n9��Yde�ebpeCStesanebeginwalertrearmenS inf�vVaoonP�l�^91oLS.raofiops.terzas) D.Swmwdc:Rpuilewrf�,esystemAmtlenentareas,svJes,m51tra0onaMdelenbMaeas. E Srommvaterl�rakfinaitr¢9trnenl��fikabonarWdetmtion5y5brninmPUOLCafSebehmtl blutflap ard mt0 N¢ D�m W P� aM W uarg.5Vee5 antl publc F��Ys F UrbmiForesClnstLlpnopylreesmaYnewstree6,infillcaiwpytreasonens9ngsireets KahhbGl.GrernSaucureCOmpovfeMap ��umantares[oe�ewpnawrdrore5ta�mgowttm0a^aaurtracsremgrovesofnaAvetrees, gassesaMONxWanengs. Thete�ms"Hi9�"."Medium".and"LOw�["cmrespontltoUtis H:PUb4cM�rd�esWkWdicetlgebnewpahs.s�uaresanObensOngne�9nbwhaotlsand indrvid�aisRe.arMSlioWtlmtbeinterpretetlssaunibrtnsiantlartl. i�'�alpaksmW¢a6wMtantlsrapeCSVeetsm#q+b4:9aM'xaJs a ` va,�iewe _) _ _'_'�.L'__ _^' _ -- —�.___ _ _ _ _. _ .._ $j =_ r,�_—_"� �,l Y ,: i.J �� : li �'��`il� .1 __' F J[ ^�l ' .� �!�C ]C :=` _.G;�>>'=r s.a i � �' � � � � — �i , �j� E j .�� ' Ste' SHEPPRDDAVERN � LanE Classifiraperr. Temae `� Laatian: BeMeenWM�]tl�andSheD��.. xpn.+r BeRVxenDavemAeenueantlNtonAvenue '—" �'m^o� GuiCelinea uu �`��anECOnnetoonseVeMensEn9��irAOantlNmughNemEevebpmentsite '� � e��urome. B.ACCessanEConne�ons:CmstluceatngaUiretlmnneeimbaexeen5t?aulPkvryatlAttonave � C.AmssakCOmetlla�sV�oviEemvlLlodcP�esU�mnreWnsOeNrtennn9�bwfiaMatlS�eDaN �p\ e� �+ �YexsardY9ssMe�^'enaWiaxewstranNeWunroCreAiMduttMuMgbuiNngsaFbuWVgs +� EadetramNebwblufrmitlEypmndngqersoustreeplanbrgonS�epadRaa] t pn.r E:DeerebyneniPatlem'PmWer.e�bomoW9reenpude5pacesonwiw.h�wresdenOa�Geuelapmen; - ' �w.� anxtmnM �' rnn.a,�q. �.� q��rer FB�nFO�m ProuiEeRqw�aibuJdmgMgestotlPfineDUNCStree6aMOce�spacasaziMio'.eCmBuJ; SmkpueCampo.a�eMap SpeCificbu�tlng�tiryh6mmpca�a�shoultlbeanayzeEtywevrshtNanatyss S�EpYE�3vem.EL]iSNUWreCOmp0.41¢Map A Napi21 Remums EMdrce oxM9 GubGC edge �Nh naVre la�tlsmpes (� �� EnE 02irRi �mNaetl V� �tl OmbV� oxrooks. B NaWrdFesvur¢s'NawNVeSAeparLROatl�tlsapewMywraaieinfwmaEyarran9eagraresai trees C NaWrd qespvq5 61mC la�d�pCd'6rtren FuyuS pno new tlevelopmenl EbcYS wruiM K.S x+� P� Wen syam abn9 Ne mer. D. Sfimm�s�:�¢usbP��.mmWaM1ens�esvfaceSa��rVealmenttran'vm�swales.xMan6s aM0. �batltlres»a�9��M'IPdM¢w•s E: Sramxav Imegrere sro�mwAer eb'nmis vM naWrai haEdan. Vubfic Wm soace arezs aE PaM1 � rttreamn oow�Ees F. ikbai Fore¢ 1�9 carroqhees an exiMg anE m9ecebpea s9eei gM G: UtDmi PoieQ Ptovde �atwA 9� a� uMersidy ML �'a�wDY � alms SM1eP� ftc3] aiM tAe ySUC etlge along me blunmµ ` LL l' !� 7 V M: aueccanxmzs w�a.cemMnuwspueccease�5avmiw+�lTrz«aaass�mrsm e:osMrvK Mwo�zMOVS, smrqareac nfmmaoon tiasks, Eike rxis ard oUcer mnenTes SM1epaNDav¢m Green SttucWre WmpoiteNap I WbfcPme�es WkpuNe¢Egplorx9M1��tlsquaesanLregrnalkalsystens ' ihe terms "Highest"� "Medium", and "LOwest" corcesPOnd to ihis � �� 9reesmtl Gutkpatnwrys, indivitlua� site, and should not be interyretetl as a wi(orm stantlard. � WNrcamxmcer Pewae impmveE aossmys M Snepaa RcaC wM eroancea cromidu aguEUtl aossm9s. uk mnas aM cU¢r amenmrs Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 57 � Moca a�uc sauwua com� � OI- 19 � Historical and Archeological Sites/Structures National Register of Historic Places and Districts in the River Corridor ♦ Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse (on Navy/Raspberry Island)* ♦ Harriet Island Pavillion ♦ St. Paul Union Depot ♦ Holman Field Administration Building (St. Paul Downtown Airport} ♦ Robert Street Bridge (crossing the Mississippi between downtown and the West Side) ♦ Colorado Street Bridge (on the West Side, South Wabasha Street near Terrace Park) ♦ Intercity Bridge (Ford Parkway crossin� over the Mississippi) ♦ Mendota Road Bridge (on West Side, Water Street crossin� the Pickerel Lake Outlet in Lilydale Park) ♦ Irvine Park Historic District� ♦ Lowertown Historic District* ♦ Summit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District* ♦ Giesen-Hauser House (in Mounds Park, 827 Mound Street) ♦ Alexander Ramsey House (in Irvine Park, 265 South Exchan�e Street) *Site is also a Local Heritage Preservation Site. �;�^.L��2,^.i °„C}:8°.^,�.^,�L:.�_�1:� �1��::t1�CL h� c�tv_ Hictpri� --'- Preservation Office) ♦ Indian Mounds Park (detemuned eligible for National Register but not yet officially listed) ♦ Harriet Island ♦ Pike IsIand ♦ Pigs Eye I.ake ♦ Fountain Cave ♦ Carver's Cave ♦ Rumtown sg City of Saint Paul o/-19/ Databases Minnesota Department of Natural Resources NaUUaI I�eritage and Nongame Research Progran�, Box 25 jlxl Ldo�cuc Ro.id SI Pas!.]tin:x.utsS51?i..{f) F'hone:(651)29682�9 Fax:(651j296-1811 P:mail:jansleier�dnr.state.mn.us June 7, 2999 Virginia Burke City of St. Paul Department of Planning & Econ. Devel. 1300 City Hall Annex 25 Wes[ 4`" Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Request for Namral Aeritage information for viciniry of Mississippi River Corridor, Critical Area Plan; Hennepin, Ramsey, and Dakota Counties; T28N R23W 5.5,8,17,20,21,22,23,14,12,11,1, 1'29N R23W 532, T28N R22W 5.3-7,9-11,14-16,22.23, T29N R22W 5.32. NHNRP Comact i/: ES990749 Dear Ms. Burke, The Minnesota Natutal Heritage database has been reviewed ro determine if any raze plant or animal species or other signiftcant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mi]e radius of the area indicated on the mag enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, [here are 55 known occurrences of rare species or natural communi[ies in the area seazched (for details, see enclosed database printout and ezplanation of selected fieids). The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Naturai Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Services, Departrnent of Natural Resources. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's raze or otherwise significant species, natura] communities, and other namnl feamres. Its purpose is to foster better understanding and procection of these features. Because our informarion is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or otherwise significant natural features in the state ihat aze not [epresented in the database. A county-by- county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Aennepin, Ramse}' and Dakota Cowtties. 6ur information about nam*aI communities is, therefore, quite thorough for those wunties. However, because survey work for rare plants and animals is (ess eshaustive, and because there 6as noi been an on-site survey o( atl areas of the counties, ecologicatly signi£cant featuru for which we have no records may exist on the projecc area. The enclosed resulu of the database seazch are provided in two formats: index and full record. To control [he release of locational information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, both prirtout formats aze copyrighted. The index provides rare feature locations only to [he neares[ section, and may be reprinted, unaitered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or internal report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other purpose, please con[act me to request written permission. Copyright notice for the index should include the following disclaimer: "Copyright (year) State of Minnaota. Department of Natural Ruources. This index may be BNR Information: 651-296-6157 • I-888-616-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • I-S00-657-3929 An Equal OpponunitY �Ploy^r � PrinteC on Recycletl PaPer Contaimn9 a Who Valuc� [krasi�y Mimmum of 10%POS4COnwme� Wa9e Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 59 Of-\`'l I reprinuxt, unalrered, inEnvironmental Assessment Worksheets, municipal natu[al rewurce plans, atd i�rcemal reports. For any other use, written peaoission is required." The full-record printout includes more detailed locadonal information, and is for your personal use o�ly. If you wish to reprint the full-record priraouts for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Please be aware tha[ review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on nre naturai feawres. It dces not constirute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesora's rare nazural resourees. Sincerely, �-> .:_i� �.-.� ' : c: i� i Jan Steier Environmental Review Assisran[ end: Database seazch resulu Rare Feamre Database PrintAuu: An Explanation of Fields 60 City ofSaint Paul OI-/9/ a J a C �£ � O N y £ � N Ta � 3 -a G F a Q b Y � a t� O t� U N � ¢ F _ a ` O ` U � F Y 4 � E o a m p N 1� 2L'O a z � z m w N L G F U 4] 4 �N 3 N s Z ae q m E d F m C m m Z � K C 4 U o� a� ti F u U m s� Y K K 8 C E +�+ U M Z a ti F O K 3 �C 6 t w h N f N 0 m R 0 N W P D N Y Y O + V s. a mm ¢ m � o L 0 � 4 M L z ' V A O � C a a C E C a £ R] � U Z � � m Y� Y Y Y Y Y Y Y� S 4 4< 4�C S S a a c�c.maa a � 4 G C � � C � .L i Z Z 2 E 2 2 O O O O O � O O C�O V �(�OC O [u f� In fu W[�] W Lt C K C C C C C C � Y Y Y Y Y Y Y G N 4t W G 5] 41 (A 6 2 6 6' 2 5 C C U U V U V U U U 4: 41 Gl tC tl 41 N C] a �(].� a .[�] .[�.] .i a .i E F E E� E E f F m m m m m m m m � 2 O � C Y Y G: U � m n F O C G ¢ Y Y G n V G � Y Y O Y Y Y Y L' � Y � � m � � � � a � a C '+] '-0 � t G C<�4 y 4 <� C zzc� FzzzE �aE. OOZ vi000�» �n �N 6� Z I�C 4' [O Y Z Z L' R�� C C C, L�.] � w N�� N N h 2 2 N K 2 2 2 C N K ££Si£sY[��. sm 2 2 2 2 2 /n N Vl (A Vl C K 5 C C Gl L" Ll Gl m O O O O O C O O O O e c z c ¢ 2 2 z 5 Z R 5 Y C � = d = 4] t9 �� r�r�itir Y � i � r � � � � � VI N N N N a c� c� c� c� a.aiwm � �+ G Y Y Y Y 4 � � � O � 0. 6 G Y 41 Z 2 2 Z � � O O O O C [�il ( L�'1 f�p Ti 5 ¢ C C O > .] � � rl �G � G � n�i r r v „ 5 � ^�1 A� F F F 2 O 2 4 r�i r�i � " ��-e c�i � 5 C 5 C U' G �=��Cjs � � � � s 4 G 41 Gl 4l C G. S „ t� 4 y 4 p � z 5 S N.�].]. 2 p 2 Y.i j.].: FiL a a a a c G: ' 4 �+ 4 < 4 4 4 O O Y O O O F F C — F a ` t d � ca [` C 6 5 C K z c i � z s O N b O��V H b i> a.m.�. `> 5 Y�� 5 C S � z z y o z z z u ` G� K. ,] 6 w r G hl w H m N N✓ ti N Vl � F N N N m m a a m m m £ s � w i i £ h �] m asn� a �om�. _ i[ [i (G S R S 4 T% iF N 4l !C YI f N Y Y% f� N 3 S f� % at t0 it G1 N Vi � �] r�i !G P.� R 'J ( il R .] o F �F .] .a F .] O v x.] .a .] -� .] £.] ul m N 3 � E p�o fL G1 F (] N S m ti � O F y a a n F R� � N 8 Y F G a 6 O �n �] d`l P U Q F� s 4 6 C x � �] �� 2 �y O fO t- N��i � Y y � F��(il � w N ti N�c W i� Ip a W� N N 4l �] � N i Oi 2 bl a> K U Vi a l7 VI O � 41 fn (7 vl J a F s a 3�� F�> G1 41 K O 7 C 41 4 pt D 7 F 41 F VI ��....-. .� C j C w .] U Z N 4� 2 W j Z 41 � 2� „ F� J� J VJ � n � V f N S � 4 H(Y £ N ViuINNNU�liON �^ zo b'zm zu. P iu.a . x.-. '' a.�. a a a �� w m m� z m 9 ' o�u � m � z�� m a w� x m m� a� � m m� a'� �� P `d m F m F F E �n v+ £ n � ] . r�n u. F [+ K a.' .� a� �� O � x p a Z d F � N m N q� N Z�� m Z tV S S •'J [� � m � p(' F W� O 6= m� F O F 0 6 Z a N E y L' L9 .7] 5�] a F�']-� H F 6 R 6 1�� VI r�i �] �� Ne 4a 6 � 6 3 w p Z f�rt U U Z� r�i f/ �N f F Q 41 U p 6 Cl 41 U "� 'L V �j ,¢ S p F p1 PI ¢� p� V fu Y Y �y Y i G %��[.� C U�„ K F U V(� n� 2 Z [-� O y y`q� 4 F V . t �.r 4 wV� £Vl.] S N £O Z F N E�� 2�+'2 O� N O O O 4 � M 2 5 m 4 Vl J F 4 4 z 4 Z Ol 41 m U m 4 U U U S U' � Ol p C „[� `J 5 p� p Y L�z V U�Q e� 4� U r+ N�+ r� r V V C' O 2' IX O'.� U $� 2 E V £ Z L L y g � F 4 V � K c' i Z �.] � r] �l r] F r] � F .i "y g � �� Q 4 U' � O F� 4 C r] �E 4>„ rl O. � O 41 C V U N M fq 6l O 41 4l [-0t � M 3 M b a s a o � x S F 4 Z 3 G. m 4l �J' �.] .] a m m 4 m 4 J IO m O [y „� m Vi O (L V O W F O m V f� 41 U W C/n O m u] F 0� �J F".J �'•] F 3 N F 3« V+ �A tl) .] £ y p � N L G N Z O iC Gl K U 2 £ R1 V� GI d W C� C � ol 4 'J �� U N 4 C 41 C 61 4� 5 K rj Vi C G 5 C Y 6 L r r 41 qy � � { �4� Cl F Y �i W O U Qy N W O 4l M`l 5 6 ,=y 41 N K 4 C 4 N(at N N�u fil 41 LG 0� [�i. G� 4 4 Q Z O 4� G G Cl O% U C �- � Y�y%��p 1' F O 6' O � Z�� U U 5 0� � Z p N W 'n O N N H y vl [q vl O�a S O O r� r r � . r� C.] O G Q F S U 4 N. U 4] l p ) N p S� C (l � ry y � �„ 8 U 2 W� m O m� O � O O O 5 O� O f�r � 5� v U 4l � m O£�1 C U� U fu �£ 4� ul £ 4 9.] �£ 4 4 W C C.] £ N N N N N N N ' f a a a a �V F FFf v� m m u z uuzuc>eo us op�uzs zoeus u cp gg M E_-� ( U F(�9 t�p F u�i W F S til Vi F F V t F�n F v) � N F L 41 % 7 F 0 4 (il F F -� F pl 4 �f �] -] �] .] r z � o r U C N N h N N �'1 V Yl (V m O O O O O N(V (V N N N 6 y y�+ �i N lV N N N N N ti n ei .y � N.� n N N N N 3 3 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 3'd 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3; 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3; 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 M 3 3 C C C C C C K 5 LL' L' C C K C C C C C K C�� p�� 5 5 C K C K C 6' K C L' C C L' S C 1' 6' 6' S C C z z 2 z z Z z z Z z z z 2 z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z z z z Z z 2 z z z 2 2 Z z Z Z z Z z m m d g O o o N n ry � N �� ry O O� N o ry �� ry �� o C o o C�� N N N ry o 0 0 0 0 0 o N � N N N F E F F F F F F E F F F F F F F F N F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F E F F F F F F F F F F f F F F Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 61 ot-«� � 0 0 O 9 m C fl £ �^ O rv a � u w Tm G m P � " L L [�il F P U m H � � N O ro U N � � O U F O Y 4 E G 3 N p N M� 2 G O 4 20. 2 a Nt M1 F o 6 Y 5 S � N N N S N V C C z' z w � a s L E O� �[ c N 3 Z 4 . q ] � m U m y m M F y U � H m � � 2 r+ m i C F u U�2 C y � >F'L zs� w m N £ 0 a � T O d m ma 2 Q w 4 3� Y a z x m N V N N 3 i �q ] 'J. V 0 O � L v m C E C V £ W � � N � 6 � m w � N �� zzzz 0 0 0 0 4 4 E 4 � �� V C C C C 3 �i .d W Y Y � � � � � � 7 7 7 7 w � � z z c � a 4 4 4 C N N z z z z z y o.waa �a w a � s � � .. m m m m m m w m W vi yyFF W 0 0 N 6' C £ £ $ £ 4 1 N rr R X� m c .] W rt FRa m w m g m.iwm � m � � N Z � j Q V � � � � N 6 � z�� 34 £�+W �W —F OC o. ��z F � ; � � � � £ Z 4 £ m � m �SS��S°� ��4 ooma 0 � €� �g�HF�F N � � !. mE om �n (u N .] a > z � o V C M L 0 C � �[� n Z 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C n n n n'1 m N G a a c z z c c o zz o [V N N N lV N V E N E F F F F 5 62 City of Saint Paul 0l-191 Rare Features Database Print-outs: An Egplanation of Fields 'fie Rare Features database is patt of the tvaNml Heritage Infortnazion Sys[em, and is maintained by the Natural FIeritagc and Nongame Resezrch Program, a unit within Ne Section of Ecological Scrvica, Minnesota Depaztment of Nazumt Resources (DNRj. �'Please note that the prinz-outs are copyrighzed and may not be reproduced without permission•' Fie[d Name: [Futt (non-abreviated) field name, if differeni). Further explanarion of field. -c- CBS Site: [County Biological Survey site number]. In each county, the numbering system begins with 1. CLASS: A code which classifies feamres by broad ta7conomic group: NC = natural community; SA = special animal; SP = speciai plant; GP = geologic process; GT = geologic time; OT = other (e.g. wlonial waterbird wlonies, bat hibemacula)_ C�t :[Counryj. Minnesota counties {ordered alphabetically) aze numbered from 1(Aitkin) to 87 (Yellow Medicine). CURR6NT STANS: Present protec[ion status, from 0(owner is not awaze of record) to 9(dedicated az a Scientific and Namral Are�). -D- DNR Reeion: 1=NW, 2=NE, 3=E Central, 4=SW, S=SE, 6= Minneapolis/Sk Paul Metro. DNR Ovad: [DNR Quadrangle code]. DNIt-assigned code of the U.S. Geologic Survey topographic map on which the rare feature occurs. _� ELEMENT or Element: See "Element Name (Common Name)" Element Name (Common Name): The name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species recdrds, this field holds the scientific name, followed by the common name in pazentheses; for all other elemenu (such as plant communities, which have no scientific name) it is solely the element name. EO RANK: [Element Occuirence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of natural communities from A(highest) to D (lowest). EO Size: [Element Occu¢ence Size]. The size in acros (often estimated) of natural communities. -E- FED STATUS: [Federal Status]. Starus of species under the Federal Endangered Species Law: LE=endangered, LT�hreatened, C=species which have been proposed for federai listing. Federal Stams See "FED STATUS" Forestrv Districi: 1'he Minnesota DNR's Division of Forestry district number. -G- GLOBAL RANK: The abundance of an element gtobaliy, from Gl (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide bazis) to GS {demonstrably secure, though perhaps raze in parts af iu range). Global ranks aze detetmined by the Conservation Science Division of The Nature Conservancy. -I- INTENDED STATUS: Desired protection staWS. See also "CURRENT STANS" If a complete list of protecrion stams codes is needed, please contact the Natural Heritage Program. _U LAST OBSERVED or Last Observed Date or Last Observation: Daze of the most recent recard of the element at the locacion. Latitude: 'Ihe tocarion az which the occurrence is mapped on Natural Heritage Program maps. NOTE: There are various levels of precuion in the original informateon, but this is not reflected in the latitudellongitude data. For some of the data, particulazly historical records, it was not possible to determine exacdy where the originai abservadon waz made (e.g. "Fort Snelling", or "the south shore of Lake Owasso"). Thus the latitudeflongitude retIect the mapped location, and not necessarily the observation location. Leeal: Township, range a�d section numbeis. Lone: [Longitudej. See NOTE under "Latitude" -M- MANAG£D AREA or Managed Area(st: Name of the federaliy, state, locatly, or privately managed pazk, forest, preserve, etc., containing the occurtence, if any. If this field is blank, the element probably occurs on private land. If "(STANTORY BOUNDARS7" occurs after the name of a managed area, the location may be a private inholding within the statutory boundary of a state forest or pazk. Mao Svm: [Map Symbol]. Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 63 bl-1=t l MN S7AN5: (Minnesou Status]. Legal status of plant and animal species under the Minnesota endangered species law: END THR=threatened, SPC=special concem, NON= no Iegai stams, but rare and may become listed if deciines condnue. This field is blank for nahua! communiries and colonial waterbird nesting sites, which have no tegal surus in Minnesota, bu[ aze nacked by the daYabase. -N- NC Rank: [Na[ural Community Rank]. -O- Occ �: [Occurrence Number]. The occurrence number, in combinatron with the element name, uniquety identifies each record. OCCURRENCE NUMBER: See "Occ #" # OF OCCURS: The number of records existent in the daUbate for each element wiihin the acea seazched. Ownecshio: Indicates whether the site is publicly or private[y owned; for publicly owned land, the agency with management responsibility is listed_ - P - Precision: Precision of locational informazion of occiurence: C(confumed} = known within 1/4 mile radius, U(unconfirmed) = known within 112 mile, N(aon-specific) = known within I mile, G(general) = occurs within the general region, X (unmappabieplocation is unmappable on USGS topographic quadrangles (o$m known only co the neazest counry), O (obscure/gone)=element no longer exisu at the locazion. PS: [Pr.:[ca Sectionl. ?he section can�ir.in� 2! or the b .�e2-teet pa-* af Ihe occurence. - Q - ¢ad Ma : See "DNR Quad" -R- Rec #: jRecord number]. RNG or �: [Range number]. -S- SECT'fON or Section: [Section number(s}]. Some tecords are given only to the nearest section (s), but most are given to the nearest quarter-section or quazt�-quazter-secrion (e.g., SWNW32 denotes the SWl/4 of the NWi/4 of section 32). A"0" is used as a place holder when a half-section is specified (e.g., ONO3 refers to the narth 1/2 of section 3}. When a occurrence crosses sec[ion boundazies, both sec[ioos aze listed, without punctuation (e.g., the NE1/4 of section 19 and I3 W Il4 of section 20 is displayed as °NEI9NW20"). Site: A name which refers to the geographic area within which the occurnnce lies_ If no nazne for the area exisu (a locally used name, for example), one is assigned by the County BiologicaI Survey or the Namcal Heritage Program. Source: 'i'he wllector or observu of the rare feature occurrence. S RANK: [State Rank]. A eank assigned to the natural community type which reflecis the Imown exten[ and condirion of that community in Minnesota. 2anks range from 1(in greatest need of conservazion aztion in the state) m 5(secure under present conditions). A"?" following a rank indicates little mfomiation is available to rank the community. Communities for which information is especially scarce are given a"U", for "rank undetermined". The ranlcs do not represent a legal status. They ue used by the Minnesota Depazhneni of Natural Resources to sM prioriaes for reseazch, inventory and conservation planning. The state ranlcs are uQdated as inventory infarmation becomes available. State Status Sce °MN STATUS" -T- TUVP or Twsr _fTownship aumberl. - -V- Verification: A reflection of the reliability of [he informazion on which the record is based. The highest level of reliability is "verified," which usuatly mdicates a collection was made or, in the case of bird records, nesting waz observed. Plant records based on colleczions made before 1970 are imverified. Voucher: The museum or herbarium where specrtnens are maintained, and the accession number assigned by the repository. In the case of ba[d eagles, this is the breeding area number. 'q'- Wildlife Area: The Minnesota DNR's Section of Wildlife administrative number. Data Security Lacations of mme tare feau¢e5 must be treated as sensitive iufoicoation because widapread krrowlcdgc of thae locations wuld rtsult in harm to ehe rse fc�nes. for example, wildflowqs such as orchids and econamically valuabk plams such at ginung aze vulnerable w ocploi[azion by collecwrs; other spccia, such az bald eagles, aze sensitive W dishubance by o6srnc`s For this rcason, we p�efa that pu6licatioo5 not idcnvfy the prtcise locazions of vulnerabk specia. We sugge5t desCribing the localion only m tht nearat section. If tt�is is not acecpfablc for your puryoses, please W I and discuss [his issue wi�4 thc EnvimnmenW Review Specialist for the Hai[age mM Nongamc Research P[ogram at 651l1968319. Aerixd 02/99 54 City ojSaint Paul O!-/9/ Minnesota Land Cover Classification System factsheet The Mnnesota Land Cover Classificazion System (MLCCS) has been designed for use in the metropolitan area by a collaborative effort of federal, state, and local uniu of govemment as well as non-profit organizazions. T'he MI,CCS inte�ates a new classification system of cultucal feazures wiih a combination of existing land cover classification systems for na[ural and semi-natural areas. T1�e system is unique in thaz it categorizes culNral, urban and built-up azeas strictly in land cover terms, identifying tfiese azeas in terms of imperviousness and veaetative cover. For narural azeas the system fully incorporates the Minnesota Natural Heritage native plant community types (Nfinnesota's Native Ve�etation: A Ke�o Nazural Communities. venion 1.5) and the recendy developed National Vegetazion Classification Standard (:QVCS). The NVCS was developed in partnership with The Nature Conservancy and the nationwide state Natural Heritage prograzns, and has been adopted as the standard for federally funded projects. The MI,CCS is a five leveI hierarchical desia , permitting a gradient degree of refinement relevant [o any land cover mapping projecc It is comprehensive and systematic, is applicable at any scale. and is suitable for monitoring and mapping purposes of any identified land cover found in [he metro azea. By the summer of 2000, the MLCCS will have been applied to: The Cridcal Area fMississippi Nadonal River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) coxridor, the Minnesota River Corridor in the Twin Cities, several uout sueam watersheds, and large portions of Dakota Counry. Additionally, the Metro Greenways program has begun encouraging iu use by local uoiu of govemment for developing Greenway plans, and MeROGIS has endorsed the NII.CCS as a`best practice' land cover classificaUOn system for use in the Metro azea. The MLCCS data collecied for the current pilot projecu is being used for identifying sites for ecolob cai restoration, municipal growth planning, habitat protection, and Metro Greenways plannina. The MLCCS can be used for creating a GLS-based land cover inventory. Polygons of vazious sizes (down to one acre) aze iden�ed by their predominant cover. For each polygon, modifiers may be added to further define the chazacteristics of the site. Possible modifier codes include imperviousness, land use, vegetation disrurbances or management, natural quality, tree species, foresuy (e.g., percent canopy and DBH), and water regimes. Typical data needed to interpret land cover using the MLCCS includes Counry Biological Surveys, County Soil Surveys, National Wefland Inventory, Color Infrazed photos and Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles. This base information is usually sufficient to idenufy polygons to the third level of the MI.CCS codes. Fieid inspection by ecologists is usually required for modifier attr.butes and to identify natural comtnuniry types in the forth and fifrh levels of Ehe VII.CCS. Field inspection is also used to confirm and refine polygon delineation. Metro standazds being used in the MLCCS aze: * IdenpFication to the forth level * Minimum mapping unit: two acres (one acre for naiive species dominated communities) * Minimum mapping width: 50 feet * Modifter codes for: Basic land use, natural couununity vege[ation disturbances and identification of invasive species For more information contact: Peter Leete OR DNR Waters 12a0 WaznerRd. St. Paui, MN 55106 ph:651-772-7916,fax:651-772-7977 email: peter.leeteC�dnrsta[e.mn.us Bart Richazdson DNR Me[ro GIS Coordinator 1200 WamerRd. St. Paul, MN 55106 ph:651-772-6150,fax 6�1-772-7977 email: bart.richardson@dnr.state.mn.us �......� Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 65 (7l - l9 1 Water Management and Regulation Water Management and Regulation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. This is a brief overview of the entities that are responsible'for water mana�ement in Saint Paul: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes standards for water quality management, drinkin� water safety, solid and hazardous waste disposal, toxic substance mana�ement, air quality control, and general environmental quality review. Enforcement is dele�ated to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Saint Paul is workin� with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on a stormwater discharge permit under the Federal Clean Water Act. The City currently has a dra8 permit which involves development of a stormwater management and monitorin� prograr!1. The MPCA also admin- isters the construction site sediment and erosion control permit. Permit coverage is required for any project which disturbs five or more acres. This permit has permanent water quality pondin� requirements for a project which creates one acre or more of impervious surface. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture implements state laws that prevent surface and groundwater poliution from pesticide and fertilizer application. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires a pemut for any project constructed below the ordinary hi�h water mark, which alters the course, current, or cross-section of protected waYers or wetiands. Thc n%,;�u�c��ta ��ci esi vY�Y�g HfY(� SOli icPSOl1I°CCS (Fs��VSR) 1S 1 SYdC2 agency dedicated to helping locat govemments (counties, soil and water conservation districts, watershed mana�ement organizations and water- shed districts) manage natural resources. The Raavsey County Soil and Water Conservation District (RSWCD) is a local unit of government that helps direct and mana�e natural resource programs. The RSWCD is workin� closely with Ramsey County and the BWSR on the development of the newly formed Capitol Region Watershed DistricYs watershed management plan. Saint Paul is within the jurisdictions of the following watershed manage- ment organizations, which develop and implement comprehensive water- shed plans: 66 City ofSainr Paul 0�-191 ♦ Capitol Re�ion Watershed District ♦ Ramsey-washin�ton Metro Watershed District ♦ Lower Mississippi River Watershed Mana�ement Or�anization ♦ Middle Mississippi River Watershed Mana�ement Organization Saint Paul's local water mana�ement plan will be completed two years after the completion of the last watershed mana�ement plan. The Middle Mississippi River WMO completed its plan in April, 2000, so Saint Paul will complete the local water management pian by Apri12003. The City's local water mana�ement plan will address the individual plans of each water- shed management or�anization as well as the stormwater dischar�e per- mit. The City water management plan will also focus on improvin� the quality of stormwater runoff into the Mississippi River. The City of Saint Paul site plan review process includes stormwater man- agement requirements that limit the rate of runoff from new development to the equivalent from a residential area and requires storage for the 100- year rainfall. All projects that go through site plan review are required to provide for erosion and sediment control as specified in the Ramsey County Sediment and Erosion Control Handbook. Saint Paul also is responsible for administering Minnesota's Wetland Conservation Act. Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 67 Of • . . - � Public Participation February - April, 1999 Release Issue Paper "Framing the Discussion", convene two Stakehoider Focus Groups. February, 1999 - December, 1999 Comprehensive Planning Committee* meetings January - April, 2000 Design Study, convene Intergovernmental Working Group to assist. )une - July, 2000 Comprehensive Plannin� Committee� meetings August 25, 2000 Planning Commission releases Draft River Corridor Plan for public review and comment. August 25, 2000 - October 24, 2000 Public Review Pedod Odober 20, 2000 Public Hearing at Planning Commission November - December, 2000 Comprehensive Planning Committeex meetings December 15, 2000 Planning Commission adopts Mississippi River Corridor Plan. ' Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission gg City of Saint Paul 0�-�91 Maps and Inventories Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 69 oi-t 9 / "�: _ , , �:; � � . . , ,��, : �, ',_ c.:` . � � � �� i �,. , �1� � i,. "� ;. �., �,�ij `, ),�;; . .i; %i1i' ��' :.' _� �I � I � i � 1 I . � � i (��!', nt J { �� 1 �lw ' � �� I 1� � I t � d t 'l li ,��1?: � \� r n,. t�f � �Qi U � . �' � � � � q �� , . . ,. �. � > , :3XC. � � I I. �b x i � „`� „� � � � $ e; ��- i 1, ,: `'3 r' 4�' �,-�'�r rl i . '� "� :� �.� r�. i � \ i•l � � � � � � ' � 1.. d: I I . -' c`In�9��V ..�f�(L' � �1� ' .�+ I '� � ��i rl�� 1 I 1 ��I�`� - �( ' I ,`,�'�'I>f 1 ��'i 1 .,I . . . �. .i �li / � �� a II I'�� ,il�� E il / � I] � ��l � I� d 1 � � I', I • � 1 I y' N ��'� �� , ' I I ' i i � � i � i i —'rF � � � : � i i,,,�� .-'�'; n �, � f l,�l, � i�!1� � - n-'I�I �,i� i j �i ` u. II i � ., � i � I,' '� ; 1 I �a i i i i i�i �:i i ' i t,�. i ;� , �..� ��,i; , ,, r . ' �� , � �E�' „�;� � ,�'',i'rll � � ��.Ii?. ;I';." �', �''i;� �,'I' , :,, , i'.! ,� ' � '',ls „ n , � � � . �ii � - ' � � �� i � ��a�l bl'� � � �� f I � i„ %i� � , y � �i� ;�� J � �. 1 j � j � , ,1 �. � 1 � �j A�� _ I t . % y �/ _� 1 rt r �'- '� ' � `',I t u iit � �,. �� i �9 1 i c { /' -- u' � � � � <,� � �. . - � _,. �i � ., „( /�, � �r�' �,�:�rr - ��` �� i ' 1 �.- 1 t �� i �.;.r � \ � � � 6�3 � �.; v i t i „e . , � y.� � e� " �i�� , ,; i� i v i, � � . rn °' ` r �n �I_ . E'.w � � � � '- � -o N G ��" O � m C.l e � � �� d z�� o N C � � y e° G 6 + � o � .��—.. LL ' � N m C.i U �', � 1. F 4 �� ?� 0 � � > _ d � s � z� �� ;� g £ � � E N S a�= z z �� E� � r� a ��, {� � � o � � � 1 �.,0 � � � on � �Q ^rr O•� G O �� O w C1-i-� Q � o�-Ig/ � { �__., �� ::: � � ,. � � � w� ,� :. ' �i �a" � I 'q ' F e � � . � , �' � � i ,, �� a ,� : �,,, .j'�, ��1 i � �� ' I � � � ' � ��' r � � �. � i „ , 5 r` ^� i,'i ( i �� ' . � 'h ''*` � a {� - � �"i,i ,. ' , :�e i, I'� ' - � 5 �� ., � : - ° ;. . - - :.'.�,i � ,: 'y= i a. . :,, I !;' f '.i i"i , Z � �� ii' ii 1 ` �', i: i � � � ilp , t , �'�� ' i � ',�'_��' _ .'��2i�(ul$+�� ;�a� i,, �'. � , ' di l� , il ��4 i� � � � 1 �� ,- �_ �l: � '�� , i ' � �� ' i � � '); _ .F � �� ,;�„�'� � y," I i � � s °i _� ,�' �', ��t '"�. ,i I I . � - I ,,iJ r�p; , � I ,E; I � . ; i � a : � a � �, � �: ' �"Il — .H ;.a '�i i � i�,l ' I �,''1 I`f ' i° i i, '��'�, ,i ,,��A , I' '� ', � � � ; � � � , , �Yd � � � ��. a ",�' � „ � i 'I. ' ' i ', . G 'J i . :' 1 �. � �, 'I � ,I� �O F i , ;, � ,� . . I V I f' � . i - ., , ,I � N; � 1 75 � i �� " � M1 i � � . , r, _I, � , � i J� . - �'. I i -' n�,�, 17 �' ._ . ' � " '' '" ( ' $'% . � � I ( • ^I 1 �E . i ' 1�111�L1� y �r . _ _ t � . � �� I Iv� �1L � �� ` � - 1 r UI}2� � oc _ �n.. '= J 5 � - � . . �F� .q�_ 3 `�::�' � 4�' _ '. - _ ' ' � , ��{�r _ _ _ _- -.� J _' '_ _., � ., � �'��'f i ,- � � � � � i � � 8, : a s W � m o F � � � � s s � £ � s � " " - � � � s 3 � � � '1` � � s e � � � � � � � � € f LL � � E � �$ � � g a � n � �s � � ` , ",��L� � �' � � m � � m a � G m � m � � � &` ° � � ' �_ ��sg �¢�=a °�=� m�� sa�m�w B � E�'a.. ��g �.= �� „�'� i �. t � � . � � ��,: �'� . s�� ` ��, ;: � � __ �.�� . ; �, ' weH q , ;�i,�• �� . � ��s v �r' ° � �E �IIayS i i' , E - �''. i : � � i = R � i� � � a ,�;� � � �'- � � � l' � � � � vlej o- i,- �,'. � a i i�� , LL � A _ A 1 � L 1 ( �dY � � y-+ � � � -�-. C R C.i y v�. $ C � i3! t/� N� ' � �s W g = �x � � E � �P .° i � i' �E � G'e F�� F--. � � a�i � �y P-i � o•� � o � O W Q.� Q � F = � % 0�—/9/ � �I �.��` � � � l � . � - i� ,.. . - � � Ir � - ''� I - " I 1 � = �. i d - � �, �, `� � � i e ''_ � 1 �� , � .. �.P i 1.'Ii " � , G � i �� F � � iI „ ��;,, �,�, ,� z ' i � � ': I� I i''� m, t 1 7'i 1�-,� 1„ i� �'�'S, i i 1�;� . �-' � I � rn � ' ,(��'< � / - . I, i � II� � �i� � ! l I '% '! � � , � �_ - � �'�'�� 'I' '�,�� II , f ��t I I� L i I � . Y i �,� , i .. i � i � �� 5' ,� �, ,�, i.i,�i i � i i� �! . 2= � i J"1 ��i � � i I� i ._ �r ,i �iSi i i i'.�i l ii `� � � � i i ��, , � 9 Z � f. � � 3 � ��Y1�', ,�'�i ' � �. � �� uaqoa' '� i� � i , �' _ � , [ ` � 1� , � J I V , � " _ � ' � , v �' 7Bi�AI�+' �i ii I �� j�� . ° I�I' o, �; Si � i,,��, I i i, _� ;} m �',I .' a � .a- � �C.+ �� otypl ,� I I i ; i � i i� � �,8�!w5', � r ' n' � I I',I I� 1� � 1 � � � � �� _ � L � � �, ,. �a i '� I � �! �� i � A � � a � .�l � ,� � \ " ` ' g ; x ,� ' I �il�.��', � ,,�� i it i ,'� r i r i i �. , �'t � y.� i , i', i ! �� I ' ' '' � 1 I I i �', � l .y ( �. V� I � i �� i i � � < �'� , }� i �� , i � ,"; � �'„ � i q� (i I,I�' � s�, ��'hy,;- `� � .,�"/' � . �I i I ) ' (i I�I ,'i i � ,i , i i+�.. I I � ii�l ,� � I� � �� i I O�� i �' �� i .M a �i E,i i� � I �� `o � , m a ' � �! ` � i, � i I� II v �iim I � i i�l��c� y � � I"� I��II� I I� �� 1 �� A�I� .f' , iiillii�r,lil iJiii i ��',� ,�.� d�f i�1 i l ii 1 il�i i� I��Illi i ^ i � �b� �� ,�,�i�s..� .. � .. . �2 v , .r ' � �/ ~ � �' —� Y� � >�s ; d , r� ��- J � ; � .�' \ � �� o �' . a � O IS. � �` p� m V R � � h z d z G � Y � � y iC J i0 6 �Q � � � e� i s� ` � > "" � v � v � � �" �� l i l . �.i � �, ':• .._ � t j� I i I Ill i I� , I �i � �� I I I i i I J. , >a ' i i,�, ��, i i� i I � '�' '�AARd'I-" J �� - �' i 1 R I � �' �'�I�� i� i I i��, � i �,, i�i,'pydM sq�iro61�3 � I ii �i'rl� �� ii ..I i� Id i r � i il,, I i' , '. 1 i� .� ��I ", i�,,;� i i�I,I"j'�� ` � i i' i ' �'� t � i I�� r,:� $ aupwqH � � � li, f� � � r ,� "� II ��1'�e �� f,I' I � � � � �� I_ � I I N � _' � �I �� i f; i �i �� s ,� ';,i �� ,., i - r ,�; i i�p ' , � I I �i i�, I I ' A � ,I {. ' ' � lill � ;.I '�II�� , r . �� i i�; � �i,�� I I '�'li '' ' � I � '� I ' • '"- �i I ' ,,, , 4 " f � i�mawiej . i �� .,� " I � �� , ��' � �'�� I �' '� I I � � f 1 i I i 1 � lu� 'll f 1 � I I � . ' .. i ' � �, ' � , �� I Pv��al? :'� r , " �i � i � I��,� i �I i�% f. - i fl �'� - I Up21]`'� _yl �,,� . � ' � q i i .F I a � �a , i �J ��'-�.-sti.�r�' . ,i � � eu. j �� . ' - �� .,,_ -�«.� � � � ��.. �: -_ _ _ , n , i �:, �_ �b �� ' �� . 1 al I � E n '- - rn w i � ' _: ii r-- i �. 1 �., i . � c. �� \� �1�1 �(�.� f� � W t/� � O cn � � w � W N .�..+ C �O a a� � L � t V 0 _� 6 � a� N � m E � U �£ � �� 3 `3 �� :� z�. �""° > ; �i" � � d � � � H r , �.,! � .� Pal �,.. 0 N �� a Q 0l-/9! a v .�- _ "- „ - _. q; � ,�� ; n ' -'! � � � _ � �� - ��i i + i � �N I j _r, 1 _ __ _ N, y r L� "i� 1 : 4Q �_ ' � _ f ��' r_ � ��.: i.�� '. I i " '�?-, i;.i; , � �i �, _ '^ i I� I +l t J,�' ' ,i r' r � � �6Pi � � �Ilt�i ''� 1 '�I ;Ltli,' .:�1!'.'�� , ^��.r�'Ifb, l, " ..r�,!Y:,ij'}i�h I '.I'.I�o��1�1,��1� t� ��;�v, '�� :�... ��i I ll.�� I I�' �J�: :I ,n , . - - - �Ifl S � ,I, J p �:l� i i➢"�� t.!'��.I�i�� .r��•��¢�-i1' � =� �'�Ji::i' ,l�u ° `tP li' � - � �� •� i � lia ' � � ?�v�y�. _ i �°� p : LI !��II � 'ihl �i . .� ; � � � ��m�� , �A, q �� , �; s ;, , ,. ;` � ��„ � �, �,tin ��i ��.J� ` � — 5 „ _ ,. � , � � � �'.: y . , � �=_>.��. ,:, , ' � i�l�i:, � ' �`' , � ( �i - � ; i��,��ii;,i:_ :—�' ` : '4 i, � ;i�' i � �"� I ,.�„ � 1�,S.i.�'J,+�,� ., �..�� r : _ ', _ 'i ,' '. b � + � � ' l' � I � 1, � �� ' � i� � 1 I � I�i� , �' iil. ' I 1 J � i � � � � � I '�11�I �'IIIJ _ 1 � '�( �.�� .I'��,Ijli � t Id�� ; r� i." 1�I�� I,l�I�` � '.;i��l �. � t i i r ill ��i n ' �1 {,�I ,'y �� =•� I I I fi� r�'r � ' �, �; I�� r , ii � ��i1ul" �P�IJ"II ' � � ii� � ii � ��J;i� i �+ �� ' �, i '° I�� i � � � ' / f � t i , ;r �z, r,il�i, �i��r�,1 d�r� , �,��,ji, - r1 � � u . � � i i,r; , S ' �� .i,- i' ' . � n'�� II�� I'��,' � �J �.. .�n'�I,II�,�,i�;.��!�`�:; . . 'i�i,� ' �� II� �1.;'��,��a�' ' ifiil'�,i ; � . � I ' t . - , i � -_ � iil � '� , �,1-. i ��_ '� ''� �,.� � �'-°�'� �n ��i i �� r _� ' � if1�;l� � ��'��' 's �; � �i :I•; � u , � ' i i1. . n q / '� � ',�� t . .. .� . - i �,:. � �, - . r �� 1� i'( "� i / ai? ti? - / '.L it�: i =' � J' .% �� - i- ��I'I�.', y f r � / / Ii i . �v`�-+� �: i / / - - �" �G i , r � _ t�i; �-r� ? j '` _ :�� \ �� ; "`- ��,� F --, r.� � _ _ p _ :." _ � . ' - �, t �'k�"r�-�t �4 �2�k`� a�`-.'� -� � s+e �a.� *'a�"� � � - ,..�,. S � ,f ,�-�� ^'` � �.�i . s '� �� ., ��a` � � -� r��\��-�. _ . # y�' / `�g `°1?' � ��'4�`�,i�'�� .��' "..`}�� . w 3, � a'-,-� /-!' �,,.' w�� _ �. ,° � - lJS �' ��i � "i 1 \` a " r�%�� .�i��'�+e,� r�e�/�� /� � � S V �� z z nR= � q P 1,4'�'i �mN�dc'G� ' ��0� 11 � I:� � �. ,r . � i, r i , r; G�_ \,� �, =, �, �'6 > � FJ a N � � d �� •� � � \� L � � Z 2� � �s E� �y u LL � E � � � g � g'3 r-� � � � � � �{ F'�I /ml � � � � � � > �Q O•� a�i � � V � �'� A� OI-/9/ � : � � t:- _ - ,_..w . •-�„�_„ ., • � %' .�, --_' i 4 4 - � � _-� .�� r� '�`�' ,/" - - �� ..-.--"'-:. ` � ' � -o , ?� � - . , - S � j � �� ^{ �� ^�� N �" ":. -�{` y / � . �'Ti �f y `� _ ilO �� _ •% :.s _ _ � �� - � f ��/ .., � ^.�? _ f _ ' - ' -"' � '� J° f _ _ � f � i .,_� �. � � �� Q � �� e � r �` � � / n ,6 - _ / i ,' .,� �- �- , -r- �'� d ._ �� I � {' i� ` A ,...,' _ e �� ,��X� ::� � �- . ! ti _=� � y I �,F -/= � � 1 � � ��Y Y r,.G'�, J `]". i �.... � ✓:.� � . ,.1' �,. s � t �\�� c m: �. � , �,Y x.�'r �i \ % - �' ` t C,_.J'.` "N/ �� l� �� " �/ f � I JE'.+c?}j � �( �...,:x'�;'ra��:�:.qrl�h� "�dri' sl.lyr'tY,'i5�'u`i�+ � iai^tia:��`e;;i�,i�, ,..� � � , m � � �Q � Q W O °� � °a � � � G p d � = m v � ° o � �¢ �d � m m � m m x ! (Q W � m i i m C � � W W x �� m i � � w F� a� 4 Q p a aa�_ w m== e m m� 7E w ee \� '• � � � a � � � � � m � z� Y �m �. 6 � s �� A� r� i � � .�. � Qa E Z z� �o � � ,'� aw � 0.'O � � O� � � z z � � �� wQ � � Q�d oi�9� :,� ;�, �o � / i" %�/ / Z i v v _ '_ o `o m c� �C s � z z a y � � ` d d ° a � � . , � '" E N� U U � \ � a � :� .� � � � Q �� i H O � � .� C N �O O L 3� � L� �� E � 3 :� x' �x :�LL � E y S � �` S � �� 1 � t � � +F � � s✓ +� �ti � � ¢ Q � � 1�1 G�. p., ° � � � �� 0 H � � U ri a � o� - l9! { � --� _ � d =�_ o _:`L� .. = e o m -_ =¢ea _ '° � m m � = Y y� iS'J @ � 9 _ ' W '�.T. Y t'�i Y �i` Y , �� ' LI'1e�� O � .;I, ; � /' % y I _ 1 / ,y . �y �� :� : ` _ ; a /l :ti�: � ,� s ' / : _._"�_�,_,__= -:_.�.,_,_- ,.�. - ,. _ _ , _ >..-� " ...� _ _ �)'-,� _ � � __ __ __ O i . ,• W � �� _~ � ��, , � u 9 '�' C ' "' <. =" "__ p `' �'r? - _ _ `�,;.,�,e�_ � � - ' ' � i1 - - � �o •' "',{ :% -�,� �i ' ?.,. �.IV �.`j - cr'it �.r--_�.=L.'P- .-"._ _,.�,' ..� _ =�'�'- ' � � V G CO a s JJ; 5 � � a . d � H � =m N � F m w � 6 R W CiO4) � 0 I� � � � � a a� eA ea �a CD � � � � � � � i � � _ � � w m m � W 0 r mi '� ` O. � W C� r 9 € m � : �-W: � � a ` � � m�g� � €°:�� ai o m � e i L � v d �fw�'�.�' � � ,`�. � 5� � � �r Ai_ �p W # � '� �. �-. =;�2 ��{�� M _- �i:-. � V Y d V a - W e � m W m .:°. m -,.;> -��:,. � ; ° .'�e. - - 'O so , a z� � � � � m9 e�Ii � � s� A � � a � � c`so � 6 � 9 � R H m Y O. '�� O � y /� 4� "� Q (� � Oc) � � zo � � �� w � Q a� U � q o �-�9/ � _ � N 3 a� � � � o _ .o L N � . O W �� w z Y � a E V O Z � .� y S �a m L' 'II 5 4 N 6 � s� �� E ; ��, ;� �"' � . s c �S c � < Q aG '� Q, °�f O � �� P, u U � Q 01-191 e J. � � � 1 , - � - ' �� { � i � j f �,.>n_+�— _ � �i %� , � . j � �� i � - �. � �' � �, � � j , : �� - �T � � ,� f � �.. ' �' ' � ; m - �^ � 9 . � c ,,,, s 1 � �'. ; _ �'. �' � : _ �-^1 ,� � � �l� ' , � � ) � -�1 ' � i' � i , � i � _ f --` , � l m � z '� n " 'N' ° I � I i� xk a �� '� c�'S�'� I] I _ F j h . I � I ,, '.{I �� Y i � : � y— ��- � � � ' xi,a�,'� : . e a. +�* . ,'� �� ` � f � ;.t Q �, i , ��",_ _ .� . r t � � A i ��'1�1 l 1 � �� IF_I. �� : h H� a i i�� m i � � � �i �� 3 � - '/..'�i� \ § f y � � "�, � �`` ' �� ^�' � �r, � � i :I � � ;_ ��- I ', , � F -��w , ` � , � ��_p �' � ' � �. o _ '� -� � �. F � � L .. �rc_ �� yp� t � � �� ' i �� ,�� .. 4��uS ,� `. � �.. ��, �`� ��., , i; �� , ! , �i �� i , � � �:i � �+ � � � � i , ": � �,. ��1i i . . 1 a� r , .�� i'. � 9 I I I I I � e"i • I I I � �' '�` y• L . �, 1 � • ( � I i ' ; I � �� I I � �� , � ' � � S� � ..�� . k ' r j�P � � � I 1 I� � � I � � i �� : . �' �'�� '� i { � � � � � i � !.i"; iil � � i � 1 r i �� ., ,i',� ! i � i �, ,� / � � � ' � � � 1 I I I,ii i i �� ' � ��, } '� I i ' ��',�,� � � � � � - �� , � � 1\\R '� .`_�.-�` ' "� "� r , ' �' ' ,�� , , a m `;'. 'r, _ � � i �, :' I i, . ,l� � ,. i C � � i7 � ;,� It,,1 � � , ,� �. , -�, � r , ,, _ 1 � � � ' �I - �. � ��,,�, � -��- �-, � ' �'� � ` ;, � ' � .; , ;,{; ,;:'<' A � ' ..: � e � :p � � E d u� a � ' � � d a N a .� q q �� s 'E ° o a a'�Ea gc�°°°`b '�' a� . _ _ : 3�v= _ _ � E �� Y� u& a Pn 3� S S °6^A'Ea°m.� �» " = m m� m d e e� e e��,-�� z ��"se�°�m€ — s�aE�@�� n�� ti�� .; � ;�. � �� '� I = �i l , ,� � ��:� � ' ��, � � �� N ia C . � �� m� � e �a �� .° z � �� W �Y �+� t'��' � �`� . �.� � �o � �Q �� 0 � w �a � Q � �,,.--.�-,.,. — '�' pp�� ;� �;�- ,J•, � r-.�.:�-v__ _. i��`i — -�:�I _'} "- ____ � 3 q . b � ; �� '�> d ` "G f� �` ,.�,.__.�_--- � -� -„-; z�, -_- _ ,r� -t-., 01-19/ � a� � Q �1 � � � C � � � � r.+ � tA '� � � Y1 !i �� _.� , �� . N d � � I m a y y a w e.°.m�m v _��p� � ce F O y � i d S � m aeS'j Y m�' n S m� m m'Cap r a r m N Q C � � � C m Q � ` � L�i � i e � ' � m� ``�� OI � ' � �� a & z� @ 0 i D �� Q a= � �< � a� 0 ,� ¢ �i � � � aA L� A„ °" o �, �o � z H� v � a� � }� o�-/q� � , T ( �. • • � �� - a ' 9 p ��,— _ 0 y i.: '�.�.t :,,�I C . , I � i � . a`r �� ;- ' 'a � , � 6 � �L a `i U tl R� � .��i �' � r%/ %n� . % ' ' ' � c �� 6 ' tn � •_ �'i�'i�t y 9 O ti r �m � � �� °� \ MN 5Z � ', � 0 k �� F q�. / << ,�.� � �� il rl: � p_ ' • ��., „ � �, � � � F' �� /, i., `Vn � - ��! � . � � yL�� Q �� ✓ 1 � �.��,�� '�_ . ,. � x - , � �� : �� I� . , �}eJ�. �.$ � i , � �+�i, � � t l. n:'� , 1;:• '. Q C N � � oiq � : � ' 1 i � f ' � i' If i ��, i I i �..� � ',I� " I�� t� ��.,'!� I' f�� s i ��'i;ir, ' a [��, � �,,, � i �ii' �� ;,� ��' •,� i�irl�il�:ii�� ., I� i�J'f � a� � � ' � I ' ' .-� 1 � `I o m I��i� � �-: i �'�,i'.� LL cA `.,., ' i �� i i� i ,,� i � i I �� i i i � �', �i �, il � �� I � ,','. i; � n,�''x Q d I I �� I , y �Myv � + � ' ,r; �� In :i ri I r z � i� f � �' i��, i ��',I"' � �� JI �,,�,[ , r' ..+'..� m {1 l �� , �{ �'I �;�� i � I: ; � � �'. � �.1 � �� R n ' i � , � ' - � � � i_ � i � �' , ,�� I' �.�� i 1 i � _�� . I 1'.1 I � 1 S � f� xi � J � � _ , �'�_I 11 1 I' l i _ > > s� �` � i�;lt �� ''. . .. � .,�' 1 e i I I �rl'1 _ a �;, a li�� ' i� i IPIF � �� i � I; i��l �t � i'�, � i ' il � ry ulj2Jj �. ,C- ,1 �� r �it� _�- A' _ � ! a � u� n '/ / �._, �. -.. �:' ��'�� i � Dp -': __ � � ''. , -o � e s m v �O� c � � / 1 i v � o m t � R o 0 m � m a o c ,,,,-. � 2 O N V � � �C y 's 'E °� � _ � � � d 6 N 9 � lL y Oi G C C � C 6 � E O V> � Q N O �C y S S � �L y � � � � � N � � y in 3 m � -, i.a y 3 < c ° ¢ ( j o m o • N � � •� N .0 y,�^� � ° 3 E ' ° � � v� '¢�` ¢ �a g _, � � � � � �� s i � � ' I , �'�� i �, ��,o; � ,m y L; �s t5 ' 1 ; 'i� �i i .. � D� 9 y m - 6 ej ."L' Co u y d o � C LL C in� � (:: /�� a � V a C, �` vi :_ 4 '�' � l . \ ' F f f' Z 3 0 � � V • O N � _ '� i y Q Q � � -a L � � � �� L � � � � � z� `o � S o � y � �C � o u d o t� � di �a � �"f y V y � � H � Hhe� � �� F �� _�� r--� � � � E"i � �-�a � � < °p z < . c < �� o•: � � � t G � �c 01-19/ Credits The Gry ofSaint Pau1 does not discriminate on the basis of disabiliry, race, ser serual or affectlonal orientadon, age, color, creed, nadonal ori,gin or ancestry, mantal stahas, religion, veteran stahzs, or status with regard to public assistance in the admiss�on or access to, ar treatrnent or employment in, its programs or activitles. 94 City of Saint Paul � cl f ' MISSISSIPPI RIVER - ORR1�0� � -A ' T H E S A I N T P A U L C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N ,.�� "� � . ._ �. �� . � ,�_.,. � §. . � �. � �. m �� .�G�...� ` 15, 2000 Gouncil, l-4, 2001 oi-I`� 1 The citywide portion of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan consists of the following as of adoption by the Saint Paul City Council in 2001: Plan Summary and General Policy Land Use Plan (1999) Housing Pfan (1999} Transportation Plan (1997) Parks and Recreation Plan (1997) Library Services Plan (1996) WaTer Conservation and Emergency Response Plan (1996) Mississippi River Corridor Plan (1987, update to be completed in 2001) Sewer Plan (1980, update in progress) Implementation (1999) A separate Area Plans volume identfies all small area plans and district plans that have been officially adopted as amendments or addenda to the Comprehensive Piar�. �Y asc ii iC SUi^�'^87!°S Of ail ar� �i3ns that have been adopted in summary form under the current neighborhood planning policy. The Plan is subject to arnendment, and a publication noting all amendments in force will be available after amendments are adopted. Pian documents are available at the Saint Paul Public Library and copies may be obtained from the DepartmenY of Planning and Economic Development, 25 W Fourth Street, Saint Paul, MN 55102, telephone: (651) 266-6573. (The Water Conservation and Emergency Response Plan is published separately by the Saint Paul Water Utility and is not available from PED or on-line.) As preparation can be completed, most or all chapters will be accessible from the City of Saint Paul web page at ci.stpaul.mn.us (departments, PED, comprehensive plan). ' 1 , , ' Contents � E�cecutive Summary ..............................................5 � Introduction....................................................8 � 2.1 Purposes ..........................................8 2z Legislative History and River Corridor Plan Background .....9 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Setting ...................................................7i ' � 3.1 Planning Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I 1 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: Ciry and Other Plans .....12 ' 3.3 National'nends ....................................15 3.4 Tygology of River Landforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .t6 � ' , l� � Natural Systems Strategy: t Proteetfhe River as a Unique Urban Ecosystem ..,.....18 4.1 Bluffs ............................................19 4.2 Native Plant & Animal Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.3 Fioodplain & Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 , 4.4 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Economic Systems Strate,gy: i Sustain the Econoinic Resources of the Working R6ver ...29 5.1 Commercial & Industrial Land and Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . .29 5.2 Commercial Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 5.3 Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Social Systems Strategy: ' � Pnhance the City's Qua/ity of Life by Heconnecting t o the River .........................................36 , 6.1 Visitor Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 6.2 Views ....................................... 38 6.3 Trails ............................................39 ' 6.4 Neighborhoods ........................ ...........40 6.5 Historic & Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 ' � � � Urban Design Strategy: � Use Urban Design to Enhance the River Corridor's Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 7.1 Development Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 72 BuiltFOrm ........................................46 7.3 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites .,....48 Comprehensive Plan g oi-i� I Implementation ................................................51 � 8.1 Zoning Code Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 8.2 Site Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.3 Park & Trail System Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.4 Heritage Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 APPendices...................................................55 a Appendix A. Design Study Illustrations for Redevelopment Sites ........55 Appendix B. Historical and Archaeological Sites/Structures . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Appendix C. Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 t • Ntinnesom Natural Heritage Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 • Minnesota Land Cover Class�ca�on System (MLCCS) . . . . . .67 Appendix D. Water Management and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Appendix E. Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 Appendix F. Maps & Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 t • Slope Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 • Sign�cant Vegetatrve Stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J3 • Weflands and Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 • Existlng Storm Sewer Discharge Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JS • Natural Drainage Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �6 • Barge Facili�es and Fleeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 • TYansportaHon Facility Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JS • Parks, Open Space, and Boat Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J9 • Exisdng [riews 5z Overlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 • Ulility Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 • EaTS6ng and Proposed Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 • River Corridor Historic Sites 6z Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Credits ...................................................84 ' , , ' , ' , 4 City of Saint Paul ' C� � � � , , ' � � � , ' , , � , � , Summary he Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan descrrbes the T Mississippi River in Saint Paul as a series of interrelated ��systems: natural, economic, social, and built. Just as the River Corridor has been shapecl by history, decisions about devel- opment and change will influence each of these systems for future generations. Thus, this plan focuses on protecting the resources that support our community, and on the management of human acdvity and the physical environment. Saint Paul is rediscovering and redefining its relationship with the Mississippi River. Increased environmental stewardship and establishing connections to the river are central to this rediscovery. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan reinforces the body of river-related planning already completed in recent years. Those plans which are most influential come from within and outside the City: the 1999 Land Use Plan, the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan, and the State Critical Area program. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. The Water Management Plan will be written after Che River Corridor Plan is completed. The current Mississippi River Corridor Pian was adopted in 1981, and amended in 1987. After public hearings and consideration of public comments, the Saint Paul Planning Commission wili forward the plan to the City Council. The City Council will review the plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the National Park Service for joint review. After receiving comments from these agencies, the Ciry Council will adopt the final plan. There are numerous entities with jurisdiction over the Mississippi River, ranging from local to fed- eral units of government. The City intends that its plans and ordinances for the river corridor be con- sistent with those of these governmental partners. Figure A � �� : �_: z �� ; � � ,.M :� � � � � ;. :� � ti �� .,� �u� ��- �� t Comprehensive Plan 5 Interjurisdictional Governance OI-1`� I Strategy 1: Protect the River as a Unique Urban Ecosystem ♦ Undeveloped bluffs should be protected, stabilized, and restored throu�h acquisition, use of native species, building setbacks, and by prohibiting development on the bluff face. ♦ The River Corridor contains sensitive natural resources. The floodplain and shorelines, wetlands, and natural habitat found throughout the River Corridor should be protected and sustained. ♦ The City supports the green corridors project of the Minnesota DNR. The goal is to establish regional greenways around high quality native habitat remnants, thus providing continuous habitat corridors for native piant and wildlife species. In Saint Paul, the river valtey and the Trout Brook reach are parts of the DNR plan. ♦ Working with its watershed partners, the Ciry will continue to identify means for improved stormwater management. Public education will con- tinue to be an important way to help �,*otect water quality. Strategy 2: Sustain the Economic Resources of the Working River ♦ The City supports continuation of the working river and commercial nav- igation in Saint Paul. The economic importance of commercial naviga- tion to Saint Paul, Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest is signifcant. The environmental benefits of barging over other hauling modes (air quality, trafCic congestion, etc.) have been well documented. s The City supporrs the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-relat- ed businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases e�ire. ♦ Along the riverfront and its floodplain, new development should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, or the capability to enhance the river environment. Industria] and commercial uses, as well as housing may all fit these categories. Strategy 3: Enhance the City's Quality of Life by Reconnecting to the River ♦ Parks, open space, and trails are an important way of allowing people to come the river. The Ciry is working on a number of initiatives, including 6 City of Saint Paul , , , the realignment of Shepard Road, to increase park and open space along the river. Over time the city's riverfront open space system will become more continuous and river-related. The City will also complete a contin- � uous Mississippi River 'iYail along the entire length of both sides of the river. , � �� ♦ The views afforded by magnificent bluffs in Saint Paul's river corridor are part of what makes the city a special place. There are opportunities in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corridar, Battle Creek and Highwood neighborhoods to create additional view points to the river. To enhance river corridor views, ali billboards should be removed from the river corridor and not replaced. ♦ New neighborhoods are part of creating connections to the river. In , strategic River Corridor locations, following adopted design principles, new urban villages should be established. ' , � l_J ♦ Cultural resources in the river corridor include early settlements, historic stnzctures, and architecturally unique bridges. These resources should be preserved and restored, as they are integral to the character and history that defines Saint Paul. Strategy 4: Use Urban Design to Enhance the River Corridor's Built Environment ♦ New development should establish "traditional" street and block patterns � to enable people to experience the river through visual and physical con- nections. These traditional street patterns will restore connections between neighborhoods further upland and the river. � , , I 1 1 ♦ Primary view corridors should remain open and unobstructed. Accordingly, the scale of new buildings in the river corridor should relate to topography, and should preserve critical public views. , Comprehensive Plan 7 C�I'la I Introduction 1 � T ere are multiple facets to the river's role in the ciry and region—as an ecological system, as a culiural and historical resource, as a publ�c ameniry, as a focus for recreational activiry, for commercial and industrial aciivity, and increasin�*ly The Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Other plan chapters address Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Housing, Water Management, T7ansportation, Sewers, and Libraries. The River Corridor Plan will guide use and development along the Mississippi River, while pmtecting the river's ecological function. There are multiple facets to the river's role in the city and region — as an ecological system, as a cultural and historical resource, as a public amenity. as a focus for recreational activity, for commercial and industrial activity, and increas- ingly for new residential development. The River Corridor Plan will help Saint Paut realize the futl potential of the river as the city's symbotic "front yard." The River Corridor Plan recognizes that the ecological function of the river is not only affected by activity throughout the river corridor as defined in this plan, but also by activity in the watersheds that feed the river. 2.� �os� The purposes of the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan encompass its designation as a state critical area and as a national river and recreation area — the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area — as well as its role as a multi-purpose resource for the city, state and region. These are: ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as a unique and valuable resource for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the city, state, and region, ♦ To restore and establish the unique urban ecology of Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. ♦ To reinforce the Mississippi River Corridor as Saint Paul's front yard, and the backbone of a community-building network extending beyond the shoreline and into the fabric of surrounding neighborhoods. ♦ To manage the Mississippi River Corridor as an important economic resource for river- related industries and commerciai navigation for the city, state and region. . f'or new residential ♦ To expand opportunities for using the Mississippi River Corridor as a city develOpment. amenity and enhance citizens' quality of life, including increased public access, recreation and education. g City of Saint Paul C� ' ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as an essential element in the federal, state, re�ional and local recreation, transporta- tion, sewer and water systems. , � � C� ♦ To prevent and mitigate danger to the life and property of the citizens of the city, state and region. ♦ To preserve, enhance and interpret the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor's historic, archeological and ethnographic (cultural) resources. 2.2 Legislative History and River Corridor Plan Background In the past twenty five years there has been an increased legislative focus on � environmental stewardship of the Mississippi River. The first major effort, authorized by state law in 1976, was the designation of the Mississippi River Corridor within the Ttvin Cities Metropolitan Area as a State Critical Area. ' The Critical Area program required coordinated planning among communi- ties in the river corridor to resolve land and water use conflicts, and to pre- � serve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural and historical value of the river for public use. Cities were required to establish protection of the river resource through planning and related ordinances. ' LJ , � , � � � i tn response, the Saint Paul City Council adopted a 5aint Paul Mississippi River CorridorPlan in 1981, with policies for managing this important resource r Comprehensive Plan g C�f`�� 1 and balancing open space use with industrial and commercial development. This plan fulfilled the state's requirement for a Critical Area Plan. It also became a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and was last amended in 1987 to incorporate the 1986 Riverfront Pre-Development Plan. Recent state law has required all "IWin Cities municipalities to update their comprehensive plans, and Saint Paul has nearly completed this effort. As part of the required update to comprehensive plans, the City will also review and revise its river corridor-related zoning regulations. To further guarantee effective management of the river resource, the U.S. Congress designated the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the national park system. The boundaries of the MNRRA corridor are identical to those of the Critical Area, the 72-mile cor- ridor of the Mississippi River stretching from the Crow River in Anoka County to beyond the City of Hastings, and including Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The MNRRA designation Ied to the creation of a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) with policies related to land and water use, resources management, and visitor use and interpretation. This updated River Corridor Plan responds to the vision for the Mississippi River outlined in the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, as well as the continuing requirements of the Critical Area program. xanaar 2em�s � Name Plarn & Mi`rel Hebile¢ Fbo�lain & WeUaMv,. Waarduality _ Bwrc Fmirmmen[��,,,�,�., uman oe,;y� � Oevdup�mrc Ps¢ena a�� Emmnik ResouRes- wa*� x� Commedal & Indmo-ial IarM & Waterlke �� Needs&AmeniGes Vexs rr�u Neighhalpods H'utoric & CulUUal Remums 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies In response to the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, and as part of the City's own process of updating its comprehensive plan, this Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan outlines four strategies for future manage- ment of the river corridor. The four strate�ies focus on the various systems reiatea to tne river: natural systems, economic systems, social or human systems, and built environ- ment. The River Corridor Plan seeks to balance these strategies, all of which are interrelated and affecting each other. 10 Ctty of Saint Paul , 1 �� ' , � � � � � L� L� , , � � The Setting C�/'Y�Z I _. . � 3.1 Planning Assumptions The main assumptions that underlie the recommendations in this River Corridor Plan are: For nearly a century, the Mississippi River's role as primarily a trans- portation and industrial corridor led the city to Yhink of and treat the river as its `�back yard". The city is now gradually rediscovering and cele- brating the river as its front yard -- a majestic and unparalleled natural amenity whlch unites neighborhoods and downtown. Part of this redis- covery inciudes the opportunity over the next 10 to 20 years to create new neighborhoods near the river. 2. The river and its reaches are more than a thin ribbon moving through �� ;:�:.. the city. The river corridor should be viewed as a watershed model, an �;- � entity that incorpoxates elements, communities, and patterns from well �� «'" � beyond the river itself. �� F� �� 3. The character of the river vailey changes over its 29 miles. The river valley contains a variety of landforms, from the ]ow lands along the river's edge to the high bluffs. The character of river valley land uses also changes consider- ably, from the quiet, residential character of the gorge, to the mixed commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street corridor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preserved blufftop neighbor- hoods in the West Side, Dayton's Bluff, and Highwood neighborhoods. �uesc 7fh Bridge 4. Parkland and open space are the predominant uses of riverfront land in Saint Paul. Most of this land will remain unchanged. There are however, many opportunities to explore additional access, preseroation, and restoration projects throughout the parkslopen space system. When development in these areas does occur (the enhancemenfis at Harriet Island, for example), it should be in the context of preserving the river corridor. � � ,_ . � , ��-' �.. .... aflrge ` . , G r;�, <_ : ;�.........„..„.-� -__y,_...,,,,,...y ............... �._.. � �...src�+zi+�tv9'• � ;� , �� ; �� , r gz ' � � _ �� s� � �� ;< � w � a: 3 -= � � �� . � 6 � 'l� n � � � � a J ! ihe flafs ' ^ v �, , , Central VaAey � �.: � �� . �: . t Comprehensive Plan i � bl-1`�1 , 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: City and Other ' Plans Figure E Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Boundary auow�co � '�� - � � �� i � HENNEPMLO -!� _ �--. _ .�� j'"� Q � C }_N£" ' ` � _ � � _� � In the past five years there has been a tremendous amount of river-related planning, both by the City of Saint Paul and by other organizations. These visions and plans have focused on Saint Paul's Mississippi River corridor in an evoluUonary and remarkably consistent manner, and include the fol]owing: S�dnt Paul Cornprehensive Plcm (P�ks Si Recreadion,TYansportalion, cmd Lcmd Use chapters) Completed in 1996, 1997, and 1998, respecrively. In addi- tion, there are Small Area Plans and other neighborhood plans for the river corridor that have been recognized by the Ciry Councii, or adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these plans are currently being written. Mississippi National River and Recreadon Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan National Park Service, Mississippi River Coordinating Commission and the U.S. Dept. of the Interior. The MNRRA Comprehensive Managemei.f PIan was approved by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior in 1995 and is intended to provide guidance for manag- ing the river corridor for the next 10-15 years. The plan's goals are to t) preserve the unique and significant resources of the Mississippi River Corridor in the TWin Cities metro area, 2) encourage the coordination of federal, state and locat efforts, and 3) provide a comprehensive manage- ment plan to assist the MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER State of Minnesota and AND RECREA710N AREA local governments in man- �w� "��°'" aging development in the .�... , ' n „ r . 1 �_..e ...__o � corridor. The MNRRA , ;' , � � vision advocates the pro- �+ tection of both the working ' 1� i river and the naturai river �i ' � ecosystem. The MNRRA � �- i MINNESOTA I � r` pIan suggests a voluntary p u � a ��,,�„,„� o „ set of additional policies ! �-- 7 that cities may adopt to .1=-�j` � % � � enhance preservation of J / � � ��, � the Mississippi River corri- =%� ��' Xe'°°" dor as a nationai park, �, � -___� � (' � �� referred to as °Tier tI" poli- % / ��*a�� /� cies. ("Tier I" policies are / ,,, �/ required by existing State ,,� Critical Area policies and regulations, and shoutd already exist in cities' river 12 City of Saint Paul , � ' plans and ordinances.) Local governments should work with the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources and the National Park Service to incorparate MNRRA policies into their river corri- dor plans and ordinances. Saint Paul's Ceniral River [�alley Development FYamework - Project of I the Desijn Center for the American Urban Landscape (Bill Morrish), College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota. � � ll � � � � � � , , � � � , This project, completed in )une 1995, served as one of the foundations for the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development �amework that was complet- ed in 1997. In conjunction with its Case Study Integrating Urban Design and Ecology project and newsletters (August 1994 - May 1995, six newsietters), the Design Center compiled an urban design inventory of Saint Paul's phys- ical resources in the form of maps that visually display the city's physical resources connected to the Mississippi River. These Saint Paul-Mississippi River contextual maps highlight Saint Paul's unique river valley landscape and ecology, including its vaileys, reaches, bluffs, landings, neighborhoods, vegetation, wildlife and the potential connections among all of these unique resources. The goals of this project were to identify the following for Saint Paul's Central River Valley: 1) image, identity and orientation, 2) com- munity gathering places, 3) connections and continuiry, and 4) river-related projects and locations. Metro Greenprint: Planning for Nature in the Face of Urban Growth - Greenways and Natural Areas Collaborative. In 1997, this collaborative project involving a group of citizens from around the seven-county'Itvin Cities Metropolitan Area included representatives from metro counties, watershed districts, Dept. of Natural Resources, Greening the Great River Park,_ University of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, Friends of the Mississippi River and 1Yust for Public Land. The Metro Greenprint outlines a vision and specific strategies for creating a region-wide network of natural areas, open spaces, parks and greenways while accommodating urban growth in the'IWin Cities metro area. The vision focuses on identification of natural areas and open spaces and potential connections between them, along with recommended conservation techniques and funding strategies. The Mississippi, Minnesota and Saint Croix river valleys represent a significant portion of this green network. Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development IYamework - City of Saint Paul, Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, and the Capital City Partnership. The City's most comprehensive vision for the Mississippi River was outlined in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework in June of 1997, Comprehensive Plan 18 Ol I c�/-ta 1 following more than two years of intense work by the community, City staff, and other organizations. The Framework calls for reconnecting the city's downtown and neighborhoods to the river by restoring the river val- ley's and city's natural environment, creating new urban villages near the river and creating a physically appealing and vital downtown environment. The Framework is based on "an implicit understanding that quality of life - the ability of a city to effectively balance economy, environment and society - provides a primary competitive advantage in an increasingIy globaIized world." The Framework outlines the foIlowing ten principles that represent an integrated approach to city building: ♦ Evoke a sense of place. ♦ Restore and establish the unique urban ecology. ♦ Invest in the public realm. ♦ Broa@en the mix of uses. ♦ Improve connectivity. ♦ Ensure that buildings support broader city-building goals. ♦ Build on eazsting strengths. ♦ Preserve and enhance heritage resources. ♦ Provide a batanced network for movement. ♦ Foster public safety. Although the Framework is not part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the plan's vision, ten principles and recommendations were endorsed by the City Council as the guide for the City's development policies downtown and aton� the central riverfront and should be incorporated, as appropriate, into the City's Comprehensive Plan updates and amendments. The ten pririciptes are incorporated into the Land Use Plan (1999). Riverfront Action Strategies - Saint Paul Port Authority. Compieted in 1999, this document highlights the importance of the Mississippi River and Saint Paul Port to the Upper Midwest economy. As a working river, the Mississippi is part of an intermodal freight transportation system that enables agricultural producers throughout the Upper Midwest to compete in the global market. This strategy document signals the Port Authority's commitment to maintain shipping-related uses in its riverfront facilities. It also e�cpresses the Port Authority's commitment to beautify industrial sites, to clean up roadsides and riverbanks, and to manage stormwater on-site. 14 City of Saint Paul . , � , � � � i 1 i � � � i EJ , J �' 1 1 Visions of ihe Mississippi River Corridar Ce�ral River Yalley Dev. fmmevrork (Morrish) 1995 St. Paul on the Mississippi Dex framework 1947 Pnrksand RiverFrontAciion Reuealion Snme�ia Minnesma Wan t9% (Part Authority? (riiiwl Area �'� Designation 1976 Traasportation Plan �997 MNRRA Comp. M mt. Metro Plun 7995 River Corridor Land Use ��enpnnh Design Sfudy s000 Plan 19sr8 t997 ... Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites - Saint Paul PED, Saint Paul Design Center. To compiete this River Corridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, along with the Saint Paul Design Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment sites. The study was conducted in early 2000, with consultants from the Cuningham Group and Close Landscape Architects. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. An intergovernmental working group, chaired by the Planning Commission, and including the Department of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council and National Park Service assisted in this process. The results of this study provide the basis for poli- cies in Chapter 7 of the plan; recommendations for the five redevelopment sites can also be found in Chapter 7 and Appendix A. Together, these planning efforts have established a new framework for thinking about the Mississippi River, and Saint Paul's place on it that emphasizes thinking of the river and the city as an integrated living ecosys- tem within a larger regional setting. The intent is to restore the river's nat- ural ecology, to establish and improve green connections between neigh- borhoods and downtown and the river, and to support urban intensification consistent with a river setting, while maintaining the working river. Collectively, these visions provide a map for stewardship and use of the river in the next century. This Mississippi River Corridor Plan brings these visions together in one documettt for the entire river corridor in Saint Paul. Comprehensive Plan 15 Figure G River Valley Landforms DI'I R � 3.3 National Trends Nationwide, certain trends have emerged pertaining to urban riverfronts. There has been a resurgence of interest in the recreationa] use of riverfront land, and communities nationwide are creating new trails, green space, promenades, and other recreationai amenities. As industries that tradition- ally were located on the riverfront have changed, industrial land is turnin� over and being redeveloped to create housing and entertainment-oriented commercial activity. Finally, there is increased awareness and interest in the ecological function of rivers and the watersheds that feed them. Disastrous floods in past years have served as reminders that watershed management plays an integral role in protecting rivers and the communi- ties along them. 3.4 Typology of River Landfoxms The Mississippi Rivervaiiey is comprised of a earege o€ �at��fcrrrs, each ��:th unique characteristics and requiring specific responses. While most of this plan's policies apply to the entire river valley, many of the Urban Design policies of this plan are tailored to the specific landforms, described below: ♦ The River•s Edge is characterized by naturaI shoreline vegetation in parkland or natural areas. The River's Edge downstream of the High Bridge is stabilized with a variety of man-made treatments for the pur- pose of channel maintenance, including rock rip rap and walls. ♦ The Lowlands are the lands adjacent to the River and are either flood prone or formerly flood prone lands. Lowlands provide critical habitat for migratory birds, yet developed areas in the Lowlands are neaely devoid of tree canopy. The Lowiands are generally characterized by mixed man- ufacturing or office uses, dedicated pubiic parks and open space, or 16 City of Saint Paul � � , lJ � i cleared and vacant lands. Largely redeveloped for industry, buildings in the Lowlands tend to be larger floorplate structures with associated large parking areas. ♦ The Low Biuff is landward of the Lowlands. It is generally characterized by a varied edge of dense woods and open views, sometimes eroded or overgrown. There exist occasional and dramatic bluff face/rock outcrops expressing the natural geology of this valley, although the elevation change of the Low Bluff is ]ess striking than the High Bluffs (described below). Access from the Lowlands through the Low Bluff is somewhat limited. The Low Bluff is less legible as either habitat or public open space than the High Bluff. ♦ The Terrace is the generaliy flat area located between the Low Bluff and I the High Bluff. The elevation of the Terrace ranges in between 740 and 780 feet above sea level. At locations throughout the valley, the Terrace � makes transitions into River Reaches and Ravines. The Terrace is gener- ally fully developed, and characterized by mixed use commercial and industrial lands transitioning from rail oriented manufacturing to ser- � vice/convenience uses. The Terrace also contains muiti-story housing with smaller fragmented pockets of single family homes. � � � � i � I � � ♦ The High Bluff is located landward of the Terrace, and is the most rec- ognizable feature of Saint Paul's visually stunning river valley. The High Bluff is characterized by a nearly vertical limestone bluff face in many areas. In other areas, the High Bluff is covered with a continuous, often dense canopy of overstory trees with occasional openings for views and limited public access. The High Bluff is an environmentally sensitive area that is highly susceptible to erosion and associated loss of vegetation and animal habitat. Selected roads traverse the High Bluff, creating pri- mary connections between the Terrace and Uplands (described below). ♦ The Uplands are the areas located above the highest bluffs. The Uplands are flat or gently sloping, and are generaliy characterized by mixed resi- dential neighborhoods coming to the edge, with occasional multi-story multifamily structures and institutional landmark buildings. The urban forest of the Uplands generally consists of boulevard trees. A map showing the general location of these landforms throughout Saint Paul can be found in Chapter 7. � Comprehensive Plan i7 v�-�a � St�'ate�y 1: Protect the River as rls the twenty-first century begins, the ciry has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning which balances environmental, community, and economic imperatrves. The Mississippi River, as it weaves through Saint Paul, is part of a complex ecosystem, and is a unique and vatuable natural resource. The river has been designated by the Minnesota State Legislature as a State Crirical Area, and by the U.S. Congress as a nationally significant commercial navigation system, a National River and Recreation Area, and an American Heritage River. The history of Saint Paul has always been closely tied to the Mississippi River, but over time, development has heavily impacted many of the river's indigenous landscapes. As the twenty-first century begins, the City has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning which balances envi- ronmental, community, and economic imperatives. This approach moves the City in the direction of thinking of the river, river valley, and developed areas as an integrated living ecosystem. The City will provide for the continuation of a variety of urban uses, including ind�trial, commercial, and residential within the river corridor, while strengthening its commitment to preserving the natural resources of the river corridor. The intent of this chapter is nei- ther to discourage future development, nor to promote wholesale restora- tion of the natural environment. Rather, natural resource management poli- cies will be strengthened to enhance the urban ecosystem in the Mississippi River corridor, and improve the quality of place in Saint Paul. Saint Paul currently uses river corridor overlay zoning to protect natural resources throughout the state-designated Critical Area of the Mississippi River. Overlay zoning restricts what type of development may occur in the floodplain, and applies strict standards for development. These standards include development setbacks - -- ' from the river, and prohibiting 18 development on steep slopes. This chapter addresses protec- tion of bluffs, native plant and animal habitats, wetlands and floodplain, and water quality. (Appendix F contains maps that show the location of steep slopes, significant vegetative stands, wetlands, the floodplain, storm water discharge points, and natural drainage routes.) City of Saint Paal Figure H Natural Shoreline i � � � � � � � � � � i � � t� � � � Objective 4.1 Protect the blufflands af the river corridor Saint Paul's natural topography relates much of the city to the river. Bluff formations framing the Mississippi River reinforce the city's unique natural setting and contribute to Saint Paul's character and sense of place. The topography of the river valley varies considerabiy. Alon� the West Seventh corridor and the West Side, there are distinct high and low bluffs separated by a terrace. In the so-called "river gorge" between Saint Paul and Minneapolis and in the Highwood neighborhoods, however, the high bluffs descend dramatically to the river, or adjacent low land areas. Likewise, the location of bluff areas relative to the river varies from the gorge where the river lies directly below the bluffs, to portions of the Highwood and West Side neighborhoods where the bluffs are set back more than a mile from the river. While the bluffs, ravines, and tributary areas are an attractive and unique urban amenity, they are a fragile part of the river ecosystem. Historicaily, both Ramsey County and the City have been active in protect- ing and restoring bluff lots with steep slopes facing the river. Ramsey County has acquired lots between Upper and Lower Afton Road for perma- nent county park ownership. Over the past several years, the City has used Federal ISTEA funding to acquire lots between Lower Afton Road and Highwood Avenue to be permanently dedicated as city parkland. Saint Paul aLso currently maintains a required bluff setback for development, and pro- hibits development on steep slopes along the bluff line to prevent erosion, and to maintain the natural, vegetated appearance of the bluff line visible from the river. Policies: 4.1.1 The City will continue its program to acquire lots on the bluff face as funding opportunities arise, extending the program to include lots south ;.:'_: ��, ._� �a�� : � s� � � �i u � ,,. ��= � � � � �� s z� ,x F� � � n� � � �� '' 'i3 � 4: � � ,_ ;� '6. �w �`^ .� I Comprehensive Plan ig �� ►� � of Highwood Avenue. Private efforts to acquire lots for open space dedi- cation are encouraged, as are actions by Ramsey County to convert iots acquired through tax forfeiture to permanent public park ownership. 4.12 The Ciry wi11 support efforts to stabitize all btuffs in public ownership through re- introduction of native species and visitor use management. Efforts such as those by Friends of the Parks and TraiLs and the West Side BIvfP I�sk Force to create bluff management plans for the gorge area and the West Side bluffs, respecrively, are encouraged. The West Side bluffs, in particular, are in need of management and stabilization. 4.1.3 To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional struc- tural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Further exceptions may be allowed for a limited number of low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. Such structures should be uncommon. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code. 4.1.4 In order to protect steep slopes and minimize erosion, and consis- tent with Executive Order 79-19, the City will continue to prohibit resi- dential development on slopes that exceed eighteen percent. Consistent with the MNRRA standard for commercial and industrial development, the City will continue to restrict industrial and commercial development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. 4.1.5 The City will continue to preserve the bluff impact atea (forty feet landward of the bluff line) in a natural state. Objective 4.2 Preserve and restore natrve plant and animal habitcrts Saint Paul is located at the meeting of the prairie and eastern hardwood forests. Despite the changes accompanying urbanization, a variety of habi- tat types continue to exist today within the river corridor, including rem- nant savannas, prairies, river edge wetlands, riverine areas, the bluffs, as well as the river itself and its fIoodplain. The Department of Natural Resources inventories rare species and natural communities, and according to the its Natural Heritage Database, there are 55 known occurrences of such species or communities in Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. These include Bald Eagles sighted in the Pig's Eye Heron Rookery and Battle Creek Regional Park, Blanding's Turtles sighted at Lilydale Regional Park and Hidden Falls - Crosby Park, severa[ types of mussels, and a variety of other plant and animal species. (For a full listing, see Appendix C.) Particularly near downtown Saint Paul, remnant landscapes and the animal 20 City of Saint Paul , � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � habitats they contain have historically become dis- connected from the larger river ecosystem, and their long term viability is continually challenged by the effects of urbanization. Fortunately, there are many opportunities for preserv- ing and restoring native plant and animal habitats throughout the river corridor. Great River Greening has played an instrumental role in restoring vegeta- tion throughout the river valley, with the goai of cre- ating a connected greenway for migrating songbirds and improving the ecology of the Mississippi River valley in Saint Paul. Over the past severa] years the organization and its volunteers have planted more than 30,000 native trees and shrubs and 25,000 native wildflowers in the river corridor near down- town. Addressing the downtown area, the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development F7�amework has signaled the need to improve the balance between the natural and built environments through protection of native vegetation and improved river edge treatments. The redevelopment plans for Harriet Island Regional Park and the East Bank Mississippi River Trail Corridor are examples of this shift in approach, as they call for redesigning river edges to incorporate both hard edge and indigenous vegetative treat- ments. Of course, projects to restore natural shorelines must be compatible with the requirements of channel design and flood management. Policies: 4.2.1 To the greatest extent possible, existing mature trees and native veg- etation will be preserved in site development projects. In the Highwood neighborhood, the City will continue to enforce the Tree Preservation District standards to maintain a maximum vegetative canQpy. 42.2 The City wiil encourage use of native vegetation or other compatible floodplain vegetation in redevelopment projects. Where appropriate, when redeveloping or stabilizing the river's edge, soil bio-engineering techniques and native plantings wiil be used in combination with more traditional engineered solutions. In the more formal landscape treat- ments occurring along the downtown riverfront, the shoreline will be strengthened with native vegetation, including native trees and shrubs. Throughout the river corridor, the City will encourage integration of future growth and development with restoration programs that recon- nect and restore remnant natural communities. � 4.2.3 The City will continue to support the efforts of organizations such as Great River Greening to restore native grasses, shrubs and trees along � the riverfront downtown and elsewhere in the river corridor. .��= s :� !� �'� � �� <: � �� ff� � Comprehensive Plan 21 oi- � �t l 4.2.4 The City will continue to enforce the 50 foot shoreline setback for structures. In addition, the Ciry will support efforts to restore the shoreline to a more natural character within 100 feet of the river to facili- tate wildtife movement, and to improve the aesthetic appearance of the floodwall. Such efforts must be compatible with current channel design and flood control management, and exceptions are made for park buildings, marinas, and other commercial or industrial river-dependent uses. Redevelopment should include removal of unused docking facilities (i.e., at the Koch-Mobil site). Figure K Trai! between Warner Road and the Mississippi River 4.2.5 In al] new developments, threatened and endangered wildlife habitats shall be protected from alterations which would endanger their survival. 4.2.6 The City will integrate its plans with the work of the DNR's Metro Greenways and NaturaI Areas Collabarative. This metro area collabora- tive has identified high quality native habitat remnants which could be linked into regional greenways, providing continuous habitat corridors to support native plant and wildlife species. Many potentiai greenway opportunities exist in the East Metro area, including Saint Paul. Objecfiive 4.3 Protect and preserve floodplain and wetland areas in the city Figure L The last comprehensive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) BQIf 'ThORIp5011�5 VISIOII 01 - SlU('lY Of C'Ite� S&iFii �60u�✓13�iFi vC�iti7eC�.-.P. .�iH9. �: tr.3C. tLTY?e, t�N.O _ 22 City of Saint Paul � "The Great River Park" � � �� major flood events occuned in 1993 and 1997, and other changes have occurred in the floodplain. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers has compieted a multi-year flood protection project on the West Side which will result in removal of the West Side Flats from the floodplain, because the new higher levee will control a 500-year flood. As a result of these changes, the City, DNR and the Corps of Engineers are working together to � update the City's Flood Insurance Study. The Flood insurance Study update includes changes to the cross-sectionai area caused by development and � revisions to the hydraulic model that incorporates these changes. FEMA and DNR will review the Flood Insurance Study update following submis- sion and make an approval decision (concluding in 2001). FEMAS process � wili result in revised floodplain boundaries in the river corridor and accom- panying changes to FEMA flood insurance rate maps and the City's flood- way and flood fringe zoning districts. � � � � � � � � � � � L, Wetiands aiso play an important role during floods, and for controlling stormwater. Their flexible storage capacity allows flood waters to be released slowly, reducing flood damage. In the era when most of Saint Paul's neighborhoods developed, modern ecosystem knowledge was lack- ing, and wetlands and creekbeds were routinely drained and filled. Through zoning and site plan review, Saint Paul began protecting wetlands in 1994, after passage of the state Wetlands Conservation Act. The Legislative Commission on Minnesota izesources (funded through state lottery rev- enues), has provided financial resources to communities, including Saint Paui, for wetland restoration projects. The restoration of Ames Lake — for- merly the Phalen Shopping Center site — is one such example. Other opportunities for restoration exist, including efforts by the Lower Phalen Creek Restoration Project to connect Swede Hollow Park to the river by restoring lower Phalen Creek in the ravine between Dayton's Bluff and Lowertown. As our understanding of watersheds continues to evolve, the need for careful management and planning in wetland and floodplain areas of the city is assumed. Policies: 4.3.1 The State of Minnesota, through the Department of Natural Resources, allows new development to occur in the Mississipi River floodplain up to a one-half foot increase over the 100-year flood eleva- tion. The City wiil enforce the state floodplain encroachment limit so that small increments in development do not gradually degrade the floodplain. 4.3.2 Recognizing the need to treat wetlands as a valued resource, and assuming its responsibility to administer the Wetlands Conservation Act, the City will protect existing wetlands and encourage restoration of degraded wetlands. � Comprehensive Plan 2g C"� 1 `t I Objective 4.4 Protect water quality through comprehensive and coordinated watershed management The water quality of the Mississippi River is directly connected to the activi- ties in the surrounding watershed. Pollution comes from both direct, or point sources, such as a sewage treatment plant discharge, and from non- point sources, such as stormwater runoff. The largest source of nonpoint source pollution into the Mississippi is the Minnesota River, which contains significant amounts of agricultural runoff from outside of the Mississippi River Corridor. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is attempting to address this problem, which is complex and will take extensive time and funds to conect. While ali sources of pollution will be addressed, the City's program will Yocus on city stormwater runoff pollution prevention due to the relatively greater impact this source has on the river. SEWER SEPARATION PROGRAM Historically, Saint Paul's original sewers drained directly to the Mississippi River or to several natural streams that i:� tum drained into the river. The oldest sewer on record in Saint Paul was built in 1856. At the time it was standard engineering practice throughout the country to convey both storm water and sanitary waste to receiving waters in one pipe. However, by the T e water qualiry early 1920's it was becoming apparent that the Mississippi River was pollut- ed and something had to be done. In 1938, the first sewage treatmenY facili- of the Mississippi ty on the entire Mississippi River went into operation. Minneapolis and River is directly Saint Paul each financed and built their own interceptor sewers and shared connecred to the the cost of building the treatment plant. Dry weather flows were then treat- ed prior to emptying into the river, but during rainstorms, when the flows aCtivlties in the exceeded the sewer's capacity, combined sewer overflows (rainwater and surloul2ding sewage) continued to pollute the river. watershed. In 1 g85, after years of study and discussion, sewer separation was deter- mined to be the most economical method to abate combined sewer over- flows to the Mississippi River and to meet federal and state water quality standards. At this time the Minnesota PoIlution Control Agency directed Saint Paul, Minneapolis and South Saint Paul to develop a new plan for combined sewer overflow elimination and for the Metropolitan Waste Conteol Commission to incorporate each city's plan into an overaIi metro p[an. In response, Saint Paul developed the Comprehensive Sewer Plan for the Ciry ofSaintPaul. Although Saint Paul began separating its combined sewers in 1960, by 1985, only half of the city was served by separate sanitary and storm sewer systems. The ten year program initiated in 1986 was a massive undertaking with over $172 million in designated projects (1984 dollars). 24 City of Saint Paul � � The sewer separation program has led to significant improvement in the quality of the Mississippi River. The following are viewed as indicators of the improved water quality: � � � �� , � ♦ Pollution-sensitive Hexagenia mayfly have returned to TWin Cities' stretch of river after a 30 year absence. ♦ Metropolitan Council Environmental Services' monitoring data shows a significant drop in fecal bacteria IeveLs in the river as a result of sewer separation. ♦ Bald eagles have returned to the TWin Cities' stretch of river. ♦ Fish population and diversity have recovered from 3 species to over 25 species. ♦ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has established catch and release fishing regulations to protect trophy sized walleyes that are being caught from the metropolitan stretch of Mississippi IZiver. The completion of Saint Paul's sewer separation program has achieved the overall purpose of cleaning up the river, demonstrating the City's commit- ment to improved stewardship of the river environment, and exceeded its performance goals. The city now has two completely separate sewer sys- tems, one carrying surface water runoff and the other one carrying sanitary sewage. But the work of protecting and restoring the Mississippi River goes on. The partners involved in this project will continue to address the issues that affect the Mississippi and our environment. ��, ,,. � � � � � WATERSHED AWARENESS EDUCATION Saint Paul falis within the boundaries of four watershed management organizations, each of � which develops a comprehensive watershed plan. saint Paul's new Water Management � Plan will be completed by the Public Works Department two years after the completion of the watershed management plans. The four � watershed management organizations are i) Capitoi Region Watershed District, 2) Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District, 3) � Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, and 4) Middle � Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization. J Saint Paul has been actively educating its resi- dents about water quality issues for years. Early Photo courtesy of Friends of the Mississippi !t�'ver � _ W 3 r ; v . � � � � �� .; � �� .> � �� ,< �% x: �� a E,„ � :� � Comptehensive Plan ys or-� � efforts began to e�lain the need for the Sewer Separation Program and the associated benefits to the Mississippi River. Cunently, the City and the Friends of the Mississippi River are working in partnership on the Storm Drain Stenciling Program. Since 1993, the City has worked with thousands of volunYeers to stencil a message, 'Don't Pollute Drains to RiueY', next to storm drains and to distribute door hangers to the surrounding neighbor- hood. In addition, City staff are working with schools in Saint Paul on watershed education projects. Saint Paul is also a watershed Partner, which is an award winnin� partner- ship of inetro area agencies, non-profit groups and local units of government. Watershed Partners developed an educational watershed e}chibit, which is used at venues across the TWin Cities every year, including the Minnesota State Fair. The Partners are cunently involved in a metro wide media cam- paign which involves news print and radio messages as well as printed gro- cery store bags and magnets. Efforts to promote better pubiic awareness can have a profound impact on reducing nonpoint source pollution. Figure N Watershed Managemen# Organizations 26 City of Saint Paul � � � The Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory provides guidelines for safely eating fish caught in the Mississippi River where it flows through Saint Paul, per the Minnesota Department of Health's Minnesota Fish � Consumpiion Acivisozy (available on the DNR web site). Fish in Minnesota's lakes and rivers are monitored annually for the amount of inethyl mercury and PCBs present. � � � � � ,, � WATER MANAGEMENT AND RECULATION Water management and regulation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. See Appendix D for the entities that are responsible for water man- agement in Saint Paul. Policies: Most of the policies cited in this chapter will be replaced and more fully addressed by Saint Paul's Water Management Plan, which wili be complet- ed by April, 2003 . 4.4.1 Continue participation in existing watershed management programs and in developing the City's stormwater permit program and local water management plan. Coordinate municipal activities that affect water qual- ity as part of the stormwater discharge permit and the local water man- agement plan. 4.42 Strengthen city-wide education programs that address watershed awareness and stewardship. � 4.4.3 The City encourages a reduction in use of chemicals for fertilizer and pest controi in residential areas and on public land, and support sustain- able land treatment activities and integrated pest management practices. � � � � 4.4.4 The City supports minimizing direct overland runoff and improving the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce fertil- izer and pesticide runoff into the river. 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. 4.4.7 The City supports using stormwater management elements such as � ponds and swales to unite development areas with the natural environ- ment. Emphasize what these elements add to site development in terms of aesthetic benefits and cost- effective stormwater management. � Incorporate pubiic use as a site amenity whenever possibie in designing stormwater management systems. � ;� x�� H � � � � � � � � � �.; :� ;� ,, � � :> � � .. �� fi � � ; R g Y /fi � _j �b � : �� <: �� Comprehensive Ptan 27 or-« i � 4.4.8 The City will support programs to better manage and decrease the � volume of toxic waste in the river corridor. 4.4.9 Protect streambanks and water quality from the negative impacts of � recreation. 4.4.10 The City will support regional pollution prevention and control plans � for the metropolitan area. 4.4.11 The City supports programs to develop and implement spill preven- � tion and response plans for the river. i i � I 1 � � � l 1 i � � 28 City ofSaint Paul � � r � � � � LJ � � � � St�ate�y 2: Sus�tain the Economic The Mississippi River will continue to function as a major commercial nav- igation resource for Saint Paul, the TWin Cities and the Upper Midwest, connecting the area to the Inland Watercvay System, the Guif of Mexico and intemational markets. River-related, shipping-related, and river dependent industries will continue to locate in the river corridor, contributing to the city's diverse economy and job market. Three of Saint Paul's 29 miles of riverfront are presently dedicated to industry. (Appendix F contains a map of commercial navigation facilities and barge fleeting areas.) Objective 5.1 Continue commercial and industnial uses af river corridor land and water, consistent with the Saint Paul Land Use Plan Industry and commerce are an important function of the river. The City recognizes that commercial and industrial uses of river corridor land will continue. Given the continued mix of land uses in the river corridor, careful planning for the use of land along the river's edge is warranted. The City rec- ognizes that the use of land in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark has the potential for serious adverse effects on the river if not properly managed. As a matter of course, all development must comply with existing regulations goveming the floodplain and river corridor. � Policies: 5.1.1 New development in the floodplain or within 30o feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river � location, and/or should enhance the river environment. (New develop- ment on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd. is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of e�cisting Plans, and in all other respects � should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new development include: � ♦ having an economic or operational need for a river location ♦ supporting the attractiveness of surrounding neighborhoods � ♦ sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements ♦ offering public access to and along the river ♦ maintaining views of the river � ♦ cleaning up polluted areas on the site ♦ meeting or exceeding applicable natural resource policies in this Plan �� = � � ��'� � �� , ��i �a � a ��# ��A �� , ��; ��; tr ?� � � � ,, � . a�� Comprehensive Plan yg Cf-f `� i Figure O River Corridor South Development Opporturtities 5.12 Expansions of existing uses in the floodplain or within 300 ft from the ordinary high water mark are acceptable. Eacpansions should be con- sistent with the natural resource protection policies laid out in this Plan. Expansion of uses on the north side of the river between Chesmut Street and Lafayette Boulevard should be consistent with natural resource pro- tection policies where practical. 5.1.3 The City supports continuation of industrial uses in appropriate por- tions of the corridor as indicated in the Land Use Plan and shown in Figures O and P. Modifications or additions to industrial uses in the rivee corridor should be supported only when they have no significant adverse impact on water quaIity or air quality for the river corridor and adjacent neighborhoods, and when they do not substantially impair the visual char- acter of the corridor from adjacent neighborhoods or from the river itself. S ", � ��>r a = :� �"v'.:` �:J �_ �'. ::_ _ .. a � � e .L}�^� � f'-._^ .. :' 'r':-_ y ;µt ��.� ` Rti . ... ��f .• R , .. :.�` _ _..-:��£ ' .-��- _ � � ` > A f � i d� 0 5 ` ` }�._ , a`�:'-£?` a �" , . F t..-._ aM �li ( ' � '1:_ •�:��Zi�� _ . � � \.�. �4� �rI ^! C'�� Mn.... • �.�Yi�+��" . � � I �- Concord - Robert Park Restoration � (Commercial) West Side Flats (Muaed Use Study Area) Harciet Island / S. Bridgeh�d Esplanade (Urban �Ilages) ' _-�.t�.� # �.:...� j...$ ''e ` R / - °;:� Highuvood =`= ° `� ° s � ; ` �.1 `.j:. �- �> ` ��.� (more houses�t.� - - ;'x'_ °� ,.z ' _ � £ ` � ` � :.i� _.``a: c =:'��` _ - � i � � ,_, ,� 3 - i , j � Y . , i � . 1�\ �� T ~��. ��.. .... `��_t.."ar-=...3�� I Southport (Industria!) Indusiry Burldiardt (Housing) � �� I i The bounQary shown does not mrrespond to the Critical Area/MNRRA boundary. 30 CI["y Of SQlttt P[iU1 � !� � � � [�� L� � � � � � � Pedestrian � �� -� =� �� 4��1 ��`;. .ua � u f Z ��/ . ! X� � <; � x;�n+'€ � i :�' R`� g� � � . �' �F j /��Y'a��f n ?'R d'{ � °! f. f�'°.a�� ADMMletalcote (Study Area) Koch-Mobil (Housing) Lake (Industriat) $ItCS � Shepard Davern (Redevelopment Area) The bopndary shown does not correspond to the Critical Area/MNRRA borandary. 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening will not be a detriment to business operations. Objective 5.2 Recognize the Mississippi as a working river and support the continued operation of commercial navigation facilities The shipping industry is of crucial importance to Saint Paul, greater Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest. Located 1,800 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico, the Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intermodal freight trans- portation system, where barge, rail, and truck traffic intersect. Agricultura] products and other bulk materials are brought by rail and truck from throughout the Upper Midwest, and transferred to barges that travel to � p ,:,. < > � Comprehensive Plan 31 oi-� i Figure Q Barge Fteeting L ocated I,800 miles inland from the Gulf oflbtexico; tne Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intermodal freight transportation system, where barge, rail, and truck traffic intersect. downstream river ports. Grain exports from Midwest producers make up nearly 90 percent of the cargo bound downstream. Approximately six percent of grain eacported from the U.S. to world markets travels through the Saint Paul Port. Other materi- als are brought up the Mississippi River by barge and distributed to destinations throughout the region by rail and truck. At peak capacity, more than 16 million tons of commodities can be han- dled through the Saint Paul Port annually. There are both economic and environmental benefits to using barges to transport goods, rather than rail cars or trucks. Barges move freight a greater distance per gallon of diesel fuel than rail or truck. One ton of com- modities carried by barge travels 514 miles per gallon of fuel, compared to only 202 miles by rail or 59 miles by tnxck. Barges also release fewer pollu- tants per gallon of fuel burned than rail or truck. Barges release only ,42 pounds of pollutants per gallon of fuel burned, compared to .59 pounds released by rail cars and .75 pounds released by trucks. (Riverfront Action Strategies, Saint Paul Port Authority, January, 1999.) Barges fleet in designated fleeting areas, as permitted by the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S.Coast Guard. The permit issued by the Corps and DNR specifies the length and width of the fleeting,area. Barge fleetin� areas are permitted in Saint Paul's Floodway District (RC-1), subject to a special condition use permit, as approved'vy i'rie Fianning Cornr�:sscr: Designated fleeting areas are mapped, see Appendix F. In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor currently has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges and a total design capacity of 574 barges (Figure R). Permitted fleeting areas are considered adequate to meet current and near- term fleeting needs and accommodate fluctuations in river transportation. The volume of commercial river traffic has and will continue to fluctuate considerably over time in response to local, regional, national, and interna- tiorial needs and markets. At peak times, barge fleets fill fleeting areas to their maximum capacity. If a new fleeting area were desired, a permit would have to be procured through the above agencies. The MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan identified the need for a Surface Water Use Management Plan. Such a plan would provide guidance on suitable locations for additional barge fleeting and mooring areas; suitable 32 City of Saint Paul � 0 ' � locations for dredge material disposal sites; economic impact of surface water use; potential regulatory use controLs and other measures for minimizing con- flicts between commercial navigation and recreational boating use and � among recreational uses; monitoring and evaluaung river system surface use capaciry, including considerarions of physical, biological, social, and safety limits; evaluating the potential for bottom disturbance, sediment resuspension, � and shoreline disturbance from barge activities and recreational boating; and developing altematives to expanding existing or creating additional commer- � cial fleeting areas, barge mooring areas, and recreational boating facilities. The City agrees that these questions should be better understood, and should be evaluated region-wide. The Metropolitan Council has formed an advisory � r i� � � � � I I. F � � � � committee to fiuther scope out many of the questions identified for the MNRRA Surface Water Use Management Plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be the lead agency in complet- ing such a plan, working with local govem- ,. ments and other affected state and federal u, e � , agencies. <'' It is recommended that barge fleeting areas and marinas be separated by 200 feet for safety reasons. Ttvo hundred feet is approxi- mately the length of one barge, so separa- tion by this distance permits visibiliry of smaller recreationa] craft. Empty barges ride high in the water (16-20 feet above the water line), so a tow boat operator may not othenvise see recreational boat traffic around marinas. There are two marinas cur- rently in operation, Harriet Lstand Marina and Watergate Marina in Crosby Park. There are aiso boat launches at Hidden Falls Park and in Lilydale Park near Pickeral Lake. Policies: 52.1 Barge Terminal tt1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminais. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river- related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases o eacpire. (The businesses at Barge Terminal #1 are all river-related.) River- related land uses are those with an eco- � nomic or operational need for a river location. � Comprehensive Plan 33 b/�f q! 5.2.2 A commercial landing for interstate cruise lines will be maintained at Lambert's Landing (LOwer Landing Park), in conjunction with other activities at Lambert's Landing, e.g. loading of supplies. A landing for local excursion boats will be maintained at Harriet Island Marina. 52.3 The City will continue to regulate the impacts of commercial naviga- tion faciiities on eacis�ing development, the naturat environment, and the immediate neighborhood through its Special Condition Use Permit process. � � � � 52.4 The City will minimize water use conflicts and improve safety by � separating commercial and recreationai boat facilities, where practical. A) If new or expanded barge fleeting sites are proposed, and if other- wise permitted by State and federal agencies, fleeting sites should be located adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses and at least 200 feet from any marina or boat launch. B) New marinas or boat launches should be located at least 200 feet from any barge terminal or barge fleeting area. Objective 5.3 Pursue cleanup and reclamation of polluted sites Much of the Mississippi River Corridor in Saint Paul has historically been used for industry, because the river was the first major transportation route. Poltuted sites are concentrated where heavy manufacturing, rail yards, and other industrial activities were common. Other sources of contamination are landfiIls and underground storage tanks. The Metropolitan Council esti- mates that at least a third more land is polluted than is currently identified. An area with significant contamination is Pig's Eye Dump, located in the flood plain of the Mississippi River just east of downtown Saint Paul and to the north of Pig's Eye Lake. At 319 acres, the site contains the largest dump in Minnesota. During its 16 years of operation (1956-1972), the dump received 8.3 million cubic yards of municipal, commercial, and industrial waste from Saint Paul and surrounding communities. During the summer of 1988, the site (covering approximately 300 acres) caught fire and bumed intermittently for two months. In 1989, it was designated a SuperCund site. The City has completed a Remedial Altematives and Response Action Plan (RAP) which details remedial alternatives for the site. The RAP calis for plant- ings, covering much of the site with two feet of soil, and rerouting sections of Battle Creek. The City owns most of the site, and the site is designated as passive use parkland. The RAP was approved by the MPCA in May 2000. The 34 City of Saint Paul i � State legislature has authorized two million to begin remediation, of a total remediation cost estimate of 9.1 million. � � � � �1 � � � � � Funding for cleanup of polluted land is most readily availabie when the land will be redeveloped to yield jobs and increase the tax base. This has the effect of favor- ing industrial and commercial redevelop- ment projects. It can be difficult to find funds for cleanup of polluted land that is to be converted to green space or park land. Legal questions about ownership must also be resolved. To date, legisla- tive initiatives have been proposed to address this need, but none have been passed. The Port Authority has donated over 1800 acres of land to the City, to be used for open space and recreation in petpetuity. Those lands now in park use include Crosby Lake, Pigs Eye Lake, and Pickerai Lake. � � , �� _>; x' z q d z ; � � ( � i 4 � � \� i��f',�t� . .:�. 4 �_.. � *�' : p - `� x / !v 2, • 'K ' = i, e? . ' '- r, `:.� . 4 � o� � �° � _`� � Policies: 5.3.1 Working with the Port Authority, the City will seek opportunities to clean up polluted river corridor lands. 5.3.2 The City will monitor and support initiatives that will facilitate cleanup of polluted land to be reused as green space. �� LJ L' 5.3.3 The City will balance open space use and industrial and commercial use of the Pig's Eye take area. Cleanup of Pig's Eye Dump shouid pro- ceed as laid out in the Remediai Alternatives and Response Action Plan (RAP) approved by MPCA. Industrial uses along Childs Road and the rail- road tracks will continue. Open land (which includes the Heron rookery at the southern tip of Pig's Eye Lake ) will continue in environmentally protected status. � :- _. �. _. , °� kAY��&fi F ; 'a p , .� ��- � ` . .� _ `� -,°`';,�:, _�,�.; . �. ,.�'��. � - � � � �� .. � �a�r,'� r- ' � :' �`, - � . ,..-- �� . � \.. o; ? \ i'? �a. ,, . 9. � Comprehensive Plan 35 bl�la t St�ate�y 3: Enhance the City's to the River T e river provides the city with its most powerful sense of place and its most attraciive natural amenity. The City has the opportunity to redefine the Mississippi River as The °front door" to the city, a deserving role for the city's most unique natural resource and a tremendous soarce of community pride, identity and vitality. The river provides the city with its most powerful sense of place and its most attractive natural amenity. Saint Paul can reclaim its heritage as a river ciry by reconnecting its downtown, neighborhoods and recreational areas to the river and establishing a better connection between its built and natural environments. Recreation opportunities, housing, and mixed-use development will increase in the corridor, creating urban neighborhoods with visual and physical access to the river. (Appendix F contains maps showing parks, trails, overlooks, and historic sites and districts.) Objective 6.1 Erihm�ce opportunities for recreational use of the riverfront by local visitors and tovrists, utilizing parks, open space cmd physical access to the river The picturesque, natural environment of Saint Paul's river corridor provides many desirable open spaces for city residents and tourists to play and relax. Saint Paul's twenty nine miles of river shoreline is the longest stretch of riverfront of any municipality in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and repre- sents one of the city's most significant public amenities. As riverfront indus- trial land has graduatly been converted to parks, park tand has become the SI[tf�Tl2 Id7gPS� USe Ot CIVeT'IT"Oilt Idri� lri J11riC rau'1: iii2�� i vEi'-i.OFFi4-�^vi-, several large regional and city river parks exist, including the following: ♦ Harriet Island Park ♦ Cherokee Park ♦ Crosby Farm Park ♦ Indian Mounds Park ♦ Battle Creek Park ♦ Kellogg Mall Park ♦ Lilydale Park ♦ Raspberry Island ♦ Hidden Falls Park ♦ Pigs Eye Lake Park ♦ Lower Landing Pazk ♦ Mississippi River Boulevard Opportunities for further e�cpansion and enhancement of river parks and open spaces exist. As stated in the City's Parks & Recreation Plan, the City � will pursue opportunities and partnerships to acquire land specifically for 36 City ofSaint Paul � � � � � 1 � � � � � {Y � � � :_J �_J � � open space and natural resources protection according to any of the fol- lowing criteria. ♦ Areas containing species included on the State or Federal list of endan- gered or threatened species; ♦ Areas representing significant landforms, native plant communities, sen- sitive habitat, or historical events; ♦ Areas that connect existing components of the open space network; and ♦ Areas adjacent to existing parkland/open space. In addition to threatened and endangered species, the State of Minnesota classifies species of "special concem". (Listed in Appendix C). While this category does not have the same regulatory status as threatened or endan- gered species, areas that contain these species and their habitats should also be considered for preservation. Riverfront redevelopment activities can provide opportunities for expansion and enhancement of the city's riverfront open space system as well. The Saint Paul Renaissance Project, sponsored by the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, marks a substantial effort towards this end. The Renaissance Project is an integrated network of public spaces, parks, trails, greenways, and connections that relinks Saint Paul's downtown and its neighborhoods to the Mississippi River. The network builds on investments currently underway and emanates from the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development FYamework. Within the river comdor, many of the existing adjacent open spaces are connected and established as regional parks, including: Haniet Island- Lilydale-Cherokee, Mississippi Gorge-Hidden Falls-Crosby Farm and Battle Creek-Pigs Eye. Potential e�ansions, connections and enhancements of the river corridor open space system include the restoration of the Lower Phalen Creek area, connecting the river and Swede Hollow Park, and a restoratian of the Trout Brook Reach, with a trail connection to the Willard Munger Trail. Other enhancements of the river corridor open space system include development of a Pigs Eye Greenway, renovation of Raspberry OI — t �7 ; ; �i;v �� . � :� �:� ai,;.:� ..>. r� � �i .� ,. � �6 �� ;; � s,. � ., �4: � , s ;; � �, � � �: ?p � q� � � � Comprehensive Plan 37 b[� � Island, a major renovation of Harriet Island Lilydale Regional Park, and new open space created by the realignment of Shepard Road. The reali�nment of Shepard Road just west of downtown will significantly increase public access to the river in that area of the river corridor. Policies; 6.1.1 Large areas of open space that are currently undeveloped shoutd pre- serve fish and wildlife resources, plant communities, and biological diver- sity. Some open space areas may be suitable for passive recreation (e.�. trails for hiking, biking, bird-watching); others, such as the Pig's Eye Lake area and the bluffs at Cherokee Park should be limited to preservation. 6.1.2 The City will continue to add to its riverfront open space system, making it more continuous and river-related. 6.1.3 The City will require dedication of river corridor parkland as part of river corridor land subdivisions or planned development approvals. Objective 6.2 Preserve and improve existing views to the river cmd bluffs, and develop new ones Saint Paul's river cortidor, wiYh its magnificent bluffs, cavernous gorge and wide river valley provides many unique and scenic views. Visual access to the river, the bluffs and the river corridor provides a sense of place for the general benefit of the public, both city residents and visitors. The various 38 forms of public visual access to the river consist of scenic river views, extended view corridors, overlook points, observation platforms, bridge crossings, aru bluff stairways. Many of the best views of the river exist at key blufftop sites, induding Indian Mounds Park, Upper West Side, Kellogg Mall in downtown Saint Paul, and Mississippi River Boulevard. opportunities exist to create additional river view points in some areas of the city. The neighborhoods in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corri- dor, Battle Creek, and Highwood cunently have few established public view points to the river_ CiCy of Sain[ Paul Figure U Overlooking the river [� � � � � Recently, with funds from multiple sources, blufftop properiy off Springside Drive in the Highwood neighborhood was acquired and dedicated for passive public views. Such actions support this objective, and help to protect the bluffs themselves as described in Chapter 4. The Ciry is currently considering a policy to remove all biliboards from the River Corridor. According to a 1999 inventory, fifteen billboards would be tar- geted for removal from the river corridor if such a policy with associated ordinance is adopted. Policies: ' 6.2.1 The City will work with the river corridor neighborhoods to identify additional river views or view corridors. River views and overlook points should be linked to the city's walking paths and trail system, whenever � feasible. � � 62.2 Ali billboards shouid be removed from the River Corridor and not replaced. The City encourages efforts by neighboring communities to remove River Corridor billboards as well. 6.2.3 The City will encourage the placement of public utilities undeground. � Objective 6.3 Provide a continuous, safe pedestrian and ' bicycle trail along both sides of the river, that is connected to the city and regional trail system � � � � � Pedestrian and bicycle trails are an important way of connecting the city and the river. Such trails also provide environmental and transportation benefits. The City's Parks and Recreation Division is working towards a continuous trail system along both sides of the river with the potential to connect major parks, open spaces, historic sites, view points and public access areas in the river corridor. Implementation of the East Bank Mississippi River Regional 'I7ai1 Corridor Master Plan will provide a continu- ous river trail through the city on the east bank (or north side) of the river. The East Bank Mississippi River Regional Trail is designed to link other city trails, including the Saint Paul Grand Round Loop, Phalen Creek Trail and the Capitol Route Trail, and existing and proposed trails in neighboring jurisdictions. On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport, and in the Pig's Eye Lake area, a river trail is not � planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons. The west bank river trail is planned primarily as an off-road path, with some on-street bike lanes planned near the airport, and on bridges. At � Lilydale Regional Park, the goal is to make the trail completely off-road if an opportunity arises in conjunction with the railroad. , o� ,. �; � � � � � � Comprehensive Plan 39 bl Policies: 6.3.1 As designated in the Parks & Recreation Plan, the City will complete a continuous Mississippi River Trail as close as practical to the river along the entire length oF both sides of the river, including bike lanes on bridge crossings. 6.3.2 Existing and new river trails will accommodate a variety of non- motorized recreational uses, including walking, jogging, biking, skating and ski touring. Bike and pedestrian paths will be separated from each other where physically possible. 6.3.3 The City will coordinate development of the river trail with existing and proposed trails that connect to Saint Paul's river corridor, including city, regional and neighboring communities' trail systems. 6.3.4 The City will pursue easements or public acquisition for future river trail connections in new and existing developments in the river corridor. The City wiil pursue opportunities as appropriate to acquire future aban- doned railroad right-of-ways and appropriate tax-forfeited parcels for acquisition and possible river traiI development. Objective 6.4 Support new housing development in the river corridor, through creation of urban villages. Extend neighborhoods toward the river Especially near downtown, the opportunity exists to create new mixed-use river corridor neighborhoods that reconnect the city to the river. This is also an opportunity to create highly desirable housing that helps achieve the City's projected housing growth target for 2020. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Develo ment Framework's Ten Princi les r -- - ----� -- p p p esent a 6oiistic approach for -" reestablishing river corridor neighborhoods. The Saint Paul Land Use Plan fur- ther articulates the City's vision of Urban Villages as the predominant model for neighborhood development. Strategic locations with highest potential for neighborhood development include Upper Landing/Irvine Park, the West Side River Flats, Lowertown, and the Koch-Mobil and Shepard-Davem sites. The City recognizes that new development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the river should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, and/or should enhance the river environment (discussed in more detail in chapter 5). It is appropriate to consider housing and neighbor- hoods river-enhancing, if careful site planning addresses public access and connections to the river, view corridors and vistas, use of native vegetation in landscaping, and natural resource and stormwater management. See chapter 7 for further discussion of poticies for new development. 40 Ciry of Saint Paul � � � � , � Poiicies: 6.4.1 In strategic river corridor locations adjacent to existing neighbor- hoods, the City supports redeveloping vacant and underused industrial land sites as new mixed-use urban village neighborhoods that help reconnect the city to the river. 6.42 Connections between the tenace neighborhoods and the river may be improved by adding a limited number of pedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, walkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats. ` Objective 6.5 Encourage protection and restoration of river corridor cultural resources, including historic structures, � culturally significant landscapes, and archaeological and ethnographic resources L� � � ' �� Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor, as the birthplace of the City of Saint Paul, contains a variety of important cultural and historical structures and sites. The river conidor's designated historical sites include early Native American river settlements and burial grounds, historic urban districts, river-related recreational buildings, stately public institution and trans- portation buildings, grand private homes, and architecturally unique bridges spanning the Mississippi River. Early economic activity in the river corridor included beer brewing, mushroom farming, and brick making. Nationally designated historic sites in Saint Paul's River Corridor are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (See Appendix B.) The National Register is administered by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), which has ultimate responsibility for evaluating and nominating new sites to the National Register. Locally, Saint Paul's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), created in 1976, is a certified local government historic preservation program with responsibility for identifying and recommending historic buiidings, sites and districts within the city. A historic survey and designation project for the entire city of Saint Paul is currently underway. Currently, officiaily designated historic places consist of structures, sites, districts and objects only. A number of important archaeological sites and landscapes exist in the river corridor that do not contain historic structures. These sites and landscapes have been identified by SHPO, however only one site (Indian Mounds Park) has been designated historic on the National Register. A comprehensive inventory of potential local historic landscapes, archaeological and ethnographic sites is needed to ensure protection of all historic and cultural resources in the river corridor. Compreheasive Plan q� � �� o� z. � � � "� � � � � � � � � � � � vt-IR� Opportunities exist for restoring historic sites in the river corridor as an element of riverfront development planning. The Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse on Raspberry Island, the Harriet Island Pavilion as part of the Harriet Island Master Plan and the various historic river caves are prime examples. Reconnecting the Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic Districts to the river and their historic roots as Saint Paul's upper landing and lower landing also provide key opportunities to restore the riverfront�s historical resources. At the Upper Landing site, the Head House was one of the first agricultural transfer stations on the Mississippi River. The Head House should be studied to determine its potential for reuse, perhaps in conjunc- tion with redevelopment plans. One of the buildings currenUy occupfed by the U.S. Post Office at Kellogg Blvd. and Jackson Street (adjacent to Lambert's Landing) is an example of Art Deco style architecture. If this bui]d- ing or the Concourse of the Union Depot become available for reuse, this Plan supports reuse that is consistent with the vision for downtown and principles laid out in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development F2 Policies: 6.5.1 The City encourages the use of historic properties in public and pri- vate riverfront development plans, particularly where interpretation of historic themes is planned. Structures and landscapes listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and those designated as local sites should be preserved in their present condition, if that condition allows for satisfactory protection, mainYenance, ase, and interpretation. 6.5.2 The City encourages the expansion of open space land use where needed to preserve significant archaeological, landscape and ethno- graphic resources. 6.5.3 The City encourages economic activities that preserve and rehabili- tate historic resources in the river corridor. 6.5.4 With the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the City supports the creation of a Saint Paul HisTOric Preservation Plan that includes establishing a comprehettsive inventory of all historic, archaeo- logical, cultural and ethnographic structures and landscapes in the river comdor. 6.5.5 The City will work to restore the former connection of river corridor historic districts (LOwertown and Irvine Park) to the river, by encoura� ing development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods. � y� City ofSaint Paul , � � ' � � , StY'Qte�1 The design of public and private spaces powerfully affects our perception of the quality and character of place. Where the city comes to the Mississippi River, the urban fabric has potential to reflect and glorify Saint Paul's natural setting. The river corridor's varied landforms and existing development pat- terns pose opportunities and challenges for new development to enhance the river valley by providing access to the river and reinforcing continuity in the existing urban fabric. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework has become the � City's essential reference for guiding new development in and around the downtown riverfront. This chapter draws heavily from that work. The inten- ' � tion of this chapter is to support and reinforce the principles articulated in the FYamework while considering the entire River Corridor and implications for all of its land typologies. Urban Structure and Land Forms The river corridor's urban structure is a multi-layered patchwork of movement � systems, land uses, and built form. Movement is multi-modal, characterized by rail lines, major arterials, neighborhood streets and trails. West Seventh Street, or Oid Fort Road, is especially significant because it is the city's longest arterial � running parallel to the river. It is also a major growth corridor connecting to downtown. Shepard Road is another significant river road. It runs parallel to � the river and West Seventh Street, and will soon be rebuilt as an improved and slower speed parkway east of Randolph. Currently, Shepard Road acts as an impediment to river access and e}cperiences. � ,� � The north side of West Seventh Street is characterized by the ordinal grid. Generally, because of the change of land use from residential to industrial, this grid of streets is not continuous across West Seventh. It extends across into pockets of smali residential areas, but because of the grid's spotty nature, residential neighborhoods south of West Seventh do not create a continuous urban fabric. The Terrace and Lowlands are important locations that provide the opportu- � nity for meaningful connections from the Uplands to the river. Currently, the Tenace along West Seventh Street is perceived as disconnected from the Upland neighborhoods of Saint Paul because so few streets traverse the � bluff. In fact, the only connections are from the main streets of the Upland �:.� � : nas � � � � � � s� � � � � � � � Comprehensive Plan 43 � Built Environment bl-I R t grid {Snelling, Randolph, St. Clair, Grand/Ramsey, Fairview/Edgcumbe) that extend down the bluff as parkways or major river avenues. For the same reason, the Lowlands on the West Side also seem disconnected from the Uplands. Topographically, the Terrace corridor is formed by the High Bluffs on both sides of the river. Atop the bluffs lie several high points and landmark buildings, providing a series of vistas visually connecting neighborhoods to each other. Natural reaches are formed where the bluffs are interrupted by the ravines. These reaches provide further opportunities to connect the Tenace and river vaIley to the Upland neighborhoods. The map betow shows the approacimate location of the landforms that make up the river valley and its reaches in Saint Paul. The map also shows the boundary of the Critical Area, which contains the entire tength of the 44 City of Saint Paul , river in Saint Paul. While the influence of the river valley clearly extends Figure v be nd the Critical Area bounda the olicies in this Pian aze under- River Vatley and � �� p Critieal Area stood to be limited to the Critical Area in Saint Paul. boundary � � � ' � � , � Objective 7.1 Development ofnew streets, blocks, and neighborhoods in the river corridor should continuously reinforce connections with the natural enviranment of the river vaIIey cmd the surrounding urban fabric The street grid, or pattem of streets, blocks, and open space forming public and private spaces, determines both the movement patterns and develop- ment pattems of a district. These development patterns provide an impor- tant opportunity to connect with and e�cperience the river. The best exam- ple of this in Saint Paul is in the West Side blufftop neighborhoods west of Wabasha/Humboldt, where blocks are small and connect regularly (at least every 400 feet) with a riverview street, park or sidewalk. In other areas, particularly the West Side Lowlands, redeveloped industrial "superblocks" have the effect of isolating blufftop neighborhoods from the river. The poli- cies below do not preclude industrial redevelopment on industrially-zoned land. However, other redevelopment should consider Yhe opportunity to reestablish meaningful connections to the river. Policies: � 7.1.1 In the Lawlands, new urban villages (as defined in Objective 6.4) should establish an urban street grid that provides access to the river's edge. The City supports utilizing historic street patterns when re-creating ' street grids. If a historic grid does not exist, new urban villages should establish a fine-grained system of blocks and streets. When feasible, new � development should also assure urban continuity by integrating all new street and block patterns into existing traditional patterns. � 7.1.2 The Terrace along West Seventh Street is a major corridor that should have better street connections across West Seventh. The City supports creating new biock and � street pattems south of West Seventh Street that create continuity across West Seventh. New block and street pat- terns on the Terrace should maximize connections to the ' bluff edge to enhance the sense of proximity to the river. � , � � 7.1.3 In Upland areas such as the Gorge, the City encour- ages preserving and enhancing the existing modified grid pattem of streets and blocks. In portions of Battle Creek and Highwood, development form follows a suburban or exurban pattem with cul-de-sacs and meandering roads that follow topography. In these neighborhoods without a connected street system, the City supports creating a connected system as redevelopment or major subdivision occurs, to the extent that it is compatible with topography. �� ..._ , b/- � ;�� : � �' �� .. � �< : �': .' � ; � �v� � �� >� �? a �� : �� e �� <' �� ; s: � �� Comprehensive Plan 45 b(�I�I 1.4 Infill development in the Uplands should be scaled and designed to be compatibte with and reinforce the existing physical fabric. 7.1.5 Street design should accomodate all modes of movement (bicycles, pedestrians and cars). Streets and other public rights-of-way should provide physical and visual connections between river valley neighbor- hoods and the river's edge. 7.1.6 On urban infill and redeveJopment sites in the river corridor, the City encourages underground parking wherever possible, to support "traditional" urban development patterns and to minimize impervious surface. 7.1.7 New and reconstructed bridges or other "gateways" should be designed to be attractive and inviting and maximize the sense of con- nection to the river. This can be accomplished with signage, landscaping treatments, omamental lighting and railings, comfortable sidewalks, and special architectural elements. The Wabasha Bridge and Marshall Avenue Bridge are good examples. New river crossings shouid be mini- mized, and new and reconstructed bridges should be located in the same corridor as the structure they replace. 7.1.8 The City should connect new and existing neighborhoods to the river by greening key streets that connect to the riverfront or river parkways. Objective 7.2 Consistent with an Urban setting, the design of new buildings should reflect the river corridor's natural chcu�acter and respond to topography by preserving critical public views. 46 Built form and building envelopes are a function of height, density and floor plate size. In the river corridor, building scale becomes very important as it relates to topography, views and the surrounding urban fabric. Recently, the City has become much more attentive to this, and now encourages buildings whose scale responds to the surrounding neighbor- hood context, topography and the public realm. In general, it is important to pre- serve public views both of the river from the city and neighborhoods, and fram the City ofSaint Pau! C�.�y�� Y Downtown RiverFro�: critiwl public views 6/—!`� � � a jN a � �; ' river back to the city. However, Saint Paul is an urban condition. ' Occasionally, it is permis- sible and even desirable to allow selective excep- ' [ions for medium-scaled landmarks. , � ' Policies: f��rG,�e �'�a�; _; �, t�—y�-�_��: ��.�: 7.2.1 In Lowland areas, new development should employ building envelopes that heighten the experience of the river corridor by preserv- ing public views to the top of the High Bluff. Public views from the Uplands or Terrace to the water edge of the opposite side of the river should be maximized. 7.22 Along urban growth corridors such as West Seventh Street, building ' envelope standards should be used that recognize not only the importance of the river as a scenic waterway and the corridor as a natural resource, I� ' � but also the needs and appropriateness of massing and density in an urban environment. 72.3 In redevelopment areas along the West Seventh Street Terrace, the street hierarchy of the grid should be reinforced by creating building envelope standards that recognize the importance of locating taller buildings on wider streets and shorter buildings on narrower streets. 7.2.4 On the West Seventh Street and Concord Street Terraces, the City � supports designing buildings with equal consideration given to their visi- bility from the river and to their visibility from the Uplands. The City sup- ports maintaining building heights that maximize public views of the , high biuff lines from the high water mark on the opposite side of the river. Planning for Terrace redevelopment sites should be careful to con- ' sider views of the Terrace from Fort Snelling as referenced in the Design Criteria for the Shepard-Davem zoning overlay. ' II I� , 7.2.5 Building design should add vitality to the street and sidewalk by pro- viding street- levei windows and active street-level uses, semi-public spaces in front of buildings, and front doors facing the street. 72.b In Upland areas, the general character of the existing silhouette of lower- profile buildings along the edge should be maintained. Development should also respect the mature tree canopy at the bluff edge of the Uplands with buildings forms that do not dominate the canopy's natural height. However, occasional, modest exceptions to the silhouette with medium-scaled landmark buildings are allowed. �� :; �: � ��'� � Comprehensive Plan q� or-r�i �.2.7 The City supports the use of "green," or energy efficient building techniques in new developments. 7.3 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites As described in the Setting Chapter, to complete this River Corridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, along with the Saint Paul Design Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment siYes. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. Ideaily, new development should provide greater public access to the river, preserve significant public views, improve stormwater and the urban forest on site, and reinforce and complement the sunounding urban fabric. Illustrations of how On the following pages are suggested guidelines for the West Side Flats, these guidelines might Upper Landing, Koch-Mobil and ADM sites, and the Shepard Davern area. be applied can be found The individual guidelines should not be viewed as mandates, and it is in Appendix A. unlikely that any project wilt be able to fulfill every provision. Rather, col- lectively they provide a vision for redevelopment that enhances the river corridor, respects this precious amenity, and strikes a batance between eco- nomic development and resource protection. This list is not exhaustive. These suggested guidelines witl be used as the basis for the next step in the regulatory process (see Section 8.1.8). Figure Z River Cortidor RedevelopmeM Sites 48 Ciry of Saint Paul , 0�-�4 / ' , , , , � , � , , , n ' ' � � O � Site: WEST SIDE PLATS LocaHon: Be[ween Robert and Wabasha, Mississippi River and Plato Access and Connections • Ea�end adjacent streets into and through the redevelopment site. • Preserve the rail corridor as a poten- tial greenway corridor. �ews and V'vstas • Preserve views of the West Side Bluffs from Keltogg Park. • Ensure views of the riverfront by ori- enting streets perpendicular to the nver. Developmen[ Pattern � Create a concentration of taller build- ings and aaivity and the intersection of Plato and Robert. • Create small blocks, bound by public right-of-way, that can be developed incre- mentally and in response to maeket con- ditions. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space along the riveCS edge. • Extend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native Iandscapes; encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natura] habitau. 5tormwater • Integrate stormwater management elements with natural habitaks, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater discharge. Urban Forest • Reintroduce the'urban forest' with- in/around redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active / passive recreational use wi[h paths, overiooks, seating areas, courts/fields. • Provide visible/accessible connections to neighborhood and regional parks, trails and open space systems. Site: UPPER LANDINCs Locadon: &etween the xigh Bridge and Chestnut Ave., Mississippi River and Irvine Park Neighborhood Access and Connections • Provide multiple connections to Shepard Road, an urban boulevard. Views and V'LStas • Provide an anchoring public space that celebrates the Chesmut Street / Cathedral axis and arrival to the river. • Provide view corridors through [he site from potential ]ower bluff overlooks (not in redevelopment sites) to the river. Development Pattern • Create small blocks that can be devel- oped incrementatly and in response to market conditions. • Create a series of linking public and private spaces oriented to both the river and to Shepard Road as well as other sig- nificant spaces, views and landmarks, such as the High Bridge and downtown. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space a]ong the river's edge. • Extend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native ]andscapes; encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natura] habitats. Stormwater • integrate stormwater management etements with natural habitats, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater discharge. Urban Forest • Reintroduce the 'urban foresY with- in/around redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active / passive recreational use with pa[hs, overlooks, seating areas, courts/fields. • Provide visible/accessible connections to neighborhood and regional parks, tra�ls and open space systems. Site: KOCH MOBIL {Also ADM site) Location: Between Randolph and West 7th; W. 7th and Mississippi River Access and Connecrions • Extend existing streets into and through the redevelopment site • Extend Vicroria Street through the sde to join Montreal Avenue. • Create a"Bluff Dnve° as a local resi- dentiai street atop [he lower bluff park that connects West 7th to the River valley �ews and Vistas • Create multiple views of the river val- ley where s[reets mtersect the bluff drive Development Patterns • Organize street and block development around a wide street or linear park that connects West 7th to [he River Valley Natural Resources • Provide a continuous new public edge along blufftop with native landscapes, pedestrian pathways and developed over- Iaoks. • Extend tandscaped "green fingers" into new development areas along new streets and public pathways. Stormwater • Capture runoff on exisung and newly � Comprehensive Plan 49 (7(�1°E1 developed sites and begin water treat- ment, infiltration process (parlcPng lots, rooftops, terraces). • Integrate final treatment, in5liration and detention systems into the public edge behind the blafftop and into the pat- tem of pazks and squazes, streets and public pathways. • Provide surface system of catchment areas, swales, infilnation and detention areas. Urban Forest •[nstall canopy trees on all new streets; infill canopy trees on e�sting streets. • Develop natural forest along bluff top and bluff face with groves of native trees, grasses and other planiings. Public Amenities • tink public edge to new parks, squares and to existing neighborhoods and regional parks and trails with land- scaped streets and public pa[hways. • Naturalize Shepard Roadlandscape with praide and informally arranged groves oftrees. • &�ctend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the nver. Stortnwater • Develop integrated, comprehensive surface stormwater'treatment train' with swales, wetlands and ponds to address waYer quantity / quality issues. • Integrate stomtwater management elements with natural habi[ats, pubGc open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. Urban Forest • infill canopy trees on existing and redevetoped street grid. • Provide natural groves of native understory and canopy trees along Shepard Road and the public edge along the btufftop. Site: SHEPARD DAVERN Location: Between West 7th and Shepard Rd.;Between Davern and Alton S[reets Access and Connections • F�ctend existing streets into and through the redevelopment site. • Consider creating a direct cormecflon between St. Paul i'kwy. and Alton Street. • Provide mid-block pedestrian connec- tions between neighborhood and Shepard Road. Vews and Y�stas • Preserve natural views from the Kiver to the high bluff by setting buildings all buildings back from the Iow bluff and by providing generous tree planting on Shepard Road Development Paftern • Provide neighborhood green public spaces on which new residential development can be focused. • Enhance existing public edge with native landscapes (oak savanna and prairie), improved paths and developed overlooks. Pnblic Amenities • Enhance continuous public edge along bluff top wi[h new access stairs to Crosby Park, new overlooks, sitflng areas, infor- mation kiosks, biKe racKs and other amenities, • Link public edge to neighborhood parks and squares and regional trail sys- [ems aiong landscaped streets and public pathways. • Provide improved crossings of Shepard Road with enhanced crosswalks, signafized crossings and other amenities 50 City of Saint Paul ' � Ll u � � C � � ' , , , I� ' , � � i Impiementation 8.1 Zoning Code Revisions There will be significant zoning text amendments related to implementa- tion of this Plan. This Plan is unrelated to the Mississippi River Floodway Study by FEMA, which will yield changes in the floodway delineation for the City's zoning map. However, those changes (which will include changes to the river corridor overlay Floodway and Flood Fringe districts) will inform the process of making river corridor zoning code and overlay map revi- sions. The main 2oning recommendations from this River Corridor Plan are: 1. Review and amend current River Corridor overlay zoning districts and map. Currently, river corridor overlay zoning consists of four districts, with two dis- tinct functions. The districts labeled RC-1 and RC-2 together protect the flood- plain. The districts labeled RC-3 (Urban Open District) and RC-4 (Urban Diversified District) are intended to guide the character of development, but are confusing and contribute little to the overlay. Underlying zoning districts determine land use. Generai standards for environmental protection apply to the whole river corridor, regardless of the overlay districts. Consider splitting the cunent River Corridor overlay into two: a"floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RGI and RG2 which govems the floodplain, and a single district "Mississippi River Critical Area" or "MRCA" combining RG1, RG2, RC-3 and RG4, and which addresses Critical Area requirements. 2. Add requirement of 200-foot spacing between marinas or boat launches and barge fleeting areas. 3. Add criteria for new uses in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark: having an economic or operational need for a river location; supporting the attractiveness of surrounding neighborhoods; sus- taining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements; offering public access to and along the river; maintaining views of the river; cleaning up poiluted areas on the site; meeting or exceeding natural resource policies in this Plan. (These criteria do not all have to be met for a land use to be con- sidered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new development should meet as many of these criteria as possible.) 4. The current primary zoning districts RCR-1, RCC-i and RCI-i are not partic- ularly effective in terms of standards, and are in some cases inconsistent with the City Land Use Plan's vision for mixed-use urban villages. This Plan sup- ports redefining these zoning districts to meet current development concepts. Comprehensive Plan 5� �,/ : �.� �; �. �.: �-: � � � r .:� er- i �� 5. Together with the Department of Natural Resources, review/amend River Corridor section of the Zoning Code (Chapter 65) for other necessary changes. In addition, staff will work to clarify and streamline language wherever possible. 6. Create zoning definitions for toe, top, and face of bluff. 7. Consider creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river corridor modification requests for deveIopment on slopes exceeding I2 or I8%, or within the bluff impact area (40' from the bluff line). The intent is not to encourage river corridor modifications, but to provide the Planning Commission with further guidance when considering modification requests. Such criteria may address, but are not limited to, the following factors: ♦ Retain the natuzai slope lines of the site, as seen in profile. Restore the vegetation lines which convey the slope lines. Roof pitch shoutd match slope angle. ♦ Screen new buildings. ♦ Slopes facing the river should look natural to the greatest extent possible. ♦ Stagger or step building units according to the topography. ♦ Plan buildings, drives and parking areas, and Iandscaping to acknow[- edge the natural contour line of the site. ♦ Provide parking on the uphill side behind buildings. ♦ Lot coverage. ♦ Location of building on lot. � - � e:g _ii'idCct=idi�; vtiik,-Siiaf+2, �rl�:r�^:=«, L.^,.�,.. -� ♦ Areas with a certain pitch of slope (e.g. greater than 12% and less than 18%) shall not have an impervious surface coverage �reater than a certain percentage (e.g. greater than 25%). ♦ Encourage elevated structures & retaining walls. ♦ No increase in runoff from the site (from rainfall, septic systems, irrigation). ♦ Minimal removal of deep-rooted woody vegetation. 8. With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, wilI develop design guide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites where no guidelines have yet been written. The design guidelines will be sensitive to the purposes of S2 City of Saint Paul , , C J �� (] � ' , ' !� � this Plan, and wiil clarify how the form and scale of development can incor- porate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public enjoyment of the river. It is expected that such guidelines will be imple- mented through a variery of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Village Zoning project, site-specific guidelines, and possibly through design dis- tricts (a concept that is currently being developed). The Shepard-Davern redevelopment area already has created design guidelines through a 1999 Small Area Plan. Appendix A shows illustrations for the five redevelop- ment sites based on the work of the Design Study. Current state law provides that zoning must be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan within six months of the Plan's adoption, which puts the zoning deadline in ,200X . Given the extent of likely river corridor zon- ing teact amendments, and the already numerous zoning changes from the Land Use Plan, it will likely take the City longer to complete the zoning changes that are proposed in this plan. 8.2 Site Plan Review Guidelines Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate pro- visions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse envi- ronmental impacts of new development. The City will wark with the Department of Natural Resources to determine if amendments to site plan review guidelines are necessary. This will occur during the Ordinance revi- sion process which will follow adoption of this Plan. 8.3 Pazk & TYail System Development � The City Parks 6z Recrea�on Plan (1996) includes an implementation plan for park resource protection, park land acquisition, scenic overlook clearance, envi- ronmental educaUon and intetpretive programs, and development of trails. Park ' plans include completion of the regional Mississippi River'IYail on both sides of the river, connecting to trail segments in adjacent municipalities. ' � Other open space and greenway pro}ects in or near the river corridor are shown, see figure AA on page 54. , Comprehensive Plan 53 b� 1 Figure AA River Corridor Open Space and Greenway Projeets Creek Greenway Oesnoyer NeighEOmoad Sway Managemcsa Plan Pig's Eye Gremscape P1an � I Greming Pr �ec¢ � Sme Blutf Task Force �N/SCO) qlytlakPark HarzretisianaRegiwui Marter Plan Park Mam Pian EaA 0ank Misinippi Rrver Regional irail MaAer P�an �dSE Birytle/Petlesman Conrren�on Fort Snelheg Maser Plan 8.4 Heritage Preservadon Opportunities exist for the preservation and/or enhancement of the historic character of the river; ♦ Enhance visitor access and historical interpretation of Rumtown (across from Fort Snelling, on the riverfronq and Fountain Cave (currently marked with a historical marker at Shepard Road and Randolph Avenue). ♦ Implement Saint Paul Gateway Design Project (Route 5 entry into the city), reuse of the old stone bridge abutment at Gannon and Shepard Road, historic streetscape improvements to the Shepard-Davem area. ♦ Connect Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic Districts to the riverfront. ♦ The historic Intercity Bridge (more commonly known as the Ford Bridge) is scheduled to be redecked and resurfaced beginning in spring 2000. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities as part of con- struction. Include wide sidewalks, ornamental lighting and railings, bike lanes, and viewing decks with bettches (similar to those added to the Marshall Avenue Bridge). ♦ Install signage at the scenic overlook by the Ford Motor Company to explain the historic significance of the Ford Bridge and the importance of the Lock & Dam No.l. The sign should indicate that a visitors' center is across the Ford Bridge. 54 City of Saint Paul � r� � , ! � �� E � � , � � � �� , L_ J , Appendices Design Study ltlustrations for Redevelopment Sites Below are examples of the possible application of suggested design guide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites, described at the end of Chapter 6. The drawings are for illustrative purposes only. awau. � B YexsantlYisfas ProvpeanancnanngpuNicSpacaNatcelebratesmeChwmNStreett GNetlral aus anE Mivel to Ne nver. wnampr.q. C:UewsantlYvstasPmnEeviewmttxbrsNmughNeslefiompolen4allowxNURoveAooks mN+� (notinreCevelopments@�btl�enver F.w m.l �� OevelopmeniPavem, CrealesmallbbcksNalcan be0evebpetl muemmtallya� respon� srvdyiomarkel WndNOns E DeveloF.menlPat�m;Createaserasofl�WSigp�M�candpmatesNacesomntetlrobotl+fie nverend b Sh epad Rwd as well as othx s�gnificant spaces. vrews antl land marks such a s ,,,,,,,- IheHgh&idgeantldowntawn. e: Br.i ma : cs3p a}.sidwid�ng Mges lo define public st2et5 and space az mdral¢d on &uAStrudureCw�osieMap A NatualResources Pmvdewnhnuouspubicopenspacealongnrer'sedge B. NaWalRewurces�Ex@nalantlscapetl'GmmAngerSmbnewtleve�opneniblocksconnec� ing w,tl� pudm open space abng Ne nver. C. NapealResourcesEnwu�epreserva0ondevsOngnaOvalantlsapes,e�u2qed�4ngs of�4vamalenalsinOaWrziv¢dmassi�gs loenhancewcfe9@naNralhabihis D.S{umwa�r.lnte¢afesM�mwain¢femen6vng�na9f21habq6,RUMwoyxnspaceaea5antl parklreaeafim aPP°rWnNes. E. SWmwa�RedureNerateanGimpmrefiequa�iryofslamwafertlisdiarge UpperladmgGreenSVUCNreCOrr4wsiteMap F.UrbanFOrestReintroducelhe'uNanMesC�nN�NarountlreEevelopmentareas Thetetms"HighasP,°Matlium",antl"LowesCcortespondtoNis G Pubf¢Ameni4es.5upportartixofanrve/passrverecrea0onaluseu+NpaNs.avetlooks. individual sita, and sh0ultl not be iMeepretetl as a uniform stantlaN. 5ea4ngareas, courlslfieltls. H.PUGicAmeni6es Prpntlev¢�bkla¢assDleconnechon5loneighborhaWa�tlregiOnalpaMS. trails anE open space sy5tems. S REOEVELOPMENT SITlS Site UPPERLANDIN� � I / Tqpology Low lazd5 Ll� � / Loca9on BeMreanNeHighBnCgeantlChesNUtAVenue; G � � ,/ g � Miss�ssippiMerandUnneParkNeighborhooE GwEelines. - � - �� 0 ��.,' 2 „ q u „ n . 0.AsessandConnec4a�is:ProntlemulUPlemnnednnsroSheparGRwtl.anu�banboulevaN , Comprehensive Plan - Appendices S5 c�r-�a � 5 M1amltMbggPmb , x•.ttsmxs�mm . q� / 0 I i wmxure ,t / /i�i _ �'•\ ,� / <;��-,'>. a:�a�5:` � ��i��'� —_�-�� n�. ,�. SITES 5k. WESTSIOEFfATS i LaM Cbssifxatlon low fands Laptinn: 6eiween Ra6eRand Wabasha; w�.. M'ssissppR�erandPW� �,.. Guiaelines A A.axssandCmnecbo�EZlenEad�acent5Vee6mWaMNmu,gl� hereEevelop�rrtnt a��cro � B:Oaess antl ConneNms: Presene Ne ral mmdor as a po�entiai greenway mmtlar � � CVeuSa�tlYwmsPresnevie+SOfPxWfftSde&'NtshanKPJW99Pa�k % ^� �� v�� \.��F vmw-w 6FssueHewsaFNemuftdrtq'arentin9stleebpe@entliwlarbUemnr � �� 1 � �'` Y � EDevebpineNPa�BmsGea@smatlhbrks,bounE blw'htafwa Ma�canbe i . - e "' Mw � r vpna�rt/� ,,.� �,�.,�# ��"�mentallyantlresponvaelyNmarketwntlitians W �� re �� F:OevdopnmtPatlem.Creafeaw�ntralianaflaJelbudd'ngsanEadrvrtyaMfne iNersechonofPlatoaidRObeit t� / l v � G:&nNPoim:Pm�iAerequiredbuATmgeLgesNGefineWblicsiree5antlspacesa5indicaiea ev�' anB�dtSbucWreCmiposdeMap. � A '� o, � / ��d� ANabualRemurces:ProYtlecon6nUasWbl�copenspacealongnversede,e_ � /�.,�)��\ & Na�valResources.Eqe�dlai�'capnl'GreenfmgelSimo�wrkvebpmen[bbckswrt�ect _� �U��-!�\ ingvxMWbticopenspxealan9Nenver. � V� '__� C Nabva�RescwresE:amzgeA��at�ofe.VSlm9naArelandtt�xsmvregeda+in5s �� `. oFnaovemateeialsinnaWraimdmazsm9sbenAaraeoraeatenwuaih�dais F �� %\ O.Sbrmwater:lnffiga@sbrm�alnelemenLSwf�hnaWralhahita6.Wbticopenspueareasantl � Pxkfre�eetionaP ��~ " E Somm'alecRetluceihea@antlinrym�etl�equatiryofsmrmwater0ischarye West ffide Fla6: Geen Stru W re Compos� Map F. Ui6anFprestftemQoEuceNelubanforestwiNiNarandreEevetopmen(areas ' The [erms "HighesP. "Matlium". antl "LOwesC corraspantl to this Individualsite,aridshouWnotbaiMerpre[edasaUnifonnstandartl. GPUbIicArcrenNes:SUpp�rtam¢afx4velpassrverepeafirn�usevnNpaths.overlooks uat'n9meas.muRSTreHs M. PuWCPmauties.Pmvq¢yo2MJa�55blewnnecLOnsbn¢�9hbwhoW antlregional0�s tratls antl open space sys@ms. Si@ ADM Land GlazsficaAOn. Tertace �� Laatio� BeNrernRantlalphH�2,TOron[oAVeantlShepaNRtl Gmtlalines: A AcauarA Connechonc edentleus6ngstreekmmmitlMmugh iheretlerebpmm; MaBwf $I�P @mW� & MceSSaitlCOn�tlons CreatEa'Blulf�me'asalo�2lr¢sipen�alSV¢etaNpneb��erbWff � � CViewsaritlVabs.Q�kmu�levrewsMNenverralkywhrfestree6inrerse�TeMUffdme. � D:Ceve'opm_ntPaf�mrQgart¢espcetaMWpy;Eeve�bprcenlamundaw,destrc=twlmear parkwhichmnneqs Westl"rothalliverVJley. �e.�� ..._- _ E:BUdtkrm PraridetxM��buDtlm4etlgestotlefineP�U§cstreeisandspacesasinmpreoa:r Butt ScucNre Composile hF� AOM:BU3t5wmreCwrposi@Map H'NaWralRaartceS:RandeonAnmus�wPUNK edge along blufllop mN nx6u� lantlxapes i �.J� ' ��.�i�� a�m�a�n.anaraa�wa�aorenowa. �„�.�!� �.,�� `�" � B.NahualResomcesEv4rAlaneECa�etl°grc¢nfingerdmbr�ewaerebpmentaressabngnew �/�� ;� F sbee4andpuUiepaMways ��' C:S�mmrAx� WreNnoRmensnn andnerA deveio eg — c �� i�katianqacess(pa�lunglols,rooAOps.lenaasl. �srtesantlb nwatuVea�nem — �I �l' �.oF.c 6 Sbnw�ler.P%idem�Fawsysl¢rnW�trJm¢ntaen.swaMS,infiltrationandtla'enoonzmas J � '. • EStwniwatx:IntegralefinalUeatrm.nt,uddrtatima�itlelenYansyslemir�pqibl�eEgebemnd 7 x « bqMtoya�tlFblheV��o(P�aitl`quarE strre6aiMaitlW�KWNwa�s 0.0.E0� �w'+^^ / /: � F U�OanFar�l.NStallcdnopytre¢sonallnewstreef5;�nfillWiwpytreesanensOnastreets 6 WWnFweSt�re�natu.afOrestalmgWNffopandWURfarevntl�giuwsofnaMelrees. AOMGreenSWrnueComyosfsMap 9�santloNerplanUm�s " Thetertns"Highest",°Metlium",and"LOwesCCOrrespontliothis H��blicPmeniOes.�nkpu�I�ced9eN�wpaAcs,square52ntltoewsAigneighbomcotlsantl intlivitlualsHa,antlshaultlnoibeiMerpre[etlasaunifarmsbndard. ��7��'�swM`a^dscapetlstree6antlpuEh�pyfiways � �¢��bkd4wVNe no pe Ev y y py yi¢ Cmryrenersire PNn IYer Sub hvl ane q PmceM awnc m� pY m s:o:�ren� 56 City of Saint Paul , dl � , , �� , , � , �� .� �� u � � � �� w.c�nsu wae�n• e�mm�a Fm. aw..<•...n ��s�r ewn �e. � r� �....,. ...... , � -� ��, � � �I °�` �,,� ° � � �� Y � KochMON W��ISWCEUe(bmPOSiRM� Sfe: KOCH MOBIL LaiC Clamfrabon: Tertare Laatim: BeNremf�iddpla�dWes[7N: w� Guidelines A MBSS2MCmne.tip�eqeqe�%IAgstrez6inloS�tlNm�gh Neretle.xbpe�tsi;e B: A�sanECvna.Pm: �dViYOrmAVenetivaughttes�em{tlnNankeaAVemu C: A�varMCannxWns:Creaka'BIU9Um'asalGale�tlenlialmeetaaPme Wr.vrGU4 o: v��na��s�aea:e�e,�wsmmem��uer•�rn�amre�nme azna� E OewJOpnentPa��:Uga�strcetantldockEemlopnmtardmdawidestreetorfrear parkwhNi� wnrre�6 WestTPo 8�e RiverYaGey. F:@vkFrcm:PrOritlercq�ivedtu2dngeN,�wsNdefi�VUMKStreelsand sP�sasin&caKd on BudlStru W re Comp�le Map a r�aemaae.��es v��aeo�m��ws�ew�umKmyesn�yaumw�mremrei�escace:. pedeslnanpatl�waysanddevebpMovaboks. B: NaWrdReswrces:EtleiG WdscaP� �9�^�°5er5inbnavEewk?mentareaszbn9new str�alsanaDub�cpatliwa�s. C Slamwarer.CaDdremnoHOnevstingentlnexlydeealopeESrtesaMbeginwatelpeamrenl, m(II20onprocvss�patltingloLS,rooMps,imraces) 6 Sbmmvdu:Provqesurfa�sys@mofraltlenentarea5,swalas.iMiltraAmardtlelmLwareas E SlormwaterintsJrzl¢fin�ireahicenl,in�behonanOtlelentionsyslgnNbpub4cedgebehind bkAfloP mk mfo Ne P�m of patro arb s9u�Mes. sUeeS antl D� �YS f llAanFaesllnshllcanopyVeesmaYnewstree5,infillca�wpyp¢¢soneustngsVeels G: llAa� Foresl0evelop naWra14re5taW�g bluR top anO WuRfa� wiN gmve: of naove trees, grazsas ana omerqantiigs. ` Theterms"Highest","Medium",antl"LowesY'cortespontltothis H.PUWicPmenNes.linkWa��ewpaACS.sqvaresantlioedsbngnsghborhoo0santl individualske,andshouldnotbeinterpra[edasauniformstandard �e9�0.^alpaMSantltra5withlanasppedstreelsanLWblicpaNways Si@: SHEPAROOAVEPN LanE Clapiflratlan' Tertace y �� 4xatlon BeRVeviWestiNa+�7EA�epardRd, eWn..r Betr�eenDavemAVenveandPJrooAVenue e�uasqEaw Gmeaiines. A. A�sa anE Gonnecppns eq¢N evshng sbe¢IS mb aM Ihmug� Ne reEevxlopmeni site Mef6vn' a�wnreEaae B.ACcessantlCOnnecWns GonsdxaeaMgadreciconneyonpelweenSLPaulPkwyandAlbnAve L'AaeuaMCOnnecpons pmrJemkblxhpeEeArienmrvRrAOrepeixeenneg�boiMOtl aMShepaN in..n• a�vamvHVa O:YemantlYSpt pe5menaWrziNewbhomNeFnrerbMehigM1bluHbyumngbukmqsaRhulCings hack Gom tlre pw blMantl Oy 0�� 39��us tree planrtng on SM1epaC Roatl _ t vea� E OwebpmentPaMm PmxAerleghboMOOEgrenpubfcspacesonxlvchnenresWenOal tlevxlopmen� � qnbeloosei. - S�eOmdqj • • � f Auxsauvp� �- m.er F,9�MFam ProJdaeedune]du�Wrgc�esbdefineWNCStree6aMapznspacesartA��¢Eon9vi¢ StruchueCampazleMap Sp�ficbW tlmg hagM Sin mLd y ea� multl bean ah�utlpyview s heEana�yss ShepetlDawm �iAShvcNreCamW��V A NaNal Resaurts FnM1ance ensEn9 Wblic edpe mih naGVx IantlsraP� loaY u�ar�na atl Vairre) �mN�tl DSM1S aM dewbpeC a+eMaNs B Nalural Remurces Nffi�rYiu Shepartl Rcad lantlscape xM prane miC inlormN�y anange0 grwes oi Mes C NaNNResourmsEtterdlandwyetl�G¢¢nFVgertnNnewtlereiopmemElWSroru�en egmN puhlw oPai s0am eIm91M1e mer, D. Sloimwa�:Omlopint¢grAed.mmqeh¢n.du¢a�xe9ormwa'ertreaMenttran vnNSVaks w91aM and w�as m aaaressvamraumiAblauaM'swes E: $tmmwaler IMegreR ApmwMa Nemen6 wGh na1u21 haGWk pu0k apen spdce areas mitl pak i rareah n aPPOrW��Aes. F: UNan Farest IMID rs�opy treas an eusMg antl mGevebpetl stree� g�M G' U�bai Ports[ PmJde naMal gmvss Nnatvx unEers�wy 3ntl canopy Vees 31m9 ShepaN RoM anC ttaG�wetl9¢ '�9tlre WAACP. H. PubGCAmpnry¢s En�McewnpnuousW��td9eaMgGM(opmlM1�wxc¢sssla'usto CrosbYPaA rewowMatr, s�nq areas, mryrtnawn iupsks, p�e ruHS anaoVcer amewce: Shepa N�rxrn. Grebn StrvcWre ComppsPe Map I. PuEicAme� GirtY qM.c ¢Lga to iwgnbof�waE paI santl swaes aM regicna� aa� sys(¢ms dbrg ImiduapeC siree4 antl Dubhc ptlhways. The terms •'HighesY', "Medi�un", antl "LOwesC correspontl to ihis individual siie, and should no[ be interptated as a unifortn sidntlartl. J. PudKMrcnNas Prauke impovetl aasmgs d SM1epaE Roatl vnM enM1anrea crouwa�ks sgnafsEVOssings,saf¢mrresardaNxamenmes � Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 57 b(_ � �'i t Historical and Archeological Sites/Structures National Register of Historic Places and Districts in the River Corridor ♦ Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse (on Navy/Raspberry Island)' ♦ Harriet Island Pavillion ♦ St. Paul Union Depot ♦ Holman Field Administration Building (St. Paul Downtown Airport) ♦ Robert Street Bridge (crossing the Mississippi between downtown and the West Side) ♦ Colorado Street Bridge (on the West Side, South Wabasha Street near Terrace Park) ♦ Intercity Bridge (Ford Parkway crossing over the Mississippi) ♦ Mendota Road Bridge (on West Side, Water Street crossing the Pickerel Lake Outlet in Litydale Park) ♦ Irvine Park Historic District* ♦ Lowertown Historic District* ♦ Summit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District' ♦ Giesen-Hauser House (in Mounds Park, 827 Mound Street) ♦ Alexander Ramsey House (in Irvine Park, 265 South Exchange Street)" *Site is also a Local Heritage Preservation Site. Significant Archaeological Sites (identified by 9tate Historic Preservation Office) ♦ Indian Mounds Park (determined eligible for National Register but not yet officially listed) ♦ Harriet Lsland ♦ Pike Island ♦ Pigs Eye Lake ♦ Fountain Cave ♦ Carver's Cave ♦ Rumtown ♦ Meeker Island Lock & Dam (determined eligible for National Re�ister but not yet officially listed) 58 City of Saint Paul � c�i r4 j � � � LJ � � ' �_� � � ' � L�' � � � � � 1'IIPiYESOT9 HISTORIC.9I. SOCIETY February 14, 2001 Mr. 3ack P. Maloney 580 Oris Avenue St Paul, MN 55014 Deaz Mr. Maloney: The Minnesota State Historic Preservation O�ce (SHPO) is in receipt of your letter dated 21�01 raquestira an oFinion frnm our office as to the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of the Meeker Island Lock in St. Paut. As you know, the Meeker Island Lock was part of an eazly 20�' century attempt to bring regulaz water transportation to Minneapolis. The Corps of Engineers initial plan involved two locks and dams, one neaz Fort Snelling to be called Lock and Dam #1 and the other to be just above the Lake Street bridge (near Meeker Island) to be called Lock and Dam #2. Work started on Lock and Dam #2 in 1899 and was completed in 1907. This was the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River. The steamboat Itura was the first vessel to pass through the lock on May 19, 1907. Work was started on Lock and Dam #1 in 1903, but in 1910 hydroelectricity advocates succeeded in convincing the Corps to build a high dam at Lock and Dam # 1. This eliminated the need for the Meeker Island sttucture, sa the top five feet of Dam #2 were demolished in 1912 and the lock chamber was abandoned. Lock and Dam #1 was completed in 1917. Lock #2 on the east side of the river is still visible from the Lake Street bridge. The significance of Lock and Dam #2 is cleaz. Not only was it the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River, but it was an important part of the power struggle between the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul regarding the development of hydroelectricity and which city would be the head of navigation. It is eligible under National Register Criterion A:n the azcas of Engineering and Trnnspartation. The fact that the lock chamber survives virtually intact and the base of dam exists on the riverbed suggests that the site retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance. There is also the possibility that remnants of the access road and the dam construction camp exist as contributing elements. Unfortunately, our office does not have the staffing resources to prepaze the National Register nomination at this time. If you wish to immediately pursue nomination of ttte property, it will be necessary for you to supply us with a completed National Register form and any required supporting documeniation. You may wish to retain the services of a consultant to complete the nomination. A list of consultanu is attached. Please note that inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement. .saa lU�:�.i.�u.c Ruii.c�a�zu Wcs�r; S.�tvr Yu�.. �Imar:w��.,.�uc.ieue; T[i.rt�uu�p:: aai _,�,-��ci� � Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 59 vr-i R � You may also ask to have this property added to a Hst of pmperties for which nominations will be prepazed by tlus office when there aze sufficient resources. I cannot give you an exact time when ttus might occur. It may take several yeazs from being added to the tist of possible r,ominations to the presentafion of a completed nomination to the State Review Boazd. For now, the Minnesota SHPO considers the Meeker Island Lock and Dam to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Sincerel 11" \/" Scott tlnfinson � National Register Archaeologist, MnSHPO Cc: Martha Faust, St. Paul PED 60 City of Saint Paul b/-la 1 , i 1 CJ J � ' �� I� i i � , � � , � , Databases Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Aeritage and Nongazne Research Program, Box 25 �IX) LdIB�CfIC �Zu.lt� S1. Peul. \finac.u�a 591J�_;[1 Phnne: (651) 296-8279 Fa<: (651) 2961811 Ii-mail: jan.5�eier(u,ldnr.stare.mn.us June 7, I999 Virginia Burke City of St_ Paul Department of Planning & Econ. Devel. 1300 City Hall Armex 25 Wes[ 4'" Stteet St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Request for Namral Heritage information for vicinity of Mississippi River Corridor, Critical Area Plan; Hennepin, Raznsey, and Dakota Countles; T28N R23W 5.5,8,17,20,21,22,23,14,12,11,1 1'29N R23W S.32, T28N R22W 5.3-7,9-11,14-16,22,23, T29N R22W 5.32. NHNRP Contact #: ES990749 Dear Ms. Burke, The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural feamres are known to ocwr within an approximate one-mile radius of the atea indicated on the map enclosed with yout information reques[. Based on this review, there are 55 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched (for details, see enclosed database printout and explanation of selected fie(ds). The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Naturai Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Services, Department of NaNral Resources. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, na[ura] communities, and other natural feamres. Its putpose is [o foster better understanding and pro[ecdon of these feazures. Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be'rare or otherwise significant natural feamres in the state that are not �epresented in the database. A county-by- county survey of rare na[ural features is now underway, and has been completed for Hennepin, Ramsey and Dakota Counties. Our information about natucal communities is, therefore, quite thorough for those counties. However, because survey work for rare plants and anicnals is less exhaustive, a� because [here has not been an on-site survey of ali areas of the counties, ecologically sigaificant features for which we have no [ecords may exist on the project area. The enclosed resulcs of the database search are provided in two focmats: index and full record. To control Ute telease of loca[ional information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, both printout formats are copyrighted. The in ex provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an Environmental Assessmen[ Workshee[, municipal natura7 resource plan, or intemal report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other purpose, piease contact me to request wri[[en permission. Copyright notice for the index should include [he following disclaimer: "Copyright (year) Sta[e of Minnesota. Department of Nanval Resources. This index may be DNR Information: 651-296-615'7 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 65]-296-5484 • 6800-657-3929 An Equa{ Oppnnunify Cmplayer � p��tetl on Recycied Paper Contaming a ��'ho Valuvc Uivcrsity Minimum ol ��°, Post-COnsumer Wasie , Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 61 vr-�� reprinted, unattered, in Environment2l Assessmen[ WorkcheeLS, municipai naw21 resource plans. and i�rternal reporls. For a1ry other ute, written permission is required.' The fuli-record printout inc[udes more detailed Iocadonal informaaon, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to repnnt the full-record printouts for any purpose, please con[act me to request written pernussion. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on raze narural features. ]t does not consptute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Thank you for consulting us on [his matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's raze namral resoucces. Sincerely, �-> -'��" ` 'CC ic i Jan Steier Emironmen[al Review Assistant encl: Database seazch results Rare Fearure Datahase Print-Oucs: An Explanation of Fields g2 City of Saint Paul , d/ `�/ � � l� �� ' � � � � � � � � � � � 0 � N a C � rv � £ u Ta 4 m. ° d 3 C F C� Q e �. 4 � n E n U N � = � �� U � F O 4 • E Q q rv M 2 K O 4 2 a. S m �a ry G Y F U N M ro W N N Z s a s � m E d F G msz rv� � R !J T N F h y U m M N z rc x 4 m N C F � V„2 7 F p C 3 L G ro d R G w Q M N a a x v . u � 4 2 U V u � Oj G i V C N £ W m � m � O 9 m � W Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y �� 4 m m c. 0. c a 4 4 4 � � � 4 S � Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 Z w O O O O O O O U' O U O U O O O m m m w w w m z a x�a a x a s Y X Y Y X# X Y w w � fd y ° 'www r. � U U� U U V U m m r� m w w� w �� 4 4 4 4 4 4< 4 C1 6 m m 10 m m P! � O a d 5 m d U � � R y µ X s Z 2 2 2 2 N Vl Vl (A y N } N N Y K C K C C 41 N IC Gl 4l X Y Y Y Y �g�� 2 Z 5 Z O o o O O ( mmm x s x x x �� .`�. .ro .". " .w m �u mrum Y i� N Y Y m m m m m W N 0 N N O ODU t) m amo. w ° �'axzx r z��a�d�d O , 1 6 6 a d � � Z Z z Z � U O O O O � (�.t � b !�u Z >�� 4' ti N H N m .] .]F F EFZ0, t+ m m w m o z o Z c C K V � / � � S S � z Lt .] �L' y ,� 4 y Q� � p 4 m 5ry S �� N�].1r9.] Z G s� a a. ss � 0 Y Q a � U K Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y�a Y � � m � � � � � � � � F d ,� F K E Z2U' F2ZZ(�-� F O O K y O O O v� Q N W f�i'. � Z C� m 5 Z 2 � � � � .'{ � � , �-�i W N Z � N 2. ��ma��Z�Zamz ££ £�£ £sw £r�.. �� aa Y O yK O C O 4 4 4 C 4 6 I W� f U f�il L' 6 Z 5 K 2 a�� Y K G R Ll 4' w„r�. K 5 y F� C K K � a o F a a a a a u`� a a c z z N „ z z z � a n n�.'�i ma w R Pl N N N i- rv�i n N N � F V� N V+ Ol N � C O VJ 4) £ Y 2 f�i. £ £ £ a � s � e .� n � m ."'. ar. a " m e x � ss �o ru : M W N o N�„ S W x � R iF n a � m o F F � Y N x E N x . 41 ] F m'- w i . � m � m c g £ GI E m W �(C � m Y F Ot U' U�' O.'J x � N £ F� fl R 2 x N F t9 N e�A � O� � F a� a� E R> yFY>�[ F�� G F O�Q(��l � Y G s �q(�0 U' d� Q Y 4£ x £ G�� W��+ � V V� N S p� K y T. N 41 r� V 4 (q 5 2 W Y } .] M � O 2.] � N N� �/1 � N N U N U' Vi 4� N M N m# Z�A N r w U' F F '.J P N X U F 41 V 0. � a e � ti w a a u e[ s'. e a P H ° M o [9 � U 9 3 2 4] O �` � 41 y � U N h. 4 v� ' � r ` t 5 £ 2 F F � � N � _ £ � N O j j A m � {i � $ �] m N ry 4 [ Z � a � X ¢ Q � � � � � � � � � C W � � 3 .�i g y �l �" a £ �/i " V E K Ol 41 O E� O K�� N a N� Z�"' � h O a w mpl M m g F Nu�E ��w]-- Om 40 N C KV� aa z � Z H 9 Y 5 5 U M vl H G vl 6 W 4 W 3 r� 6 h Y. V VI w O. N � �� '� a� sa aa m a � w m e. r� m�z m u._ o.. mmm r x z x x�� z� F u u�., � z� x� r z m� a� �� a z�� m� a `� o z H w'—' m f O� N O O µ� O (p 4 vl F 01 Z U U N N Z 4l 0 U 6t !il U U U Z U� M G1 a Q d y p Y O �$ p U d y !� O GI Q N (, �r N r� H r� U M U C'J O C IX p b 2 F U F Z£ �'L 4 VI 5 2� £ 4 v N� Z C y N Y. w] u U--mmy�mO t a� t u�t� 4q za�¢ac�szc a oa a 3t Q -�a. w . `' z ir �-] �l r�l F r] F 4. r] N N N. v 4l ] 3 N � �� H v 4� W Q W m p [.� „ F m M O W U O W G O 0 U t/� V1 U N K (� O�N Ll F d F F 3 N N 3'F N M11 N �.l F y y Y 4I y��q Z O Q 41 4 U 9 £ W N m m W„ I/� C b y 4 ��'J U V1 Q K W K 41 4 2 a'� m z �1 m F N M F W O U N W o w r a z r.�i m a s � a'�'c a m� 4 � v �oa'�.a�.N`do��"oo��mwm�'�cu.zqa'„o`�' wa�mN"8'°�o`a'�aoo.o�o3zd� r� �a m ia w rc a a � � o � ° u w � � '� v�, c�i � � � c � � m c7 � �i �w �x � � o�� E a w � � � a d � a � � '� f9 rn N N N Y N Fl >� .] O nt �+ U F} p U O� F+ r] Q U� (J N VI U O y N W O lO W QI O O � N 1h N N v1 N Vl vl N � � £ N N F H F y E F d N j v� N h J U C U U 5 O W V.' F N t F u .] N �p o �A� a � �g N F t W y F F F W� t/1 H �9 [+ 41 F tl Gl � Z .. �` � G1 N N n m�(t o m r o � o rv (V N rv y o o N N M N IV N N N N N N n n . �{ ea . f i H N N(V N N IV N tV f�l' N 3 3 N N 3 3 N 3 N N 3 N 3 t�v N 3 3„ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3� 3 3 3� 3� 3 3� m} Y; 3 3; 3 3 K K C C C C C 5 K C K 4' K K IX K¢ K K a C K C K K C C K K C LL' C K C G K C C K K L' K K C C 6' C C K 5 2 Z Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z m Z 2 5 Z 2 Z 2 Z L 5 2 5 Z 2 2 2 2 Z m 2$ Z Z� 2 Z 2 2 Z 5 Z m y T. 2 2 L 2 M N m ra IV a� 1V 1V �`1 (V N N o ry[v ry ry rv ry ry rv ry ry rv ry fV m ry ry N N IV [V N N N ry ry ry N N N N[V N N ry ry ry F F F F F F F F H N F F F[+ F F F F F F F F F F[�-� F E F F F N N F F F F F F E H F E F E E F F F F ' Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 63 �i-�� N K K � K � O O O H � � � � U 9 (� y p � m i 5 . 6' �L a' C � � a .a ul a Y C C C C 4 n O > > > > 4 0� „ m c z a e� 4 S. y F F F F y N T N 2 z 5 2 Z i S N , N C � � i-�'i �- r�i � M� a N H b � � w� q y 0 a �. `� wm.�nmOo n� � E f E s w m � m � 0 U R O O 3 m Q [V M 2 C � 4 y � 2 m n t d F U yy � N % ro � N Z 6' C N nl 2 � m E �. � x W m c a F O� .I 4 w N F s S � N Q'1 g N�£� U U �av � ��a�g�� wi� m � ra� N i�� a �iaH z a rya � £2 q£ q r ( ��.w w 6' F� � 5 I 'y q �� ' H O i� �+ V 0 V H.'�L O R� M 2�„� K 'O F o a F a� m O� c � z 4 S a3� � 5�5��5 w w �� a 6� i aa N �_ __4l _ OSY4tQ_ W.G. N �C W j £ a m 0 A �4 �m�� 2 0 N V W F %� m F m [a vr u O fu m .� rl H N S � m i 2 m q q r�� ° a M w U G�i L Y 6' W (N`l IV m � 'F V d Vl n a O � S S 3'd S S 3 w m u Y d rc s a¢`� `a a m �°+ m m m m m� m � N W iV N M N N N ry U £ W F F F F F F F F C 64 City of Saint Paul vi ia / C� i , , � � l� � Il u � � !_ � i � � � � � Rare Features Database Print-outs: An Explanation of Fietds The Rare Features databax is par[ of the Natwat Heritage Informazion System, and is mainiained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Reseazch Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Serviccs, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). `*Please note that the print-outs are copyrighteci and ntay not be reproduced wichout permissiorc" Field Name: [Full (non-abreviated) field name, if dif'ferent]. Further explanarion of £eld. -C- CBS Si[e: [Coanty Biological Survey site number]. In each county, the numbering system begins with 1. CLASS: A code which classi£es features by broad taxonomic gcoup: NC = natural communiry; SA = special animal; SP = special plant; GP = geologic Qrocess; GT = geologic time; O'C = othet (e.g. colonial waterbird colonies, bat hibemacu(a). �: [County]. Minnesota counties (ordered alphabetically) are numbered from 1(Aiikin) to 87 (Yellow Medicine). CURRENT STATUS: Present protection status, from 0(owner is not aware of record) to 9(dedicated as a Scientific and Natunl Are�). _¢ DNR Reeion: 1=NW, 2=NE, 3=E Central, 4=SW, S=SE, 6= MinneapolislSt Paul Metro. DNR Ouad: (DNR Quadrangle code]. DNR-assigned code of the U.S. Geotogic Survey topographic map on which the rare feaWre occurs. -E- ELEMENT or Element: See "Element Name (Common Name)" Element Name (Common Namel: The name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records, this field holds the scientific name, followed by the common name in parentheses; for all other elemenu (such as plant communities, which have no scientifc name) it is solely the element name. EO RANK: [Element Occurrence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of naturai communities from A(highest) to D (lowest). EO Size: [Element Occurrence Size]. The size in acres (often estimated} of natural communities. -E- FED STATUS: [Fedecal Statusj. Starus uf species undu the Federal Endangered Spe�ies Law: LE=endangered, LT=threatened, C=species which have been proposed for federai (isting. Federal Stams See "FED STANS" Forestrv District: The Minnesota DNR's Division of Forestry district number. •G- GLOBAL RANK: 1'he abundance of an element globally, from G I(criticalty imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide bazis) to GS (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks aze determined by the Conservation Science Division of The Nature Conservancy. -I- IN'CENDED STATUS: Des'ved protection staWS. See also "CURRENT STANS." If a complete list of protection status codes is needed, ptease contact the Atahua( Heritage Pragram. _U LAST OBSERVED or Last Obscrved Date or Last Observation: Date of the most recent record of the element at the locacion. atitude: The location at which the occurrence is mapped on Natural Heritage Program maps. NOTE: There are various levels of precision in the original information, but this is not reflected in the latitude(longitude data. For some of the daca, particulazly historical records, it was not possibie to detertnine exactly where the original observation was made (e.g. 'Port Snelling", or "the south shore of Laice Owasso"). Thus the latitude/longitude refleM the mapped location, and no[ necessarily the observation location. Leeat: Township, range a�d section numbers. Lone: (Longitude). See NOTE under "Latitude" -M- MANAGED AREA or Managed Area(sl: Nazne of the fedecaliy, state, locally, or privately managed park, forest, preserve, etc., containing the occurrence, if any. If this field is blank, The element probably occurs on private land. If "(STATUTORY BOLJNDARY)" occun after the name of a managed area, the tocation may be a private inhotding within the stamrory boundary of a state forest or park. Mao Svm: [Map Symbol]. t Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 65 Cal- r a � MN STATUS: [Minnesota Statusj. Legal stapts of plant and animal species under the Minnesota endangered species Iaw: END=endangered, TI�R=threatened, SPC=special concetn, NON= no (egal status, but rare and may become listed if declines continue.l'his field is blank for nahual communiNes and colonial waterb'vd nesting sites, which have no legal status in Minnesota, but aze tracked by the database. -N- NC Rank: [Natural Community Rank]. -a Occ #: [Occurrence Number]. The occurrence number, in combination with the element name, uniquely identifies each record. OCCURRENCE NUMBER: See "Occ #" # OF OCCURS: The number of records existent in the database for each element within the azea seazched. Oumershiu: Indicates whether the site is publicly or privately owned; for publicly owned land, the agency with management responsibitiry is listed. - p - Precision: Precision of locational information of occurtence: C(confumed) = known within I/4 mile radius, U(unconfirmed) =lrnown withia lf2 mile, N(non-specific) = known within 1 mile, G(general) = occurs within the genera( region, X (unmappable�lceation is unmappable on USGS mpographic quadrangles (often Irnown only to the nearest county), O (obscure/gone)=element no longer exisu at the locazion. PS: [Pr:m2,y Section7_ The sec:ion cantaining a!! nr [I:e �2[est nart of [he accur*ence. -Q uad Ma : See "DNR Quad" -R- Rec #: [Record number]. RNG or Rng: [Range number]. -S- SEC770N or Section: [Section number(s}]. Some records are given oniy to the nearest section (s), but most aze given [o [he nearestquazter-section or quarter-quatter-section (e.g., SWNW32 denotes the SWIl4 of the NWl/4 ofsection 32). A"0" is used as a place holder when a hatf-section is specified (e.g., ONO3 refers to the noRh 1/2 of section 3). When a occurtence crosses section boundaries, both sections are listed, without punctuation (e.g., the NE I/4 of section 19 and NW 1/4 of section 20 is displayed as "NEI4NW20"). Site: A name which refers to the geographic area within which the occuaence lies. [f no name for the area exists (a Iocaily used name, for exaznple), one is azsigtted by [he County Biological Survey or the Natural Heritage Program. Sovrce: The colleMOr or observer of the rare feature occurrence. S RANK: [S[ate Rank]. A rank assigned to the natural community type which reflects the known ex[en[ and condition of that community in Minnesota. Ranks range from 1(in greatest need of conservation acrion in Yhe state) to 5(secure under present conditions). A"?" following a rank indicates little infarmation is available to rank ihe community. Communities for which infoimarion is especially scarce are given a"U", for "rank undetermined". The renks do not represent a legal status. They aze used by the Minnesota Depazttnent of Namra! Resources to set priorities for research, inventory and conservation p{anning. The state ranks aze updazed as inventory information becomes available. S[ace Starus: See "MN STA"fUS" -T- Ttivrar�: 1Townsnip rtumoerj. -y- Verification A reflection of the reliability of tt�e information on which the record is based. The highest tevel of reliability is "verified," which usuaily indicates a collettion was made or, in the case of bird records, nesting was observed. Plant records based on collections made before L970 are unverified. Voucher: The museum or herbazium where specimens are maintained, and the accession number assigned by the repository. In the case of bald eagles, this is the breeding azea number. -�'�'- Wildlife Area: The Minnesota DNR's Section of Wildlife administrative number. Data Security I.acatiorts of mme rare feaNres mus[ be treated as sensiGYe infortnazion bewise widespread knowledge of these loca[ions could result in harm to the r�e features. For txample, wildflowers such as orchids and economically valusble planfs suCh as ginseng aze vWne�able W esploita[ion by wlkctors; other species, such az bald eaglcs, are unsilive ro disturban« by obseevers. For this eeaso0. we prcfer that publica[io� no[ identify the precise Iocat�ons of vulnerable specia. We sugges[ dacribing Ne location only ro th< neares[ section. [f this is not acceptable for your purpose5, please call and discuss this issue with the Environmental Review Specialist for [he Herifage and Nongame Research Program az 651/296-8319. Reviaed 07/99 66 Clt�! Of $QI[it PQU/ � �!-(R I L� � � , � t LJ � � � � i C J , � � � � Minnesota Land Cover Classification 5ystem factsheet The Minnesota Iand Cover Qassification System (MI.CCS) has been designed for use in the metropolitan area by a collaborative effort of federal, state, and local uniu of govemment as well as non-profit organizations. The MLCCS integrazes a new classificazion system of cuitural features with a combination of existine land cover classificadon systems for natvial and semi-natural azeas. The system is unique in thaz it categorizes cultural, urban and built-up areas sh in land cover terms, identifyina these azeas in terms of imperviousness and vegetative cover. For natural azeas the system fully inco�porazes the Minnesota Natural Heritage native plant communiry types (Minnesota's Native Ve�etauon: A Kev to Natural Communiaes. version 1.51 and the recendy developed National Vegetazion Classificadon Standazd (NVCS). The NVCS was developed in partnership with The Narure Conservancy and [he naaonwide state Natural Heritage programs, and has been adopted as [he standazd for fedeially funded projects. The MI.CCS is a five level hierarchical design, pemutting a gradient degree of refinement relevant to any land cover mapping project. It is comprehensive and systematic, is applicabie at any scale. and is suitable for monitoring and mapping purposes of any identified land cover found in the metto azea. By the summer of 2000, the MLCCS will have been applied to: The Criucal Area /Mississippi Nationat River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) corridor, the Minnesota River Corridor in the Twin Cities, several trout stream watersheds, and large portions of Dakota County. Addifionally, the Metro Greenways program has begun encouraging its use by local unics of govemment for developing Greenway plans, and MetroGIS has endorsed the MLCCS as a`best practice' land cover classification system for use in the Metro azea. The MLCCS data collected for the current pilot projects is being used for idendfying sites for ecoloa cal restoration, municipal growrh plannina, habitat protection, and Metro Greenways planning. The MLCCS can be used for creating a GIS-based land cover inventory. Polygons of various sizes (down to one acre) are identified by their predominant cover. For each polygon, modifiers may be added to further define the chazacteristics of the site. Possible modifier codes include imperviousness, land use, vegetation disturbances or management, natival quality, tree species, forestry (e.g., percent canopy and DBH), and water regimes. Typical data needed to interpret land cover using the MLCCS includes Counry Biological Surveys, County Soil Surveys, National Wetland Inventory, Color Infrazed phoxos and Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles. This base information is usually sufficient to identify polygons to the third level of the MI.CCS codes. Fieid inspection by ecologists is usually required for modifier attn.butes and to identify natural community types in the forth and fifth levels of the MLCCS. Field inspection is also used to confirm and refine polygon delineation. Metro standazds being used in the MI.CCS aze: * Idenpficadon to the forth level * Minimum mapping unit: two acres (one acre for native species dominated communities) * Minimum mapping width: 50 feet * Modifer codes for: Basic land use, natural community vegetation disturbainces and identification of invasive species For more infocmation concact: Peter Leete OR DNR Waters 1200 Wazner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55106 ph:651-772-7916,fax:651-772-7977 email: peter.leete@dnr.state.mn.us Bart Richazdson DNR Metro GIS Coordinator 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55106 ph:651-772-6150,fax 651-772-7977 email: bart.richardson@dncstate.mn.us .a,,..� t Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 67 _C�(-14 l Water Management and Regulation Water Management and Regulation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. This is a brief overview of the entities that are responsibte for water management in Saint Paul: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes standards For water quality management, drinking water safety, solid and hazardous waste disposal, toxic substance management, air quality control, and general environmental quality review. Enforcement is delegated to the Minnesota Pollution Contro] Agency. Saint Paul is working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on a stormwater discharge permit under the Federal Clean Water Act. The City currently has a draft permit which involves development of a stormwater management and monitoring program. The MPCA also admin- isters the constnzction site sediment and erosion control permit. Permit coverage is required for any project which disturbs five or more acres. This permit has permanent water quality ponding requirements for a project which creates one acre or more of impervious surface. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture implements state laws that prevent surface and groundwater pollution from pesticide and fertilizer application. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires a permit for any project constructed below the ordinary high water mark, which alters the course, current, or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands. The Minnesota Board of Water and 5oii Resonrces ($�rvSic) is a sta[e agency dedicated to helping local governments (counties, soil and water conservation districts, watershed management organizations and water- shed districts) manage natural resources. The Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District (R5WCD) is a local unit of government that helps direct and manage natural resource programs. The RSWCD is working closely with Ramsey County and the BWSR on the development of the newly formed Capitol Region Watershed District's watershed management plan. Saint Paul is within the jurisdictions of the foltowing watershed manage- ment organizations, which develop and implement comprehensive water- shed plans: 68 Ciry of Saint Paul � a�-i4 / � � , � � , I � � � �� _� � � L] C� ♦ Capitol Region Watershed District ♦ Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District ♦ Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization ♦ Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization Saint Paul's local water management plan will be completed two years after the completion of the last watershed management plan. The Middle Mississippi River WMO completed its plan in April, 2000, so Saint Paul will complete the local water management plan by Apri12003. The City's local water management plan will address the individual plans of each water- shed management organization as well as the stormwater discharge per- mit. The City water management plan wiil also focus on improving the quality of stormwater runoff into the Mississippi River. The City of Saint Paul site plan review process includes stormwater man- agement requirements that limit the rate of runoff from new development to the equivalent from a residential area and requires storage for the 100- year rainfall. All projects that go through site plan review are required to provide for erosion and sediment control as specified in the Ramsey County Sediment and Erosion Control Handbook. Saint Paul also is responsible for administering Minnesota's Wetiand Conservation Act. Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 69 vi-�Q � Public Participation February - April, 1999 Release Issue Paper "Framing the Discussion", convene two Stakeholder Focus Groups. February, 1999 - December, 1999 Comprehensive Planning Committee° meetings January - April, 2000 Design Study, convene Intergovemmental WorMng Group to assist. June - July, 2000 Comprehensive Planning Committee* meetings August 25, 2000 Planning Commission releases Draft River Corridor Plan for public review and comment. August 25, 2000 - October 24, 2000 Public Review Period October 20, 2000 Public Hearing at Planning Commission November - December, 2000 Comprehensive Planning Committee` meetings December IS, 2000 Planning Commission adopts Mississippi River Corridor Plan. * Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission 70 Ciry of Saint Pau1 ' o�-�� ► j � • � � - Maps and Inventories � � � � 1 t i � 1 I � � 1 t� � � I Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 71 a/-��/ L' l� �. - � ,. � - I � . : -. " � , , , � ;� � � ��^� 1 �.� � � ' ' � �,i', � �„ � i�fi � �� u' . � iL , ' �f 9V\ .: ' . y �'�- __(� � �� , / V l y <t�� f � ! J�} ? y f, -1rh . _. / �� . '1 r� -S !", �- J �ft �y� � J �. ` r-. J� �� ' < '` �> �b�ti> � V - � \ ��'�-e . j � � � . 3 "�. r�-' � , , d' � �� I r i '�' �aoti , �. � ��,� �, w F- �i� � k.'� � � � � , i � aaH/u}$ ' : �, . � n ,. .1 �, , � � ' _ � a�uo �� , ��, un� � � =� , � ^� �� i ai �.� '�� ' . ,I I � �� . f , �, .."• ��.� ,�� s i I \ 4 � � . I .I � j(TY - li ' i%!/� .; . �'•�� ,� � � � 2 ` �' ^C � � �' • � � i, i I'��i' E �� A�.i I � �, E I " i ;o� W" N II � � m ',�� 1 W J II // I, � J S � I 1 I " ' n � , i 1 � � Rd . � ,-°i� , ; � �� ,,,aqwm � ,� ' , � :l� � . � � � 'I �� ,;,� ,'; ,� y, '�,�aw� � o I' �i ' i�i�: �� "'�°_ I.� i , ,�, .�°4�� N �� I i 6}i � , � 5 � , � , , , � � � ' � � � � �" �:i� � ii :. ma � �� ''I4' �i r, � � ��, � � , � �"�, � r ! i �� 'i' � � �r �i�l ��t�i +i �a pue .! �.ili,ul' .:, �� ;: � ia. ,� �� , � tUla77 ._ -- �,': ay �-. ~;. N 2 � . . , � r-�-_ t , � ' /'fJ( i r l.� P3 . r i� z�:� � `m `o c �° � e � � p] U C O � N Z'� � 'n a Z ro m R � . d ` O VJ C Q 6 y w o � u \ � LL ' f0 N m V CJ ��, i r '� �� „ �i \ m `rn � '� Il�a�s � s � � i � a � 1 �. � IJ N ; � �: wlPj '�ai � � � c j � �' � � I ' LL � a.Jl { xh i;' i i - � L � �1.+ � � � d � O � '� �' � �q _x � ,� ye �LL � E N � � �R �w � E� � � S 2 -� 4�'r� n ��. � �� on p � � � � t N , � w �a t� p, °'� � � �o V [� � �W � Cd� Q v� r41 � j' ... �; . Yi� � - i N �' � ��t� � � � � ly , � � � ,�: � � �� , �� , � . . ' ' ,��.'� C� r� ° A: � s, i -�� °�,�`- � �°�' i, ��,,� ��-,--� I� Y - t 3. �• . eL . . . � : � �f - . . .:= yv " y�� i � a �^�� j � � l� ' � / o �. � ; � _ _ a .�:: , � ', �� r i . .�'�o j '�; ir., ��' � aF x i ��i J / ,_ '"� ,,: „ �aHNI$� �� ,� m � ' � r� � � � �� " � ��— m g g �� E ��s°= _� � "'�� _€ � _� ES€= `o e ��g r �a� „, � n =��_ ' l,I�C��L�L ��' _ g � � � �� , � 4� v - ia .. , � , p � 9 � m � � � ° '� ' � �� ' - - y�rtn$ ` _ � � � s = „ . .., � � i = �� m � W ,�°�w � ' � ,. . 2 a� g��'�'' ��5� �x ��: s s m e �+��L'� � t 1 E � z _ t ��1� � '��' � � �, �� sF �� ^ �,'� ' � '. i' � �.,, . �' T � � �� '� \ � h � '� � -� � i � � '�� Z' . � �� . � �i I N N . �,1,�� ,' � I I1 �. � �• � � '� �rvY`. � � '., 1 I �\� .�� .� '� ��9< ��r, Ni\1P _ � , . , .� � Q'.. � � � , _ A d � a wn�b - - � , Y 4 P9 = � � , � ' .�i � i� �i t � i , � i o� o-aw�weH•�� 'o Iv a' y . I '� '.';� �; � ' I v � m m �_ y � . � -, ' . �.� � { �: , i i��Ila�S� i � e, � , !,; �,.� ',', �. , � I i� I I �'� W N ' 1 I �I � ' . (�, �� . � - , , , � � mawiej" a- "' � - � ' _> i � ;,� � � �� ,I � ,.. � �� i. I ip' �' � ' . � � � i i i��, � yue�aaalJ � i � l �i , � � � `.� �� n �.� �� '� S � �: . . ; y � ,� .�'—'•j�` ,/ .'::- ' - - ' , "G�: - . i r�� . _; y� ca 6�i � d 7 -�.., C R C� y =� �� '�� E g s� �y .° i a�= ,.� g� i ��: �x'._�� ' � Q � E "d � �--s � � a�i � R 0 � q /�� I+I F+G 4, G �. � O � U �� Qc� � _ � o�-ig, -_ :;'�`�.�=_.:_'; _ . - �: = -- ;�. � ' ` �-� �� - . -" � � t _ =_.'�� ,; � - " -- - -- :�'✓ E 1 � - _ �'_,,n: _��_�� ;� - . . �� : 'ri��. � . �� - � � . / , i, / ,.' ;i ' �� /� .( , . c �.,. o i ii � 2 �� . �� i, , r�- , �� .. . , . , ,. . �� .��i i�l:�:� i . ' � '. . � '�" � :=�� F i �, � � �'"'�'' � �,q � '?�?N�15'� . . ; -', . i ,, , i f ��a40�, � � � � �� ._ �J � /� s �r iy �� ' y ' � i � _ �Q . O O � m c y C C t0 w Z y Z 'o � W � y W J i0 H 6 � � E � i � o = > "' v� •i � ci r r- � _ �. I i r ., L j 1 , . .:... •.. Y+'.�'J � . ,. . : , l .. _ . . ... . ' v ' __-_ ; �'.� �4 1 S' ' _ I i . � . 1 S � , I ( • ' 1 � _�, �� J II � - � ' � s � \, i � F � "/." i , � , . , i .. , . ' � ., 'E � .' ' °p�� ,- �•� i ' .v � � E � ', , , � m y i a Lp�`� � � ,.... _ N � �\ ' i /� % i ,I . ,i i i� � i - �•;`� � i i� �\ _ .� - .- ' - � q, ,'' ayaMa�ed - q p3 �: � \� a wm6 � �, , � , ' � � o.awivieH� ' ' ,`-->. �'' 9 a y ; . , a; i s N c , � r. . I N �_-¢ . . '�� - .— rn, '', , - , , .. . , 6111�(dUs ' � E • � �' '.� '. � �, � ` W N I �; � � � ;�sywrej o., ,:�„ � � y C, ��'l _ ` . ' i I O � � , 1 �' � _ �,e�ro�?r�, ; -- �.�� y � G _ � - ,. ' _ t Up?l� - d ,�/ v A j �� : �>.�.�z�� ,; � 3 a� � � 0 c�' a� _ N �X w y C � a� � L � � �..� � � '� �' 3 a � 6 � N � �r Y � IY °� e H � � �� '� ✓,-� \ \ 1 \� � S .5, ❑� � � � � I � Pa G �+ a O { i' O � N� � i" G � � � z �� --� Q; q^c � � Q� � �� l _ �`��' � t � � �� t- . -��.'��""�� ,''. J s� ! �"' a"�.`.-�F�.i''�-L � �� .�.. s .�'�iie. - -'r� ' �. �� '�� p � c � y „� } ��yf k_u, .,�. �: � � 'e` s "L �%j ✓ J :A' �i � � �� ' � :�. -, ��• � �� , � , �$� °�� . � I' ,, I �,i � C � , � ,� ' � , . � }�� , . ; . �; �' 3$k�� .`/ x ��`'� � � �, � � i •'� �_ � � � �� = �.. a . ,' ':i � i �� , ��._ �I � , ., � � ,�' ( i i i:�� ; � � �� "� I — � � � � � � i I ", i ;� , ti � � - � f i il ' � .� I I i � ' - � � ' � n � � � � ', „� � ` / ��I� I�� ,. � i , �� i �' � F�,� i i�� , � � �:� � ti� � � rld"��,5 �,;iii `�i �� I� ��. ��o /i. i,iii' � ��, i ��I�,i � �� . , � �, � i l '�, r i ' � ,i n ,� , i �� ; t, � „. � � � ��' � �� ' ,�.rf ' i' 1 i�i � '�I i i i; al f ._ � ` �l I�l�.. ��_:iiii� I i I ',_ ' i I�i..! 1 i � i I�il �' �� -�� ., I -,� r i i �' �' i I „ i i, i i' � r _ � il �. �� ; i � ` I i t i ..� I �I � � ��, �� I 1 � 1 / I I I �" � l I �_. I �' � � , � ' il � �' � � '� i i ' �i , °. , �� ' r.� � �� '� � � •'�s ' � I' ' � ' ;, � I!�V — ,� i � i �i r�_ .v, � � � '` i, �:j � � I i � - i .� ,� � I'. , ��, � , ,;�� i, a _, r r , i i . � ,.L � i . �� - ' i��, � I'� vt ��,L �r '�'x�, �.. , � �' � �'-I I � i,; � L� - Pi f i i _ /_ I I i ��i ilqll;�;� f�7`I ,�. __ i � � . 1 I_�1 I�i ��7'�;i t� � i�F �� i - ��d/ „i��'° _ � o �' 8 ; - ,.�,� „� . .� ,," _ - - , �q�' � ,�� c '.. � �� - i;� � b �% O __ / i � � s z i � q o N =,�� \q��.>�_ �Z� �� fi � �� \` ,y oi-r� ( N N � O � C1 � <C C .� a G R L .� •1� � Z z� �� Q —� �u �� : �� d :< a-a � � � � � � ~ 1-�i C.) v� N �R �Q w o�� O � O W O."� Ca c� � � i �� ,.` P. r` I,� � .' . � _ _ � _- _ - -_ _ _ � f — _ � Y� . . . � p�� ` �OV � _ � ' �� _, _ � : r` - - _ _ - _� � � t r �, , m � tl.% � - — �' _;�,_ a� � , '%' , ' � -<A.� . Y - r , � u Y 1 S � � �� I � � � � � "b ��f �, .i � ;� ��^ g g � a!'c1 �;^'P .... { ;-f r a ,.:�.�s'�' � 8 @ � � - �Y � _. i1 -t '�.i t � i � � � y � t� �� e„ o_ ��"�< <� � � a C L,"°�� m��` �i�'(�� r � � i t� ' � r �'�� _ �� T.; f � �. �� -s. ..., _ - � � � 4 ' w �;-� - �, � �=L� , %= . 5 � N M y i Q � ,p., ca ` e m " mo�o n � a = � � w � m a 9 �� W a 6i W C 6 m lA W i i m ea y m '�C '� a � �'e w�n w � m=w.°- °f W� w w C C m d m u�. � t n w � � o m i � e m m` ° w�w e`a .� �_., �,-.. OI-�4 1 t/� � f.'.� i + lu� f,� C� i �� ' G $ �° m ag` �� a s �$ � Ea z� �y0 p QW ✓ `� W (� � O � d zo �o €� ,�" �� U � o� 0/-�4 j .� bf� >:.:>--' ..."' � P i' , f I � I ' ( m � � �*c �' � ..i�� .: _�.:7 26. ;; ��' � � Il ��,1 ��Il:�i�l N ; ' YC��fI � L" N ;a�y' 'Illi:; ( �,'i � N ` � a ,,`�.' ;ly��l' � W `� �a! i��l�� J � . �' I -'1 - li � ; � '.. � '1 " _ll�i�l'�i.. " ��;, r � y N e i � � H � L .::°� �' y � i, ' � Ij ii` 3 � Ij .r 1�1'I� !il'I, IC;IIr mua� _� il ":/7� Tiil I F > �, t. n i Q I ( P, � � ��i�'f: q , / H �II�' �'�: 1,"i�.� �� _' � •'��'. I�!i \ � �� d a i .i 4 � i�; s � I� � E � 'Il V1 �r .� C J// i : a� � �� f� l �" ,�s, � i�? '� L.. mlla�S ;IdIPI'�i�� Ei , II�I��ll£I{ � �I �R .. � I�I i �� '�I� �I � ' � � '� I P � �I�,�I 4 � �r'4�„ 3 � Ir��,�'ra ''�`�% ,) �� a. I� E, � S_ �' � � � � � .- � � , +� i� O �I'I I, � #a� r � c+ LL � � I. i �f4Swa '�*R� � �..1 � �..�� F/ � i y � a.,� L 'O � V � �` O O m V � K a' C � � � d N N � �� z h � {p ry o .O U .fd � '.t�. � {'G C�'J U � �� r � €s $ �� S � � E yz a �Y W �� ■ w s � t+� Mr+ 3 §o �o —""- � � � a. A w � �� c I�W W l.J � Q O/ I v . � Y ° O Y """" -_ _— y 6�1 O W _." '__ � ' �� , __�—._';L, �_. ._., � � _ F� C�'� '" tiC10N ` - ` - • f ` 3-- " � �" �4:.��_ -- r� a ==_-_ _ -°° � � C O O = � m � 0 Q! 6'� �Y z _ p W V _ a � _ a�s ° O' _ O � ✓ _ s � - t '� _ _ m � q ' - � : �Zs Z S �J _ _�i�,�j•�" � s• , m " _�" ,0 ��.=.. ' 'S�':+�J.- j-:� �� p " - A��`'?';: _ � � y �r. ,,. �. � T r � °, � , �, . �-* a° 3 � ' (' " �� ;` < ' r a. �''�� _su>v� ! - ,� r .� J . �' �°' a ��, � .� d _ _'; o � �,,�, � a= �` � iF� W f9 F' � N m ac a ` s} � c ° '� i e o. '� � ', �. .; r� .. /� .... _ .,�, 9 � . , �� '�� i i � r � a _ _ _ � / � . ri`i�-�'�� t,. ;f . - °'��5�.' , �" - _� -.� r k��T. 'i-I P P � �_ _ y � � �� i _ r . � a� - � .� x' `f ,� -. �� -'-� �;' � �z i ,�� = ;,,, _ / 1 _ f�.4:1.,. . � � . : .v� . .. . , c ��t < I _. .� a `—_ t� i i L a. . )"__.__ ' -Y { .. � 1i� _ i � s a . a H � =m N � � m % _ m O 7 � a 4� z�.m�� ..�'�� \ � ��=�j �=�' _ ' cW;ij �°�'`",' s. � _ 9 i =d v N CC fA C 6� !/f �3 C v � � a� 0 O 'ri � i � � � � � O� .�+ W Q� � z� � ° s` r 6 � c ,� � � � E 6 � � - a:�=� � _ � �- - r: ` � � Z � � a g C !� G d � � �n� d r L W ea � W � � � AB .. � `» � �s a HY, � e ` 6aL £ 7 C W y w 7� Y � � 4 m e m z a� Q � ¢� aQ �a � �� .., �o � z o � Q� f-�1 � G ua p� � � ��_ ✓�� -- - ._- _. A - �'. ti � A � . -1 : �. _-- 'r- - � �_ � _ � -__ _^ _ '. _ �.� . . ,� -- r�r� �.? k rJ.•� 5 ?� "� � ' _ d, .- �� ' / 1 � r - Y � �i : � �°�- � - _ - �- _ -- � _� � r � , . � T � �_ "� , � � _ _ � _ �� - , o � _- .:�� -� „i; s...y.,'- � �� ! " - _ �� G � c �,- � B f :- �r �' Y r � �.. �� . - , . 1i'�' �, s _' ,,. R Z 1'��'.. =.", Y �, t.— \. _ y �� _ �'r !_ _, F uT" l �/j-�i�'�r: r; , ,,_ " � — -L � � �ii � � �. � � w � �� ;' �y, �, � �� . �� a L� ° :� / �� . � -: \��i ��,�� ,�� .v— -� l � ... - � �1 � � R e � � m � N z � z o , z f Y � m � m y d 9 L y ` 6 � 6 _°. e u � u — � � o'c � ^ �� ' I lJ ' '� a'�j;� � _ , _ � � � 'r "f i �� ' ��;, ijf �� '_ � '1 � �-.�y R n l ` y �' r� �% `�t "� �\ � �. � a r-< i � t '. � g �� ` � �`9 � � �� , �� . �� 0 � � V �I � 1 i i-� a '� T I � I I [L N _\� .�. �y ��' Fy ' y l 1 nl � ��. L�� - �� - - �, � -'._{� � � � ` _ _ _ � ==- _. _ u;, i i I � ' ( . t' v�% U � O/�iR ( � � � 3 a� � � � o c � a� N ' . O W I� �' & Y � Z 6 �n 2�3 'L � }� f7 � � � � � e ks�:' E u� �� s c � °p a � �Q fa, � ° � O �, � C N � �w U � Q � t - - � �'-�--��--- , - : � � — .--- _, �-�_� -_ , � --��- , , , �� L � I / ? �r`, - �i �. -' � � ':{� i � � h ��'�:',_.�-._ �. � i o .�� 1 � , , 'i---�'_ -� i ' � � � � . ; a' �: 3 '__�_ ��_ , � : � i ' i ' � �� r� . �, . 1 �: � �� — . �,---�— � ,- � ; ; �� m - �'�,� ,� � ��_ {:,�� ,� ` , :� , -�� , r��s .. �, i ''t ��:., � �}�dr = � -- `.F � � � � ,� x �� ,1.�;��- ,( t .., „i�'i,� ^v ' .� � , �'. -,� ?�.'`- . ii 7 n � � 'I � � "?_� _ � �� "� � � � �;� , � � �' � <Y 1 �'� :' � // �„. � _ �� ,'�, � , � �, � o , � 1 � � k �� . ._ � ,� � a�.;!,�� ;� . diyp � , ,..� .t" R � - _. L � � � �� y r .'� �--; � �� , " , �; ,, � � � d � � , - i , „ F •, , � �� , r-F . - W . \:. � I" _ `'- 1 � � F' . � � � ,�� ! ��` L � � ��_ � � �, s . , � , i y ' . ` s�,= \ � , ,� , � i �� a I, � 1= �� ` " �?`� � �' �� ' '� �, i �. � , ,w-: � ,.A �� i��,F ! i' i � �� ' '' � i � : i � � i � � �,,' � � � � ' � i r� � �E� �,, , � i, � , i ' ��,�� ; a �,'.J ' ' : � i , , ; � � �� , �� , �,: �� ,�,�� i �� ;� �,� r � ��,�'.�i <� ; t� � �7 � � � , , � - I � ` n �' � 1�.: i'� --r I i ] � � 1 I i : TF ' � ' I � �� ._ �'% � , � i � i ] i � i �I �� I ,� I �� 4� I �,r --°" � �� i ��i �41 I � i �' .._._� �`t_ s( /� �" �. I f� � r�i f � . � 1� �,: " l �, ?' ��Il ' .I' _! ,. � �a�� . -'�, ' � ,� � _ � i -' _, � r �. , .�; r . .. .r-� f � -�� , z ` � � � ��j .; �— � —�r,.�� a � � .E Q � � E � � ` E `_ ' ' - - � a. � o s'_ t� .. ae: r s:s a �� a � 6� o a 9� 9= o � e o � � d � ; � x ; � � ' a 3 « = � � � ° a ° � a a a � H � A »AbAAeae.=oevae"=y A� >o��"�m�e€e�e°�q=° � e� � A�� <�� \� ` � � -< . —�a, y� . �� < �� . � � a � m �i U�--i4� N �� . N � L� � z� � �� LL �� s = - �?� " .� � £ ��; e��_ � � b�A � O � �� O•� � � O � � O l ' � �� C) CP� p� � L;< t *; �l � � ; r - -- � -;. --- . 4 - .--- _ _� _ - _-- - .� -- - _- — °� � ; — ^` ,y " _ � ,r1y 1, � ;- � j= -- - � � -,_;?tE�_. :`a` o — J �"__�, �'��_ - _ — 4 � � �z: ( ; ' �,; F' _;. � � ` - r � r � �' ,, � t � `' = .,.. �` � Y � `� �� , � . � R g� �� 'l � e �` �/�';�f�anE� f . � �� \�.,,�y'--�,.„� �4r s�: � r { i/ � r' ` 6� � � � �m d� y y m 9 9 S W e ° — �� m ° w ° =y�os � m mF-° d,: d: 1� 6! y .0 '� Y � Y m� S m� m W p @'C6'OQ =Q p1 m p� 6 a � W� = O� O W � W `m e'a`n mw i � d � ..�idjJe ¢CD � � � C/i O � O � � � � � � � � � � ,: � F' z� i Z $� � 6E � � s 5 z � 2a. O � ?> � �'a {� � o� � E, zo � z �° � �� Q U v� ,� � P �� i �- � -` . � � � � 9 C O l� :y�: �� R .� � I a � � � � � � c. e.` ,t ~� � �� `� � ��y� ��ni � � � �, , � d � '�—`-'\ � e � � � �� W y Y . � � 1 �.A F � . �� ` ' � i, �� --, .. �� 5 � � �,—_'"" `_ � � C ` � MN`' � ( o 0 4 �� `�� a /.: ` � , i ;� ai, '�?�a9°e -c / o m L C {Q O q�p � m L 3 = � ;� � N �s � m N � Q � � � � � N d Q N � Pn tL d � � c c .°_3 � m '� E o '<n � 1 `m o 'c U � _ � s � � �"��.' � � "1 � � ... ° � "" " �� ry �. �.✓�u' � " O � � R N N j fA � � �': µ - N . OD ' \ �--L — .� � V � '�6 � � � . . , ' � �`��. . , bA�O , � p .T $ Q 5 � N R O @ N O �� I' ' � y»W�� V � � . . � `,��,, � \* � C d �� d � � . ; � _ � ' ' � ' �. �� \��\\�: . � s � sn � a �» � . . , �� , � 4 '��' L.J � LJ } y � � I � �, 9 \ I� s 'C N � O G C" � � � � �� { � �p b4� -° a s , �� . e-, � o N y � -�� ,,, T � '�. I �� V � � � � l_ � �.d , C_ 1 �.� i L_ �� s � ' ' � ' � � .. ' ' ' � � � � � � l� ��Mv�� , �1� �� v • ' y aqwm�P3 . � � << ��; A , , , , i � , . '°" �.q� � , ?'�, ` � aam�weM� . � f � �� _�,� �� „ � � i � � � � < <� �, � iI ��, � �. � � � �� '' � 7s � � � , , , 6 uq�aqg� - E �' . k � �' � � d � � a , i l a i' _ L �� , , i� a ' � � ��, w vo; I ' t . � ��- � 0 d � � I W� � � '� m a� -a i � i I � ' �� a � : �� ! � i I -� l�.l -�p { ' � : � � � � �� , � � � ;141 r- LL � � � - - " / �I I; { \ � 3 1 1 �.I I�( � �� d �� i o � � ' uqa�9 � _�,�� I E � ,, � � ,. _ :a� -r � - � ��° L_ � ' . , , ' ��A' i y • . .7 `,�: ,, � � C� /—! 9 1 cs •� N � � • Lf o� -� Q �L � i.. � O � C., � �e"/ �.i� � � `, _ -' � o � __ �_$ � � E �- �A c ° a � � 6 u rv d N � � � � s � y N O 6 � e �� E � � � � � l "' � � � v � -`� � t � � � � � � � t � � � � � �' , � � The City ofSainr Aau! does not discriminate on the basis of disabiliry, race, sex, sexual or afjectlonal orienta4on, age, color, creed, national origin or ancestry, marital status, religion, veteran stcrtus, or status with regard to public assistance rn the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs or achvities_ 84 City of Saint Paul Council File # b � � �9 \ Ordinance # ��.as Green Sheet # ORDINANCE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Re£erred To ttee: Date eZ6 Mississippi River Comdor Pian 3 WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the Mississippi River Corridor Plan as a chapter of 4 the updated Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and 5 6 WHEREAS, the Mississippi River Corridor Plan was the subject of a public hearing before the City Council 7 on February 28, 2001, and 9 WHEREAS, the Mississippi River Comdor Plan outlines the City's policy related to protecting the river's 10 natural resources, affirxning the future of the working river, connecting neighborhoods to the river, and 11 adopting urban design principles for river corridor redevelopment; and 12 13 WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.864, Subd. 2, Saint Paul is required to update its 14 Comprehensive Plan regularly; 15 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul adopts the 17 Mississippi River Comdar Pan as an amendment to the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan contingent on fiirther 18 review by the Department of Natural Resources, the Metropolitan Council, and the Nafional Pazk Service; and 19 20 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mississippi River Corridar Plan replaces the Saint Paul Mississippi 21 River Corridor Plan, adopted in October, 1981 and amended in November, 1987, as the river conidor chapter 22 of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. Requested by Department of: Plannin4 & EconOmic Develonment By Form Approved Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� By: _� _7 � // � / by Citp ��[to�ney � �`/ ��. g � � � � � Approved by Mayor or Submission to Council Approved by Mayor: Date !VY ay: aY: �`�- � r � Adopted by Council: Date �,�� pp ` U DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL: PED DATE IlVITIATED GREEN SHEET Nor 111225 Q 1��` 12 Feb 2001 ' CONTACf PERSON & PHONE: � IN AI'E m111niApA'1'E Martha Faust 266-6572 z nErnirrn�r Dix. s crrr courrcn, MUS� ON CQUNCII, AGENDA BY (DATE) �IGN 3 CITY ATTORNEY = CITY CLERK G T n f_ 1VIJMBER —��CIAL SERV DIR. F[NANCIAL SERV/ACCTG (T. Meyer) �O �T�� FOR 4 MAYOR(ORASST.) CIVII.SERVICECOMbIISSION )�� ROU'i'ING 1 Tom Harren —� �/n,/ � P�� G LT� I7 ORDER TOTAL # OF SIGNAI'URE PAGES 1(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTiON REQUESTED: RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAI, SERVICE CONTRACI'S MI1ST ANSWER 1'fIE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: A PLANNING COMI��IISSION I. Has [his person/f¢m ever worked under a conhact for this depaz[ment? CIB COMbIITTEE Yes No CIVII, SERVICE COMIvIISSION 2 Has this perso�/firnt ever been a ciTy employee7 Yes No 3. Does this persoNfi�m possess a skill not noxmally possessed by any cursent city employee� Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTIINITY (Who, What, W6en, Where, Why): Mayoral Transmittal and draft Council Resolution for adoption of the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan. ADVAN'i'AGES IF APPROVED: The Planning Commission has recommended the Mississippi River Corridor Plan to the City Council for approval as a chapter of the City Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing sponsored by the City Council to consider the new Mississippi River Corridor Plan will be held on Wednesday, February 28, 2001. A draft Council Resolution approving the Plan (contingent on DNR, Met Council, and National Park Service approval) is attached, to be jointly introduced by those Council members whose wards include the State Designated Critical Area of the Mississippi River (Benanav, Harris, Coleman and Lantry). DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: None DISADVANI'AGES IF NOT APPROVED: The Mississippi River Corridor Plan will not become part of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION: COST/REVENUE BUDGETED: I�[JNDING SOURCE: ACTIVI'1'YN[JMBER: . . Budget code: FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) ' . �' e , E � V � �° S� �i i t� 4 K\ShareA�Ped�Fa�stVLVautiverCmndorPlen�gmshLfim Y ... r F�� 1 �'i{TY ,4TTORNE�I � a,-,�i C �Y �F' .Stillv 1 PA�. 390 Ciry Hall Te[ephone: 65I-26Cr8510 Norm Colemars, M¢yor IS West%Ilogg Bo�levard Facsimi[e: 65I-22&8513 SainrPaul, MN55102 J8X1U3Ty 29� 20�1 City Council President Dan Bostrom Councilmembers Dear Council President Bostrom and Councilmembers: I am pleased to transmit and recommend for your adoption a new Mississippi River Corridor Plan, a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. This new plan will replace the river corridor chapter adopted in 1981, and last amended in 1987. The Planning Commission sponsored a tharough community discussion in the process of developing this Plan. This new River Corridor Plan marks the City's policy coxnmihnent to protecting the river's natural resources, affirming the future of the working river, connecting neighborhoods to the river, and adopting urban design principles for river corridor redevelopment. In so doing, it reinforces the vision of the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework and extends it to the enrire river valley in Saint Paul. The plan will satisfy State Critical Area requirements, as administered by the Minnesota Deparhnent of Natural Resources, and will demonstrate the City's commitment to the voluntary Mississippi National River & Recreation Area policies, consistent with Saint Paul's efforts to be a good stewazd of this precious natural asset. I recommend adoption of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan contingent on approval by the Metropolitan Council, DNR, and National Park Service srill to come. Sincerely, �(�� (�� Norm Coleman Mayor G�1-i9/ city of saint paul planning commission resolution fle number o0-�9 date 12-is-oo A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE SAINT PAUL MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR PLAN WHEREAS, a new Mississippi River Corridor policy plan is an important component of an updated Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan needed to both inform City environmental protection and development policy and meet the comprehensive planning requirements of the Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355; and WHEREAS, an issue paper entitled Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan: Framing the Discussion published in March, 1999 provided for extensive community discussion of Mississippi River Corridor policy issues; and WHEREAS, a draft Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan published on August 25, 2000 has been discussed in numerous community meetings; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Saint Paul Planning Commission on October 20, 2000, notice of which was published in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger on October 10 and 11, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Commission finds broad community support for the policy directions recommended by the plan and has made revisions to the draft in response to specific concerns raised and information provided in the course of the community discussion and public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul approves the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan as an element of The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, contingent on review by the Department of Natural Resources, the Metropolitan Council, and the National Park Service; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan to the Mayor and to the Saint Paul City Council for preliminary adoption and for inclusion in The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. moved by Gordon seconded by Donnelly-Cohen in favor Unanimous against // o1�J9/ � �1T1 2 / 2 �/ Q / 127 West Winitred St. 7 r 1 � � S1DLi /'#�� St. Paul, MN 55107 N G ( �j `• � ��Phone (612) 293-1708 • �' ,�1�It1,�101� /�Q{A� �-�/�res �� Fex (612} 293-011� Ml`ss - /Lr1.�zCorn2Lr Febniazy 28, 2001 Dear Planning Commission: On behalf of the West Side community, the West Side Citizens Or¢anization appreciates ihe opportunity to review and comment on the dra£t Mississippi River Corridor Plan Z000 update. The Mississippi River bounds the neighborhood on three sides and the bluffs and slopes form the neighborhood. More than half the bVest Side is within the sfate Critical Area and MNRRA boundary. This policy and implementation document wifl guide how new development enhances the river and the neighborhood. Its fcnal form is of vital importance to the neighborhood, and the neighborhood organizations such as the Bluff Task Force aze essentiat to its imptementation. The following comments were deveIoped by a task force representing numerous neighborhood committees and adopted by the WSCO Board. Comments are also based on the past five years of community participation in the development of riverfront development principles and the neighborhaod plan, Back to the Flzture, which shouid guide fufure development. The plan is well v��ritten and emphasizes neighborhood connections to the river We offer the £ollowing additions and changes. Section l.l ➢ The West Side community generally supports the five strategies and applauds the city's po(icy • of zemoving bil] boards \�/e request the £oIlowing additions and clarifications: ➢ In strategy l, biuffs and riverbanks should also be restored and the cause of damaoe, such as stormwater outflows and vegetative cutting, shou[d be dealt with ➢ In strategy 2, river-dependent emerging businesses, such as boat repaiz, should be recognized Although the West Side supports such housing if it can be designed to be river enhanciag, housing should not be portrayed as equally ziver-related (see lack of priorities in section 5.1.1. ➢ In sirategy 3, early industrial and economic uses should be added to the list of cuitural resources in recognition of beer brewing, mushroom fuming, brick making and other activities reiated to the caves the Lilydale Park. ➢ In strategy 4, add a bullei affirzning ihat design standards wii] incorporate the i��ississippi Nationai River anc� Recreation Area G�It' site design policies (the West Side pian, Back �o the Futvre District 3 plan supports �! RRA policies for all corridor development). ➢ The last bullet should a�rm that buildings fit into "existing neighborhoods" by adding those t�vo words after "topography" Section 2 The West Side community supports this section's emphasis on the ecologicai function o£both the • river corridor and the watersheds that feed the river and the depiction of a bninnced approach as illustrated in £igure 2.3. a/-! 9/ Section 3 • In 3.1, the West Side community supports the emphasis on watersheds, parks and open space and neighborhood preservation. The description of different river corridor chazacteristics should include the blufftop historic neighborhoods of the West Side and Aayton's bluffs. All new development should support the physical and cultural uniqueness o£existing neighborhoods ( Section 3 2 visions should also include recognition o£river corridor neighborhood pians. In particulaz, the West 5ide riverfront development principles St. Paul on the Mississippi Framework ��est Side Precinct Plan, the West Side Back to Our Puture ]ong range plan and the West Side Flats Design Strategy attached to these comments. The description a£topography on 3.4 should mention probtem areas. For example, the associated large parking azeas mentioned in the lowIands are not topographic forms, rather, are uses that aze harmful to the form and function of lowlands. Section 4 4.1.2 West Side Bluff management is being addressed by the WS Bluff Task Force in conjunction with St. Paul Parks and �tecreation department. Explicit recognition ofthis work should be included in the plan. 4 1,3 The description o£the downtown area should be clazi5ed. Use of the term downtown would not include the West Side Any exceptions allowed should be subject to special condition use permit. 4.1.5 The language regarding possible allowance of construction in bluff impact azea is too vague � and could be applied to any situation. We recommend simply preserving the impact area without exception Native vegetation should be re-established in this area where possible. The West Side Precinct Plan calls for a blu££top trail which should be addressed in the plan 4.4.6 Don't just encoura2e enforcement of floodplain and wetland protection po]icies, commit to enforcing those you aze required to enforce. 4.4 8"�he city should develop its own programs, where appropriate, to accomplish the proteCions recommended 4 4.9 I` only recreational, but commercia] uses impact should be addressed. Section 5 5.5 1 The West Side is not downtown. If you expect a"dawntown" exemption to apply to the West Side, you must so specify. The criteria for "river related" are so broad, any development in the city could qualify. Re� write the criteria to be truly river retated. E.�, river related as specified in 5.2 1 5.1.2 To be consistent w�ith MNRRA plan, exemptions should only be allowed for river re]ated uses. • Section 6 6 1 1 We are unsure what is meant by limitiag Cherokee Puk bluff to preservation. The West Side considers vertacal connections important for use o£Lilydale Regional Pazk oi-� q� • 6.1.2 Add "will require" before "all public facilities". Section 7 The West Side community agrees with many o£the urban design principles, including infill and new grid-pattern neighborhoods and fitting development into existing neighborhoods, some critical policies should be included or changed. ➢ 7.1.1 should include adoption of the West Side riverfront developznent principles for new villages on the West Side and state what they are. That document defines the meaning o£ connections to the river and integration into the existin� neighborhoods. ➢ 7.1.8 should include a policy of establishing green corridors along the river — between all buildings and the river notjust greening stzeets to the river. The community supports the ivINRRA-suggested 100-foot setback (d 40-foot native vegetation corridor, where feasible) as part of restoring the ecological funcYions of the corridor including its importance as a flywa_y and its water quality. ➢ View protection in 7.2.1 focuses on the views from Kellogg Park to the West Side and along only Wabasha 5treet. The section should protect views from the West Side bluffs to the river and not eliminate Robert Street. Residents of the bluff top neighborhoods have repeatedly expressed a concern to W SCO that buildings not obstruct their views of the riverfront. Though the community participated in and supports the city's topographic approach to providing some flexibifity in height standards for landmarks, WSCO is on record as objecting to ANX building � on the West Side that exceeds 65 feet (see letter regarding the 40-acre study). The community supports the MNRRA policies o£keeping river£ront buildings in low profile with some elevation back frosn the river. ➢ Suggested design guidelines for the West Szde flats on page 49 should inciude limiting buiiding heights along the riverfront, not just along Wabasha. Some residents strongly support the existing 35-foot limit Others suggested 35' to 65', depending on viewsheds and closeness to rivecfront. The natural resource design guidelines should include continupus �reens�ace along the river's edge, not just public space. The section on access and connections should include improved pedestrian connections between the West Side neighborhood and any new development. As metnioned previously, the city should make a commitment in this section to the West Side riverfront design principles and the MIvRRA suggested design guidelines in the C�, appendix C. ➢ A section 7,4 should be added to address guidelines for the expansion of existing businesses. This is not Addressed anywhere in the document, despite the continuation of major industrial uses within the West Side Flats, other industrial and eommercial uses throughou; the corridor, and the expansion of homes and other buildings within the corridor. The policies shouid cleatly state the river enhancing standazds that wili he applied to e�cpansions and should protect existing businesses if they follow these practices and especially if they are river dependent The city should consider establishir,g a�znd to provide an incentive for property owners enhance the � river corridor through better runoff management, protection of native vegetation and so on v/ / y/ ➢�'he plan also does not acldress transportation and public uses such as the airport. WSCO . strongly supports maintaining the floodplain functions within the airport, and would not support any furthcr diking of that area, We call £or a reduction of parkiag and pavement in the flats. Section 8 Tlxe in�plen�entation section should be ex�anded to e,xplain the types of ordinanee changes tk�e city is proposing. Will the city continue to have an overlay district that establishes standards to protect aitd enhance natural aad cultural resonrces while referencing underlying zoning distriets for land use9 Does the city support maintaining the functions of the floodplain? ➢ Policies for bluff protectioa� nre contradictory and confusing. Is the policy to limit developmexlt on and 40 feet back £rom 12% slopes, from 78% slopes or not? The standard should be protection of bluffs, reduction of runoff, prevention o£ erosion and restoration of native vegetation along the 40-foot lmpact area. �'he standard for exceptions from a 40-foot setback from the 12% or 18% slopes should be made clear, Curzent statement of "allowing development on slopes thaC exceed 12% and 18% slopes should be changed. ➢ Paragraph 7 for adopting site design standards should state a goal of adopting standards consistent �n�ith the MNRRA C1�IP site design standards that adapt suggested appendix C design standazds to local needs. ➢ Section 8.2 should include timing and process for adopting site design standards and should ensure that all public and private development will adhere to thent or mitigate any effects �or . exceptions. ➢ Section 8.3, '�'he West Side community supports the continuous river comdor trail on the west sids of the river and requests the city complete identiftcation of and reservation of easements for, the river trail from Robert to So. St. Paul A Section 8.4, The West Side community supports heritage pzeservation and requests specif�c mention be made of the Xoerg Brewery, caves, and hSstoric stairs and connections that should be preser��ed and restored between the upper blu£fs and the flats. We also would like more aggressive effozts by the city to have the plaa certified by MI��TtRA so the city is eligible £or £ederal funds to establish intezpretative trails and kiosks in the West Side and from Harriet Island through Lilydale Park. The implementation of the Lilydale Park plan and one trail connection between Cherokee and Lilydale portions of the regional pazk should be made priority. Pigure W. Does not include important views from West Side bluffs to and across the river. Thank you for your consideration of our coraments. Sincerely, � V a'k • Bruce Vandal President 0/-l9/ � DEPARTMENTO�PLANNING & ECONOM[C DEVELOPMLT;T Bri¢n Seeeney, Directa� SAINT PAUL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[em¢n, Mayor 15 West Four�h Street Telephare: b.il-?G6-6�G.i Saint Paul, :LfN 55102 Facsimile 65l-2?8-32G1 vC�t",_"..` �cSuv.'G� t',.r,y;, ��._ Public Hearing Notice ; � � � � �� ,_� The Saint Paul City Council will hold a public hearing on the Mississippi River Corridor Plan Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Room 330, City Hall The Saint Paul City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan as a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the draft Mississippi RiverCorridorPlan are available: • at Saint Paul branch libraries. • via the web at: httq://www.ci.stoaul.mn.us/ped/. If you would like to comment on the Mississippi River Corridor Plan: 1) You may testify at the City Council Public Hearing; 2) You may submit written comments to: Planning Administrator, Department of Planning & Economic Development, 1100 City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, Saint Paul, MN 55102. Questions can be directed to Virginia Burke (651/266-6661) or Martha Faust (651/266- 6572) at the Department of Planning & Econorriic Development. • • lIi\ �ESOT� HISTORIC:IL SOCIETY February 14, 2001 ,a�/a `��O 1 �� iU.z,� �e y r.v�� v��'u. � i�55 , �� Yt�/1 �'"'' •�IG • Mr. Jack P. Maloney 580 Otis Avenue St. Paul, NN 55014 Deaz Mr. Maloney: The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is in receipt of your letter dated 2/2/01 requestin� an opinion from our office as to the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of the Meeker Island Lock in St. Paul. As you know, the Meeker Island Lock was part of an early 20` century attempt to bring regular water transportation to Minneapolis. The Corps of Engineers initial plan involved two locks and dams, one near Fort Snelling to be called Lock and Dam #i and the other to be just above the Lake Street bridge (neaz Meeker Island) to be called Lock and Dam #2. Work started on Lock and Dam #2 in 1899 and was completed in 1907. This was the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River. The steamboat Itura was the first vessel to pass through the lock on May 19, 1907. Work was started on Lock and Dam #1 in 1903, but in 1910 hydroelectricity advocates succeeded in convincing the Corps to build a high dam at Lock and bam #1. This eliminated the need for the Meeker Island structure, so the top five feet of Dam #2 were demolished in 1912 and the lock chamber was abandoned. Lock and Dam #1 was completed in 1917. Lock #2 on the east side ofthe river is still visible from the Lake Street bridge. The significance of Lock and Dam #2 is clear. Not only was it the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River, but it was an important part of the power struggle between the cities of Minneapolis znd St. Paul regazding the development of hydroelectricity and which city �vould be the head of navigation. It is eligible under National Register Criterion A;n the azeas of En�ineering and Transportation. The fact that the lock chamber survives virtually intact and the base of dam exists on the riverbed sue�ests that the site retains sufficient integrity to convey its sigaificance. There is also the possibility that remnants of the access road and the dam construction camp exist as contributin� elements. Unfortunately, our office does not have the staffin� resources to prepaze the National Re�ister nomination at this time. If you wish to immediately pursue nomination of the property, it will be necessary for you to supply us with a completed National Register form and any required supportin� documentation. You may wish to retain the services of a consultant to complete the nomination. A list of consultants is attached. Please note that inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement. :fa.il�ELLnCG$pl"LLIaRllR6=T y!ATP:1CI..�IIS\Ecp1'.Ais1V3-19Ub'TELEP[IUAF�fi51_�a��F�or 0,-�9 r • You may also ask to have this property added to a list of properties for which nominations will be prepazed by this office when there are sufficient resources. I cannot give you an exact time when this might occur. It may take several years from being added to the list of possible nominations to the presentation of a completed nomination to the State Review Board. For now, the Minnesota SHPO considers the Meeker Island Lock and Dam to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Sincerely, � Scott Anfinson National Register Archaeologist, MnSHPO Cc: Martha Faust, St. Paul PED �� . � 01�14'/ � CJ • February 26, 2001 Honorable Members of the City Council Office of the City Council City Hall Saint Pau1,1�dN 55102 Dear Council A4emUers: �I,�gloi �� .��ti� �1i9.w C� r ��r9 o n ��wc1 (`1 � y 5. �'t � V-2/� l j2 � r i C�D'1 � � C;w. We respec[futly submit for }•our consideration the attached modest comments on the latest version of the,�lississiypi Rn�er Corridor Pla�v The most recent document has effectively captured the input and vision of many community members. It has some strong and inspiring aspects to it, most notaUly, objectives to pro[ect the bluff lands, preserve and restore native plant and anunal habitats, encourage protection and preservation of the floodplain and wetlands, protect water quality. Tet, at the same time, these good objectives could be better articulated �vith respect to bluff protection 2nd ecologically progressive landscape guidelines. Therefore, while �ee congratulate the Citp on all the effort it has put into the plan, we respectfully ask that the City Council consider several changes (attached). OveraIl, we hope fhese changes �citt only strengthen thc documcnt towards thc ccological goals that we sharc. In designating the \lississippi River cotridor as a state critical area, the Legislature recognized that the coiridor possessed natural systems "of greater than local sign�cance." They further recognized that "developmenL..could result in irreversible damage." �V'e share «'ith the City Council the hope that Saint Paul «'ill continue to be the model in balancing economic development and environtnental enhancement. Thank you again for the opportunity to share these comments with }'ou. �Ve cannot emphasize enough ho�v much �r'e respect all the Council�s �cork on behalf of improving the qualitv of life in our city. With hi�h regard, Deborah Karasov Deborah ICarasov, PhD, A4I.A Landscape Planning and Policy Great River Greeaing 651-690-4077 35 �L'est Watex S�eet Smce 207 Sam! Paul MN 55107 _o_ P 6516659500 F 651 G659<09 __�ri_�_�cv�v:_�,,,orn Pmtedonl�T/occydcdpapa o�-�g/ � CODfAfEA'TS ON THE DIISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR PLAN (DECEbIBER, 2000) OB7ECTII E 4.1 PROZECT THE BLUFFL4ADS OF THE RI F�R CORRIDOR The City intends to protect the Utuff-lands but allo�vs e�ceptions to bluff protection policies (4.1.3) and steep slopes. These statements negate key Critical Area policies. Later in the document (6.4.2 and 7.3), the City proposes additional structures, bluff drives, "developed overlool:s" and other connections on the bluff. While public access is unportant, these building actions need to be closely evalua[ed for their impacts and should not be supported as a blanl: matter of policy. 4.1.3 Change the sentence that allows esceptions for public structures related to recreation, access and connections. Instead, note that these public structures (e.g., bridges, retaining �t alls, sign monuments, and stainvells) should be e�amined on a case by case basis, allowing tltem onlV if lhey do not ureveisibly affect critical ecological resources. 4.1.4 The City should prohiUit residential development on slopes [hat esceed eighteen percen� not only on slopes greater than t�t�elve percent Should this Ue an impossible change for the city, at the � least, the document should add (afrer [he sentence prohiUiting residential developmeni on slopes esceeding t« elve percent): The City «ill accept • residential development on slopes that esceed m elve percent only if the project meets a strict hardship standard and if it does not irreversibly affect critical ecological resources. REL-1TED POLICIES: 6.4.2 Change the sentence to read that "Connections...MAY be unpro��ed... Add that any shuctures (such as ramps, ��'all.�vays, and stairs) must be evaluated on a case by case basis for their impact on the bluff. Also such connection should be uncommon. 7.? See belo�v for recommended changes to Desien Guidelines. 8.1.7 The casual reference here to variances is ver}� troubling. We ��'ould recommend that the Cit} emphasize that an}� variances with respect to bluff unpact area and steep slopes must first meet a strict hardship standard. Also, at the cer}� least, add to the criteria: AZodifications t� ill not be accepted if there is irreversible damage to significant ecological and aesthetic resources. Additionall}�, The Cih� should eliminate the statement, "Encourage cie�atcd structures and retaining ��'al1s." There are man}� natural and naturally appearing wa�•s to protect s[eep slopes, and in most cases retaining walls are aet� unnatural. OBTECTA� 4.2 PRPSERL�'A.�� RESTORP RATNE PLAM�L\DRNLIL4L HABIIATS 4.2.2 This policy states the city will encourage use of native vegetation. Instead, the city should require it. • 35 W'est Watex SheeC Smte 201 Sav�t Fav] MN 55; 07 _v_ P 651 C659500 F b51 e659409 wVO�er__�r�=�c-i�i�i� Pcui[eden IOJ%icrycicdpap<t or/y� � OBJECTIF�' S.1 CON77AriJE CO,tL1 fERCL4L AND INDUSTRIAL LAhD USES... �.l A The City should require screening of industrial development, not merely encourage it. 7.3 DESIGNGUIDELIA'ES The objectives of the design guidelines are quite admirable: greater pabtic access, preservation of public vie�vs, good stormwater management, e�panded urban forest, and sensitive urUan fabric are all objectives �ve share. At the same time, [he guidelines are here and there missing aitical pieces; [he omissions ultimately may ]ead to development that undermines those admirable objectives. In particular the design guidelines need the following statements for each development site: UPPER LANDING Access and Connectious • Add: Design streets for pedestrian scale and safety and �vith livable communit}� desigtt solutions. • �'icws and \'istas • Add: Ecaluate all plans to cteate views from the bluff within the conte�t of an overall bluff management plan. [Creating vie��•s requires cutting natural vegetation, and this should only Ue done �� i[hin a larger bluff vegetation management pian.] Stormwater • Add: Atinimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. AD \Z Access and Connections • Add: Design streets for pedestrian scale and safet}' and �vith livable communin� design solutions. • Lliminate: "Create a bluff drive as a 1oca1 residential street atop the lower bluff." Views and Vistas • Add: Eval�ate all plans to create views from the blutf within the contest of an overall bluff manaeement plan. [Creating � ie�vs requires cutting natural vegetation, and this should only be done �vithin a larger bluff vegetation management plan.] • 35 West Watec S7eeC Sm[e 201 Sunt Paul IvL�1 55107 _o_ P 6516659500 F 6516G59409 wv �za=rvma-_nn�v.o� PMtcd en SOT/o �ccydcd p�ec � � � . � sto�,�t� • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within de��elopment. Development Pattern • Finally, c��e appreciate that the document has removed specific height numbers with refei'ence to thc dcsircd building cdgc. Howcvcr, �xc are surc that thc City would not ticant thc promotion of a"higher edge" to perceived as an ingenious way to avoid the esplicit commitment to the 40-foot hei�ht restriction (as requued by the Critical Areas Plan J P,s notecl repeatedly by many neighborhood and community groups, the cunent fashion for a "building ed�e" should not blind us to the wisdom of the Departrnent of Namral Resources in establishing that restriction. \Ve sug�est that all recommendations with respect to height be eliminated, especially given the careful work of the Shepard-Davern Task Force in dealing tvi[h this issue. "ihanh } ou again for your conslderation of these comments. 35 �Y✓est Water C��: c�ce 201 C�� Faul \�N 5 107 _o_ P 651 GG59500 F 6':6659409 ___v!eqm_�.en:��oio FcnttC^n107Y vccycicdpapcc 0�-15! LJ CIT'Y OF SAIN'f PAUL h'onn Colemm; blayor DAT�: March 6, 2001 TO: City Councilmembers DEPARTMENT OP PLAi�NING & GCO: fOMIC DHVELOP�[E\T Bfim: S�s�eeaey, Direaor 25 1'Jest Four7k Street Te[ephorte: 651-266-6565 Sni�ttPaui, MNS510? Fatsimife: 651-2?8-3?61 FROM: Virginia Burke, 651-266-6661 �g Martha Faust, 651-266-6572'l�'� RE: Mississippi River Corridor Plan: Pub]ic Hearing Follow Up At the conclusion of the public hearing on the tLlississippi River Corrirlor Plan, held on • Wednesday, Febniary 28, 2001, Councilruembers Harris and Lantry� requested that staff provide a written response to public testimony received. Staff responses to testimony from Great River Greening, Friends of the Parks and Trails, the Highland District Council (District 15), and the West Side Citizens Organization (District 3) are attached. Please contact us if you have an}• questions. • v�-�g. ( Proposed Amendments to the Mississippi River Corridor Plan (to be introduced by Harris � and/or Lantry): Text Changes Chapter 3, number 3, p, ll: "The chazacter of river valley land uses also changes considerably, from the quiet, residential character of the gorge, to the mixed commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street corridor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preseroed blufftop neighborhoods in the West Side. Da�ton's Bluff, and Highwood neighborhoods." {Reference stafFresponse to WSCO, p.l #5). 2. Chapter 5, paragraph 3, p. 32: "In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor currenfly has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 bazges and a total design capacitv of 574 bazees (Fieure Rl. (Reference staff response to Friends, p3 #8) 3_ Chapter 6, Objective 6.3, p. 39: "On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport, and in the Pig's Eye Lake area a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacenY to the river for safety and environmental reasons." (Reference staff response to Friends, p.5 #I 1) 4. Chapter 7, paragraph 2, p. 48: "On the following pages aze suggested guidelines for the West Side Flats, Upper Landing, Koch-Mobil and ADM sites, and the Shepazd • Davem azea. The individual guidelines should not be viewed as mandates, and it is unlikely that any project will be able to fulfill every provision. Rather, collectively they provide a vision for redevelopment that enhances the river corridor, respects this precious amenity, and strikes a batance between economic development and resource protection. This list is not e�chaustive. These suggested guidelines will be used as the basis for the ne�ct step in the regulatory process (see Section 8.1.8)." (Reference staff response to Greening, p.4 #7) '--- '- ' - .. . .. _ • _, .. ..3.*h°�X:sfi..^4Q --�-- L'tlap�er-8,�lumDerl,p�L"-tonsmercrea�YYt�2�c'�riifi.rarorsi2ii?r,�Ej�':,u- �-_..-- river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river comdor modification requests for development on slopes exceeding 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact azea (40' from the bluff line). The intent is not to encoura�e river corridor modificarions_ buf to orovide the Plannin¢ Commission with further Quidance when considerine modification requests. Such criteria may address, but aze not limited to, the following factors:" 6. Chapter 8, number 8, p. 52 "With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design guidelines for major river corridor redevelopment sites � n , � > _ ', where no euidelines have yet been written. The design Mazch 7, 2001 Page I of 3 . ot-t9l � guidelines will be sensirive to the purposes of this Plan, and will clarify how the form and scale of development can incorporate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public enjoyment of the river. It is e�cpected that such guidelines will be implemented through a variety of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Village Zoning project, site-specific guidelines, and possibly through design districts (a concept that is currentiy being developed). The Shepazd-Davern redevelo area alreadv has created desi�n euidelines throueh a 1999 Small Area Plan. Appendig B shows illustrations for the five redevelopment sites based on the work of the Design Study. "(Reference staff response to Deuberry) 7. Chapter 8, Section 8.2, p.53: "Site Plan Review Guidelines. Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate provisions for public access to the river, connections to exisfing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic qualiry, and measures to address adverse environmental impacts of new development. The Citv will work with the Department of Natural Resources to deterxnine if amendments to site lan review uidelines are necessarv. This will occur durin the Ordinance revision nrocess which will foilow adoption of this Plan. (Reference staff response to WSCO, p.6 #16) • 8. Appendix B, p.58 Add to: Significant Archaeological Sites (identified by State Historic Preservation Office): Meeker Island Lock & Dam fdetermined eligible for National Register but not vet officiallv hstedl �— C , J Policy Changes 10. Policy 4.13, p. 20: "To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional structural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Further exceptions are mav be allowed for a limited number of low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. Such structures should be uncommon. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code." (Reference staff response to Greening, p.l #1) 11. Policy 5.2.1, p. 33: "Bazge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port ternunals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. (The businesses at Bazee Terminal #1 are all river related.) River-related land uses are those with an economic or operational need for a river location." (Reference staff response to Friends, p.4 #9) March 7, 2001 Page 2of 3 oi-�q � 12• Policy 6.4.2, p. 41: "Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river �i}} � mav be improved by adding a limited number ofpedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, watkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats." (Reference staff response to Greening, p.2 #3) j3• Policy 7.13, p. 45 In Upland azeas such as the Gorge, the City encourages preserving and enhancing the existing modified grid pattem of streets and blocks. In portions of Battle Creek and Highwood, development form follows a suburban or exurban pattern with cul- de-sacs and meandering roads that follow topography. In these neighborhoods without a connected street system, the City supports creaYing a connected system as redevelopment or major subdivision occurs, to the extent that it is com atible with to o a h. • March 7, 2001 • Page 3of 3 0 �•�9� Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City � Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. 1. Current Policy 413 To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional sh development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevazd. Further exceptions aze allowed for low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code. Background: This policy was discussed at length with the CPC. Case-by-case evaluation would happen as a matter of course, so staff would not recommend restating an existing practice. Staff Recommendation: Amend policy 4.13: "To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional structural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevazd. Further exceptions are mav be allowed for a limited number of low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. Such structures should be uncommon. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code." . 2. Current Policy 4.1.4 In order to protect steep slopes and minunize erosion, and consistent with Executive Order 79-19, the city will continue to prohibit residential development on slopes that exceed eighteen percent. Consistent with the MNI2ItA standard for commercial and industriai development, the city will continue to restrict industrial and commercial development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. Background: The Planning Commission does not believe it is prudent for the city to prohibit residential development on slopes greater than twelve percent (nor do we believe it would preclude the City from reaching Tier II status). Site pian review is already required for any development on slopes greater than twelve percent. When ordinance revisions occur (under the direction of DNR), we may be required to add additional provisions to our site pian review requirements to be consistent with Critical Area. Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.1.4 as written. 3. Current Policy 6.4.2 Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river will be improved by adding a limited numbez of pedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, walkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats. Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission • PC Planning Commission RC River Conidor Page I of 4 o t-�q i • Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Background: The CPC amended this policy to respond to Greenin�'s original comments submitted to the Planning Commission, and also in response to a comment from DNR. In response to the October comments, this policy was qualified to refer only to "a limited number" of new connections. Case-by-case evaluation would happen as a matter of course, so staff would not recommend restating an existing practice. Staff recommendation: Amend policy b.4.2: Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river � mav be improved by adding a limited number of pedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, walkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats. 4. Current Section 8.1.7 Consider creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river corridor modification requests for development on slopes exceeding 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact area (40' from the bluff line). Such criteria may address, but are not limited to, the following factors: • Retain the natural slope lines of the site, as seen in profile. Restore the vegetation lines which convey the slope lines. Roof pitch should match slope angle. • Screen new buildings. • : Slopes facing the river should look natural to the greatest extent possible. Stagger or step building units according to the topography. • Plan buildings, drives, pazking areas, and landscanine to acknowledge the natural contour line of the site. • Provide parking on the uphill side behind buildings. • Lot coverage. • Location of building on lot. • Regulate building design, e.g. materials, bulk, shape, height, color. • Areas with a certain pitch of slope (e.g. g�eater than 12% and less than 18%) shall not have an impervious surface coverage greater than a certain percentage (e.g. greater than 25%). • Encourage elevated structures & retaining walls. - No increase in runoff from the site (from rainfall, septic systems, irrigation). • Minimal removal of deep-rooted woody vegetation. Background: The intention has always been to strenethen the criteria for considering rivercorridor modifications for construction on steep slopes. River conidor modifications do periodically occur, and the Planning Commission has requested additional provisions to ensure that any disturbance is minimized. It is premature to try to finalize ordinance CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Plannin� Commission • PC Planaing Commission RC River Corridor Page 2 of 4 o�-��t � Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City � Council Public Hearing. Responses aze coded to specific comments in (etter, attached. Ianguage in the plan: we wilI continue to wotk with DNR on deveIoping the exact ordinance language. Staff Recommendation: No change to 8.1.7 as written. 5. Current Policy 4.2.2 The City will encourage use of native vegetatzon ar other compatible floodplain vegetation in redevelopment projects. Where appropriate, when redeveloping or stabilizing the river's edge, soil bio-engineering techniques and native plantings will be used in combination with more traditional engineered solutions. In the more formal landscape treatrnents occurring along the downtown riverfront, the shoreline will be strengthened with native vegetation, including native trees and shrubs. Throughout the river corridor, the City will encourage integration of future growth and development with restoration programs that reconnect and restore remnant natural communities and biological diversity. Background: The Zoning Code provisions already.require natural vegetation to be restored after any constnzcrion project, which satisfies the Criticai Area requirement fo retain e�sting vegation and landscaping throughout the river corridor. This policy was amended to resoIve a concern raised by MNRRA staff earlier in the process. • Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.2.2 as written. 6. Current Policy 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the . opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of waIls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside --- ------- SL.^.=2ga ar�a�a,g �F�PrP_ ci.1Ch SCr£eT�i22 T�Wlll_ROt 3(Ie171IDeII1 t0 bllS1IIeS5 OpeTahORS. Background: The basis for this policy is the Critical Area requirement that "local plans and regulations shall include provisions to provide for the screenin� o£ existing development which constitutes visual intrusion, wherever appropriate..to protect and preserve aesthetic qualities of the river cosidor." (C.2.e.(4)) The Critical Area requirement is met through this policy and site plan review requirements already in place. MNRRA staff requested that the City, above and beyond the Critical Area requirement, suppozt and encourage the use of vegetative screening, and that request was incorporated verbatim. Key: CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Plannin� Commission . RC River Corridor Page 3 of 4 0�-19/ C � � • Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. 7. Key: CPC PC RC are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.4 as written. Current Section 7.3 Design Guidelines (for 5 xedevelopment sites) Background: Despite clarifying the introductory language to this section, there continues to be a misperception that those objectives listed in 73 aze a definitive, final list for each site. They are not (as is noted both in 73 and Chapter 8). We believe it would only spur more confusion and interest if we continue to add objectives to this section. Staff Recommendation: Add another clarifying statement to paragraph 2, page 48: "This list is not exhaustive." And "These suggested guidelines will be be used as the basis for the next step in the regulatory process (see Section 8.1.8)." Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission Planning Commission River Corridor Page 4 of 4 bt-\9 � February 26, 2001 Honorable Members of ihe City Council Office of the City Council City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council Members: a��g�o� C� � �� .�� yy � �4.� �9rr.��on� �`'1�55_ Jl� ✓-i/� �✓ric�D'1 ��Ow. �ue respectfully submit for your consideration the attached modest comments on the latest version of the Mississip�i River Corridor Plan. The most recent document has effectively captured the input and vision of many community members. It has some strong and inspiring aspects to it, most notably, objectives to proteci the bluff lands, preserve and restore native plani and anunal habitats, encourage protection and preservation of the floodplain and weUands, protect �vater qualiry. Yet, at the same time, these good objectives could be better articulated with respect to biuff protection and ecologically progressive landscape guidelines. Therefore, while we con�atulate the City on all the effort it has put into the plan, we respectfully ask ihat the City Council consider several changes (attached). Overall, we hope these changes �vill only strengthen the documcnt towards thc ccological goaIs that we sharc. In designating the n�Iississippi River comdor as a state critical azea, ihe Legislature recognized that the wrridor possessed natural systems "of greater than local significance." They further recognized that "development... could result in irreversible damage." We share with the City Council the hope thaT Saint Paul will conYinue to be the model in balancing economic development and environmental enhancement. Thank you again for the opportunity to share these comments «�ith you. ��e cannot emphasize enough how much we respect aII the Council's �;�ork on behaif of improving the quality of life in our ciTy. With high regard, Debarah Karasov Deborah Karaso��, PhD, MLA Landscape Planning and Policy Crreat River Greening 651-690-4077 � 35 Q'est Watez SheeC Sm� 201 • Cunc paul MN 55107 _o_ P G516659500 F 6536659a09 ww�t?—_m_�c-�� y PMttdon 107%rttycicdpeper � � CObIDIENTS OV THE �1 fISSIS5IPPl ffiVER CORRIDOR PLA�V (DECENBER, 2000) �J OBJECTZVE4.1 PROTECTTHEBLUFFLAA�DSOFTHERIVERCORRIDOR The City intends to protect the bluff-lands but allo�es e�ceptions to bluff protection policies (4. L3) and steep slopes. These statements negate key Critical Area policies. Later in the document (6.4.2 and 7.3), the City proposes additional structures, bluff drives, "developed overlooks" and other connections on the bluff. While public access is importan� these building actions need to be closely evaluated for their impacts and should not be supported as a blank matter of policy. �y 4.1.3 Change the sentence that allows e�ceptions for puUlic structures related to recreation, 'r�' access and connections. Instead, note that these public sWctures (e.g., bridges, retaining walls, sign monuments, and stainvells) should be esamined on a case by case basis, allowing them only if they do not irreveisiUly affect critic2l ecological resources. �$ 2 #3 �� '� S 4.1.4 The City should prohibit residential development on slopes that esceed eighteen percent, not only on slopes greater than hvelve percent. Should this be an impossible change for the city, at the very least, the document should add (after the sentence prohibiting residential development on slopes e�ceeding hveh�e percent): The City FviLl accept residential development on slopes that exceed ri� elve percent only if the project meets a stiid hardship standard and if it does not ineversibly affect critical ecological resources. RELITED POLICIES: 6.4.2 Change the sentence to read that "Connections...n4AY be 'vnproved..." Add that any structures (such as ramps, wall.�vays, and stairs) must be evaluated on a case by case basis for their impact on the bluff. Also such connection should be uncommon. 7.3 See below for recommended changes to Design Guidelines. 81.7 The casual reference here to variances is very troubling. We would recommend that the City emphasize that any variances with respect to bluff impact area and steep slopes must first meet a strict hardship standard .Also, at the ver}� leas� add to the criteria: Modificafions will not be accepted if there is irreversible damage to significant ecological and aesthetic resources. Additionally, The City should eliminate the statemen� "Encourage clevated shuctures and retaining «�alls." There are many natural and naturally appearing ways to protect steep slopes, and in most cases retaining walls are very unnatural. OBJ&CTTL� 4.2 PRESERVE M'D RESZORE NAZIL'E PLRNT AA�D RNLt4AL HABIZATS 4.2.2 This policy states the city will encourage use of native vegetation. Instead, the city should require it. � 35 West Watei Stxee; Swte 201 $a�nt Paul MN 557 07 _o_ P 651G659500 F 657G65a409 _.r:�i�a_r�. Prmtcdenl0�%�aycicdpape� b(-1R 1 � OBJECTNE S. I CONfINUE COA2AfERCIAL AND IND USTRIAL L9ND USES... �' (p 5.1.4 The City should require screening of industrial development, not merely encourage it � �. 7.3 DESIGNGUIDELlNES The objectives of the design guidelines are quite admirable; greater public access, preseivation of public vietvs, good s[orntwater management, expanded urban forest, and sensitive urban fabric are all objecrives we share. At the same time, the guidelines are here and there missing critical pieces; fhe omissions ultimately may lead to development that undermines those admirable objectives. In particular the design guidelines need the follo�c�ing statements for each development site: UPPER LANDING Access and Connections • Add: Design streets for pedeshian scale and safety and with livable community design solutions. Viervs an@ Visfas • • Add: Evaluate all plans to create views from the bluff within ihe context of an overall bluff management p]an. [Creating vieu�s requires cutting natural vegetation, and ttris should only be done within a larger bluffvegetation management plan.] Stormwater � Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. ADM Access and Connections • Add: Design streets for pedestrian scale and safety and with livable communiTy design solutions. • Eliminate: "Creaie a bluff drive as a local residential streel atop the lower bluff." t�'ie�vs and Vistas • Add: Evaluate all plans to create views from the bluft �vithin the context oFan overall bluff management plan [Creating eie�es requires cutting naturai vegetation, and this should only be done «�ithin a larger bluff vegetation management plan.] 35 West Water $treeC Su�te 201 � Sun� P�ut MN 55107 _o_ P 651GG59500 F 6516G59409 m_� �rc_�i• Pnntcd en 100% �ccJded papa 01-19/ • Natural Resources • Eliminate: "develop overlooks" as part of the first sentence dealin� with blufftop. [Excessively developed overlooks may not be environmentally appropriate.] . Add: Encourage preservation of existing native landscapes, encourage plantin�s of native materials in naturalized massin�s to enhance or create natural habitats. Stormwater • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. Urbzn Forest • Add: Re+ntroduce and connect the urban forest within and around redevelopment. [Canopy trees afone is not forest.] IiOCH MOBIL Access and Connections • Add: Desian streets for pedestrian scale and safety and with livable community desi�n solutions. • Eliminate: "Create a bluff drive as a local residential street atop the lower bluf£" Views and Vistas � • Add: Evaluate all plans to create views from the bluff within the conte�t of an overall bluff management plan. [Creating views requires cutting natural vegetation, and this should only be done within a larger bluff vegetation management plan.] Nntura] Resources • Eliminate: "develop overlooks" as part of tl�e first sentence dealin� with bluffrop. [Ezcessively developed overlooks may not be environmentally appropriate.] • Add: Encourage preservation of existin� native fandscapes, encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natural habitats. Stormw�ter • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. SHEPARD DAVERN (are these necessary when there is already more detailed guidelines in the Shepnrd Davern plan?) Access nnd Connections - • Add: DesiQn streets for pedestrian scale and safety and with livable communiry desi�n solutioos. C� oi-�`� t � scormwac« • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. Development Pattern • Finally, we appreciate that the document has removed specific height numbers with reference to the dcsired bu$ding edga Howevcr, wc are sure that the City would not want the promotion of a"higher edge" to perceived as an ingenious way to avoid the e�plicit commitment to the 40-foot height restriction (as required by the Critical Areas Plan.) As noted repeatedly by many neighborhood and community groups, the current fashion for a "building edge" should not blind us to the wisdvm of the Departrnent o£Natural Resources in establishing that restriction. We suggest that all recommenda6ons with respect to height be eliminated, especially given the careful work of the Shepard-Davem Task Force in dealing with this issue. Thank you again for your consideration of these comments. � 35 West Watex Steet Smte 201 � ._ Sunt Paul MN 55707 _<>_ P G5I6G59500 F G516659409 wYrpie?=�..c•N»r�nv �vPnn[cdonlOG%cecycledpaper O!-tQ/ • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 CiTy Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. 1. Policies 4.1.3 and 4.1.5, referencing Secfion 8.1.7. Background: The intention has always been to strengthen the criteria for considering river corridor modifications for construction on steep slopes. River conidor modifications do periodically occur, and the Planning Commission has requested additional provisions to ensure that any disturbance is minimized. It is premature to try to finalize ordinance language in the plan: we will continue to work with DNR on developing the exact ordinance language. Staff Recommendation: No change to section 8.1.7 as written. 2. Policy 4.2.5 In all new developments, threatened and endangered wildlife habitats shail be protected from alterations which would endanger their survival. Background: It's not plausible for the City to commit to protecting any area otl�er than those it manages or over which it has review authority (i.e. new developments). � Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.25 as written. 3. Policy 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce fertilizer and pesticide runoff into the river. Background: Water-quality related policies (Objective 4.4) are ultimately the domain of the City's surface water management plan (to be written by the Sewer Utility division of Public Works following completion of the Capitol Region Watershed District's plan in 2002). Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.4.5 as written. 4. Policy 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. Background: The CPC clazified this policy at the request of DNR and Friends of the Parks and Trails. However, the only poZicies (as opposed to regulations) that Saint Paul can enforce are our own. It's a subtle distinction. Key: • CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page lof 5 oi--i°� i StafFresponse to Feb. 28, 200] ]etter from Friends of the Pazks & Trails of SY. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.4.6 as written. 5. Policy 51.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or should enhance the river environment. ( New development on the north side of fhe river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of e�sting Plans, and in all other respects should be consistent with the goaIs and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new developmenT include: •. having an economic or operational need for a river location •. supporting the attsactiveness of surrounding neighborhoods •. sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements •. offering public access to and along the river •. maintaining views of the river •. cleaning up polluted areas on the site • meeting or exceeding applicable natural resource policies in this Plan (This list is not prioritized, nor do all criteria have to be met for a land use to be considered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new developments should meet as many of these criteria as possible. ) $ackground: Downtown was exempted from this policy to acknowledge that having a relationship to the river is not the most important purpose of a Central Business District, and that downtown development is driven by many factors unrelated to the river. For example, if tkris policy was applied to the downtown area, many of the current uses could probably not be built there today (District Energy Plant, Ramsey County building/former . . . -- _--__._- --� _..-- v�25i F }^R.`�C:.^.g$�j2.C�wt�. W2_TL�P.?' Rd. J211�. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.1 as written. 6. Policy 5,1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beaufify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening wilI not be a detriment to business operations. Key: CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee ofthe Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 2of 5 � � . OI - 191 • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearin�. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Background: The basis for this policy is the Critical Area requirement that "local plans and regulations shall include provisions to provide for the screening of existing development which constitutes visual intrusion, wherever appropriate..to protect and preserve aesthetic qualities of the river corridor." (C.2.e.(4)) The Critical Area requirement is met through this policy and site plan review requirements already in place. MNRIZA staff requested that the City, above and beyond the Critical Area requirement, support and encourage the use of vegetative screening, and that request was incorporated verbatim. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.4 as written. Section 5.2 Text reference to Port of St. Paul (page 32). Background: This document refers to the St. Paul Port as those areas over which the St. Paul Port Authority or City of St. Paui has jurisdictional authority. For that reason, it does not discuss the terminals ar fleeting capacity in Minneapolis or the Minnesota River even though the functions of the those terminals are undeniably intertwined with those in St. • Paul. Staff recommendation: No change to text as written. 8. Section 5.2 Text reference to "practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges" (page 32). Background: MnDOT distinguishes between fleeting area Design Capacity and fleeting azea Practical Capacity. The practical capaclty of a fleet is 2/3 to 3/4 of its design capacity because there must be room to maneuver so that an individual barge can be taken from the fleet. The practical capacity of a fleeting area is the better indicator of the number of bazges that can fleet in a fleeting area. However, the design capacity is the absolute maximum number of barges that can fleet, so is a useful indicator as well. Staff recommendation: Amend text: "In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor cunently has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges and a total desien capacitv of 574 bazges (Fiaure R�." 9. Policy 5.21 Barge Terminal #l, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission . PC Plannin� Commission RC River Corridor Page 3of 5 OI Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey CounTy, • submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. non-river-reIated businesses with river-reIated businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. River-related land uses are those with an economic or opesational need for a river location. Background: Policy 5.1.1 already addresses new development needing to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or enhancing the river environment. Policy 5.1.2 already addresses expansions of existing businesses. Policy 5.13 already addresses modifications or additions To exisYing industrial uses. This policy addresses industrial uses in areas controlled by the St. Paul Port Authority. It is the staff position that these four policies together constitute the appropriate City stance. This policy could be clarified Yo indicate that businesses at Barge Terminal #1 are already river-related. Staff recommendation: Amend policy 5.2.1: "Bazge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. (The businesses at Bar�e Terminal #1 are ail river-related.) River-related land uses aze fhose with an economic or operational need for a river location." 10. Policy 5.2.3 The City will continue to regulate the impacts of commercial navigation facilities on existing development, the natural environment, and the immediate neighborhood through its Special Condition Use Permit process. Background: 1) The SCUP process already requires scrutiny of any proposed new commercial nauigation facility. It was the staff and committee's opinion that "noise and visual impacts" of any proposed development is already covered by existing Code language: "compatibility with existing aad ariticipated development; compatibility with ______bielogic_a.nd oLher nahu-al communities" and standazds for protecfion of shorel - �-------- - - -- '--- -- —� --- - - wetiands, bluffs, wildlife and vegetation, and water quality. (Sec.65S03, 65.410) 2) Staff were advised by representatives of the commercial navigation industry that casual fleeting by bazges only happens in emergency situations. DNR staff admitted that the problem of casual barge fleeting is an outdated problem that has lazgely been resolved in the past 20 years. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.23 as written. 11. Section 6.3 Text reference page 39: "On the river's west bank, in azeas near the Saint Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 4of 5 • C� 0�-�4! • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Paul Downtown Airport and Pig's Eye Lake, a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons." Background: Staff know that Pig's Eye Lake is on the east side of the river. Staff recommendation: Amend text: "On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paui Downtown Airport, and in the Pig's Eye Lake azea, a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons." 12. Section 8.1.1 Review and amend current River Corridor overlay zoning districts and map. Cunently, river corridor overlay zoning consists of four districts, with two distinct functions. The districts labeled RC-1 and RC-2 together protect the floodplain. The districts labeled RC-3 (Urban Open District) and RC-4 (Urban Diversified District) are intended to guide the character of development, but aze confusing and contribute little to the overlay. Underlying zoning districts determine land use. General standards for environmental protection apply to the whole river conidor, regardless of the overlay districts. Consider splitting the current River Conidor overlay into two: a"floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RC-1 and RG2 which governs the floodplain, and a single • district "Mississippi River Critical Area" or "MRCA" combining RC-1, RC-2, RC-3 and RG4, and which addresses Critical Area requirements Background: Disagree with the assertion that to combine all of the RC overlay districts into a single would eliminate the 40' height provision in RC-3. This idea is something that city and DNR staff have only had very preliminary discussions about. DNR is interested in the idea of a single overlay for the Critical Area; and DNR has the final approval authority over any such change. Any such proposal would require public review and comment. Staff Recommendation: No change to section 8.1.1 as written. • CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Pla�ning Commission PC Plannin� Commission RC River Corridor Page 5of 5 bl { / e ,�rcs and s'1� St Paul acid �:,�,�� cou 1621 Beechwood Ave. St. Paul, MN 55116 651-698-4543 w�wv.friendsoftheparks.org Presiden[ Roben Nethercut Vice Presidents Ieanne Weigum Treasurer lames R. Bricher Direc[ors Craig Andresen Perry R. Bolin Theresa Bradshaw Thomas T. Dwight Neit Franey William Frank Esther Kellogg Mazilyn Lundberg Mark M. Nolan ]anet Olson Larry Peterson Scott Ramsay Pierre Regnier ]erry Seck Marsha Soucheray Jerrilyn Thompson Direcror Emeritus David Lilly Tniman W. Porter Ez Officio Dan Collins Thomas Eggum Mazc Goess Gree Mack Terry Noonan Vic Wi[tgenstein Executive Director and Secretary Peggy Lynch Mississippi River Bluffs Project Manager Gndy Schwie � � Z February 28, 2001 TO: St. Paul City Council Members From: Friends of the Parks and Trails of St. PauI and Ramsey County Bob Nethercut, President The Friends of the Parks and Trails has reviewed the Mississippi River Corridor Plan and would like to suggest changes. • The Friends are pleased that some of our recommendations to the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the River Corridor Plan which is being reviewed tonight. However, our main concern about this plan has always been that it achieve Tier Two requirements of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). It dces not achieve Tier Two and we question whether it even meets the basic requirements of the State CriUCal Area Law. The City of St. Paul has more shoteline on the Mississippi River than any other coaununity on the River. The designation of the Mississippi River as a Critical Area by the State of Minnesota and the designation of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) by the federal government shows the deep concem by the state and federal governments about the protection of the Mississippi River and its comdor. The City has a tremendous responsibility to protect the river comdor. Unfortunately, this current plan encourages development loopholes which will ensure that the look of the St. Paul Mississippi River Comdor will be driven by developers, not by the protecfion of the River envisioned by the legislators who passed the State Critical Area Act � who later designated the Mississippi River a permanent Critical Area. Nor will it be protecte by the MNRRA Iegislation wIuch was authored by Representative Bmce Vento to provide national protecrion to our state and nafion's greatest natural resource, the Mississippi River. There are major gaps in this current plan: * Variances appeaz to rule development * There is no definition of the Port of Saint Paul. The Port of St. Paul includes the City of Minneapolis and communities on the Minnesota River which accommodates most of the grain ternunals. _* Zeningcodes xecommendations could elinunate the cusent 40 ft. height restrictions. We recommend changes in the following policies: * 4.1.3. The City will continue to prohibit residential development on slopes that exceed eighteen percent...and restrict industrial and commerciat development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. * 4.1.5 The City will continue to preserve the biuff impact area (forty feet landward of the binff line) in a natural state. Yet on page 52, #7 suggests creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification...for development on slopes exceeding 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact area. If variances are encouraged by the City of St. Paul, as this document certainly appears do, the reeommendations prohibiting development on steep slopes or with tlae bluff impact area, are worthless. �` 4.2.5 In all new development, threatened and endangered wildlife . habitats shall be protected from alterations which would endanger their a - t9/ • February 28, 2001 Page Two Mississippi River Corridor Plan survival. Recommendation: eliminate "in a11 new development". '�` 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce � 2 fertilizer and pesticide runoff it�to the river. Recommendation: � The City should set an example for shoreline areas by restricting turf areas near the river and public Zands surrounding lakes. '�` 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed �� management organizations and floodplain and wetland protection policies. 12ecommendation: Replace "support" with "require ". '�` 5.1.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the S ordinary high water mark should have a relationship to the river, a need for a .� river location, and(or should enhance the river environment. {New development on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd. is exempted from this policy). Recommendation: Eliminate the exemption of downtown Saint Paul from this policy. �` 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river �(p or the opposite shoreline. The City support the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage • the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening will not be a detriment to business operations. Recoznmendation: Screening of industrial buildings and outside storage areas is required by using native vegetation. � Objective 5.2 This section is very deceiving when describing the Port of Saint Paul. We ,� recommend an addition to this section identifying the total area of the Port of St. Paul which includes not only the City of St. Paul, but all of the terminais on the Minnesota River. The text mentions the "total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges". In actualiry there is space to fleet 574 bazges. The text itself states "at peak times, barge fleets sj� � fill fleeting areas to their masimum capacity." Recommendation: Insert - The Saint Paul river corridor currently has a total capacity for fleeting 574 barges. * 5.2.1 Barge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's �,i� � policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river related business at �� Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts... Recommendation: Change this to read - All industrial sites should be used for river related industries. '�` 5.2.3 The City will continue to regulate the impacts of commercial navigation facilities on existing development, the natural environment, and the �(0 immediate neighborhood through its Special Condition Use Permit process. Recommendation: replace with: Noise and visual impact of commercial navigation must be considered on sites before renewing permits on existing areas and before additional barge • activities or fleeting can be considered. No casual fleeting will be allowed in the river corridor. o�-i� � February 28, 2001 Page Three Mississippi River Corridor Plan Objective 5.3 The Port Authority has donated over 1800 acres of land to the City, to be used for open space and recreation in perpetuity. Those lands now in park use include Crosby Lake, Pigs Eye Lake, and Pickerel Lake. While this may be true, the statement is deceiving. Crosby Lake was never an industrial site. In the 1960's wken the Ciry wished to purchase Crosby Lake for a park, they kad reached their tevy Iimits and so were unable to purchase the site. The Council asked the St. Paul Port Authoriry, which also levies taxes but has no limits, to purchase the site for a pazk. The Port Authority then owned the land and leased it to the City for $1 a year. The Port Authority eventually turned over the deed to the City of St. Paul. The Port Authority did turn over property in the Pig's Eye Lake area to the City for a pazk, but This was after the f�rst River Corridor Plan was rejected by the Environmental Qualiry Board because of plans the Port Authority had to develop the area. �(� Objective 6.3. On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport and Pig's Eye Lake,.... Conection: Pig's Eye Lake is on the east side of the river. �` 8.1 Zotting Code Revisions. Consider splitting the current River Corridor overlay into two: a"floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RGl and RC-2 which governs the floodplain, and a single district "Mississippi � f 2 ' River Critical Area" or "MRCA" combining RGl, RG2, RC-3 and RC-4,... Combining all of these districts would eliminate the 40 ft. height restriclion which now prevails in RC-3 district. Recommendation: Eliminate this poZicy. The City of St. Paul has a heavy responsibility in protecting the St. Paul River Corridor. As• the capitol city, with more shoreline than any other community, it is important to recognize the unique role played by the Mississippi River in our community, the state and the nation. We urge you, the City Council, to demand that the protections of the river corridor aze cleaz and concise in the new River Corridor Ptan. Thank you for this opportuniry to comment on the pian. . o�-!9t . Staff response to verbal testimony by Laura Deuberry, President of Highland District Council, at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Ms. Deuberry stated that the Highland District Counci[ wants the design guidelines from the Shepar�l Davern Small Area Plan incorporated into the River Corridor P[an. Background: Highland District Council also made the same comments at the Planning Commission public hearing. Our response is that the S-D Small Area Plan (and therefore the design guidelines) are already adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The nelghborhood plan is the appropriate place for that level of specificity. While the River Corridor Plan Design Study did look at Shepard-Davern, along with other riverfront redevelopment sites, the intention is not to dilute or amend those design guidelines that are part of the S-D Small Area Plan. However, we could make these distinctions more clear in the River Corridor Plan. Staff Recommendation: Amend section 8.1.8 "With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design guidelines for major river corridor redevelopment sites , , - ', where no euidelines have yet been written. The design guidelines will be sensitive to the purposes of this Plan, and w111 clarify how the form and scale of development can incorporate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public • enjoyment of the river. It is expected that such guidelines will be implemented through a vaziety of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Village Zoning project, site-specific gu3delines, and possibly through design districts (a concept that is currently being developed). The Shepard_ Davern redevelopment area alreadv has created desien euidelines through a 1999 Small Area Plan. Appendix B shows illustrations for the five redevelopment sites based on the work of the Design Study. " � Of-lS� Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. WSCO submitted this letter to the PC in November. At that time, the CPC discussed these comments carefully, and many of the requested changes were made. Comments that have already been addressed aze coded as #1. 2. WSCO requests that the Mississippi River Comdor Plan adopt, support or reference various aspects of the West Side Back To Our Future long range plan, West Side Flats Design Strategy, and/or the West Side Riverfront Development Principles. This is a corridor-wide plan, and therefore must be more general than neighborhood-specific plans. Another reason is to manage the length of the plan. Neighborhood specifc plans (such as the Shepazd-Davern Small Area Plan) become part of the Comprehensive Pian through a separate process. City staff aze currently working to summarize the West Side Back To Our Future plan for adoption as a Comprehensive Plan element. 3. Summary, Strategy 2: Along the riverfxont and its floodplain, new development should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river locafion, or the capability to enhance the river environment Industrial and commercial uses, as well as housing may all fit these categories. Background: Policy 5.1.1, Objective 6.4 , and Chapter 7 provide sufficient safeguards to guarantee appropriate housing development in the river corridor. Staff recommendation: No change to text. 4. Summary, Strategy 4 __ ?a „ r., ,..a_ cta f fr m,___, __ rs were involved in the Design ,.a^- g.-..��_ �£ _o _ M�TRRA an_d_DNR and othe - -- - --- Study that generated urban design policies listed in objectives 7.1 and 7.2 and summazized in this section. These guidelines are more appropriate to St. Paul sites than the generic MNRRA site design standards, which were intended to be adapted to local needs before adoption. Staff recommendation: No change to text. 5. Staff recommendation: Amend texf 3.1.3: "The chazacter of river valley land uses also changes considerably, from the quiet, residential chazacter of the gorge, to the mixed Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page l of 7 • � . OI-19/ • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 ]etter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 CiTy Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street comdor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preserved blufftop neighborhoods in the West Side. Davton's Bluff, and Highwood neighborhoods." 6. Policy 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. Background: The CPC clarified this policy at the request of DNR and Friends of the Parks and Trails. However, the only policies (as opposed to regulations) that Saint Paul can enforce aze our own. IYs a subtle distinction. Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.4.6 as written. Policies 4.4.8 and 4.4.9 4.4.8 The City will support programs to better manage and decrease the voluxne of toYic waste in the river corridor. 4.4.9 Protect streambanks and water quality from the negative impacts of recreation. • Background: Water-quality related policies (Objective 4.4) are ultimately the domain of the City's surface water management plan (to be written by the Sewer Utility division of Public Works following completion of the Capitol Region Watershed District's plan in 2002). Staff Recommendation: No change to policies 4.4.8 ar 4.4.9 as written. 8. Policy 51.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or should enhance the river environment. ( New development on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of existing Plans, and in all other respects should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new development include: •. having an economic or operational need for a river location •. supporting the attractiveness of surrounding neighborhoods •. sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements •. o£fering public access to and along the river •. maintaining views of the river . Key: CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Plannin� Commission RC River Corridor Page 2of 7 ol-1R � Staff response to Feb. 28, 200] letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in tetter, attached. cleaning up polluted areas on the site • meeting or exceeding applicable naturalresource policies in this PIan (This list is not prioritized, nor do a11 criteria have to be met for a land use to be considered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new developments should meet as many of these criteria as possible. ) Background: The list of criteria as written in this policy is adopted from MNRRA with nzinor word changes and MNRRA staff did not request any changes to it. The CPC rejected the following original MNRRA criteria as unworkable or too vague to offer meaningful guidance: • removes blighting influences • provides high quality building and landscape design • compatible with the riverfront environment • provides visual open space • retains or xestores natural shoreline appearance • contributes to natural, cultural, or economic resource appreciation, protection, and enhancement Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.1 as written. 9. Poliey 51.2 Expansions of exisfing uses in the floodplain or within 300 ft from the ordinary high water mazk aze acceptable. Expansions should be consistent with the natural resource protection policies laid out in this Plan. Expansion of uses on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevazd should be consistent with natural resource protection policies where practical. --- - __ _ _ .. , g -„ _ �• � �� .., ,;f�. A��TZP t,e. Na.+�.'�^.aLPa_�SService_staff: --- ---- YS'dCl{ f011llfi: - t'flI5 - - iC' 't5'-f:t7ii3i Cir� W�a�rt -ii i- MNRRA staff advised us that "the plan will not discourage existing ]and uses in the corridor from expanding existing facilities if the expansion is consistent with resource protectiott poIicies contained in the (MNRRA CMP). .. Expansion standards will continue to be established by local govemment. Expansion, in general, will be acceptable as long as it does not create or increase nonconformity with the MNRRA plan." (MNRRA CMP p.16) Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.2 as written. CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plannin� Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 3of 7 • . . at-!91 • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Heazing. Responses are coded to specific comments in Vetter, attached. 10. Policy 61.1 Large azeas of open space that aze currently undeveloped should preserve fish and wildlife resources, plant communities, and biological diversity. Some open space azeas may be suitable for passive recreation (e.g. trails for hiking, biking, bird- watching); others, such as the Pig's Eye Lake area and the bluffs at Cherokee Park should be limited to preservation. Background: This policy satisfies MNRRA's policy to preserve river corridor open space in a natural state. Staff would not recommend that the Cherokee bluffs, which are on a very steep grade, be opened for new trails or other vertical connections. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 6.1.1 as written. • 11. Policy 7.1.8 The City should connect new and existing neighborhoods to the river by greening key streets that connect to the riverfront or river parkways. Background: WSCO's concern is addressed by policy 4.2.4: "The City will continue to enforce the 50 foot shoreline setback for structures. In addition, the City will support efforts to restore the shoreline to a more natural chazacter within 100 feet of the river to facilitate wildlife movement, and to improve the aesthetic appearance of the floodwall. Such efforts must be compatible with current channel design and flood control management, and exceptions are made for park buildings, marinas, and other commercial or industrial river-dependent uses. Redevelopment should include removal of unused docking facilities (i.e., at the Koch-Mobil site)." Staff recommendation: No change to policy 7.1.8 as written. 12. Policy 7.2.1 In Low Land azeas, new development should employ building envelopes that heighten the experience of the river corridor by preserving public views to the top of the High Bluf£ Public views from the Uplands or Tenace to the water edge of the opposite side of tl�e river should be ma�cimized. Background: The policy language does not "focus on the views from Kellogg Park to the West Side and along only Wabasha Street". Think this issue has been resolved already; at the time this comment was originally made, the West Side Flats 40 Acre Study was underv✓ay. Maximum building height for the West Side Flats without a SCUP is 65 feet. Staff recommendation: No change to Policy 7.2.1 as written. r1 L_J Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plannin� Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Conidor Page 4of 7 oi �� I Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, � 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. 13. 14. A proposed section 7.4 to address guidelines for the expansion of existing businesses. Background: WSCO's concern about the expansion of existing businesses is addressed in policies 5.1.2 and 5.13. Staff recommendation: No change. Section 7: Comments regazding transportation, the airport, and pazking/pavement. Background: With very few exceptions, the plan did ttot take on issues that weren't directly related to Critical Area or MNRRA, The airport as a land use issue is such an example. Regazding the comment on pazking and pavement reduction, policy 7.1.6 calls for "underground parking wherever possible to minimize impervious surface". Staff recommendation: No new changes to the plan. I5. Secfion 8.1 Paragraph 7- paragraph 8 in the current version of the P1an.With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the Ciry, working with the � Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design guidelines for major river corridor redevelopment sites... Background: Staff from MNRRA and DNR and others were involved in the Design Study that generated these design guidelines. These guidelines are more appropriate to St. Paul sites than the generic MNRRA site design standazds, which were intended to be adapted to local needs before adoption. Statf recommendation: No change to section 8.1.8. 16. Section 8.2 Site Plan Review Guidelines Site plan review is Yhe mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Conidor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guideiines would reevaluate provisions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse environmental impacts of new development. Ke CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plannin� Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page Sof 7 • 0 � - 19/ . Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Staff recommendation: Amend Section 8.2: Site Plan Review Guidelines. Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate provisions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse environmental impacts of new development. The Citv will wark with the De�artment of Natural Resources to determine if amendments to site olan review Quidelines are necessarv This will occur durinz the Ordinance revision�rocess which will follow adoption of this Plan 17. Section 8.3 Park & Trai] System Development The City Parks & Recreation Plan (1996) includes an implementation plan for park resource protection, park land acquisition, scenic overlook clearance, environmental education and interpretive programs, and development of trails. Park plans include completion of the regional Mississippi River Trail on both sides of the river, connecting to trail segments in adjacent municipalities. • Background: The intent of this section is to indicate that implementation of the park and trail system is the purview of the Department of Pazks & Recreation and the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan element. Discussions about the alignment of of the proposed trail from Robert Street to South St. Paul aze already underway, and include staff from Parks, Public Works, the Port Authority, the City of St. Paul and the Riverview Development Association (REDA). Staff recommendation: No change to section 83. 18. Figure W- Figure X in this version of the Plan Background: The CPC considered this comment when it was first made in October. The drawing is one of the illustrations generated by the Design Study. Granted, it is but one example of a important viewsheds in the river corridor, but we thought it useful to show an illustration of a view analysis to support the policies in Objective 7.2. Staff recommendation: Don't change or eliminate Figure X. • CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 6of 7 ol-�g 1 � Staffresponse to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, � 2001 City Council Public Heazing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. • CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plamming Commission � PC Planning Commission RC River Conidor Page 7of 7 o � V]t,i�T 2 / 2 �/ Q � 127 West Winifred St. .�r� 1 � � �� St. Paul, MN 55107 CIT�ENS �� '��'�' " '(/ - '��Phone (612) 293-1708 � ,. ORGANY7A.TZON ecv C��res ��, . 2 -015 M�� • /1,�T.�eit �zlmQ/�n Fea (612) 93 ] February 28, 2001 Deaz Planning Commission: On behalf of the West Side community, the West Side Citizens Oraanization appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Mississippi River Conidor Plan 2000 update. The Iviississippi River bounds the neighborhood on three sides and the bluffs and slopes form the neighborhood, More than half the West Side is within the state Ccitical Area and MtNNRRA boundary. This policy and impletnentation document will guide how new development enhances the ziver and the neighborhood. Its final form is o£ vital importance to the neighborhood, and the neighborhood organizations such as the Bluff Task Force are essential to its implementation. The following comments were developed by a task force zepresenting numerous neighborhood committees and adopted by the WSCO Board. Comments are also based on the past �'ive years of community partici�ation in the deve]opment o£riverfront development principles and the neighborhood plan, Back to the Yl�ture, which shoutd guide fufure development. The pian is well wriften and emphasizes neighborhood connections to the river. We o££er the £oliowing additions and changes. Section I.1 � ➢ The'West Side commuztity generally supports the five strategies and applauds the city's policy of zemoving bill boards �ue request the following additions and clarifications: � � ➢ In strategy Z, bluffs and riverbanks should also be restored and the cause of damage, such as stormwater outflows and vegetative cutting, shou(d be dealt with- ➢ In strategy 2, river-dependent emerging businesses, such as boat repair, should be recognized. � j Although the West Side supports such housing if it can be designed to be rivez enhancing, housing should not be portrayed as equally ziver-related (see lack of priorities in section 5.1.1. ➢ In strategy 3, early industrial and economic uses should be added to the list of cultural resources �#. � in reconnition of beer brewing, mushroom fuming, brick making and other activities related to the caves the Lilydale Park. ➢ In strategy 4, add a buliei affirmin� that design standards will incorporate the Mississippi �� National River and Recreation Area C.t�' site design policies (the West Side plan, Back �o the Future bistrict 3 plan supports MNRRA policies for all corridor development). ➢ The last bullet should a�rm that buildings fit into "eacisting neighborhoods" by adding those � ( t�3�o words a�ter "topography" Section 2 • The West Side coramunity supports this secdon's emphasis on the ecological funaion o£both the river corridor and the watersheds that feed the river and 4he depiction of a bfllflnccd approach as ilIustrated in figure 2.3. oi-i9 � Section 3 ��j In 3.1, the West Side community supports the emphasis on watersheds, parks and open space and � neighborhood preservation. The description of different river corridor chazacteristics should include the blu£T�op historic neighborhoods of the West Side and Aayton's bluf'fs. All new development should support the physical and cultural uniqueness o£existing neighborhoods ( Section 32 visions should also inctude recognition o£river corridor neighborhood plans. In �f 7i particulaz, the Wesi Si@e ziverfront development principles, St. Paut on the Mississippi Framework West Side Precinct Plan, the West Side Back to Our Future Iong range plan and the West Side FIats Aesign Suategy attached to ihese comments. 'I'he description o£topography on 3.4 shoutd znention problem azeas. For example, the associated large parking areas mentioned zn the to�vlands are not topographic £orms, zather, are uses that are harmful to the form and function o£lowlands. Sectiott 4 4.1.2 West Side Bluff management is being addressed by the WS Bluff Task Force in conjunction '�' ! with St. Paul Parks and ltecreation department. Explicit recognition of this work should be included in the plan. 4].3 The description o£t6e downtown area should be clarified. Use o£the term downtown would �. � not include the West Side. Any exceptions allowed should be subject to special condition use petmit. 4.1.5 The language regarding possible allowance of constcuetion in b1u£f impacY uea is too vawe ,�{. � and could be applied to any situation. We recommend simply preserving the impact area • without exception Native vegetation should be re-established in this area where possible. ��'L —� The West Side Precznct Plan calls for a bluff top trail which should be addressed ia the ptan. � 4.4.5 Don't just encourage enforcement of floodplain and we[iand protection policies, commit to � en£orcing those you are required to enforce. � 4.4.8 The city should deveIop its own programs, where appropriate, to accomp[ish the protections ��. recommended , � 4 4.9 Not only recreational, but commerciai uses impact shoufd be addressed. SectiOn 5 5.5. I The West Side is not downtown. Tf you expect a"downtown" exemption to apply to tfie West Side, you must so specify. �"$ The criteria £or "river related" are so broad, any development in the city couid qualafy. R� write the criteria to be truly river related. E.g. river related as specified in 5.2.1 5.1.2 To be consiscent with NINRRA plan, exemptions should only be allowed £or river related .� Q uses. Section 6 6. I I We are unsure what is meant by limiting Cherokee Pazk bluff to preservation. The West . �.�� Side considers vertical connections important for use of Lilydale Regional Pazk. O/-/9/ ��} / 6.1.2 Add "will require" be�'ore "all public facilities". Section 7 The West Side community agrees with many o£the urban design principles, including infill and new grid-pattern neighborhoods and £tting development into existing neighborhoods, some critical policies should be included or changed. ➢ 7. I.1 should include adoption of the West Side riverfront development principles for new �'� villages on the West Side and state what they are. That document defines the meaning of connections to the river and integzation into the existing neighborhoods. ➢ 7.1.8 should inciude a policy o£ establishing green corridors along the river — between all buildings and the river not just ozeening streets to the river. T'he community supports the '� (( I�NRRA-suggested 100-£oot setback (d 40-foot native vegetation corridor, where feasible) as part of restoring the ecological funcCions of the corridor ine(uding its iinportance as a flyway and its water quality. ➢ �k12� • View protection in 7.2.1 focuses on the views from TCellogg Park to the West Side and along only Wabasha Street. �he section should protect views £rom the West Side blu£fs to the river and not e]iminate Robezt Street. Residents of the blufFtop neighborhoods have regeatedly expressed a concern to t�JSCO that buildings not obstruct their views of the riverfront. Though the community participated in and suppor[s the city's topographic approach to providing some flexibility in height standards for landmarks, WSCO is on record as objecting to ANX building on the West Side that exceeds 65 feet (see letter regarding the 40-acre study). The community suppoRS the MNRRA policies oPkeeping rivezfront buitdings in low profile with some elevation back from the river. ➢ Suggested design gvidelines for the West Side flats on page 49 should include ]iraitSng buiiding heights atong the riverfront, notjust along Wabasha. Some residents strongly support the � y existing 35-foot iimit. Others suggested 35' to 65', depending on viewsheds and closeness to riverfront. The natural resource design guidelines should include continuous �reenspace along the rivez's edge, not just public space. The sectzon on access and connecYions should include improved pedestrian connections betwaen Yhe West Side neighborhood and any new developtnent. As mezrtioned previously, the city should make a commitment in this section to the West Side riverfro�t design principles and the MNRI2 A suggested design guidelines in the C_VIP, appendix C. ➢ �ti3 • A section 7.4 should be added to address guidelines for the expansion o£ existing busanesses. This is not nddressed anywhere in the document, despite the continuation of major industrial uses within the West Side F]ats, other industrial and commercial uses throughout the corridor, and the acpansion of homes and other buildings within the corridor. The poiicies should clearly state the river enhancin� standards t6at wif] be applied to acpaosions and should protect existing businesses if they follow these practices and especially if they are river dependent The city should consider establishing a£und to provide an incentive for property owners enhanee the river corridor through better runoff management, protectioa o{native vegetation and so o❑ ni-�q 1 ➢ The plan also does not address transpor[ation and public uses such as the airport. WSCO .#�1� strongly suppozts maintainzng the floodplain functions wittiin the airport, and wouid not support � any further diking of that area. We call £or a reduction of pazking and pavement in the #tats. Section 8 The implementation section should be expanded to explain the types of ordinance changes the city is proposing. Wilt the city continue to have an ovezlay district that establishes standazds to protect and enhance natural and cultuzal resourees whife referencing underlying zotting distriets for Iand use? Does the city support maintaining the functions of the floodplain? ➢ Poiicies for bluff proteetion are contradictory and confusing. Is the policy to limit development on and 40 feet back from 12% slopes, frozn 18% slopes or not7 The standard shoutd be � � protection ofbluffs, reduction o£runoff, prevention of erosion and restoration o£native vegetarion aloz�g the 40-foot impact area. The standard for exceptions from a 40-foot setback from the l2% or � 8°/a slopes should be made ctear. Current statemeni of "allowing development on slopes that exceed 12% and 18% slopes should be changed. ➢ Pazagraph 7 for adopting site design standards should state a goat of adopting standards ,� � l� consistent urith the IvZNRRA CMP site design standards that adapt suggested appendix C design standards to local needs. ➢ Section 82 should include timing and process foz adopting site design standards and should � �(� ensure that all pubtic and pzzvate development will adhere to thent or mitigate any effects £oz exceptions, • ➢ 5ection 8.3. The West Side community supports the continuous river corridor trail on the west � ��, side of the river and requests the city coznplete identification o£ and reservation of easements for, the river trail from Robert to So. St. Paui. ➢ Section 8.4. The West Side community suppozts heatage preservation and requests specific mention be znade of the Xoerg Brewery, caves, and historie stairs and connectzons that should be preserved and restored between the upper bluffs and the flats. We also would like more aggressive effons by ihe city to have the plan certified by N:fN"RRA so the city is etigible for £ederai funds to establish interpzetative trails and kiosks (n {he 4Crest Side and "norn I-zarriec Island through Lilydale Park. The implementation of the Lilydale Park plan and one trail connection between Chero�ee and Lilyda(e portions of the regional pazk should be made priority. �� Figure W. Does not include important views £rom West Side bluffs to and across the river. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, � �� Bruce Vanda2 President C� o� t MISSISSIPPf R1VER � � � . � � - . � T H E S A I N T P A U L C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N �" �, > \ '. ; � ; �� e' � ;�:, ;:_� . . ��, bi- �4 � The citywide portion of the Saint Paul Comprehensive PIan consists of the foilowing as of adoption by the Saint Paul City Council in 2001: Plan Summary and Generat Po6cy Land Use Plan (1999) Housing Plan (T 999) Transportation PIan (199n Parks and Recrea5on Plan (1997) Library Services Plan (1996) Water Conservation and Emergency Response Plan {1996) Mississippi River Corridor Plan (1987, update to be completed in 2001) Sewer Plan (1950, update in progress) Implementation (1999) A separate Area Plans volume identifies all small area plans and district plans ±n2• n�ve been officially aciopted_ as amendme�ts or addenda to the Comprehensive P(an. ft also indudes summanes of all area plans that have been adopted in summaty form under the current neighborhood planning policy. The Plan is subject to amendment, and a publication no5ng all amendmer�ts in force will be available after ame�dments are adopted. Plan documents are available at the Saint Paul Public Library and copies may be obtained from the DepartmeM of Planning and Economic Development, 25 W Fourth Sheet, Saint Paul, MN 55102, telephone: (651) 266-6573. (The Water Conservation and Emergency Response Plan is published separately by the Sairrt Paul Water Utility and is not available from PED or on-line.) As preparation can be completed, most or all chapters will be accessible from the City of Saint Pauf web page at ci.stpaW.mn.us (departments, PED, comprehensive planJ. Contents � � � Executive Summa►Y ..............................................5 Q IMroduction....................................................8 � 2.1 Purposes ...... .............. - .........8 2Z Le�islative History and River Corridor Plan Back�round .....9 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Setting ...................................................11 � � 3.1 Planning Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: City and Other Plans .....12 3.3 National'IYends . . . . . .. . .. ... .. . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 3.4 Typology of River Landforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Nat�ara] Systems Strategy: s Profeet the River as a Unique Ilrban Eeosystem ........18 4.1 Bluffs ............................................19 4.2 t3alive Plant & Animal Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.3 Floodplain & Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 4.4 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Economic Systems Strategy: � Sustain fhe Economie Resources of the Working River .. 29 5.1 Commercia] & Industrial Land and Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . .29 5.2 Commercial Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3; 5.3 Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .34 Social Systems Strategy: i Enhance the City� Quality of Life by Reconnecting to the River .........................................36 6.1 Visitor Use ........................................36 6.2 views ............................................38 6.3 "17ails . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .39 6.4 Neighborhoods ....................................40 6.5 Historic & Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Urban Desi,gn Sffategy: � Use UrLan Design to Enhance the River Comdor�s Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 7.1 Development Pattems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 7.2 Built Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 7.3 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites ......48 a a • c .'e a a . E i ( » e f E Comprehensive Plan 3 pt- i� � Implementation ................................................51 � 81 Zoning Code Revisions _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 82 Site Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.3 Park & "[7ai1 System Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.4 Heritage Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 APPendices...................................................55 x Appendix A, Design Study Illustrations for Redevelopment Sites ........55 Appendix B. Historicai and Archaeological Sites/Structures . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Appendix C. Databases ........................................59 • Minnesota Natural Heritage Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 • Minnesota Land Cover Ctass�cation System pvILCCS) ......65 Appendix D. Water Management and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Appendix E. Public ParticipaUon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Appendix F. Maps & Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 • Slope Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 • Significant Vegetatrve Stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 • Wetlands and Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 • E�sting Storm Sewer Discharge Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 • Naharal Drainage Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 • Barge Faalities and Fleeung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 • Transportation Fadlity Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 • Parks, Open Space, and BoatAccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 • F�sbng Tlrews 6z Overlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 • Utility Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 • Existing and Proposed Trai15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 • River Corridor Historic Sites 6e Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 Credits...................................................94 4 City of Saint Paul Summary he Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan describes the T Mississippi River in Sain t Paul as a series of in terrelated systems: natural, economic, social, and built. Just as the River Corridor has been shaped by lustory, decisions about devel- opment and change will influence each of these systems for future generations. Thus, this plan focuses on protecting the resources that support our community, and on the management of human activiry and the physical environment. Saint Paul is rediscovering and redefining its relationship with the Mississippi River. Increased environmental stewardship and establishing connections to the river are central to this rediscovery. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan reinforces the body of river-related planning already completed in recent years. Those plans which are most influentiai come from within and outside the City: the 1999 Land Use Plan, the Saint Paui on the Mississippi Development t7amework, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan, and the State Critical Area program. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. The Water Management Plan will be written after the River Corridor Pian is completed. The current Mississippi River Corridor Plan was adopted in 1981, and amended in 1987. After public hearings and consideration of public comments, the Saint Paul Planning Commission will forward the plan to the City Council. The City Councii wil] review the plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the National Park Service for joint review. After receiving comments from these agencies, the Ciry Council will adopt the final plan. There are numerous entities with jurisdiction over the Mississippi River, ran�ing from local to fed- eral units of �overnment. The City intends that its plans and ordinances for the river corridor be con- sistent with those of these governmental partners. Figure A �s � � � �. �� c � Comprehensive Plan 5 lnterjurisdictional Governance bl-��) Strategy 1: Protect the River as a Unique Urban Ecosystem ♦ Undeveloped bluffs should be protected, stabilized, and restored through acquisition, use of native species, building setbacks, and by prohibiting development on the bluff face. ♦ The River Corridor contains sensitive natural resources. The f�oodplain and shorelines, wetlands, and natural habitat found throughout the River Corridor should be protected and sustained. ♦ The City supports the green corridors project of the Minnesota DNR. The goal is to establish regional greenways around hi�h quality native habitat remnants, thus providing continuous habitat corridors for native plant and wildlife species. In Saint Paul, the river valley and the Trout Brook reach are parts of the DNR plan. ♦ Working with its watershed partners, the City wilI continue to identify means for improved stormwater management. Public education will con- rinue to be an important way to help protect water qualiry. Strategy 2: Sustain the Economic Resources of the Working River ♦ The City supports continuation of the working river and commercial nav- igation in Saint Paul. The economic importance of commercial navi�a- tion to Saint Paul, Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest is significant. The environmental benefits of barging over other haulin� modes (air quality, traffic congestion, etc.) have been well documented. ♦ The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-relat- ed businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases eapire. ♦ Along the riverfront and its floodplain, new development should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, or the capability to enhance the river environment. Industrial and commercial uses, as well as housing may all fit these categories. Strategy 3: Enhance the City's Quality of Life by Reconnecting to the River ♦ Parks, open space, and trails are an important way of allowing people to come the river. The City is working on a number of initiatives, including g City of Saint Paul the realignment of Shepard Road, to increase park and open space alon� the river. Over time the city's riverfront open space system will become more continuous and river-related. The Ciry will also complete a contin- uous Mississippi River Trail along the entire length of both sides of the �; river. _ ,,. ♦ The views afforded by ma�nificent bluffs in Saint PauPs river comdor are part of what makes the city a special place. There are opportunities in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corridor, Battle Creek and Highwood neighborhoods to create additional view points to the river. To enhance river corridor views, all billboards should be removed from the river corridor and not replaced. ♦ New neighborhoods are part of creating connections to the river. In strategic River Corridor locations, following adopted desi�n principles, new urban villages should be established. ♦ Cultural resources in the river corridor include early settlements, historic structures, and architecturally unique bridges. These resources should be preserved and restored, as they are integral to the character and history that defines Saint Paul. Strategy 4: Use Urban Design to Enhance the River Corridor's Built Environment ♦ New development should estabiish "traditional" street and block pattems to enable people to experience the river through visual and physical con- nections. These traditional street patterns will restore connections between neighborhoods further upland and the river. ♦ Primary view corridors should remain open and unobstructed. Accordingly, the scale of new buildin�s in the river corridor should relate to topography, and should preserve critical public views. :. :� � �,,. :. � � �.;;� .� � �'. � � �. � ;� � a � : � � : �� w � � Comprehensive Plan 7 o1-t�l Introduction T ere are multiple facets to the rfver's role in the city and re�ion--as an ecological system, as a cultural and historical resource, as a public ameniiy, as a focus for recreational activiry, for commercial and industrial actrviry, and increasingly The Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Other plan chapters address Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Housin�, Water Management, Transportation, Sewers, and Libraries. The River Corridor Plan will guide use and development along the Mississippi River, while protecting the river's ecological function. There are multiple facets to the river's role in the city and re�ion — as an ecological system, as a cultural and historicaI resource, as a public amenity, as a focus for recreational activity, for commercial and industriai acrivity, and increas- ingly for new residential development. The River Corridor Plan will help Saint Paul realize the full potential of the river as the ciry's symbolic `front yard." The River Corridor Plan recognizes that the ecologicai function of the river is not only affected by activity throughout the river corridor as defined in this plan, but also by activity in the watersheds that feed the river. 2.� n�rposes The purposes of the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan encompass its designation as a state critical area and as a national river and recreation area — the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area — as weIl as its role as a multi-purpose resource for the ciry, state and region. These are: ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corr[dor as a unique and valuable resource for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the cirizens of the city, state, and region. ♦ To restore and establish the unique urban ecology of Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. ♦ To reinforce the Mississippi River Corridor as Saint Paul's front yard, and the backbone of a community-building network eatending beyond the shoreline and into the fabric of surroundin� neighborhoods. ♦ To manage the Mississippi River Corridor as an important economic resource for river- related industries and commercial navigation for the city, state and region. for new residential ♦ To expand opportunities for using the Mississippi River Corridor as a city development. amenity and enhance citizens' quaIity of life, including increased public access, recreation and education. $ CILy Of SQII![ PQUI ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as an essential element in the federal, state, regional and local recreation, transporta- tion, sewer and water systems. ♦ To prevent and miri�ate dan�er to the life and property of the citizens of the city, state and re�ion. ♦ To preserve, enhance and interpret the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor's historic, archeolo�ical and ethno�raphic (cultural) resources. 2.2 Legislative History and River Corridor Plan Sackground In the past twenty five years there has been an increased le�islative focus on environmental stewardship of the Mississippi River. The first major effort, authorized by state law in 1976, was the designation of the Mississippi River Corridor within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as a State Critical Area. The Critical Area program required coordinated planning amon� communi- ties in the river corridor to resolve land and water use conflicts, and to pre- serve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cuitural and historical value of the river for public use. Cities were required to establish protection of the river resource through planning and related ordinances. In response, the Saint Paul City Council adopted a Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan in 19S 1, with policies for managing this important resource Comprehensive Plan 9 � r� �� °� �:, � � � � � M' u � � � � � �� & �� , ,� y� MF A .] �_ � b1-�°� i and balancing open space use with industrial and commercial development. This plan fizlfilled the state's tequirement for a Critical Area Plan. It also became a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and was last amended in 1987 to incorporate the 1986 Riverfront Pre-Development Plan. Recent sTate law has required all Twin Cities municipalities to update their comprehensive plans, and Saint Paul has nearly completed this effort. As part of the required update to comprehensive plans, the City will also review and revise its river corridor-related zoning re�ulations. To further guarantee effective management of the river resource, the ti.S_ Congress designated the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the national park system. The boundaries of the MNRRA corridor are identical to Yhose of the Critical Area, the 72-mile cor- ridar of the Mississippi River stretching from the Crow River in Anoka County to beyond the Ciry of Hastings, and including Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The MNRRA designation led to the creation of a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) with policies related to land and water use, resources management, and visitor use and interpretation. This updated River Corridor Plan responds to the vision for the Mississippi River outlined in the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, as well as the continuing requirements of the Critical Area program. x�o.z� � BNRs NaocePlvtt&Mimy Haeiaa Flootlpain & WeUa��; waw�warny :'✓. -- e�nn��, : IhbanOeig� .,, Oe�apmarcrava�a ,.. &uE Fam EconamiRgaurtes- � wm�y w� tmm�ewl & )nOistr¢l �aiw &waterllse �e� a,r�a� �:c. �.,:_ - - .__. _ . snaa� Nmh aAmmmes �. ure Yexs raas �� xamrc a Qilocal Raau�s � 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies In response to the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, and as part of the City's own process of updating its comprehensive plan, this Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan outiines four strategies for future manage- ment of the river corridor. The four strategies focus on iae various sysieir�s re�ated to the river: natural systems, economic systems, social or human systems, and built environ- ment. The River Corridor Plan seeks to balance these strategies, all of which are interrelated and affecting each other. ip Ciry of Saint Paul The Setting 3.1 Planning Assumptions The main assumptions that underlie the recommendations in this River Corridor Plan are: 1. For nearly a century, the Mississippi River's role as primarily a trans- portation and industrial corridor led the city to think of and treat the river as its "back yard". The city is now gradually rediscovering and cele- bratin� the river as its fzont yard -- a majestic and unparalleled natural amenity which unites neighborhoods and downtown. Part of this redis- covery includes the opportunity over the next l0 to 20 years to create new neighborhoods near the river. 2. The river and its reaches are more than a thin ribbon moving through �' the city. The river corridor should be viewed as a watershed model, an �" ��,: entity that incorporates elements, communities, and patterns from well ��,�� : � beyond the river itself. �� F �� 3. The character of the river valley changes over its 29 miles. The river valley contains a variety of landforms, from the low lands along the river's edge to the high bluffs. The character of river valley land uses also changes consider- ably, from the quiet, residential character of the gorge, to the mixed commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street corridor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preserved blufftop neighbor- hoods in the Highwood neighborhood. , .- � � "°i; �� ✓///�/'/"/„i � ��,> ��r� West 4. Parkland and open space are the predominant ��d9ej s uses of riverfront land in Saint Paul. Most of this land will remain unchanged. There are however, many opportunities to explore additional access, preservation, and restoration projects throughout the parks/open space system. When development in these areas does occur (the enhancements at Harriet Island, for example), it should be in the context of preserving the river corridor. v �; F� . < _� • ; � : „ .� , ��;� � � � �� -� � �, � F �� ,. �� - �._��.� � :� q�"tei�n 5t Paui I t[�e Fla�s £ � Y � _, i �, ,,. � tafay�ite.8r,�z,;� te � � _ Central Valley Comprehensive Plan 11 oi- �� Figure E Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Boundary � �,o�,�o .� �� e.�..., ,� i �� - -- , . xexxennco _ , , . _.... � ------- �d ,-'- � Q y G 1 ✓ � � �� 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: City and Other Plans In the past five years there has been a tremendous amount of river-related planning, both by the Ciry of Saint Paul and by other organizations. These visions and plans have focused on Saint Paul's Mississippi River corridor in an evolutionary and remarkably consistent manner, and include the following: Smnt Paul Comprehensive Plcm (Parks sz Recreaaon,TY�msportarion, cmd I�d Use chapters) Completed in 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively. In addi- tion, there are Small Area Plans and other nei�hborhood plans for the river corridor that have been recognized by the City Council, or adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these plans aze currenfly being written. Mississippi Nalional River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan National Park Service, Mississippi River Coordinating Commission and the U.S. Dept. of the Interior. The MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan was approved by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior in 1995 and is intended to provide widance for manag- ing the river corridor for the next 10-15 years. The plan's �oals are to 1) preserve the unique and significant resources of the Mississippi River Corridor in the Twin Cities metro area, 2) encoura�e the coordination of federal, state and local efforts, and 3) provide a comprehensive manage- MISSISSIPPI NATiONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA ,�.. i .m�u. w. n " r .� e_��. � ' MWNESOTf� � �� RAMSEYLO � `y� ;t� �»�� > tW45XINGiONCO �� j �,.�� / oa�ornco j - ecm�n g 12 ment plan to assist the State of Minnesota and local govemments in man- aging developmern in the corridor. The MNRRA vision advocates the pro- tection of both the working YIVEY 13t�t i'fiE iid�u78i itVei ecosystem. The MNRRA plan suggests a voluntary set of additional policies that cities may adopt to enhance preservation of the Mississippi River corri- dor as a national park, referred to as "Tier II" poli- cies. ('Tier I" policies are required by existing State Criticai Area policies and regulations, and should already exist in cities' river City of Saint Paul plans and ordinances.) Local �ovemments should work with the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources and the National Park Service to incorporate MNRRA policies into their river corri- dor plans and ordinances. Saint Paul�s Central River valley Development Framework - Project of the Design Center for the American Urban Landscape (Bill Morrish), Colle�e of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota. This project, completed in 7une 1995, served as one of the foundations for the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework that was complet- ed in 1997. In conjunction with its Case Study Integ�'aling Urban Design and Ecology project and newsletters (August 1994 - May 1995, six newsletters), the Design Center compiled an urban design inventory of Saint Paul's phys- ical resources in the form of maps that visually display the city's physical resources connected to the Mississippi River. These Saint Paul-Mississippi River contextual maps highlight Saint Paul's unique river valley landscape and ecology, including its valleys, reaches, bluffs, landings, neighborhoods, vegetation, wildlife and the potential connections among all of these unique resources. The goals of this project were to identify the following for Saint Paul's Central River Valley: i) image, identity and orientation, 2) com- munity gathering places, 3) connections and continuity, and 4) river-related projects and locations. Metro Greenprint: Planning for Nalure in the Face of Urban Growth - Greenways and Naturai Areas Collaborative. In 1997, this collaborative project involving a group of citizens from around the seven-county Twin Citles Metropolitan Area included representatives from metro counties, watershed districts, Dept. of Natural Resources, Greening the Great River Park, University of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, Friends of the Mississippi River and T7ust for Public Land. The Metro Greenprint outlines a vision and specific strategies for creating a re�ion-wide network of natural areas, open spaces, parks and greenways while accommodating urban �rowth in the "IWin Cities metro area. The vision focuses on identification of natural areas and open spaces and potentlal connecUons between them, along with recommended conservation techniques and funding strategies. The Mississippi, Minnesota and Saint Croix river valleys represent a significant portion of this �reen network. Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework - City of Saint Paul, Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, and the Capital City Partnership. The City's most comprehensive vision for the Mississippi River was outlined in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework in June of 1997, Comprehensive Plan 13 ot-�� 1 following more than two years of intense work by the community, City staff, and other or�anizations. The Framework calls for reconnecting the city's downtown and neighborhoods to the river by restoring the river val- ley's and city's natural environment, creating new urban villages near the river and creating a physically appealing and vital downtown environment. The Framework is based on "an implicit understandin� that quality of life - the abiliry of a city to effectivety balance economy, environment and society - provides a primary competitive advan[a�e in an increasingly globalized world." The FYamework outlines the followin� ten principles that represent an integrated approach to city building: ♦ Evoke a sense of place. ♦ Restore and establish the unique urban ecology. ♦ Invest in the public realm. ♦ Broaden the mix of uses. ♦ Improve connectivity. ♦ Ensure that buildings support broader city-building goals. ♦ Build on existin� strengths. ♦ Preserve and enhance herita�e resources. ♦ Provide a balanced network for movement. ♦ Foster public safety. Aithough the Framework is not part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the plan's vision, ten principles and recommendations were endorsed by the City Council as the guide for the City's development policies downtown and along the central riverFront and should be incorporated, as appropriate, into the City's Comprehensive Plan updates and amendmenEs. The ten principles are incorporated into the Land Use Plan (1999). Riverfront Action Strategies - Saint Paul Port Authority. Completed in 1999, this document highlights the importance of the Mississippi River and Saint Paul Port to the Upper Midwest economy. As a working river, the Mississippi is part of an intermodal freight transportation system that enables agricultural producers throughout the Tlpper Midwest to compete in the giobal market. This strategy document signals the Port Authority's commitment to maintain shipping-related uses in its riverfront facilities. It also expresses the Port Authoriry's commitment to beautify industrial sites, to clean up roadsides and riverbanks, and to manage stormwater on-site. i4 City of Saint PQUl ��?�;� �� „�� , y �j � ,, :� ,. � �..._ / A � / N _, , m4�' Visions of the Mississippi River Corridor Cemral River Valley Dev. Fmmexrork tMmrish} �ggs St. Paul on the Miuissippi Dev. Fmmevrork isr9� River Corridor \ Design Sfudy 2000 Porks and Recreafion Wan 19% Tramportation Plun 1997 Innd Use Plun 7998 �iverfrom Action Shategies Minnesota (Port Authority) �� p 1949 Des+ natian 1976 MNRRA Comp. M mt. Metro Plan 1s�sr5 Greenprims i997 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites - Saint Paul PED, Saint Paul Design Center. To complete this River Cotridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, along with the Saint Paul Desijn Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment sites. The study was conducted in early 2000, with consuitants from the Cuningham Group and Close Landscape Architects. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. An intergovemmental working group, chaired by the Planning Commission, and including the Department of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council and National Park Service assisted in this process. The results of this study provide the basis for poli- cies in Chapter 7 of the plan; recommendations for the five redevelopment sites can also be found in Chapter 7 and Appendix A. Together, these planning efforts have established a new framework for thinking about the Mississippi River, and Saint Paul's place on it that emphasizes thinking of the river and the city as an integrated living ecosys- tem within a larger regional setting. The intent is to restore the river's nat- ural ecolo�y, to establish and improve green connections between neigh- borhoods and downtown and the river, and to support urban intensification consistent with a river setting, while maintaining the working river. Collectively, these visions provide a map for stewardship and use of the river in the next century. This Mississippi River Corridor Plan brings these visions together in one document for the entire river corridor in Saint Paul. �:� �:s �.� � � � � ' � �� F� y � � � R � � f3 � % Comprehensive Plan 15 O( 1`� 1 3.3 National Trends Nationwide, certain trends have emerged pertaining to urban riverfronts. There has been a resurgence of interest in the recreational use of riverfront land, and communities nationwide are creating new trails, green space, promenades, and other recreational amenities. As industries that tradition- ally were located on the riverfront have changed, industrial land is tumin� over and being redeveloped to create housing and entertainment-oriented commercial activity. Finally, there is increased awareness and interest in the ecological function of rivers and the watersheds that feed them. Disastrous floods in past years have served as reminders that watershed management plays an integral role in protectin� rivers and the communi- ties along them. Figure G River Valley Landforms 3.4 T�polog,y of River Landforms '; ti Miss:ssippS Rver :�aLP;c �s c�mprise� of a range of landforms, each with unique characteristics and requiring specific responses. while most of this plan's policies apply to the entire river valley, many of the Urban Design policies of this plan are tailored to the specific landforms, described below: ♦ The River's Edge is characterized by natura! shoreline ve�etation in parkland or natural areas. The River's Edge downstream of the High Bridge is stabilized with a variery of man-made treatments for the pur- pose of channel maintenance, including rock rip rap and walls. ♦ The Lowlands are the lands adjacent to the River and are either flood prone or formerly flood prone lands. Lowlands provide critical habitat for migratory birds, yet developed areas in the Lowlands are nearly devoid of tree canopy. The Lowlands are generally characterized by mixed man- ufacturing or office uses, dedicated public parks and open space, or 16 City of Saint Paul cleared and vacant lands. Lar�ely redeveloped for industry, buildin�s in the Lowlands tend to be lar�er floorplate structures with associated lar�e parkin� areas. ♦ The Low Bluff is landward of the Lowlands. It is �enerally characterized by a varied ed�e of dense woods and open views, sometimes eroded or over�rown. There exist occasional and dramatic bluff face/rock outcrops expressin� the natural �eolo�y of this valley, althou�h the elevation chan�e of the Low Bluff is less striking than the Hi�h Bluffs (described below). Access from the Lowlands throu�h the Low Bluff is somewhat limited. The Low Bluff is less le�ible as either habitat or public open space than the High Bluff. ♦ The Terrace is the generally flat area located between the Low Bluff and the High Bluff. The elevation of the Terrace ranges in between 740 and 780 feet above sea level. At locations throughout the valley, the Tenace makes transitions into River Reaches and Ravines. The Terrace is gener- ally fully developed, and characterized by mixed use commercial and industrial lands transitioning from rail oriented manufacturin� to ser- vice/convenience uses. The Terrace also contains multi-story housing with smaller fragmented pockets of single family homes. ♦ The High Bluff is located landward of the Tenace, and is the most rec- ognizable feature of Saint Paul's visually stunning river valley. The High Bluff is characterized by a nearly vertical limestone bluff face in many areas. In other areas, the High Bluff is covered with a continuous, often dense canopy of overstory trees with occasional openings for views and limited public access. The High Bluff is an environmentally sensitive area that is highly susceptible to erosion and associated loss of vegetation and animal habitat. Selected roads traverse the High Bluff, creatin� pri- mary connections between the Terrace and Uplands (described below). ♦ The Uplands are the areas located above the highest bluffs. The Uplands are flat or gently sloping, and are generally characterized by mixed resi- dential neighborhoods coming to the ed�e, with occasional multi-story multifamily structures and institutional landmark buildings. The urban forest of the Uplands generally consists of boulevard trees. A map showing the general location of these landforms throughout Saint Paui can be found in Chapter 7. � �� r , � � a �: � Comprehensive Plan 17 v �� i St�ate�y 1: Protect the River as !ls the twenry-first century begins, the ciry has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning W111C�I bQIQt2CeS environmental, COIriIriilllits7, QIIC� economic imperatives. The Mississippi River, as it weaves throu�h Saint Paul, is part of a complex ecosystem, and is a unique and valuable naturai resource. The river has been desi�nated by the Minnesota State Legislature as a State Critical Area, and by the U.S. Congress as a nationally significant commercial navi�ation system, a National River and Recreation Area, and an American Heritaje River. The history of Saint Paul has always been closely ued to the Mississippi River, but over time, development has heavily impacted many of the river's indi�enous landscapes. As the twenty-first century be�ins, the City has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning which balances envi- ronmental, commanity, and economic imperatives. This approach moves the City in the direction of thinking of the river, river valley, and developed areas as an integrated living ecosystem. The City will provide for the continuation of a variety of urban uses, including industrial, commercial, and residential within the river corridor, while stren�thening its commitment to preservin� the natural resources of the river corridor. The intent of this chapter is nei- ther to discourage future development, nor to promote wholesale restora- tion of the natural environment. Rather, natural resource mana�ement poli- cies will be strengthened to enhance the urban ecosystem in the Mississippi River corridor, and improve the quality of place in Saint Paul. Saint Paul currently uses river corridor overlay zoning to protect natural resources throughout the state-desi�nated Critical Area of the Mississippi River. Overlay zoning restricts what type of development may occur in the floodplain, and applies strict standards for development. These standards include development setbacks 18 irom tne river, and prohibi�ir�� development on steep slopes. This chapter addresses protec- tion of bluffs, native plant and animal habitats, wetlands and floodplain, and water quality. (Appendix F contains maps that show the location of steep slopes, si�nificant vegetative stands, wetlands, the floodplain, storm water discharge points, and natural draina�e routes.) City of Saint Pau! Figure H Natural Shoreline Objective 4.1 Protect the blufj�lands of the river corridor Saint Paul's natural topo�raphy relates much of the city to the river. Bluff formations framin� the Mississippi River reinforce the city's unique natural settin� ar,d contribute to Saint Paul's character and sense of place. The topo�raphy of the river valley varies considerably. Alon� the West Seventh corridor and West Side, there are distinct hi;h and low bluffs separated by a terrace. In the so-called "river �or�e" between Saint Paul and Minneapolis and in the Highwood neighborhoods, however, the hi�h bluffs descend dramatically to the river, or adjacent low land areas. Likewise, the location of bluff areas relative to the river varies from the �or�e where the river lies directly below the biuffs, to portions of the Hi�hwood and west Side neigh- borhoods where the bluffs are set back more than a mile from the river. While the bluffs, ravines, and tributary areas are an attractive and unique urban amenity, they are a fragile part of the river ecosystem. Historically, both Ramsey Counry and the City have been active in protect- ing and restoring bluff lots with steep slopes facing the river. Ramsey County has acquired lots between Upper and Lower Afton Road for perma- nent county park ownership. Over the past several years, the City has used Federal ISTEA funding to acquire lots between Lower Affon Road and Highwood Avenue to be permanently dedreated as city parkland. Saint Paul aLso currently maintains a required bluff setback for development, and pro- hibits development on steep slopes along the bluff line to prevent erosion, and to maintain the natural, vegetated appearance of the bluff line visible from the river. Policies: 4.1.1 The City will continue its program to acquire lots on the bluff face as funding opportunities arise, extending the program to include lots south �� . .:, � � � K� ,� :� ;;,� �� c ;n :v ``o ;� � �F � �� '_ � Comprehensive Plan 19 O1-�`�1 of Highwood Avenue. Private efforts to acquire lots for open space dedi- cation are encoura�ed, as are actions by Ramsey Counry to convert lots acquired through tax forfeiture to permanent public park ownership. 4.12 The City will support efforts to stabilize all bluffs in public ownership through re- introduction of native species and visitor use management. Efforts such as those by Friends of the Parks and Trails and the West Side Bluff Task Force to create bIuff management pIans for the �or�e area and the West Side bluffs, respectively, are encoura�ed. The West Side bluffs, in particular, are in need of management and stabilization. 4.1.3 To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional struc- tural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Further exceptions are ailowed for low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. The City wiIl define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code. 4.1.4 In order to protect steep slopes and minimize erosion, and consis- tent with Executive Order 79-19, the City will continue to prohibit resi- dential development on slopes that exceed ei�hteen percent. Consistent with the MNRRA standard for commercial and industrial development, the City will continue to restrict industrial and commercial development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. 4.1.5 The City will continue to preserve the bluff impact area (forty feet landward of the bluff line) in a natural state. Objective 4.2 Preserve and restore native plcmt and animal habitats Saint Paul is located at the meeting of the prairie and eastem hardwood forests. Despite the changes accompanying urbanization, a variety of habi- tat types continue to exist today within the river comdor, including rem- nant savannas, prairies, river edge wetlands, riverine areas, the bluffs, as weIl as the river itself and its floodpiain. The Department of Natural Resources inventories rare species and natural communities, and accordin� to the its Natural Heritage Database, there are 55 known occurrences of such species or communities in Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. These include Bald Eagles sighted in the Pig's Eye Heron Rookery and Battle Creek Regional Park, Blanding's Turtles sighted at Lilydale Regional Park and Hidden Falls - Crosby Park, several types of mussels, and a variety of other plant and animal species. (For a full listing, see P.ppendix C.) Particularly near downtown Saint Paul, remnant landscapes and the animal 2p City ofSaint Panl habitats they contain have historically become dis- connected from the larger river ecosystem, and their long term viability is continually challen�ed by the effects of urbanization. Fortunately, there are many opportunities for preserv- in� and restorin� native plant and animal habitats throu�hout the river corridor. Great River Greenin� has played an instrumental role in restoring vegeta- tion throu�hout the river valley, with the �oal of cre- atin� a connected �reenway for mi�ratin� son�birds and improving the ecology of the Mississippi River valley in Saint Paul. Over the past several years the or�anization and its volunteers have planted more than 30,000 native trees and shrubs and 25,000 native wildflowers in the river corridor near down- town. Addressing the downtown area, the Saint Paul on the Missrssippi Development Framework has signaled the need to improve the balance between the natural and built environments through protection of native '" �a . vegetation and improved river edge treatments. The redevelopment plans for Harriet Island Regional Park and the East Bank Mississippi River Trail = <��..:� Corridor are examples of this shift in approach, as they call for redesigning ��;�- river edges to incorporate both hard edge and indigenous vegetative treat- �� ments. Of course, projects to restore natural shorelines must be compatible �� with the requirements of channel design and flood management. , Policies: 42.1 To the greatest extent possible, existin� mature trees and native veg- etation will be preserved in site development projects. In the Highwood neighborhood, the City will continue to enforce the Tree Preservation District standards to maintain a maximum vegetative canopy. 4.2.2 The City will encourage use of native vegetation or other compatible floodplain vegetation in redevelopment projects. Where appropriate, when redeveloping or stabilizing the river's edge, soii bio-engineering techniques and native plantings will be used in combination with more traditional engineered solutions. In the more formal landscape treat- ments occurring along the downtown riverfront, the shoreline will be strengthened with native vegetation, including native trees and shrubs. Throughout the river corridor, the City will encourage integration of fizture growth and development with restoration programs that recon- nect and restore remnant natural communities. 4.2.3 The Ciry will continue to support the efforts of organizations such as Great River Greenin� to restore native grasses, shrubs and trees alon� the riverfront downtown and elsewhere in the river corridor. � �� 4� �� e� Comprehensive Plan 21 c�1-t�1 4.2.4 The City wiIl continue to enforce the 50 foot shoreline setback for structures. In addition, the Ciry wiil support efforts to restore the shoreline to a more natural character within 100 feet of the river to facili- tate wildlife movement, and to improve the aesthetic appearance of the floodwall. Such efforts must be compatible with current channel design and flood controt management, and exceptions are made for park buildings, marinas, and other commercial or industrial river-dependent uses. Redevelopment should include removai of unused docking facilities (i.e., at the Koch-Mobil site). Figure K Trail between Warner Road and the Mississippi River 4.2.5 In all new developments, threatened and endangered wildlife habitats shall be protected from alterations which wouid endanger their survival. 42.6 The City will integrate its plans with the work of the DNR's Metro Greenways and Naturai Areas Collaborative. This metro area collabora- tive has identified hi�h quality native habitat remnants which could be linked into regional greenways, providin� continuous habitat corridors to support native plant and wildlife species. Many potential greenway opportunities e�st in the East Metro area, includin� Saint Paul. Objective 4.3 Protect cmd preserve floodplain cmd wedcmd areas in the city Fiwre L The last comprehensive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 5�u�` f L.ti:� .c.�;.^.�-p'dl'� flr�vin�ain OCCtl^'v� ln 1qRg.. c;rce that tme LWO Ben Thompson's vision of y � r�••• "The Great River Park" � City of Saint Paul major fiood events occurred in 1993 and 1997, and other chan�es have occurred in the floodplain. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers has completed a multi-year flood protection project on the West Side which will result in removal of the West Side Flats from the floodplain, because the new higher levee will control a 500-year flood. As a result of these chan�es, the City, DNR and the Corps of En�ineers are workin� to�ether to update the City's Flood Insurance Study. The Flood Insurance Study update includes changes to the cross-sectional area caused by development and revisions to the hydraulic model that incorporates these changes. FEMA and DNR will review the Flood Insurance Study update followin� submis- sion and make an approval decision (concludin� in 2001). FEMA's process will result in revised floodplain boundaries in the river corridor and accom- panying changes to FEMA flood insurance rate maps and the City's flood- way and flood fringe zoning districts. Wetlands also play an important role during floods, and for controlling stormwater. Their flexible storage capacity allows flood waters to be released slowly, reducing flood damage. In the era when most of Saint Paul's neighborhoods developed, modem ecosystem knowledge was lack- ing, and wetlands and creekbeds were routinely drained and filled. Through zoning and site plan review, Saint Paul began protecting wetlands in 1994, after passage of the state Wetlands Conservation Act. The Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (fiznded through state lottery rev- enues), has provided financial resources to communities, including Saint Paul, for wetland restoration projects. The restoration of Ames Lake — for- merly the Phalen Shopping Center site — is one such example. Other opportunities for restoration exist, including efforts by the Lower Phalen Creek Restoration Project to connect Swede Hollow Park to the river by restoring lower Phalen Creek in the ravine between Dayton's Bluff and Lowertown. As our understanding of watersheds continues to evolve, the need for careful management and planning in wetland and floodplain areas of the city is assumed. Policies: 4.3.1 The State of Minnesota, through the Department of Natural Resources, allows new development to occur in the Mississipi River floodplain up to a one-half foot increase over the 100-year flood eleva- tion. The City will enforce the state floodplain encroachment limit so that small increments in development do not gradually degrade the floodplain. 4.3.2 Recognizing the need to treat wetlands as a valued resource, and assuming its responsibility to administer the Wetlands Conservation Act, the City will protect earisting wetlands and encourage restoration of degraded wetlands. Comprehensive Plan 23 p�-�ql T e water quality of the Mississippi River is directly connected to the activities in the surrounding :.��rsH��. Objective 4.4 Protect water quality through comprehensive and coordinated watershed mcmagement The water quality of the Mississippi River is directly connected to the activi- ties in the surrounding watershed. Pollution comes from both direct, or point sources, such as a sewage treatment plant discharge, and from non- point sources, such as stormwater tunoff. The lar�est source of nonpoint source pollution into the Mississippi is the Minnesota River, which contains significant amounts of a�ricultural runoff from outside of the Mississippi River Corridor. The Minnesota Pollution Control A�ency is attemptin� to address this problem, which is complex and will take e�ctensive time and funds to correct. While all sources of pollution will be addressed, the City's program witl focus on city stormwater runoff pollution prevention due to the relatively �reater impact this source has on the river. SEWER SEPARATION PROC:RAM Historically, Saint Paul's original sewers drained direct]y to the Mississippi River ar to several natural streams that in tum drained into the river. The oldest sewer on record in Saint Paui was built in 1856. At the time it was standard engineering practice throu�hout the country to convey both storm water and sanitary waste to receiving waters in one pipe. However, by the early 1920's it was becoming apparent that the Mississippi River was pollut- ed and something had to be done. In 1938, the first sewage treatment facili- ty on the entire Mississippi River went into operation. Minneapolis and Saint Paul each financed and built their own interceptor sewers and shared the cost of building the treatment piant. Dry weather flows were then treat- ed prior to emptying into the river, but during rainstorms, when the flows exceeded the sewer's capacity, combined sewer overflows (rainwater and sewage) continued to pollute the river. In 1985, after years of siudy and discussion, sewer separation-vi�as deter- mined to be the most economical method to abate combined sewer over- flows to the Mississippi River and to meet federat and state water quality standazds. At this time the Minnesota Poilution Control A�ency directed Saint Paul, Minneapolis and South Saint Paul to develop a new plan for combined sewer overflow elimination and for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to incorporate each city's plan into an overall metro plan. In response, Saint Paul developed the Comprehensive Sewer Plan for the City ofSaint Paul. Although Saint Paul began separating its combined sewers in 1960, by 1985, only half of the city was served by separate sanitary and storm sewer systems. The ten year program initiated in 1986 was a massive undertaking with over $172 million in designated projects (1984 dollars). 24 City of Saint Paul The sewer separation program has led to significant improvement in the quality of the Mississippi River. The followin� are viewed as indicators of the improved water quality: ♦ Pollution-sensitive Hexa�enia mayfly have retumed to'IWin Cities' stretch of river after a 30 year absence. ♦ Metropolitan Council Environmental Services' monitoring data shows a si�nificant drop in fecal bacteria leveLs in the river as a result of sewer separation. ♦ Bald eagles have returned to the Twin Cities' stretch of river. ♦ Fish population and diversity have recovered from 3 species to over 25 species. ♦ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has established catch and release fishing regulations to protect trophy sized walleyes that are being caught from the metropolitan stretch of Mississippi River. The completion of Saint Paul's sewer separation program has achieved the overall purpose of cleaning up the river, demonstrating the City's commit- ment to improved stewardship of the river envixonment, and exceeded its performance goals. The city now has two completely separate sewer sys- tems, one cartying surface water runoff and the other one carryin� sanitary sewage. But the work of protecting and restoring the Mississippi River goes on. The partners involved in this project will continue to address the issues that affect the Mississippi and our environment. AWARENESS EDUCATION Saint Paul falls within the boundaries of four watershed management organizations, each of which develops a comprehensive watershed plan. Saint Paul's new Water Management Plan will be completed by the Public Works Department two years after the completion of the watershed management plans. The four watershed management organizations are I) Capitol Region Watershed District, 2) Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District, 3) Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, and 4) Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization. Saint Paul has been actively educating its resi- dents about water quality issues for years. Early Photo courtesy of Fnends of the Mississippi Id'ver ✓� � ; : � �� • : ,� � Comprehensive Plan 25 bl-�`� � efforts began to eaplain the need for the Sewer Separation Program and the associated benefits to the Mississippi River. Currently, the City and the Friends of the Mississippi River are working in partnership on the Storm Drain Stenciling Program. Since 1993, the City has worked with thousands of volunteers to stencil a message, "Don't Pollute Drains to River", next to storm drains and to distribute door hangers to the surrounding neighbor- hood. In addition, City staff are working with schools in Saint Paul on watershed education projects. Saint Paul is also a Watershed Partner, which is an award winnin� partner- ship of inetro area agencies, non-profit groups and local units of govemment. Watershed Partners developed an educational watershed exhibit, which is used at venues across the "IWin Cities every year, including the Minnesota State Fair. The Partners are currently involved in a metro wide media cam- paign which involves news print and radio messages as well as printed gro- cery store ba�s and magnets. Efforts to promote better pubIic awareness can have a profound impact on reducing nonpoint source pollution. Figure N Watershed Management Organizations 26 City ojsaint Pau] The Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory provides guidelines for safely eatin; fish cau�ht in the Mississippi River where it flows throu�h Saint Paul, per the Minnesota Department of Health's Minnesota Fish Consumplion Advisory (available on the DNR web site). Fish in Minnesota's lakes and rivers are monitored annually for the amount of inethyl mercury and PCBs present. WATER MANAC:EMENT AND REGULATION Water management and rewlation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. See Appendix D for the entities that are responsible for water man- agement in Saint Paul. Policies: Most of the policies cited in this chapter will be replaced and more fully addressed by Saint Paul's Water Management Plan, which will be complet- ed by April, 2003 . 4.4.1 Continue participation in existing watershed management programs �; :-. and in developing the City's stormwater permit program and local water management plan. Coordinate municipal activities that affect water qual- z�� ity as part of the stormwater discharge permit and the local water man- �_� agement plan. 4.4.2 Strengthen city-wide education programs that address watershed awareness and stewardship. 4.4.3 The Ciry encourages a reduction in use of chemicals for fertilizer and pest control in residentiai areas and on public land, and support sustain- able land treatment activities and integrated pest management practices. 4.4.4 The City supports minimizing direct overland runoff and improving the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce fertil- izer and pesticide runoff into the river. 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. 4.4.7 The City supports using stormwater management elements such as ponds and swales to unite development areas with the natural environ- ment. Emphasize what these elements add to site development in terms of aesthetic benefits and cost- effective stormwater management. Incorporate public use as a site amenity whenever possible in designin� stormwater management systems. Comprehensive Plan 27 °� � � � .` � . :: � � n � � �s � � Q � � �- � � � � � � � � o�- �� 4.4.8 The City will support programs to better mana�e and decrease the volume of toxic waste in the river corridor. 4.4.9 Protect streambanks and water quality from the ne�ative impacts of recreation. 4.4.10 The City will support re�ional pollution prevention and control plans for the metropolitan area. 4.4.11 The City supports programs to develop and implement spill preven- tion and response pians for the river. 2S City of Saint Paul St�ate�y 2: Sustain the Economic The Mississippi River will continue to function as a major commercial naw igation resource for Saint Paul, the Twin Cities and the Upper Midwest, connectin� the area to the Inland Watenvay System, the Gulf of Mexico and international markets. River-related, shipping-related, and river dependent industries will continue to locate in the river corridor, contributin� to the city's diverse economy and job market. Three of Saint Paul's 29 miles of riverfront are presently dedicated to industry. (Appendix F contains a map of commercial navigation facilities and barge fleeting areas.) Objective 5.1 Continue commercial and industrial uses of river corridor land and water, consistent with the Saint Paul Land Use Plan Industry and commerce are an important function of the river. The City recognizes that commercial and industrial uses of river corridor land will continue. Given the continued mix of land uses in the river corridor, carefu] planning for the use of land along the river's edge is warranted. The City rec- ognizes that the use of land in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark has the potential for serious adverse effects on the river if not properly managed. As a matter of course, all development must comply with existing regulations goveming the floodplain and river corridor. Policies: 5.1.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, and/or should enhance the river environment. (New develop- ment on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd. is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of existing Plans, and in all other respects should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new development include: ♦ having an economic or operational need for a river location ♦ supporting the attractiveness of surroundin� neighborhoods ♦ sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements ♦ offering public access to and along the river ♦ maintaining views of the river ♦ cleaning up polluted areas on the site ♦ meeting or exceeding applicable natural resource policies in this Plan Sii.. .. � �� v � � � � � � � � � � 3k a � M � ! � � � Comprehensive Plan 29 OI—►q1 Figure O River Corridor South Development Opportunities 5.1.2 F�pansions of existing uses in the floodplain or within 300 ft from the ordinary high water mark are acceptable. Expansions should be con- sistent with the natural resource protection policies laid out in this Plan. Expansion of uses on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard should be consistent with natural resource pro- tection policies where practical. 5.1.3 The City supports continuation of industrial uses in appropriate por- tions of the corridor as indicated in the Land Use Plan and shown in Figures O and P. Modifications or additions to industrial uses in the river corridor should be supported only when they have no significant adverse impact on water quality or air quality for the river corridor and adjacent neighborhoods, and when they do not substantially impair the visual char- acter of the corridor from adjacent neighborhoods or from the river itself. -- ^ '�.' - �"�`�'�E?:� �� `F �° .� ` � �`�� --. ��'a��`�� e ��`�` � ``.�:, ,,,..< 4t \ � �`:.�� + S. � � �"ix' . ��: � �� +4n ' ��Src � � � 4\ y\� .ti Park Restoration Concord - Robert (Commeraal) I '—� �Sid�e I Harriet island / S. Bridgehead Esp�a�de (urtran v��) Soufhport (Industrial) � `�` $ e� � ` � °=_ - R { e� x �� . � � �i r � _ te,� , . E° . a,µ : ._ i � � '��. _ �rs" �. /� %� -� t � .'{ '• '.�.��v/�i��. .�i-.. �, � � .'% .� � : 3 7 `� xe � . r : ,�� . '' � � <�. +,�`\ .- - � t �r:.•, .. .3f X:� { � - \ X r ( ^y'X :._ _ � • ,:L�.• .�."s� 1 � , i `R� � _ = .� Highwood �; ` - "� ;.; � ' � _ �<�s? (more houses�'�, - ;:,�° - "-i _� � >.,. ------ - ... ., °�:: =_� Indus6y BUrkhardt(Housin9) t - _� x.; : � '`°'; "::� ' n ( ��E S �:.I � r}�-:. � Yi��All'✓' - ��:� tv j ij �y ',� n . ' ,��P`s+3 �� ,� �.' a. 6 }°f Sv �' � \ ..�.� :Y� 5 <� I, The boundary shown does not correspond to the Cridcal Area/MNRRA boundary. 30 City of Saint Paul Pedestrian � _.='ff.'��i�._;�....:,'_�"�_;f.-,�'.'�s...,.- �u'�c ADM/Metalcote (Study Area) !�; � Koch-Mobil (Housing) J ��'`;" �=a°�^>��:%F�`CrosbyLake(Industrial) ° ' a '.."�� %� ; Sites ` �" �" " �=��"°` -�n•�� Shepard Davem �°�_ �:��-� � (RedeveiopmentArea) The boundary shown does not conespond to the Critica] Area/MNRRA boundary. ""�"''"'`' � Y�ure P ° _ 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening will not be a detriment to business operations. Objective 5.2 Recognize the Mississippi as a worldng river and support the continued operation of commercial navigation facilities The shipping industry is of cnzcial importance to Saint Paul, greater Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest. Located 1,800 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico, the Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intermodal freight trans- portation system, where barge, rail, and truck traffic intersect. Agricultural products and other bulk materials are brought by rail and truck from throughout the Upper Midwest, and transferred to barges that travel to Comprehensive Plan 31 OI- ►R t downstream river ports. Grain exports from Midwest producers make up nearly 90 percent of the car�o bound downstream. Approximately six percent of grain exported from the U.S. to world markets travels through the Saint Paul Port. Other materi- als are brought up the Mississippi River by bar�e and distributed to destinations throughout the re�ion by rail and truck. At peak capacity, more than 16 million tons of commodities can be han- dled through the Saint Paul Port annually. Figi�e Q Barge Fleeting L ocated 1,800 miles inland from the Gr.r�f of Mexico; the Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intezmodal freight transportation system, where barge, rail, and iruck irafJic intersect. There are both economic and environmental benefits to usin� barges to transport goods, rather than raiI cars or trucks. Barges move frei�ht a greater distance per gallon of diesel fuel than rail or truck. One ton of com- modities carried by barge travels 514 miles per gallon of fuel, compared to only 202 miles by rail or 59 miles by truck. Barges also release fewer pollu- tants per gallon of fuel bumed than rail or truck. Barges release only .42 pounds of pollutants per gallon of fizel burned, compared to .59 pounds released by rail cars and .75 pounds released by trucks. (Riverfront Action Strategies, Saint Paut Port Authoriry, January, 1999.) Barges fleet in designated fleeting areas, as permitted by the DNR, Army Corps of En�ineers, and U.S.Coast Guard. The permit issued by the Corps and DNR specifies the length and width of the fleeting area. Barge fleetin� areas are permitted in Saint Paul's Floodway District (RC-1), subject to a special condition use permit, as approved' by ine'riannin� Commission. Designated fleeting areas are mapped, see Appendix F. In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor currently has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges. Permitted fleeting areas are considered adequate to meet current and near-term fleeting needs and accommodate fluctuations in river transportation. The volume of commercial river traffic has and will continue to fluctuate considerably over time in response to tocal, regionai, national, and intemational needs and markets. At peak times, bar�e fleets fill fleeting areas to their maximum capacity. If a new fleeting area were desired, a permit would have to be procured through the above a�encies. The MNRRA Comprehensive Management PIan identified the need for a Surface Water Use Management Plan. Such a plan would provide �uidance on suitable locations for additional barge fleeting and mooring areas; suitable g2 City of Saint Paul locations for dredge material disposal sites; economic impact of surface water use; potenrial regulatory use controLs and other measures for minimizin� con- flicts between commercial navi�ation and recreational boating use and amon� recreational uses; monitorin� and evaluatin� river system surface use capaciry, includin� considerations of physicai, biolo�icai, social, and safety limits; evaluating the potential for bottom disturbance, sediment resuspension, and shoreline disturbance from bar�e activities and recreational boatin�; and developing altematives to expandin� existing or creatin� additional commer- cial fleering areas, barge moorin� areas, and recreational boatin� facilities. The City a�rees that these questions should be better understood, and should be evaluated region-wide. The Metropolitan Council has formed an advisory committee to fiuther scope out many of the questions identified for the MNRRA Surface Water Use Management Plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be the lead agency in complet- ing such a plan, working with local govern- __ ,,. ments and other affected state and federal �- agencies. It is recommended that barge fleeting areas and marinas be separated by 200 feet for safety reasons. "IWO hundred feet is approxi- mately the length of one barge, so separa- tion by this distance permits visibility of smaller recreational craft. Empty barges ride high in the water (16-20 feet above the water line), so a tow boat operator may not otherwise see recreational boat traffic around marinas. There are two marinas cur- rently in operation, Harriet Island Marina and Watergate Marina in Crosby Park. There are also boat launches at Hidden Falls Park and in Lilydale Park near Pickeral Lake. Policies: 5.2.1 Barge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river- related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. River-related land uses are those with an economic or operational need for a river location. x �; ,h -� :.� � �� - x �� ;;� � Comprehensive Plan 33 OI-l�li 522 A commercial landing for interstate cruise lines will be maintained at Lambert's Landing (Lower Landing Park), in conjunction with other activities at Lambert's Landing, e.�. loading of supplies. A landing for local excursion boats will be maintained at Harriet Island Marina. 5.2.3 The City will continue to re�ulate the impacts of commercial navi�a- tion facilities on existing development, the natural environment, and the immediate neighborhood throu�h its Special Condition Use Permit process. 52.4 The City will minimize water use conflicts and improve safety by separating commercial and recreational boat faciiities, where practical. A) If new or expanded bar�e fleetin� sites are proposed, and if other- wise permitted by State and federal agencies, fleeting sites should be located adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses and at least 200 feet from any marina or boat launch, B) New marinas or boat launches should be located at Ieast 200 feet from any barge terminal or barge fleeting area. Objective 5.3 Parsue clecmup and reclamation of polluted sites Much of the Mississippi River Corridor in Saint Paul has historically been used for industry, because the river was the first major transportation route. Polluted sites are concentrated where heavy manufacturing, rail yards, and other industrial activities were common. Other sources of contamination are landfills and underground storage tanks. The Metropolitan Council esti- mates that at teast a third more land is poIluted than is currentty identified. An area with significant contamination is Pi�'s Eye Dump, located in the flood plain of the Mississippi River just east of downtown Saint Paul and to the north of Fig's Eye Lake. At 319 acres, the site contains the largest dump in Minnesota. During its 16 years of operation (1956-1972), the dump received 8.3 million cubic yards of municipal, commercial, and industrial waste from Saint PauI and surrounding communities. Durin� the summer of 1988, the site (covering approximately 300 acres) caught fire and bumed intermittently for two months. In 1989, it was designated a Superfund site. The City has completed a Remedial Altematives and Response Adion Plan (RAP) which details remedial alternatives for the site. The RAP calls for plant- ings, covering much of the site with two feet of soil, and rerouting sections of Battle Creek. The City owns most of the site, and the site is designated as passive use parkland. The RAP was approved by the MPCA in May 2000. The 34 City of Saint Paul State legislature has authorized two mulion to begin remediation, of a total remediation cost estimate of 9.1 million. Funding for cleanup of polluted land is most readily available when the land will be redeveloped to yield jobs and increase the tax base. This has the effect of favor- ing industrial and commercial redevelop- ment projects. It can be difficult to find funds for cleanup of polluted land that is to be converted to green space or park land. Legal questions about ownership must also be resolved. To date, legisla- tive initiatives have been proposed to address this need, but none have been passed. The Port Authority has donated over 1800 acres of land to the City, to be used for open space and recreation in perpetuity. Those lands now in park use include Crosby Lake, Pigs Eye L.ake, and Pickeral Lake. '= � z :: _,"; s'�:,,,,j..r .„� .��, , � c�a�.,�-�s, � ._. l �. /� 1�� .% ;' 9 `$ t ,. 4 ��\;.,��.��' � .. � �� - -".•• a€; a;e: �.� �..`. = _ , .:; �� j,� ':'��l�j�`f�-�. �� `' �.;-.°=�-:.'�� ;' acs� a ti ��`..;__ . � ;-, , uwor� - �. _ - ._ _ �;�}.:. > •', ` ':,- y '��'.,�`� , ��..,^"r . �ti�' x� �` \` �- > � � ,�. � y ... y � 5: u. �. , � � � � �4 � � �� h �5. ._ y '-. � � � `� � ,; � ,� :� .� , — - `, , a _ _.—._ y. . i z. �� `4' 1 i 4 �t ... ` 'i ` � ^ . :z ,� - °,'�.�`. . � � , i�`, �. Policies: 5.3.1 Working with the Port Authority, the City will seek opportunities to ciean up polluted river corridor lands. 5.3.2 The City will monitor and support initiatives that will facilitate cleanup of polluted land to be reused as green space. 5.3.3 The City will balance open space use and industrial and commercial use of the Pig's Eye Lake area. Cleanup of Pig's Eye Dump should pro- ceed as laid out in the Remedial Altematives and Response Action Plan (RAP) approved by MPCA. Industrial uses along Childs Road and the rail- road tracks will continue. Open land (which includes the Heron rookery at the southern tip of Pig's Eye Lake ) will continue in environmentaliy protected status. Comprehensive Plan 35 o�-�� St�ate�y 3: Enhance the City's to the River T e river provides The Ciry has the opportuniry to redefine the Mississippi River as the "front dooY' to the city, a deserving role for the city's most unique natural resource and a tremendous source of community pride, identity and vitality. The river provides the city with its most powerful sense of place and its most attractive naturat amenity. Saint Paul can redaim its herita�e as a river city by reconnecting its downtown, nei�hborhoods and recreational areas to the river and establishing a better connection between its built and the city wit12 its natural environments. Recreation opportunities, housing, and mixed-use mOSt pOWe1fW development will increase in the corridor, creating urban nei�hborhoods with visual and physical access to the river. (Appendix F contains maps Seztse of p1aCe and showing parks, trails, overlooks, and historic sites and districts.) its most attractrve natural amenity. Objective 6.1 Enhance opportcmities for recreational use of the riverfront by local visitors and tourists, utilizing parks, open space and physical access to the river The picturesque, natural environment of Saint Paul's river corridor provides many desirable open spaces for ciry residents and tourists to play and relax. Saint Paul's twenty nine miles of river shoreline is the longest stretch of riverfront of any municipality in the TWin Cities metropolitan area and repre- sents one of the city's most significant public amenities. As riverfront indus- triaI land has gradually been converted to parks, park land has become the � ,__a - - . 1 � �;Yre; t ;i:'�: r r�i r singie iarges[ [tse o� rivefr�zt .ar��.�� Sa::�� Pau�. .1. n he ..�. _�_, several large re?ional and city river parks eacist, includin� the following: ♦ Harriet Island Park ♦ Cherokee Park ♦ Crosby Farm Park ♦ Indian Mounds Park ♦ Batfle Creek Park ♦ Kellogg Mall Park ♦ Lilydale Park ♦ Raspberry Island ♦ Hidden Falls Park ♦ Pigs Eye Lake Park s Lower Landing Park ♦ Mississippi River Boulevard Opportunities for further expansion and enhancement of river parks and open spaces exist. As stated in the City's Parks & Recreation Plan, the City will pursue opportunities and partnerships to acquire land specifically for 36 Ciry of Saint Paul open space and naturalresources protection according to any ofthe fol- lowin� criteria. ♦ Areas containing species included on the State or Federal list of endan- gered or threatened species; ♦ Areas representin� si�nificant landforms, native plant communities, sen- sitive habitat, or historical events; ♦ Areas that connect existin� components of the open space network; and ♦ Areas adjacent to existing parkland/open space. In addition to threatened and endangered species, the State of Minnesota classifies species of "special concern". (Listed in Appendix C). While this category does not have the same rewlatory status as threatened or endan- �ered species, areas that contain these species and their habitats should also be considered for preservation. Riverfront redevelopment activities can provide opportunities for e�ansion and enhancement of the city's riverfront open space system as well. The Saint Paul Renaissance Project, sponsored by the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, marks a substantial effort towards this end. The Renaissance Project is an integrated network of public spaces, parks, trails, greenways, and connections that relinks Saint Paul's downtown and its neighborhoods to the Mississippi River. The network builds on investments currently underway and emanates from the Saint Pavl on the Mississippi Development Framework. Within the river corridor, many of the existing adjacent open spaces are connected and established as re�ional parks, includin�: Harriet Island- Lilydale-Cherokee, Mississippi Gorge-Hidden Falls-Crosby Farm and Battle Creek-Pigs Eye. Potential eapansions, connections and enhancements of the river corridor open space system include the restoration of the Lower Phalen Creek area, connecting the river and Swede Hollow Park, and a restoration of the 17out Brook Reach, with a trail connection to the Willard Munger IYail. Other enhancements of the river corridor open space system include development of a Pigs Eye Greenway, renovation of Raspberry ` ,; �..�. � a � �, ,,� .,� ; � a� `� �� Comprehensive Plan 37 b1- �9 l Island, a major renovation of Harriet Island LilydaIe Regional Park, and new open space created by the realignment of Shepard Road. The reali�nment of Shepard Road just west of downtown will significantly increase pubiic access to the river in that area of the river corridor. Policies: 6.1.1 Large areas of open space that are currently undeveloped should pre- serve fish and wildlife resources, plant communities, and biological diver- sity. Some open space areas may be suitable for passive recreation (e.�. trails for hiking, biking, bird-watching); others, such as the Pig's Eye Lake area and the bluffs at Cherokee Park should be limited to preseroation. 6.12 The City will continue to add to its riverfront open space system, making it more continuous and river-related. 6.1.3 The City will require dedication of river corridor parkland as part of river corridor land subdivisions or plantted development approvals. Objective 6.2 Preserve and improve existing views to the river cmd bluj�s, cmd develop new ones Saint Paul's river corridor, with its magni£cent bIuf�s, cavemous �orge and wide river valley provides many unique and scenic views. Visual access to the river, the bluffs and the river corridor provides a sense of place for the general benefit of the public, both city residents and visitors. The various 38 forms of public visual access to the river consist of scenic river views, extended view corridors, overlook points, observation platforms, bridge crossings, bridgeneacis and bluff stairways. Many of the best views of the river exist at key blufftop sites, including Indian Mounds Park, Upper West Side, Kello�g Mall in downtown Saint Paul, and Mississippi River Boulevard. Opportunities exist to create additional river view points in some areas of the city. The neighborhoods in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corri- dor, Battle Creek, and Highwood currently have few established public view points to the river. City of Saint Paul Figure U Overlooldng the river Recently, with funds from multiple sources, blufftop properry off Sprin�side Drive in the Hi�hwood neighborhood was acquired and dedicated for passive public views. Such actions support this objective, and help to proted the bluffs themselves as described in Chapter 4. The City is currently considerin� a policy to remove all biliboards from the River Corridor. Accordin� to a 1999 inventory, fifteen billboards would be tar- �eted for removal from the river corridor if such a policy with associated ordinance is adopted. Policies: 62.1 The City will work with the river corridor neighborhoods to identify additional river views or view corridors. River views and overlook points should be linked to the city's walking paths and trail system, whenever feasible. 6.22 All billboards should be removed from the River Corridor and not replaced. The City encourages efforts by neighboring communities to remove River Corridor billboards as well. 6.2.3 The City will encourage the placement of public utilities undeground. Objecrive 6.3 Provide a continuous, safe pedestrian and birycle trail along both sides of the river, that is connected to the city and regional trail system Pedestrian and bicycle trails are an important way of connecting the city and the river. Such trails also provide environmental and transportation benefits. The City's Parks and Kecreation Division is working towards a continuous trail system along both sides of the river with the potential to connect major parks, open spaces, historic sites, view points and public access areas in the river corridor. Impiementation of the East Bank Mississippi River Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan will provide a continu- ous river trail through the city on the east bank (or north side) of the river. The East Bank Mississippi River Regional Trail is designed to link other city trails, including the Saint Paul Grand Round Loop, Phalen Creek Trail and the Capitol Route Trail, and existing and proposed trails in neighboring jurisdictions. On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport and Pig's Eye Lake, a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons. The west bank river trail is planned primarily as an off-road path, with some on-street bike lanes planned near the airport, and on bridges. At Lilydale Regional Park, the goal is to make the trail completely off-road if an oppor- tunity arises in conjunction with the railroad. y�- ,: : � �-� �; , � � � � � � � � � � � �,; � � � � � � � , ,„... ... .,. � � � , � � � Comprehensive Plan 39 OI-t � Policies: 6.3.1 As designated in the Parks & RecreaUon Plan, the City will complete a continuous Mississippi River Trail as close as practical to the river along the entire len'th of both sides of the river, including bike lanes on bridge crossin�s. 6.3.2 Existing and new river trails will accommodate a variety of non- motorized recreational uses, includin� walkin�, jo�gin„ bikin�, skatin� and sld touring. Bike and pedestrian paths will be separated from each other where physically possible. 6.3.3 The City will coordinate development of the river trail with existing and proposed trails that connect to Saint Paul's river corridor, including city, regional and neighboring communities' trail systems. 6.3.4 The City will pursue easements or public acquisition for future river trail connections in new and existing developments in the river corridor. The City will pursue opportunities as appropriate to acquire future aban- doned railroad right-of-ways and appropriate tax-forfeited parcels for acquisition and possible river trail development. Objective 6.4 Support new housing development in the river corridor, through creation of urban villages. Extend neighborhoods toward the river Especially near downtown, the opportunity exists to create new mixed-use river corridor nei�hborhoods that reconnect the city to the river. This is also an oppommity to create highly desirable housing that helps achieve the City's projected housin� growth target for 2620. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Fromeworks Ten Principles present a holistic approach for reestablishing river corridor neighborhoods. The Saint Pavl Land Use Plan fur- ther articulates the Ciry's vision of Urban Villages as the predominant model for neighborhood development. Strategic locations with highest potential for neighborhood development include Upper Landing/Irvine Park, the West Side River Flats, Lowertown, and the Koch-Mobil and Shepard-Davem sites. The City recognizes that new deveIopment in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the river should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, and/or should enhance the river environment (discussed in more detail in chapter 5). It is appropriate to consider housing and neighbor- hoods river-enhancing, if careful site planning addresses public access and connections to the river, view corridors and vistas, use of native vegetation in landscaping, and natural resource and stormwater mana�ement. See chapter 7 for further discussion of policies for new development. 40 Ciry of Saint Paul Policies: 6.4.1 In strate�ic river corridor locations adjacent to existin� nei�hbor- hoods, the City supports redevelopin� vacant and underused industrial land sites as new mixed-use urban village nei�hborhoods that help reconnect the city to the river. 6.42 Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river will be improved by addin� a limited number of pedestrian xoutes (stairs, ramps, walkways) betv✓een the bluff elevations and the river flats. Objective 6.5 Encourage protection and restoration of river corridor cultural resources, incluAing historic structures, cultarally significant landscapes, and archaeological and ethnographic resources Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor, as the birthplace of the City of Saint Paul, contains a variety of important cultural and historical structures and sites. The river corridor's designated historical sites include early Native American river settlements and burial grounds, historic urban districts, river-related recreational buildings, stately public institution and trans- portation buildings, grand private homes, and architecturally unique bridges spanning the Mississippi River. Early economic activity in the river corridor included beer brewing, mushroom farming, and brick making. Nationally designated historic sites in Saint Paul's River Corridor are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (See Appendix B.) The National Register is administered by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), which has ultimate responsibility for evaluating and nominating new sites to the National Register. Locally, Saint Paul's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), created in 1976, is a certified local govemment historic preservation program with responsibility for identifying and recommending historic buildings, sites and districts within the ciry. A historic survey and designation project for the entire city of Saint Paul is currently underway. Currently, officially designated historic places consist of structures, sites, districts and objects only. A number of important archaeological sites and landscapes exist in the river corridor that do not contain historic structures. These sites and landscapes have been identified by SHPO, however only one site (Indian Mounds Park) has been designated historic on the National Register. A comprehensive inventory of potentiai local historic landscapes, archaeologicai and ethnographic sites is needed to ensure protection of ali historic and cultural resources in the river corridor. ..�' �� : � Comprehensive Plan 4i or-i 9 I Opportunities exist for restoring historic sites in the river corridor as an element of riverfront development plannin�. The Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse on Raspberry Island, the Harriet Island Pavilion as part of the Hamet Island Master Plan and the various historic river caves are prime examples. Reconnecting the Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic Districts to the river and their historic roots as Saint Paul's upper landin� and Iower landing also provide key opportunities to restore the riverfronYs historical resources. At the Upper Landing site, the Head House was one of the first a�ricultural transfer stations on the Mississippi River. The Head House should be studied to determine its potential for reuse, perhaps in conjunc- tion with redevelopment plans. One of the buildings currently occupied by the U.S. Post Office at Kel]ogg Blvd. and lackson Street (adjacent to Lambert's Landing) is an example of Art Deco style architecture. If this buiid- ing or the Concourse of the Union Depot become available for reuse, this Plan supports reuse that is consistent with the vision for downtown and principles laid out in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework. Policies: 6.5.1 The City encourages the use of historic properties in public and pri- vate riverfi development plans, particularly where interpretation of hisYOric themes is planned. Stnactures and landscapes listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and those designated as local sites should be preserved in their present condition, if that condition allows for satisfactory protection, maintenance, use, and interpretation. 6.5.2 The City encourages the e�pansion of open space land use where needed to preserve si�nificant archaeological, landscape and ethno- graphic resources. 6.5.3 The City encourages economic activities that preserve and rehabili- tate historic resources in tne river corridor. 6.5.4 With the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the City supports the creation of a Saint Paul Historic Preservation Plan that includes establishing a comprehensive inventory of all historic, archaeo- logicai, cultural anQ ethnographic structures and landscapes in the river comdor. 6.5.5 The City wiil work to restore the former connection of river corridor historic districts (Lowertown and Irvine Park) to the river, by encoura�- ing development that is compatible with existin� nei�hborhoods. 42 City of Saint Paul St�ate�y 4: Use Urban Design to Built Environment The desi�n of public and private spaces powerfully affects our perception of the quality and character of place. Where the city comes to the Mississippi River, the urban fabric has potential to reflect and glorify Saint Paul's natural setting. The river corridor's varied landforms and existin� development pat- terns pose opportunities and challenges for new development to enhance the river valley by providing access to the river and reinforcing continuity in the existing urban fabric. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development F7amework has become the City's essential reference for guiding new development in and around the downtown riverfront. This chapter draws heavily from that work. The inten- tion of this chapter is to support and reinforce the principles articulated in the Framework while considering the entire River Corridor and implications for all of its land typologies. Urban Structure and Land Forms The river corridor's urban structure is a multi-layered patchwork of movement systems, land uses, and built form. Movement is multi-modal, characterized by rail lines, major arterials, nei�hborhood streets and trails. West Seventh Street, or Old Fort Road, is especially significant because it is the city's longest arterial running parallel to the river. It is also a major growth corridor connecting to downtown. Shepard Road is another significant river road. It nxns parallel to the river and West Seventh Street, and will soon be rebuiit as an improved and slower speed parkway east of Randolph. Cunently, Shepard Koad acts as an impediment to river access and experiences. The north side of West Seventh Street is characterized by the ordinal grid. Generally, because of the change of land use from residential to industrial, this grid of streets is not continuous across West Seventh. It extends across into pockets of small residential areas, but because of the grid's spotty nature, residential neighborhoods south of West Seventh do not create a continuous urban fabric. The Terrace and Lowlands are important locations that provide the opportu- nity for meaningful connections from the Uplands to the river. Cunently, the Terrace along West Seventh Street is perceived as disconnected from the Upland neighborhoods of Saint Paul because so few streets traverse the bluff. In fact, the only connections are from the main streets of the Upland . �� has � � � � � � � � a �� : �, � �� .� �Po � A� �� Comprehensive Plan 43 oi-�� Figure V River VaNey and Critical Area boundary grid (Snelling, Randolph, St. Clair, Grand/Ramsey, Fairview/Edgcumbe) that extend down the bluff as parkways or major river avenues. For the same reason, the Lowlands on the West Side also seem disconnected from the Uplands. Topo�raphically, the Terrace corridor is formed by the High Biuffs on both sides of the river. Atop the bluffs lie several high points and landmark buildings, providing a series of vistas visually connectin� neighborhoods to each other. Natural reaches are formed where the bluffs are interrupted by the ravines. These reaches provide further opportunities to connect the Terrace and river valley to the Upland neighborhoods. The map below shows the approximate location of the landforms that make up the river valley and its reaches in Saint Paul. The map also shows the boundary of the Critical Area, which contains the entire length of the river in Saint Paul. While the influence of the river valley clearly eatends beyond the Critical Area boundary, the policies in this Plan aze under- stood to be Imtited to the Critical Area in Saint Paul. 44 Ciry of Saint Paul Objective 7.1 Development of new streets, blocks, and neighborhoods in the river corridor should continuously reinforce connections with the natural environment of the river valley and the surrounding urbrm fabric The s�eet grid, or pattern of streets, blocks, and open space formin� public and private spaces, determines both the movement patterns and develop- ment patterns of a district. These development pattems provide an impor- tant opportunity to connect with and e�cperience the river. The best exam- ple of this in Saint Paul is in the West Side blufftop neighborhoods west of Wabasha/Humboldt, where blocks are small and connect regularly {at least every 400 feet) with a riverview street, park or sidewalk. In other areas, particularly the West Side Lowlands, redeveloped industrial "superblocks" have the effect of isolating blufftop neighborhoods from the river. The poli- cies below do not preclude industrial redevelopment on industrially-aoned land. However, other redevelopment should consider the opportunity to reestablish meaningful connections to the river. Policies: 7.1.1 In the Lowlands, new urban villages (as defined in Objective 6.4) should establish an urban street grid that provides access to the river's �� °° `'�' edge. The City supports utilizing historic street patterns when re-creating � ��° street grids. If a historic grid does not exist, new urban villages should .,�;;; ; s.. �� establish a fine-grained system of blocks and streets. When feasible, new - development should also assure urban continuity by integrating all new street and block pattems into existing traditional patterns. 7.1.2 The Tenace along West Seventh Street is a major corridor that should have better street connections across West Seventh. The City supports creating new block and street pattems south of West Seventh Street that create continuity across West Seventh. New block and street pat- terns on the Terrace should maximize connections to the bluff edge to enhance the sense of proximity to the river. 7.1.3 In Upland areas such as the Gorge, the City encour- ages preserving and enhancing the existing modified grid pattem of streets and blocks. In portions of Battle Creek and Highwood, development form follows a suburban or exurban pattem with cul-de-sacs and meandering roads that follow topography. In these nei�hborhoods without a connected street system, the City supports creating a connected system as redevelopment or major subdivision occurs. � ,�,, � �:; � l . � ` f =, ;.. f. : xJ k F �� z � �� q a' a _„ �� ;�., Comprehensive Plan 45 t�l � 7.1.4 Infill development in the Uplands should be scaled and desi�ned to be compatible with and reinforce the existin� physical fabric_ 7.1.5 Street design should accomodate all modes of movement (bicycles, pedestrians and cars). Streets and other public rights-of-way should provide physical and visual connections between river valley neighbor- hoods and the river's edge. 7.1.6 On urban infiIl and redevelopment sites in the river corridor, the City encourages under�round parkin� wherever possible, to support "traditional" urban development patterns and to minimize impervious surface. 7.1.7 New and reconstructed brid�es or other "�ateways" should be designed to be attractive and inviting and masimize the sense of con- nection to the river. This can be accomplished with signage, landscapin� treatments, omamentallighYin� and railings, comfortable sidewalks, and special architectural elements. The Wabasha Bridge and Marshall Avenue Bridge are good examples. New river crossin�s should be mini- mized, and new and reconstructed bridges should be located in the same corridor as the structure they replace. 1.8 The City should connect new and e�stin� neighborhoods to the river by greening key streets that connect to the riverfront or river parkways. Objective 7.2 Consistent with an urban setting, the design of new buildings should reflect the river corridor's natural chcu�acter and respond to topography by preserving Cl'ItICQI pilffllC V1eLYS. 46 Built form and buildin� envelopes are a function of height, densiry and floor plate size. In the river corridor, buildin� scale becomes very important as it relates to topography, views and the sunoundin� urban fabric. Recently, the Ciry has become much more attentive to this, and now encourages buildings whose scale responds to the surrounding neighbor- hood context, topography and the public realm. In general, it is important to pre- serve public views both of the river from the city and neighborhoods, and from the City ofSaint Paul Figure X DowMown RiverfrorR: critical pubiic views river back to the city. However, Saint Paul is an urban condition. Occasionally, it is permis- sible and even desirable to allow selective excep- tions for medium-scaled landmarks. � �_ ,,.��:: „ i ; �.,,y �� -�° � �y�.�.. '_ _ _ -_' Policies: 72.1 In Lowland areas, new development should employ buildin� envelopes that heighten the experience of the river corridor by preserv- in� public views to the top of the High Bluff. Public views from the Uplands or Tenace to the water edge of the opposite side of the river should be maximized. 7.22 Along urban growth corridors such as West Seventh Street, building envelope standards should be used that recognize not only the importance of the river as a scenic watenvay and the corridor as a natural resource, but also the needs and appropriateness of massing and density in an urban environment. 72.3 In redevelopment areas along the West Seventh Street Terrace, the street hierarchy of the grid should be reinforced by creating building envelope standards that recognize the importance of locating taller buildings on wider streets and shorter buildings on narrower streets. 7.2.4 On the West Seventh Street and Concord Street Terraces, the City supports designing buildings with equal consideration given to their visi- bility from the river and to their visibility from the Uplands. The City sup- ports maintaining building heights that maximize public views of the high bluff lines from the high water mark on the opposite side of the river. Planning for Terrace redevelopment sites should be careful to con- sider views of the Terrace from Fort Snelling as referenced in the Design Criteria for the Shepard-Davem zoning overlay. 7.2.5 Building design should add vitality to the street and sidewalk by pro- viding street- level windows and active street-level uses, semi-public spaces in front of buildings, and front doors facing the street. 72.6 In Upland areas, the general character of the existing silhouette of lower- profile buildings alon� the edge should be maintained. Development should also respect the mature tree canopy at the bluff edge of the Uplands with buildings forms that do not dominate the canopy's natural height. However, occasional, modest exceptions to the silhouette with medium-scaled landmark buildings are allowed. � : ,, �> �� Comprehensive Plan 47 OI 7.2.7 The City supports the use of "green," or ener�y efficient buildinQ techniques in new developments. 7.3 Desigrt Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites As described in the Setting Chapter, to complete this River Corridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, alon� with the Saint Paul Desi�n Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment sites. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. Ideally, new development should provide greater public access to the river, preserve significant public views, improve stormwater and the urban forest on site, and reinforce and complement the sunounding urban fabric. Tllustrations of how On the following pages are su�gested guidelines for the West Side Flats, rhese guidelines might Upper Landing, Koch-Mobil and ADM sites, and the Shepard Davem area. be applied am be found The individual guidelines should not be viewed as mandates, and it is in AppendixA. unlikely that any project will be able to fulfill every provision. Rather, co]- lectively they provide a vision for redevelopment that enhances the river corridor, respects this precious amenity, and strikes a balance between eco- nomic development and resource protection. These suggested guidelines will be used as the basis for the nea�t step in the re�ulatory process. Figure Z River Corridor RedevetopmeM Sites qg Ciry of Saint Paul O/-!9/ Site: WES? SIDE FLATS Location Between Robert and Wabasha, Mississippi River and Plato Access and Connections • Extend adjacent streets into and through che redevelopment site. Preserve the rail corridor as a poten- tia] �reenway corridor. Views and V'LStas • Preserve views of the West Side Bluffs from Kellogg Park. • Ensure views of the dverfront by ori- enting streets perpendicular to the river. Development Pat[ern • Create a concentration of taller build- ings and activity and the intersection of Plato and Robert. • Create small blocks, bound by public right-of-way, that can be developed incre- mentaliy and in response to market con- ditions. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space along the riveYS edge. • Extend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native landscapes; encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natural habitats. Stormwater • tntegrate stormwater management elements with natural habitats, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater dischazge. Urban Forest • Reintroduce the 'urban foresY with- in/around redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active / passive recreational use with paths, overlooks, seatlng azeas, courts/fields. • Pcovide visible/accessible connec�ons to neighborhood and regionai parks, traiLs and open space systems. Site: UPPER LANDINC� Location: Beriveen the High Bndge and Chestnut nve., Mississippi River and Irvine Park Neighborhood Access and Connections • Provide multiple connections to Shepard Road, an urban boulevard. wews and V'�stas • Provide an anchoring public space that celebrates the Chestnut Street / Cathedral axis and arrival to the river. • Provide view corridors through the site from potential lower bluff overlooks (not in redevelopment sites) to the river. Development Pattern • Create smali biocks that can be devei- oped incrementally and in response to market conditions. • Create a series of linMng pubiic and privaCe spaces onented co both the river and to Shepard Road as well as oCher sig- nificant spaces, views and ]andmarks, such as the High Bridge and downtown. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space along the river's edge. • Fxtend ]andscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native landscapes; encoura�e plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natura] habitats. Stormwater • Integrate stormwater management elements with natural habitacs, pubiic open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater discharge. Urban Forest • xeintroduce the 'urban forest' with- in/azound redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active i passive recreationa] use with paths, overlooks, seating areas, courts/fields. • Provide visible/accessible connections to nei�hborhood and re�ional parks, trails and open space systems. Site: KOCH MOBIL (Also ADM site) Location: Between Randoiph and West 7th; W. 7th and Mississippi River Access and Connections • Extend existing streets �nto and through the redevelopment site. • Fstend Victona Street through the site t0 jOiTl M071tiC'dl AvEnue. Create a"Bluff Drive" as a local resi- dential street atop the lower bluff park [ha[ connects West 7th to the R�ver Valley. �ews and Vistas • Create multiple views of the river vaI- ley where street5 intecsect the bluff drive. Development Patterns • Organize street and block development around a wide street or ]inear park that connects Wesi 7th Yo the River valley. Natural Resources • Provide a continuous new public ed�e along blufftop with native landscapes, pedestrian pathways and developed over- looks. • Fxtend landscaped "green fingers" inro new development areas alon� new streets and public pa[hways. Stormwater • Capture runoff on exisnng and newly Comprehensive Plan 49 OI-i`�I developed sites and begin water treat- ment, infiltration process (parking lots, rooftops, terraces). • tntegrate final treatment, infiltration and detention systems into the public edge behind the blufftop and into the pat- tem of pazks and squares, streets and public pathways. • Provide surface system of catchmeni areas, swales, infil�ation and detention areas. Urban Forest • Install canopy trees on all new streets; infill canopy trees on e�sting streets. • Develop natural forest along bluff top and bluff face with groves of native trees, grasses and other piantings. Public nmenities • Link public edge to new pazks, squares and to existing neighborhoods and regional parks and trails with land- scaped sueets and public pathways. • Naturalize Shepard Road landscape wi[h prairie and informally arranged groves of trees. • Extendiandscaped'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. Stormwater • Develop inte�rated, comprehensive surface stormwater'treatment train' with swales, weUands and ponds to address water quantity / quality issues. • Integrate stormwater management elements with natural habitats, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. Urban Forest • Infil] canopy trees on existing and redeveloped street grid. • Provide natural �roves of native understory and canopy trees along Shepazd Road and the public edge along The blufftop. Site: SHEPARD DAVERN Location Between West 7th and Shepard Rd.; Between Davem and Alton Streets Access and Connections • Extend exis[ing streets into and through the redevelopment site. • Consider creating a d"uect connection between St. Paul Pkcvy. and Alton Street. • Provide mid-block pedestrian connec- tions between neighborhood and Shepazd Road. wews and l�istas • Preserve natural views from the River to the high bluff by setting buildings ail buildings back from the low bluff and by providing generous �ee plantlng on Shepard Road Development Paitem • Provide neighborhood green public spaces on which new residenrial development can be focused. • Enhance existing public edge with native landscapes (oak savanna and prairie), improved paths and developed overlooks. Public Amenities • Enhance continuous public edge along bluff top with new access stairs ro Crosby Park, new overlooks, sitting areas, infor- mation kiosks, bike racks and other amenities. • Link public edge to neighborhood parks and squares and re�ional trail sys- tems aiong landscaped streets and public pathways. • Provide improved crossings of Shepard Road with enhanced crosswalks, signalized crossings and other amenities. 5o Ciry of saint Paul Implementation 8.1 Zoning Code Revisions There will be si�nificant zonin� text amendments related to implementa- tion of this Plan. This Plan is unrelated to the Mississippi River Floodway Study by FEMA, which will yield chan�es in the floodway delineation for the City's zoning map. However, those changes (which will include changes to the river corridor overlay Floodway and Flood Fringe districts) will inform the process of making river corridor zoning code and overlay map revi- sions. The main zoning recommendations from this River Corridor Plan are: 1. Review and amend current River Corridor overlay zoning districts and map. Currently, river corridor overlay zoning consists of four districts, with two dis- tinct functions. The districts labeled RG 1 and RC-2 together protect the flood- plain. The districts labeled RG3 (Urban Open District) and RC-4 (Urban Diversified District) are intended to guide the character of development, but are confusing and contribute little to the overlay. Underlying zoning districts determine land use. General standards for environmental protection apply to the whole river corridor, regardless of the overlay districts. Consider splitting the current River Corridor overlay into two: a°floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RGl and RC-2 which govems the floodplain, and a single district "Mississippi River Critical Area" or "MRCA° combining RG1, RC-2, RC-3 and RG4, and which addresses Critical Area requirements. 2. Add requirement of 200-foot spacing between marinas or boat launches and barge fleeting areas. 3. Add criteria for new uses in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark: having an economic or operational need for a river ]ocation; supporting the attractiveness of surroundin� neighborhoods; sus- taining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements; offering public access to and along the river; maintaining views of the river; cleaning up polluted areas on the site; meeting or exceeding natural resource policies in this Plan. (These criteria do not all have to be met for a land use to be con- sidered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new development should meet as many of these criteria as possible.) 4. The current primary zoning districts RCR-I, RCC-i and RCI-I are not partic- ularly effective in terms of standards, and are in some cases inconsistent with the City Land Use Plan's vision for mixed-use urban villages. This Plan sup- ports redefining these zoning disiricts to meet current development concepts. >�� : A � �� ._� � � � � � � �; � � � � � Comprehensive Plan 51 O(-l�l � 5. Together with the Department of Natural Resources, review/amend River Corridor section of the Zoning Code (Chapter 65) for other necessary changes. In addition, staff will work to clarify and streamline langua�e wherever possible. 6. Create zoning definitions for toe, top, and face of bluff. 7. Consider creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river corridor modification requests for development on slopes exceedin� 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact area (40' from the bluff line). Such criteria may address, but are not limited to, the following factors: ♦ Retain the natural slope lines of the site, as seen in profile. Restore the ve�etation lines which convey the slope lines. Roof pitch should match slope an�le. ♦ Screen new buildings. ♦ Slopes facing the river should look natural to the greatest extent possible. ♦ Stagger or step building units according to the topography. ♦ Plan buildings, drives and parking areas, and landscaping to acknowl- ed�e the natura] contour line of the site. ♦ Provide parking on the uphill side behind buildin�s. ♦ Lot coverage. ♦ Location of building on lot. ♦ Re�ulate building design, e.g. materials, bulk, shape, hei�ht, color. ♦ Areas with a certain pitch of slope (e.g. �reater than 12% and less than - � - : P �--- --- -- 18% shall not have an im ernous surface coverage greater than a certain percenta�e (e.g. greater than 25%). ♦ Encourage elevated structures & retainin� walls. ♦ No increase in runoff from the site (from rainfall, septic systems, irrigation). ♦ Minimal removal of deep-rooted woody vegetation. 8. With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design �uide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites (Upper Landing, West Side Flats, Koch-Mobil, and Shepard Davem). The design widelines will be sensitive to the purposes of this Plan, and will clarify how the form and 52 City of Saint Paul scale of development can incorporate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public enjoyment of the river. It is expected that such �uidetines will be implemented throu�h a variety of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Villa�e Zonin� project, site-specific �uidelines, and possibly through desi�n districts (a concept that is currently being developed). Appendix A shows illustrations for the five redevelopment sites based on the work of the Desi�n Study. Current state law provides that zonin� must be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan within six months of the Plan's adoption, which puts the zoning deadline in ,200X . Given the extent of likely river corridor zon- ing text amendments, and the already numerous zoning chan�es from the Land Use Plan, it will likely take the City longer to complete the zoning changes that are proposed in this pian. 8.2 Site Plan Review Guidelines Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate pro- visions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view comdors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse envi- ronmental impacts of new development. 8.3 Park & TYail System Development The City Parks 6z Recreation Plan (1996) includes an implementation plan for park resource protection, park land acquisition, scenic overlook clearance, envi- ronmental education and interpretive programs, and development of trails. Park plans include completion of the regional Mississippi River TYail on both sides of the river, connecting to trail seoments in adjacent municipalities. Other open space and greenway projects in or near the river corridor are shown, see fiwre AA on page 54. 8.4 Heritage Preservation Opportunities exist for the preservation and/or enhancement of the historic character of the river: fi'i. y ./ � � Y� z ; �z � : � ' � � • �� :; �� ,. � �r <- � �% �. n Comprehensive Plan 53 b1 � Figure AA River Corridor Open Space and Gree�y Projeets Trou[ &ook{ower Pwen Cmet Greerrway �� Ne�ghbasoal RgsEye Greenscape 'lan Rrver mg PfOJeC6 "�y�"` ��" � Hamx IvaM Regtonai �� PzM1 Maue� Plxn EzII 83r1k Misusippi Rrver Regiona� Trail Mass Ran 135E Bicyde/Petlesman Corierexion Forz SnenGg Maser Wan ♦ Enhance visitor access and historical interpretation of Rumtown (across from Fort Snelling, on the riverfront) and Fountain Cave (currently marked with a historical marker at Shepard Road and Randolph Avenue). ♦ Implement Saint Paul Gateway Design Project (Route 5 entry into the city), reuse of the old stone bridge abutment at Gannon and Shepard Road, historic streetscape improvements to the Shepard-Davem area. ♦ Connect Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic DistricTS to the riverfront. ♦ The historic Intercity Bridge (more commonly known as the Ford Brid�e) --- ISSC11EQiIlBQ� LO De ZeQeC1Ce� 3rit��TeStYYfdCC�l �Cgi�tlFt�g iit-5'�Jiifi� 2vvv. -- Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities as part of con- struction. Include wide sidewalks, omamental lighting and railings, bike lanes, and viewing decks with benches (sirniIar to those added to the Marshall Avenue Bridge). ♦ Install signage at the scenic overlook by the Ford Motor Company to explain the historic significance of the Ford Bridge and the importance of the I.ock & Dam No.l. The si�n should indicate that a visitors' center is across the Ford Bridge. 54 City of Saint Paul oi-!9/ Appendices Design Study Illustrations for Redevelopment Sites Below are examples of the possible application of su��ested design �uide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites, described at the end of Chapter 6. The drawings are for illustrative purposes only. S RECEVELOPMENT SITGS 5rs UPPERtPNDING �-1� ��/ �� rypol0gy LOW Lanrk 1✓ �/��> ?:.�e / LOCa9on &I�n�H�Rrvc�tlMneP2rkNe5h�borirootl � E .�. , ' %i �� " �v C / / ��/ ..` /`r ��. l8varyqi `, �� / M° � `J Gmtlelines' � kPuessandCOnnecumsPrauxlemuNpkmnnttMnSroSheparEROatl.anu�banboulevard �uimw ra. 8� umwsantlu5as� AonEesancAanngpudiapaceNatceleErztesfieChesmNStree�l CaNeE21 adsanC artual toNe river. a „� C:YrewsandVd+asPrmMexewmrtitlarsNraughNestefiompoteneallovrerbluROVeMOks MN++u+ (notmretlevtlopmeMSAe)toNenver bow.au �.DxvelopnmtPaltem' CieMesm8lMOd�sUwtcu+hetlevelo�m.cemenaltyafM�apao- sivelyto maACetwnEiAOns E �evbqxnentPatlem'CrealeasenasoflinkngpublicandpnvarespacesonenledmboNfie ricer and ro Shepard RoaE az well as olner sigmf caM spares, rews anE IaMmarks such as ___'_""' NeHgh&MpeandCOwnlawn. =:actcx_:cPaz _�sbWOUigMgesNEefinepubl:csUeelsandspaceazindcatetlan BuJISWCUreCOm�srteMap A. NaWralR�ueces.ProntlewntinuousWb6capenspaceabngnversedge B. NaWrdlResoumsEaffinElantlscapeC'C�2WFxgerSuMOnewCerelapment0lockspnned ing vnM pudm open space alorg Ne mrer. C.NahaalRPSOmws.EnmurdgeP `�aGonofavsOngnanuxkntlscapes.encouageolanb�gs ofna6vemalerielsinnaW�a6xedmam�gsWa+hancewaealenaW2l�abihdk D.Slumv.ata:Integateslortnv.atxelemenSVnNreWrzlhaWlaS,pubRCOpenspaceareasan0 park/reneaGmoPP�nNes E SWmeaNrRetlucefherazeanCimprovetl�equairyaistwmwaterGisdiarye IlpperLaqmgGremStrucNreCartquAeMap F.UNanFOreStftentroducelne'mbanfarsl'u+NiNarountlmEevelopmentareas Theterms"Highest","MetliUm",a�M"lowasPCOrrespontltoth�s G RibkAmen2es'SUppoM1amzofarnve/passrverecreffioivJUSevnNpaNS.ovglooks irMivitlual srte, aM shoultl not be mterpratetl as a unHOmi stantlartl. �� H WbfrcNrenOies�ProxtlaYS�bpJacse55�blecmneclansbnrighborhoMandregionalpaks, traJSaiMOpe�spacesyskms Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 55 OI-Iq � 5 bcmKtl�Frtb x�vsmriqnewn mm � �% SITES 5k� WESi510EFLATS Lantl Classfiaeon Low tsiMs Laatian: BeMrenRobe�tandWabasha, � MassvVFRwtntl%afo �..�"� Guideiines: A Aa>s antl Cm��a: Ebentl �jacYn[ stree5 mto aM �hrough Ne retlevebDmen [ ��, sP &4¢� tntl CrnneUOns: Pmsef ve me rdJ mntlar as a potaiAal areenway prriCa aw.�u CViEwsaqVSd�P�es�neviexsofNeWg[SWePlutfshomKelloyc�ark �! � 'a'°.i �. Envvev�ewsattlieriveGontb/o�ntirgsveetsperyenWwlaro Nemer E OevebpmeMPal@ms Qealesr.al Wacks,bountlby qNlicnghtcf.rdy Nazw� he tleudapetl inrremanGOy ak respansvety b marlretm�MNons W �� re F:Deveb�nentPallem:Crealeam�nvlwnofdlerouddmgsantlacM.ryanCme � inte(sectmMPlatoaMRabM. G: 6utlFOrtn:Praui!em9wrttl W4TV+9�rotlefine WblcstreetsanC Wacesas i�ccalm an Budt Struwre CwnposAe hl�. A NaW21R¢mumes RavdeomErcwus puEGCOpenspa�¢a'ong nverSeESe. & NaEaal Rgowces:Exk'k�a^tlsaP�'GremFu9�s mbrewde�mJOpmentdocNSmn+ect mgvnN WbGCapenspaealm9lhemre. C. WhuaiPaour�EnmivageWtservaGC^ofexvsi^5natr.e Wesapes.enmw2oetlanings d napve iR@ri�s in ndWtdf Stl md55in55 �o tliill�la Or peak n2Wfd hffirta6 �. SIDmrxaza. MRg2@sGnmw�xrJena�6xin�aWrd hatitais. Wb6copais�awareasaitl paiklreoeatianWW�nNes. E Stdmw#u: Re�eNera�antlenGmue�heQUaiRJofRamwa�idsUarye �� F.U`banFVasCRemWCU�eNetubankresCwAhiNarowtlrMevNOpmen[areas Theterms"Hi9�r,"Medum".a�W"LOwest"wnesPOMtothis GPUdzArsrarAS.9�tanexota2wlP�'+�a:earzcwr�usewAhPaCS.ovenxxs. iMividualsite.aiWShoWtlnotbeinferP�tedasauNb�msb'Wartl. �p�yama5.mu�ks. H. Pudiefmmmes Prwdeveb'mJa¢ess�kmnnec6oersWneghborhaNaMreymalpaks. trakand W�sPaerys�s. �d.� w� � e m�nr e�va`w EW. Sip nDM La�d Classifiqtion. Tertaa laaEOn. BeMea�RaAWPhAVe.TomnWAVe.and5hepaNRa GuiEelines: A Omr�taqConnerlMZ exkntlezstmgstree6iMOaid NmughNeretlevxbpmen; �. B:P�sarMCOnnectimsCre�eaElvROnve azabealmsEenAaistreetampnebxerduff � C:ViewSaMVisgsC�emWE�tlewe+sdNencerrdieywTe�e5uee6minsecttlieWUMOr.ve. � O.Da.efoprentPaMmcq'ga�streetad�bdicde�xWPm¢o(aroundawAeSseetorYnear pakwlvdf annetl5Wetl7"mlheWwrUalley -�emn _--- - eaaivM��noddereameoD�ndmssl�smddn,ew�cso-ee5anas�sacr.a�ton 8uu StrucNre CanposM Map AONCBU1tSrvcNrefdrpwi@Map ANa6valRaartas:PtmvdemnnnwusnewWG'taigpa�mgbluRk9vnMnz4�elanCSCa�es p� pathxays ark tlev�ape0 a�erlooks. @NaWrdRxwmrezFi�rd `I�W..ape7�9re�bngerS'mlonewtlevzbFm'srtareasab^9r�v Strce6arMpubticpaNways. C:Soimwater. Cgppp¢rvrorrmeys6nystlneMytleveWpetlsiRSantlbegmwalertreaCnenl tnfiltraAan W�(PaM^9lol� roofmps.rotra�s) P. Sbmwae:RV.iOpyvrfxxyyyy¢mufcdTt�men[a�s,ay�aks,mfiltraAOna�tltlCeneonzrezs E Svmava�:nlegaleS'tltrratrnaiCmftEationadQelO�Dansyslg^mroP�'keGCeEehiM bW�p�eiimmev� d�lsanaswN�.seeelsaMOUni�cpamways F: UrEariFaotNSdYrenopytreesanallrewstreeE:rtifiOmiopytreesan�tvgsrceels_ G Ileban Fuest Devebp naAVal firessalmg W W Kp antl bkMhce vnN gmves of nalrve frees. P➢M.GremSwmeeCamP��D 9�saitlofierd��gs • Thetertrs"HighesC."Metlium"�arid"LowesCCOrtaFn�MNtltis H:Wd'cAmeniu6:�nkW�kedSabriew7aik5,`Avaresantltoewstiiyirei5hbomaoCSanC indivitluaFSite,antlshaWtlnotbemterpretedazaunifamsfandartl. �°��"°��anEpublicpaNways Mx R¢p.�etlew•AierpppmGSesieNl mnanitlumialbrL+.eMaa+apl¢ fupi.c f_1re h:p u� � ce aueen h 0e tomphev.a Pan �pr4zR la.) am I.y oRce�r w*r rcn ey ms mwr,em 56 City of Saint Paul +y�vue/� ,�v,r,� .m, o�-i9/ � �v � (.wemgl e�a.�r aemo ro. P>+a��w �� eiadroran • wr�s e�ea�c Fsr �� L SM KpCHk081L La�d ClassifiaWn. ieirnx Laabn. Be.lmenRanddG�aM1�WG]Lh: W�l]raMAFStisSppiRrvz Guidelines: A..crsak Cannecbxsa�CevsGgsYV25irc.oaMyuc ch Nera'erekq.-cn:Y.e 3'AOx55mMCNnY.'sn WaiCVUmaRvax�e�mu5M19�esZev;cin6'ynteal:.w_nue C: PccvsxMCanneWx+sGrdza'0�LlArve'aabalresdenaalsYeet9MmenxerClw D: YgxsaMVa6sUr�temaJ�xtvsoltlremcv�leywhgestree5inte�qLYe�u.°tlmre. E De�elcpr�IPYJens.Ckgafvestreelmitldakde�ebp'�:arou�tlawtlestr�[ar:mcar pafRxh. rJ�a�n:�ts West7^romewvervaeey. F:�,nc�, v�o�naeremn�tr,�ye,�esma�sv�uKSrce�a�ascxes�macareax a:at se��e caroosne n+a�. A NaCCAResources'.RovdemntinuwsnewWN¢W9eabngGUflbFwMnmrelantls¢RS. aecesm�, vamwan �+a ae�aa� wuioo�s. 8� NaWrdRZSwrt,es.ExlaiOWduapetl'grcmfrgerYinroneweeveAOPmer.tareasabn9nnv stree6antlpubUCpalhways C: Slanmwdter.GP�N^�o^�n9��Yde�ebpeCStesanebeginwalertrearmenS inf�vVaoonP�l�^91oLS.raofiops.terzas) D.Swmwdc:Rpuilewrf�,esystemAmtlenentareas,svJes,m51tra0onaMdelenbMaeas. E Srommvaterl�rakfinaitr¢9trnenl��fikabonarWdetmtion5y5brninmPUOLCafSebehmtl blutflap ard mt0 N¢ D�m W P� aM W uarg.5Vee5 antl publc F��Ys F UrbmiForesClnstLlpnopylreesmaYnewstree6,infillcaiwpytreasonens9ngsireets KahhbGl.GrernSaucureCOmpovfeMap ��umantares[oe�ewpnawrdrore5ta�mgowttm0a^aaurtracsremgrovesofnaAvetrees, gassesaMONxWanengs. Thete�ms"Hi9�"."Medium".and"LOw�["cmrespontltoUtis H:PUb4cM�rd�esWkWdicetlgebnewpahs.s�uaresanObensOngne�9nbwhaotlsand indrvid�aisRe.arMSlioWtlmtbeinterpretetlssaunibrtnsiantlartl. i�'�alpaksmW¢a6wMtantlsrapeCSVeetsm#q+b4:9aM'xaJs a ` va,�iewe _) _ _'_'�.L'__ _^' _ -- —�.___ _ _ _ _. _ .._ $j =_ r,�_—_"� �,l Y ,: i.J �� : li �'��`il� .1 __' F J[ ^�l ' .� �!�C ]C :=` _.G;�>>'=r s.a i � �' � � � � — �i , �j� E j .�� ' Ste' SHEPPRDDAVERN � LanE Classifiraperr. Temae `� Laatian: BeMeenWM�]tl�andSheD��.. xpn.+r BeRVxenDavemAeenueantlNtonAvenue '—" �'m^o� GuiCelinea uu �`��anECOnnetoonseVeMensEn9��irAOantlNmughNemEevebpmentsite '� � e��urome. B.ACCessanEConne�ons:CmstluceatngaUiretlmnneeimbaexeen5t?aulPkvryatlAttonave � C.AmssakCOmetlla�sV�oviEemvlLlodcP�esU�mnreWnsOeNrtennn9�bwfiaMatlS�eDaN �p\ e� �+ �YexsardY9ssMe�^'enaWiaxewstranNeWunroCreAiMduttMuMgbuiNngsaFbuWVgs +� EadetramNebwblufrmitlEypmndngqersoustreeplanbrgonS�epadRaa] t pn.r E:DeerebyneniPatlem'PmWer.e�bomoW9reenpude5pacesonwiw.h�wresdenOa�Geuelapmen; - ' �w.� anxtmnM �' rnn.a,�q. �.� q��rer FB�nFO�m ProuiEeRqw�aibuJdmgMgestotlPfineDUNCStree6aMOce�spacasaziMio'.eCmBuJ; SmkpueCampo.a�eMap SpeCificbu�tlng�tiryh6mmpca�a�shoultlbeanayzeEtywevrshtNanatyss S�EpYE�3vem.EL]iSNUWreCOmp0.41¢Map A Napi21 Remums EMdrce oxM9 GubGC edge �Nh naVre la�tlsmpes (� �� EnE 02irRi �mNaetl V� �tl OmbV� oxrooks. B NaWrdFesvur¢s'NawNVeSAeparLROatl�tlsapewMywraaieinfwmaEyarran9eagraresai trees C NaWrd qespvq5 61mC la�d�pCd'6rtren FuyuS pno new tlevelopmenl EbcYS wruiM K.S x+� P� Wen syam abn9 Ne mer. D. Sfimm�s�:�¢usbP��.mmWaM1ens�esvfaceSa��rVealmenttran'vm�swales.xMan6s aM0. �batltlres»a�9��M'IPdM¢w•s E: Sramxav Imegrere sro�mwAer eb'nmis vM naWrai haEdan. Vubfic Wm soace arezs aE PaM1 � rttreamn oow�Ees F. ikbai Fore¢ 1�9 carroqhees an exiMg anE m9ecebpea s9eei gM G: UtDmi PoieQ Ptovde �atwA 9� a� uMersidy ML �'a�wDY � alms SM1eP� ftc3] aiM tAe ySUC etlge along me blunmµ ` LL l' !� 7 V M: aueccanxmzs w�a.cemMnuwspueccease�5avmiw+�lTrz«aaass�mrsm e:osMrvK Mwo�zMOVS, smrqareac nfmmaoon tiasks, Eike rxis ard oUcer mnenTes SM1epaNDav¢m Green SttucWre WmpoiteNap I WbfcPme�es WkpuNe¢Egplorx9M1��tlsquaesanLregrnalkalsystens ' ihe terms "Highest"� "Medium", and "LOwest" corcesPOnd to ihis � �� 9reesmtl Gutkpatnwrys, indivitlua� site, and should not be interyretetl as a wi(orm stantlard. � WNrcamxmcer Pewae impmveE aossmys M Snepaa RcaC wM eroancea cromidu aguEUtl aossm9s. uk mnas aM cU¢r amenmrs Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 57 � Moca a�uc sauwua com� � OI- 19 � Historical and Archeological Sites/Structures National Register of Historic Places and Districts in the River Corridor ♦ Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse (on Navy/Raspberry Island)* ♦ Harriet Island Pavillion ♦ St. Paul Union Depot ♦ Holman Field Administration Building (St. Paul Downtown Airport} ♦ Robert Street Bridge (crossing the Mississippi between downtown and the West Side) ♦ Colorado Street Bridge (on the West Side, South Wabasha Street near Terrace Park) ♦ Intercity Bridge (Ford Parkway crossin� over the Mississippi) ♦ Mendota Road Bridge (on West Side, Water Street crossin� the Pickerel Lake Outlet in Lilydale Park) ♦ Irvine Park Historic District� ♦ Lowertown Historic District* ♦ Summit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District* ♦ Giesen-Hauser House (in Mounds Park, 827 Mound Street) ♦ Alexander Ramsey House (in Irvine Park, 265 South Exchan�e Street) *Site is also a Local Heritage Preservation Site. �;�^.L��2,^.i °„C}:8°.^,�.^,�L:.�_�1:� �1��::t1�CL h� c�tv_ Hictpri� --'- Preservation Office) ♦ Indian Mounds Park (detemuned eligible for National Register but not yet officially listed) ♦ Harriet Island ♦ Pike IsIand ♦ Pigs Eye I.ake ♦ Fountain Cave ♦ Carver's Cave ♦ Rumtown sg City of Saint Paul o/-19/ Databases Minnesota Department of Natural Resources NaUUaI I�eritage and Nongame Research Progran�, Box 25 jlxl Ldo�cuc Ro.id SI Pas!.]tin:x.utsS51?i..{f) F'hone:(651)29682�9 Fax:(651j296-1811 P:mail:jansleier�dnr.state.mn.us June 7, 2999 Virginia Burke City of St. Paul Department of Planning & Econ. Devel. 1300 City Hall Annex 25 Wes[ 4`" Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Request for Namral Aeritage information for viciniry of Mississippi River Corridor, Critical Area Plan; Hennepin, Ramsey, and Dakota Counties; T28N R23W 5.5,8,17,20,21,22,23,14,12,11,1, 1'29N R23W 532, T28N R22W 5.3-7,9-11,14-16,22.23, T29N R22W 5.32. NHNRP Comact i/: ES990749 Dear Ms. Burke, The Minnesota Natutal Heritage database has been reviewed ro determine if any raze plant or animal species or other signiftcant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mi]e radius of the area indicated on the mag enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, [here are 55 known occurrences of rare species or natural communi[ies in the area seazched (for details, see enclosed database printout and ezplanation of selected fieids). The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Naturai Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Services, Departrnent of Natural Resources. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's raze or otherwise significant species, natura] communities, and other namnl feamres. Its purpose is to foster better understanding and procection of these features. Because our informarion is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or otherwise significant natural features in the state ihat aze not [epresented in the database. A county-by- county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Aennepin, Ramse}' and Dakota Cowtties. 6ur information about nam*aI communities is, therefore, quite thorough for those wunties. However, because survey work for rare plants and animals is (ess eshaustive, and because there 6as noi been an on-site survey o( atl areas of the counties, ecologicatly signi£cant featuru for which we have no records may exist on the projecc area. The enclosed resulu of the database seazch are provided in two formats: index and full record. To control [he release of locational information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, both prirtout formats aze copyrighted. The index provides rare feature locations only to [he neares[ section, and may be reprinted, unaitered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or internal report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other purpose, please con[act me to request written permission. Copyright notice for the index should include the following disclaimer: "Copyright (year) State of Minnaota. Department of Natural Ruources. This index may be BNR Information: 651-296-6157 • I-888-616-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • I-S00-657-3929 An Equal OpponunitY �Ploy^r � PrinteC on Recycletl PaPer Contaimn9 a Who Valuc� [krasi�y Mimmum of 10%POS4COnwme� Wa9e Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 59 Of-\`'l I reprinuxt, unalrered, inEnvironmental Assessment Worksheets, municipal natu[al rewurce plans, atd i�rcemal reports. For any other use, written peaoission is required." The full-record printout includes more detailed locadonal information, and is for your personal use o�ly. If you wish to reprint the full-record priraouts for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Please be aware tha[ review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on nre naturai feawres. It dces not constirute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesora's rare nazural resourees. Sincerely, �-> .:_i� �.-.� ' : c: i� i Jan Steier Environmental Review Assisran[ end: Database seazch resulu Rare Feamre Database PrintAuu: An Explanation of Fields 60 City ofSaint Paul OI-/9/ a J a C �£ � O N y £ � N Ta � 3 -a G F a Q b Y � a t� O t� U N � ¢ F _ a ` O ` U � F Y 4 � E o a m p N 1� 2L'O a z � z m w N L G F U 4] 4 �N 3 N s Z ae q m E d F m C m m Z � K C 4 U o� a� ti F u U m s� Y K K 8 C E +�+ U M Z a ti F O K 3 �C 6 t w h N f N 0 m R 0 N W P D N Y Y O + V s. a mm ¢ m � o L 0 � 4 M L z ' V A O � C a a C E C a £ R] � U Z � � m Y� Y Y Y Y Y Y Y� S 4 4< 4�C S S a a c�c.maa a � 4 G C � � C � .L i Z Z 2 E 2 2 O O O O O � O O C�O V �(�OC O [u f� In fu W[�] W Lt C K C C C C C C � Y Y Y Y Y Y Y G N 4t W G 5] 41 (A 6 2 6 6' 2 5 C C U U V U V U U U 4: 41 Gl tC tl 41 N C] a �(].� a .[�] .[�.] .i a .i E F E E� E E f F m m m m m m m m � 2 O � C Y Y G: U � m n F O C G ¢ Y Y G n V G � Y Y O Y Y Y Y L' � Y � � m � � � � a � a C '+] '-0 � t G C<�4 y 4 <� C zzc� FzzzE �aE. OOZ vi000�» �n �N 6� Z I�C 4' [O Y Z Z L' R�� C C C, L�.] � w N�� N N h 2 2 N K 2 2 2 C N K ££Si£sY[��. sm 2 2 2 2 2 /n N Vl (A Vl C K 5 C C Gl L" Ll Gl m O O O O O C O O O O e c z c ¢ 2 2 z 5 Z R 5 Y C � = d = 4] t9 �� r�r�itir Y � i � r � � � � � VI N N N N a c� c� c� c� a.aiwm � �+ G Y Y Y Y 4 � � � O � 0. 6 G Y 41 Z 2 2 Z � � O O O O C [�il ( L�'1 f�p Ti 5 ¢ C C O > .] � � rl �G � G � n�i r r v „ 5 � ^�1 A� F F F 2 O 2 4 r�i r�i � " ��-e c�i � 5 C 5 C U' G �=��Cjs � � � � s 4 G 41 Gl 4l C G. S „ t� 4 y 4 p � z 5 S N.�].]. 2 p 2 Y.i j.].: FiL a a a a c G: ' 4 �+ 4 < 4 4 4 O O Y O O O F F C — F a ` t d � ca [` C 6 5 C K z c i � z s O N b O��V H b i> a.m.�. `> 5 Y�� 5 C S � z z y o z z z u ` G� K. ,] 6 w r G hl w H m N N✓ ti N Vl � F N N N m m a a m m m £ s � w i i £ h �] m asn� a �om�. _ i[ [i (G S R S 4 T% iF N 4l !C YI f N Y Y% f� N 3 S f� % at t0 it G1 N Vi � �] r�i !G P.� R 'J ( il R .] o F �F .] .a F .] O v x.] .a .] -� .] £.] ul m N 3 � E p�o fL G1 F (] N S m ti � O F y a a n F R� � N 8 Y F G a 6 O �n �] d`l P U Q F� s 4 6 C x � �] �� 2 �y O fO t- N��i � Y y � F��(il � w N ti N�c W i� Ip a W� N N 4l �] � N i Oi 2 bl a> K U Vi a l7 VI O � 41 fn (7 vl J a F s a 3�� F�> G1 41 K O 7 C 41 4 pt D 7 F 41 F VI ��....-. .� C j C w .] U Z N 4� 2 W j Z 41 � 2� „ F� J� J VJ � n � V f N S � 4 H(Y £ N ViuINNNU�liON �^ zo b'zm zu. P iu.a . x.-. '' a.�. a a a �� w m m� z m 9 ' o�u � m � z�� m a w� x m m� a� � m m� a'� �� P `d m F m F F E �n v+ £ n � ] . r�n u. F [+ K a.' .� a� �� O � x p a Z d F � N m N q� N Z�� m Z tV S S •'J [� � m � p(' F W� O 6= m� F O F 0 6 Z a N E y L' L9 .7] 5�] a F�']-� H F 6 R 6 1�� VI r�i �] �� Ne 4a 6 � 6 3 w p Z f�rt U U Z� r�i f/ �N f F Q 41 U p 6 Cl 41 U "� 'L V �j ,¢ S p F p1 PI ¢� p� V fu Y Y �y Y i G %��[.� C U�„ K F U V(� n� 2 Z [-� O y y`q� 4 F V . t �.r 4 wV� £Vl.] S N £O Z F N E�� 2�+'2 O� N O O O 4 � M 2 5 m 4 Vl J F 4 4 z 4 Z Ol 41 m U m 4 U U U S U' � Ol p C „[� `J 5 p� p Y L�z V U�Q e� 4� U r+ N�+ r� r V V C' O 2' IX O'.� U $� 2 E V £ Z L L y g � F 4 V � K c' i Z �.] � r] �l r] F r] � F .i "y g � �� Q 4 U' � O F� 4 C r] �E 4>„ rl O. � O 41 C V U N M fq 6l O 41 4l [-0t � M 3 M b a s a o � x S F 4 Z 3 G. m 4l �J' �.] .] a m m 4 m 4 J IO m O [y „� m Vi O (L V O W F O m V f� 41 U W C/n O m u] F 0� �J F".J �'•] F 3 N F 3« V+ �A tl) .] £ y p � N L G N Z O iC Gl K U 2 £ R1 V� GI d W C� C � ol 4 'J �� U N 4 C 41 C 61 4� 5 K rj Vi C G 5 C Y 6 L r r 41 qy � � { �4� Cl F Y �i W O U Qy N W O 4l M`l 5 6 ,=y 41 N K 4 C 4 N(at N N�u fil 41 LG 0� [�i. G� 4 4 Q Z O 4� G G Cl O% U C �- � Y�y%��p 1' F O 6' O � Z�� U U 5 0� � Z p N W 'n O N N H y vl [q vl O�a S O O r� r r � . r� C.] O G Q F S U 4 N. U 4] l p ) N p S� C (l � ry y � �„ 8 U 2 W� m O m� O � O O O 5 O� O f�r � 5� v U 4l � m O£�1 C U� U fu �£ 4� ul £ 4 9.] �£ 4 4 W C C.] £ N N N N N N N ' f a a a a �V F FFf v� m m u z uuzuc>eo us op�uzs zoeus u cp gg M E_-� ( U F(�9 t�p F u�i W F S til Vi F F V t F�n F v) � N F L 41 % 7 F 0 4 (il F F -� F pl 4 �f �] -] �] .] r z � o r U C N N h N N �'1 V Yl (V m O O O O O N(V (V N N N 6 y y�+ �i N lV N N N N N ti n ei .y � N.� n N N N N 3 3 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 3'd 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3; 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3; 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 M 3 3 C C C C C C K 5 LL' L' C C K C C C C C K C�� p�� 5 5 C K C K C 6' K C L' C C L' S C 1' 6' 6' S C C z z 2 z z Z z z Z z z z 2 z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z z z z Z z 2 z z z 2 2 Z z Z Z z Z z m m d g O o o N n ry � N �� ry O O� N o ry �� ry �� o C o o C�� N N N ry o 0 0 0 0 0 o N � N N N F E F F F F F F E F F F F F F F F N F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F E F F F F F F F F F F f F F F Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 61 ot-«� � 0 0 O 9 m C fl £ �^ O rv a � u w Tm G m P � " L L [�il F P U m H � � N O ro U N � � O U F O Y 4 E G 3 N p N M� 2 G O 4 20. 2 a Nt M1 F o 6 Y 5 S � N N N S N V C C z' z w � a s L E O� �[ c N 3 Z 4 . q ] � m U m y m M F y U � H m � � 2 r+ m i C F u U�2 C y � >F'L zs� w m N £ 0 a � T O d m ma 2 Q w 4 3� Y a z x m N V N N 3 i �q ] 'J. V 0 O � L v m C E C V £ W � � N � 6 � m w � N �� zzzz 0 0 0 0 4 4 E 4 � �� V C C C C 3 �i .d W Y Y � � � � � � 7 7 7 7 w � � z z c � a 4 4 4 C N N z z z z z y o.waa �a w a � s � � .. m m m m m m w m W vi yyFF W 0 0 N 6' C £ £ $ £ 4 1 N rr R X� m c .] W rt FRa m w m g m.iwm � m � � N Z � j Q V � � � � N 6 � z�� 34 £�+W �W —F OC o. ��z F � ; � � � � £ Z 4 £ m � m �SS��S°� ��4 ooma 0 � €� �g�HF�F N � � !. mE om �n (u N .] a > z � o V C M L 0 C � �[� n Z 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C n n n n'1 m N G a a c z z c c o zz o [V N N N lV N V E N E F F F F 5 62 City of Saint Paul 0l-191 Rare Features Database Print-outs: An Egplanation of Fields 'fie Rare Features database is patt of the tvaNml Heritage Infortnazion Sys[em, and is maintained by the Natural FIeritagc and Nongame Resezrch Program, a unit within Ne Section of Ecological Scrvica, Minnesota Depaztment of Nazumt Resources (DNRj. �'Please note that the prinz-outs are copyrighzed and may not be reproduced without permission•' Fie[d Name: [Futt (non-abreviated) field name, if differeni). Further explanarion of field. -c- CBS Site: [County Biological Survey site number]. In each county, the numbering system begins with 1. CLASS: A code which classifies feamres by broad ta7conomic group: NC = natural community; SA = special animal; SP = speciai plant; GP = geologic process; GT = geologic time; OT = other (e.g. wlonial waterbird wlonies, bat hibemacula)_ C�t :[Counryj. Minnesota counties {ordered alphabetically) aze numbered from 1(Aitkin) to 87 (Yellow Medicine). CURR6NT STANS: Present protec[ion status, from 0(owner is not awaze of record) to 9(dedicated az a Scientific and Namral Are�). -D- DNR Reeion: 1=NW, 2=NE, 3=E Central, 4=SW, S=SE, 6= Minneapolis/Sk Paul Metro. DNR Ovad: [DNR Quadrangle code]. DNIt-assigned code of the U.S. Geologic Survey topographic map on which the rare feature occurs. _� ELEMENT or Element: See "Element Name (Common Name)" Element Name (Common Name): The name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species recdrds, this field holds the scientific name, followed by the common name in pazentheses; for all other elemenu (such as plant communities, which have no scientific name) it is solely the element name. EO RANK: [Element Occuirence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of natural communities from A(highest) to D (lowest). EO Size: [Element Occu¢ence Size]. The size in acros (often estimated) of natural communities. -E- FED STATUS: [Federal Status]. Starus of species under the Federal Endangered Species Law: LE=endangered, LT�hreatened, C=species which have been proposed for federai listing. Federal Stams See "FED STATUS" Forestrv Districi: 1'he Minnesota DNR's Division of Forestry district number. -G- GLOBAL RANK: The abundance of an element gtobaliy, from Gl (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide bazis) to GS {demonstrably secure, though perhaps raze in parts af iu range). Global ranks aze detetmined by the Conservation Science Division of The Nature Conservancy. -I- INTENDED STATUS: Desired protection staWS. See also "CURRENT STANS" If a complete list of protecrion stams codes is needed, please contact the Natural Heritage Program. _U LAST OBSERVED or Last Observed Date or Last Observation: Daze of the most recent recard of the element at the locacion. Latitude: 'Ihe tocarion az which the occurrence is mapped on Natural Heritage Program maps. NOTE: There are various levels of precuion in the original informateon, but this is not reflected in the latitudellongitude data. For some of the data, particulazly historical records, it was not possible to determine exacdy where the originai abservadon waz made (e.g. "Fort Snelling", or "the south shore of Lake Owasso"). Thus the latitudeflongitude retIect the mapped location, and not necessarily the observation location. Leeal: Township, range a�d section numbeis. Lone: [Longitudej. See NOTE under "Latitude" -M- MANAG£D AREA or Managed Area(st: Name of the federaliy, state, locatly, or privately managed pazk, forest, preserve, etc., containing the occurtence, if any. If this field is blank, the element probably occurs on private land. If "(STANTORY BOUNDARS7" occurs after the name of a managed area, the location may be a private inholding within the statutory boundary of a state forest or pazk. Mao Svm: [Map Symbol]. Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 63 bl-1=t l MN S7AN5: (Minnesou Status]. Legal status of plant and animal species under the Minnesota endangered species law: END THR=threatened, SPC=special concem, NON= no Iegai stams, but rare and may become listed if deciines condnue. This field is blank for nahua! communiries and colonial waterbird nesting sites, which have no tegal surus in Minnesota, bu[ aze nacked by the daYabase. -N- NC Rank: [Na[ural Community Rank]. -O- Occ �: [Occurrence Number]. The occurrence number, in combinatron with the element name, uniquety identifies each record. OCCURRENCE NUMBER: See "Occ #" # OF OCCURS: The number of records existent in the daUbate for each element wiihin the acea seazched. Ownecshio: Indicates whether the site is publicly or private[y owned; for publicly owned land, the agency with management responsibility is listed_ - P - Precision: Precision of locational informazion of occiurence: C(confumed} = known within 1/4 mile radius, U(unconfirmed) = known within 112 mile, N(aon-specific) = known within I mile, G(general) = occurs within the general region, X (unmappabieplocation is unmappable on USGS topographic quadrangles (o$m known only co the neazest counry), O (obscure/gone)=element no longer exisu at the locazion. PS: [Pr.:[ca Sectionl. ?he section can�ir.in� 2! or the b .�e2-teet pa-* af Ihe occurence. - Q - ¢ad Ma : See "DNR Quad" -R- Rec #: jRecord number]. RNG or �: [Range number]. -S- SECT'fON or Section: [Section number(s}]. Some tecords are given only to the nearest section (s), but most are given to the nearest quarter-section or quazt�-quazter-secrion (e.g., SWNW32 denotes the SWl/4 of the NWi/4 of section 32). A"0" is used as a place holder when a half-section is specified (e.g., ONO3 refers to the narth 1/2 of section 3}. When a occurrence crosses sec[ion boundazies, both sec[ioos aze listed, without punctuation (e.g., the NE1/4 of section 19 and I3 W Il4 of section 20 is displayed as °NEI9NW20"). Site: A name which refers to the geographic area within which the occurnnce lies_ If no nazne for the area exisu (a locally used name, for example), one is assigned by the County BiologicaI Survey or the Namcal Heritage Program. Source: 'i'he wllector or observu of the rare feature occurrence. S RANK: [State Rank]. A eank assigned to the natural community type which reflecis the Imown exten[ and condirion of that community in Minnesota. 2anks range from 1(in greatest need of conservazion aztion in the state) m 5(secure under present conditions). A"?" following a rank indicates little mfomiation is available to rank the community. Communities for which information is especially scarce are given a"U", for "rank undetermined". The ranlcs do not represent a legal status. They ue used by the Minnesota Depazhneni of Natural Resources to sM prioriaes for reseazch, inventory and conservation planning. The state ranlcs are uQdated as inventory infarmation becomes available. State Status Sce °MN STATUS" -T- TUVP or Twsr _fTownship aumberl. - -V- Verification: A reflection of the reliability of [he informazion on which the record is based. The highest level of reliability is "verified," which usuatly mdicates a collection was made or, in the case of bird records, nesting waz observed. Plant records based on colleczions made before 1970 are imverified. Voucher: The museum or herbarium where specrtnens are maintained, and the accession number assigned by the repository. In the case of ba[d eagles, this is the breeding area number. 'q'- Wildlife Area: The Minnesota DNR's Section of Wildlife administrative number. Data Security Lacations of mme tare feau¢e5 must be treated as sensitive iufoicoation because widapread krrowlcdgc of thae locations wuld rtsult in harm to ehe rse fc�nes. for example, wildflowqs such as orchids and econamically valuabk plams such at ginung aze vulnerable w ocploi[azion by collecwrs; other spccia, such az bald eagles, aze sensitive W dishubance by o6srnc`s For this rcason, we p�efa that pu6licatioo5 not idcnvfy the prtcise locazions of vulnerabk specia. We sugge5t desCribing the localion only m tht nearat section. If tt�is is not acecpfablc for your puryoses, please W I and discuss [his issue wi�4 thc EnvimnmenW Review Specialist for the Hai[age mM Nongamc Research P[ogram at 651l1968319. Aerixd 02/99 54 City ojSaint Paul O!-/9/ Minnesota Land Cover Classification System factsheet The Mnnesota Land Cover Classificazion System (MLCCS) has been designed for use in the metropolitan area by a collaborative effort of federal, state, and local uniu of govemment as well as non-profit organizazions. T'he MI,CCS inte�ates a new classification system of cultucal feazures wiih a combination of existing land cover classification systems for na[ural and semi-natural areas. T1�e system is unique in thaz it categorizes culNral, urban and built-up azeas strictly in land cover terms, identifying tfiese azeas in terms of imperviousness and veaetative cover. For narural azeas the system fully incorporates the Minnesota Natural Heritage native plant community types (Nfinnesota's Native Ve�etation: A Ke�o Nazural Communities. venion 1.5) and the recendy developed National Vegetazion Classification Standard (:QVCS). The NVCS was developed in partnership with The Nature Conservancy and the nationwide state Natural Heritage prograzns, and has been adopted as the standard for federally funded projects. The MI,CCS is a five leveI hierarchical desia , permitting a gradient degree of refinement relevant [o any land cover mapping projecc It is comprehensive and systematic, is applicable at any scale. and is suitable for monitoring and mapping purposes of any identified land cover found in [he metro azea. By the summer of 2000, the MLCCS will have been applied to: The Cridcal Area fMississippi Nadonal River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) coxridor, the Minnesota River Corridor in the Twin Cities, several uout sueam watersheds, and large portions of Dakota Counry. Additionally, the Metro Greenways program has begun encouraging iu use by local uoiu of govemment for developing Greenway plans, and MeROGIS has endorsed the NII.CCS as a`best practice' land cover classificaUOn system for use in the Metro azea. The MLCCS data collecied for the current pilot projecu is being used for identifying sites for ecolob cai restoration, municipal growth planning, habitat protection, and Metro Greenways plannina. The MLCCS can be used for creating a GLS-based land cover inventory. Polygons of vazious sizes (down to one acre) aze iden�ed by their predominant cover. For each polygon, modifiers may be added to further define the chazacteristics of the site. Possible modifier codes include imperviousness, land use, vegetation disrurbances or management, natural quality, tree species, foresuy (e.g., percent canopy and DBH), and water regimes. Typical data needed to interpret land cover using the MLCCS includes Counry Biological Surveys, County Soil Surveys, National Wefland Inventory, Color Infrazed photos and Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles. This base information is usually sufficient to idenufy polygons to the third level of the MI.CCS codes. Fieid inspection by ecologists is usually required for modifier attr.butes and to identify natural comtnuniry types in the forth and fifrh levels of Ehe VII.CCS. Field inspection is also used to confirm and refine polygon delineation. Metro standazds being used in the MLCCS aze: * IdenpFication to the forth level * Minimum mapping unit: two acres (one acre for naiive species dominated communities) * Minimum mapping width: 50 feet * Modifter codes for: Basic land use, natural couununity vege[ation disturbances and identification of invasive species For more information contact: Peter Leete OR DNR Waters 12a0 WaznerRd. St. Paui, MN 55106 ph:651-772-7916,fax:651-772-7977 email: peter.leeteC�dnrsta[e.mn.us Bart Richazdson DNR Me[ro GIS Coordinator 1200 WamerRd. St. Paul, MN 55106 ph:651-772-6150,fax 6�1-772-7977 email: bart.richardson@dnr.state.mn.us �......� Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 65 (7l - l9 1 Water Management and Regulation Water Management and Regulation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. This is a brief overview of the entities that are responsible'for water mana�ement in Saint Paul: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes standards for water quality management, drinkin� water safety, solid and hazardous waste disposal, toxic substance mana�ement, air quality control, and general environmental quality review. Enforcement is dele�ated to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Saint Paul is workin� with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on a stormwater discharge permit under the Federal Clean Water Act. The City currently has a dra8 permit which involves development of a stormwater management and monitorin� prograr!1. The MPCA also admin- isters the construction site sediment and erosion control permit. Permit coverage is required for any project which disturbs five or more acres. This permit has permanent water quality pondin� requirements for a project which creates one acre or more of impervious surface. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture implements state laws that prevent surface and groundwater poliution from pesticide and fertilizer application. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires a pemut for any project constructed below the ordinary hi�h water mark, which alters the course, current, or cross-section of protected waYers or wetiands. Thc n%,;�u�c��ta ��ci esi vY�Y�g HfY(� SOli icPSOl1I°CCS (Fs��VSR) 1S 1 SYdC2 agency dedicated to helping locat govemments (counties, soil and water conservation districts, watershed mana�ement organizations and water- shed districts) manage natural resources. The Raavsey County Soil and Water Conservation District (RSWCD) is a local unit of government that helps direct and mana�e natural resource programs. The RSWCD is workin� closely with Ramsey County and the BWSR on the development of the newly formed Capitol Region Watershed DistricYs watershed management plan. Saint Paul is within the jurisdictions of the following watershed manage- ment organizations, which develop and implement comprehensive water- shed plans: 66 City ofSainr Paul 0�-191 ♦ Capitol Re�ion Watershed District ♦ Ramsey-washin�ton Metro Watershed District ♦ Lower Mississippi River Watershed Mana�ement Or�anization ♦ Middle Mississippi River Watershed Mana�ement Organization Saint Paul's local water mana�ement plan will be completed two years after the completion of the last watershed mana�ement plan. The Middle Mississippi River WMO completed its plan in April, 2000, so Saint Paul will complete the local water management pian by Apri12003. The City's local water mana�ement plan will address the individual plans of each water- shed management or�anization as well as the stormwater dischar�e per- mit. The City water management plan will also focus on improvin� the quality of stormwater runoff into the Mississippi River. The City of Saint Paul site plan review process includes stormwater man- agement requirements that limit the rate of runoff from new development to the equivalent from a residential area and requires storage for the 100- year rainfall. All projects that go through site plan review are required to provide for erosion and sediment control as specified in the Ramsey County Sediment and Erosion Control Handbook. Saint Paul also is responsible for administering Minnesota's Wetland Conservation Act. Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 67 Of • . . - � Public Participation February - April, 1999 Release Issue Paper "Framing the Discussion", convene two Stakehoider Focus Groups. February, 1999 - December, 1999 Comprehensive Planning Committee* meetings January - April, 2000 Design Study, convene Intergovernmental Working Group to assist. )une - July, 2000 Comprehensive Plannin� Committee� meetings August 25, 2000 Planning Commission releases Draft River Corridor Plan for public review and comment. August 25, 2000 - October 24, 2000 Public Review Pedod Odober 20, 2000 Public Hearing at Planning Commission November - December, 2000 Comprehensive Planning Committeex meetings December 15, 2000 Planning Commission adopts Mississippi River Corridor Plan. ' Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission gg City of Saint Paul 0�-�91 Maps and Inventories Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 69 oi-t 9 / "�: _ , , �:; � � . . , ,��, : �, ',_ c.:` . � � � �� i �,. , �1� � i,. "� ;. �., �,�ij `, ),�;; . .i; %i1i' ��' :.' _� �I � I � i � 1 I . � � i (��!', nt J { �� 1 �lw ' � �� I 1� � I t � d t 'l li ,��1?: � \� r n,. t�f � �Qi U � . �' � � � � q �� , . . ,. �. � > , :3XC. � � I I. �b x i � „`� „� � � � $ e; ��- i 1, ,: `'3 r' 4�' �,-�'�r rl i . '� "� :� �.� r�. i � \ i•l � � � � � � ' � 1.. d: I I . -' c`In�9��V ..�f�(L' � �1� ' .�+ I '� � ��i rl�� 1 I 1 ��I�`� - �( ' I ,`,�'�'I>f 1 ��'i 1 .,I . . . �. .i �li / � �� a II I'�� ,il�� E il / � I] � ��l � I� d 1 � � I', I • � 1 I y' N ��'� �� , ' I I ' i i � � i � i i —'rF � � � : � i i,,,�� .-'�'; n �, � f l,�l, � i�!1� � - n-'I�I �,i� i j �i ` u. II i � ., � i � I,' '� ; 1 I �a i i i i i�i �:i i ' i t,�. i ;� , �..� ��,i; , ,, r . ' �� , � �E�' „�;� � ,�'',i'rll � � ��.Ii?. ;I';." �', �''i;� �,'I' , :,, , i'.! ,� ' � '',ls „ n , � � � . �ii � - ' � � �� i � ��a�l bl'� � � �� f I � i„ %i� � , y � �i� ;�� J � �. 1 j � j � , ,1 �. � 1 � �j A�� _ I t . % y �/ _� 1 rt r �'- '� ' � `',I t u iit � �,. �� i �9 1 i c { /' -- u' � � � � <,� � �. . - � _,. �i � ., „( /�, � �r�' �,�:�rr - ��` �� i ' 1 �.- 1 t �� i �.;.r � \ � � � 6�3 � �.; v i t i „e . , � y.� � e� " �i�� , ,; i� i v i, � � . rn °' ` r �n �I_ . E'.w � � � � '- � -o N G ��" O � m C.l e � � �� d z�� o N C � � y e° G 6 + � o � .��—.. LL ' � N m C.i U �', � 1. F 4 �� ?� 0 � � > _ d � s � z� �� ;� g £ � � E N S a�= z z �� E� � r� a ��, {� � � o � � � 1 �.,0 � � � on � �Q ^rr O•� G O �� O w C1-i-� Q � o�-Ig/ � { �__., �� ::: � � ,. � � � w� ,� :. ' �i �a" � I 'q ' F e � � . � , �' � � i ,, �� a ,� : �,,, .j'�, ��1 i � �� ' I � � � ' � ��' r � � �. � i „ , 5 r` ^� i,'i ( i �� ' . � 'h ''*` � a {� - � �"i,i ,. ' , :�e i, I'� ' - � 5 �� ., � : - ° ;. . - - :.'.�,i � ,: 'y= i a. . :,, I !;' f '.i i"i , Z � �� ii' ii 1 ` �', i: i � � � ilp , t , �'�� ' i � ',�'_��' _ .'��2i�(ul$+�� ;�a� i,, �'. � , ' di l� , il ��4 i� � � � 1 �� ,- �_ �l: � '�� , i ' � �� ' i � � '); _ .F � �� ,;�„�'� � y," I i � � s °i _� ,�' �', ��t '"�. ,i I I . � - I ,,iJ r�p; , � I ,E; I � . ; i � a : � a � �, � �: ' �"Il — .H ;.a '�i i � i�,l ' I �,''1 I`f ' i° i i, '��'�, ,i ,,��A , I' '� ', � � � ; � � � , , �Yd � � � ��. a ",�' � „ � i 'I. ' ' i ', . G 'J i . :' 1 �. � �, 'I � ,I� �O F i , ;, � ,� . . I V I f' � . i - ., , ,I � N; � 1 75 � i �� " � M1 i � � . , r, _I, � , � i J� . - �'. I i -' n�,�, 17 �' ._ . ' � " '' '" ( ' $'% . � � I ( • ^I 1 �E . i ' 1�111�L1� y �r . _ _ t � . � �� I Iv� �1L � �� ` � - 1 r UI}2� � oc _ �n.. '= J 5 � - � . . �F� .q�_ 3 `�::�' � 4�' _ '. - _ ' ' � , ��{�r _ _ _ _- -.� J _' '_ _., � ., � �'��'f i ,- � � � � � i � � 8, : a s W � m o F � � � � s s � £ � s � " " - � � � s 3 � � � '1` � � s e � � � � � � � � € f LL � � E � �$ � � g a � n � �s � � ` , ",��L� � �' � � m � � m a � G m � m � � � &` ° � � ' �_ ��sg �¢�=a °�=� m�� sa�m�w B � E�'a.. ��g �.= �� „�'� i �. t � � . � � ��,: �'� . s�� ` ��, ;: � � __ �.�� . ; �, ' weH q , ;�i,�• �� . � ��s v �r' ° � �E �IIayS i i' , E - �''. i : � � i = R � i� � � a ,�;� � � �'- � � � l' � � � � vlej o- i,- �,'. � a i i�� , LL � A _ A 1 � L 1 ( �dY � � y-+ � � � -�-. C R C.i y v�. $ C � i3! t/� N� ' � �s W g = �x � � E � �P .° i � i' �E � G'e F�� F--. � � a�i � �y P-i � o•� � o � O W Q.� Q � F = � % 0�—/9/ � �I �.��` � � � l � . � - i� ,.. . - � � Ir � - ''� I - " I 1 � = �. i d - � �, �, `� � � i e ''_ � 1 �� , � .. �.P i 1.'Ii " � , G � i �� F � � iI „ ��;,, �,�, ,� z ' i � � ': I� I i''� m, t 1 7'i 1�-,� 1„ i� �'�'S, i i 1�;� . �-' � I � rn � ' ,(��'< � / - . I, i � II� � �i� � ! l I '% '! � � , � �_ - � �'�'�� 'I' '�,�� II , f ��t I I� L i I � . Y i �,� , i .. i � i � �� 5' ,� �, ,�, i.i,�i i � i i� �! . 2= � i J"1 ��i � � i I� i ._ �r ,i �iSi i i i'.�i l ii `� � � � i i ��, , � 9 Z � f. � � 3 � ��Y1�', ,�'�i ' � �. � �� uaqoa' '� i� � i , �' _ � , [ ` � 1� , � J I V , � " _ � ' � , v �' 7Bi�AI�+' �i ii I �� j�� . ° I�I' o, �; Si � i,,��, I i i, _� ;} m �',I .' a � .a- � �C.+ �� otypl ,� I I i ; i � i i� � �,8�!w5', � r ' n' � I I',I I� 1� � 1 � � � � �� _ � L � � �, ,. �a i '� I � �! �� i � A � � a � .�l � ,� � \ " ` ' g ; x ,� ' I �il�.��', � ,,�� i it i ,'� r i r i i �. , �'t � y.� i , i', i ! �� I ' ' '' � 1 I I i �', � l .y ( �. V� I � i �� i i � � < �'� , }� i �� , i � ,"; � �'„ � i q� (i I,I�' � s�, ��'hy,;- `� � .,�"/' � . �I i I ) ' (i I�I ,'i i � ,i , i i+�.. I I � ii�l ,� � I� � �� i I O�� i �' �� i .M a �i E,i i� � I �� `o � , m a ' � �! ` � i, � i I� II v �iim I � i i�l��c� y � � I"� I��II� I I� �� 1 �� A�I� .f' , iiillii�r,lil iJiii i ��',� ,�.� d�f i�1 i l ii 1 il�i i� I��Illi i ^ i � �b� �� ,�,�i�s..� .. � .. . �2 v , .r ' � �/ ~ � �' —� Y� � >�s ; d , r� ��- J � ; � .�' \ � �� o �' . a � O IS. � �` p� m V R � � h z d z G � Y � � y iC J i0 6 �Q � � � e� i s� ` � > "" � v � v � � �" �� l i l . �.i � �, ':• .._ � t j� I i I Ill i I� , I �i � �� I I I i i I J. , >a ' i i,�, ��, i i� i I � '�' '�AARd'I-" J �� - �' i 1 R I � �' �'�I�� i� i I i��, � i �,, i�i,'pydM sq�iro61�3 � I ii �i'rl� �� ii ..I i� Id i r � i il,, I i' , '. 1 i� .� ��I ", i�,,;� i i�I,I"j'�� ` � i i' i ' �'� t � i I�� r,:� $ aupwqH � � � li, f� � � r ,� "� II ��1'�e �� f,I' I � � � � �� I_ � I I N � _' � �I �� i f; i �i �� s ,� ';,i �� ,., i - r ,�; i i�p ' , � I I �i i�, I I ' A � ,I {. ' ' � lill � ;.I '�II�� , r . �� i i�; � �i,�� I I '�'li '' ' � I � '� I ' • '"- �i I ' ,,, , 4 " f � i�mawiej . i �� .,� " I � �� , ��' � �'�� I �' '� I I � � f 1 i I i 1 � lu� 'll f 1 � I I � . ' .. i ' � �, ' � , �� I Pv��al? :'� r , " �i � i � I��,� i �I i�% f. - i fl �'� - I Up21]`'� _yl �,,� . � ' � q i i .F I a � �a , i �J ��'-�.-sti.�r�' . ,i � � eu. j �� . ' - �� .,,_ -�«.� � � � ��.. �: -_ _ _ , n , i �:, �_ �b �� ' �� . 1 al I � E n '- - rn w i � ' _: ii r-- i �. 1 �., i . � c. �� \� �1�1 �(�.� f� � W t/� � O cn � � w � W N .�..+ C �O a a� � L � t V 0 _� 6 � a� N � m E � U �£ � �� 3 `3 �� :� z�. �""° > ; �i" � � d � � � H r , �.,! � .� Pal �,.. 0 N �� a Q 0l-/9! a v .�- _ "- „ - _. q; � ,�� ; n ' -'! � � � _ � �� - ��i i + i � �N I j _r, 1 _ __ _ N, y r L� "i� 1 : 4Q �_ ' � _ f ��' r_ � ��.: i.�� '. I i " '�?-, i;.i; , � �i �, _ '^ i I� I +l t J,�' ' ,i r' r � � �6Pi � � �Ilt�i ''� 1 '�I ;Ltli,' .:�1!'.'�� , ^��.r�'Ifb, l, " ..r�,!Y:,ij'}i�h I '.I'.I�o��1�1,��1� t� ��;�v, '�� :�... ��i I ll.�� I I�' �J�: :I ,n , . - - - �Ifl S � ,I, J p �:l� i i➢"�� t.!'��.I�i�� .r��•��¢�-i1' � =� �'�Ji::i' ,l�u ° `tP li' � - � �� •� i � lia ' � � ?�v�y�. _ i �°� p : LI !��II � 'ihl �i . .� ; � � � ��m�� , �A, q �� , �; s ;, , ,. ;` � ��„ � �, �,tin ��i ��.J� ` � — 5 „ _ ,. � , � � � �'.: y . , � �=_>.��. ,:, , ' � i�l�i:, � ' �`' , � ( �i - � ; i��,��ii;,i:_ :—�' ` : '4 i, � ;i�' i � �"� I ,.�„ � 1�,S.i.�'J,+�,� ., �..�� r : _ ', _ 'i ,' '. b � + � � ' l' � I � 1, � �� ' � i� � 1 I � I�i� , �' iil. ' I 1 J � i � � � � � I '�11�I �'IIIJ _ 1 � '�( �.�� .I'��,Ijli � t Id�� ; r� i." 1�I�� I,l�I�` � '.;i��l �. � t i i r ill ��i n ' �1 {,�I ,'y �� =•� I I I fi� r�'r � ' �, �; I�� r , ii � ��i1ul" �P�IJ"II ' � � ii� � ii � ��J;i� i �+ �� ' �, i '° I�� i � � � ' / f � t i , ;r �z, r,il�i, �i��r�,1 d�r� , �,��,ji, - r1 � � u . � � i i,r; , S ' �� .i,- i' ' . � n'�� II�� I'��,' � �J �.. .�n'�I,II�,�,i�;.��!�`�:; . . 'i�i,� ' �� II� �1.;'��,��a�' ' ifiil'�,i ; � . � I ' t . - , i � -_ � iil � '� , �,1-. i ��_ '� ''� �,.� � �'-°�'� �n ��i i �� r _� ' � if1�;l� � ��'��' 's �; � �i :I•; � u , � ' i i1. . n q / '� � ',�� t . .. .� . - i �,:. � �, - . r �� 1� i'( "� i / ai? ti? - / '.L it�: i =' � J' .% �� - i- ��I'I�.', y f r � / / Ii i . �v`�-+� �: i / / - - �" �G i , r � _ t�i; �-r� ? j '` _ :�� \ �� ; "`- ��,� F --, r.� � _ _ p _ :." _ � . ' - �, t �'k�"r�-�t �4 �2�k`� a�`-.'� -� � s+e �a.� *'a�"� � � - ,..�,. S � ,f ,�-�� ^'` � �.�i . s '� �� ., ��a` � � -� r��\��-�. _ . # y�' / `�g `°1?' � ��'4�`�,i�'�� .��' "..`}�� . w 3, � a'-,-� /-!' �,,.' w�� _ �. ,° � - lJS �' ��i � "i 1 \` a " r�%�� .�i��'�+e,� r�e�/�� /� � � S V �� z z nR= � q P 1,4'�'i �mN�dc'G� ' ��0� 11 � I:� � �. ,r . � i, r i , r; G�_ \,� �, =, �, �'6 > � FJ a N � � d �� •� � � \� L � � Z 2� � �s E� �y u LL � E � � � g � g'3 r-� � � � � � �{ F'�I /ml � � � � � � > �Q O•� a�i � � V � �'� A� OI-/9/ � : � � t:- _ - ,_..w . •-�„�_„ ., • � %' .�, --_' i 4 4 - � � _-� .�� r� '�`�' ,/" - - �� ..-.--"'-:. ` � ' � -o , ?� � - . , - S � j � �� ^{ �� ^�� N �" ":. -�{` y / � . �'Ti �f y `� _ ilO �� _ •% :.s _ _ � �� - � f ��/ .., � ^.�? _ f _ ' - ' -"' � '� J° f _ _ � f � i .,_� �. � � �� Q � �� e � r �` � � / n ,6 - _ / i ,' .,� �- �- , -r- �'� d ._ �� I � {' i� ` A ,...,' _ e �� ,��X� ::� � �- . ! ti _=� � y I �,F -/= � � 1 � � ��Y Y r,.G'�, J `]". i �.... � ✓:.� � . ,.1' �,. s � t �\�� c m: �. � , �,Y x.�'r �i \ % - �' ` t C,_.J'.` "N/ �� l� �� " �/ f � I JE'.+c?}j � �( �...,:x'�;'ra��:�:.qrl�h� "�dri' sl.lyr'tY,'i5�'u`i�+ � iai^tia:��`e;;i�,i�, ,..� � � , m � � �Q � Q W O °� � °a � � � G p d � = m v � ° o � �¢ �d � m m � m m x ! (Q W � m i i m C � � W W x �� m i � � w F� a� 4 Q p a aa�_ w m== e m m� 7E w ee \� '• � � � a � � � � � m � z� Y �m �. 6 � s �� A� r� i � � .�. � Qa E Z z� �o � � ,'� aw � 0.'O � � O� � � z z � � �� wQ � � Q�d oi�9� :,� ;�, �o � / i" %�/ / Z i v v _ '_ o `o m c� �C s � z z a y � � ` d d ° a � � . , � '" E N� U U � \ � a � :� .� � � � Q �� i H O � � .� C N �O O L 3� � L� �� E � 3 :� x' �x :�LL � E y S � �` S � �� 1 � t � � +F � � s✓ +� �ti � � ¢ Q � � 1�1 G�. p., ° � � � �� 0 H � � U ri a � o� - l9! { � --� _ � d =�_ o _:`L� .. = e o m -_ =¢ea _ '° � m m � = Y y� iS'J @ � 9 _ ' W '�.T. Y t'�i Y �i` Y , �� ' LI'1e�� O � .;I, ; � /' % y I _ 1 / ,y . �y �� :� : ` _ ; a /l :ti�: � ,� s ' / : _._"�_�,_,__= -:_.�.,_,_- ,.�. - ,. _ _ , _ >..-� " ...� _ _ �)'-,� _ � � __ __ __ O i . ,• W � �� _~ � ��, , � u 9 '�' C ' "' <. =" "__ p `' �'r? - _ _ `�,;.,�,e�_ � � - ' ' � i1 - - � �o •' "',{ :% -�,� �i ' ?.,. �.IV �.`j - cr'it �.r--_�.=L.'P- .-"._ _,.�,' ..� _ =�'�'- ' � � V G CO a s JJ; 5 � � a . d � H � =m N � F m w � 6 R W CiO4) � 0 I� � � � � a a� eA ea �a CD � � � � � � � i � � _ � � w m m � W 0 r mi '� ` O. � W C� r 9 € m � : �-W: � � a ` � � m�g� � €°:�� ai o m � e i L � v d �fw�'�.�' � � ,`�. � 5� � � �r Ai_ �p W # � '� �. �-. =;�2 ��{�� M _- �i:-. � V Y d V a - W e � m W m .:°. m -,.;> -��:,. � ; ° .'�e. - - 'O so , a z� � � � � m9 e�Ii � � s� A � � a � � c`so � 6 � 9 � R H m Y O. '�� O � y /� 4� "� Q (� � Oc) � � zo � � �� w � Q a� U � q o �-�9/ � _ � N 3 a� � � � o _ .o L N � . O W �� w z Y � a E V O Z � .� y S �a m L' 'II 5 4 N 6 � s� �� E ; ��, ;� �"' � . s c �S c � < Q aG '� Q, °�f O � �� P, u U � Q 01-191 e J. � � � 1 , - � - ' �� { � i � j f �,.>n_+�— _ � �i %� , � . j � �� i � - �. � �' � �, � � j , : �� - �T � � ,� f � �.. ' �' ' � ; m - �^ � 9 . � c ,,,, s 1 � �'. ; _ �'. �' � : _ �-^1 ,� � � �l� ' , � � ) � -�1 ' � i' � i , � i � _ f --` , � l m � z '� n " 'N' ° I � I i� xk a �� '� c�'S�'� I] I _ F j h . I � I ,, '.{I �� Y i � : � y— ��- � � � ' xi,a�,'� : . e a. +�* . ,'� �� ` � f � ;.t Q �, i , ��",_ _ .� . r t � � A i ��'1�1 l 1 � �� IF_I. �� : h H� a i i�� m i � � � �i �� 3 � - '/..'�i� \ § f y � � "�, � �`` ' �� ^�' � �r, � � i :I � � ;_ ��- I ', , � F -��w , ` � , � ��_p �' � ' � �. o _ '� -� � �. F � � L .. �rc_ �� yp� t � � �� ' i �� ,�� .. 4��uS ,� `. � �.. ��, �`� ��., , i; �� , ! , �i �� i , � � �:i � �+ � � � � i , ": � �,. ��1i i . . 1 a� r , .�� i'. � 9 I I I I I � e"i • I I I � �' '�` y• L . �, 1 � • ( � I i ' ; I � �� I I � �� , � ' � � S� � ..�� . k ' r j�P � � � I 1 I� � � I � � i �� : . �' �'�� '� i { � � � � � i � !.i"; iil � � i � 1 r i �� ., ,i',� ! i � i �, ,� / � � � ' � � � 1 I I I,ii i i �� ' � ��, } '� I i ' ��',�,� � � � � � - �� , � � 1\\R '� .`_�.-�` ' "� "� r , ' �' ' ,�� , , a m `;'. 'r, _ � � i �, :' I i, . ,l� � ,. i C � � i7 � ;,� It,,1 � � , ,� �. , -�, � r , ,, _ 1 � � � ' �I - �. � ��,,�, � -��- �-, � ' �'� � ` ;, � ' � .; , ;,{; ,;:'<' A � ' ..: � e � :p � � E d u� a � ' � � d a N a .� q q �� s 'E ° o a a'�Ea gc�°°°`b '�' a� . _ _ : 3�v= _ _ � E �� Y� u& a Pn 3� S S °6^A'Ea°m.� �» " = m m� m d e e� e e��,-�� z ��"se�°�m€ — s�aE�@�� n�� ti�� .; � ;�. � �� '� I = �i l , ,� � ��:� � ' ��, � � �� N ia C . � �� m� � e �a �� .° z � �� W �Y �+� t'��' � �`� . �.� � �o � �Q �� 0 � w �a � Q � �,,.--.�-,.,. — '�' pp�� ;� �;�- ,J•, � r-.�.:�-v__ _. i��`i — -�:�I _'} "- ____ � 3 q . b � ; �� '�> d ` "G f� �` ,.�,.__.�_--- � -� -„-; z�, -_- _ ,r� -t-., 01-19/ � a� � Q �1 � � � C � � � � r.+ � tA '� � � Y1 !i �� _.� , �� . N d � � I m a y y a w e.°.m�m v _��p� � ce F O y � i d S � m aeS'j Y m�' n S m� m m'Cap r a r m N Q C � � � C m Q � ` � L�i � i e � ' � m� ``�� OI � ' � �� a & z� @ 0 i D �� Q a= � �< � a� 0 ,� ¢ �i � � � aA L� A„ °" o �, �o � z H� v � a� � }� o�-/q� � , T ( �. • • � �� - a ' 9 p ��,— _ 0 y i.: '�.�.t :,,�I C . , I � i � . a`r �� ;- ' 'a � , � 6 � �L a `i U tl R� � .��i �' � r%/ %n� . % ' ' ' � c �� 6 ' tn � •_ �'i�'i�t y 9 O ti r �m � � �� °� \ MN 5Z � ', � 0 k �� F q�. / << ,�.� � �� il rl: � p_ ' • ��., „ � �, � � � F' �� /, i., `Vn � - ��! � . � � yL�� Q �� ✓ 1 � �.��,�� '�_ . ,. � x - , � �� : �� I� . , �}eJ�. �.$ � i , � �+�i, � � t l. n:'� , 1;:• '. Q C N � � oiq � : � ' 1 i � f ' � i' If i ��, i I i �..� � ',I� " I�� t� ��.,'!� I' f�� s i ��'i;ir, ' a [��, � �,,, � i �ii' �� ;,� ��' •,� i�irl�il�:ii�� ., I� i�J'f � a� � � ' � I ' ' .-� 1 � `I o m I��i� � �-: i �'�,i'.� LL cA `.,., ' i �� i i� i ,,� i � i I �� i i i � �', �i �, il � �� I � ,','. i; � n,�''x Q d I I �� I , y �Myv � + � ' ,r; �� In :i ri I r z � i� f � �' i��, i ��',I"' � �� JI �,,�,[ , r' ..+'..� m {1 l �� , �{ �'I �;�� i � I: ; � � �'. � �.1 � �� R n ' i � , � ' - � � � i_ � i � �' , ,�� I' �.�� i 1 i � _�� . I 1'.1 I � 1 S � f� xi � J � � _ , �'�_I 11 1 I' l i _ > > s� �` � i�;lt �� ''. . .. � .,�' 1 e i I I �rl'1 _ a �;, a li�� ' i� i IPIF � �� i � I; i��l �t � i'�, � i ' il � ry ulj2Jj �. ,C- ,1 �� r �it� _�- A' _ � ! a � u� n '/ / �._, �. -.. �:' ��'�� i � Dp -': __ � � ''. , -o � e s m v �O� c � � / 1 i v � o m t � R o 0 m � m a o c ,,,,-. � 2 O N V � � �C y 's 'E °� � _ � � � d 6 N 9 � lL y Oi G C C � C 6 � E O V> � Q N O �C y S S � �L y � � � � � N � � y in 3 m � -, i.a y 3 < c ° ¢ ( j o m o • N � � •� N .0 y,�^� � ° 3 E ' ° � � v� '¢�` ¢ �a g _, � � � � � �� s i � � ' I , �'�� i �, ��,o; � ,m y L; �s t5 ' 1 ; 'i� �i i .. � D� 9 y m - 6 ej ."L' Co u y d o � C LL C in� � (:: /�� a � V a C, �` vi :_ 4 '�' � l . \ ' F f f' Z 3 0 � � V • O N � _ '� i y Q Q � � -a L � � � �� L � � � � � z� `o � S o � y � �C � o u d o t� � di �a � �"f y V y � � H � Hhe� � �� F �� _�� r--� � � � E"i � �-�a � � < °p z < . c < �� o•: � � � t G � �c 01-19/ Credits The Gry ofSaint Pau1 does not discriminate on the basis of disabiliry, race, ser serual or affectlonal orientadon, age, color, creed, nadonal ori,gin or ancestry, mantal stahas, religion, veteran stahzs, or status with regard to public assistance in the admiss�on or access to, ar treatrnent or employment in, its programs or activitles. 94 City of Saint Paul � cl f ' MISSISSIPPI RIVER - ORR1�0� � -A ' T H E S A I N T P A U L C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N ,.�� "� � . ._ �. �� . � ,�_.,. � §. . � �. � �. m �� .�G�...� ` 15, 2000 Gouncil, l-4, 2001 oi-I`� 1 The citywide portion of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan consists of the following as of adoption by the Saint Paul City Council in 2001: Plan Summary and General Policy Land Use Plan (1999) Housing Pfan (1999} Transportation Plan (1997) Parks and Recreation Plan (1997) Library Services Plan (1996) WaTer Conservation and Emergency Response Plan (1996) Mississippi River Corridor Plan (1987, update to be completed in 2001) Sewer Plan (1980, update in progress) Implementation (1999) A separate Area Plans volume identfies all small area plans and district plans that have been officially adopted as amendments or addenda to the Comprehensive Piar�. �Y asc ii iC SUi^�'^87!°S Of ail ar� �i3ns that have been adopted in summary form under the current neighborhood planning policy. The Plan is subject to arnendment, and a publication noting all amendments in force will be available after amendments are adopted. Pian documents are available at the Saint Paul Public Library and copies may be obtained from the DepartmenY of Planning and Economic Development, 25 W Fourth Street, Saint Paul, MN 55102, telephone: (651) 266-6573. (The Water Conservation and Emergency Response Plan is published separately by the Saint Paul Water Utility and is not available from PED or on-line.) As preparation can be completed, most or all chapters will be accessible from the City of Saint Paul web page at ci.stpaul.mn.us (departments, PED, comprehensive plan). ' 1 , , ' Contents � E�cecutive Summary ..............................................5 � Introduction....................................................8 � 2.1 Purposes ..........................................8 2z Legislative History and River Corridor Plan Background .....9 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Setting ...................................................7i ' � 3.1 Planning Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I 1 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: Ciry and Other Plans .....12 ' 3.3 National'nends ....................................15 3.4 Tygology of River Landforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .t6 � ' , l� � Natural Systems Strategy: t Proteetfhe River as a Unique Urban Ecosystem ..,.....18 4.1 Bluffs ............................................19 4.2 Native Plant & Animal Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.3 Fioodplain & Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 , 4.4 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Economic Systems Strate,gy: i Sustain the Econoinic Resources of the Working R6ver ...29 5.1 Commercial & Industrial Land and Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . .29 5.2 Commercial Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 5.3 Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Social Systems Strategy: ' � Pnhance the City's Qua/ity of Life by Heconnecting t o the River .........................................36 , 6.1 Visitor Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 6.2 Views ....................................... 38 6.3 Trails ............................................39 ' 6.4 Neighborhoods ........................ ...........40 6.5 Historic & Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 ' � � � Urban Design Strategy: � Use Urban Design to Enhance the River Corridor's Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 7.1 Development Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 72 BuiltFOrm ........................................46 7.3 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites .,....48 Comprehensive Plan g oi-i� I Implementation ................................................51 � 8.1 Zoning Code Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 8.2 Site Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.3 Park & Trail System Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.4 Heritage Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 APPendices...................................................55 a Appendix A. Design Study Illustrations for Redevelopment Sites ........55 Appendix B. Historical and Archaeological Sites/Structures . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Appendix C. Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 t • Ntinnesom Natural Heritage Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 • Minnesota Land Cover Class�ca�on System (MLCCS) . . . . . .67 Appendix D. Water Management and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Appendix E. Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 Appendix F. Maps & Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 t • Slope Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 • Sign�cant Vegetatrve Stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J3 • Weflands and Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 • Existlng Storm Sewer Discharge Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JS • Natural Drainage Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �6 • Barge Facili�es and Fleeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 • TYansportaHon Facility Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JS • Parks, Open Space, and Boat Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J9 • Exisdng [riews 5z Overlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 • Ulility Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 • EaTS6ng and Proposed Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 • River Corridor Historic Sites 6z Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Credits ...................................................84 ' , , ' , ' , 4 City of Saint Paul ' C� � � � , , ' � � � , ' , , � , � , Summary he Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan descrrbes the T Mississippi River in Saint Paul as a series of interrelated ��systems: natural, economic, social, and built. Just as the River Corridor has been shapecl by history, decisions about devel- opment and change will influence each of these systems for future generations. Thus, this plan focuses on protecting the resources that support our community, and on the management of human acdvity and the physical environment. Saint Paul is rediscovering and redefining its relationship with the Mississippi River. Increased environmental stewardship and establishing connections to the river are central to this rediscovery. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan reinforces the body of river-related planning already completed in recent years. Those plans which are most influential come from within and outside the City: the 1999 Land Use Plan, the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan, and the State Critical Area program. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. The Water Management Plan will be written after Che River Corridor Plan is completed. The current Mississippi River Corridor Pian was adopted in 1981, and amended in 1987. After public hearings and consideration of public comments, the Saint Paul Planning Commission wili forward the plan to the City Council. The City Council will review the plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the National Park Service for joint review. After receiving comments from these agencies, the Ciry Council will adopt the final plan. There are numerous entities with jurisdiction over the Mississippi River, ranging from local to fed- eral units of government. The City intends that its plans and ordinances for the river corridor be con- sistent with those of these governmental partners. Figure A � �� : �_: z �� ; � � ,.M :� � � � � ;. :� � ti �� .,� �u� ��- �� t Comprehensive Plan 5 Interjurisdictional Governance OI-1`� I Strategy 1: Protect the River as a Unique Urban Ecosystem ♦ Undeveloped bluffs should be protected, stabilized, and restored throu�h acquisition, use of native species, building setbacks, and by prohibiting development on the bluff face. ♦ The River Corridor contains sensitive natural resources. The floodplain and shorelines, wetlands, and natural habitat found throughout the River Corridor should be protected and sustained. ♦ The City supports the green corridors project of the Minnesota DNR. The goal is to establish regional greenways around high quality native habitat remnants, thus providing continuous habitat corridors for native piant and wildlife species. In Saint Paul, the river valtey and the Trout Brook reach are parts of the DNR plan. ♦ Working with its watershed partners, the Ciry will continue to identify means for improved stormwater management. Public education will con- tinue to be an important way to help �,*otect water quality. Strategy 2: Sustain the Economic Resources of the Working River ♦ The City supports continuation of the working river and commercial nav- igation in Saint Paul. The economic importance of commercial naviga- tion to Saint Paul, Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest is signifcant. The environmental benefits of barging over other hauling modes (air quality, trafCic congestion, etc.) have been well documented. s The City supporrs the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-relat- ed businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases e�ire. ♦ Along the riverfront and its floodplain, new development should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, or the capability to enhance the river environment. Industria] and commercial uses, as well as housing may all fit these categories. Strategy 3: Enhance the City's Quality of Life by Reconnecting to the River ♦ Parks, open space, and trails are an important way of allowing people to come the river. The Ciry is working on a number of initiatives, including 6 City of Saint Paul , , , the realignment of Shepard Road, to increase park and open space along the river. Over time the city's riverfront open space system will become more continuous and river-related. The City will also complete a contin- � uous Mississippi River 'iYail along the entire length of both sides of the river. , � �� ♦ The views afforded by magnificent bluffs in Saint Paul's river corridor are part of what makes the city a special place. There are opportunities in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corridar, Battle Creek and Highwood neighborhoods to create additional view points to the river. To enhance river corridor views, ali billboards should be removed from the river corridor and not replaced. ♦ New neighborhoods are part of creating connections to the river. In , strategic River Corridor locations, following adopted design principles, new urban villages should be established. ' , � l_J ♦ Cultural resources in the river corridor include early settlements, historic stnzctures, and architecturally unique bridges. These resources should be preserved and restored, as they are integral to the character and history that defines Saint Paul. Strategy 4: Use Urban Design to Enhance the River Corridor's Built Environment ♦ New development should establish "traditional" street and block patterns � to enable people to experience the river through visual and physical con- nections. These traditional street patterns will restore connections between neighborhoods further upland and the river. � , , I 1 1 ♦ Primary view corridors should remain open and unobstructed. Accordingly, the scale of new buildings in the river corridor should relate to topography, and should preserve critical public views. , Comprehensive Plan 7 C�I'la I Introduction 1 � T ere are multiple facets to the river's role in the ciry and region—as an ecological system, as a culiural and historical resource, as a publ�c ameniry, as a focus for recreational activiry, for commercial and industrial aciivity, and increasin�*ly The Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Other plan chapters address Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Housing, Water Management, T7ansportation, Sewers, and Libraries. The River Corridor Plan will guide use and development along the Mississippi River, while pmtecting the river's ecological function. There are multiple facets to the river's role in the city and region — as an ecological system, as a cultural and historical resource, as a public amenity. as a focus for recreational activity, for commercial and industrial activity, and increas- ingly for new residential development. The River Corridor Plan will help Saint Paut realize the futl potential of the river as the city's symbotic "front yard." The River Corridor Plan recognizes that the ecological function of the river is not only affected by activity throughout the river corridor as defined in this plan, but also by activity in the watersheds that feed the river. 2.� �os� The purposes of the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan encompass its designation as a state critical area and as a national river and recreation area — the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area — as well as its role as a multi-purpose resource for the city, state and region. These are: ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as a unique and valuable resource for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the city, state, and region, ♦ To restore and establish the unique urban ecology of Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. ♦ To reinforce the Mississippi River Corridor as Saint Paul's front yard, and the backbone of a community-building network extending beyond the shoreline and into the fabric of surrounding neighborhoods. ♦ To manage the Mississippi River Corridor as an important economic resource for river- related industries and commerciai navigation for the city, state and region. . f'or new residential ♦ To expand opportunities for using the Mississippi River Corridor as a city develOpment. amenity and enhance citizens' quality of life, including increased public access, recreation and education. g City of Saint Paul C� ' ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as an essential element in the federal, state, re�ional and local recreation, transporta- tion, sewer and water systems. , � � C� ♦ To prevent and mitigate danger to the life and property of the citizens of the city, state and region. ♦ To preserve, enhance and interpret the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor's historic, archeological and ethnographic (cultural) resources. 2.2 Legislative History and River Corridor Plan Background In the past twenty five years there has been an increased legislative focus on � environmental stewardship of the Mississippi River. The first major effort, authorized by state law in 1976, was the designation of the Mississippi River Corridor within the Ttvin Cities Metropolitan Area as a State Critical Area. ' The Critical Area program required coordinated planning among communi- ties in the river corridor to resolve land and water use conflicts, and to pre- � serve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural and historical value of the river for public use. Cities were required to establish protection of the river resource through planning and related ordinances. ' LJ , � , � � � i tn response, the Saint Paul City Council adopted a 5aint Paul Mississippi River CorridorPlan in 1981, with policies for managing this important resource r Comprehensive Plan g C�f`�� 1 and balancing open space use with industrial and commercial development. This plan fulfilled the state's requirement for a Critical Area Plan. It also became a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and was last amended in 1987 to incorporate the 1986 Riverfront Pre-Development Plan. Recent state law has required all "IWin Cities municipalities to update their comprehensive plans, and Saint Paul has nearly completed this effort. As part of the required update to comprehensive plans, the City will also review and revise its river corridor-related zoning regulations. To further guarantee effective management of the river resource, the U.S. Congress designated the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the national park system. The boundaries of the MNRRA corridor are identical to those of the Critical Area, the 72-mile cor- ridor of the Mississippi River stretching from the Crow River in Anoka County to beyond the City of Hastings, and including Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The MNRRA designation Ied to the creation of a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) with policies related to land and water use, resources management, and visitor use and interpretation. This updated River Corridor Plan responds to the vision for the Mississippi River outlined in the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, as well as the continuing requirements of the Critical Area program. xanaar 2em�s � Name Plarn & Mi`rel Hebile¢ Fbo�lain & WeUaMv,. Waarduality _ Bwrc Fmirmmen[��,,,�,�., uman oe,;y� � Oevdup�mrc Ps¢ena a�� Emmnik ResouRes- wa*� x� Commedal & Indmo-ial IarM & Waterlke �� Needs&AmeniGes Vexs rr�u Neighhalpods H'utoric & CulUUal Remums 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies In response to the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, and as part of the City's own process of updating its comprehensive plan, this Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan outlines four strategies for future manage- ment of the river corridor. The four strate�ies focus on the various systems reiatea to tne river: natural systems, economic systems, social or human systems, and built environ- ment. The River Corridor Plan seeks to balance these strategies, all of which are interrelated and affecting each other. 10 Ctty of Saint Paul , 1 �� ' , � � � � � L� L� , , � � The Setting C�/'Y�Z I _. . � 3.1 Planning Assumptions The main assumptions that underlie the recommendations in this River Corridor Plan are: For nearly a century, the Mississippi River's role as primarily a trans- portation and industrial corridor led the city to Yhink of and treat the river as its `�back yard". The city is now gradually rediscovering and cele- brating the river as its front yard -- a majestic and unparalleled natural amenity whlch unites neighborhoods and downtown. Part of this redis- covery inciudes the opportunity over the next 10 to 20 years to create new neighborhoods near the river. 2. The river and its reaches are more than a thin ribbon moving through �� ;:�:.. the city. The river corridor should be viewed as a watershed model, an �;- � entity that incorpoxates elements, communities, and patterns from well �� «'" � beyond the river itself. �� F� �� 3. The character of the river vailey changes over its 29 miles. The river valley contains a variety of landforms, from the ]ow lands along the river's edge to the high bluffs. The character of river valley land uses also changes consider- ably, from the quiet, residential character of the gorge, to the mixed commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street corridor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preserved blufftop neighbor- hoods in the West Side, Dayton's Bluff, and Highwood neighborhoods. �uesc 7fh Bridge 4. Parkland and open space are the predominant uses of riverfront land in Saint Paul. Most of this land will remain unchanged. There are however, many opportunities to explore additional access, preseroation, and restoration projects throughout the parkslopen space system. When development in these areas does occur (the enhancemenfis at Harriet Island, for example), it should be in the context of preserving the river corridor. � � ,_ . � , ��-' �.. .... aflrge ` . , G r;�, <_ : ;�.........„..„.-� -__y,_...,,,,,...y ............... �._.. � �...src�+zi+�tv9'• � ;� , �� ; �� , r gz ' � � _ �� s� � �� ;< � w � a: 3 -= � � �� . � 6 � 'l� n � � � � a J ! ihe flafs ' ^ v �, , , Central VaAey � �.: � �� . �: . t Comprehensive Plan i � bl-1`�1 , 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: City and Other ' Plans Figure E Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Boundary auow�co � '�� - � � �� i � HENNEPMLO -!� _ �--. _ .�� j'"� Q � C }_N£" ' ` � _ � � _� � In the past five years there has been a tremendous amount of river-related planning, both by the City of Saint Paul and by other organizations. These visions and plans have focused on Saint Paul's Mississippi River corridor in an evoluUonary and remarkably consistent manner, and include the fol]owing: S�dnt Paul Cornprehensive Plcm (P�ks Si Recreadion,TYansportalion, cmd Lcmd Use chapters) Completed in 1996, 1997, and 1998, respecrively. In addi- tion, there are Small Area Plans and other neighborhood plans for the river corridor that have been recognized by the Ciry Councii, or adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these plans are currently being written. Mississippi National River and Recreadon Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan National Park Service, Mississippi River Coordinating Commission and the U.S. Dept. of the Interior. The MNRRA Comprehensive Managemei.f PIan was approved by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior in 1995 and is intended to provide guidance for manag- ing the river corridor for the next 10-15 years. The plan's goals are to t) preserve the unique and significant resources of the Mississippi River Corridor in the TWin Cities metro area, 2) encourage the coordination of federal, state and locat efforts, and 3) provide a comprehensive manage- ment plan to assist the MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER State of Minnesota and AND RECREA710N AREA local governments in man- �w� "��°'" aging development in the .�... , ' n „ r . 1 �_..e ...__o � corridor. The MNRRA , ;' , � � vision advocates the pro- �+ tection of both the working ' 1� i river and the naturai river �i ' � ecosystem. The MNRRA � �- i MINNESOTA I � r` pIan suggests a voluntary p u � a ��,,�„,„� o „ set of additional policies ! �-- 7 that cities may adopt to .1=-�j` � % � � enhance preservation of J / � � ��, � the Mississippi River corri- =%� ��' Xe'°°" dor as a nationai park, �, � -___� � (' � �� referred to as °Tier tI" poli- % / ��*a�� /� cies. ("Tier I" policies are / ,,, �/ required by existing State ,,� Critical Area policies and regulations, and shoutd already exist in cities' river 12 City of Saint Paul , � ' plans and ordinances.) Local governments should work with the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources and the National Park Service to incorparate MNRRA policies into their river corri- dor plans and ordinances. Saint Paul's Ceniral River [�alley Development FYamework - Project of I the Desijn Center for the American Urban Landscape (Bill Morrish), College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota. � � ll � � � � � � , , � � � , This project, completed in )une 1995, served as one of the foundations for the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development �amework that was complet- ed in 1997. In conjunction with its Case Study Integrating Urban Design and Ecology project and newsletters (August 1994 - May 1995, six newsietters), the Design Center compiled an urban design inventory of Saint Paul's phys- ical resources in the form of maps that visually display the city's physical resources connected to the Mississippi River. These Saint Paul-Mississippi River contextual maps highlight Saint Paul's unique river valley landscape and ecology, including its vaileys, reaches, bluffs, landings, neighborhoods, vegetation, wildlife and the potential connections among all of these unique resources. The goals of this project were to identify the following for Saint Paul's Central River Valley: 1) image, identity and orientation, 2) com- munity gathering places, 3) connections and continuiry, and 4) river-related projects and locations. Metro Greenprint: Planning for Nature in the Face of Urban Growth - Greenways and Natural Areas Collaborative. In 1997, this collaborative project involving a group of citizens from around the seven-county'Itvin Cities Metropolitan Area included representatives from metro counties, watershed districts, Dept. of Natural Resources, Greening the Great River Park,_ University of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, Friends of the Mississippi River and 1Yust for Public Land. The Metro Greenprint outlines a vision and specific strategies for creating a region-wide network of natural areas, open spaces, parks and greenways while accommodating urban growth in the'IWin Cities metro area. The vision focuses on identification of natural areas and open spaces and potential connections between them, along with recommended conservation techniques and funding strategies. The Mississippi, Minnesota and Saint Croix river valleys represent a significant portion of this green network. Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development IYamework - City of Saint Paul, Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, and the Capital City Partnership. The City's most comprehensive vision for the Mississippi River was outlined in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework in June of 1997, Comprehensive Plan 18 Ol I c�/-ta 1 following more than two years of intense work by the community, City staff, and other organizations. The Framework calls for reconnecting the city's downtown and neighborhoods to the river by restoring the river val- ley's and city's natural environment, creating new urban villages near the river and creating a physically appealing and vital downtown environment. The Framework is based on "an implicit understanding that quality of life - the ability of a city to effectively balance economy, environment and society - provides a primary competitive advantage in an increasingIy globaIized world." The Framework outlines the foIlowing ten principles that represent an integrated approach to city building: ♦ Evoke a sense of place. ♦ Restore and establish the unique urban ecology. ♦ Invest in the public realm. ♦ Broa@en the mix of uses. ♦ Improve connectivity. ♦ Ensure that buildings support broader city-building goals. ♦ Build on eazsting strengths. ♦ Preserve and enhance heritage resources. ♦ Provide a batanced network for movement. ♦ Foster public safety. Although the Framework is not part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the plan's vision, ten principles and recommendations were endorsed by the City Council as the guide for the City's development policies downtown and aton� the central riverfront and should be incorporated, as appropriate, into the City's Comprehensive Plan updates and amendments. The ten pririciptes are incorporated into the Land Use Plan (1999). Riverfront Action Strategies - Saint Paul Port Authority. Compieted in 1999, this document highlights the importance of the Mississippi River and Saint Paul Port to the Upper Midwest economy. As a working river, the Mississippi is part of an intermodal freight transportation system that enables agricultural producers throughout the Upper Midwest to compete in the global market. This strategy document signals the Port Authority's commitment to maintain shipping-related uses in its riverfront facilities. It also e�cpresses the Port Authority's commitment to beautify industrial sites, to clean up roadsides and riverbanks, and to manage stormwater on-site. 14 City of Saint Paul . , � , � � � i 1 i � � � i EJ , J �' 1 1 Visions of ihe Mississippi River Corridar Ce�ral River Yalley Dev. fmmevrork (Morrish) 1995 St. Paul on the Mississippi Dex framework 1947 Pnrksand RiverFrontAciion Reuealion Snme�ia Minnesma Wan t9% (Part Authority? (riiiwl Area �'� Designation 1976 Traasportation Plan �997 MNRRA Comp. M mt. Metro Plun 7995 River Corridor Land Use ��enpnnh Design Sfudy s000 Plan 19sr8 t997 ... Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites - Saint Paul PED, Saint Paul Design Center. To compiete this River Corridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, along with the Saint Paul Design Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment sites. The study was conducted in early 2000, with consultants from the Cuningham Group and Close Landscape Architects. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. An intergovernmental working group, chaired by the Planning Commission, and including the Department of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council and National Park Service assisted in this process. The results of this study provide the basis for poli- cies in Chapter 7 of the plan; recommendations for the five redevelopment sites can also be found in Chapter 7 and Appendix A. Together, these planning efforts have established a new framework for thinking about the Mississippi River, and Saint Paul's place on it that emphasizes thinking of the river and the city as an integrated living ecosys- tem within a larger regional setting. The intent is to restore the river's nat- ural ecology, to establish and improve green connections between neigh- borhoods and downtown and the river, and to support urban intensification consistent with a river setting, while maintaining the working river. Collectively, these visions provide a map for stewardship and use of the river in the next century. This Mississippi River Corridor Plan brings these visions together in one documettt for the entire river corridor in Saint Paul. Comprehensive Plan 15 Figure G River Valley Landforms DI'I R � 3.3 National Trends Nationwide, certain trends have emerged pertaining to urban riverfronts. There has been a resurgence of interest in the recreationa] use of riverfront land, and communities nationwide are creating new trails, green space, promenades, and other recreationai amenities. As industries that tradition- ally were located on the riverfront have changed, industrial land is turnin� over and being redeveloped to create housing and entertainment-oriented commercial activity. Finally, there is increased awareness and interest in the ecological function of rivers and the watersheds that feed them. Disastrous floods in past years have served as reminders that watershed management plays an integral role in protecting rivers and the communi- ties along them. 3.4 Typology of River Landfoxms The Mississippi Rivervaiiey is comprised of a earege o€ �at��fcrrrs, each ��:th unique characteristics and requiring specific responses. While most of this plan's policies apply to the entire river valley, many of the Urban Design policies of this plan are tailored to the specific landforms, described below: ♦ The River•s Edge is characterized by naturaI shoreline vegetation in parkland or natural areas. The River's Edge downstream of the High Bridge is stabilized with a variety of man-made treatments for the pur- pose of channel maintenance, including rock rip rap and walls. ♦ The Lowlands are the lands adjacent to the River and are either flood prone or formerly flood prone lands. Lowlands provide critical habitat for migratory birds, yet developed areas in the Lowlands are neaely devoid of tree canopy. The Lowiands are generally characterized by mixed man- ufacturing or office uses, dedicated pubiic parks and open space, or 16 City of Saint Paul � � , lJ � i cleared and vacant lands. Largely redeveloped for industry, buildings in the Lowlands tend to be larger floorplate structures with associated large parking areas. ♦ The Low Biuff is landward of the Lowlands. It is generally characterized by a varied edge of dense woods and open views, sometimes eroded or overgrown. There exist occasional and dramatic bluff face/rock outcrops expressing the natural geology of this valley, although the elevation change of the Low Bluff is ]ess striking than the High Bluffs (described below). Access from the Lowlands through the Low Bluff is somewhat limited. The Low Bluff is less legible as either habitat or public open space than the High Bluff. ♦ The Terrace is the generaliy flat area located between the Low Bluff and I the High Bluff. The elevation of the Terrace ranges in between 740 and 780 feet above sea level. At locations throughout the valley, the Terrace � makes transitions into River Reaches and Ravines. The Terrace is gener- ally fully developed, and characterized by mixed use commercial and industrial lands transitioning from rail oriented manufacturing to ser- � vice/convenience uses. The Terrace also contains muiti-story housing with smaller fragmented pockets of single family homes. � � � � i � I � � ♦ The High Bluff is located landward of the Terrace, and is the most rec- ognizable feature of Saint Paul's visually stunning river valley. The High Bluff is characterized by a nearly vertical limestone bluff face in many areas. In other areas, the High Bluff is covered with a continuous, often dense canopy of overstory trees with occasional openings for views and limited public access. The High Bluff is an environmentally sensitive area that is highly susceptible to erosion and associated loss of vegetation and animal habitat. Selected roads traverse the High Bluff, creating pri- mary connections between the Terrace and Uplands (described below). ♦ The Uplands are the areas located above the highest bluffs. The Uplands are flat or gently sloping, and are generaliy characterized by mixed resi- dential neighborhoods coming to the edge, with occasional multi-story multifamily structures and institutional landmark buildings. The urban forest of the Uplands generally consists of boulevard trees. A map showing the general location of these landforms throughout Saint Paul can be found in Chapter 7. � Comprehensive Plan i7 v�-�a � St�'ate�y 1: Protect the River as rls the twenty-first century begins, the ciry has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning which balances environmental, community, and economic imperatrves. The Mississippi River, as it weaves through Saint Paul, is part of a complex ecosystem, and is a unique and vatuable natural resource. The river has been designated by the Minnesota State Legislature as a State Crirical Area, and by the U.S. Congress as a nationally significant commercial navigation system, a National River and Recreation Area, and an American Heritage River. The history of Saint Paul has always been closely tied to the Mississippi River, but over time, development has heavily impacted many of the river's indigenous landscapes. As the twenty-first century begins, the City has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning which balances envi- ronmental, community, and economic imperatives. This approach moves the City in the direction of thinking of the river, river valley, and developed areas as an integrated living ecosystem. The City will provide for the continuation of a variety of urban uses, including ind�trial, commercial, and residential within the river corridor, while strengthening its commitment to preserving the natural resources of the river corridor. The intent of this chapter is nei- ther to discourage future development, nor to promote wholesale restora- tion of the natural environment. Rather, natural resource management poli- cies will be strengthened to enhance the urban ecosystem in the Mississippi River corridor, and improve the quality of place in Saint Paul. Saint Paul currently uses river corridor overlay zoning to protect natural resources throughout the state-designated Critical Area of the Mississippi River. Overlay zoning restricts what type of development may occur in the floodplain, and applies strict standards for development. These standards include development setbacks - -- ' from the river, and prohibiting 18 development on steep slopes. This chapter addresses protec- tion of bluffs, native plant and animal habitats, wetlands and floodplain, and water quality. (Appendix F contains maps that show the location of steep slopes, significant vegetative stands, wetlands, the floodplain, storm water discharge points, and natural drainage routes.) City of Saint Paal Figure H Natural Shoreline i � � � � � � � � � � i � � t� � � � Objective 4.1 Protect the blufflands af the river corridor Saint Paul's natural topography relates much of the city to the river. Bluff formations framing the Mississippi River reinforce the city's unique natural setting and contribute to Saint Paul's character and sense of place. The topography of the river valley varies considerabiy. Alon� the West Seventh corridor and the West Side, there are distinct high and low bluffs separated by a terrace. In the so-called "river gorge" between Saint Paul and Minneapolis and in the Highwood neighborhoods, however, the high bluffs descend dramatically to the river, or adjacent low land areas. Likewise, the location of bluff areas relative to the river varies from the gorge where the river lies directly below the bluffs, to portions of the Highwood and West Side neighborhoods where the bluffs are set back more than a mile from the river. While the bluffs, ravines, and tributary areas are an attractive and unique urban amenity, they are a fragile part of the river ecosystem. Historicaily, both Ramsey County and the City have been active in protect- ing and restoring bluff lots with steep slopes facing the river. Ramsey County has acquired lots between Upper and Lower Afton Road for perma- nent county park ownership. Over the past several years, the City has used Federal ISTEA funding to acquire lots between Lower Afton Road and Highwood Avenue to be permanently dedicated as city parkland. Saint Paul aLso currently maintains a required bluff setback for development, and pro- hibits development on steep slopes along the bluff line to prevent erosion, and to maintain the natural, vegetated appearance of the bluff line visible from the river. Policies: 4.1.1 The City will continue its program to acquire lots on the bluff face as funding opportunities arise, extending the program to include lots south ;.:'_: ��, ._� �a�� : � s� � � �i u � ,,. ��= � � � � �� s z� ,x F� � � n� � � �� '' 'i3 � 4: � � ,_ ;� '6. �w �`^ .� I Comprehensive Plan ig �� ►� � of Highwood Avenue. Private efforts to acquire lots for open space dedi- cation are encouraged, as are actions by Ramsey County to convert iots acquired through tax forfeiture to permanent public park ownership. 4.12 The Ciry wi11 support efforts to stabitize all btuffs in public ownership through re- introduction of native species and visitor use management. Efforts such as those by Friends of the Parks and TraiLs and the West Side BIvfP I�sk Force to create bluff management plans for the gorge area and the West Side bluffs, respecrively, are encouraged. The West Side bluffs, in particular, are in need of management and stabilization. 4.1.3 To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional struc- tural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Further exceptions may be allowed for a limited number of low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. Such structures should be uncommon. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code. 4.1.4 In order to protect steep slopes and minimize erosion, and consis- tent with Executive Order 79-19, the City will continue to prohibit resi- dential development on slopes that exceed eighteen percent. Consistent with the MNRRA standard for commercial and industrial development, the City will continue to restrict industrial and commercial development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. 4.1.5 The City will continue to preserve the bluff impact atea (forty feet landward of the bluff line) in a natural state. Objective 4.2 Preserve and restore natrve plant and animal habitcrts Saint Paul is located at the meeting of the prairie and eastern hardwood forests. Despite the changes accompanying urbanization, a variety of habi- tat types continue to exist today within the river corridor, including rem- nant savannas, prairies, river edge wetlands, riverine areas, the bluffs, as well as the river itself and its fIoodplain. The Department of Natural Resources inventories rare species and natural communities, and according to the its Natural Heritage Database, there are 55 known occurrences of such species or communities in Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. These include Bald Eagles sighted in the Pig's Eye Heron Rookery and Battle Creek Regional Park, Blanding's Turtles sighted at Lilydale Regional Park and Hidden Falls - Crosby Park, severa[ types of mussels, and a variety of other plant and animal species. (For a full listing, see Appendix C.) Particularly near downtown Saint Paul, remnant landscapes and the animal 20 City of Saint Paul , � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � habitats they contain have historically become dis- connected from the larger river ecosystem, and their long term viability is continually challenged by the effects of urbanization. Fortunately, there are many opportunities for preserv- ing and restoring native plant and animal habitats throughout the river corridor. Great River Greening has played an instrumental role in restoring vegeta- tion throughout the river valley, with the goai of cre- ating a connected greenway for migrating songbirds and improving the ecology of the Mississippi River valley in Saint Paul. Over the past severa] years the organization and its volunteers have planted more than 30,000 native trees and shrubs and 25,000 native wildflowers in the river corridor near down- town. Addressing the downtown area, the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development F7�amework has signaled the need to improve the balance between the natural and built environments through protection of native vegetation and improved river edge treatments. The redevelopment plans for Harriet Island Regional Park and the East Bank Mississippi River Trail Corridor are examples of this shift in approach, as they call for redesigning river edges to incorporate both hard edge and indigenous vegetative treat- ments. Of course, projects to restore natural shorelines must be compatible with the requirements of channel design and flood management. Policies: 4.2.1 To the greatest extent possible, existing mature trees and native veg- etation will be preserved in site development projects. In the Highwood neighborhood, the City will continue to enforce the Tree Preservation District standards to maintain a maximum vegetative canQpy. 42.2 The City wiil encourage use of native vegetation or other compatible floodplain vegetation in redevelopment projects. Where appropriate, when redeveloping or stabilizing the river's edge, soil bio-engineering techniques and native plantings wiil be used in combination with more traditional engineered solutions. In the more formal landscape treat- ments occurring along the downtown riverfront, the shoreline will be strengthened with native vegetation, including native trees and shrubs. Throughout the river corridor, the City will encourage integration of future growth and development with restoration programs that recon- nect and restore remnant natural communities. � 4.2.3 The City will continue to support the efforts of organizations such as Great River Greening to restore native grasses, shrubs and trees along � the riverfront downtown and elsewhere in the river corridor. .��= s :� !� �'� � �� <: � �� ff� � Comprehensive Plan 21 oi- � �t l 4.2.4 The City will continue to enforce the 50 foot shoreline setback for structures. In addition, the Ciry will support efforts to restore the shoreline to a more natural character within 100 feet of the river to facili- tate wildtife movement, and to improve the aesthetic appearance of the floodwall. Such efforts must be compatible with current channel design and flood control management, and exceptions are made for park buildings, marinas, and other commercial or industrial river-dependent uses. Redevelopment should include removal of unused docking facilities (i.e., at the Koch-Mobil site). Figure K Trai! between Warner Road and the Mississippi River 4.2.5 In al] new developments, threatened and endangered wildlife habitats shall be protected from alterations which would endanger their survival. 4.2.6 The City will integrate its plans with the work of the DNR's Metro Greenways and NaturaI Areas Collabarative. This metro area collabora- tive has identified high quality native habitat remnants which could be linked into regional greenways, providing continuous habitat corridors to support native plant and wildlife species. Many potentiai greenway opportunities exist in the East Metro area, including Saint Paul. Objecfiive 4.3 Protect and preserve floodplain and wetland areas in the city Figure L The last comprehensive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) BQIf 'ThORIp5011�5 VISIOII 01 - SlU('lY Of C'Ite� S&iFii �60u�✓13�iFi vC�iti7eC�.-.P. .�iH9. �: tr.3C. tLTY?e, t�N.O _ 22 City of Saint Paul � "The Great River Park" � � �� major flood events occuned in 1993 and 1997, and other changes have occurred in the floodplain. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers has compieted a multi-year flood protection project on the West Side which will result in removal of the West Side Flats from the floodplain, because the new higher levee will control a 500-year flood. As a result of these changes, the City, DNR and the Corps of Engineers are working together to � update the City's Flood Insurance Study. The Flood insurance Study update includes changes to the cross-sectionai area caused by development and � revisions to the hydraulic model that incorporates these changes. FEMA and DNR will review the Flood Insurance Study update following submis- sion and make an approval decision (concluding in 2001). FEMAS process � wili result in revised floodplain boundaries in the river corridor and accom- panying changes to FEMA flood insurance rate maps and the City's flood- way and flood fringe zoning districts. � � � � � � � � � � � L, Wetiands aiso play an important role during floods, and for controlling stormwater. Their flexible storage capacity allows flood waters to be released slowly, reducing flood damage. In the era when most of Saint Paul's neighborhoods developed, modern ecosystem knowledge was lack- ing, and wetlands and creekbeds were routinely drained and filled. Through zoning and site plan review, Saint Paul began protecting wetlands in 1994, after passage of the state Wetlands Conservation Act. The Legislative Commission on Minnesota izesources (funded through state lottery rev- enues), has provided financial resources to communities, including Saint Paui, for wetland restoration projects. The restoration of Ames Lake — for- merly the Phalen Shopping Center site — is one such example. Other opportunities for restoration exist, including efforts by the Lower Phalen Creek Restoration Project to connect Swede Hollow Park to the river by restoring lower Phalen Creek in the ravine between Dayton's Bluff and Lowertown. As our understanding of watersheds continues to evolve, the need for careful management and planning in wetland and floodplain areas of the city is assumed. Policies: 4.3.1 The State of Minnesota, through the Department of Natural Resources, allows new development to occur in the Mississipi River floodplain up to a one-half foot increase over the 100-year flood eleva- tion. The City wiil enforce the state floodplain encroachment limit so that small increments in development do not gradually degrade the floodplain. 4.3.2 Recognizing the need to treat wetlands as a valued resource, and assuming its responsibility to administer the Wetlands Conservation Act, the City will protect existing wetlands and encourage restoration of degraded wetlands. � Comprehensive Plan 2g C"� 1 `t I Objective 4.4 Protect water quality through comprehensive and coordinated watershed management The water quality of the Mississippi River is directly connected to the activi- ties in the surrounding watershed. Pollution comes from both direct, or point sources, such as a sewage treatment plant discharge, and from non- point sources, such as stormwater runoff. The largest source of nonpoint source pollution into the Mississippi is the Minnesota River, which contains significant amounts of agricultural runoff from outside of the Mississippi River Corridor. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is attempting to address this problem, which is complex and will take extensive time and funds to conect. While ali sources of pollution will be addressed, the City's program will Yocus on city stormwater runoff pollution prevention due to the relatively greater impact this source has on the river. SEWER SEPARATION PROGRAM Historically, Saint Paul's original sewers drained directly to the Mississippi River or to several natural streams that i:� tum drained into the river. The oldest sewer on record in Saint Paul was built in 1856. At the time it was standard engineering practice throughout the country to convey both storm water and sanitary waste to receiving waters in one pipe. However, by the T e water qualiry early 1920's it was becoming apparent that the Mississippi River was pollut- ed and something had to be done. In 1938, the first sewage treatmenY facili- of the Mississippi ty on the entire Mississippi River went into operation. Minneapolis and River is directly Saint Paul each financed and built their own interceptor sewers and shared connecred to the the cost of building the treatment plant. Dry weather flows were then treat- ed prior to emptying into the river, but during rainstorms, when the flows aCtivlties in the exceeded the sewer's capacity, combined sewer overflows (rainwater and surloul2ding sewage) continued to pollute the river. watershed. In 1 g85, after years of study and discussion, sewer separation was deter- mined to be the most economical method to abate combined sewer over- flows to the Mississippi River and to meet federal and state water quality standards. At this time the Minnesota PoIlution Control Agency directed Saint Paul, Minneapolis and South Saint Paul to develop a new plan for combined sewer overflow elimination and for the Metropolitan Waste Conteol Commission to incorporate each city's plan into an overaIi metro p[an. In response, Saint Paul developed the Comprehensive Sewer Plan for the Ciry ofSaintPaul. Although Saint Paul began separating its combined sewers in 1960, by 1985, only half of the city was served by separate sanitary and storm sewer systems. The ten year program initiated in 1986 was a massive undertaking with over $172 million in designated projects (1984 dollars). 24 City of Saint Paul � � The sewer separation program has led to significant improvement in the quality of the Mississippi River. The following are viewed as indicators of the improved water quality: � � � �� , � ♦ Pollution-sensitive Hexagenia mayfly have returned to TWin Cities' stretch of river after a 30 year absence. ♦ Metropolitan Council Environmental Services' monitoring data shows a significant drop in fecal bacteria IeveLs in the river as a result of sewer separation. ♦ Bald eagles have returned to the TWin Cities' stretch of river. ♦ Fish population and diversity have recovered from 3 species to over 25 species. ♦ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has established catch and release fishing regulations to protect trophy sized walleyes that are being caught from the metropolitan stretch of Mississippi IZiver. The completion of Saint Paul's sewer separation program has achieved the overall purpose of cleaning up the river, demonstrating the City's commit- ment to improved stewardship of the river environment, and exceeded its performance goals. The city now has two completely separate sewer sys- tems, one carrying surface water runoff and the other one carrying sanitary sewage. But the work of protecting and restoring the Mississippi River goes on. The partners involved in this project will continue to address the issues that affect the Mississippi and our environment. ��, ,,. � � � � � WATERSHED AWARENESS EDUCATION Saint Paul falis within the boundaries of four watershed management organizations, each of � which develops a comprehensive watershed plan. saint Paul's new Water Management � Plan will be completed by the Public Works Department two years after the completion of the watershed management plans. The four � watershed management organizations are i) Capitoi Region Watershed District, 2) Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District, 3) � Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, and 4) Middle � Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization. J Saint Paul has been actively educating its resi- dents about water quality issues for years. Early Photo courtesy of Friends of the Mississippi !t�'ver � _ W 3 r ; v . � � � � �� .; � �� .> � �� ,< �% x: �� a E,„ � :� � Comptehensive Plan ys or-� � efforts began to e�lain the need for the Sewer Separation Program and the associated benefits to the Mississippi River. Cunently, the City and the Friends of the Mississippi River are working in partnership on the Storm Drain Stenciling Program. Since 1993, the City has worked with thousands of volunYeers to stencil a message, 'Don't Pollute Drains to RiueY', next to storm drains and to distribute door hangers to the surrounding neighbor- hood. In addition, City staff are working with schools in Saint Paul on watershed education projects. Saint Paul is also a watershed Partner, which is an award winnin� partner- ship of inetro area agencies, non-profit groups and local units of government. Watershed Partners developed an educational watershed e}chibit, which is used at venues across the TWin Cities every year, including the Minnesota State Fair. The Partners are cunently involved in a metro wide media cam- paign which involves news print and radio messages as well as printed gro- cery store bags and magnets. Efforts to promote better pubiic awareness can have a profound impact on reducing nonpoint source pollution. Figure N Watershed Managemen# Organizations 26 City of Saint Paul � � � The Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory provides guidelines for safely eating fish caught in the Mississippi River where it flows through Saint Paul, per the Minnesota Department of Health's Minnesota Fish � Consumpiion Acivisozy (available on the DNR web site). Fish in Minnesota's lakes and rivers are monitored annually for the amount of inethyl mercury and PCBs present. � � � � � ,, � WATER MANAGEMENT AND RECULATION Water management and regulation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. See Appendix D for the entities that are responsible for water man- agement in Saint Paul. Policies: Most of the policies cited in this chapter will be replaced and more fully addressed by Saint Paul's Water Management Plan, which wili be complet- ed by April, 2003 . 4.4.1 Continue participation in existing watershed management programs and in developing the City's stormwater permit program and local water management plan. Coordinate municipal activities that affect water qual- ity as part of the stormwater discharge permit and the local water man- agement plan. 4.42 Strengthen city-wide education programs that address watershed awareness and stewardship. � 4.4.3 The City encourages a reduction in use of chemicals for fertilizer and pest controi in residential areas and on public land, and support sustain- able land treatment activities and integrated pest management practices. � � � � 4.4.4 The City supports minimizing direct overland runoff and improving the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce fertil- izer and pesticide runoff into the river. 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. 4.4.7 The City supports using stormwater management elements such as � ponds and swales to unite development areas with the natural environ- ment. Emphasize what these elements add to site development in terms of aesthetic benefits and cost- effective stormwater management. � Incorporate pubiic use as a site amenity whenever possibie in designing stormwater management systems. � ;� x�� H � � � � � � � � � �.; :� ;� ,, � � :> � � .. �� fi � � ; R g Y /fi � _j �b � : �� <: �� Comprehensive Ptan 27 or-« i � 4.4.8 The City will support programs to better manage and decrease the � volume of toxic waste in the river corridor. 4.4.9 Protect streambanks and water quality from the negative impacts of � recreation. 4.4.10 The City will support regional pollution prevention and control plans � for the metropolitan area. 4.4.11 The City supports programs to develop and implement spill preven- � tion and response plans for the river. i i � I 1 � � � l 1 i � � 28 City ofSaint Paul � � r � � � � LJ � � � � St�ate�y 2: Sus�tain the Economic The Mississippi River will continue to function as a major commercial nav- igation resource for Saint Paul, the TWin Cities and the Upper Midwest, connecting the area to the Inland Watercvay System, the Guif of Mexico and intemational markets. River-related, shipping-related, and river dependent industries will continue to locate in the river corridor, contributing to the city's diverse economy and job market. Three of Saint Paul's 29 miles of riverfront are presently dedicated to industry. (Appendix F contains a map of commercial navigation facilities and barge fleeting areas.) Objective 5.1 Continue commercial and industnial uses af river corridor land and water, consistent with the Saint Paul Land Use Plan Industry and commerce are an important function of the river. The City recognizes that commercial and industrial uses of river corridor land will continue. Given the continued mix of land uses in the river corridor, careful planning for the use of land along the river's edge is warranted. The City rec- ognizes that the use of land in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark has the potential for serious adverse effects on the river if not properly managed. As a matter of course, all development must comply with existing regulations goveming the floodplain and river corridor. � Policies: 5.1.1 New development in the floodplain or within 30o feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river � location, and/or should enhance the river environment. (New develop- ment on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd. is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of e�cisting Plans, and in all other respects � should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new development include: � ♦ having an economic or operational need for a river location ♦ supporting the attractiveness of surrounding neighborhoods � ♦ sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements ♦ offering public access to and along the river ♦ maintaining views of the river � ♦ cleaning up polluted areas on the site ♦ meeting or exceeding applicable natural resource policies in this Plan �� = � � ��'� � �� , ��i �a � a ��# ��A �� , ��; ��; tr ?� � � � ,, � . a�� Comprehensive Plan yg Cf-f `� i Figure O River Corridor South Development Opporturtities 5.12 Expansions of existing uses in the floodplain or within 300 ft from the ordinary high water mark are acceptable. Eacpansions should be con- sistent with the natural resource protection policies laid out in this Plan. Expansion of uses on the north side of the river between Chesmut Street and Lafayette Boulevard should be consistent with natural resource pro- tection policies where practical. 5.1.3 The City supports continuation of industrial uses in appropriate por- tions of the corridor as indicated in the Land Use Plan and shown in Figures O and P. Modifications or additions to industrial uses in the rivee corridor should be supported only when they have no significant adverse impact on water quaIity or air quality for the river corridor and adjacent neighborhoods, and when they do not substantially impair the visual char- acter of the corridor from adjacent neighborhoods or from the river itself. S ", � ��>r a = :� �"v'.:` �:J �_ �'. ::_ _ .. a � � e .L}�^� � f'-._^ .. :' 'r':-_ y ;µt ��.� ` Rti . ... ��f .• R , .. :.�` _ _..-:��£ ' .-��- _ � � ` > A f � i d� 0 5 ` ` }�._ , a`�:'-£?` a �" , . F t..-._ aM �li ( ' � '1:_ •�:��Zi�� _ . � � \.�. �4� �rI ^! C'�� Mn.... • �.�Yi�+��" . � � I �- Concord - Robert Park Restoration � (Commercial) West Side Flats (Muaed Use Study Area) Harciet Island / S. Bridgeh�d Esplanade (Urban �Ilages) ' _-�.t�.� # �.:...� j...$ ''e ` R / - °;:� Highuvood =`= ° `� ° s � ; ` �.1 `.j:. �- �> ` ��.� (more houses�t.� - - ;'x'_ °� ,.z ' _ � £ ` � ` � :.i� _.``a: c =:'��` _ - � i � � ,_, ,� 3 - i , j � Y . , i � . 1�\ �� T ~��. ��.. .... `��_t.."ar-=...3�� I Southport (Industria!) Indusiry Burldiardt (Housing) � �� I i The bounQary shown does not mrrespond to the Critical Area/MNRRA boundary. 30 CI["y Of SQlttt P[iU1 � !� � � � [�� L� � � � � � � Pedestrian � �� -� =� �� 4��1 ��`;. .ua � u f Z ��/ . ! X� � <; � x;�n+'€ � i :�' R`� g� � � . �' �F j /��Y'a��f n ?'R d'{ � °! f. f�'°.a�� ADMMletalcote (Study Area) Koch-Mobil (Housing) Lake (Industriat) $ItCS � Shepard Davern (Redevelopment Area) The bopndary shown does not correspond to the Critical Area/MNRRA borandary. 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening will not be a detriment to business operations. Objective 5.2 Recognize the Mississippi as a working river and support the continued operation of commercial navigation facilities The shipping industry is of crucial importance to Saint Paul, greater Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest. Located 1,800 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico, the Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intermodal freight trans- portation system, where barge, rail, and truck traffic intersect. Agricultura] products and other bulk materials are brought by rail and truck from throughout the Upper Midwest, and transferred to barges that travel to � p ,:,. < > � Comprehensive Plan 31 oi-� i Figure Q Barge Fteeting L ocated I,800 miles inland from the Gulf oflbtexico; tne Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intermodal freight transportation system, where barge, rail, and truck traffic intersect. downstream river ports. Grain exports from Midwest producers make up nearly 90 percent of the cargo bound downstream. Approximately six percent of grain eacported from the U.S. to world markets travels through the Saint Paul Port. Other materi- als are brought up the Mississippi River by barge and distributed to destinations throughout the region by rail and truck. At peak capacity, more than 16 million tons of commodities can be han- dled through the Saint Paul Port annually. There are both economic and environmental benefits to using barges to transport goods, rather than rail cars or trucks. Barges move freight a greater distance per gallon of diesel fuel than rail or truck. One ton of com- modities carried by barge travels 514 miles per gallon of fuel, compared to only 202 miles by rail or 59 miles by tnxck. Barges also release fewer pollu- tants per gallon of fuel burned than rail or truck. Barges release only ,42 pounds of pollutants per gallon of fuel burned, compared to .59 pounds released by rail cars and .75 pounds released by trucks. (Riverfront Action Strategies, Saint Paul Port Authority, January, 1999.) Barges fleet in designated fleeting areas, as permitted by the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S.Coast Guard. The permit issued by the Corps and DNR specifies the length and width of the fleeting,area. Barge fleetin� areas are permitted in Saint Paul's Floodway District (RC-1), subject to a special condition use permit, as approved'vy i'rie Fianning Cornr�:sscr: Designated fleeting areas are mapped, see Appendix F. In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor currently has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges and a total design capacity of 574 barges (Figure R). Permitted fleeting areas are considered adequate to meet current and near- term fleeting needs and accommodate fluctuations in river transportation. The volume of commercial river traffic has and will continue to fluctuate considerably over time in response to local, regional, national, and interna- tiorial needs and markets. At peak times, barge fleets fill fleeting areas to their maximum capacity. If a new fleeting area were desired, a permit would have to be procured through the above agencies. The MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan identified the need for a Surface Water Use Management Plan. Such a plan would provide guidance on suitable locations for additional barge fleeting and mooring areas; suitable 32 City of Saint Paul � 0 ' � locations for dredge material disposal sites; economic impact of surface water use; potential regulatory use controLs and other measures for minimizing con- flicts between commercial navigation and recreational boating use and � among recreational uses; monitoring and evaluaung river system surface use capaciry, including considerarions of physical, biological, social, and safety limits; evaluating the potential for bottom disturbance, sediment resuspension, � and shoreline disturbance from barge activities and recreational boating; and developing altematives to expanding existing or creating additional commer- � cial fleeting areas, barge mooring areas, and recreational boating facilities. The City agrees that these questions should be better understood, and should be evaluated region-wide. The Metropolitan Council has formed an advisory � r i� � � � � I I. F � � � � committee to fiuther scope out many of the questions identified for the MNRRA Surface Water Use Management Plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be the lead agency in complet- ing such a plan, working with local govem- ,. ments and other affected state and federal u, e � , agencies. <'' It is recommended that barge fleeting areas and marinas be separated by 200 feet for safety reasons. Ttvo hundred feet is approxi- mately the length of one barge, so separa- tion by this distance permits visibiliry of smaller recreationa] craft. Empty barges ride high in the water (16-20 feet above the water line), so a tow boat operator may not othenvise see recreational boat traffic around marinas. There are two marinas cur- rently in operation, Harriet Lstand Marina and Watergate Marina in Crosby Park. There are aiso boat launches at Hidden Falls Park and in Lilydale Park near Pickeral Lake. Policies: 52.1 Barge Terminal tt1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminais. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river- related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases o eacpire. (The businesses at Barge Terminal #1 are all river-related.) River- related land uses are those with an eco- � nomic or operational need for a river location. � Comprehensive Plan 33 b/�f q! 5.2.2 A commercial landing for interstate cruise lines will be maintained at Lambert's Landing (LOwer Landing Park), in conjunction with other activities at Lambert's Landing, e.g. loading of supplies. A landing for local excursion boats will be maintained at Harriet Island Marina. 52.3 The City will continue to regulate the impacts of commercial naviga- tion faciiities on eacis�ing development, the naturat environment, and the immediate neighborhood through its Special Condition Use Permit process. � � � � 52.4 The City will minimize water use conflicts and improve safety by � separating commercial and recreationai boat facilities, where practical. A) If new or expanded barge fleeting sites are proposed, and if other- wise permitted by State and federal agencies, fleeting sites should be located adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses and at least 200 feet from any marina or boat launch. B) New marinas or boat launches should be located at least 200 feet from any barge terminal or barge fleeting area. Objective 5.3 Pursue cleanup and reclamation of polluted sites Much of the Mississippi River Corridor in Saint Paul has historically been used for industry, because the river was the first major transportation route. Poltuted sites are concentrated where heavy manufacturing, rail yards, and other industrial activities were common. Other sources of contamination are landfiIls and underground storage tanks. The Metropolitan Council esti- mates that at least a third more land is polluted than is currently identified. An area with significant contamination is Pig's Eye Dump, located in the flood plain of the Mississippi River just east of downtown Saint Paul and to the north of Pig's Eye Lake. At 319 acres, the site contains the largest dump in Minnesota. During its 16 years of operation (1956-1972), the dump received 8.3 million cubic yards of municipal, commercial, and industrial waste from Saint Paul and surrounding communities. During the summer of 1988, the site (covering approximately 300 acres) caught fire and bumed intermittently for two months. In 1989, it was designated a SuperCund site. The City has completed a Remedial Altematives and Response Action Plan (RAP) which details remedial alternatives for the site. The RAP calis for plant- ings, covering much of the site with two feet of soil, and rerouting sections of Battle Creek. The City owns most of the site, and the site is designated as passive use parkland. The RAP was approved by the MPCA in May 2000. The 34 City of Saint Paul i � State legislature has authorized two million to begin remediation, of a total remediation cost estimate of 9.1 million. � � � � �1 � � � � � Funding for cleanup of polluted land is most readily availabie when the land will be redeveloped to yield jobs and increase the tax base. This has the effect of favor- ing industrial and commercial redevelop- ment projects. It can be difficult to find funds for cleanup of polluted land that is to be converted to green space or park land. Legal questions about ownership must also be resolved. To date, legisla- tive initiatives have been proposed to address this need, but none have been passed. The Port Authority has donated over 1800 acres of land to the City, to be used for open space and recreation in petpetuity. Those lands now in park use include Crosby Lake, Pigs Eye Lake, and Pickerai Lake. � � , �� _>; x' z q d z ; � � ( � i 4 � � \� i��f',�t� . .:�. 4 �_.. � *�' : p - `� x / !v 2, • 'K ' = i, e? . ' '- r, `:.� . 4 � o� � �° � _`� � Policies: 5.3.1 Working with the Port Authority, the City will seek opportunities to clean up polluted river corridor lands. 5.3.2 The City will monitor and support initiatives that will facilitate cleanup of polluted land to be reused as green space. �� LJ L' 5.3.3 The City will balance open space use and industrial and commercial use of the Pig's Eye take area. Cleanup of Pig's Eye Dump shouid pro- ceed as laid out in the Remediai Alternatives and Response Action Plan (RAP) approved by MPCA. Industrial uses along Childs Road and the rail- road tracks will continue. Open land (which includes the Heron rookery at the southern tip of Pig's Eye Lake ) will continue in environmentally protected status. � :- _. �. _. , °� kAY��&fi F ; 'a p , .� ��- � ` . .� _ `� -,°`';,�:, _�,�.; . �. ,.�'��. � - � � � �� .. � �a�r,'� r- ' � :' �`, - � . ,..-- �� . � \.. o; ? \ i'? �a. ,, . 9. � Comprehensive Plan 35 bl�la t St�ate�y 3: Enhance the City's to the River T e river provides the city with its most powerful sense of place and its most attraciive natural amenity. The City has the opportunity to redefine the Mississippi River as The °front door" to the city, a deserving role for the city's most unique natural resource and a tremendous soarce of community pride, identity and vitality. The river provides the city with its most powerful sense of place and its most attractive natural amenity. Saint Paul can reclaim its heritage as a river ciry by reconnecting its downtown, neighborhoods and recreational areas to the river and establishing a better connection between its built and natural environments. Recreation opportunities, housing, and mixed-use development will increase in the corridor, creating urban neighborhoods with visual and physical access to the river. (Appendix F contains maps showing parks, trails, overlooks, and historic sites and districts.) Objective 6.1 Erihm�ce opportunities for recreational use of the riverfront by local visitors and tovrists, utilizing parks, open space cmd physical access to the river The picturesque, natural environment of Saint Paul's river corridor provides many desirable open spaces for city residents and tourists to play and relax. Saint Paul's twenty nine miles of river shoreline is the longest stretch of riverfront of any municipality in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and repre- sents one of the city's most significant public amenities. As riverfront indus- trial land has graduatly been converted to parks, park tand has become the SI[tf�Tl2 Id7gPS� USe Ot CIVeT'IT"Oilt Idri� lri J11riC rau'1: iii2�� i vEi'-i.OFFi4-�^vi-, several large regional and city river parks exist, including the following: ♦ Harriet Island Park ♦ Cherokee Park ♦ Crosby Farm Park ♦ Indian Mounds Park ♦ Battle Creek Park ♦ Kellogg Mall Park ♦ Lilydale Park ♦ Raspberry Island ♦ Hidden Falls Park ♦ Pigs Eye Lake Park ♦ Lower Landing Pazk ♦ Mississippi River Boulevard Opportunities for further e�cpansion and enhancement of river parks and open spaces exist. As stated in the City's Parks & Recreation Plan, the City � will pursue opportunities and partnerships to acquire land specifically for 36 City ofSaint Paul � � � � � 1 � � � � � {Y � � � :_J �_J � � open space and natural resources protection according to any of the fol- lowing criteria. ♦ Areas containing species included on the State or Federal list of endan- gered or threatened species; ♦ Areas representing significant landforms, native plant communities, sen- sitive habitat, or historical events; ♦ Areas that connect existing components of the open space network; and ♦ Areas adjacent to existing parkland/open space. In addition to threatened and endangered species, the State of Minnesota classifies species of "special concem". (Listed in Appendix C). While this category does not have the same regulatory status as threatened or endan- gered species, areas that contain these species and their habitats should also be considered for preservation. Riverfront redevelopment activities can provide opportunities for expansion and enhancement of the city's riverfront open space system as well. The Saint Paul Renaissance Project, sponsored by the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, marks a substantial effort towards this end. The Renaissance Project is an integrated network of public spaces, parks, trails, greenways, and connections that relinks Saint Paul's downtown and its neighborhoods to the Mississippi River. The network builds on investments currently underway and emanates from the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development FYamework. Within the river comdor, many of the existing adjacent open spaces are connected and established as regional parks, including: Haniet Island- Lilydale-Cherokee, Mississippi Gorge-Hidden Falls-Crosby Farm and Battle Creek-Pigs Eye. Potential e�ansions, connections and enhancements of the river corridor open space system include the restoration of the Lower Phalen Creek area, connecting the river and Swede Hollow Park, and a restoratian of the Trout Brook Reach, with a trail connection to the Willard Munger Trail. Other enhancements of the river corridor open space system include development of a Pigs Eye Greenway, renovation of Raspberry OI — t �7 ; ; �i;v �� . � :� �:� ai,;.:� ..>. r� � �i .� ,. � �6 �� ;; � s,. � ., �4: � , s ;; � �, � � �: ?p � q� � � � Comprehensive Plan 37 b[� � Island, a major renovation of Harriet Island Lilydale Regional Park, and new open space created by the realignment of Shepard Road. The reali�nment of Shepard Road just west of downtown will significantly increase public access to the river in that area of the river corridor. Policies; 6.1.1 Large areas of open space that are currently undeveloped shoutd pre- serve fish and wildlife resources, plant communities, and biological diver- sity. Some open space areas may be suitable for passive recreation (e.�. trails for hiking, biking, bird-watching); others, such as the Pig's Eye Lake area and the bluffs at Cherokee Park should be limited to preservation. 6.1.2 The City will continue to add to its riverfront open space system, making it more continuous and river-related. 6.1.3 The City will require dedication of river corridor parkland as part of river corridor land subdivisions or planned development approvals. Objective 6.2 Preserve and improve existing views to the river cmd bluffs, and develop new ones Saint Paul's river cortidor, wiYh its magnificent bluffs, cavernous gorge and wide river valley provides many unique and scenic views. Visual access to the river, the bluffs and the river corridor provides a sense of place for the general benefit of the public, both city residents and visitors. The various 38 forms of public visual access to the river consist of scenic river views, extended view corridors, overlook points, observation platforms, bridge crossings, aru bluff stairways. Many of the best views of the river exist at key blufftop sites, induding Indian Mounds Park, Upper West Side, Kellogg Mall in downtown Saint Paul, and Mississippi River Boulevard. opportunities exist to create additional river view points in some areas of the city. The neighborhoods in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corri- dor, Battle Creek, and Highwood cunently have few established public view points to the river_ CiCy of Sain[ Paul Figure U Overlooking the river [� � � � � Recently, with funds from multiple sources, blufftop properiy off Springside Drive in the Highwood neighborhood was acquired and dedicated for passive public views. Such actions support this objective, and help to protect the bluffs themselves as described in Chapter 4. The Ciry is currently considering a policy to remove all biliboards from the River Corridor. According to a 1999 inventory, fifteen billboards would be tar- geted for removal from the river corridor if such a policy with associated ordinance is adopted. Policies: ' 6.2.1 The City will work with the river corridor neighborhoods to identify additional river views or view corridors. River views and overlook points should be linked to the city's walking paths and trail system, whenever � feasible. � � 62.2 Ali billboards shouid be removed from the River Corridor and not replaced. The City encourages efforts by neighboring communities to remove River Corridor billboards as well. 6.2.3 The City will encourage the placement of public utilities undeground. � Objective 6.3 Provide a continuous, safe pedestrian and ' bicycle trail along both sides of the river, that is connected to the city and regional trail system � � � � � Pedestrian and bicycle trails are an important way of connecting the city and the river. Such trails also provide environmental and transportation benefits. The City's Parks and Recreation Division is working towards a continuous trail system along both sides of the river with the potential to connect major parks, open spaces, historic sites, view points and public access areas in the river corridor. Implementation of the East Bank Mississippi River Regional 'I7ai1 Corridor Master Plan will provide a continu- ous river trail through the city on the east bank (or north side) of the river. The East Bank Mississippi River Regional Trail is designed to link other city trails, including the Saint Paul Grand Round Loop, Phalen Creek Trail and the Capitol Route Trail, and existing and proposed trails in neighboring jurisdictions. On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport, and in the Pig's Eye Lake area, a river trail is not � planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons. The west bank river trail is planned primarily as an off-road path, with some on-street bike lanes planned near the airport, and on bridges. At � Lilydale Regional Park, the goal is to make the trail completely off-road if an opportunity arises in conjunction with the railroad. , o� ,. �; � � � � � � Comprehensive Plan 39 bl Policies: 6.3.1 As designated in the Parks & Recreation Plan, the City will complete a continuous Mississippi River Trail as close as practical to the river along the entire length oF both sides of the river, including bike lanes on bridge crossings. 6.3.2 Existing and new river trails will accommodate a variety of non- motorized recreational uses, including walking, jogging, biking, skating and ski touring. Bike and pedestrian paths will be separated from each other where physically possible. 6.3.3 The City will coordinate development of the river trail with existing and proposed trails that connect to Saint Paul's river corridor, including city, regional and neighboring communities' trail systems. 6.3.4 The City will pursue easements or public acquisition for future river trail connections in new and existing developments in the river corridor. The City wiil pursue opportunities as appropriate to acquire future aban- doned railroad right-of-ways and appropriate tax-forfeited parcels for acquisition and possible river traiI development. Objective 6.4 Support new housing development in the river corridor, through creation of urban villages. Extend neighborhoods toward the river Especially near downtown, the opportunity exists to create new mixed-use river corridor neighborhoods that reconnect the city to the river. This is also an opportunity to create highly desirable housing that helps achieve the City's projected housing growth target for 2020. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Develo ment Framework's Ten Princi les r -- - ----� -- p p p esent a 6oiistic approach for -" reestablishing river corridor neighborhoods. The Saint Paul Land Use Plan fur- ther articulates the City's vision of Urban Villages as the predominant model for neighborhood development. Strategic locations with highest potential for neighborhood development include Upper Landing/Irvine Park, the West Side River Flats, Lowertown, and the Koch-Mobil and Shepard-Davem sites. The City recognizes that new development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the river should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, and/or should enhance the river environment (discussed in more detail in chapter 5). It is appropriate to consider housing and neighbor- hoods river-enhancing, if careful site planning addresses public access and connections to the river, view corridors and vistas, use of native vegetation in landscaping, and natural resource and stormwater management. See chapter 7 for further discussion of poticies for new development. 40 Ciry of Saint Paul � � � � , � Poiicies: 6.4.1 In strategic river corridor locations adjacent to existing neighbor- hoods, the City supports redeveloping vacant and underused industrial land sites as new mixed-use urban village neighborhoods that help reconnect the city to the river. 6.42 Connections between the tenace neighborhoods and the river may be improved by adding a limited number of pedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, walkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats. ` Objective 6.5 Encourage protection and restoration of river corridor cultural resources, including historic structures, � culturally significant landscapes, and archaeological and ethnographic resources L� � � ' �� Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor, as the birthplace of the City of Saint Paul, contains a variety of important cultural and historical structures and sites. The river conidor's designated historical sites include early Native American river settlements and burial grounds, historic urban districts, river-related recreational buildings, stately public institution and trans- portation buildings, grand private homes, and architecturally unique bridges spanning the Mississippi River. Early economic activity in the river corridor included beer brewing, mushroom farming, and brick making. Nationally designated historic sites in Saint Paul's River Corridor are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (See Appendix B.) The National Register is administered by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), which has ultimate responsibility for evaluating and nominating new sites to the National Register. Locally, Saint Paul's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), created in 1976, is a certified local government historic preservation program with responsibility for identifying and recommending historic buiidings, sites and districts within the city. A historic survey and designation project for the entire city of Saint Paul is currently underway. Currently, officiaily designated historic places consist of structures, sites, districts and objects only. A number of important archaeological sites and landscapes exist in the river corridor that do not contain historic structures. These sites and landscapes have been identified by SHPO, however only one site (Indian Mounds Park) has been designated historic on the National Register. A comprehensive inventory of potential local historic landscapes, archaeological and ethnographic sites is needed to ensure protection of all historic and cultural resources in the river corridor. Compreheasive Plan q� � �� o� z. � � � "� � � � � � � � � � � � vt-IR� Opportunities exist for restoring historic sites in the river corridor as an element of riverfront development planning. The Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse on Raspberry Island, the Harriet Island Pavilion as part of the Harriet Island Master Plan and the various historic river caves are prime examples. Reconnecting the Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic Districts to the river and their historic roots as Saint Paul's upper landing and lower landing also provide key opportunities to restore the riverfront�s historical resources. At the Upper Landing site, the Head House was one of the first agricultural transfer stations on the Mississippi River. The Head House should be studied to determine its potential for reuse, perhaps in conjunc- tion with redevelopment plans. One of the buildings currenUy occupfed by the U.S. Post Office at Kellogg Blvd. and Jackson Street (adjacent to Lambert's Landing) is an example of Art Deco style architecture. If this bui]d- ing or the Concourse of the Union Depot become available for reuse, this Plan supports reuse that is consistent with the vision for downtown and principles laid out in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development F2 Policies: 6.5.1 The City encourages the use of historic properties in public and pri- vate riverfront development plans, particularly where interpretation of historic themes is planned. Structures and landscapes listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and those designated as local sites should be preserved in their present condition, if that condition allows for satisfactory protection, mainYenance, ase, and interpretation. 6.5.2 The City encourages the expansion of open space land use where needed to preserve significant archaeological, landscape and ethno- graphic resources. 6.5.3 The City encourages economic activities that preserve and rehabili- tate historic resources in the river corridor. 6.5.4 With the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the City supports the creation of a Saint Paul HisTOric Preservation Plan that includes establishing a comprehettsive inventory of all historic, archaeo- logical, cultural and ethnographic structures and landscapes in the river comdor. 6.5.5 The City will work to restore the former connection of river corridor historic districts (LOwertown and Irvine Park) to the river, by encoura� ing development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods. � y� City ofSaint Paul , � � ' � � , StY'Qte�1 The design of public and private spaces powerfully affects our perception of the quality and character of place. Where the city comes to the Mississippi River, the urban fabric has potential to reflect and glorify Saint Paul's natural setting. The river corridor's varied landforms and existing development pat- terns pose opportunities and challenges for new development to enhance the river valley by providing access to the river and reinforcing continuity in the existing urban fabric. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework has become the � City's essential reference for guiding new development in and around the downtown riverfront. This chapter draws heavily from that work. The inten- ' � tion of this chapter is to support and reinforce the principles articulated in the FYamework while considering the entire River Corridor and implications for all of its land typologies. Urban Structure and Land Forms The river corridor's urban structure is a multi-layered patchwork of movement � systems, land uses, and built form. Movement is multi-modal, characterized by rail lines, major arterials, neighborhood streets and trails. West Seventh Street, or Oid Fort Road, is especially significant because it is the city's longest arterial � running parallel to the river. It is also a major growth corridor connecting to downtown. Shepard Road is another significant river road. It runs parallel to � the river and West Seventh Street, and will soon be rebuilt as an improved and slower speed parkway east of Randolph. Currently, Shepard Road acts as an impediment to river access and e}cperiences. � ,� � The north side of West Seventh Street is characterized by the ordinal grid. Generally, because of the change of land use from residential to industrial, this grid of streets is not continuous across West Seventh. It extends across into pockets of smali residential areas, but because of the grid's spotty nature, residential neighborhoods south of West Seventh do not create a continuous urban fabric. The Terrace and Lowlands are important locations that provide the opportu- � nity for meaningful connections from the Uplands to the river. Currently, the Tenace along West Seventh Street is perceived as disconnected from the Upland neighborhoods of Saint Paul because so few streets traverse the � bluff. In fact, the only connections are from the main streets of the Upland �:.� � : nas � � � � � � s� � � � � � � � Comprehensive Plan 43 � Built Environment bl-I R t grid {Snelling, Randolph, St. Clair, Grand/Ramsey, Fairview/Edgcumbe) that extend down the bluff as parkways or major river avenues. For the same reason, the Lowlands on the West Side also seem disconnected from the Uplands. Topographically, the Terrace corridor is formed by the High Bluffs on both sides of the river. Atop the bluffs lie several high points and landmark buildings, providing a series of vistas visually connecting neighborhoods to each other. Natural reaches are formed where the bluffs are interrupted by the ravines. These reaches provide further opportunities to connect the Tenace and river vaIley to the Upland neighborhoods. The map betow shows the approacimate location of the landforms that make up the river valley and its reaches in Saint Paul. The map also shows the boundary of the Critical Area, which contains the entire tength of the 44 City of Saint Paul , river in Saint Paul. While the influence of the river valley clearly extends Figure v be nd the Critical Area bounda the olicies in this Pian aze under- River Vatley and � �� p Critieal Area stood to be limited to the Critical Area in Saint Paul. boundary � � � ' � � , � Objective 7.1 Development ofnew streets, blocks, and neighborhoods in the river corridor should continuously reinforce connections with the natural enviranment of the river vaIIey cmd the surrounding urban fabric The street grid, or pattem of streets, blocks, and open space forming public and private spaces, determines both the movement patterns and develop- ment pattems of a district. These development patterns provide an impor- tant opportunity to connect with and e�cperience the river. The best exam- ple of this in Saint Paul is in the West Side blufftop neighborhoods west of Wabasha/Humboldt, where blocks are small and connect regularly (at least every 400 feet) with a riverview street, park or sidewalk. In other areas, particularly the West Side Lowlands, redeveloped industrial "superblocks" have the effect of isolating blufftop neighborhoods from the river. The poli- cies below do not preclude industrial redevelopment on industrially-zoned land. However, other redevelopment should consider Yhe opportunity to reestablish meaningful connections to the river. Policies: � 7.1.1 In the Lawlands, new urban villages (as defined in Objective 6.4) should establish an urban street grid that provides access to the river's edge. The City supports utilizing historic street patterns when re-creating ' street grids. If a historic grid does not exist, new urban villages should establish a fine-grained system of blocks and streets. When feasible, new � development should also assure urban continuity by integrating all new street and block patterns into existing traditional patterns. � 7.1.2 The Terrace along West Seventh Street is a major corridor that should have better street connections across West Seventh. The City supports creating new biock and � street pattems south of West Seventh Street that create continuity across West Seventh. New block and street pat- terns on the Terrace should maximize connections to the ' bluff edge to enhance the sense of proximity to the river. � , � � 7.1.3 In Upland areas such as the Gorge, the City encour- ages preserving and enhancing the existing modified grid pattem of streets and blocks. In portions of Battle Creek and Highwood, development form follows a suburban or exurban pattem with cul-de-sacs and meandering roads that follow topography. In these neighborhoods without a connected street system, the City supports creating a connected system as redevelopment or major subdivision occurs, to the extent that it is compatible with topography. �� ..._ , b/- � ;�� : � �' �� .. � �< : �': .' � ; � �v� � �� >� �? a �� : �� e �� <' �� ; s: � �� Comprehensive Plan 45 b(�I�I 1.4 Infill development in the Uplands should be scaled and designed to be compatibte with and reinforce the existing physical fabric. 7.1.5 Street design should accomodate all modes of movement (bicycles, pedestrians and cars). Streets and other public rights-of-way should provide physical and visual connections between river valley neighbor- hoods and the river's edge. 7.1.6 On urban infill and redeveJopment sites in the river corridor, the City encourages underground parking wherever possible, to support "traditional" urban development patterns and to minimize impervious surface. 7.1.7 New and reconstructed bridges or other "gateways" should be designed to be attractive and inviting and maximize the sense of con- nection to the river. This can be accomplished with signage, landscaping treatments, omamental lighting and railings, comfortable sidewalks, and special architectural elements. The Wabasha Bridge and Marshall Avenue Bridge are good examples. New river crossings shouid be mini- mized, and new and reconstructed bridges should be located in the same corridor as the structure they replace. 7.1.8 The City should connect new and existing neighborhoods to the river by greening key streets that connect to the riverfront or river parkways. Objective 7.2 Consistent with an Urban setting, the design of new buildings should reflect the river corridor's natural chcu�acter and respond to topography by preserving critical public views. 46 Built form and building envelopes are a function of height, density and floor plate size. In the river corridor, building scale becomes very important as it relates to topography, views and the surrounding urban fabric. Recently, the City has become much more attentive to this, and now encourages buildings whose scale responds to the surrounding neighbor- hood context, topography and the public realm. In general, it is important to pre- serve public views both of the river from the city and neighborhoods, and fram the City ofSaint Pau! C�.�y�� Y Downtown RiverFro�: critiwl public views 6/—!`� � � a jN a � �; ' river back to the city. However, Saint Paul is an urban condition. ' Occasionally, it is permis- sible and even desirable to allow selective excep- ' [ions for medium-scaled landmarks. , � ' Policies: f��rG,�e �'�a�; _; �, t�—y�-�_��: ��.�: 7.2.1 In Lowland areas, new development should employ building envelopes that heighten the experience of the river corridor by preserv- ing public views to the top of the High Bluff. Public views from the Uplands or Terrace to the water edge of the opposite side of the river should be maximized. 7.22 Along urban growth corridors such as West Seventh Street, building ' envelope standards should be used that recognize not only the importance of the river as a scenic waterway and the corridor as a natural resource, I� ' � but also the needs and appropriateness of massing and density in an urban environment. 72.3 In redevelopment areas along the West Seventh Street Terrace, the street hierarchy of the grid should be reinforced by creating building envelope standards that recognize the importance of locating taller buildings on wider streets and shorter buildings on narrower streets. 7.2.4 On the West Seventh Street and Concord Street Terraces, the City � supports designing buildings with equal consideration given to their visi- bility from the river and to their visibility from the Uplands. The City sup- ports maintaining building heights that maximize public views of the , high biuff lines from the high water mark on the opposite side of the river. Planning for Terrace redevelopment sites should be careful to con- ' sider views of the Terrace from Fort Snelling as referenced in the Design Criteria for the Shepard-Davem zoning overlay. ' II I� , 7.2.5 Building design should add vitality to the street and sidewalk by pro- viding street- levei windows and active street-level uses, semi-public spaces in front of buildings, and front doors facing the street. 72.b In Upland areas, the general character of the existing silhouette of lower- profile buildings along the edge should be maintained. Development should also respect the mature tree canopy at the bluff edge of the Uplands with buildings forms that do not dominate the canopy's natural height. However, occasional, modest exceptions to the silhouette with medium-scaled landmark buildings are allowed. �� :; �: � ��'� � Comprehensive Plan q� or-r�i �.2.7 The City supports the use of "green," or energy efficient building techniques in new developments. 7.3 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites As described in the Setting Chapter, to complete this River Corridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, along with the Saint Paul Design Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment siYes. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. Ideaily, new development should provide greater public access to the river, preserve significant public views, improve stormwater and the urban forest on site, and reinforce and complement the sunounding urban fabric. Illustrations of how On the following pages are suggested guidelines for the West Side Flats, these guidelines might Upper Landing, Koch-Mobil and ADM sites, and the Shepard Davern area. be applied can be found The individual guidelines should not be viewed as mandates, and it is in Appendix A. unlikely that any project wilt be able to fulfill every provision. Rather, col- lectively they provide a vision for redevelopment that enhances the river corridor, respects this precious amenity, and strikes a batance between eco- nomic development and resource protection. This list is not exhaustive. These suggested guidelines witl be used as the basis for the next step in the regulatory process (see Section 8.1.8). Figure Z River Cortidor RedevelopmeM Sites 48 Ciry of Saint Paul , 0�-�4 / ' , , , , � , � , , , n ' ' � � O � Site: WEST SIDE PLATS LocaHon: Be[ween Robert and Wabasha, Mississippi River and Plato Access and Connections • Ea�end adjacent streets into and through the redevelopment site. • Preserve the rail corridor as a poten- tial greenway corridor. �ews and V'vstas • Preserve views of the West Side Bluffs from Keltogg Park. • Ensure views of the riverfront by ori- enting streets perpendicular to the nver. Developmen[ Pattern � Create a concentration of taller build- ings and aaivity and the intersection of Plato and Robert. • Create small blocks, bound by public right-of-way, that can be developed incre- mentally and in response to maeket con- ditions. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space along the riveCS edge. • Extend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native Iandscapes; encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natura] habitau. 5tormwater • Integrate stormwater management elements with natural habitaks, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater discharge. Urban Forest • Reintroduce the'urban forest' with- in/around redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active / passive recreational use wi[h paths, overiooks, seating areas, courts/fields. • Provide visible/accessible connections to neighborhood and regional parks, trails and open space systems. Site: UPPER LANDINCs Locadon: &etween the xigh Bridge and Chestnut Ave., Mississippi River and Irvine Park Neighborhood Access and Connections • Provide multiple connections to Shepard Road, an urban boulevard. Views and V'LStas • Provide an anchoring public space that celebrates the Chesmut Street / Cathedral axis and arrival to the river. • Provide view corridors through [he site from potential ]ower bluff overlooks (not in redevelopment sites) to the river. Development Pattern • Create small blocks that can be devel- oped incrementatly and in response to market conditions. • Create a series of linking public and private spaces oriented to both the river and to Shepard Road as well as other sig- nificant spaces, views and landmarks, such as the High Bridge and downtown. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space a]ong the river's edge. • Extend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native ]andscapes; encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natura] habitats. Stormwater • integrate stormwater management etements with natural habitats, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater discharge. Urban Forest • Reintroduce the 'urban foresY with- in/around redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active / passive recreational use with pa[hs, overlooks, seating areas, courts/fields. • Provide visible/accessible connections to neighborhood and regional parks, tra�ls and open space systems. Site: KOCH MOBIL {Also ADM site) Location: Between Randolph and West 7th; W. 7th and Mississippi River Access and Connecrions • Extend existing streets into and through the redevelopment site • Extend Vicroria Street through the sde to join Montreal Avenue. • Create a"Bluff Dnve° as a local resi- dentiai street atop [he lower bluff park that connects West 7th to the River valley �ews and Vistas • Create multiple views of the river val- ley where s[reets mtersect the bluff drive Development Patterns • Organize street and block development around a wide street or linear park that connects West 7th to [he River Valley Natural Resources • Provide a continuous new public edge along blufftop with native landscapes, pedestrian pathways and developed over- Iaoks. • Extend tandscaped "green fingers" into new development areas along new streets and public pathways. Stormwater • Capture runoff on exisung and newly � Comprehensive Plan 49 (7(�1°E1 developed sites and begin water treat- ment, infiltration process (parlcPng lots, rooftops, terraces). • Integrate final treatment, in5liration and detention systems into the public edge behind the blafftop and into the pat- tem of pazks and squazes, streets and public pathways. • Provide surface system of catchment areas, swales, infilnation and detention areas. Urban Forest •[nstall canopy trees on all new streets; infill canopy trees on e�sting streets. • Develop natural forest along bluff top and bluff face with groves of native trees, grasses and other planiings. Public Amenities • tink public edge to new parks, squares and to existing neighborhoods and regional parks and trails with land- scaped streets and public pa[hways. • Naturalize Shepard Roadlandscape with praide and informally arranged groves oftrees. • &�ctend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the nver. Stortnwater • Develop integrated, comprehensive surface stormwater'treatment train' with swales, wetlands and ponds to address waYer quantity / quality issues. • Integrate stomtwater management elements with natural habi[ats, pubGc open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. Urban Forest • infill canopy trees on existing and redevetoped street grid. • Provide natural groves of native understory and canopy trees along Shepard Road and the public edge along the btufftop. Site: SHEPARD DAVERN Location: Between West 7th and Shepard Rd.;Between Davern and Alton S[reets Access and Connections • F�ctend existing streets into and through the redevelopment site. • Consider creating a direct cormecflon between St. Paul i'kwy. and Alton Street. • Provide mid-block pedestrian connec- tions between neighborhood and Shepard Road. Vews and Y�stas • Preserve natural views from the Kiver to the high bluff by setting buildings all buildings back from the Iow bluff and by providing generous tree planting on Shepard Road Development Paftern • Provide neighborhood green public spaces on which new residential development can be focused. • Enhance existing public edge with native landscapes (oak savanna and prairie), improved paths and developed overlooks. Pnblic Amenities • Enhance continuous public edge along bluff top wi[h new access stairs to Crosby Park, new overlooks, sitflng areas, infor- mation kiosks, biKe racKs and other amenities, • Link public edge to neighborhood parks and squares and regional trail sys- [ems aiong landscaped streets and public pathways. • Provide improved crossings of Shepard Road with enhanced crosswalks, signafized crossings and other amenities 50 City of Saint Paul ' � Ll u � � C � � ' , , , I� ' , � � i Impiementation 8.1 Zoning Code Revisions There will be significant zoning text amendments related to implementa- tion of this Plan. This Plan is unrelated to the Mississippi River Floodway Study by FEMA, which will yield changes in the floodway delineation for the City's zoning map. However, those changes (which will include changes to the river corridor overlay Floodway and Flood Fringe districts) will inform the process of making river corridor zoning code and overlay map revi- sions. The main 2oning recommendations from this River Corridor Plan are: 1. Review and amend current River Corridor overlay zoning districts and map. Currently, river corridor overlay zoning consists of four districts, with two dis- tinct functions. The districts labeled RC-1 and RC-2 together protect the flood- plain. The districts labeled RC-3 (Urban Open District) and RC-4 (Urban Diversified District) are intended to guide the character of development, but are confusing and contribute little to the overlay. Underlying zoning districts determine land use. Generai standards for environmental protection apply to the whole river corridor, regardless of the overlay districts. Consider splitting the cunent River Corridor overlay into two: a"floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RGI and RG2 which govems the floodplain, and a single district "Mississippi River Critical Area" or "MRCA" combining RG1, RG2, RC-3 and RG4, and which addresses Critical Area requirements. 2. Add requirement of 200-foot spacing between marinas or boat launches and barge fleeting areas. 3. Add criteria for new uses in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark: having an economic or operational need for a river location; supporting the attractiveness of surrounding neighborhoods; sus- taining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements; offering public access to and along the river; maintaining views of the river; cleaning up poiluted areas on the site; meeting or exceeding natural resource policies in this Plan. (These criteria do not all have to be met for a land use to be con- sidered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new development should meet as many of these criteria as possible.) 4. The current primary zoning districts RCR-1, RCC-i and RCI-i are not partic- ularly effective in terms of standards, and are in some cases inconsistent with the City Land Use Plan's vision for mixed-use urban villages. This Plan sup- ports redefining these zoning districts to meet current development concepts. Comprehensive Plan 5� �,/ : �.� �; �. �.: �-: � � � r .:� er- i �� 5. Together with the Department of Natural Resources, review/amend River Corridor section of the Zoning Code (Chapter 65) for other necessary changes. In addition, staff will work to clarify and streamline language wherever possible. 6. Create zoning definitions for toe, top, and face of bluff. 7. Consider creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river corridor modification requests for deveIopment on slopes exceeding I2 or I8%, or within the bluff impact area (40' from the bluff line). The intent is not to encourage river corridor modifications, but to provide the Planning Commission with further guidance when considering modification requests. Such criteria may address, but are not limited to, the following factors: ♦ Retain the natuzai slope lines of the site, as seen in profile. Restore the vegetation lines which convey the slope lines. Roof pitch shoutd match slope angle. ♦ Screen new buildings. ♦ Slopes facing the river should look natural to the greatest extent possible. ♦ Stagger or step building units according to the topography. ♦ Plan buildings, drives and parking areas, and Iandscaping to acknow[- edge the natural contour line of the site. ♦ Provide parking on the uphill side behind buildings. ♦ Lot coverage. ♦ Location of building on lot. � - � e:g _ii'idCct=idi�; vtiik,-Siiaf+2, �rl�:r�^:=«, L.^,.�,.. -� ♦ Areas with a certain pitch of slope (e.g. greater than 12% and less than 18%) shall not have an impervious surface coverage �reater than a certain percentage (e.g. greater than 25%). ♦ Encourage elevated structures & retaining walls. ♦ No increase in runoff from the site (from rainfall, septic systems, irrigation). ♦ Minimal removal of deep-rooted woody vegetation. 8. With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, wilI develop design guide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites where no guidelines have yet been written. The design guidelines will be sensitive to the purposes of S2 City of Saint Paul , , C J �� (] � ' , ' !� � this Plan, and wiil clarify how the form and scale of development can incor- porate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public enjoyment of the river. It is expected that such guidelines will be imple- mented through a variery of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Village Zoning project, site-specific guidelines, and possibly through design dis- tricts (a concept that is currently being developed). The Shepard-Davern redevelopment area already has created design guidelines through a 1999 Small Area Plan. Appendix A shows illustrations for the five redevelop- ment sites based on the work of the Design Study. Current state law provides that zoning must be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan within six months of the Plan's adoption, which puts the zoning deadline in ,200X . Given the extent of likely river corridor zon- ing teact amendments, and the already numerous zoning changes from the Land Use Plan, it will likely take the City longer to complete the zoning changes that are proposed in this plan. 8.2 Site Plan Review Guidelines Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate pro- visions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse envi- ronmental impacts of new development. The City will wark with the Department of Natural Resources to determine if amendments to site plan review guidelines are necessary. This will occur during the Ordinance revi- sion process which will follow adoption of this Plan. 8.3 Pazk & TYail System Development � The City Parks 6z Recrea�on Plan (1996) includes an implementation plan for park resource protection, park land acquisition, scenic overlook clearance, envi- ronmental educaUon and intetpretive programs, and development of trails. Park ' plans include completion of the regional Mississippi River'IYail on both sides of the river, connecting to trail segments in adjacent municipalities. ' � Other open space and greenway pro}ects in or near the river corridor are shown, see figure AA on page 54. , Comprehensive Plan 53 b� 1 Figure AA River Corridor Open Space and Greenway Projeets Creek Greenway Oesnoyer NeighEOmoad Sway Managemcsa Plan Pig's Eye Gremscape P1an � I Greming Pr �ec¢ � Sme Blutf Task Force �N/SCO) qlytlakPark HarzretisianaRegiwui Marter Plan Park Mam Pian EaA 0ank Misinippi Rrver Regional irail MaAer P�an �dSE Birytle/Petlesman Conrren�on Fort Snelheg Maser Plan 8.4 Heritage Preservadon Opportunities exist for the preservation and/or enhancement of the historic character of the river; ♦ Enhance visitor access and historical interpretation of Rumtown (across from Fort Snelling, on the riverfronq and Fountain Cave (currently marked with a historical marker at Shepard Road and Randolph Avenue). ♦ Implement Saint Paul Gateway Design Project (Route 5 entry into the city), reuse of the old stone bridge abutment at Gannon and Shepard Road, historic streetscape improvements to the Shepard-Davem area. ♦ Connect Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic Districts to the riverfront. ♦ The historic Intercity Bridge (more commonly known as the Ford Bridge) is scheduled to be redecked and resurfaced beginning in spring 2000. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities as part of con- struction. Include wide sidewalks, ornamental lighting and railings, bike lanes, and viewing decks with bettches (similar to those added to the Marshall Avenue Bridge). ♦ Install signage at the scenic overlook by the Ford Motor Company to explain the historic significance of the Ford Bridge and the importance of the Lock & Dam No.l. The sign should indicate that a visitors' center is across the Ford Bridge. 54 City of Saint Paul � r� � , ! � �� E � � , � � � �� , L_ J , Appendices Design Study ltlustrations for Redevelopment Sites Below are examples of the possible application of suggested design guide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites, described at the end of Chapter 6. The drawings are for illustrative purposes only. awau. � B YexsantlYisfas ProvpeanancnanngpuNicSpacaNatcelebratesmeChwmNStreett GNetlral aus anE Mivel to Ne nver. wnampr.q. C:UewsantlYvstasPmnEeviewmttxbrsNmughNeslefiompolen4allowxNURoveAooks mN+� (notinreCevelopments@�btl�enver F.w m.l �� OevelopmeniPavem, CrealesmallbbcksNalcan be0evebpetl muemmtallya� respon� srvdyiomarkel WndNOns E DeveloF.menlPat�m;Createaserasofl�WSigp�M�candpmatesNacesomntetlrobotl+fie nverend b Sh epad Rwd as well as othx s�gnificant spaces. vrews antl land marks such a s ,,,,,,,- IheHgh&idgeantldowntawn. e: Br.i ma : cs3p a}.sidwid�ng Mges lo define public st2et5 and space az mdral¢d on &uAStrudureCw�osieMap A NatualResources Pmvdewnhnuouspubicopenspacealongnrer'sedge B. NaWalRewurces�Ex@nalantlscapetl'GmmAngerSmbnewtleve�opneniblocksconnec� ing w,tl� pudm open space abng Ne nver. C. NapealResourcesEnwu�epreserva0ondevsOngnaOvalantlsapes,e�u2qed�4ngs of�4vamalenalsinOaWrziv¢dmassi�gs loenhancewcfe9@naNralhabihis D.S{umwa�r.lnte¢afesM�mwain¢femen6vng�na9f21habq6,RUMwoyxnspaceaea5antl parklreaeafim aPP°rWnNes. E. SWmwa�RedureNerateanGimpmrefiequa�iryofslamwafertlisdiarge UpperladmgGreenSVUCNreCOrr4wsiteMap F.UrbanFOrestReintroducelhe'uNanMesC�nN�NarountlreEevelopmentareas Thetetms"HighasP,°Matlium",antl"LowesCcortespondtoNis G Pubf¢Ameni4es.5upportartixofanrve/passrverecrea0onaluseu+NpaNs.avetlooks. individual sita, and sh0ultl not be iMeepretetl as a uniform stantlaN. 5ea4ngareas, courlslfieltls. H.PUGicAmeni6es Prpntlev¢�bkla¢assDleconnechon5loneighborhaWa�tlregiOnalpaMS. trails anE open space sy5tems. S REOEVELOPMENT SITlS Site UPPERLANDIN� � I / Tqpology Low lazd5 Ll� � / Loca9on BeMreanNeHighBnCgeantlChesNUtAVenue; G � � ,/ g � Miss�ssippiMerandUnneParkNeighborhooE GwEelines. - � - �� 0 ��.,' 2 „ q u „ n . 0.AsessandConnec4a�is:ProntlemulUPlemnnednnsroSheparGRwtl.anu�banboulevaN , Comprehensive Plan - Appendices S5 c�r-�a � 5 M1amltMbggPmb , x•.ttsmxs�mm . q� / 0 I i wmxure ,t / /i�i _ �'•\ ,� / <;��-,'>. a:�a�5:` � ��i��'� —_�-�� n�. ,�. SITES 5k. WESTSIOEFfATS i LaM Cbssifxatlon low fands Laptinn: 6eiween Ra6eRand Wabasha; w�.. M'ssissppR�erandPW� �,.. Guiaelines A A.axssandCmnecbo�EZlenEad�acent5Vee6mWaMNmu,gl� hereEevelop�rrtnt a��cro � B:Oaess antl ConneNms: Presene Ne ral mmdor as a po�entiai greenway mmtlar � � CVeuSa�tlYwmsPresnevie+SOfPxWfftSde&'NtshanKPJW99Pa�k % ^� �� v�� \.��F vmw-w 6FssueHewsaFNemuftdrtq'arentin9stleebpe@entliwlarbUemnr � �� 1 � �'` Y � EDevebpineNPa�BmsGea@smatlhbrks,bounE blw'htafwa Ma�canbe i . - e "' Mw � r vpna�rt/� ,,.� �,�.,�# ��"�mentallyantlresponvaelyNmarketwntlitians W �� re �� F:OevdopnmtPatlem.Creafeaw�ntralianaflaJelbudd'ngsanEadrvrtyaMfne iNersechonofPlatoaidRObeit t� / l v � G:&nNPoim:Pm�iAerequiredbuATmgeLgesNGefineWblicsiree5antlspacesa5indicaiea ev�' anB�dtSbucWreCmiposdeMap. � A '� o, � / ��d� ANabualRemurces:ProYtlecon6nUasWbl�copenspacealongnversede,e_ � /�.,�)��\ & Na�valResources.Eqe�dlai�'capnl'GreenfmgelSimo�wrkvebpmen[bbckswrt�ect _� �U��-!�\ ingvxMWbticopenspxealan9Nenver. � V� '__� C Nabva�RescwresE:amzgeA��at�ofe.VSlm9naArelandtt�xsmvregeda+in5s �� `. oFnaovemateeialsinnaWraimdmazsm9sbenAaraeoraeatenwuaih�dais F �� %\ O.Sbrmwater:lnffiga@sbrm�alnelemenLSwf�hnaWralhahita6.Wbticopenspueareasantl � Pxkfre�eetionaP ��~ " E Somm'alecRetluceihea@antlinrym�etl�equatiryofsmrmwater0ischarye West ffide Fla6: Geen Stru W re Compos� Map F. Ui6anFprestftemQoEuceNelubanforestwiNiNarandreEevetopmen(areas ' The [erms "HighesP. "Matlium". antl "LOwesC corraspantl to this Individualsite,aridshouWnotbaiMerpre[edasaUnifonnstandartl. GPUbIicArcrenNes:SUpp�rtam¢afx4velpassrverepeafirn�usevnNpaths.overlooks uat'n9meas.muRSTreHs M. PuWCPmauties.Pmvq¢yo2MJa�55blewnnecLOnsbn¢�9hbwhoW antlregional0�s tratls antl open space sys@ms. Si@ ADM Land GlazsficaAOn. Tertace �� Laatio� BeNrernRantlalphH�2,TOron[oAVeantlShepaNRtl Gmtlalines: A AcauarA Connechonc edentleus6ngstreekmmmitlMmugh iheretlerebpmm; MaBwf $I�P @mW� & MceSSaitlCOn�tlons CreatEa'Blulf�me'asalo�2lr¢sipen�alSV¢etaNpneb��erbWff � � CViewsaritlVabs.Q�kmu�levrewsMNenverralkywhrfestree6inrerse�TeMUffdme. � D:Ceve'opm_ntPaf�mrQgart¢espcetaMWpy;Eeve�bprcenlamundaw,destrc=twlmear parkwhichmnneqs Westl"rothalliverVJley. �e.�� ..._- _ E:BUdtkrm PraridetxM��buDtlm4etlgestotlefineP�U§cstreeisandspacesasinmpreoa:r Butt ScucNre Composile hF� AOM:BU3t5wmreCwrposi@Map H'NaWralRaartceS:RandeonAnmus�wPUNK edge along blufllop mN nx6u� lantlxapes i �.J� ' ��.�i�� a�m�a�n.anaraa�wa�aorenowa. �„�.�!� �.,�� `�" � B.NahualResomcesEv4rAlaneECa�etl°grc¢nfingerdmbr�ewaerebpmentaressabngnew �/�� ;� F sbee4andpuUiepaMways ��' C:S�mmrAx� WreNnoRmensnn andnerA deveio eg — c �� i�katianqacess(pa�lunglols,rooAOps.lenaasl. �srtesantlb nwatuVea�nem — �I �l' �.oF.c 6 Sbnw�ler.P%idem�Fawsysl¢rnW�trJm¢ntaen.swaMS,infiltrationandtla'enoonzmas J � '. • EStwniwatx:IntegralefinalUeatrm.nt,uddrtatima�itlelenYansyslemir�pqibl�eEgebemnd 7 x « bqMtoya�tlFblheV��o(P�aitl`quarE strre6aiMaitlW�KWNwa�s 0.0.E0� �w'+^^ / /: � F U�OanFar�l.NStallcdnopytre¢sonallnewstreef5;�nfillWiwpytreesanensOnastreets 6 WWnFweSt�re�natu.afOrestalmgWNffopandWURfarevntl�giuwsofnaMelrees. AOMGreenSWrnueComyosfsMap 9�santloNerplanUm�s " Thetertns"Highest",°Metlium",and"LOwesCCOrrespontliothis H��blicPmeniOes.�nkpu�I�ced9eN�wpaAcs,square52ntltoewsAigneighbomcotlsantl intlivitlualsHa,antlshaultlnoibeiMerpre[etlasaunifarmsbndard. ��7��'�swM`a^dscapetlstree6antlpuEh�pyfiways � �¢��bkd4wVNe no pe Ev y y py yi¢ Cmryrenersire PNn IYer Sub hvl ane q PmceM awnc m� pY m s:o:�ren� 56 City of Saint Paul , dl � , , �� , , � , �� .� �� u � � � �� w.c�nsu wae�n• e�mm�a Fm. aw..<•...n ��s�r ewn �e. � r� �....,. ...... , � -� ��, � � �I °�` �,,� ° � � �� Y � KochMON W��ISWCEUe(bmPOSiRM� Sfe: KOCH MOBIL LaiC Clamfrabon: Tertare Laatim: BeNremf�iddpla�dWes[7N: w� Guidelines A MBSS2MCmne.tip�eqeqe�%IAgstrez6inloS�tlNm�gh Neretle.xbpe�tsi;e B: A�sanECvna.Pm: �dViYOrmAVenetivaughttes�em{tlnNankeaAVemu C: A�varMCannxWns:Creaka'BIU9Um'asalGale�tlenlialmeetaaPme Wr.vrGU4 o: v��na��s�aea:e�e,�wsmmem��uer•�rn�amre�nme azna� E OewJOpnentPa��:Uga�strcetantldockEemlopnmtardmdawidestreetorfrear parkwhNi� wnrre�6 WestTPo 8�e RiverYaGey. F:@vkFrcm:PrOritlercq�ivedtu2dngeN,�wsNdefi�VUMKStreelsand sP�sasin&caKd on BudlStru W re Comp�le Map a r�aemaae.��es v��aeo�m��ws�ew�umKmyesn�yaumw�mremrei�escace:. pedeslnanpatl�waysanddevebpMovaboks. B: NaWrdReswrces:EtleiG WdscaP� �9�^�°5er5inbnavEewk?mentareaszbn9new str�alsanaDub�cpatliwa�s. C Slamwarer.CaDdremnoHOnevstingentlnexlydeealopeESrtesaMbeginwatelpeamrenl, m(II20onprocvss�patltingloLS,rooMps,imraces) 6 Sbmmvdu:Provqesurfa�sys@mofraltlenentarea5,swalas.iMiltraAmardtlelmLwareas E SlormwaterintsJrzl¢fin�ireahicenl,in�behonanOtlelentionsyslgnNbpub4cedgebehind bkAfloP mk mfo Ne P�m of patro arb s9u�Mes. sUeeS antl D� �YS f llAanFaesllnshllcanopyVeesmaYnewstree5,infillca�wpyp¢¢soneustngsVeels G: llAa� Foresl0evelop naWra14re5taW�g bluR top anO WuRfa� wiN gmve: of naove trees, grazsas ana omerqantiigs. ` Theterms"Highest","Medium",antl"LowesY'cortespontltothis H.PUWicPmenNes.linkWa��ewpaACS.sqvaresantlioedsbngnsghborhoo0santl individualske,andshouldnotbeinterpra[edasauniformstandard �e9�0.^alpaMSantltra5withlanasppedstreelsanLWblicpaNways Si@: SHEPAROOAVEPN LanE Clapiflratlan' Tertace y �� 4xatlon BeRVeviWestiNa+�7EA�epardRd, eWn..r Betr�eenDavemAVenveandPJrooAVenue e�uasqEaw Gmeaiines. A. A�sa anE Gonnecppns eq¢N evshng sbe¢IS mb aM Ihmug� Ne reEevxlopmeni site Mef6vn' a�wnreEaae B.ACcessantlCOnnecWns GonsdxaeaMgadreciconneyonpelweenSLPaulPkwyandAlbnAve L'AaeuaMCOnnecpons pmrJemkblxhpeEeArienmrvRrAOrepeixeenneg�boiMOtl aMShepaN in..n• a�vamvHVa O:YemantlYSpt pe5menaWrziNewbhomNeFnrerbMehigM1bluHbyumngbukmqsaRhulCings hack Gom tlre pw blMantl Oy 0�� 39��us tree planrtng on SM1epaC Roatl _ t vea� E OwebpmentPaMm PmxAerleghboMOOEgrenpubfcspacesonxlvchnenresWenOal tlevxlopmen� � qnbeloosei. - S�eOmdqj • • � f Auxsauvp� �- m.er F,9�MFam ProJdaeedune]du�Wrgc�esbdefineWNCStree6aMapznspacesartA��¢Eon9vi¢ StruchueCampazleMap Sp�ficbW tlmg hagM Sin mLd y ea� multl bean ah�utlpyview s heEana�yss ShepetlDawm �iAShvcNreCamW��V A NaNal Resaurts FnM1ance ensEn9 Wblic edpe mih naGVx IantlsraP� loaY u�ar�na atl Vairre) �mN�tl DSM1S aM dewbpeC a+eMaNs B Nalural Remurces Nffi�rYiu Shepartl Rcad lantlscape xM prane miC inlormN�y anange0 grwes oi Mes C NaNNResourmsEtterdlandwyetl�G¢¢nFVgertnNnewtlereiopmemElWSroru�en egmN puhlw oPai s0am eIm91M1e mer, D. Sloimwa�:Omlopint¢grAed.mmqeh¢n.du¢a�xe9ormwa'ertreaMenttran vnNSVaks w91aM and w�as m aaaressvamraumiAblauaM'swes E: $tmmwaler IMegreR ApmwMa Nemen6 wGh na1u21 haGWk pu0k apen spdce areas mitl pak i rareah n aPPOrW��Aes. F: UNan Farest IMID rs�opy treas an eusMg antl mGevebpetl stree� g�M G' U�bai Ports[ PmJde naMal gmvss Nnatvx unEers�wy 3ntl canopy Vees 31m9 ShepaN RoM anC ttaG�wetl9¢ '�9tlre WAACP. H. PubGCAmpnry¢s En�McewnpnuousW��td9eaMgGM(opmlM1�wxc¢sssla'usto CrosbYPaA rewowMatr, s�nq areas, mryrtnawn iupsks, p�e ruHS anaoVcer amewce: Shepa N�rxrn. Grebn StrvcWre ComppsPe Map I. PuEicAme� GirtY qM.c ¢Lga to iwgnbof�waE paI santl swaes aM regicna� aa� sys(¢ms dbrg ImiduapeC siree4 antl Dubhc ptlhways. The terms •'HighesY', "Medi�un", antl "LOwesC correspontl to ihis individual siie, and should no[ be interptated as a unifortn sidntlartl. J. PudKMrcnNas Prauke impovetl aasmgs d SM1epaE Roatl vnM enM1anrea crouwa�ks sgnafsEVOssings,saf¢mrresardaNxamenmes � Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 57 b(_ � �'i t Historical and Archeological Sites/Structures National Register of Historic Places and Districts in the River Corridor ♦ Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse (on Navy/Raspberry Island)' ♦ Harriet Island Pavillion ♦ St. Paul Union Depot ♦ Holman Field Administration Building (St. Paul Downtown Airport) ♦ Robert Street Bridge (crossing the Mississippi between downtown and the West Side) ♦ Colorado Street Bridge (on the West Side, South Wabasha Street near Terrace Park) ♦ Intercity Bridge (Ford Parkway crossing over the Mississippi) ♦ Mendota Road Bridge (on West Side, Water Street crossing the Pickerel Lake Outlet in Litydale Park) ♦ Irvine Park Historic District* ♦ Lowertown Historic District* ♦ Summit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District' ♦ Giesen-Hauser House (in Mounds Park, 827 Mound Street) ♦ Alexander Ramsey House (in Irvine Park, 265 South Exchange Street)" *Site is also a Local Heritage Preservation Site. Significant Archaeological Sites (identified by 9tate Historic Preservation Office) ♦ Indian Mounds Park (determined eligible for National Register but not yet officially listed) ♦ Harriet Lsland ♦ Pike Island ♦ Pigs Eye Lake ♦ Fountain Cave ♦ Carver's Cave ♦ Rumtown ♦ Meeker Island Lock & Dam (determined eligible for National Re�ister but not yet officially listed) 58 City of Saint Paul � c�i r4 j � � � LJ � � ' �_� � � ' � L�' � � � � � 1'IIPiYESOT9 HISTORIC.9I. SOCIETY February 14, 2001 Mr. 3ack P. Maloney 580 Oris Avenue St Paul, MN 55014 Deaz Mr. Maloney: The Minnesota State Historic Preservation O�ce (SHPO) is in receipt of your letter dated 21�01 raquestira an oFinion frnm our office as to the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of the Meeker Island Lock in St. Paut. As you know, the Meeker Island Lock was part of an eazly 20�' century attempt to bring regulaz water transportation to Minneapolis. The Corps of Engineers initial plan involved two locks and dams, one neaz Fort Snelling to be called Lock and Dam #1 and the other to be just above the Lake Street bridge (near Meeker Island) to be called Lock and Dam #2. Work started on Lock and Dam #2 in 1899 and was completed in 1907. This was the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River. The steamboat Itura was the first vessel to pass through the lock on May 19, 1907. Work was started on Lock and Dam #1 in 1903, but in 1910 hydroelectricity advocates succeeded in convincing the Corps to build a high dam at Lock and Dam # 1. This eliminated the need for the Meeker Island sttucture, sa the top five feet of Dam #2 were demolished in 1912 and the lock chamber was abandoned. Lock and Dam #1 was completed in 1917. Lock #2 on the east side of the river is still visible from the Lake Street bridge. The significance of Lock and Dam #2 is cleaz. Not only was it the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River, but it was an important part of the power struggle between the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul regarding the development of hydroelectricity and which city would be the head of navigation. It is eligible under National Register Criterion A:n the azcas of Engineering and Trnnspartation. The fact that the lock chamber survives virtually intact and the base of dam exists on the riverbed suggests that the site retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance. There is also the possibility that remnants of the access road and the dam construction camp exist as contributing elements. Unfortunately, our office does not have the staffing resources to prepaze the National Register nomination at this time. If you wish to immediately pursue nomination of ttte property, it will be necessary for you to supply us with a completed National Register form and any required supporting documeniation. You may wish to retain the services of a consultant to complete the nomination. A list of consultanu is attached. Please note that inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement. .saa lU�:�.i.�u.c Ruii.c�a�zu Wcs�r; S.�tvr Yu�.. �Imar:w��.,.�uc.ieue; T[i.rt�uu�p:: aai _,�,-��ci� � Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 59 vr-i R � You may also ask to have this property added to a Hst of pmperties for which nominations will be prepazed by tlus office when there aze sufficient resources. I cannot give you an exact time when ttus might occur. It may take several yeazs from being added to the tist of possible r,ominations to the presentafion of a completed nomination to the State Review Boazd. For now, the Minnesota SHPO considers the Meeker Island Lock and Dam to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Sincerel 11" \/" Scott tlnfinson � National Register Archaeologist, MnSHPO Cc: Martha Faust, St. Paul PED 60 City of Saint Paul b/-la 1 , i 1 CJ J � ' �� I� i i � , � � , � , Databases Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Aeritage and Nongazne Research Program, Box 25 �IX) LdIB�CfIC �Zu.lt� S1. Peul. \finac.u�a 591J�_;[1 Phnne: (651) 296-8279 Fa<: (651) 2961811 Ii-mail: jan.5�eier(u,ldnr.stare.mn.us June 7, I999 Virginia Burke City of St_ Paul Department of Planning & Econ. Devel. 1300 City Hall Armex 25 Wes[ 4'" Stteet St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Request for Namral Heritage information for vicinity of Mississippi River Corridor, Critical Area Plan; Hennepin, Raznsey, and Dakota Countles; T28N R23W 5.5,8,17,20,21,22,23,14,12,11,1 1'29N R23W S.32, T28N R22W 5.3-7,9-11,14-16,22,23, T29N R22W 5.32. NHNRP Contact #: ES990749 Dear Ms. Burke, The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural feamres are known to ocwr within an approximate one-mile radius of the atea indicated on the map enclosed with yout information reques[. Based on this review, there are 55 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched (for details, see enclosed database printout and explanation of selected fie(ds). The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Naturai Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Services, Department of NaNral Resources. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, na[ura] communities, and other natural feamres. Its putpose is [o foster better understanding and pro[ecdon of these feazures. Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be'rare or otherwise significant natural feamres in the state that are not �epresented in the database. A county-by- county survey of rare na[ural features is now underway, and has been completed for Hennepin, Ramsey and Dakota Counties. Our information about natucal communities is, therefore, quite thorough for those counties. However, because survey work for rare plants and anicnals is less exhaustive, a� because [here has not been an on-site survey of ali areas of the counties, ecologically sigaificant features for which we have no [ecords may exist on the project area. The enclosed resulcs of the database search are provided in two focmats: index and full record. To control Ute telease of loca[ional information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, both printout formats are copyrighted. The in ex provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an Environmental Assessmen[ Workshee[, municipal natura7 resource plan, or intemal report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other purpose, piease contact me to request wri[[en permission. Copyright notice for the index should include [he following disclaimer: "Copyright (year) Sta[e of Minnesota. Department of Nanval Resources. This index may be DNR Information: 651-296-615'7 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 65]-296-5484 • 6800-657-3929 An Equa{ Oppnnunify Cmplayer � p��tetl on Recycied Paper Contaming a ��'ho Valuvc Uivcrsity Minimum ol ��°, Post-COnsumer Wasie , Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 61 vr-�� reprinted, unattered, in Environment2l Assessmen[ WorkcheeLS, municipai naw21 resource plans. and i�rternal reporls. For a1ry other ute, written permission is required.' The fuli-record printout inc[udes more detailed Iocadonal informaaon, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to repnnt the full-record printouts for any purpose, please con[act me to request written pernussion. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on raze narural features. ]t does not consptute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Thank you for consulting us on [his matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's raze namral resoucces. Sincerely, �-> -'��" ` 'CC ic i Jan Steier Emironmen[al Review Assistant encl: Database seazch results Rare Fearure Datahase Print-Oucs: An Explanation of Fields g2 City of Saint Paul , d/ `�/ � � l� �� ' � � � � � � � � � � � 0 � N a C � rv � £ u Ta 4 m. ° d 3 C F C� Q e �. 4 � n E n U N � = � �� U � F O 4 • E Q q rv M 2 K O 4 2 a. S m �a ry G Y F U N M ro W N N Z s a s � m E d F G msz rv� � R !J T N F h y U m M N z rc x 4 m N C F � V„2 7 F p C 3 L G ro d R G w Q M N a a x v . u � 4 2 U V u � Oj G i V C N £ W m � m � O 9 m � W Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y �� 4 m m c. 0. c a 4 4 4 � � � 4 S � Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 Z w O O O O O O O U' O U O U O O O m m m w w w m z a x�a a x a s Y X Y Y X# X Y w w � fd y ° 'www r. � U U� U U V U m m r� m w w� w �� 4 4 4 4 4 4< 4 C1 6 m m 10 m m P! � O a d 5 m d U � � R y µ X s Z 2 2 2 2 N Vl Vl (A y N } N N Y K C K C C 41 N IC Gl 4l X Y Y Y Y �g�� 2 Z 5 Z O o o O O ( mmm x s x x x �� .`�. .ro .". " .w m �u mrum Y i� N Y Y m m m m m W N 0 N N O ODU t) m amo. w ° �'axzx r z��a�d�d O , 1 6 6 a d � � Z Z z Z � U O O O O � (�.t � b !�u Z >�� 4' ti N H N m .] .]F F EFZ0, t+ m m w m o z o Z c C K V � / � � S S � z Lt .] �L' y ,� 4 y Q� � p 4 m 5ry S �� N�].1r9.] Z G s� a a. ss � 0 Y Q a � U K Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y�a Y � � m � � � � � � � � F d ,� F K E Z2U' F2ZZ(�-� F O O K y O O O v� Q N W f�i'. � Z C� m 5 Z 2 � � � � .'{ � � , �-�i W N Z � N 2. ��ma��Z�Zamz ££ £�£ £sw £r�.. �� aa Y O yK O C O 4 4 4 C 4 6 I W� f U f�il L' 6 Z 5 K 2 a�� Y K G R Ll 4' w„r�. K 5 y F� C K K � a o F a a a a a u`� a a c z z N „ z z z � a n n�.'�i ma w R Pl N N N i- rv�i n N N � F V� N V+ Ol N � C O VJ 4) £ Y 2 f�i. £ £ £ a � s � e .� n � m ."'. ar. a " m e x � ss �o ru : M W N o N�„ S W x � R iF n a � m o F F � Y N x E N x . 41 ] F m'- w i . � m � m c g £ GI E m W �(C � m Y F Ot U' U�' O.'J x � N £ F� fl R 2 x N F t9 N e�A � O� � F a� a� E R> yFY>�[ F�� G F O�Q(��l � Y G s �q(�0 U' d� Q Y 4£ x £ G�� W��+ � V V� N S p� K y T. N 41 r� V 4 (q 5 2 W Y } .] M � O 2.] � N N� �/1 � N N U N U' Vi 4� N M N m# Z�A N r w U' F F '.J P N X U F 41 V 0. � a e � ti w a a u e[ s'. e a P H ° M o [9 � U 9 3 2 4] O �` � 41 y � U N h. 4 v� ' � r ` t 5 £ 2 F F � � N � _ £ � N O j j A m � {i � $ �] m N ry 4 [ Z � a � X ¢ Q � � � � � � � � � C W � � 3 .�i g y �l �" a £ �/i " V E K Ol 41 O E� O K�� N a N� Z�"' � h O a w mpl M m g F Nu�E ��w]-- Om 40 N C KV� aa z � Z H 9 Y 5 5 U M vl H G vl 6 W 4 W 3 r� 6 h Y. V VI w O. N � �� '� a� sa aa m a � w m e. r� m�z m u._ o.. mmm r x z x x�� z� F u u�., � z� x� r z m� a� �� a z�� m� a `� o z H w'—' m f O� N O O µ� O (p 4 vl F 01 Z U U N N Z 4l 0 U 6t !il U U U Z U� M G1 a Q d y p Y O �$ p U d y !� O GI Q N (, �r N r� H r� U M U C'J O C IX p b 2 F U F Z£ �'L 4 VI 5 2� £ 4 v N� Z C y N Y. w] u U--mmy�mO t a� t u�t� 4q za�¢ac�szc a oa a 3t Q -�a. w . `' z ir �-] �l r�l F r] F 4. r] N N N. v 4l ] 3 N � �� H v 4� W Q W m p [.� „ F m M O W U O W G O 0 U t/� V1 U N K (� O�N Ll F d F F 3 N N 3'F N M11 N �.l F y y Y 4I y��q Z O Q 41 4 U 9 £ W N m m W„ I/� C b y 4 ��'J U V1 Q K W K 41 4 2 a'� m z �1 m F N M F W O U N W o w r a z r.�i m a s � a'�'c a m� 4 � v �oa'�.a�.N`do��"oo��mwm�'�cu.zqa'„o`�' wa�mN"8'°�o`a'�aoo.o�o3zd� r� �a m ia w rc a a � � o � ° u w � � '� v�, c�i � � � c � � m c7 � �i �w �x � � o�� E a w � � � a d � a � � '� f9 rn N N N Y N Fl >� .] O nt �+ U F} p U O� F+ r] Q U� (J N VI U O y N W O lO W QI O O � N 1h N N v1 N Vl vl N � � £ N N F H F y E F d N j v� N h J U C U U 5 O W V.' F N t F u .] N �p o �A� a � �g N F t W y F F F W� t/1 H �9 [+ 41 F tl Gl � Z .. �` � G1 N N n m�(t o m r o � o rv (V N rv y o o N N M N IV N N N N N N n n . �{ ea . f i H N N(V N N IV N tV f�l' N 3 3 N N 3 3 N 3 N N 3 N 3 t�v N 3 3„ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3� 3 3 3� 3� 3 3� m} Y; 3 3; 3 3 K K C C C C C 5 K C K 4' K K IX K¢ K K a C K C K K C C K K C LL' C K C G K C C K K L' K K C C 6' C C K 5 2 Z Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z m Z 2 5 Z 2 Z 2 Z L 5 2 5 Z 2 2 2 2 Z m 2$ Z Z� 2 Z 2 2 Z 5 Z m y T. 2 2 L 2 M N m ra IV a� 1V 1V �`1 (V N N o ry[v ry ry rv ry ry rv ry ry rv ry fV m ry ry N N IV [V N N N ry ry ry N N N N[V N N ry ry ry F F F F F F F F H N F F F[+ F F F F F F F F F F[�-� F E F F F N N F F F F F F E H F E F E E F F F F ' Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 63 �i-�� N K K � K � O O O H � � � � U 9 (� y p � m i 5 . 6' �L a' C � � a .a ul a Y C C C C 4 n O > > > > 4 0� „ m c z a e� 4 S. y F F F F y N T N 2 z 5 2 Z i S N , N C � � i-�'i �- r�i � M� a N H b � � w� q y 0 a �. `� wm.�nmOo n� � E f E s w m � m � 0 U R O O 3 m Q [V M 2 C � 4 y � 2 m n t d F U yy � N % ro � N Z 6' C N nl 2 � m E �. � x W m c a F O� .I 4 w N F s S � N Q'1 g N�£� U U �av � ��a�g�� wi� m � ra� N i�� a �iaH z a rya � £2 q£ q r ( ��.w w 6' F� � 5 I 'y q �� ' H O i� �+ V 0 V H.'�L O R� M 2�„� K 'O F o a F a� m O� c � z 4 S a3� � 5�5��5 w w �� a 6� i aa N �_ __4l _ OSY4tQ_ W.G. N �C W j £ a m 0 A �4 �m�� 2 0 N V W F %� m F m [a vr u O fu m .� rl H N S � m i 2 m q q r�� ° a M w U G�i L Y 6' W (N`l IV m � 'F V d Vl n a O � S S 3'd S S 3 w m u Y d rc s a¢`� `a a m �°+ m m m m m� m � N W iV N M N N N ry U £ W F F F F F F F F C 64 City of Saint Paul vi ia / C� i , , � � l� � Il u � � !_ � i � � � � � Rare Features Database Print-outs: An Explanation of Fietds The Rare Features databax is par[ of the Natwat Heritage Informazion System, and is mainiained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Reseazch Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Serviccs, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). `*Please note that the print-outs are copyrighteci and ntay not be reproduced wichout permissiorc" Field Name: [Full (non-abreviated) field name, if dif'ferent]. Further explanarion of £eld. -C- CBS Si[e: [Coanty Biological Survey site number]. In each county, the numbering system begins with 1. CLASS: A code which classi£es features by broad taxonomic gcoup: NC = natural communiry; SA = special animal; SP = special plant; GP = geologic Qrocess; GT = geologic time; O'C = othet (e.g. colonial waterbird colonies, bat hibemacu(a). �: [County]. Minnesota counties (ordered alphabetically) are numbered from 1(Aiikin) to 87 (Yellow Medicine). CURRENT STATUS: Present protection status, from 0(owner is not aware of record) to 9(dedicated as a Scientific and Natunl Are�). _¢ DNR Reeion: 1=NW, 2=NE, 3=E Central, 4=SW, S=SE, 6= MinneapolislSt Paul Metro. DNR Ouad: (DNR Quadrangle code]. DNR-assigned code of the U.S. Geotogic Survey topographic map on which the rare feaWre occurs. -E- ELEMENT or Element: See "Element Name (Common Name)" Element Name (Common Namel: The name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records, this field holds the scientific name, followed by the common name in parentheses; for all other elemenu (such as plant communities, which have no scientifc name) it is solely the element name. EO RANK: [Element Occurrence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of naturai communities from A(highest) to D (lowest). EO Size: [Element Occurrence Size]. The size in acres (often estimated} of natural communities. -E- FED STATUS: [Fedecal Statusj. Starus uf species undu the Federal Endangered Spe�ies Law: LE=endangered, LT=threatened, C=species which have been proposed for federai (isting. Federal Stams See "FED STANS" Forestrv District: The Minnesota DNR's Division of Forestry district number. •G- GLOBAL RANK: 1'he abundance of an element globally, from G I(criticalty imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide bazis) to GS (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks aze determined by the Conservation Science Division of The Nature Conservancy. -I- IN'CENDED STATUS: Des'ved protection staWS. See also "CURRENT STANS." If a complete list of protection status codes is needed, ptease contact the Atahua( Heritage Pragram. _U LAST OBSERVED or Last Obscrved Date or Last Observation: Date of the most recent record of the element at the locacion. atitude: The location at which the occurrence is mapped on Natural Heritage Program maps. NOTE: There are various levels of precision in the original information, but this is not reflected in the latitude(longitude data. For some of the daca, particulazly historical records, it was not possibie to detertnine exactly where the original observation was made (e.g. 'Port Snelling", or "the south shore of Laice Owasso"). Thus the latitude/longitude refleM the mapped location, and no[ necessarily the observation location. Leeat: Township, range a�d section numbers. Lone: (Longitude). See NOTE under "Latitude" -M- MANAGED AREA or Managed Area(sl: Nazne of the fedecaliy, state, locally, or privately managed park, forest, preserve, etc., containing the occurrence, if any. If this field is blank, The element probably occurs on private land. If "(STATUTORY BOLJNDARY)" occun after the name of a managed area, the tocation may be a private inhotding within the stamrory boundary of a state forest or park. Mao Svm: [Map Symbol]. t Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 65 Cal- r a � MN STATUS: [Minnesota Statusj. Legal stapts of plant and animal species under the Minnesota endangered species Iaw: END=endangered, TI�R=threatened, SPC=special concetn, NON= no (egal status, but rare and may become listed if declines continue.l'his field is blank for nahual communiNes and colonial waterb'vd nesting sites, which have no legal status in Minnesota, but aze tracked by the database. -N- NC Rank: [Natural Community Rank]. -a Occ #: [Occurrence Number]. The occurrence number, in combination with the element name, uniquely identifies each record. OCCURRENCE NUMBER: See "Occ #" # OF OCCURS: The number of records existent in the database for each element within the azea seazched. Oumershiu: Indicates whether the site is publicly or privately owned; for publicly owned land, the agency with management responsibitiry is listed. - p - Precision: Precision of locational information of occurtence: C(confumed) = known within I/4 mile radius, U(unconfirmed) =lrnown withia lf2 mile, N(non-specific) = known within 1 mile, G(general) = occurs within the genera( region, X (unmappable�lceation is unmappable on USGS mpographic quadrangles (often Irnown only to the nearest county), O (obscure/gone)=element no longer exisu at the locazion. PS: [Pr:m2,y Section7_ The sec:ion cantaining a!! nr [I:e �2[est nart of [he accur*ence. -Q uad Ma : See "DNR Quad" -R- Rec #: [Record number]. RNG or Rng: [Range number]. -S- SEC770N or Section: [Section number(s}]. Some records are given oniy to the nearest section (s), but most aze given [o [he nearestquazter-section or quarter-quatter-section (e.g., SWNW32 denotes the SWIl4 of the NWl/4 ofsection 32). A"0" is used as a place holder when a hatf-section is specified (e.g., ONO3 refers to the noRh 1/2 of section 3). When a occurtence crosses section boundaries, both sections are listed, without punctuation (e.g., the NE I/4 of section 19 and NW 1/4 of section 20 is displayed as "NEI4NW20"). Site: A name which refers to the geographic area within which the occuaence lies. [f no name for the area exists (a Iocaily used name, for exaznple), one is azsigtted by [he County Biological Survey or the Natural Heritage Program. Sovrce: The colleMOr or observer of the rare feature occurrence. S RANK: [S[ate Rank]. A rank assigned to the natural community type which reflects the known ex[en[ and condition of that community in Minnesota. Ranks range from 1(in greatest need of conservation acrion in Yhe state) to 5(secure under present conditions). A"?" following a rank indicates little infarmation is available to rank ihe community. Communities for which infoimarion is especially scarce are given a"U", for "rank undetermined". The renks do not represent a legal status. They aze used by the Minnesota Depazttnent of Namra! Resources to set priorities for research, inventory and conservation p{anning. The state ranks aze updazed as inventory information becomes available. S[ace Starus: See "MN STA"fUS" -T- Ttivrar�: 1Townsnip rtumoerj. -y- Verification A reflection of the reliability of tt�e information on which the record is based. The highest tevel of reliability is "verified," which usuaily indicates a collettion was made or, in the case of bird records, nesting was observed. Plant records based on collections made before L970 are unverified. Voucher: The museum or herbazium where specimens are maintained, and the accession number assigned by the repository. In the case of bald eagles, this is the breeding azea number. -�'�'- Wildlife Area: The Minnesota DNR's Section of Wildlife administrative number. Data Security I.acatiorts of mme rare feaNres mus[ be treated as sensiGYe infortnazion bewise widespread knowledge of these loca[ions could result in harm to the r�e features. For txample, wildflowers such as orchids and economically valusble planfs suCh as ginseng aze vWne�able W esploita[ion by wlkctors; other species, such az bald eaglcs, are unsilive ro disturban« by obseevers. For this eeaso0. we prcfer that publica[io� no[ identify the precise Iocat�ons of vulnerable specia. We sugges[ dacribing Ne location only ro th< neares[ section. [f this is not acceptable for your purpose5, please call and discuss this issue with the Environmental Review Specialist for [he Herifage and Nongame Research Program az 651/296-8319. Reviaed 07/99 66 Clt�! Of $QI[it PQU/ � �!-(R I L� � � , � t LJ � � � � i C J , � � � � Minnesota Land Cover Classification 5ystem factsheet The Minnesota Iand Cover Qassification System (MI.CCS) has been designed for use in the metropolitan area by a collaborative effort of federal, state, and local uniu of govemment as well as non-profit organizations. The MLCCS integrazes a new classificazion system of cuitural features with a combination of existine land cover classificadon systems for natvial and semi-natural azeas. The system is unique in thaz it categorizes cultural, urban and built-up areas sh in land cover terms, identifyina these azeas in terms of imperviousness and vegetative cover. For natural azeas the system fully inco�porazes the Minnesota Natural Heritage native plant communiry types (Minnesota's Native Ve�etauon: A Kev to Natural Communiaes. version 1.51 and the recendy developed National Vegetazion Classificadon Standazd (NVCS). The NVCS was developed in partnership with The Narure Conservancy and [he naaonwide state Natural Heritage programs, and has been adopted as [he standazd for fedeially funded projects. The MI.CCS is a five level hierarchical design, pemutting a gradient degree of refinement relevant to any land cover mapping project. It is comprehensive and systematic, is applicabie at any scale. and is suitable for monitoring and mapping purposes of any identified land cover found in the metto azea. By the summer of 2000, the MLCCS will have been applied to: The Criucal Area /Mississippi Nationat River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) corridor, the Minnesota River Corridor in the Twin Cities, several trout stream watersheds, and large portions of Dakota County. Addifionally, the Metro Greenways program has begun encouraging its use by local unics of govemment for developing Greenway plans, and MetroGIS has endorsed the MLCCS as a`best practice' land cover classification system for use in the Metro azea. The MLCCS data collected for the current pilot projects is being used for idendfying sites for ecoloa cal restoration, municipal growrh plannina, habitat protection, and Metro Greenways planning. The MLCCS can be used for creating a GIS-based land cover inventory. Polygons of various sizes (down to one acre) are identified by their predominant cover. For each polygon, modifiers may be added to further define the chazacteristics of the site. Possible modifier codes include imperviousness, land use, vegetation disturbances or management, natival quality, tree species, forestry (e.g., percent canopy and DBH), and water regimes. Typical data needed to interpret land cover using the MLCCS includes Counry Biological Surveys, County Soil Surveys, National Wetland Inventory, Color Infrazed phoxos and Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles. This base information is usually sufficient to identify polygons to the third level of the MI.CCS codes. Fieid inspection by ecologists is usually required for modifier attn.butes and to identify natural community types in the forth and fifth levels of the MLCCS. Field inspection is also used to confirm and refine polygon delineation. Metro standazds being used in the MI.CCS aze: * Idenpficadon to the forth level * Minimum mapping unit: two acres (one acre for native species dominated communities) * Minimum mapping width: 50 feet * Modifer codes for: Basic land use, natural community vegetation disturbainces and identification of invasive species For more infocmation concact: Peter Leete OR DNR Waters 1200 Wazner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55106 ph:651-772-7916,fax:651-772-7977 email: peter.leete@dnr.state.mn.us Bart Richazdson DNR Metro GIS Coordinator 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55106 ph:651-772-6150,fax 651-772-7977 email: bart.richardson@dncstate.mn.us .a,,..� t Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 67 _C�(-14 l Water Management and Regulation Water Management and Regulation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. This is a brief overview of the entities that are responsibte for water management in Saint Paul: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes standards For water quality management, drinking water safety, solid and hazardous waste disposal, toxic substance management, air quality control, and general environmental quality review. Enforcement is delegated to the Minnesota Pollution Contro] Agency. Saint Paul is working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on a stormwater discharge permit under the Federal Clean Water Act. The City currently has a draft permit which involves development of a stormwater management and monitoring program. The MPCA also admin- isters the constnzction site sediment and erosion control permit. Permit coverage is required for any project which disturbs five or more acres. This permit has permanent water quality ponding requirements for a project which creates one acre or more of impervious surface. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture implements state laws that prevent surface and groundwater pollution from pesticide and fertilizer application. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires a permit for any project constructed below the ordinary high water mark, which alters the course, current, or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands. The Minnesota Board of Water and 5oii Resonrces ($�rvSic) is a sta[e agency dedicated to helping local governments (counties, soil and water conservation districts, watershed management organizations and water- shed districts) manage natural resources. The Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District (R5WCD) is a local unit of government that helps direct and manage natural resource programs. The RSWCD is working closely with Ramsey County and the BWSR on the development of the newly formed Capitol Region Watershed District's watershed management plan. Saint Paul is within the jurisdictions of the foltowing watershed manage- ment organizations, which develop and implement comprehensive water- shed plans: 68 Ciry of Saint Paul � a�-i4 / � � , � � , I � � � �� _� � � L] C� ♦ Capitol Region Watershed District ♦ Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District ♦ Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization ♦ Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization Saint Paul's local water management plan will be completed two years after the completion of the last watershed management plan. The Middle Mississippi River WMO completed its plan in April, 2000, so Saint Paul will complete the local water management plan by Apri12003. The City's local water management plan will address the individual plans of each water- shed management organization as well as the stormwater discharge per- mit. The City water management plan wiil also focus on improving the quality of stormwater runoff into the Mississippi River. The City of Saint Paul site plan review process includes stormwater man- agement requirements that limit the rate of runoff from new development to the equivalent from a residential area and requires storage for the 100- year rainfall. All projects that go through site plan review are required to provide for erosion and sediment control as specified in the Ramsey County Sediment and Erosion Control Handbook. Saint Paul also is responsible for administering Minnesota's Wetiand Conservation Act. Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 69 vi-�Q � Public Participation February - April, 1999 Release Issue Paper "Framing the Discussion", convene two Stakeholder Focus Groups. February, 1999 - December, 1999 Comprehensive Planning Committee° meetings January - April, 2000 Design Study, convene Intergovemmental WorMng Group to assist. June - July, 2000 Comprehensive Planning Committee* meetings August 25, 2000 Planning Commission releases Draft River Corridor Plan for public review and comment. August 25, 2000 - October 24, 2000 Public Review Period October 20, 2000 Public Hearing at Planning Commission November - December, 2000 Comprehensive Planning Committee` meetings December IS, 2000 Planning Commission adopts Mississippi River Corridor Plan. * Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission 70 Ciry of Saint Pau1 ' o�-�� ► j � • � � - Maps and Inventories � � � � 1 t i � 1 I � � 1 t� � � I Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 71 a/-��/ L' l� �. - � ,. � - I � . : -. " � , , , � ;� � � ��^� 1 �.� � � ' ' � �,i', � �„ � i�fi � �� u' . � iL , ' �f 9V\ .: ' . y �'�- __(� � �� , / V l y <t�� f � ! J�} ? y f, -1rh . _. / �� . '1 r� -S !", �- J �ft �y� � J �. ` r-. J� �� ' < '` �> �b�ti> � V - � \ ��'�-e . j � � � . 3 "�. r�-' � , , d' � �� I r i '�' �aoti , �. � ��,� �, w F- �i� � k.'� � � � � , i � aaH/u}$ ' : �, . � n ,. .1 �, , � � ' _ � a�uo �� , ��, un� � � =� , � ^� �� i ai �.� '�� ' . ,I I � �� . f , �, .."• ��.� ,�� s i I \ 4 � � . I .I � j(TY - li ' i%!/� .; . �'•�� ,� � � � 2 ` �' ^C � � �' • � � i, i I'��i' E �� A�.i I � �, E I " i ;o� W" N II � � m ',�� 1 W J II // I, � J S � I 1 I " ' n � , i 1 � � Rd . � ,-°i� , ; � �� ,,,aqwm � ,� ' , � :l� � . � � � 'I �� ,;,� ,'; ,� y, '�,�aw� � o I' �i ' i�i�: �� "'�°_ I.� i , ,�, .�°4�� N �� I i 6}i � , � 5 � , � , , , � � � ' � � � � �" �:i� � ii :. ma � �� ''I4' �i r, � � ��, � � , � �"�, � r ! i �� 'i' � � �r �i�l ��t�i +i �a pue .! �.ili,ul' .:, �� ;: � ia. ,� �� , � tUla77 ._ -- �,': ay �-. ~;. N 2 � . . , � r-�-_ t , � ' /'fJ( i r l.� P3 . r i� z�:� � `m `o c �° � e � � p] U C O � N Z'� � 'n a Z ro m R � . d ` O VJ C Q 6 y w o � u \ � LL ' f0 N m V CJ ��, i r '� �� „ �i \ m `rn � '� Il�a�s � s � � i � a � 1 �. � IJ N ; � �: wlPj '�ai � � � c j � �' � � I ' LL � a.Jl { xh i;' i i - � L � �1.+ � � � d � O � '� �' � �q _x � ,� ye �LL � E N � � �R �w � E� � � S 2 -� 4�'r� n ��. � �� on p � � � � t N , � w �a t� p, °'� � � �o V [� � �W � Cd� Q v� r41 � j' ... �; . Yi� � - i N �' � ��t� � � � � ly , � � � ,�: � � �� , �� , � . . ' ' ,��.'� C� r� ° A: � s, i -�� °�,�`- � �°�' i, ��,,� ��-,--� I� Y - t 3. �• . eL . . . � : � �f - . . .:= yv " y�� i � a �^�� j � � l� ' � / o �. � ; � _ _ a .�:: , � ', �� r i . .�'�o j '�; ir., ��' � aF x i ��i J / ,_ '"� ,,: „ �aHNI$� �� ,� m � ' � r� � � � �� " � ��— m g g �� E ��s°= _� � "'�� _€ � _� ES€= `o e ��g r �a� „, � n =��_ ' l,I�C��L�L ��' _ g � � � �� , � 4� v - ia .. , � , p � 9 � m � � � ° '� ' � �� ' - - y�rtn$ ` _ � � � s = „ . .., � � i = �� m � W ,�°�w � ' � ,. . 2 a� g��'�'' ��5� �x ��: s s m e �+��L'� � t 1 E � z _ t ��1� � '��' � � �, �� sF �� ^ �,'� ' � '. i' � �.,, . �' T � � �� '� \ � h � '� � -� � i � � '�� Z' . � �� . � �i I N N . �,1,�� ,' � I I1 �. � �• � � '� �rvY`. � � '., 1 I �\� .�� .� '� ��9< ��r, Ni\1P _ � , . , .� � Q'.. � � � , _ A d � a wn�b - - � , Y 4 P9 = � � , � ' .�i � i� �i t � i , � i o� o-aw�weH•�� 'o Iv a' y . I '� '.';� �; � ' I v � m m �_ y � . � -, ' . �.� � { �: , i i��Ila�S� i � e, � , !,; �,.� ',', �. , � I i� I I �'� W N ' 1 I �I � ' . (�, �� . � - , , , � � mawiej" a- "' � - � ' _> i � ;,� � � �� ,I � ,.. � �� i. I ip' �' � ' . � � � i i i��, � yue�aaalJ � i � l �i , � � � `.� �� n �.� �� '� S � �: . . ; y � ,� .�'—'•j�` ,/ .'::- ' - - ' , "G�: - . i r�� . _; y� ca 6�i � d 7 -�.., C R C� y =� �� '�� E g s� �y .° i a�= ,.� g� i ��: �x'._�� ' � Q � E "d � �--s � � a�i � R 0 � q /�� I+I F+G 4, G �. � O � U �� Qc� � _ � o�-ig, -_ :;'�`�.�=_.:_'; _ . - �: = -- ;�. � ' ` �-� �� - . -" � � t _ =_.'�� ,; � - " -- - -- :�'✓ E 1 � - _ �'_,,n: _��_�� ;� - . . �� : 'ri��. � . �� - � � . / , i, / ,.' ;i ' �� /� .( , . c �.,. o i ii � 2 �� . �� i, , r�- , �� .. . , . , ,. . �� .��i i�l:�:� i . ' � '. . � '�" � :=�� F i �, � � �'"'�'' � �,q � '?�?N�15'� . . ; -', . i ,, , i f ��a40�, � � � � �� ._ �J � /� s �r iy �� ' y ' � i � _ �Q . O O � m c y C C t0 w Z y Z 'o � W � y W J i0 H 6 � � E � i � o = > "' v� •i � ci r r- � _ �. I i r ., L j 1 , . .:... •.. Y+'.�'J � . ,. . : , l .. _ . . ... . ' v ' __-_ ; �'.� �4 1 S' ' _ I i . � . 1 S � , I ( • ' 1 � _�, �� J II � - � ' � s � \, i � F � "/." i , � , . , i .. , . ' � ., 'E � .' ' °p�� ,- �•� i ' .v � � E � ', , , � m y i a Lp�`� � � ,.... _ N � �\ ' i /� % i ,I . ,i i i� � i - �•;`� � i i� �\ _ .� - .- ' - � q, ,'' ayaMa�ed - q p3 �: � \� a wm6 � �, , � , ' � � o.awivieH� ' ' ,`-->. �'' 9 a y ; . , a; i s N c , � r. . I N �_-¢ . . '�� - .— rn, '', , - , , .. . , 6111�(dUs ' � E • � �' '.� '. � �, � ` W N I �; � � � ;�sywrej o., ,:�„ � � y C, ��'l _ ` . ' i I O � � , 1 �' � _ �,e�ro�?r�, ; -- �.�� y � G _ � - ,. ' _ t Up?l� - d ,�/ v A j �� : �>.�.�z�� ,; � 3 a� � � 0 c�' a� _ N �X w y C � a� � L � � �..� � � '� �' 3 a � 6 � N � �r Y � IY °� e H � � �� '� ✓,-� \ \ 1 \� � S .5, ❑� � � � � I � Pa G �+ a O { i' O � N� � i" G � � � z �� --� Q; q^c � � Q� � �� l _ �`��' � t � � �� t- . -��.'��""�� ,''. J s� ! �"' a"�.`.-�F�.i''�-L � �� .�.. s .�'�iie. - -'r� ' �. �� '�� p � c � y „� } ��yf k_u, .,�. �: � � 'e` s "L �%j ✓ J :A' �i � � �� ' � :�. -, ��• � �� , � , �$� °�� . � I' ,, I �,i � C � , � ,� ' � , . � }�� , . ; . �; �' 3$k�� .`/ x ��`'� � � �, � � i •'� �_ � � � �� = �.. a . ,' ':i � i �� , ��._ �I � , ., � � ,�' ( i i i:�� ; � � �� "� I — � � � � � � i I ", i ;� , ti � � - � f i il ' � .� I I i � ' - � � ' � n � � � � ', „� � ` / ��I� I�� ,. � i , �� i �' � F�,� i i�� , � � �:� � ti� � � rld"��,5 �,;iii `�i �� I� ��. ��o /i. i,iii' � ��, i ��I�,i � �� . , � �, � i l '�, r i ' � ,i n ,� , i �� ; t, � „. � � � ��' � �� ' ,�.rf ' i' 1 i�i � '�I i i i; al f ._ � ` �l I�l�.. ��_:iiii� I i I ',_ ' i I�i..! 1 i � i I�il �' �� -�� ., I -,� r i i �' �' i I „ i i, i i' � r _ � il �. �� ; i � ` I i t i ..� I �I � � ��, �� I 1 � 1 / I I I �" � l I �_. I �' � � , � ' il � �' � � '� i i ' �i , °. , �� ' r.� � �� '� � � •'�s ' � I' ' � ' ;, � I!�V — ,� i � i �i r�_ .v, � � � '` i, �:j � � I i � - i .� ,� � I'. , ��, � , ,;�� i, a _, r r , i i . � ,.L � i . �� - ' i��, � I'� vt ��,L �r '�'x�, �.. , � �' � �'-I I � i,; � L� - Pi f i i _ /_ I I i ��i ilqll;�;� f�7`I ,�. __ i � � . 1 I_�1 I�i ��7'�;i t� � i�F �� i - ��d/ „i��'° _ � o �' 8 ; - ,.�,� „� . .� ,," _ - - , �q�' � ,�� c '.. � �� - i;� � b �% O __ / i � � s z i � q o N =,�� \q��.>�_ �Z� �� fi � �� \` ,y oi-r� ( N N � O � C1 � <C C .� a G R L .� •1� � Z z� �� Q —� �u �� : �� d :< a-a � � � � � � ~ 1-�i C.) v� N �R �Q w o�� O � O W O."� Ca c� � � i �� ,.` P. r` I,� � .' . � _ _ � _- _ - -_ _ _ � f — _ � Y� . . . � p�� ` �OV � _ � ' �� _, _ � : r` - - _ _ - _� � � t r �, , m � tl.% � - — �' _;�,_ a� � , '%' , ' � -<A.� . Y - r , � u Y 1 S � � �� I � � � � � "b ��f �, .i � ;� ��^ g g � a!'c1 �;^'P .... { ;-f r a ,.:�.�s'�' � 8 @ � � - �Y � _. i1 -t '�.i t � i � � � y � t� �� e„ o_ ��"�< <� � � a C L,"°�� m��` �i�'(�� r � � i t� ' � r �'�� _ �� T.; f � �. �� -s. ..., _ - � � � 4 ' w �;-� - �, � �=L� , %= . 5 � N M y i Q � ,p., ca ` e m " mo�o n � a = � � w � m a 9 �� W a 6i W C 6 m lA W i i m ea y m '�C '� a � �'e w�n w � m=w.°- °f W� w w C C m d m u�. � t n w � � o m i � e m m` ° w�w e`a .� �_., �,-.. OI-�4 1 t/� � f.'.� i + lu� f,� C� i �� ' G $ �° m ag` �� a s �$ � Ea z� �y0 p QW ✓ `� W (� � O � d zo �o €� ,�" �� U � o� 0/-�4 j .� bf� >:.:>--' ..."' � P i' , f I � I ' ( m � � �*c �' � ..i�� .: _�.:7 26. ;; ��' � � Il ��,1 ��Il:�i�l N ; ' YC��fI � L" N ;a�y' 'Illi:; ( �,'i � N ` � a ,,`�.' ;ly��l' � W `� �a! i��l�� J � . �' I -'1 - li � ; � '.. � '1 " _ll�i�l'�i.. " ��;, r � y N e i � � H � L .::°� �' y � i, ' � Ij ii` 3 � Ij .r 1�1'I� !il'I, IC;IIr mua� _� il ":/7� Tiil I F > �, t. n i Q I ( P, � � ��i�'f: q , / H �II�' �'�: 1,"i�.� �� _' � •'��'. I�!i \ � �� d a i .i 4 � i�; s � I� � E � 'Il V1 �r .� C J// i : a� � �� f� l �" ,�s, � i�? '� L.. mlla�S ;IdIPI'�i�� Ei , II�I��ll£I{ � �I �R .. � I�I i �� '�I� �I � ' � � '� I P � �I�,�I 4 � �r'4�„ 3 � Ir��,�'ra ''�`�% ,) �� a. I� E, � S_ �' � � � � � .- � � , +� i� O �I'I I, � #a� r � c+ LL � � I. i �f4Swa '�*R� � �..1 � �..�� F/ � i y � a.,� L 'O � V � �` O O m V � K a' C � � � d N N � �� z h � {p ry o .O U .fd � '.t�. � {'G C�'J U � �� r � €s $ �� S � � E yz a �Y W �� ■ w s � t+� Mr+ 3 §o �o —""- � � � a. A w � �� c I�W W l.J � Q O/ I v . � Y ° O Y """" -_ _— y 6�1 O W _." '__ � ' �� , __�—._';L, �_. ._., � � _ F� C�'� '" tiC10N ` - ` - • f ` 3-- " � �" �4:.��_ -- r� a ==_-_ _ -°° � � C O O = � m � 0 Q! 6'� �Y z _ p W V _ a � _ a�s ° O' _ O � ✓ _ s � - t '� _ _ m � q ' - � : �Zs Z S �J _ _�i�,�j•�" � s• , m " _�" ,0 ��.=.. ' 'S�':+�J.- j-:� �� p " - A��`'?';: _ � � y �r. ,,. �. � T r � °, � , �, . �-* a° 3 � ' (' " �� ;` < ' r a. �''�� _su>v� ! - ,� r .� J . �' �°' a ��, � .� d _ _'; o � �,,�, � a= �` � iF� W f9 F' � N m ac a ` s} � c ° '� i e o. '� � ', �. .; r� .. /� .... _ .,�, 9 � . , �� '�� i i � r � a _ _ _ � / � . ri`i�-�'�� t,. ;f . - °'��5�.' , �" - _� -.� r k��T. 'i-I P P � �_ _ y � � �� i _ r . � a� - � .� x' `f ,� -. �� -'-� �;' � �z i ,�� = ;,,, _ / 1 _ f�.4:1.,. . � � . : .v� . .. . , c ��t < I _. .� a `—_ t� i i L a. . )"__.__ ' -Y { .. � 1i� _ i � s a . a H � =m N � � m % _ m O 7 � a 4� z�.m�� ..�'�� \ � ��=�j �=�' _ ' cW;ij �°�'`",' s. � _ 9 i =d v N CC fA C 6� !/f �3 C v � � a� 0 O 'ri � i � � � � � O� .�+ W Q� � z� � ° s` r 6 � c ,� � � � E 6 � � - a:�=� � _ � �- - r: ` � � Z � � a g C !� G d � � �n� d r L W ea � W � � � AB .. � `» � �s a HY, � e ` 6aL £ 7 C W y w 7� Y � � 4 m e m z a� Q � ¢� aQ �a � �� .., �o � z o � Q� f-�1 � G ua p� � � ��_ ✓�� -- - ._- _. A - �'. ti � A � . -1 : �. _-- 'r- - � �_ � _ � -__ _^ _ '. _ �.� . . ,� -- r�r� �.? k rJ.•� 5 ?� "� � ' _ d, .- �� ' / 1 � r - Y � �i : � �°�- � - _ - �- _ -- � _� � r � , . � T � �_ "� , � � _ _ � _ �� - , o � _- .:�� -� „i; s...y.,'- � �� ! " - _ �� G � c �,- � B f :- �r �' Y r � �.. �� . - , . 1i'�' �, s _' ,,. R Z 1'��'.. =.", Y �, t.— \. _ y �� _ �'r !_ _, F uT" l �/j-�i�'�r: r; , ,,_ " � — -L � � �ii � � �. � � w � �� ;' �y, �, � �� . �� a L� ° :� / �� . � -: \��i ��,�� ,�� .v— -� l � ... - � �1 � � R e � � m � N z � z o , z f Y � m � m y d 9 L y ` 6 � 6 _°. e u � u — � � o'c � ^ �� ' I lJ ' '� a'�j;� � _ , _ � � � 'r "f i �� ' ��;, ijf �� '_ � '1 � �-.�y R n l ` y �' r� �% `�t "� �\ � �. � a r-< i � t '. � g �� ` � �`9 � � �� , �� . �� 0 � � V �I � 1 i i-� a '� T I � I I [L N _\� .�. �y ��' Fy ' y l 1 nl � ��. L�� - �� - - �, � -'._{� � � � ` _ _ _ � ==- _. _ u;, i i I � ' ( . t' v�% U � O/�iR ( � � � 3 a� � � � o c � a� N ' . O W I� �' & Y � Z 6 �n 2�3 'L � }� f7 � � � � � e ks�:' E u� �� s c � °p a � �Q fa, � ° � O �, � C N � �w U � Q � t - - � �'-�--��--- , - : � � — .--- _, �-�_� -_ , � --��- , , , �� L � I / ? �r`, - �i �. -' � � ':{� i � � h ��'�:',_.�-._ �. � i o .�� 1 � , , 'i---�'_ -� i ' � � � � . ; a' �: 3 '__�_ ��_ , � : � i ' i ' � �� r� . �, . 1 �: � �� — . �,---�— � ,- � ; ; �� m - �'�,� ,� � ��_ {:,�� ,� ` , :� , -�� , r��s .. �, i ''t ��:., � �}�dr = � -- `.F � � � � ,� x �� ,1.�;��- ,( t .., „i�'i,� ^v ' .� � , �'. -,� ?�.'`- . ii 7 n � � 'I � � "?_� _ � �� "� � � � �;� , � � �' � <Y 1 �'� :' � // �„. � _ �� ,'�, � , � �, � o , � 1 � � k �� . ._ � ,� � a�.;!,�� ;� . diyp � , ,..� .t" R � - _. L � � � �� y r .'� �--; � �� , " , �; ,, � � � d � � , - i , „ F •, , � �� , r-F . - W . \:. � I" _ `'- 1 � � F' . � � � ,�� ! ��` L � � ��_ � � �, s . , � , i y ' . ` s�,= \ � , ,� , � i �� a I, � 1= �� ` " �?`� � �' �� ' '� �, i �. � , ,w-: � ,.A �� i��,F ! i' i � �� ' '' � i � : i � � i � � �,,' � � � � ' � i r� � �E� �,, , � i, � , i ' ��,�� ; a �,'.J ' ' : � i , , ; � � �� , �� , �,: �� ,�,�� i �� ;� �,� r � ��,�'.�i <� ; t� � �7 � � � , , � - I � ` n �' � 1�.: i'� --r I i ] � � 1 I i : TF ' � ' I � �� ._ �'% � , � i � i ] i � i �I �� I ,� I �� 4� I �,r --°" � �� i ��i �41 I � i �' .._._� �`t_ s( /� �" �. I f� � r�i f � . � 1� �,: " l �, ?' ��Il ' .I' _! ,. � �a�� . -'�, ' � ,� � _ � i -' _, � r �. , .�; r . .. .r-� f � -�� , z ` � � � ��j .; �— � —�r,.�� a � � .E Q � � E � � ` E `_ ' ' - - � a. � o s'_ t� .. ae: r s:s a �� a � 6� o a 9� 9= o � e o � � d � ; � x ; � � ' a 3 « = � � � ° a ° � a a a � H � A »AbAAeae.=oevae"=y A� >o��"�m�e€e�e°�q=° � e� � A�� <�� \� ` � � -< . —�a, y� . �� < �� . � � a � m �i U�--i4� N �� . N � L� � z� � �� LL �� s = - �?� " .� � £ ��; e��_ � � b�A � O � �� O•� � � O � � O l ' � �� C) CP� p� � L;< t *; �l � � ; r - -- � -;. --- . 4 - .--- _ _� _ - _-- - .� -- - _- — °� � ; — ^` ,y " _ � ,r1y 1, � ;- � j= -- - � � -,_;?tE�_. :`a` o — J �"__�, �'��_ - _ — 4 � � �z: ( ; ' �,; F' _;. � � ` - r � r � �' ,, � t � `' = .,.. �` � Y � `� �� , � . � R g� �� 'l � e �` �/�';�f�anE� f . � �� \�.,,�y'--�,.„� �4r s�: � r { i/ � r' ` 6� � � � �m d� y y m 9 9 S W e ° — �� m ° w ° =y�os � m mF-° d,: d: 1� 6! y .0 '� Y � Y m� S m� m W p @'C6'OQ =Q p1 m p� 6 a � W� = O� O W � W `m e'a`n mw i � d � ..�idjJe ¢CD � � � C/i O � O � � � � � � � � � � ,: � F' z� i Z $� � 6E � � s 5 z � 2a. O � ?> � �'a {� � o� � E, zo � z �° � �� Q U v� ,� � P �� i �- � -` . � � � � 9 C O l� :y�: �� R .� � I a � � � � � � c. e.` ,t ~� � �� `� � ��y� ��ni � � � �, , � d � '�—`-'\ � e � � � �� W y Y . � � 1 �.A F � . �� ` ' � i, �� --, .. �� 5 � � �,—_'"" `_ � � C ` � MN`' � ( o 0 4 �� `�� a /.: ` � , i ;� ai, '�?�a9°e -c / o m L C {Q O q�p � m L 3 = � ;� � N �s � m N � Q � � � � � N d Q N � Pn tL d � � c c .°_3 � m '� E o '<n � 1 `m o 'c U � _ � s � � �"��.' � � "1 � � ... ° � "" " �� ry �. �.✓�u' � " O � � R N N j fA � � �': µ - N . OD ' \ �--L — .� � V � '�6 � � � . . , ' � �`��. . , bA�O , � p .T $ Q 5 � N R O @ N O �� I' ' � y»W�� V � � . . � `,��,, � \* � C d �� d � � . ; � _ � ' ' � ' �. �� \��\\�: . � s � sn � a �» � . . , �� , � 4 '��' L.J � LJ } y � � I � �, 9 \ I� s 'C N � O G C" � � � � �� { � �p b4� -° a s , �� . e-, � o N y � -�� ,,, T � '�. I �� V � � � � l_ � �.d , C_ 1 �.� i L_ �� s � ' ' � ' � � .. ' ' ' � � � � � � l� ��Mv�� , �1� �� v • ' y aqwm�P3 . � � << ��; A , , , , i � , . '°" �.q� � , ?'�, ` � aam�weM� . � f � �� _�,� �� „ � � i � � � � < <� �, � iI ��, � �. � � � �� '' � 7s � � � , , , 6 uq�aqg� - E �' . k � �' � � d � � a , i l a i' _ L �� , , i� a ' � � ��, w vo; I ' t . � ��- � 0 d � � I W� � � '� m a� -a i � i I � ' �� a � : �� ! � i I -� l�.l -�p { ' � : � � � � �� , � � � ;141 r- LL � � � - - " / �I I; { \ � 3 1 1 �.I I�( � �� d �� i o � � ' uqa�9 � _�,�� I E � ,, � � ,. _ :a� -r � - � ��° L_ � ' . , , ' ��A' i y • . .7 `,�: ,, � � C� /—! 9 1 cs •� N � � • Lf o� -� Q �L � i.. � O � C., � �e"/ �.i� � � `, _ -' � o � __ �_$ � � E �- �A c ° a � � 6 u rv d N � � � � s � y N O 6 � e �� E � � � � � l "' � � � v � -`� � t � � � � � � � t � � � � � �' , � � The City ofSainr Aau! does not discriminate on the basis of disabiliry, race, sex, sexual or afjectlonal orienta4on, age, color, creed, national origin or ancestry, marital status, religion, veteran stcrtus, or status with regard to public assistance rn the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs or achvities_ 84 City of Saint Paul Council File # b � � �9 \ Ordinance # ��.as Green Sheet # ORDINANCE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Re£erred To ttee: Date eZ6 Mississippi River Comdor Pian 3 WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the Mississippi River Corridor Plan as a chapter of 4 the updated Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and 5 6 WHEREAS, the Mississippi River Corridor Plan was the subject of a public hearing before the City Council 7 on February 28, 2001, and 9 WHEREAS, the Mississippi River Comdor Plan outlines the City's policy related to protecting the river's 10 natural resources, affirxning the future of the working river, connecting neighborhoods to the river, and 11 adopting urban design principles for river corridor redevelopment; and 12 13 WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.864, Subd. 2, Saint Paul is required to update its 14 Comprehensive Plan regularly; 15 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul adopts the 17 Mississippi River Comdar Pan as an amendment to the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan contingent on fiirther 18 review by the Department of Natural Resources, the Metropolitan Council, and the Nafional Pazk Service; and 19 20 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mississippi River Corridar Plan replaces the Saint Paul Mississippi 21 River Corridor Plan, adopted in October, 1981 and amended in November, 1987, as the river conidor chapter 22 of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. Requested by Department of: Plannin4 & EconOmic Develonment By Form Approved Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� By: _� _7 � // � / by Citp ��[to�ney � �`/ ��. g � � � � � Approved by Mayor or Submission to Council Approved by Mayor: Date !VY ay: aY: �`�- � r � Adopted by Council: Date �,�� pp ` U DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL: PED DATE IlVITIATED GREEN SHEET Nor 111225 Q 1��` 12 Feb 2001 ' CONTACf PERSON & PHONE: � IN AI'E m111niApA'1'E Martha Faust 266-6572 z nErnirrn�r Dix. s crrr courrcn, MUS� ON CQUNCII, AGENDA BY (DATE) �IGN 3 CITY ATTORNEY = CITY CLERK G T n f_ 1VIJMBER —��CIAL SERV DIR. F[NANCIAL SERV/ACCTG (T. Meyer) �O �T�� FOR 4 MAYOR(ORASST.) CIVII.SERVICECOMbIISSION )�� ROU'i'ING 1 Tom Harren —� �/n,/ � P�� G LT� I7 ORDER TOTAL # OF SIGNAI'URE PAGES 1(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTiON REQUESTED: RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAI, SERVICE CONTRACI'S MI1ST ANSWER 1'fIE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: A PLANNING COMI��IISSION I. Has [his person/f¢m ever worked under a conhact for this depaz[ment? CIB COMbIITTEE Yes No CIVII, SERVICE COMIvIISSION 2 Has this perso�/firnt ever been a ciTy employee7 Yes No 3. Does this persoNfi�m possess a skill not noxmally possessed by any cursent city employee� Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTIINITY (Who, What, W6en, Where, Why): Mayoral Transmittal and draft Council Resolution for adoption of the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan. ADVAN'i'AGES IF APPROVED: The Planning Commission has recommended the Mississippi River Corridor Plan to the City Council for approval as a chapter of the City Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing sponsored by the City Council to consider the new Mississippi River Corridor Plan will be held on Wednesday, February 28, 2001. A draft Council Resolution approving the Plan (contingent on DNR, Met Council, and National Park Service approval) is attached, to be jointly introduced by those Council members whose wards include the State Designated Critical Area of the Mississippi River (Benanav, Harris, Coleman and Lantry). DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: None DISADVANI'AGES IF NOT APPROVED: The Mississippi River Corridor Plan will not become part of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION: COST/REVENUE BUDGETED: I�[JNDING SOURCE: ACTIVI'1'YN[JMBER: . . Budget code: FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) ' . �' e , E � V � �° S� �i i t� 4 K\ShareA�Ped�Fa�stVLVautiverCmndorPlen�gmshLfim Y ... r F�� 1 �'i{TY ,4TTORNE�I � a,-,�i C �Y �F' .Stillv 1 PA�. 390 Ciry Hall Te[ephone: 65I-26Cr8510 Norm Colemars, M¢yor IS West%Ilogg Bo�levard Facsimi[e: 65I-22&8513 SainrPaul, MN55102 J8X1U3Ty 29� 20�1 City Council President Dan Bostrom Councilmembers Dear Council President Bostrom and Councilmembers: I am pleased to transmit and recommend for your adoption a new Mississippi River Corridor Plan, a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. This new plan will replace the river corridor chapter adopted in 1981, and last amended in 1987. The Planning Commission sponsored a tharough community discussion in the process of developing this Plan. This new River Corridor Plan marks the City's policy coxnmihnent to protecting the river's natural resources, affirming the future of the working river, connecting neighborhoods to the river, and adopting urban design principles for river corridor redevelopment. In so doing, it reinforces the vision of the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework and extends it to the enrire river valley in Saint Paul. The plan will satisfy State Critical Area requirements, as administered by the Minnesota Deparhnent of Natural Resources, and will demonstrate the City's commitment to the voluntary Mississippi National River & Recreation Area policies, consistent with Saint Paul's efforts to be a good stewazd of this precious natural asset. I recommend adoption of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan contingent on approval by the Metropolitan Council, DNR, and National Park Service srill to come. Sincerely, �(�� (�� Norm Coleman Mayor G�1-i9/ city of saint paul planning commission resolution fle number o0-�9 date 12-is-oo A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE SAINT PAUL MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR PLAN WHEREAS, a new Mississippi River Corridor policy plan is an important component of an updated Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan needed to both inform City environmental protection and development policy and meet the comprehensive planning requirements of the Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355; and WHEREAS, an issue paper entitled Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan: Framing the Discussion published in March, 1999 provided for extensive community discussion of Mississippi River Corridor policy issues; and WHEREAS, a draft Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan published on August 25, 2000 has been discussed in numerous community meetings; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Saint Paul Planning Commission on October 20, 2000, notice of which was published in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger on October 10 and 11, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Commission finds broad community support for the policy directions recommended by the plan and has made revisions to the draft in response to specific concerns raised and information provided in the course of the community discussion and public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul approves the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan as an element of The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, contingent on review by the Department of Natural Resources, the Metropolitan Council, and the National Park Service; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan to the Mayor and to the Saint Paul City Council for preliminary adoption and for inclusion in The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. moved by Gordon seconded by Donnelly-Cohen in favor Unanimous against // o1�J9/ � �1T1 2 / 2 �/ Q / 127 West Winitred St. 7 r 1 � � S1DLi /'#�� St. Paul, MN 55107 N G ( �j `• � ��Phone (612) 293-1708 • �' ,�1�It1,�101� /�Q{A� �-�/�res �� Fex (612} 293-011� Ml`ss - /Lr1.�zCorn2Lr Febniazy 28, 2001 Dear Planning Commission: On behalf of the West Side community, the West Side Citizens Or¢anization appreciates ihe opportunity to review and comment on the dra£t Mississippi River Corridor Plan Z000 update. The Mississippi River bounds the neighborhood on three sides and the bluffs and slopes form the neighborhood. More than half the bVest Side is within the sfate Critical Area and MNRRA boundary. This policy and implementation document wifl guide how new development enhances the river and the neighborhood. Its fcnal form is of vital importance to the neighborhood, and the neighborhood organizations such as the Bluff Task Force aze essentiat to its imptementation. The following comments were deveIoped by a task force representing numerous neighborhood committees and adopted by the WSCO Board. Comments are also based on the past five years of community participation in the development of riverfront development principles and the neighborhaod plan, Back to the Flzture, which shouid guide fufure development. The plan is well v��ritten and emphasizes neighborhood connections to the river We offer the £ollowing additions and changes. Section l.l ➢ The West Side community generally supports the five strategies and applauds the city's po(icy • of zemoving bil] boards \�/e request the £oIlowing additions and clarifications: ➢ In strategy l, biuffs and riverbanks should also be restored and the cause of damaoe, such as stormwater outflows and vegetative cutting, shou[d be dealt with ➢ In strategy 2, river-dependent emerging businesses, such as boat repaiz, should be recognized Although the West Side supports such housing if it can be designed to be river enhanciag, housing should not be portrayed as equally ziver-related (see lack of priorities in section 5.1.1. ➢ In sirategy 3, early industrial and economic uses should be added to the list of cuitural resources in recognition of beer brewing, mushroom fuming, brick making and other activities reiated to the caves the Lilydale Park. ➢ In strategy 4, add a bullei affirzning ihat design standards wii] incorporate the i��ississippi Nationai River anc� Recreation Area G�It' site design policies (the West Side pian, Back �o the Futvre District 3 plan supports �! RRA policies for all corridor development). ➢ The last bullet should a�rm that buildings fit into "existing neighborhoods" by adding those t�vo words after "topography" Section 2 The West Side community supports this section's emphasis on the ecologicai function o£both the • river corridor and the watersheds that feed the river and the depiction of a bninnced approach as illustrated in £igure 2.3. a/-! 9/ Section 3 • In 3.1, the West Side community supports the emphasis on watersheds, parks and open space and neighborhood preservation. The description of different river corridor chazacteristics should include the blufftop historic neighborhoods of the West Side and Aayton's bluffs. All new development should support the physical and cultural uniqueness o£existing neighborhoods ( Section 3 2 visions should also include recognition o£river corridor neighborhood pians. In particulaz, the West 5ide riverfront development principles St. Paul on the Mississippi Framework ��est Side Precinct Plan, the West Side Back to Our Puture ]ong range plan and the West Side Flats Design Strategy attached to these comments. The description a£topography on 3.4 should mention probtem areas. For example, the associated large parking azeas mentioned in the lowIands are not topographic forms, rather, are uses that aze harmful to the form and function of lowlands. Section 4 4.1.2 West Side Bluff management is being addressed by the WS Bluff Task Force in conjunction with St. Paul Parks and �tecreation department. Explicit recognition ofthis work should be included in the plan. 4 1,3 The description o£the downtown area should be clazi5ed. Use of the term downtown would not include the West Side Any exceptions allowed should be subject to special condition use permit. 4.1.5 The language regarding possible allowance of construction in bluff impact azea is too vague � and could be applied to any situation. We recommend simply preserving the impact area without exception Native vegetation should be re-established in this area where possible. The West Side Precinct Plan calls for a blu££top trail which should be addressed in the plan 4.4.6 Don't just encoura2e enforcement of floodplain and wetland protection po]icies, commit to enforcing those you aze required to enforce. 4.4 8"�he city should develop its own programs, where appropriate, to accomplish the proteCions recommended 4 4.9 I` only recreational, but commercia] uses impact should be addressed. Section 5 5.5 1 The West Side is not downtown. If you expect a"dawntown" exemption to apply to the West Side, you must so specify. The criteria for "river related" are so broad, any development in the city could qualify. Re� write the criteria to be truly river retated. E.�, river related as specified in 5.2 1 5.1.2 To be consistent w�ith MNRRA plan, exemptions should only be allowed for river re]ated uses. • Section 6 6 1 1 We are unsure what is meant by limitiag Cherokee Puk bluff to preservation. The West Side considers vertacal connections important for use o£Lilydale Regional Pazk oi-� q� • 6.1.2 Add "will require" before "all public facilities". Section 7 The West Side community agrees with many o£the urban design principles, including infill and new grid-pattern neighborhoods and fitting development into existing neighborhoods, some critical policies should be included or changed. ➢ 7.1.1 should include adoption of the West Side riverfront developznent principles for new villages on the West Side and state what they are. That document defines the meaning o£ connections to the river and integration into the existin� neighborhoods. ➢ 7.1.8 should include a policy of establishing green corridors along the river — between all buildings and the river notjust greening stzeets to the river. The community supports the ivINRRA-suggested 100-foot setback (d 40-foot native vegetation corridor, where feasible) as part of restoring the ecological funcYions of the corridor including its importance as a flywa_y and its water quality. ➢ View protection in 7.2.1 focuses on the views from Kellogg Park to the West Side and along only Wabasha 5treet. The section should protect views from the West Side bluffs to the river and not eliminate Robert Street. Residents of the bluff top neighborhoods have repeatedly expressed a concern to W SCO that buildings not obstruct their views of the riverfront. Though the community participated in and supports the city's topographic approach to providing some flexibifity in height standards for landmarks, WSCO is on record as objecting to ANX building � on the West Side that exceeds 65 feet (see letter regarding the 40-acre study). The community supports the MNRRA policies o£keeping river£ront buildings in low profile with some elevation back frosn the river. ➢ Suggested design guidelines for the West Szde flats on page 49 should inciude limiting buiiding heights along the riverfront, not just along Wabasha. Some residents strongly support the existing 35-foot limit Others suggested 35' to 65', depending on viewsheds and closeness to rivecfront. The natural resource design guidelines should include continupus �reens�ace along the river's edge, not just public space. The section on access and connections should include improved pedestrian connections between the West Side neighborhood and any new development. As metnioned previously, the city should make a commitment in this section to the West Side riverfront design principles and the MIvRRA suggested design guidelines in the C�, appendix C. ➢ A section 7,4 should be added to address guidelines for the expansion of existing businesses. This is not Addressed anywhere in the document, despite the continuation of major industrial uses within the West Side Flats, other industrial and eommercial uses throughou; the corridor, and the expansion of homes and other buildings within the corridor. The policies shouid cleatly state the river enhancing standazds that wili he applied to e�cpansions and should protect existing businesses if they follow these practices and especially if they are river dependent The city should consider establishir,g a�znd to provide an incentive for property owners enhance the � river corridor through better runoff management, protection of native vegetation and so on v/ / y/ ➢�'he plan also does not acldress transportation and public uses such as the airport. WSCO . strongly supports maintaining the floodplain functions within the airport, and would not support any furthcr diking of that area, We call £or a reduction of parkiag and pavement in the flats. Section 8 Tlxe in�plen�entation section should be ex�anded to e,xplain the types of ordinanee changes tk�e city is proposing. Will the city continue to have an overlay district that establishes standards to protect aitd enhance natural aad cultural resonrces while referencing underlying zoning distriets for land use9 Does the city support maintaining the functions of the floodplain? ➢ Policies for bluff protectioa� nre contradictory and confusing. Is the policy to limit developmexlt on and 40 feet back £rom 12% slopes, from 78% slopes or not? The standard should be protection of bluffs, reduction of runoff, prevention o£ erosion and restoration of native vegetation along the 40-foot lmpact area. �'he standard for exceptions from a 40-foot setback from the 12% or 18% slopes should be made clear, Curzent statement of "allowing development on slopes thaC exceed 12% and 18% slopes should be changed. ➢ Paragraph 7 for adopting site design standards should state a goal of adopting standards consistent �n�ith the MNRRA C1�IP site design standards that adapt suggested appendix C design standazds to local needs. ➢ Section 8.2 should include timing and process for adopting site design standards and should ensure that all public and private development will adhere to thent or mitigate any effects �or . exceptions. ➢ Section 8.3, '�'he West Side community supports the continuous river comdor trail on the west sids of the river and requests the city complete identiftcation of and reservation of easements for, the river trail from Robert to So. St. Paul A Section 8.4, The West Side community supports heritage pzeservation and requests specif�c mention be made of the Xoerg Brewery, caves, and hSstoric stairs and connections that should be preser��ed and restored between the upper blu£fs and the flats. We also would like more aggressive effozts by the city to have the plaa certified by MI��TtRA so the city is eligible £or £ederal funds to establish intezpretative trails and kiosks in the West Side and from Harriet Island through Lilydale Park. The implementation of the Lilydale Park plan and one trail connection between Cherokee and Lilydale portions of the regional pazk should be made priority. Pigure W. Does not include important views from West Side bluffs to and across the river. Thank you for your consideration of our coraments. Sincerely, � V a'k • Bruce Vandal President 0/-l9/ � DEPARTMENTO�PLANNING & ECONOM[C DEVELOPMLT;T Bri¢n Seeeney, Directa� SAINT PAUL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[em¢n, Mayor 15 West Four�h Street Telephare: b.il-?G6-6�G.i Saint Paul, :LfN 55102 Facsimile 65l-2?8-32G1 vC�t",_"..` �cSuv.'G� t',.r,y;, ��._ Public Hearing Notice ; � � � � �� ,_� The Saint Paul City Council will hold a public hearing on the Mississippi River Corridor Plan Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Room 330, City Hall The Saint Paul City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Mississippi River Corridor Plan as a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the draft Mississippi RiverCorridorPlan are available: • at Saint Paul branch libraries. • via the web at: httq://www.ci.stoaul.mn.us/ped/. If you would like to comment on the Mississippi River Corridor Plan: 1) You may testify at the City Council Public Hearing; 2) You may submit written comments to: Planning Administrator, Department of Planning & Economic Development, 1100 City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, Saint Paul, MN 55102. Questions can be directed to Virginia Burke (651/266-6661) or Martha Faust (651/266- 6572) at the Department of Planning & Econorriic Development. • • lIi\ �ESOT� HISTORIC:IL SOCIETY February 14, 2001 ,a�/a `��O 1 �� iU.z,� �e y r.v�� v��'u. � i�55 , �� Yt�/1 �'"'' •�IG • Mr. Jack P. Maloney 580 Otis Avenue St. Paul, NN 55014 Deaz Mr. Maloney: The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is in receipt of your letter dated 2/2/01 requestin� an opinion from our office as to the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of the Meeker Island Lock in St. Paul. As you know, the Meeker Island Lock was part of an early 20` century attempt to bring regular water transportation to Minneapolis. The Corps of Engineers initial plan involved two locks and dams, one near Fort Snelling to be called Lock and Dam #i and the other to be just above the Lake Street bridge (neaz Meeker Island) to be called Lock and Dam #2. Work started on Lock and Dam #2 in 1899 and was completed in 1907. This was the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River. The steamboat Itura was the first vessel to pass through the lock on May 19, 1907. Work was started on Lock and Dam #1 in 1903, but in 1910 hydroelectricity advocates succeeded in convincing the Corps to build a high dam at Lock and bam #1. This eliminated the need for the Meeker Island structure, so the top five feet of Dam #2 were demolished in 1912 and the lock chamber was abandoned. Lock and Dam #1 was completed in 1917. Lock #2 on the east side ofthe river is still visible from the Lake Street bridge. The significance of Lock and Dam #2 is clear. Not only was it the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River, but it was an important part of the power struggle between the cities of Minneapolis znd St. Paul regazding the development of hydroelectricity and which city �vould be the head of navigation. It is eligible under National Register Criterion A;n the azeas of En�ineering and Transportation. The fact that the lock chamber survives virtually intact and the base of dam exists on the riverbed sue�ests that the site retains sufficient integrity to convey its sigaificance. There is also the possibility that remnants of the access road and the dam construction camp exist as contributin� elements. Unfortunately, our office does not have the staffin� resources to prepaze the National Re�ister nomination at this time. If you wish to immediately pursue nomination of the property, it will be necessary for you to supply us with a completed National Register form and any required supportin� documentation. You may wish to retain the services of a consultant to complete the nomination. A list of consultants is attached. Please note that inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement. :fa.il�ELLnCG$pl"LLIaRllR6=T y!ATP:1CI..�IIS\Ecp1'.Ais1V3-19Ub'TELEP[IUAF�fi51_�a��F�or 0,-�9 r • You may also ask to have this property added to a list of properties for which nominations will be prepazed by this office when there are sufficient resources. I cannot give you an exact time when this might occur. It may take several years from being added to the list of possible nominations to the presentation of a completed nomination to the State Review Board. For now, the Minnesota SHPO considers the Meeker Island Lock and Dam to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Sincerely, � Scott Anfinson National Register Archaeologist, MnSHPO Cc: Martha Faust, St. Paul PED �� . � 01�14'/ � CJ • February 26, 2001 Honorable Members of the City Council Office of the City Council City Hall Saint Pau1,1�dN 55102 Dear Council A4emUers: �I,�gloi �� .��ti� �1i9.w C� r ��r9 o n ��wc1 (`1 � y 5. �'t � V-2/� l j2 � r i C�D'1 � � C;w. We respec[futly submit for }•our consideration the attached modest comments on the latest version of the,�lississiypi Rn�er Corridor Pla�v The most recent document has effectively captured the input and vision of many community members. It has some strong and inspiring aspects to it, most notaUly, objectives to pro[ect the bluff lands, preserve and restore native plant and anunal habitats, encourage protection and preservation of the floodplain and wetlands, protect water quality. Tet, at the same time, these good objectives could be better articulated �vith respect to bluff protection 2nd ecologically progressive landscape guidelines. Therefore, while �ee congratulate the Citp on all the effort it has put into the plan, we respectfully ask that the City Council consider several changes (attached). OveraIl, we hope fhese changes �citt only strengthen thc documcnt towards thc ccological goals that we sharc. In designating the \lississippi River cotridor as a state critical area, the Legislature recognized that the coiridor possessed natural systems "of greater than local sign�cance." They further recognized that "developmenL..could result in irreversible damage." �V'e share «'ith the City Council the hope that Saint Paul «'ill continue to be the model in balancing economic development and environtnental enhancement. Thank you again for the opportunity to share these comments with }'ou. �Ve cannot emphasize enough ho�v much �r'e respect all the Council�s �cork on behalf of improving the qualitv of life in our city. With hi�h regard, Deborah Karasov Deborah ICarasov, PhD, A4I.A Landscape Planning and Policy Great River Greeaing 651-690-4077 35 �L'est Watex S�eet Smce 207 Sam! Paul MN 55107 _o_ P 6516659500 F 651 G659<09 __�ri_�_�cv�v:_�,,,orn Pmtedonl�T/occydcdpapa o�-�g/ � CODfAfEA'TS ON THE DIISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR PLAN (DECEbIBER, 2000) OB7ECTII E 4.1 PROZECT THE BLUFFL4ADS OF THE RI F�R CORRIDOR The City intends to protect the Utuff-lands but allo�vs e�ceptions to bluff protection policies (4.1.3) and steep slopes. These statements negate key Critical Area policies. Later in the document (6.4.2 and 7.3), the City proposes additional structures, bluff drives, "developed overlool:s" and other connections on the bluff. While public access is unportant, these building actions need to be closely evalua[ed for their impacts and should not be supported as a blanl: matter of policy. 4.1.3 Change the sentence that allows esceptions for public structures related to recreation, access and connections. Instead, note that these public structures (e.g., bridges, retaining �t alls, sign monuments, and stainvells) should be e�amined on a case by case basis, allowing tltem onlV if lhey do not ureveisibly affect critical ecological resources. 4.1.4 The City should prohiUit residential development on slopes [hat esceed eighteen percen� not only on slopes greater than t�t�elve percent Should this Ue an impossible change for the city, at the � least, the document should add (afrer [he sentence prohiUiting residential developmeni on slopes esceeding t« elve percent): The City «ill accept • residential development on slopes that esceed m elve percent only if the project meets a strict hardship standard and if it does not irreversibly affect critical ecological resources. REL-1TED POLICIES: 6.4.2 Change the sentence to read that "Connections...MAY be unpro��ed... Add that any shuctures (such as ramps, ��'all.�vays, and stairs) must be evaluated on a case by case basis for their impact on the bluff. Also such connection should be uncommon. 7.? See belo�v for recommended changes to Desien Guidelines. 8.1.7 The casual reference here to variances is ver}� troubling. We ��'ould recommend that the Cit} emphasize that an}� variances with respect to bluff unpact area and steep slopes must first meet a strict hardship standard. Also, at the cer}� least, add to the criteria: AZodifications t� ill not be accepted if there is irreversible damage to significant ecological and aesthetic resources. Additionall}�, The Cih� should eliminate the statement, "Encourage cie�atcd structures and retaining ��'al1s." There are man}� natural and naturally appearing wa�•s to protect s[eep slopes, and in most cases retaining walls are aet� unnatural. OBTECTA� 4.2 PRPSERL�'A.�� RESTORP RATNE PLAM�L\DRNLIL4L HABIIATS 4.2.2 This policy states the city will encourage use of native vegetation. Instead, the city should require it. • 35 W'est Watex SheeC Smte 201 Sav�t Fav] MN 55; 07 _v_ P 651 C659500 F b51 e659409 wVO�er__�r�=�c-i�i�i� Pcui[eden IOJ%icrycicdpap<t or/y� � OBJECTIF�' S.1 CON77AriJE CO,tL1 fERCL4L AND INDUSTRIAL LAhD USES... �.l A The City should require screening of industrial development, not merely encourage it. 7.3 DESIGNGUIDELIA'ES The objectives of the design guidelines are quite admirable: greater pabtic access, preservation of public vie�vs, good stormwater management, e�panded urban forest, and sensitive urUan fabric are all objectives �ve share. At the same time, [he guidelines are here and there missing aitical pieces; [he omissions ultimately may ]ead to development that undermines those admirable objectives. In particular the design guidelines need the following statements for each development site: UPPER LANDING Access and Connectious • Add: Design streets for pedestrian scale and safety and �vith livable communit}� desigtt solutions. • �'icws and \'istas • Add: Ecaluate all plans to cteate views from the bluff within the conte�t of an overall bluff management plan. [Creating vie��•s requires cutting natural vegetation, and this should only Ue done �� i[hin a larger bluff vegetation management pian.] Stormwater • Add: Atinimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. AD \Z Access and Connections • Add: Design streets for pedestrian scale and safet}' and �vith livable communin� design solutions. • Lliminate: "Create a bluff drive as a 1oca1 residential street atop the lower bluff." Views and Vistas • Add: Eval�ate all plans to create views from the blutf within the contest of an overall bluff manaeement plan. [Creating � ie�vs requires cutting natural vegetation, and this should only be done �vithin a larger bluff vegetation management plan.] • 35 West Watec S7eeC Sm[e 201 Sunt Paul IvL�1 55107 _o_ P 6516659500 F 6516G59409 wv �za=rvma-_nn�v.o� PMtcd en SOT/o �ccydcd p�ec � � � . � sto�,�t� • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within de��elopment. Development Pattern • Finally, c��e appreciate that the document has removed specific height numbers with refei'ence to thc dcsircd building cdgc. Howcvcr, �xc are surc that thc City would not ticant thc promotion of a"higher edge" to perceived as an ingenious way to avoid the esplicit commitment to the 40-foot hei�ht restriction (as requued by the Critical Areas Plan J P,s notecl repeatedly by many neighborhood and community groups, the cunent fashion for a "building ed�e" should not blind us to the wisdom of the Departrnent of Namral Resources in establishing that restriction. \Ve sug�est that all recommendations with respect to height be eliminated, especially given the careful work of the Shepard-Davern Task Force in dealing tvi[h this issue. "ihanh } ou again for your conslderation of these comments. 35 �Y✓est Water C��: c�ce 201 C�� Faul \�N 5 107 _o_ P 651 GG59500 F 6':6659409 ___v!eqm_�.en:��oio FcnttC^n107Y vccycicdpapcc 0�-15! LJ CIT'Y OF SAIN'f PAUL h'onn Colemm; blayor DAT�: March 6, 2001 TO: City Councilmembers DEPARTMENT OP PLAi�NING & GCO: fOMIC DHVELOP�[E\T Bfim: S�s�eeaey, Direaor 25 1'Jest Four7k Street Te[ephorte: 651-266-6565 Sni�ttPaui, MNS510? Fatsimife: 651-2?8-3?61 FROM: Virginia Burke, 651-266-6661 �g Martha Faust, 651-266-6572'l�'� RE: Mississippi River Corridor Plan: Pub]ic Hearing Follow Up At the conclusion of the public hearing on the tLlississippi River Corrirlor Plan, held on • Wednesday, Febniary 28, 2001, Councilruembers Harris and Lantry� requested that staff provide a written response to public testimony received. Staff responses to testimony from Great River Greening, Friends of the Parks and Trails, the Highland District Council (District 15), and the West Side Citizens Organization (District 3) are attached. Please contact us if you have an}• questions. • v�-�g. ( Proposed Amendments to the Mississippi River Corridor Plan (to be introduced by Harris � and/or Lantry): Text Changes Chapter 3, number 3, p, ll: "The chazacter of river valley land uses also changes considerably, from the quiet, residential character of the gorge, to the mixed commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street corridor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preseroed blufftop neighborhoods in the West Side. Da�ton's Bluff, and Highwood neighborhoods." {Reference stafFresponse to WSCO, p.l #5). 2. Chapter 5, paragraph 3, p. 32: "In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor currenfly has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 bazges and a total design capacitv of 574 bazees (Fieure Rl. (Reference staff response to Friends, p3 #8) 3_ Chapter 6, Objective 6.3, p. 39: "On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport, and in the Pig's Eye Lake area a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacenY to the river for safety and environmental reasons." (Reference staff response to Friends, p.5 #I 1) 4. Chapter 7, paragraph 2, p. 48: "On the following pages aze suggested guidelines for the West Side Flats, Upper Landing, Koch-Mobil and ADM sites, and the Shepazd • Davem azea. The individual guidelines should not be viewed as mandates, and it is unlikely that any project will be able to fulfill every provision. Rather, collectively they provide a vision for redevelopment that enhances the river corridor, respects this precious amenity, and strikes a batance between economic development and resource protection. This list is not e�chaustive. These suggested guidelines will be used as the basis for the ne�ct step in the regulatory process (see Section 8.1.8)." (Reference staff response to Greening, p.4 #7) '--- '- ' - .. . .. _ • _, .. ..3.*h°�X:sfi..^4Q --�-- L'tlap�er-8,�lumDerl,p�L"-tonsmercrea�YYt�2�c'�riifi.rarorsi2ii?r,�Ej�':,u- �-_..-- river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river comdor modification requests for development on slopes exceeding 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact azea (40' from the bluff line). The intent is not to encoura�e river corridor modificarions_ buf to orovide the Plannin¢ Commission with further Quidance when considerine modification requests. Such criteria may address, but aze not limited to, the following factors:" 6. Chapter 8, number 8, p. 52 "With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design guidelines for major river corridor redevelopment sites � n , � > _ ', where no euidelines have yet been written. The design Mazch 7, 2001 Page I of 3 . ot-t9l � guidelines will be sensirive to the purposes of this Plan, and will clarify how the form and scale of development can incorporate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public enjoyment of the river. It is e�cpected that such guidelines will be implemented through a variety of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Village Zoning project, site-specific guidelines, and possibly through design districts (a concept that is currentiy being developed). The Shepazd-Davern redevelo area alreadv has created desi�n euidelines throueh a 1999 Small Area Plan. Appendig B shows illustrations for the five redevelopment sites based on the work of the Design Study. "(Reference staff response to Deuberry) 7. Chapter 8, Section 8.2, p.53: "Site Plan Review Guidelines. Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate provisions for public access to the river, connections to exisfing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic qualiry, and measures to address adverse environmental impacts of new development. The Citv will work with the Department of Natural Resources to deterxnine if amendments to site lan review uidelines are necessarv. This will occur durin the Ordinance revision nrocess which will foilow adoption of this Plan. (Reference staff response to WSCO, p.6 #16) • 8. Appendix B, p.58 Add to: Significant Archaeological Sites (identified by State Historic Preservation Office): Meeker Island Lock & Dam fdetermined eligible for National Register but not vet officiallv hstedl �— C , J Policy Changes 10. Policy 4.13, p. 20: "To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional structural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Further exceptions are mav be allowed for a limited number of low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. Such structures should be uncommon. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code." (Reference staff response to Greening, p.l #1) 11. Policy 5.2.1, p. 33: "Bazge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port ternunals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. (The businesses at Bazee Terminal #1 are all river related.) River-related land uses are those with an economic or operational need for a river location." (Reference staff response to Friends, p.4 #9) March 7, 2001 Page 2of 3 oi-�q � 12• Policy 6.4.2, p. 41: "Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river �i}} � mav be improved by adding a limited number ofpedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, watkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats." (Reference staff response to Greening, p.2 #3) j3• Policy 7.13, p. 45 In Upland azeas such as the Gorge, the City encourages preserving and enhancing the existing modified grid pattem of streets and blocks. In portions of Battle Creek and Highwood, development form follows a suburban or exurban pattern with cul- de-sacs and meandering roads that follow topography. In these neighborhoods without a connected street system, the City supports creaYing a connected system as redevelopment or major subdivision occurs, to the extent that it is com atible with to o a h. • March 7, 2001 • Page 3of 3 0 �•�9� Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City � Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. 1. Current Policy 413 To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional sh development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevazd. Further exceptions aze allowed for low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code. Background: This policy was discussed at length with the CPC. Case-by-case evaluation would happen as a matter of course, so staff would not recommend restating an existing practice. Staff Recommendation: Amend policy 4.13: "To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional structural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevazd. Further exceptions are mav be allowed for a limited number of low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. Such structures should be uncommon. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code." . 2. Current Policy 4.1.4 In order to protect steep slopes and minunize erosion, and consistent with Executive Order 79-19, the city will continue to prohibit residential development on slopes that exceed eighteen percent. Consistent with the MNI2ItA standard for commercial and industriai development, the city will continue to restrict industrial and commercial development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. Background: The Planning Commission does not believe it is prudent for the city to prohibit residential development on slopes greater than twelve percent (nor do we believe it would preclude the City from reaching Tier II status). Site pian review is already required for any development on slopes greater than twelve percent. When ordinance revisions occur (under the direction of DNR), we may be required to add additional provisions to our site pian review requirements to be consistent with Critical Area. Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.1.4 as written. 3. Current Policy 6.4.2 Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river will be improved by adding a limited numbez of pedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, walkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats. Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission • PC Planning Commission RC River Conidor Page I of 4 o t-�q i • Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Background: The CPC amended this policy to respond to Greenin�'s original comments submitted to the Planning Commission, and also in response to a comment from DNR. In response to the October comments, this policy was qualified to refer only to "a limited number" of new connections. Case-by-case evaluation would happen as a matter of course, so staff would not recommend restating an existing practice. Staff recommendation: Amend policy b.4.2: Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river � mav be improved by adding a limited number of pedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, walkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats. 4. Current Section 8.1.7 Consider creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river corridor modification requests for development on slopes exceeding 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact area (40' from the bluff line). Such criteria may address, but are not limited to, the following factors: • Retain the natural slope lines of the site, as seen in profile. Restore the vegetation lines which convey the slope lines. Roof pitch should match slope angle. • Screen new buildings. • : Slopes facing the river should look natural to the greatest extent possible. Stagger or step building units according to the topography. • Plan buildings, drives, pazking areas, and landscanine to acknowledge the natural contour line of the site. • Provide parking on the uphill side behind buildings. • Lot coverage. • Location of building on lot. • Regulate building design, e.g. materials, bulk, shape, height, color. • Areas with a certain pitch of slope (e.g. g�eater than 12% and less than 18%) shall not have an impervious surface coverage greater than a certain percentage (e.g. greater than 25%). • Encourage elevated structures & retaining walls. - No increase in runoff from the site (from rainfall, septic systems, irrigation). • Minimal removal of deep-rooted woody vegetation. Background: The intention has always been to strenethen the criteria for considering rivercorridor modifications for construction on steep slopes. River conidor modifications do periodically occur, and the Planning Commission has requested additional provisions to ensure that any disturbance is minimized. It is premature to try to finalize ordinance CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Plannin� Commission • PC Planaing Commission RC River Corridor Page 2 of 4 o�-��t � Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City � Council Public Hearing. Responses aze coded to specific comments in (etter, attached. Ianguage in the plan: we wilI continue to wotk with DNR on deveIoping the exact ordinance language. Staff Recommendation: No change to 8.1.7 as written. 5. Current Policy 4.2.2 The City will encourage use of native vegetatzon ar other compatible floodplain vegetation in redevelopment projects. Where appropriate, when redeveloping or stabilizing the river's edge, soil bio-engineering techniques and native plantings will be used in combination with more traditional engineered solutions. In the more formal landscape treatrnents occurring along the downtown riverfront, the shoreline will be strengthened with native vegetation, including native trees and shrubs. Throughout the river corridor, the City will encourage integration of future growth and development with restoration programs that reconnect and restore remnant natural communities and biological diversity. Background: The Zoning Code provisions already.require natural vegetation to be restored after any constnzcrion project, which satisfies the Criticai Area requirement fo retain e�sting vegation and landscaping throughout the river corridor. This policy was amended to resoIve a concern raised by MNRRA staff earlier in the process. • Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.2.2 as written. 6. Current Policy 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the . opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of waIls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside --- ------- SL.^.=2ga ar�a�a,g �F�PrP_ ci.1Ch SCr£eT�i22 T�Wlll_ROt 3(Ie171IDeII1 t0 bllS1IIeS5 OpeTahORS. Background: The basis for this policy is the Critical Area requirement that "local plans and regulations shall include provisions to provide for the screenin� o£ existing development which constitutes visual intrusion, wherever appropriate..to protect and preserve aesthetic qualities of the river cosidor." (C.2.e.(4)) The Critical Area requirement is met through this policy and site plan review requirements already in place. MNRRA staff requested that the City, above and beyond the Critical Area requirement, suppozt and encourage the use of vegetative screening, and that request was incorporated verbatim. Key: CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Plannin� Commission . RC River Corridor Page 3 of 4 0�-19/ C � � • Staff response to Feb. 26, 2001 letter from Great River Greening, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. 7. Key: CPC PC RC are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.4 as written. Current Section 7.3 Design Guidelines (for 5 xedevelopment sites) Background: Despite clarifying the introductory language to this section, there continues to be a misperception that those objectives listed in 73 aze a definitive, final list for each site. They are not (as is noted both in 73 and Chapter 8). We believe it would only spur more confusion and interest if we continue to add objectives to this section. Staff Recommendation: Add another clarifying statement to paragraph 2, page 48: "This list is not exhaustive." And "These suggested guidelines will be be used as the basis for the next step in the regulatory process (see Section 8.1.8)." Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission Planning Commission River Corridor Page 4 of 4 bt-\9 � February 26, 2001 Honorable Members of ihe City Council Office of the City Council City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council Members: a��g�o� C� � �� .�� yy � �4.� �9rr.��on� �`'1�55_ Jl� ✓-i/� �✓ric�D'1 ��Ow. �ue respectfully submit for your consideration the attached modest comments on the latest version of the Mississip�i River Corridor Plan. The most recent document has effectively captured the input and vision of many community members. It has some strong and inspiring aspects to it, most notably, objectives to proteci the bluff lands, preserve and restore native plani and anunal habitats, encourage protection and preservation of the floodplain and weUands, protect �vater qualiry. Yet, at the same time, these good objectives could be better articulated with respect to biuff protection and ecologically progressive landscape guidelines. Therefore, while we con�atulate the City on all the effort it has put into the plan, we respectfully ask ihat the City Council consider several changes (attached). Overall, we hope these changes �vill only strengthen the documcnt towards thc ccological goaIs that we sharc. In designating the n�Iississippi River comdor as a state critical azea, ihe Legislature recognized that the wrridor possessed natural systems "of greater than local significance." They further recognized that "development... could result in irreversible damage." We share with the City Council the hope thaT Saint Paul will conYinue to be the model in balancing economic development and environmental enhancement. Thank you again for the opportunity to share these comments «�ith you. ��e cannot emphasize enough how much we respect aII the Council's �;�ork on behaif of improving the quality of life in our ciTy. With high regard, Debarah Karasov Deborah Karaso��, PhD, MLA Landscape Planning and Policy Crreat River Greening 651-690-4077 � 35 Q'est Watez SheeC Sm� 201 • Cunc paul MN 55107 _o_ P G516659500 F 6536659a09 ww�t?—_m_�c-�� y PMttdon 107%rttycicdpeper � � CObIDIENTS OV THE �1 fISSIS5IPPl ffiVER CORRIDOR PLA�V (DECENBER, 2000) �J OBJECTZVE4.1 PROTECTTHEBLUFFLAA�DSOFTHERIVERCORRIDOR The City intends to protect the bluff-lands but allo�es e�ceptions to bluff protection policies (4. L3) and steep slopes. These statements negate key Critical Area policies. Later in the document (6.4.2 and 7.3), the City proposes additional structures, bluff drives, "developed overlooks" and other connections on the bluff. While public access is importan� these building actions need to be closely evaluated for their impacts and should not be supported as a blank matter of policy. �y 4.1.3 Change the sentence that allows e�ceptions for puUlic structures related to recreation, 'r�' access and connections. Instead, note that these public sWctures (e.g., bridges, retaining walls, sign monuments, and stainvells) should be esamined on a case by case basis, allowing them only if they do not irreveisiUly affect critic2l ecological resources. �$ 2 #3 �� '� S 4.1.4 The City should prohibit residential development on slopes that esceed eighteen percent, not only on slopes greater than hvelve percent. Should this be an impossible change for the city, at the very least, the document should add (after the sentence prohibiting residential development on slopes e�ceeding hveh�e percent): The City FviLl accept residential development on slopes that exceed ri� elve percent only if the project meets a stiid hardship standard and if it does not ineversibly affect critical ecological resources. RELITED POLICIES: 6.4.2 Change the sentence to read that "Connections...n4AY be 'vnproved..." Add that any structures (such as ramps, wall.�vays, and stairs) must be evaluated on a case by case basis for their impact on the bluff. Also such connection should be uncommon. 7.3 See below for recommended changes to Design Guidelines. 81.7 The casual reference here to variances is very troubling. We would recommend that the City emphasize that any variances with respect to bluff impact area and steep slopes must first meet a strict hardship standard .Also, at the ver}� leas� add to the criteria: Modificafions will not be accepted if there is irreversible damage to significant ecological and aesthetic resources. Additionally, The City should eliminate the statemen� "Encourage clevated shuctures and retaining «�alls." There are many natural and naturally appearing ways to protect steep slopes, and in most cases retaining walls are very unnatural. OBJ&CTTL� 4.2 PRESERVE M'D RESZORE NAZIL'E PLRNT AA�D RNLt4AL HABIZATS 4.2.2 This policy states the city will encourage use of native vegetation. Instead, the city should require it. � 35 West Watei Stxee; Swte 201 $a�nt Paul MN 557 07 _o_ P 651G659500 F 657G65a409 _.r:�i�a_r�. Prmtcdenl0�%�aycicdpape� b(-1R 1 � OBJECTNE S. I CONfINUE COA2AfERCIAL AND IND USTRIAL L9ND USES... �' (p 5.1.4 The City should require screening of industrial development, not merely encourage it � �. 7.3 DESIGNGUIDELlNES The objectives of the design guidelines are quite admirable; greater public access, preseivation of public vietvs, good s[orntwater management, expanded urban forest, and sensitive urban fabric are all objecrives we share. At the same time, the guidelines are here and there missing critical pieces; fhe omissions ultimately may lead to development that undermines those admirable objectives. In particular the design guidelines need the follo�c�ing statements for each development site: UPPER LANDING Access and Connections • Add: Design streets for pedeshian scale and safety and with livable community design solutions. Viervs an@ Visfas • • Add: Evaluate all plans to create views from the bluff within ihe context of an overall bluff management p]an. [Creating vieu�s requires cutting natural vegetation, and ttris should only be done within a larger bluffvegetation management plan.] Stormwater � Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. ADM Access and Connections • Add: Design streets for pedestrian scale and safety and with livable communiTy design solutions. • Eliminate: "Creaie a bluff drive as a local residential streel atop the lower bluff." t�'ie�vs and Vistas • Add: Evaluate all plans to create views from the bluft �vithin the context oFan overall bluff management plan [Creating eie�es requires cutting naturai vegetation, and this should only be done «�ithin a larger bluff vegetation management plan.] 35 West Water $treeC Su�te 201 � Sun� P�ut MN 55107 _o_ P 651GG59500 F 6516G59409 m_� �rc_�i• Pnntcd en 100% �ccJded papa 01-19/ • Natural Resources • Eliminate: "develop overlooks" as part of the first sentence dealin� with blufftop. [Excessively developed overlooks may not be environmentally appropriate.] . Add: Encourage preservation of existing native landscapes, encourage plantin�s of native materials in naturalized massin�s to enhance or create natural habitats. Stormwater • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. Urbzn Forest • Add: Re+ntroduce and connect the urban forest within and around redevelopment. [Canopy trees afone is not forest.] IiOCH MOBIL Access and Connections • Add: Desian streets for pedestrian scale and safety and with livable community desi�n solutions. • Eliminate: "Create a bluff drive as a local residential street atop the lower bluf£" Views and Vistas � • Add: Evaluate all plans to create views from the bluff within the conte�t of an overall bluff management plan. [Creating views requires cutting natural vegetation, and this should only be done within a larger bluff vegetation management plan.] Nntura] Resources • Eliminate: "develop overlooks" as part of tl�e first sentence dealin� with bluffrop. [Ezcessively developed overlooks may not be environmentally appropriate.] • Add: Encourage preservation of existin� native fandscapes, encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natural habitats. Stormw�ter • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. SHEPARD DAVERN (are these necessary when there is already more detailed guidelines in the Shepnrd Davern plan?) Access nnd Connections - • Add: DesiQn streets for pedestrian scale and safety and with livable communiry desi�n solutioos. C� oi-�`� t � scormwac« • Add: Minimize impervious surfaces and turf within development. Development Pattern • Finally, we appreciate that the document has removed specific height numbers with reference to the dcsired bu$ding edga Howevcr, wc are sure that the City would not want the promotion of a"higher edge" to perceived as an ingenious way to avoid the e�plicit commitment to the 40-foot height restriction (as required by the Critical Areas Plan.) As noted repeatedly by many neighborhood and community groups, the current fashion for a "building edge" should not blind us to the wisdvm of the Departrnent o£Natural Resources in establishing that restriction. We suggest that all recommenda6ons with respect to height be eliminated, especially given the careful work of the Shepard-Davem Task Force in dealing with this issue. Thank you again for your consideration of these comments. � 35 West Watex Steet Smte 201 � ._ Sunt Paul MN 55707 _<>_ P G5I6G59500 F G516659409 wYrpie?=�..c•N»r�nv �vPnn[cdonlOG%cecycledpaper O!-tQ/ • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 CiTy Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. 1. Policies 4.1.3 and 4.1.5, referencing Secfion 8.1.7. Background: The intention has always been to strengthen the criteria for considering river corridor modifications for construction on steep slopes. River conidor modifications do periodically occur, and the Planning Commission has requested additional provisions to ensure that any disturbance is minimized. It is premature to try to finalize ordinance language in the plan: we will continue to work with DNR on developing the exact ordinance language. Staff Recommendation: No change to section 8.1.7 as written. 2. Policy 4.2.5 In all new developments, threatened and endangered wildlife habitats shail be protected from alterations which would endanger their survival. Background: It's not plausible for the City to commit to protecting any area otl�er than those it manages or over which it has review authority (i.e. new developments). � Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.25 as written. 3. Policy 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce fertilizer and pesticide runoff into the river. Background: Water-quality related policies (Objective 4.4) are ultimately the domain of the City's surface water management plan (to be written by the Sewer Utility division of Public Works following completion of the Capitol Region Watershed District's plan in 2002). Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.4.5 as written. 4. Policy 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. Background: The CPC clazified this policy at the request of DNR and Friends of the Parks and Trails. However, the only poZicies (as opposed to regulations) that Saint Paul can enforce are our own. It's a subtle distinction. Key: • CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page lof 5 oi--i°� i StafFresponse to Feb. 28, 200] ]etter from Friends of the Pazks & Trails of SY. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.4.6 as written. 5. Policy 51.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or should enhance the river environment. ( New development on the north side of fhe river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of e�sting Plans, and in all other respects should be consistent with the goaIs and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new developmenT include: •. having an economic or operational need for a river location •. supporting the attsactiveness of surrounding neighborhoods •. sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements •. offering public access to and along the river •. maintaining views of the river •. cleaning up polluted areas on the site • meeting or exceeding applicable natural resource policies in this Plan (This list is not prioritized, nor do all criteria have to be met for a land use to be considered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new developments should meet as many of these criteria as possible. ) $ackground: Downtown was exempted from this policy to acknowledge that having a relationship to the river is not the most important purpose of a Central Business District, and that downtown development is driven by many factors unrelated to the river. For example, if tkris policy was applied to the downtown area, many of the current uses could probably not be built there today (District Energy Plant, Ramsey County building/former . . . -- _--__._- --� _..-- v�25i F }^R.`�C:.^.g$�j2.C�wt�. W2_TL�P.?' Rd. J211�. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.1 as written. 6. Policy 5,1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beaufify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening wilI not be a detriment to business operations. Key: CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee ofthe Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 2of 5 � � . OI - 191 • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearin�. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Background: The basis for this policy is the Critical Area requirement that "local plans and regulations shall include provisions to provide for the screening of existing development which constitutes visual intrusion, wherever appropriate..to protect and preserve aesthetic qualities of the river corridor." (C.2.e.(4)) The Critical Area requirement is met through this policy and site plan review requirements already in place. MNRIZA staff requested that the City, above and beyond the Critical Area requirement, support and encourage the use of vegetative screening, and that request was incorporated verbatim. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.4 as written. Section 5.2 Text reference to Port of St. Paul (page 32). Background: This document refers to the St. Paul Port as those areas over which the St. Paul Port Authority or City of St. Paui has jurisdictional authority. For that reason, it does not discuss the terminals ar fleeting capacity in Minneapolis or the Minnesota River even though the functions of the those terminals are undeniably intertwined with those in St. • Paul. Staff recommendation: No change to text as written. 8. Section 5.2 Text reference to "practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges" (page 32). Background: MnDOT distinguishes between fleeting area Design Capacity and fleeting azea Practical Capacity. The practical capaclty of a fleet is 2/3 to 3/4 of its design capacity because there must be room to maneuver so that an individual barge can be taken from the fleet. The practical capacity of a fleeting area is the better indicator of the number of bazges that can fleet in a fleeting area. However, the design capacity is the absolute maximum number of barges that can fleet, so is a useful indicator as well. Staff recommendation: Amend text: "In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor cunently has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges and a total desien capacitv of 574 bazges (Fiaure R�." 9. Policy 5.21 Barge Terminal #l, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission . PC Plannin� Commission RC River Corridor Page 3of 5 OI Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey CounTy, • submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. non-river-reIated businesses with river-reIated businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. River-related land uses are those with an economic or opesational need for a river location. Background: Policy 5.1.1 already addresses new development needing to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or enhancing the river environment. Policy 5.1.2 already addresses expansions of existing businesses. Policy 5.13 already addresses modifications or additions To exisYing industrial uses. This policy addresses industrial uses in areas controlled by the St. Paul Port Authority. It is the staff position that these four policies together constitute the appropriate City stance. This policy could be clarified Yo indicate that businesses at Barge Terminal #1 are already river-related. Staff recommendation: Amend policy 5.2.1: "Bazge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. (The businesses at Bar�e Terminal #1 are ail river-related.) River-related land uses aze fhose with an economic or operational need for a river location." 10. Policy 5.2.3 The City will continue to regulate the impacts of commercial navigation facilities on existing development, the natural environment, and the immediate neighborhood through its Special Condition Use Permit process. Background: 1) The SCUP process already requires scrutiny of any proposed new commercial nauigation facility. It was the staff and committee's opinion that "noise and visual impacts" of any proposed development is already covered by existing Code language: "compatibility with existing aad ariticipated development; compatibility with ______bielogic_a.nd oLher nahu-al communities" and standazds for protecfion of shorel - �-------- - - -- '--- -- —� --- - - wetiands, bluffs, wildlife and vegetation, and water quality. (Sec.65S03, 65.410) 2) Staff were advised by representatives of the commercial navigation industry that casual fleeting by bazges only happens in emergency situations. DNR staff admitted that the problem of casual barge fleeting is an outdated problem that has lazgely been resolved in the past 20 years. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.23 as written. 11. Section 6.3 Text reference page 39: "On the river's west bank, in azeas near the Saint Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 4of 5 • C� 0�-�4! • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from Friends of the Parks & Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Paul Downtown Airport and Pig's Eye Lake, a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons." Background: Staff know that Pig's Eye Lake is on the east side of the river. Staff recommendation: Amend text: "On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paui Downtown Airport, and in the Pig's Eye Lake azea, a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons." 12. Section 8.1.1 Review and amend current River Corridor overlay zoning districts and map. Cunently, river corridor overlay zoning consists of four districts, with two distinct functions. The districts labeled RC-1 and RC-2 together protect the floodplain. The districts labeled RC-3 (Urban Open District) and RC-4 (Urban Diversified District) are intended to guide the character of development, but aze confusing and contribute little to the overlay. Underlying zoning districts determine land use. General standards for environmental protection apply to the whole river conidor, regardless of the overlay districts. Consider splitting the current River Conidor overlay into two: a"floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RC-1 and RG2 which governs the floodplain, and a single • district "Mississippi River Critical Area" or "MRCA" combining RC-1, RC-2, RC-3 and RG4, and which addresses Critical Area requirements Background: Disagree with the assertion that to combine all of the RC overlay districts into a single would eliminate the 40' height provision in RC-3. This idea is something that city and DNR staff have only had very preliminary discussions about. DNR is interested in the idea of a single overlay for the Critical Area; and DNR has the final approval authority over any such change. Any such proposal would require public review and comment. Staff Recommendation: No change to section 8.1.1 as written. • CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Pla�ning Commission PC Plannin� Commission RC River Corridor Page 5of 5 bl { / e ,�rcs and s'1� St Paul acid �:,�,�� cou 1621 Beechwood Ave. St. Paul, MN 55116 651-698-4543 w�wv.friendsoftheparks.org Presiden[ Roben Nethercut Vice Presidents Ieanne Weigum Treasurer lames R. Bricher Direc[ors Craig Andresen Perry R. Bolin Theresa Bradshaw Thomas T. Dwight Neit Franey William Frank Esther Kellogg Mazilyn Lundberg Mark M. Nolan ]anet Olson Larry Peterson Scott Ramsay Pierre Regnier ]erry Seck Marsha Soucheray Jerrilyn Thompson Direcror Emeritus David Lilly Tniman W. Porter Ez Officio Dan Collins Thomas Eggum Mazc Goess Gree Mack Terry Noonan Vic Wi[tgenstein Executive Director and Secretary Peggy Lynch Mississippi River Bluffs Project Manager Gndy Schwie � � Z February 28, 2001 TO: St. Paul City Council Members From: Friends of the Parks and Trails of St. PauI and Ramsey County Bob Nethercut, President The Friends of the Parks and Trails has reviewed the Mississippi River Corridor Plan and would like to suggest changes. • The Friends are pleased that some of our recommendations to the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the River Corridor Plan which is being reviewed tonight. However, our main concern about this plan has always been that it achieve Tier Two requirements of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). It dces not achieve Tier Two and we question whether it even meets the basic requirements of the State CriUCal Area Law. The City of St. Paul has more shoteline on the Mississippi River than any other coaununity on the River. The designation of the Mississippi River as a Critical Area by the State of Minnesota and the designation of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) by the federal government shows the deep concem by the state and federal governments about the protection of the Mississippi River and its comdor. The City has a tremendous responsibility to protect the river comdor. Unfortunately, this current plan encourages development loopholes which will ensure that the look of the St. Paul Mississippi River Comdor will be driven by developers, not by the protecfion of the River envisioned by the legislators who passed the State Critical Area Act � who later designated the Mississippi River a permanent Critical Area. Nor will it be protecte by the MNRRA Iegislation wIuch was authored by Representative Bmce Vento to provide national protecrion to our state and nafion's greatest natural resource, the Mississippi River. There are major gaps in this current plan: * Variances appeaz to rule development * There is no definition of the Port of Saint Paul. The Port of St. Paul includes the City of Minneapolis and communities on the Minnesota River which accommodates most of the grain ternunals. _* Zeningcodes xecommendations could elinunate the cusent 40 ft. height restrictions. We recommend changes in the following policies: * 4.1.3. The City will continue to prohibit residential development on slopes that exceed eighteen percent...and restrict industrial and commerciat development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. * 4.1.5 The City will continue to preserve the biuff impact area (forty feet landward of the binff line) in a natural state. Yet on page 52, #7 suggests creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification...for development on slopes exceeding 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact area. If variances are encouraged by the City of St. Paul, as this document certainly appears do, the reeommendations prohibiting development on steep slopes or with tlae bluff impact area, are worthless. �` 4.2.5 In all new development, threatened and endangered wildlife . habitats shall be protected from alterations which would endanger their a - t9/ • February 28, 2001 Page Two Mississippi River Corridor Plan survival. Recommendation: eliminate "in a11 new development". '�` 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce � 2 fertilizer and pesticide runoff it�to the river. Recommendation: � The City should set an example for shoreline areas by restricting turf areas near the river and public Zands surrounding lakes. '�` 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed �� management organizations and floodplain and wetland protection policies. 12ecommendation: Replace "support" with "require ". '�` 5.1.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the S ordinary high water mark should have a relationship to the river, a need for a .� river location, and(or should enhance the river environment. {New development on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd. is exempted from this policy). Recommendation: Eliminate the exemption of downtown Saint Paul from this policy. �` 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river �(p or the opposite shoreline. The City support the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage • the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening will not be a detriment to business operations. Recoznmendation: Screening of industrial buildings and outside storage areas is required by using native vegetation. � Objective 5.2 This section is very deceiving when describing the Port of Saint Paul. We ,� recommend an addition to this section identifying the total area of the Port of St. Paul which includes not only the City of St. Paul, but all of the terminais on the Minnesota River. The text mentions the "total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges". In actualiry there is space to fleet 574 bazges. The text itself states "at peak times, barge fleets sj� � fill fleeting areas to their masimum capacity." Recommendation: Insert - The Saint Paul river corridor currently has a total capacity for fleeting 574 barges. * 5.2.1 Barge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's �,i� � policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river related business at �� Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts... Recommendation: Change this to read - All industrial sites should be used for river related industries. '�` 5.2.3 The City will continue to regulate the impacts of commercial navigation facilities on existing development, the natural environment, and the �(0 immediate neighborhood through its Special Condition Use Permit process. Recommendation: replace with: Noise and visual impact of commercial navigation must be considered on sites before renewing permits on existing areas and before additional barge • activities or fleeting can be considered. No casual fleeting will be allowed in the river corridor. o�-i� � February 28, 2001 Page Three Mississippi River Corridor Plan Objective 5.3 The Port Authority has donated over 1800 acres of land to the City, to be used for open space and recreation in perpetuity. Those lands now in park use include Crosby Lake, Pigs Eye Lake, and Pickerel Lake. While this may be true, the statement is deceiving. Crosby Lake was never an industrial site. In the 1960's wken the Ciry wished to purchase Crosby Lake for a park, they kad reached their tevy Iimits and so were unable to purchase the site. The Council asked the St. Paul Port Authoriry, which also levies taxes but has no limits, to purchase the site for a pazk. The Port Authority then owned the land and leased it to the City for $1 a year. The Port Authority eventually turned over the deed to the City of St. Paul. The Port Authority did turn over property in the Pig's Eye Lake area to the City for a pazk, but This was after the f�rst River Corridor Plan was rejected by the Environmental Qualiry Board because of plans the Port Authority had to develop the area. �(� Objective 6.3. On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport and Pig's Eye Lake,.... Conection: Pig's Eye Lake is on the east side of the river. �` 8.1 Zotting Code Revisions. Consider splitting the current River Corridor overlay into two: a"floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RGl and RC-2 which governs the floodplain, and a single district "Mississippi � f 2 ' River Critical Area" or "MRCA" combining RGl, RG2, RC-3 and RC-4,... Combining all of these districts would eliminate the 40 ft. height restriclion which now prevails in RC-3 district. Recommendation: Eliminate this poZicy. The City of St. Paul has a heavy responsibility in protecting the St. Paul River Corridor. As• the capitol city, with more shoreline than any other community, it is important to recognize the unique role played by the Mississippi River in our community, the state and the nation. We urge you, the City Council, to demand that the protections of the river corridor aze cleaz and concise in the new River Corridor Ptan. Thank you for this opportuniry to comment on the pian. . o�-!9t . Staff response to verbal testimony by Laura Deuberry, President of Highland District Council, at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Ms. Deuberry stated that the Highland District Counci[ wants the design guidelines from the Shepar�l Davern Small Area Plan incorporated into the River Corridor P[an. Background: Highland District Council also made the same comments at the Planning Commission public hearing. Our response is that the S-D Small Area Plan (and therefore the design guidelines) are already adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The nelghborhood plan is the appropriate place for that level of specificity. While the River Corridor Plan Design Study did look at Shepard-Davern, along with other riverfront redevelopment sites, the intention is not to dilute or amend those design guidelines that are part of the S-D Small Area Plan. However, we could make these distinctions more clear in the River Corridor Plan. Staff Recommendation: Amend section 8.1.8 "With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design guidelines for major river corridor redevelopment sites , , - ', where no euidelines have yet been written. The design guidelines will be sensitive to the purposes of this Plan, and w111 clarify how the form and scale of development can incorporate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public • enjoyment of the river. It is expected that such guidelines will be implemented through a vaziety of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Village Zoning project, site-specific gu3delines, and possibly through design districts (a concept that is currently being developed). The Shepard_ Davern redevelopment area alreadv has created desien euidelines through a 1999 Small Area Plan. Appendix B shows illustrations for the five redevelopment sites based on the work of the Design Study. " � Of-lS� Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. WSCO submitted this letter to the PC in November. At that time, the CPC discussed these comments carefully, and many of the requested changes were made. Comments that have already been addressed aze coded as #1. 2. WSCO requests that the Mississippi River Comdor Plan adopt, support or reference various aspects of the West Side Back To Our Future long range plan, West Side Flats Design Strategy, and/or the West Side Riverfront Development Principles. This is a corridor-wide plan, and therefore must be more general than neighborhood-specific plans. Another reason is to manage the length of the plan. Neighborhood specifc plans (such as the Shepazd-Davern Small Area Plan) become part of the Comprehensive Pian through a separate process. City staff aze currently working to summarize the West Side Back To Our Future plan for adoption as a Comprehensive Plan element. 3. Summary, Strategy 2: Along the riverfxont and its floodplain, new development should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river locafion, or the capability to enhance the river environment Industrial and commercial uses, as well as housing may all fit these categories. Background: Policy 5.1.1, Objective 6.4 , and Chapter 7 provide sufficient safeguards to guarantee appropriate housing development in the river corridor. Staff recommendation: No change to text. 4. Summary, Strategy 4 __ ?a „ r., ,..a_ cta f fr m,___, __ rs were involved in the Design ,.a^- g.-..��_ �£ _o _ M�TRRA an_d_DNR and othe - -- - --- Study that generated urban design policies listed in objectives 7.1 and 7.2 and summazized in this section. These guidelines are more appropriate to St. Paul sites than the generic MNRRA site design standards, which were intended to be adapted to local needs before adoption. Staff recommendation: No change to text. 5. Staff recommendation: Amend texf 3.1.3: "The chazacter of river valley land uses also changes considerably, from the quiet, residential chazacter of the gorge, to the mixed Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page l of 7 • � . OI-19/ • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 ]etter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 CiTy Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street comdor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preserved blufftop neighborhoods in the West Side. Davton's Bluff, and Highwood neighborhoods." 6. Policy 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. Background: The CPC clarified this policy at the request of DNR and Friends of the Parks and Trails. However, the only policies (as opposed to regulations) that Saint Paul can enforce aze our own. IYs a subtle distinction. Staff Recommendation: No change to policy 4.4.6 as written. Policies 4.4.8 and 4.4.9 4.4.8 The City will support programs to better manage and decrease the voluxne of toYic waste in the river corridor. 4.4.9 Protect streambanks and water quality from the negative impacts of recreation. • Background: Water-quality related policies (Objective 4.4) are ultimately the domain of the City's surface water management plan (to be written by the Sewer Utility division of Public Works following completion of the Capitol Region Watershed District's plan in 2002). Staff Recommendation: No change to policies 4.4.8 ar 4.4.9 as written. 8. Policy 51.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or should enhance the river environment. ( New development on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of existing Plans, and in all other respects should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new development include: •. having an economic or operational need for a river location •. supporting the attractiveness of surrounding neighborhoods •. sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements •. o£fering public access to and along the river •. maintaining views of the river . Key: CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Plannin� Commission RC River Corridor Page 2of 7 ol-1R � Staff response to Feb. 28, 200] letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in tetter, attached. cleaning up polluted areas on the site • meeting or exceeding applicable naturalresource policies in this PIan (This list is not prioritized, nor do a11 criteria have to be met for a land use to be considered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new developments should meet as many of these criteria as possible. ) Background: The list of criteria as written in this policy is adopted from MNRRA with nzinor word changes and MNRRA staff did not request any changes to it. The CPC rejected the following original MNRRA criteria as unworkable or too vague to offer meaningful guidance: • removes blighting influences • provides high quality building and landscape design • compatible with the riverfront environment • provides visual open space • retains or xestores natural shoreline appearance • contributes to natural, cultural, or economic resource appreciation, protection, and enhancement Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.1 as written. 9. Poliey 51.2 Expansions of exisfing uses in the floodplain or within 300 ft from the ordinary high water mazk aze acceptable. Expansions should be consistent with the natural resource protection policies laid out in this Plan. Expansion of uses on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevazd should be consistent with natural resource protection policies where practical. --- - __ _ _ .. , g -„ _ �• � �� .., ,;f�. A��TZP t,e. Na.+�.'�^.aLPa_�SService_staff: --- ---- YS'dCl{ f011llfi: - t'flI5 - - iC' 't5'-f:t7ii3i Cir� W�a�rt -ii i- MNRRA staff advised us that "the plan will not discourage existing ]and uses in the corridor from expanding existing facilities if the expansion is consistent with resource protectiott poIicies contained in the (MNRRA CMP). .. Expansion standards will continue to be established by local govemment. Expansion, in general, will be acceptable as long as it does not create or increase nonconformity with the MNRRA plan." (MNRRA CMP p.16) Staff recommendation: No change to policy 5.1.2 as written. CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plannin� Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 3of 7 • . . at-!91 • Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Heazing. Responses are coded to specific comments in Vetter, attached. 10. Policy 61.1 Large azeas of open space that aze currently undeveloped should preserve fish and wildlife resources, plant communities, and biological diversity. Some open space azeas may be suitable for passive recreation (e.g. trails for hiking, biking, bird- watching); others, such as the Pig's Eye Lake area and the bluffs at Cherokee Park should be limited to preservation. Background: This policy satisfies MNRRA's policy to preserve river corridor open space in a natural state. Staff would not recommend that the Cherokee bluffs, which are on a very steep grade, be opened for new trails or other vertical connections. Staff recommendation: No change to policy 6.1.1 as written. • 11. Policy 7.1.8 The City should connect new and existing neighborhoods to the river by greening key streets that connect to the riverfront or river parkways. Background: WSCO's concern is addressed by policy 4.2.4: "The City will continue to enforce the 50 foot shoreline setback for structures. In addition, the City will support efforts to restore the shoreline to a more natural chazacter within 100 feet of the river to facilitate wildlife movement, and to improve the aesthetic appearance of the floodwall. Such efforts must be compatible with current channel design and flood control management, and exceptions are made for park buildings, marinas, and other commercial or industrial river-dependent uses. Redevelopment should include removal of unused docking facilities (i.e., at the Koch-Mobil site)." Staff recommendation: No change to policy 7.1.8 as written. 12. Policy 7.2.1 In Low Land azeas, new development should employ building envelopes that heighten the experience of the river corridor by preserving public views to the top of the High Bluf£ Public views from the Uplands or Tenace to the water edge of the opposite side of tl�e river should be ma�cimized. Background: The policy language does not "focus on the views from Kellogg Park to the West Side and along only Wabasha Street". Think this issue has been resolved already; at the time this comment was originally made, the West Side Flats 40 Acre Study was underv✓ay. Maximum building height for the West Side Flats without a SCUP is 65 feet. Staff recommendation: No change to Policy 7.2.1 as written. r1 L_J Key: CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plannin� Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Conidor Page 4of 7 oi �� I Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, � 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. 13. 14. A proposed section 7.4 to address guidelines for the expansion of existing businesses. Background: WSCO's concern about the expansion of existing businesses is addressed in policies 5.1.2 and 5.13. Staff recommendation: No change. Section 7: Comments regazding transportation, the airport, and pazking/pavement. Background: With very few exceptions, the plan did ttot take on issues that weren't directly related to Critical Area or MNRRA, The airport as a land use issue is such an example. Regazding the comment on pazking and pavement reduction, policy 7.1.6 calls for "underground parking wherever possible to minimize impervious surface". Staff recommendation: No new changes to the plan. I5. Secfion 8.1 Paragraph 7- paragraph 8 in the current version of the P1an.With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the Ciry, working with the � Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design guidelines for major river corridor redevelopment sites... Background: Staff from MNRRA and DNR and others were involved in the Design Study that generated these design guidelines. These guidelines are more appropriate to St. Paul sites than the generic MNRRA site design standazds, which were intended to be adapted to local needs before adoption. Statf recommendation: No change to section 8.1.8. 16. Section 8.2 Site Plan Review Guidelines Site plan review is Yhe mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Conidor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guideiines would reevaluate provisions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse environmental impacts of new development. Ke CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plannin� Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page Sof 7 • 0 � - 19/ . Staff response to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, 2001 City Council Public Hearing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. Staff recommendation: Amend Section 8.2: Site Plan Review Guidelines. Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate provisions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse environmental impacts of new development. The Citv will wark with the De�artment of Natural Resources to determine if amendments to site olan review Quidelines are necessarv This will occur durinz the Ordinance revision�rocess which will follow adoption of this Plan 17. Section 8.3 Park & Trai] System Development The City Parks & Recreation Plan (1996) includes an implementation plan for park resource protection, park land acquisition, scenic overlook clearance, environmental education and interpretive programs, and development of trails. Park plans include completion of the regional Mississippi River Trail on both sides of the river, connecting to trail segments in adjacent municipalities. • Background: The intent of this section is to indicate that implementation of the park and trail system is the purview of the Department of Pazks & Recreation and the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan element. Discussions about the alignment of of the proposed trail from Robert Street to South St. Paul aze already underway, and include staff from Parks, Public Works, the Port Authority, the City of St. Paul and the Riverview Development Association (REDA). Staff recommendation: No change to section 83. 18. Figure W- Figure X in this version of the Plan Background: The CPC considered this comment when it was first made in October. The drawing is one of the illustrations generated by the Design Study. Granted, it is but one example of a important viewsheds in the river corridor, but we thought it useful to show an illustration of a view analysis to support the policies in Objective 7.2. Staff recommendation: Don't change or eliminate Figure X. • CPC Comprehensive Plannin� Committee of the Planning Commission PC Planning Commission RC River Corridor Page 6of 7 ol-�g 1 � Staffresponse to Feb. 28, 2001 letter from West Side Citizens Organization, submitted at February 28, � 2001 City Council Public Heazing. Responses are coded to specific comments in letter, attached. • CPC Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Plamming Commission � PC Planning Commission RC River Conidor Page 7of 7 o � V]t,i�T 2 / 2 �/ Q � 127 West Winifred St. .�r� 1 � � �� St. Paul, MN 55107 CIT�ENS �� '��'�' " '(/ - '��Phone (612) 293-1708 � ,. ORGANY7A.TZON ecv C��res ��, . 2 -015 M�� • /1,�T.�eit �zlmQ/�n Fea (612) 93 ] February 28, 2001 Deaz Planning Commission: On behalf of the West Side community, the West Side Citizens Oraanization appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Mississippi River Conidor Plan 2000 update. The Iviississippi River bounds the neighborhood on three sides and the bluffs and slopes form the neighborhood, More than half the West Side is within the state Ccitical Area and MtNNRRA boundary. This policy and impletnentation document will guide how new development enhances the ziver and the neighborhood. Its final form is o£ vital importance to the neighborhood, and the neighborhood organizations such as the Bluff Task Force are essential to its implementation. The following comments were developed by a task force zepresenting numerous neighborhood committees and adopted by the WSCO Board. Comments are also based on the past �'ive years of community partici�ation in the deve]opment o£riverfront development principles and the neighborhood plan, Back to the Yl�ture, which shoutd guide fufure development. The pian is well wriften and emphasizes neighborhood connections to the river. We o££er the £oliowing additions and changes. Section I.1 � ➢ The'West Side commuztity generally supports the five strategies and applauds the city's policy of zemoving bill boards �ue request the following additions and clarifications: � � ➢ In strategy Z, bluffs and riverbanks should also be restored and the cause of damage, such as stormwater outflows and vegetative cutting, shou(d be dealt with- ➢ In strategy 2, river-dependent emerging businesses, such as boat repair, should be recognized. � j Although the West Side supports such housing if it can be designed to be rivez enhancing, housing should not be portrayed as equally ziver-related (see lack of priorities in section 5.1.1. ➢ In strategy 3, early industrial and economic uses should be added to the list of cultural resources �#. � in reconnition of beer brewing, mushroom fuming, brick making and other activities related to the caves the Lilydale Park. ➢ In strategy 4, add a buliei affirmin� that design standards will incorporate the Mississippi �� National River and Recreation Area C.t�' site design policies (the West Side plan, Back �o the Future bistrict 3 plan supports MNRRA policies for all corridor development). ➢ The last bullet should a�rm that buildings fit into "eacisting neighborhoods" by adding those � ( t�3�o words a�ter "topography" Section 2 • The West Side coramunity supports this secdon's emphasis on the ecological funaion o£both the river corridor and the watersheds that feed the river and 4he depiction of a bfllflnccd approach as ilIustrated in figure 2.3. oi-i9 � Section 3 ��j In 3.1, the West Side community supports the emphasis on watersheds, parks and open space and � neighborhood preservation. The description of different river corridor chazacteristics should include the blu£T�op historic neighborhoods of the West Side and Aayton's bluf'fs. All new development should support the physical and cultural uniqueness o£existing neighborhoods ( Section 32 visions should also inctude recognition o£river corridor neighborhood plans. In �f 7i particulaz, the Wesi Si@e ziverfront development principles, St. Paut on the Mississippi Framework West Side Precinct Plan, the West Side Back to Our Future Iong range plan and the West Side FIats Aesign Suategy attached to ihese comments. 'I'he description o£topography on 3.4 shoutd znention problem azeas. For example, the associated large parking areas mentioned zn the to�vlands are not topographic £orms, zather, are uses that are harmful to the form and function o£lowlands. Sectiott 4 4.1.2 West Side Bluff management is being addressed by the WS Bluff Task Force in conjunction '�' ! with St. Paul Parks and ltecreation department. Explicit recognition of this work should be included in the plan. 4].3 The description o£t6e downtown area should be clarified. Use o£the term downtown would �. � not include the West Side. Any exceptions allowed should be subject to special condition use petmit. 4.1.5 The language regarding possible allowance of constcuetion in b1u£f impacY uea is too vawe ,�{. � and could be applied to any situation. We recommend simply preserving the impact area • without exception Native vegetation should be re-established in this area where possible. ��'L —� The West Side Precznct Plan calls for a bluff top trail which should be addressed ia the ptan. � 4.4.5 Don't just encourage enforcement of floodplain and we[iand protection policies, commit to � en£orcing those you are required to enforce. � 4.4.8 The city should deveIop its own programs, where appropriate, to accomp[ish the protections ��. recommended , � 4 4.9 Not only recreational, but commerciai uses impact shoufd be addressed. SectiOn 5 5.5. I The West Side is not downtown. Tf you expect a"downtown" exemption to apply to tfie West Side, you must so specify. �"$ The criteria £or "river related" are so broad, any development in the city couid qualafy. R� write the criteria to be truly river related. E.g. river related as specified in 5.2.1 5.1.2 To be consiscent with NINRRA plan, exemptions should only be allowed £or river related .� Q uses. Section 6 6. I I We are unsure what is meant by limiting Cherokee Pazk bluff to preservation. The West . �.�� Side considers vertical connections important for use of Lilydale Regional Pazk. O/-/9/ ��} / 6.1.2 Add "will require" be�'ore "all public facilities". Section 7 The West Side community agrees with many o£the urban design principles, including infill and new grid-pattern neighborhoods and £tting development into existing neighborhoods, some critical policies should be included or changed. ➢ 7. I.1 should include adoption of the West Side riverfront development principles for new �'� villages on the West Side and state what they are. That document defines the meaning of connections to the river and integzation into the existing neighborhoods. ➢ 7.1.8 should inciude a policy o£ establishing green corridors along the river — between all buildings and the river not just ozeening streets to the river. T'he community supports the '� (( I�NRRA-suggested 100-£oot setback (d 40-foot native vegetation corridor, where feasible) as part of restoring the ecological funcCions of the corridor ine(uding its iinportance as a flyway and its water quality. ➢ �k12� • View protection in 7.2.1 focuses on the views from TCellogg Park to the West Side and along only Wabasha Street. �he section should protect views £rom the West Side blu£fs to the river and not e]iminate Robezt Street. Residents of the blufFtop neighborhoods have regeatedly expressed a concern to t�JSCO that buildings not obstruct their views of the riverfront. Though the community participated in and suppor[s the city's topographic approach to providing some flexibility in height standards for landmarks, WSCO is on record as objecting to ANX building on the West Side that exceeds 65 feet (see letter regarding the 40-acre study). The community suppoRS the MNRRA policies oPkeeping rivezfront buitdings in low profile with some elevation back from the river. ➢ Suggested design gvidelines for the West Side flats on page 49 should include ]iraitSng buiiding heights atong the riverfront, notjust along Wabasha. Some residents strongly support the � y existing 35-foot iimit. Others suggested 35' to 65', depending on viewsheds and closeness to riverfront. The natural resource design guidelines should include continuous �reenspace along the rivez's edge, not just public space. The sectzon on access and connecYions should include improved pedestrian connections betwaen Yhe West Side neighborhood and any new developtnent. As mezrtioned previously, the city should make a commitment in this section to the West Side riverfro�t design principles and the MNRI2 A suggested design guidelines in the C_VIP, appendix C. ➢ �ti3 • A section 7.4 should be added to address guidelines for the expansion o£ existing busanesses. This is not nddressed anywhere in the document, despite the continuation of major industrial uses within the West Side F]ats, other industrial and commercial uses throughout the corridor, and the acpansion of homes and other buildings within the corridor. The poiicies should clearly state the river enhancin� standards t6at wif] be applied to acpaosions and should protect existing businesses if they follow these practices and especially if they are river dependent The city should consider establishing a£und to provide an incentive for property owners enhanee the river corridor through better runoff management, protectioa o{native vegetation and so o❑ ni-�q 1 ➢ The plan also does not address transpor[ation and public uses such as the airport. WSCO .#�1� strongly suppozts maintainzng the floodplain functions wittiin the airport, and wouid not support � any further diking of that area. We call £or a reduction of pazking and pavement in the #tats. Section 8 The implementation section should be expanded to explain the types of ordinance changes the city is proposing. Wilt the city continue to have an ovezlay district that establishes standazds to protect and enhance natural and cultuzal resourees whife referencing underlying zotting distriets for Iand use? Does the city support maintaining the functions of the floodplain? ➢ Poiicies for bluff proteetion are contradictory and confusing. Is the policy to limit development on and 40 feet back from 12% slopes, frozn 18% slopes or not7 The standard shoutd be � � protection ofbluffs, reduction o£runoff, prevention of erosion and restoration o£native vegetarion aloz�g the 40-foot impact area. The standard for exceptions from a 40-foot setback from the l2% or � 8°/a slopes should be made ctear. Current statemeni of "allowing development on slopes that exceed 12% and 18% slopes should be changed. ➢ Pazagraph 7 for adopting site design standards should state a goat of adopting standards ,� � l� consistent urith the IvZNRRA CMP site design standards that adapt suggested appendix C design standards to local needs. ➢ Section 82 should include timing and process foz adopting site design standards and should � �(� ensure that all pubtic and pzzvate development will adhere to thent or mitigate any effects £oz exceptions, • ➢ 5ection 8.3. The West Side community supports the continuous river corridor trail on the west � ��, side of the river and requests the city coznplete identification o£ and reservation of easements for, the river trail from Robert to So. St. Paui. ➢ Section 8.4. The West Side community suppozts heatage preservation and requests specific mention be znade of the Xoerg Brewery, caves, and historie stairs and connectzons that should be preserved and restored between the upper bluffs and the flats. We also would like more aggressive effons by ihe city to have the plan certified by N:fN"RRA so the city is etigible for £ederai funds to establish interpzetative trails and kiosks (n {he 4Crest Side and "norn I-zarriec Island through Lilydale Park. The implementation of the Lilydale Park plan and one trail connection between Chero�ee and Lilyda(e portions of the regional pazk should be made priority. �� Figure W. Does not include important views £rom West Side bluffs to and across the river. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, � �� Bruce Vanda2 President C� o� t MISSISSIPPf R1VER � � � . � � - . � T H E S A I N T P A U L C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N �" �, > \ '. ; � ; �� e' � ;�:, ;:_� . . ��, bi- �4 � The citywide portion of the Saint Paul Comprehensive PIan consists of the foilowing as of adoption by the Saint Paul City Council in 2001: Plan Summary and Generat Po6cy Land Use Plan (1999) Housing Plan (T 999) Transportation PIan (199n Parks and Recrea5on Plan (1997) Library Services Plan (1996) Water Conservation and Emergency Response Plan {1996) Mississippi River Corridor Plan (1987, update to be completed in 2001) Sewer Plan (1950, update in progress) Implementation (1999) A separate Area Plans volume identifies all small area plans and district plans ±n2• n�ve been officially aciopted_ as amendme�ts or addenda to the Comprehensive P(an. ft also indudes summanes of all area plans that have been adopted in summaty form under the current neighborhood planning policy. The Plan is subject to amendment, and a publication no5ng all amendmer�ts in force will be available after ame�dments are adopted. Plan documents are available at the Saint Paul Public Library and copies may be obtained from the DepartmeM of Planning and Economic Development, 25 W Fourth Sheet, Saint Paul, MN 55102, telephone: (651) 266-6573. (The Water Conservation and Emergency Response Plan is published separately by the Sairrt Paul Water Utility and is not available from PED or on-line.) As preparation can be completed, most or all chapters will be accessible from the City of Saint Pauf web page at ci.stpaW.mn.us (departments, PED, comprehensive planJ. Contents � � � Executive Summa►Y ..............................................5 Q IMroduction....................................................8 � 2.1 Purposes ...... .............. - .........8 2Z Le�islative History and River Corridor Plan Back�round .....9 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Setting ...................................................11 � � 3.1 Planning Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: City and Other Plans .....12 3.3 National'IYends . . . . . .. . .. ... .. . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 3.4 Typology of River Landforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Nat�ara] Systems Strategy: s Profeet the River as a Unique Ilrban Eeosystem ........18 4.1 Bluffs ............................................19 4.2 t3alive Plant & Animal Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.3 Floodplain & Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 4.4 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Economic Systems Strategy: � Sustain fhe Economie Resources of the Working River .. 29 5.1 Commercia] & Industrial Land and Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . .29 5.2 Commercial Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3; 5.3 Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .34 Social Systems Strategy: i Enhance the City� Quality of Life by Reconnecting to the River .........................................36 6.1 Visitor Use ........................................36 6.2 views ............................................38 6.3 "17ails . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .39 6.4 Neighborhoods ....................................40 6.5 Historic & Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Urban Desi,gn Sffategy: � Use UrLan Design to Enhance the River Comdor�s Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 7.1 Development Pattems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 7.2 Built Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 7.3 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites ......48 a a • c .'e a a . E i ( » e f E Comprehensive Plan 3 pt- i� � Implementation ................................................51 � 81 Zoning Code Revisions _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 82 Site Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.3 Park & "[7ai1 System Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.4 Heritage Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 APPendices...................................................55 x Appendix A, Design Study Illustrations for Redevelopment Sites ........55 Appendix B. Historicai and Archaeological Sites/Structures . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Appendix C. Databases ........................................59 • Minnesota Natural Heritage Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 • Minnesota Land Cover Ctass�cation System pvILCCS) ......65 Appendix D. Water Management and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Appendix E. Public ParticipaUon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Appendix F. Maps & Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 • Slope Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 • Significant Vegetatrve Stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 • Wetlands and Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 • E�sting Storm Sewer Discharge Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 • Naharal Drainage Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 • Barge Faalities and Fleeung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 • Transportation Fadlity Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 • Parks, Open Space, and BoatAccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 • F�sbng Tlrews 6z Overlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 • Utility Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 • Existing and Proposed Trai15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 • River Corridor Historic Sites 6e Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 Credits...................................................94 4 City of Saint Paul Summary he Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan describes the T Mississippi River in Sain t Paul as a series of in terrelated systems: natural, economic, social, and built. Just as the River Corridor has been shaped by lustory, decisions about devel- opment and change will influence each of these systems for future generations. Thus, this plan focuses on protecting the resources that support our community, and on the management of human activiry and the physical environment. Saint Paul is rediscovering and redefining its relationship with the Mississippi River. Increased environmental stewardship and establishing connections to the river are central to this rediscovery. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan reinforces the body of river-related planning already completed in recent years. Those plans which are most influentiai come from within and outside the City: the 1999 Land Use Plan, the Saint Paui on the Mississippi Development t7amework, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan, and the State Critical Area program. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. The Water Management Plan will be written after the River Corridor Pian is completed. The current Mississippi River Corridor Plan was adopted in 1981, and amended in 1987. After public hearings and consideration of public comments, the Saint Paul Planning Commission will forward the plan to the City Council. The City Councii wil] review the plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the National Park Service for joint review. After receiving comments from these agencies, the Ciry Council will adopt the final plan. There are numerous entities with jurisdiction over the Mississippi River, ran�ing from local to fed- eral units of �overnment. The City intends that its plans and ordinances for the river corridor be con- sistent with those of these governmental partners. Figure A �s � � � �. �� c � Comprehensive Plan 5 lnterjurisdictional Governance bl-��) Strategy 1: Protect the River as a Unique Urban Ecosystem ♦ Undeveloped bluffs should be protected, stabilized, and restored through acquisition, use of native species, building setbacks, and by prohibiting development on the bluff face. ♦ The River Corridor contains sensitive natural resources. The f�oodplain and shorelines, wetlands, and natural habitat found throughout the River Corridor should be protected and sustained. ♦ The City supports the green corridors project of the Minnesota DNR. The goal is to establish regional greenways around hi�h quality native habitat remnants, thus providing continuous habitat corridors for native plant and wildlife species. In Saint Paul, the river valley and the Trout Brook reach are parts of the DNR plan. ♦ Working with its watershed partners, the City wilI continue to identify means for improved stormwater management. Public education will con- rinue to be an important way to help protect water qualiry. Strategy 2: Sustain the Economic Resources of the Working River ♦ The City supports continuation of the working river and commercial nav- igation in Saint Paul. The economic importance of commercial navi�a- tion to Saint Paul, Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest is significant. The environmental benefits of barging over other haulin� modes (air quality, traffic congestion, etc.) have been well documented. ♦ The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-relat- ed businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases eapire. ♦ Along the riverfront and its floodplain, new development should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, or the capability to enhance the river environment. Industrial and commercial uses, as well as housing may all fit these categories. Strategy 3: Enhance the City's Quality of Life by Reconnecting to the River ♦ Parks, open space, and trails are an important way of allowing people to come the river. The City is working on a number of initiatives, including g City of Saint Paul the realignment of Shepard Road, to increase park and open space alon� the river. Over time the city's riverfront open space system will become more continuous and river-related. The Ciry will also complete a contin- uous Mississippi River Trail along the entire length of both sides of the �; river. _ ,,. ♦ The views afforded by ma�nificent bluffs in Saint PauPs river comdor are part of what makes the city a special place. There are opportunities in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corridor, Battle Creek and Highwood neighborhoods to create additional view points to the river. To enhance river corridor views, all billboards should be removed from the river corridor and not replaced. ♦ New neighborhoods are part of creating connections to the river. In strategic River Corridor locations, following adopted desi�n principles, new urban villages should be established. ♦ Cultural resources in the river corridor include early settlements, historic structures, and architecturally unique bridges. These resources should be preserved and restored, as they are integral to the character and history that defines Saint Paul. Strategy 4: Use Urban Design to Enhance the River Corridor's Built Environment ♦ New development should estabiish "traditional" street and block pattems to enable people to experience the river through visual and physical con- nections. These traditional street patterns will restore connections between neighborhoods further upland and the river. ♦ Primary view corridors should remain open and unobstructed. Accordingly, the scale of new buildin�s in the river corridor should relate to topography, and should preserve critical public views. :. :� � �,,. :. � � �.;;� .� � �'. � � �. � ;� � a � : � � : �� w � � Comprehensive Plan 7 o1-t�l Introduction T ere are multiple facets to the rfver's role in the city and re�ion--as an ecological system, as a cultural and historical resource, as a public ameniiy, as a focus for recreational activiry, for commercial and industrial actrviry, and increasingly The Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Other plan chapters address Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Housin�, Water Management, Transportation, Sewers, and Libraries. The River Corridor Plan will guide use and development along the Mississippi River, while protecting the river's ecological function. There are multiple facets to the river's role in the city and re�ion — as an ecological system, as a cultural and historicaI resource, as a public amenity, as a focus for recreational activity, for commercial and industriai acrivity, and increas- ingly for new residential development. The River Corridor Plan will help Saint Paul realize the full potential of the river as the ciry's symbolic `front yard." The River Corridor Plan recognizes that the ecologicai function of the river is not only affected by activity throughout the river corridor as defined in this plan, but also by activity in the watersheds that feed the river. 2.� n�rposes The purposes of the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan encompass its designation as a state critical area and as a national river and recreation area — the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area — as weIl as its role as a multi-purpose resource for the ciry, state and region. These are: ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corr[dor as a unique and valuable resource for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the cirizens of the city, state, and region. ♦ To restore and establish the unique urban ecology of Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. ♦ To reinforce the Mississippi River Corridor as Saint Paul's front yard, and the backbone of a community-building network eatending beyond the shoreline and into the fabric of surroundin� neighborhoods. ♦ To manage the Mississippi River Corridor as an important economic resource for river- related industries and commercial navigation for the city, state and region. for new residential ♦ To expand opportunities for using the Mississippi River Corridor as a city development. amenity and enhance citizens' quaIity of life, including increased public access, recreation and education. $ CILy Of SQII![ PQUI ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as an essential element in the federal, state, regional and local recreation, transporta- tion, sewer and water systems. ♦ To prevent and miri�ate dan�er to the life and property of the citizens of the city, state and re�ion. ♦ To preserve, enhance and interpret the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor's historic, archeolo�ical and ethno�raphic (cultural) resources. 2.2 Legislative History and River Corridor Plan Sackground In the past twenty five years there has been an increased le�islative focus on environmental stewardship of the Mississippi River. The first major effort, authorized by state law in 1976, was the designation of the Mississippi River Corridor within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as a State Critical Area. The Critical Area program required coordinated planning amon� communi- ties in the river corridor to resolve land and water use conflicts, and to pre- serve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cuitural and historical value of the river for public use. Cities were required to establish protection of the river resource through planning and related ordinances. In response, the Saint Paul City Council adopted a Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan in 19S 1, with policies for managing this important resource Comprehensive Plan 9 � r� �� °� �:, � � � � � M' u � � � � � �� & �� , ,� y� MF A .] �_ � b1-�°� i and balancing open space use with industrial and commercial development. This plan fizlfilled the state's tequirement for a Critical Area Plan. It also became a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and was last amended in 1987 to incorporate the 1986 Riverfront Pre-Development Plan. Recent sTate law has required all Twin Cities municipalities to update their comprehensive plans, and Saint Paul has nearly completed this effort. As part of the required update to comprehensive plans, the City will also review and revise its river corridor-related zoning re�ulations. To further guarantee effective management of the river resource, the ti.S_ Congress designated the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the national park system. The boundaries of the MNRRA corridor are identical to Yhose of the Critical Area, the 72-mile cor- ridar of the Mississippi River stretching from the Crow River in Anoka County to beyond the Ciry of Hastings, and including Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The MNRRA designation led to the creation of a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) with policies related to land and water use, resources management, and visitor use and interpretation. This updated River Corridor Plan responds to the vision for the Mississippi River outlined in the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, as well as the continuing requirements of the Critical Area program. x�o.z� � BNRs NaocePlvtt&Mimy Haeiaa Flootlpain & WeUa��; waw�warny :'✓. -- e�nn��, : IhbanOeig� .,, Oe�apmarcrava�a ,.. &uE Fam EconamiRgaurtes- � wm�y w� tmm�ewl & )nOistr¢l �aiw &waterllse �e� a,r�a� �:c. �.,:_ - - .__. _ . snaa� Nmh aAmmmes �. ure Yexs raas �� xamrc a Qilocal Raau�s � 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies In response to the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, and as part of the City's own process of updating its comprehensive plan, this Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan outiines four strategies for future manage- ment of the river corridor. The four strategies focus on iae various sysieir�s re�ated to the river: natural systems, economic systems, social or human systems, and built environ- ment. The River Corridor Plan seeks to balance these strategies, all of which are interrelated and affecting each other. ip Ciry of Saint Paul The Setting 3.1 Planning Assumptions The main assumptions that underlie the recommendations in this River Corridor Plan are: 1. For nearly a century, the Mississippi River's role as primarily a trans- portation and industrial corridor led the city to think of and treat the river as its "back yard". The city is now gradually rediscovering and cele- bratin� the river as its fzont yard -- a majestic and unparalleled natural amenity which unites neighborhoods and downtown. Part of this redis- covery includes the opportunity over the next l0 to 20 years to create new neighborhoods near the river. 2. The river and its reaches are more than a thin ribbon moving through �' the city. The river corridor should be viewed as a watershed model, an �" ��,: entity that incorporates elements, communities, and patterns from well ��,�� : � beyond the river itself. �� F �� 3. The character of the river valley changes over its 29 miles. The river valley contains a variety of landforms, from the low lands along the river's edge to the high bluffs. The character of river valley land uses also changes consider- ably, from the quiet, residential character of the gorge, to the mixed commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street corridor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preserved blufftop neighbor- hoods in the Highwood neighborhood. , .- � � "°i; �� ✓///�/'/"/„i � ��,> ��r� West 4. Parkland and open space are the predominant ��d9ej s uses of riverfront land in Saint Paul. Most of this land will remain unchanged. There are however, many opportunities to explore additional access, preservation, and restoration projects throughout the parks/open space system. When development in these areas does occur (the enhancements at Harriet Island, for example), it should be in the context of preserving the river corridor. v �; F� . < _� • ; � : „ .� , ��;� � � � �� -� � �, � F �� ,. �� - �._��.� � :� q�"tei�n 5t Paui I t[�e Fla�s £ � Y � _, i �, ,,. � tafay�ite.8r,�z,;� te � � _ Central Valley Comprehensive Plan 11 oi- �� Figure E Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Boundary � �,o�,�o .� �� e.�..., ,� i �� - -- , . xexxennco _ , , . _.... � ------- �d ,-'- � Q y G 1 ✓ � � �� 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: City and Other Plans In the past five years there has been a tremendous amount of river-related planning, both by the Ciry of Saint Paul and by other organizations. These visions and plans have focused on Saint Paul's Mississippi River corridor in an evolutionary and remarkably consistent manner, and include the following: Smnt Paul Comprehensive Plcm (Parks sz Recreaaon,TY�msportarion, cmd I�d Use chapters) Completed in 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively. In addi- tion, there are Small Area Plans and other nei�hborhood plans for the river corridor that have been recognized by the City Council, or adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these plans aze currenfly being written. Mississippi Nalional River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan National Park Service, Mississippi River Coordinating Commission and the U.S. Dept. of the Interior. The MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan was approved by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior in 1995 and is intended to provide widance for manag- ing the river corridor for the next 10-15 years. The plan's �oals are to 1) preserve the unique and significant resources of the Mississippi River Corridor in the Twin Cities metro area, 2) encoura�e the coordination of federal, state and local efforts, and 3) provide a comprehensive manage- MISSISSIPPI NATiONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA ,�.. i .m�u. w. n " r .� e_��. � ' MWNESOTf� � �� RAMSEYLO � `y� ;t� �»�� > tW45XINGiONCO �� j �,.�� / oa�ornco j - ecm�n g 12 ment plan to assist the State of Minnesota and local govemments in man- aging developmern in the corridor. The MNRRA vision advocates the pro- tection of both the working YIVEY 13t�t i'fiE iid�u78i itVei ecosystem. The MNRRA plan suggests a voluntary set of additional policies that cities may adopt to enhance preservation of the Mississippi River corri- dor as a national park, referred to as "Tier II" poli- cies. ('Tier I" policies are required by existing State Criticai Area policies and regulations, and should already exist in cities' river City of Saint Paul plans and ordinances.) Local �ovemments should work with the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources and the National Park Service to incorporate MNRRA policies into their river corri- dor plans and ordinances. Saint Paul�s Central River valley Development Framework - Project of the Design Center for the American Urban Landscape (Bill Morrish), Colle�e of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota. This project, completed in 7une 1995, served as one of the foundations for the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework that was complet- ed in 1997. In conjunction with its Case Study Integ�'aling Urban Design and Ecology project and newsletters (August 1994 - May 1995, six newsletters), the Design Center compiled an urban design inventory of Saint Paul's phys- ical resources in the form of maps that visually display the city's physical resources connected to the Mississippi River. These Saint Paul-Mississippi River contextual maps highlight Saint Paul's unique river valley landscape and ecology, including its valleys, reaches, bluffs, landings, neighborhoods, vegetation, wildlife and the potential connections among all of these unique resources. The goals of this project were to identify the following for Saint Paul's Central River Valley: i) image, identity and orientation, 2) com- munity gathering places, 3) connections and continuity, and 4) river-related projects and locations. Metro Greenprint: Planning for Nalure in the Face of Urban Growth - Greenways and Naturai Areas Collaborative. In 1997, this collaborative project involving a group of citizens from around the seven-county Twin Citles Metropolitan Area included representatives from metro counties, watershed districts, Dept. of Natural Resources, Greening the Great River Park, University of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, Friends of the Mississippi River and T7ust for Public Land. The Metro Greenprint outlines a vision and specific strategies for creating a re�ion-wide network of natural areas, open spaces, parks and greenways while accommodating urban �rowth in the "IWin Cities metro area. The vision focuses on identification of natural areas and open spaces and potentlal connecUons between them, along with recommended conservation techniques and funding strategies. The Mississippi, Minnesota and Saint Croix river valleys represent a significant portion of this �reen network. Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework - City of Saint Paul, Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, and the Capital City Partnership. The City's most comprehensive vision for the Mississippi River was outlined in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework in June of 1997, Comprehensive Plan 13 ot-�� 1 following more than two years of intense work by the community, City staff, and other or�anizations. The Framework calls for reconnecting the city's downtown and neighborhoods to the river by restoring the river val- ley's and city's natural environment, creating new urban villages near the river and creating a physically appealing and vital downtown environment. The Framework is based on "an implicit understandin� that quality of life - the abiliry of a city to effectivety balance economy, environment and society - provides a primary competitive advan[a�e in an increasingly globalized world." The FYamework outlines the followin� ten principles that represent an integrated approach to city building: ♦ Evoke a sense of place. ♦ Restore and establish the unique urban ecology. ♦ Invest in the public realm. ♦ Broaden the mix of uses. ♦ Improve connectivity. ♦ Ensure that buildings support broader city-building goals. ♦ Build on existin� strengths. ♦ Preserve and enhance herita�e resources. ♦ Provide a balanced network for movement. ♦ Foster public safety. Aithough the Framework is not part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the plan's vision, ten principles and recommendations were endorsed by the City Council as the guide for the City's development policies downtown and along the central riverFront and should be incorporated, as appropriate, into the City's Comprehensive Plan updates and amendmenEs. The ten principles are incorporated into the Land Use Plan (1999). Riverfront Action Strategies - Saint Paul Port Authority. Completed in 1999, this document highlights the importance of the Mississippi River and Saint Paul Port to the Upper Midwest economy. As a working river, the Mississippi is part of an intermodal freight transportation system that enables agricultural producers throughout the Tlpper Midwest to compete in the giobal market. This strategy document signals the Port Authority's commitment to maintain shipping-related uses in its riverfront facilities. It also expresses the Port Authoriry's commitment to beautify industrial sites, to clean up roadsides and riverbanks, and to manage stormwater on-site. i4 City of Saint PQUl ��?�;� �� „�� , y �j � ,, :� ,. � �..._ / A � / N _, , m4�' Visions of the Mississippi River Corridor Cemral River Valley Dev. Fmmexrork tMmrish} �ggs St. Paul on the Miuissippi Dev. Fmmevrork isr9� River Corridor \ Design Sfudy 2000 Porks and Recreafion Wan 19% Tramportation Plun 1997 Innd Use Plun 7998 �iverfrom Action Shategies Minnesota (Port Authority) �� p 1949 Des+ natian 1976 MNRRA Comp. M mt. Metro Plan 1s�sr5 Greenprims i997 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites - Saint Paul PED, Saint Paul Design Center. To complete this River Cotridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, along with the Saint Paul Desijn Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment sites. The study was conducted in early 2000, with consuitants from the Cuningham Group and Close Landscape Architects. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. An intergovemmental working group, chaired by the Planning Commission, and including the Department of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council and National Park Service assisted in this process. The results of this study provide the basis for poli- cies in Chapter 7 of the plan; recommendations for the five redevelopment sites can also be found in Chapter 7 and Appendix A. Together, these planning efforts have established a new framework for thinking about the Mississippi River, and Saint Paul's place on it that emphasizes thinking of the river and the city as an integrated living ecosys- tem within a larger regional setting. The intent is to restore the river's nat- ural ecolo�y, to establish and improve green connections between neigh- borhoods and downtown and the river, and to support urban intensification consistent with a river setting, while maintaining the working river. Collectively, these visions provide a map for stewardship and use of the river in the next century. This Mississippi River Corridor Plan brings these visions together in one document for the entire river corridor in Saint Paul. �:� �:s �.� � � � � ' � �� F� y � � � R � � f3 � % Comprehensive Plan 15 O( 1`� 1 3.3 National Trends Nationwide, certain trends have emerged pertaining to urban riverfronts. There has been a resurgence of interest in the recreational use of riverfront land, and communities nationwide are creating new trails, green space, promenades, and other recreational amenities. As industries that tradition- ally were located on the riverfront have changed, industrial land is tumin� over and being redeveloped to create housing and entertainment-oriented commercial activity. Finally, there is increased awareness and interest in the ecological function of rivers and the watersheds that feed them. Disastrous floods in past years have served as reminders that watershed management plays an integral role in protectin� rivers and the communi- ties along them. Figure G River Valley Landforms 3.4 T�polog,y of River Landforms '; ti Miss:ssippS Rver :�aLP;c �s c�mprise� of a range of landforms, each with unique characteristics and requiring specific responses. while most of this plan's policies apply to the entire river valley, many of the Urban Design policies of this plan are tailored to the specific landforms, described below: ♦ The River's Edge is characterized by natura! shoreline ve�etation in parkland or natural areas. The River's Edge downstream of the High Bridge is stabilized with a variery of man-made treatments for the pur- pose of channel maintenance, including rock rip rap and walls. ♦ The Lowlands are the lands adjacent to the River and are either flood prone or formerly flood prone lands. Lowlands provide critical habitat for migratory birds, yet developed areas in the Lowlands are nearly devoid of tree canopy. The Lowlands are generally characterized by mixed man- ufacturing or office uses, dedicated public parks and open space, or 16 City of Saint Paul cleared and vacant lands. Lar�ely redeveloped for industry, buildin�s in the Lowlands tend to be lar�er floorplate structures with associated lar�e parkin� areas. ♦ The Low Bluff is landward of the Lowlands. It is �enerally characterized by a varied ed�e of dense woods and open views, sometimes eroded or over�rown. There exist occasional and dramatic bluff face/rock outcrops expressin� the natural �eolo�y of this valley, althou�h the elevation chan�e of the Low Bluff is less striking than the Hi�h Bluffs (described below). Access from the Lowlands throu�h the Low Bluff is somewhat limited. The Low Bluff is less le�ible as either habitat or public open space than the High Bluff. ♦ The Terrace is the generally flat area located between the Low Bluff and the High Bluff. The elevation of the Terrace ranges in between 740 and 780 feet above sea level. At locations throughout the valley, the Tenace makes transitions into River Reaches and Ravines. The Terrace is gener- ally fully developed, and characterized by mixed use commercial and industrial lands transitioning from rail oriented manufacturin� to ser- vice/convenience uses. The Terrace also contains multi-story housing with smaller fragmented pockets of single family homes. ♦ The High Bluff is located landward of the Tenace, and is the most rec- ognizable feature of Saint Paul's visually stunning river valley. The High Bluff is characterized by a nearly vertical limestone bluff face in many areas. In other areas, the High Bluff is covered with a continuous, often dense canopy of overstory trees with occasional openings for views and limited public access. The High Bluff is an environmentally sensitive area that is highly susceptible to erosion and associated loss of vegetation and animal habitat. Selected roads traverse the High Bluff, creatin� pri- mary connections between the Terrace and Uplands (described below). ♦ The Uplands are the areas located above the highest bluffs. The Uplands are flat or gently sloping, and are generally characterized by mixed resi- dential neighborhoods coming to the ed�e, with occasional multi-story multifamily structures and institutional landmark buildings. The urban forest of the Uplands generally consists of boulevard trees. A map showing the general location of these landforms throughout Saint Paui can be found in Chapter 7. � �� r , � � a �: � Comprehensive Plan 17 v �� i St�ate�y 1: Protect the River as !ls the twenry-first century begins, the ciry has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning W111C�I bQIQt2CeS environmental, COIriIriilllits7, QIIC� economic imperatives. The Mississippi River, as it weaves throu�h Saint Paul, is part of a complex ecosystem, and is a unique and valuable naturai resource. The river has been desi�nated by the Minnesota State Legislature as a State Critical Area, and by the U.S. Congress as a nationally significant commercial navi�ation system, a National River and Recreation Area, and an American Heritaje River. The history of Saint Paul has always been closely ued to the Mississippi River, but over time, development has heavily impacted many of the river's indi�enous landscapes. As the twenty-first century be�ins, the City has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning which balances envi- ronmental, commanity, and economic imperatives. This approach moves the City in the direction of thinking of the river, river valley, and developed areas as an integrated living ecosystem. The City will provide for the continuation of a variety of urban uses, including industrial, commercial, and residential within the river corridor, while stren�thening its commitment to preservin� the natural resources of the river corridor. The intent of this chapter is nei- ther to discourage future development, nor to promote wholesale restora- tion of the natural environment. Rather, natural resource mana�ement poli- cies will be strengthened to enhance the urban ecosystem in the Mississippi River corridor, and improve the quality of place in Saint Paul. Saint Paul currently uses river corridor overlay zoning to protect natural resources throughout the state-desi�nated Critical Area of the Mississippi River. Overlay zoning restricts what type of development may occur in the floodplain, and applies strict standards for development. These standards include development setbacks 18 irom tne river, and prohibi�ir�� development on steep slopes. This chapter addresses protec- tion of bluffs, native plant and animal habitats, wetlands and floodplain, and water quality. (Appendix F contains maps that show the location of steep slopes, si�nificant vegetative stands, wetlands, the floodplain, storm water discharge points, and natural draina�e routes.) City of Saint Pau! Figure H Natural Shoreline Objective 4.1 Protect the blufj�lands of the river corridor Saint Paul's natural topo�raphy relates much of the city to the river. Bluff formations framin� the Mississippi River reinforce the city's unique natural settin� ar,d contribute to Saint Paul's character and sense of place. The topo�raphy of the river valley varies considerably. Alon� the West Seventh corridor and West Side, there are distinct hi;h and low bluffs separated by a terrace. In the so-called "river �or�e" between Saint Paul and Minneapolis and in the Highwood neighborhoods, however, the hi�h bluffs descend dramatically to the river, or adjacent low land areas. Likewise, the location of bluff areas relative to the river varies from the �or�e where the river lies directly below the biuffs, to portions of the Hi�hwood and west Side neigh- borhoods where the bluffs are set back more than a mile from the river. While the bluffs, ravines, and tributary areas are an attractive and unique urban amenity, they are a fragile part of the river ecosystem. Historically, both Ramsey Counry and the City have been active in protect- ing and restoring bluff lots with steep slopes facing the river. Ramsey County has acquired lots between Upper and Lower Afton Road for perma- nent county park ownership. Over the past several years, the City has used Federal ISTEA funding to acquire lots between Lower Affon Road and Highwood Avenue to be permanently dedreated as city parkland. Saint Paul aLso currently maintains a required bluff setback for development, and pro- hibits development on steep slopes along the bluff line to prevent erosion, and to maintain the natural, vegetated appearance of the bluff line visible from the river. Policies: 4.1.1 The City will continue its program to acquire lots on the bluff face as funding opportunities arise, extending the program to include lots south �� . .:, � � � K� ,� :� ;;,� �� c ;n :v ``o ;� � �F � �� '_ � Comprehensive Plan 19 O1-�`�1 of Highwood Avenue. Private efforts to acquire lots for open space dedi- cation are encoura�ed, as are actions by Ramsey Counry to convert lots acquired through tax forfeiture to permanent public park ownership. 4.12 The City will support efforts to stabilize all bluffs in public ownership through re- introduction of native species and visitor use management. Efforts such as those by Friends of the Parks and Trails and the West Side Bluff Task Force to create bIuff management pIans for the �or�e area and the West Side bluffs, respectively, are encoura�ed. The West Side bluffs, in particular, are in need of management and stabilization. 4.1.3 To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional struc- tural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Further exceptions are ailowed for low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. The City wiIl define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code. 4.1.4 In order to protect steep slopes and minimize erosion, and consis- tent with Executive Order 79-19, the City will continue to prohibit resi- dential development on slopes that exceed ei�hteen percent. Consistent with the MNRRA standard for commercial and industrial development, the City will continue to restrict industrial and commercial development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. 4.1.5 The City will continue to preserve the bluff impact area (forty feet landward of the bluff line) in a natural state. Objective 4.2 Preserve and restore native plcmt and animal habitats Saint Paul is located at the meeting of the prairie and eastem hardwood forests. Despite the changes accompanying urbanization, a variety of habi- tat types continue to exist today within the river comdor, including rem- nant savannas, prairies, river edge wetlands, riverine areas, the bluffs, as weIl as the river itself and its floodpiain. The Department of Natural Resources inventories rare species and natural communities, and accordin� to the its Natural Heritage Database, there are 55 known occurrences of such species or communities in Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. These include Bald Eagles sighted in the Pig's Eye Heron Rookery and Battle Creek Regional Park, Blanding's Turtles sighted at Lilydale Regional Park and Hidden Falls - Crosby Park, several types of mussels, and a variety of other plant and animal species. (For a full listing, see P.ppendix C.) Particularly near downtown Saint Paul, remnant landscapes and the animal 2p City ofSaint Panl habitats they contain have historically become dis- connected from the larger river ecosystem, and their long term viability is continually challen�ed by the effects of urbanization. Fortunately, there are many opportunities for preserv- in� and restorin� native plant and animal habitats throu�hout the river corridor. Great River Greenin� has played an instrumental role in restoring vegeta- tion throu�hout the river valley, with the �oal of cre- atin� a connected �reenway for mi�ratin� son�birds and improving the ecology of the Mississippi River valley in Saint Paul. Over the past several years the or�anization and its volunteers have planted more than 30,000 native trees and shrubs and 25,000 native wildflowers in the river corridor near down- town. Addressing the downtown area, the Saint Paul on the Missrssippi Development Framework has signaled the need to improve the balance between the natural and built environments through protection of native '" �a . vegetation and improved river edge treatments. The redevelopment plans for Harriet Island Regional Park and the East Bank Mississippi River Trail = <��..:� Corridor are examples of this shift in approach, as they call for redesigning ��;�- river edges to incorporate both hard edge and indigenous vegetative treat- �� ments. Of course, projects to restore natural shorelines must be compatible �� with the requirements of channel design and flood management. , Policies: 42.1 To the greatest extent possible, existin� mature trees and native veg- etation will be preserved in site development projects. In the Highwood neighborhood, the City will continue to enforce the Tree Preservation District standards to maintain a maximum vegetative canopy. 4.2.2 The City will encourage use of native vegetation or other compatible floodplain vegetation in redevelopment projects. Where appropriate, when redeveloping or stabilizing the river's edge, soii bio-engineering techniques and native plantings will be used in combination with more traditional engineered solutions. In the more formal landscape treat- ments occurring along the downtown riverfront, the shoreline will be strengthened with native vegetation, including native trees and shrubs. Throughout the river corridor, the City will encourage integration of fizture growth and development with restoration programs that recon- nect and restore remnant natural communities. 4.2.3 The Ciry will continue to support the efforts of organizations such as Great River Greenin� to restore native grasses, shrubs and trees alon� the riverfront downtown and elsewhere in the river corridor. � �� 4� �� e� Comprehensive Plan 21 c�1-t�1 4.2.4 The City wiIl continue to enforce the 50 foot shoreline setback for structures. In addition, the Ciry wiil support efforts to restore the shoreline to a more natural character within 100 feet of the river to facili- tate wildlife movement, and to improve the aesthetic appearance of the floodwall. Such efforts must be compatible with current channel design and flood controt management, and exceptions are made for park buildings, marinas, and other commercial or industrial river-dependent uses. Redevelopment should include removai of unused docking facilities (i.e., at the Koch-Mobil site). Figure K Trail between Warner Road and the Mississippi River 4.2.5 In all new developments, threatened and endangered wildlife habitats shall be protected from alterations which wouid endanger their survival. 42.6 The City will integrate its plans with the work of the DNR's Metro Greenways and Naturai Areas Collaborative. This metro area collabora- tive has identified hi�h quality native habitat remnants which could be linked into regional greenways, providin� continuous habitat corridors to support native plant and wildlife species. Many potential greenway opportunities e�st in the East Metro area, includin� Saint Paul. Objective 4.3 Protect cmd preserve floodplain cmd wedcmd areas in the city Fiwre L The last comprehensive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 5�u�` f L.ti:� .c.�;.^.�-p'dl'� flr�vin�ain OCCtl^'v� ln 1qRg.. c;rce that tme LWO Ben Thompson's vision of y � r�••• "The Great River Park" � City of Saint Paul major fiood events occurred in 1993 and 1997, and other chan�es have occurred in the floodplain. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers has completed a multi-year flood protection project on the West Side which will result in removal of the West Side Flats from the floodplain, because the new higher levee will control a 500-year flood. As a result of these chan�es, the City, DNR and the Corps of En�ineers are workin� to�ether to update the City's Flood Insurance Study. The Flood Insurance Study update includes changes to the cross-sectional area caused by development and revisions to the hydraulic model that incorporates these changes. FEMA and DNR will review the Flood Insurance Study update followin� submis- sion and make an approval decision (concludin� in 2001). FEMA's process will result in revised floodplain boundaries in the river corridor and accom- panying changes to FEMA flood insurance rate maps and the City's flood- way and flood fringe zoning districts. Wetlands also play an important role during floods, and for controlling stormwater. Their flexible storage capacity allows flood waters to be released slowly, reducing flood damage. In the era when most of Saint Paul's neighborhoods developed, modem ecosystem knowledge was lack- ing, and wetlands and creekbeds were routinely drained and filled. Through zoning and site plan review, Saint Paul began protecting wetlands in 1994, after passage of the state Wetlands Conservation Act. The Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (fiznded through state lottery rev- enues), has provided financial resources to communities, including Saint Paul, for wetland restoration projects. The restoration of Ames Lake — for- merly the Phalen Shopping Center site — is one such example. Other opportunities for restoration exist, including efforts by the Lower Phalen Creek Restoration Project to connect Swede Hollow Park to the river by restoring lower Phalen Creek in the ravine between Dayton's Bluff and Lowertown. As our understanding of watersheds continues to evolve, the need for careful management and planning in wetland and floodplain areas of the city is assumed. Policies: 4.3.1 The State of Minnesota, through the Department of Natural Resources, allows new development to occur in the Mississipi River floodplain up to a one-half foot increase over the 100-year flood eleva- tion. The City will enforce the state floodplain encroachment limit so that small increments in development do not gradually degrade the floodplain. 4.3.2 Recognizing the need to treat wetlands as a valued resource, and assuming its responsibility to administer the Wetlands Conservation Act, the City will protect earisting wetlands and encourage restoration of degraded wetlands. Comprehensive Plan 23 p�-�ql T e water quality of the Mississippi River is directly connected to the activities in the surrounding :.��rsH��. Objective 4.4 Protect water quality through comprehensive and coordinated watershed mcmagement The water quality of the Mississippi River is directly connected to the activi- ties in the surrounding watershed. Pollution comes from both direct, or point sources, such as a sewage treatment plant discharge, and from non- point sources, such as stormwater tunoff. The lar�est source of nonpoint source pollution into the Mississippi is the Minnesota River, which contains significant amounts of a�ricultural runoff from outside of the Mississippi River Corridor. The Minnesota Pollution Control A�ency is attemptin� to address this problem, which is complex and will take e�ctensive time and funds to correct. While all sources of pollution will be addressed, the City's program witl focus on city stormwater runoff pollution prevention due to the relatively �reater impact this source has on the river. SEWER SEPARATION PROC:RAM Historically, Saint Paul's original sewers drained direct]y to the Mississippi River ar to several natural streams that in tum drained into the river. The oldest sewer on record in Saint Paui was built in 1856. At the time it was standard engineering practice throu�hout the country to convey both storm water and sanitary waste to receiving waters in one pipe. However, by the early 1920's it was becoming apparent that the Mississippi River was pollut- ed and something had to be done. In 1938, the first sewage treatment facili- ty on the entire Mississippi River went into operation. Minneapolis and Saint Paul each financed and built their own interceptor sewers and shared the cost of building the treatment piant. Dry weather flows were then treat- ed prior to emptying into the river, but during rainstorms, when the flows exceeded the sewer's capacity, combined sewer overflows (rainwater and sewage) continued to pollute the river. In 1985, after years of siudy and discussion, sewer separation-vi�as deter- mined to be the most economical method to abate combined sewer over- flows to the Mississippi River and to meet federat and state water quality standazds. At this time the Minnesota Poilution Control A�ency directed Saint Paul, Minneapolis and South Saint Paul to develop a new plan for combined sewer overflow elimination and for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to incorporate each city's plan into an overall metro plan. In response, Saint Paul developed the Comprehensive Sewer Plan for the City ofSaint Paul. Although Saint Paul began separating its combined sewers in 1960, by 1985, only half of the city was served by separate sanitary and storm sewer systems. The ten year program initiated in 1986 was a massive undertaking with over $172 million in designated projects (1984 dollars). 24 City of Saint Paul The sewer separation program has led to significant improvement in the quality of the Mississippi River. The followin� are viewed as indicators of the improved water quality: ♦ Pollution-sensitive Hexa�enia mayfly have retumed to'IWin Cities' stretch of river after a 30 year absence. ♦ Metropolitan Council Environmental Services' monitoring data shows a si�nificant drop in fecal bacteria leveLs in the river as a result of sewer separation. ♦ Bald eagles have returned to the Twin Cities' stretch of river. ♦ Fish population and diversity have recovered from 3 species to over 25 species. ♦ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has established catch and release fishing regulations to protect trophy sized walleyes that are being caught from the metropolitan stretch of Mississippi River. The completion of Saint Paul's sewer separation program has achieved the overall purpose of cleaning up the river, demonstrating the City's commit- ment to improved stewardship of the river envixonment, and exceeded its performance goals. The city now has two completely separate sewer sys- tems, one cartying surface water runoff and the other one carryin� sanitary sewage. But the work of protecting and restoring the Mississippi River goes on. The partners involved in this project will continue to address the issues that affect the Mississippi and our environment. AWARENESS EDUCATION Saint Paul falls within the boundaries of four watershed management organizations, each of which develops a comprehensive watershed plan. Saint Paul's new Water Management Plan will be completed by the Public Works Department two years after the completion of the watershed management plans. The four watershed management organizations are I) Capitol Region Watershed District, 2) Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District, 3) Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, and 4) Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization. Saint Paul has been actively educating its resi- dents about water quality issues for years. Early Photo courtesy of Fnends of the Mississippi Id'ver ✓� � ; : � �� • : ,� � Comprehensive Plan 25 bl-�`� � efforts began to eaplain the need for the Sewer Separation Program and the associated benefits to the Mississippi River. Currently, the City and the Friends of the Mississippi River are working in partnership on the Storm Drain Stenciling Program. Since 1993, the City has worked with thousands of volunteers to stencil a message, "Don't Pollute Drains to River", next to storm drains and to distribute door hangers to the surrounding neighbor- hood. In addition, City staff are working with schools in Saint Paul on watershed education projects. Saint Paul is also a Watershed Partner, which is an award winnin� partner- ship of inetro area agencies, non-profit groups and local units of govemment. Watershed Partners developed an educational watershed exhibit, which is used at venues across the "IWin Cities every year, including the Minnesota State Fair. The Partners are currently involved in a metro wide media cam- paign which involves news print and radio messages as well as printed gro- cery store ba�s and magnets. Efforts to promote better pubIic awareness can have a profound impact on reducing nonpoint source pollution. Figure N Watershed Management Organizations 26 City ojsaint Pau] The Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory provides guidelines for safely eatin; fish cau�ht in the Mississippi River where it flows throu�h Saint Paul, per the Minnesota Department of Health's Minnesota Fish Consumplion Advisory (available on the DNR web site). Fish in Minnesota's lakes and rivers are monitored annually for the amount of inethyl mercury and PCBs present. WATER MANAC:EMENT AND REGULATION Water management and rewlation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. See Appendix D for the entities that are responsible for water man- agement in Saint Paul. Policies: Most of the policies cited in this chapter will be replaced and more fully addressed by Saint Paul's Water Management Plan, which will be complet- ed by April, 2003 . 4.4.1 Continue participation in existing watershed management programs �; :-. and in developing the City's stormwater permit program and local water management plan. Coordinate municipal activities that affect water qual- z�� ity as part of the stormwater discharge permit and the local water man- �_� agement plan. 4.4.2 Strengthen city-wide education programs that address watershed awareness and stewardship. 4.4.3 The Ciry encourages a reduction in use of chemicals for fertilizer and pest control in residentiai areas and on public land, and support sustain- able land treatment activities and integrated pest management practices. 4.4.4 The City supports minimizing direct overland runoff and improving the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce fertil- izer and pesticide runoff into the river. 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. 4.4.7 The City supports using stormwater management elements such as ponds and swales to unite development areas with the natural environ- ment. Emphasize what these elements add to site development in terms of aesthetic benefits and cost- effective stormwater management. Incorporate public use as a site amenity whenever possible in designin� stormwater management systems. Comprehensive Plan 27 °� � � � .` � . :: � � n � � �s � � Q � � �- � � � � � � � � o�- �� 4.4.8 The City will support programs to better mana�e and decrease the volume of toxic waste in the river corridor. 4.4.9 Protect streambanks and water quality from the ne�ative impacts of recreation. 4.4.10 The City will support re�ional pollution prevention and control plans for the metropolitan area. 4.4.11 The City supports programs to develop and implement spill preven- tion and response pians for the river. 2S City of Saint Paul St�ate�y 2: Sustain the Economic The Mississippi River will continue to function as a major commercial naw igation resource for Saint Paul, the Twin Cities and the Upper Midwest, connectin� the area to the Inland Watenvay System, the Gulf of Mexico and international markets. River-related, shipping-related, and river dependent industries will continue to locate in the river corridor, contributin� to the city's diverse economy and job market. Three of Saint Paul's 29 miles of riverfront are presently dedicated to industry. (Appendix F contains a map of commercial navigation facilities and barge fleeting areas.) Objective 5.1 Continue commercial and industrial uses of river corridor land and water, consistent with the Saint Paul Land Use Plan Industry and commerce are an important function of the river. The City recognizes that commercial and industrial uses of river corridor land will continue. Given the continued mix of land uses in the river corridor, carefu] planning for the use of land along the river's edge is warranted. The City rec- ognizes that the use of land in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark has the potential for serious adverse effects on the river if not properly managed. As a matter of course, all development must comply with existing regulations goveming the floodplain and river corridor. Policies: 5.1.1 New development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, and/or should enhance the river environment. (New develop- ment on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd. is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of existing Plans, and in all other respects should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new development include: ♦ having an economic or operational need for a river location ♦ supporting the attractiveness of surroundin� neighborhoods ♦ sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements ♦ offering public access to and along the river ♦ maintaining views of the river ♦ cleaning up polluted areas on the site ♦ meeting or exceeding applicable natural resource policies in this Plan Sii.. .. � �� v � � � � � � � � � � 3k a � M � ! � � � Comprehensive Plan 29 OI—►q1 Figure O River Corridor South Development Opportunities 5.1.2 F�pansions of existing uses in the floodplain or within 300 ft from the ordinary high water mark are acceptable. Expansions should be con- sistent with the natural resource protection policies laid out in this Plan. Expansion of uses on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard should be consistent with natural resource pro- tection policies where practical. 5.1.3 The City supports continuation of industrial uses in appropriate por- tions of the corridor as indicated in the Land Use Plan and shown in Figures O and P. Modifications or additions to industrial uses in the river corridor should be supported only when they have no significant adverse impact on water quality or air quality for the river corridor and adjacent neighborhoods, and when they do not substantially impair the visual char- acter of the corridor from adjacent neighborhoods or from the river itself. -- ^ '�.' - �"�`�'�E?:� �� `F �° .� ` � �`�� --. ��'a��`�� e ��`�` � ``.�:, ,,,..< 4t \ � �`:.�� + S. � � �"ix' . ��: � �� +4n ' ��Src � � � 4\ y\� .ti Park Restoration Concord - Robert (Commeraal) I '—� �Sid�e I Harriet island / S. Bridgehead Esp�a�de (urtran v��) Soufhport (Industrial) � `�` $ e� � ` � °=_ - R { e� x �� . � � �i r � _ te,� , . E° . a,µ : ._ i � � '��. _ �rs" �. /� %� -� t � .'{ '• '.�.��v/�i��. .�i-.. �, � � .'% .� � : 3 7 `� xe � . r : ,�� . '' � � <�. +,�`\ .- - � t �r:.•, .. .3f X:� { � - \ X r ( ^y'X :._ _ � • ,:L�.• .�."s� 1 � , i `R� � _ = .� Highwood �; ` - "� ;.; � ' � _ �<�s? (more houses�'�, - ;:,�° - "-i _� � >.,. ------ - ... ., °�:: =_� Indus6y BUrkhardt(Housin9) t - _� x.; : � '`°'; "::� ' n ( ��E S �:.I � r}�-:. � Yi��All'✓' - ��:� tv j ij �y ',� n . ' ,��P`s+3 �� ,� �.' a. 6 }°f Sv �' � \ ..�.� :Y� 5 <� I, The boundary shown does not correspond to the Cridcal Area/MNRRA boundary. 30 City of Saint Paul Pedestrian � _.='ff.'��i�._;�....:,'_�"�_;f.-,�'.'�s...,.- �u'�c ADM/Metalcote (Study Area) !�; � Koch-Mobil (Housing) J ��'`;" �=a°�^>��:%F�`CrosbyLake(Industrial) ° ' a '.."�� %� ; Sites ` �" �" " �=��"°` -�n•�� Shepard Davem �°�_ �:��-� � (RedeveiopmentArea) The boundary shown does not conespond to the Critica] Area/MNRRA boundary. ""�"''"'`' � Y�ure P ° _ 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening will not be a detriment to business operations. Objective 5.2 Recognize the Mississippi as a worldng river and support the continued operation of commercial navigation facilities The shipping industry is of cnzcial importance to Saint Paul, greater Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest. Located 1,800 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico, the Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intermodal freight trans- portation system, where barge, rail, and truck traffic intersect. Agricultural products and other bulk materials are brought by rail and truck from throughout the Upper Midwest, and transferred to barges that travel to Comprehensive Plan 31 OI- ►R t downstream river ports. Grain exports from Midwest producers make up nearly 90 percent of the car�o bound downstream. Approximately six percent of grain exported from the U.S. to world markets travels through the Saint Paul Port. Other materi- als are brought up the Mississippi River by bar�e and distributed to destinations throughout the re�ion by rail and truck. At peak capacity, more than 16 million tons of commodities can be han- dled through the Saint Paul Port annually. Figi�e Q Barge Fleeting L ocated 1,800 miles inland from the Gr.r�f of Mexico; the Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intezmodal freight transportation system, where barge, rail, and iruck irafJic intersect. There are both economic and environmental benefits to usin� barges to transport goods, rather than raiI cars or trucks. Barges move frei�ht a greater distance per gallon of diesel fuel than rail or truck. One ton of com- modities carried by barge travels 514 miles per gallon of fuel, compared to only 202 miles by rail or 59 miles by truck. Barges also release fewer pollu- tants per gallon of fuel bumed than rail or truck. Barges release only .42 pounds of pollutants per gallon of fizel burned, compared to .59 pounds released by rail cars and .75 pounds released by trucks. (Riverfront Action Strategies, Saint Paut Port Authoriry, January, 1999.) Barges fleet in designated fleeting areas, as permitted by the DNR, Army Corps of En�ineers, and U.S.Coast Guard. The permit issued by the Corps and DNR specifies the length and width of the fleeting area. Barge fleetin� areas are permitted in Saint Paul's Floodway District (RC-1), subject to a special condition use permit, as approved' by ine'riannin� Commission. Designated fleeting areas are mapped, see Appendix F. In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor currently has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges. Permitted fleeting areas are considered adequate to meet current and near-term fleeting needs and accommodate fluctuations in river transportation. The volume of commercial river traffic has and will continue to fluctuate considerably over time in response to tocal, regionai, national, and intemational needs and markets. At peak times, bar�e fleets fill fleeting areas to their maximum capacity. If a new fleeting area were desired, a permit would have to be procured through the above a�encies. The MNRRA Comprehensive Management PIan identified the need for a Surface Water Use Management Plan. Such a plan would provide �uidance on suitable locations for additional barge fleeting and mooring areas; suitable g2 City of Saint Paul locations for dredge material disposal sites; economic impact of surface water use; potenrial regulatory use controLs and other measures for minimizin� con- flicts between commercial navi�ation and recreational boating use and amon� recreational uses; monitorin� and evaluatin� river system surface use capaciry, includin� considerations of physicai, biolo�icai, social, and safety limits; evaluating the potential for bottom disturbance, sediment resuspension, and shoreline disturbance from bar�e activities and recreational boatin�; and developing altematives to expandin� existing or creatin� additional commer- cial fleering areas, barge moorin� areas, and recreational boatin� facilities. The City a�rees that these questions should be better understood, and should be evaluated region-wide. The Metropolitan Council has formed an advisory committee to fiuther scope out many of the questions identified for the MNRRA Surface Water Use Management Plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be the lead agency in complet- ing such a plan, working with local govern- __ ,,. ments and other affected state and federal �- agencies. It is recommended that barge fleeting areas and marinas be separated by 200 feet for safety reasons. "IWO hundred feet is approxi- mately the length of one barge, so separa- tion by this distance permits visibility of smaller recreational craft. Empty barges ride high in the water (16-20 feet above the water line), so a tow boat operator may not otherwise see recreational boat traffic around marinas. There are two marinas cur- rently in operation, Harriet Island Marina and Watergate Marina in Crosby Park. There are also boat launches at Hidden Falls Park and in Lilydale Park near Pickeral Lake. Policies: 5.2.1 Barge Terminal #1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminals. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river- related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases expire. River-related land uses are those with an economic or operational need for a river location. x �; ,h -� :.� � �� - x �� ;;� � Comprehensive Plan 33 OI-l�li 522 A commercial landing for interstate cruise lines will be maintained at Lambert's Landing (Lower Landing Park), in conjunction with other activities at Lambert's Landing, e.�. loading of supplies. A landing for local excursion boats will be maintained at Harriet Island Marina. 5.2.3 The City will continue to re�ulate the impacts of commercial navi�a- tion facilities on existing development, the natural environment, and the immediate neighborhood throu�h its Special Condition Use Permit process. 52.4 The City will minimize water use conflicts and improve safety by separating commercial and recreational boat faciiities, where practical. A) If new or expanded bar�e fleetin� sites are proposed, and if other- wise permitted by State and federal agencies, fleeting sites should be located adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses and at least 200 feet from any marina or boat launch, B) New marinas or boat launches should be located at Ieast 200 feet from any barge terminal or barge fleeting area. Objective 5.3 Parsue clecmup and reclamation of polluted sites Much of the Mississippi River Corridor in Saint Paul has historically been used for industry, because the river was the first major transportation route. Polluted sites are concentrated where heavy manufacturing, rail yards, and other industrial activities were common. Other sources of contamination are landfills and underground storage tanks. The Metropolitan Council esti- mates that at teast a third more land is poIluted than is currentty identified. An area with significant contamination is Pi�'s Eye Dump, located in the flood plain of the Mississippi River just east of downtown Saint Paul and to the north of Fig's Eye Lake. At 319 acres, the site contains the largest dump in Minnesota. During its 16 years of operation (1956-1972), the dump received 8.3 million cubic yards of municipal, commercial, and industrial waste from Saint PauI and surrounding communities. Durin� the summer of 1988, the site (covering approximately 300 acres) caught fire and bumed intermittently for two months. In 1989, it was designated a Superfund site. The City has completed a Remedial Altematives and Response Adion Plan (RAP) which details remedial alternatives for the site. The RAP calls for plant- ings, covering much of the site with two feet of soil, and rerouting sections of Battle Creek. The City owns most of the site, and the site is designated as passive use parkland. The RAP was approved by the MPCA in May 2000. The 34 City of Saint Paul State legislature has authorized two mulion to begin remediation, of a total remediation cost estimate of 9.1 million. Funding for cleanup of polluted land is most readily available when the land will be redeveloped to yield jobs and increase the tax base. This has the effect of favor- ing industrial and commercial redevelop- ment projects. It can be difficult to find funds for cleanup of polluted land that is to be converted to green space or park land. Legal questions about ownership must also be resolved. To date, legisla- tive initiatives have been proposed to address this need, but none have been passed. The Port Authority has donated over 1800 acres of land to the City, to be used for open space and recreation in perpetuity. Those lands now in park use include Crosby Lake, Pigs Eye L.ake, and Pickeral Lake. '= � z :: _,"; s'�:,,,,j..r .„� .��, , � c�a�.,�-�s, � ._. l �. /� 1�� .% ;' 9 `$ t ,. 4 ��\;.,��.��' � .. � �� - -".•• a€; a;e: �.� �..`. = _ , .:; �� j,� ':'��l�j�`f�-�. �� `' �.;-.°=�-:.'�� ;' acs� a ti ��`..;__ . � ;-, , uwor� - �. _ - ._ _ �;�}.:. > •', ` ':,- y '��'.,�`� , ��..,^"r . �ti�' x� �` \` �- > � � ,�. � y ... y � 5: u. �. , � � � � �4 � � �� h �5. ._ y '-. � � � `� � ,; � ,� :� .� , — - `, , a _ _.—._ y. . i z. �� `4' 1 i 4 �t ... ` 'i ` � ^ . :z ,� - °,'�.�`. . � � , i�`, �. Policies: 5.3.1 Working with the Port Authority, the City will seek opportunities to ciean up polluted river corridor lands. 5.3.2 The City will monitor and support initiatives that will facilitate cleanup of polluted land to be reused as green space. 5.3.3 The City will balance open space use and industrial and commercial use of the Pig's Eye Lake area. Cleanup of Pig's Eye Dump should pro- ceed as laid out in the Remedial Altematives and Response Action Plan (RAP) approved by MPCA. Industrial uses along Childs Road and the rail- road tracks will continue. Open land (which includes the Heron rookery at the southern tip of Pig's Eye Lake ) will continue in environmentaliy protected status. Comprehensive Plan 35 o�-�� St�ate�y 3: Enhance the City's to the River T e river provides The Ciry has the opportuniry to redefine the Mississippi River as the "front dooY' to the city, a deserving role for the city's most unique natural resource and a tremendous source of community pride, identity and vitality. The river provides the city with its most powerful sense of place and its most attractive naturat amenity. Saint Paul can redaim its herita�e as a river city by reconnecting its downtown, nei�hborhoods and recreational areas to the river and establishing a better connection between its built and the city wit12 its natural environments. Recreation opportunities, housing, and mixed-use mOSt pOWe1fW development will increase in the corridor, creating urban nei�hborhoods with visual and physical access to the river. (Appendix F contains maps Seztse of p1aCe and showing parks, trails, overlooks, and historic sites and districts.) its most attractrve natural amenity. Objective 6.1 Enhance opportcmities for recreational use of the riverfront by local visitors and tourists, utilizing parks, open space and physical access to the river The picturesque, natural environment of Saint Paul's river corridor provides many desirable open spaces for ciry residents and tourists to play and relax. Saint Paul's twenty nine miles of river shoreline is the longest stretch of riverfront of any municipality in the TWin Cities metropolitan area and repre- sents one of the city's most significant public amenities. As riverfront indus- triaI land has gradually been converted to parks, park land has become the � ,__a - - . 1 � �;Yre; t ;i:'�: r r�i r singie iarges[ [tse o� rivefr�zt .ar��.�� Sa::�� Pau�. .1. n he ..�. _�_, several large re?ional and city river parks eacist, includin� the following: ♦ Harriet Island Park ♦ Cherokee Park ♦ Crosby Farm Park ♦ Indian Mounds Park ♦ Batfle Creek Park ♦ Kellogg Mall Park ♦ Lilydale Park ♦ Raspberry Island ♦ Hidden Falls Park ♦ Pigs Eye Lake Park s Lower Landing Park ♦ Mississippi River Boulevard Opportunities for further expansion and enhancement of river parks and open spaces exist. As stated in the City's Parks & Recreation Plan, the City will pursue opportunities and partnerships to acquire land specifically for 36 Ciry of Saint Paul open space and naturalresources protection according to any ofthe fol- lowin� criteria. ♦ Areas containing species included on the State or Federal list of endan- gered or threatened species; ♦ Areas representin� si�nificant landforms, native plant communities, sen- sitive habitat, or historical events; ♦ Areas that connect existin� components of the open space network; and ♦ Areas adjacent to existing parkland/open space. In addition to threatened and endangered species, the State of Minnesota classifies species of "special concern". (Listed in Appendix C). While this category does not have the same rewlatory status as threatened or endan- �ered species, areas that contain these species and their habitats should also be considered for preservation. Riverfront redevelopment activities can provide opportunities for e�ansion and enhancement of the city's riverfront open space system as well. The Saint Paul Renaissance Project, sponsored by the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, marks a substantial effort towards this end. The Renaissance Project is an integrated network of public spaces, parks, trails, greenways, and connections that relinks Saint Paul's downtown and its neighborhoods to the Mississippi River. The network builds on investments currently underway and emanates from the Saint Pavl on the Mississippi Development Framework. Within the river corridor, many of the existing adjacent open spaces are connected and established as re�ional parks, includin�: Harriet Island- Lilydale-Cherokee, Mississippi Gorge-Hidden Falls-Crosby Farm and Battle Creek-Pigs Eye. Potential eapansions, connections and enhancements of the river corridor open space system include the restoration of the Lower Phalen Creek area, connecting the river and Swede Hollow Park, and a restoration of the 17out Brook Reach, with a trail connection to the Willard Munger IYail. Other enhancements of the river corridor open space system include development of a Pigs Eye Greenway, renovation of Raspberry ` ,; �..�. � a � �, ,,� .,� ; � a� `� �� Comprehensive Plan 37 b1- �9 l Island, a major renovation of Harriet Island LilydaIe Regional Park, and new open space created by the realignment of Shepard Road. The reali�nment of Shepard Road just west of downtown will significantly increase pubiic access to the river in that area of the river corridor. Policies: 6.1.1 Large areas of open space that are currently undeveloped should pre- serve fish and wildlife resources, plant communities, and biological diver- sity. Some open space areas may be suitable for passive recreation (e.�. trails for hiking, biking, bird-watching); others, such as the Pig's Eye Lake area and the bluffs at Cherokee Park should be limited to preseroation. 6.12 The City will continue to add to its riverfront open space system, making it more continuous and river-related. 6.1.3 The City will require dedication of river corridor parkland as part of river corridor land subdivisions or plantted development approvals. Objective 6.2 Preserve and improve existing views to the river cmd bluj�s, cmd develop new ones Saint Paul's river corridor, with its magni£cent bIuf�s, cavemous �orge and wide river valley provides many unique and scenic views. Visual access to the river, the bluffs and the river corridor provides a sense of place for the general benefit of the public, both city residents and visitors. The various 38 forms of public visual access to the river consist of scenic river views, extended view corridors, overlook points, observation platforms, bridge crossings, bridgeneacis and bluff stairways. Many of the best views of the river exist at key blufftop sites, including Indian Mounds Park, Upper West Side, Kello�g Mall in downtown Saint Paul, and Mississippi River Boulevard. Opportunities exist to create additional river view points in some areas of the city. The neighborhoods in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corri- dor, Battle Creek, and Highwood currently have few established public view points to the river. City of Saint Paul Figure U Overlooldng the river Recently, with funds from multiple sources, blufftop properry off Sprin�side Drive in the Hi�hwood neighborhood was acquired and dedicated for passive public views. Such actions support this objective, and help to proted the bluffs themselves as described in Chapter 4. The City is currently considerin� a policy to remove all biliboards from the River Corridor. Accordin� to a 1999 inventory, fifteen billboards would be tar- �eted for removal from the river corridor if such a policy with associated ordinance is adopted. Policies: 62.1 The City will work with the river corridor neighborhoods to identify additional river views or view corridors. River views and overlook points should be linked to the city's walking paths and trail system, whenever feasible. 6.22 All billboards should be removed from the River Corridor and not replaced. The City encourages efforts by neighboring communities to remove River Corridor billboards as well. 6.2.3 The City will encourage the placement of public utilities undeground. Objecrive 6.3 Provide a continuous, safe pedestrian and birycle trail along both sides of the river, that is connected to the city and regional trail system Pedestrian and bicycle trails are an important way of connecting the city and the river. Such trails also provide environmental and transportation benefits. The City's Parks and Kecreation Division is working towards a continuous trail system along both sides of the river with the potential to connect major parks, open spaces, historic sites, view points and public access areas in the river corridor. Impiementation of the East Bank Mississippi River Regional Trail Corridor Master Plan will provide a continu- ous river trail through the city on the east bank (or north side) of the river. The East Bank Mississippi River Regional Trail is designed to link other city trails, including the Saint Paul Grand Round Loop, Phalen Creek Trail and the Capitol Route Trail, and existing and proposed trails in neighboring jurisdictions. On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport and Pig's Eye Lake, a river trail is not planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons. The west bank river trail is planned primarily as an off-road path, with some on-street bike lanes planned near the airport, and on bridges. At Lilydale Regional Park, the goal is to make the trail completely off-road if an oppor- tunity arises in conjunction with the railroad. y�- ,: : � �-� �; , � � � � � � � � � � � �,; � � � � � � � , ,„... ... .,. � � � , � � � Comprehensive Plan 39 OI-t � Policies: 6.3.1 As designated in the Parks & RecreaUon Plan, the City will complete a continuous Mississippi River Trail as close as practical to the river along the entire len'th of both sides of the river, including bike lanes on bridge crossin�s. 6.3.2 Existing and new river trails will accommodate a variety of non- motorized recreational uses, includin� walkin�, jo�gin„ bikin�, skatin� and sld touring. Bike and pedestrian paths will be separated from each other where physically possible. 6.3.3 The City will coordinate development of the river trail with existing and proposed trails that connect to Saint Paul's river corridor, including city, regional and neighboring communities' trail systems. 6.3.4 The City will pursue easements or public acquisition for future river trail connections in new and existing developments in the river corridor. The City will pursue opportunities as appropriate to acquire future aban- doned railroad right-of-ways and appropriate tax-forfeited parcels for acquisition and possible river trail development. Objective 6.4 Support new housing development in the river corridor, through creation of urban villages. Extend neighborhoods toward the river Especially near downtown, the opportunity exists to create new mixed-use river corridor nei�hborhoods that reconnect the city to the river. This is also an oppommity to create highly desirable housing that helps achieve the City's projected housin� growth target for 2620. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Fromeworks Ten Principles present a holistic approach for reestablishing river corridor neighborhoods. The Saint Pavl Land Use Plan fur- ther articulates the Ciry's vision of Urban Villages as the predominant model for neighborhood development. Strategic locations with highest potential for neighborhood development include Upper Landing/Irvine Park, the West Side River Flats, Lowertown, and the Koch-Mobil and Shepard-Davem sites. The City recognizes that new deveIopment in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the river should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, and/or should enhance the river environment (discussed in more detail in chapter 5). It is appropriate to consider housing and neighbor- hoods river-enhancing, if careful site planning addresses public access and connections to the river, view corridors and vistas, use of native vegetation in landscaping, and natural resource and stormwater mana�ement. See chapter 7 for further discussion of policies for new development. 40 Ciry of Saint Paul Policies: 6.4.1 In strate�ic river corridor locations adjacent to existin� nei�hbor- hoods, the City supports redevelopin� vacant and underused industrial land sites as new mixed-use urban village nei�hborhoods that help reconnect the city to the river. 6.42 Connections between the terrace neighborhoods and the river will be improved by addin� a limited number of pedestrian xoutes (stairs, ramps, walkways) betv✓een the bluff elevations and the river flats. Objective 6.5 Encourage protection and restoration of river corridor cultural resources, incluAing historic structures, cultarally significant landscapes, and archaeological and ethnographic resources Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor, as the birthplace of the City of Saint Paul, contains a variety of important cultural and historical structures and sites. The river corridor's designated historical sites include early Native American river settlements and burial grounds, historic urban districts, river-related recreational buildings, stately public institution and trans- portation buildings, grand private homes, and architecturally unique bridges spanning the Mississippi River. Early economic activity in the river corridor included beer brewing, mushroom farming, and brick making. Nationally designated historic sites in Saint Paul's River Corridor are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (See Appendix B.) The National Register is administered by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), which has ultimate responsibility for evaluating and nominating new sites to the National Register. Locally, Saint Paul's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), created in 1976, is a certified local govemment historic preservation program with responsibility for identifying and recommending historic buildings, sites and districts within the ciry. A historic survey and designation project for the entire city of Saint Paul is currently underway. Currently, officially designated historic places consist of structures, sites, districts and objects only. A number of important archaeological sites and landscapes exist in the river corridor that do not contain historic structures. These sites and landscapes have been identified by SHPO, however only one site (Indian Mounds Park) has been designated historic on the National Register. A comprehensive inventory of potentiai local historic landscapes, archaeologicai and ethnographic sites is needed to ensure protection of ali historic and cultural resources in the river corridor. ..�' �� : � Comprehensive Plan 4i or-i 9 I Opportunities exist for restoring historic sites in the river corridor as an element of riverfront development plannin�. The Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse on Raspberry Island, the Harriet Island Pavilion as part of the Hamet Island Master Plan and the various historic river caves are prime examples. Reconnecting the Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic Districts to the river and their historic roots as Saint Paul's upper landin� and Iower landing also provide key opportunities to restore the riverfronYs historical resources. At the Upper Landing site, the Head House was one of the first a�ricultural transfer stations on the Mississippi River. The Head House should be studied to determine its potential for reuse, perhaps in conjunc- tion with redevelopment plans. One of the buildings currently occupied by the U.S. Post Office at Kel]ogg Blvd. and lackson Street (adjacent to Lambert's Landing) is an example of Art Deco style architecture. If this buiid- ing or the Concourse of the Union Depot become available for reuse, this Plan supports reuse that is consistent with the vision for downtown and principles laid out in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework. Policies: 6.5.1 The City encourages the use of historic properties in public and pri- vate riverfi development plans, particularly where interpretation of hisYOric themes is planned. Stnactures and landscapes listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and those designated as local sites should be preserved in their present condition, if that condition allows for satisfactory protection, maintenance, use, and interpretation. 6.5.2 The City encourages the e�pansion of open space land use where needed to preserve si�nificant archaeological, landscape and ethno- graphic resources. 6.5.3 The City encourages economic activities that preserve and rehabili- tate historic resources in tne river corridor. 6.5.4 With the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the City supports the creation of a Saint Paul Historic Preservation Plan that includes establishing a comprehensive inventory of all historic, archaeo- logicai, cultural anQ ethnographic structures and landscapes in the river comdor. 6.5.5 The City wiil work to restore the former connection of river corridor historic districts (Lowertown and Irvine Park) to the river, by encoura�- ing development that is compatible with existin� nei�hborhoods. 42 City of Saint Paul St�ate�y 4: Use Urban Design to Built Environment The desi�n of public and private spaces powerfully affects our perception of the quality and character of place. Where the city comes to the Mississippi River, the urban fabric has potential to reflect and glorify Saint Paul's natural setting. The river corridor's varied landforms and existin� development pat- terns pose opportunities and challenges for new development to enhance the river valley by providing access to the river and reinforcing continuity in the existing urban fabric. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development F7amework has become the City's essential reference for guiding new development in and around the downtown riverfront. This chapter draws heavily from that work. The inten- tion of this chapter is to support and reinforce the principles articulated in the Framework while considering the entire River Corridor and implications for all of its land typologies. Urban Structure and Land Forms The river corridor's urban structure is a multi-layered patchwork of movement systems, land uses, and built form. Movement is multi-modal, characterized by rail lines, major arterials, nei�hborhood streets and trails. West Seventh Street, or Old Fort Road, is especially significant because it is the city's longest arterial running parallel to the river. It is also a major growth corridor connecting to downtown. Shepard Road is another significant river road. It nxns parallel to the river and West Seventh Street, and will soon be rebuiit as an improved and slower speed parkway east of Randolph. Cunently, Shepard Koad acts as an impediment to river access and experiences. The north side of West Seventh Street is characterized by the ordinal grid. Generally, because of the change of land use from residential to industrial, this grid of streets is not continuous across West Seventh. It extends across into pockets of small residential areas, but because of the grid's spotty nature, residential neighborhoods south of West Seventh do not create a continuous urban fabric. The Terrace and Lowlands are important locations that provide the opportu- nity for meaningful connections from the Uplands to the river. Cunently, the Terrace along West Seventh Street is perceived as disconnected from the Upland neighborhoods of Saint Paul because so few streets traverse the bluff. In fact, the only connections are from the main streets of the Upland . �� has � � � � � � � � a �� : �, � �� .� �Po � A� �� Comprehensive Plan 43 oi-�� Figure V River VaNey and Critical Area boundary grid (Snelling, Randolph, St. Clair, Grand/Ramsey, Fairview/Edgcumbe) that extend down the bluff as parkways or major river avenues. For the same reason, the Lowlands on the West Side also seem disconnected from the Uplands. Topo�raphically, the Terrace corridor is formed by the High Biuffs on both sides of the river. Atop the bluffs lie several high points and landmark buildings, providing a series of vistas visually connectin� neighborhoods to each other. Natural reaches are formed where the bluffs are interrupted by the ravines. These reaches provide further opportunities to connect the Terrace and river valley to the Upland neighborhoods. The map below shows the approximate location of the landforms that make up the river valley and its reaches in Saint Paul. The map also shows the boundary of the Critical Area, which contains the entire length of the river in Saint Paul. While the influence of the river valley clearly eatends beyond the Critical Area boundary, the policies in this Plan aze under- stood to be Imtited to the Critical Area in Saint Paul. 44 Ciry of Saint Paul Objective 7.1 Development of new streets, blocks, and neighborhoods in the river corridor should continuously reinforce connections with the natural environment of the river valley and the surrounding urbrm fabric The s�eet grid, or pattern of streets, blocks, and open space formin� public and private spaces, determines both the movement patterns and develop- ment patterns of a district. These development pattems provide an impor- tant opportunity to connect with and e�cperience the river. The best exam- ple of this in Saint Paul is in the West Side blufftop neighborhoods west of Wabasha/Humboldt, where blocks are small and connect regularly {at least every 400 feet) with a riverview street, park or sidewalk. In other areas, particularly the West Side Lowlands, redeveloped industrial "superblocks" have the effect of isolating blufftop neighborhoods from the river. The poli- cies below do not preclude industrial redevelopment on industrially-aoned land. However, other redevelopment should consider the opportunity to reestablish meaningful connections to the river. Policies: 7.1.1 In the Lowlands, new urban villages (as defined in Objective 6.4) should establish an urban street grid that provides access to the river's �� °° `'�' edge. The City supports utilizing historic street patterns when re-creating � ��° street grids. If a historic grid does not exist, new urban villages should .,�;;; ; s.. �� establish a fine-grained system of blocks and streets. When feasible, new - development should also assure urban continuity by integrating all new street and block pattems into existing traditional patterns. 7.1.2 The Tenace along West Seventh Street is a major corridor that should have better street connections across West Seventh. The City supports creating new block and street pattems south of West Seventh Street that create continuity across West Seventh. New block and street pat- terns on the Terrace should maximize connections to the bluff edge to enhance the sense of proximity to the river. 7.1.3 In Upland areas such as the Gorge, the City encour- ages preserving and enhancing the existing modified grid pattem of streets and blocks. In portions of Battle Creek and Highwood, development form follows a suburban or exurban pattem with cul-de-sacs and meandering roads that follow topography. In these nei�hborhoods without a connected street system, the City supports creating a connected system as redevelopment or major subdivision occurs. � ,�,, � �:; � l . � ` f =, ;.. f. : xJ k F �� z � �� q a' a _„ �� ;�., Comprehensive Plan 45 t�l � 7.1.4 Infill development in the Uplands should be scaled and desi�ned to be compatible with and reinforce the existin� physical fabric_ 7.1.5 Street design should accomodate all modes of movement (bicycles, pedestrians and cars). Streets and other public rights-of-way should provide physical and visual connections between river valley neighbor- hoods and the river's edge. 7.1.6 On urban infiIl and redevelopment sites in the river corridor, the City encourages under�round parkin� wherever possible, to support "traditional" urban development patterns and to minimize impervious surface. 7.1.7 New and reconstructed brid�es or other "�ateways" should be designed to be attractive and inviting and masimize the sense of con- nection to the river. This can be accomplished with signage, landscapin� treatments, omamentallighYin� and railings, comfortable sidewalks, and special architectural elements. The Wabasha Bridge and Marshall Avenue Bridge are good examples. New river crossin�s should be mini- mized, and new and reconstructed bridges should be located in the same corridor as the structure they replace. 1.8 The City should connect new and e�stin� neighborhoods to the river by greening key streets that connect to the riverfront or river parkways. Objective 7.2 Consistent with an urban setting, the design of new buildings should reflect the river corridor's natural chcu�acter and respond to topography by preserving Cl'ItICQI pilffllC V1eLYS. 46 Built form and buildin� envelopes are a function of height, densiry and floor plate size. In the river corridor, buildin� scale becomes very important as it relates to topography, views and the sunoundin� urban fabric. Recently, the Ciry has become much more attentive to this, and now encourages buildings whose scale responds to the surrounding neighbor- hood context, topography and the public realm. In general, it is important to pre- serve public views both of the river from the city and neighborhoods, and from the City ofSaint Paul Figure X DowMown RiverfrorR: critical pubiic views river back to the city. However, Saint Paul is an urban condition. Occasionally, it is permis- sible and even desirable to allow selective excep- tions for medium-scaled landmarks. � �_ ,,.��:: „ i ; �.,,y �� -�° � �y�.�.. '_ _ _ -_' Policies: 72.1 In Lowland areas, new development should employ buildin� envelopes that heighten the experience of the river corridor by preserv- in� public views to the top of the High Bluff. Public views from the Uplands or Tenace to the water edge of the opposite side of the river should be maximized. 7.22 Along urban growth corridors such as West Seventh Street, building envelope standards should be used that recognize not only the importance of the river as a scenic watenvay and the corridor as a natural resource, but also the needs and appropriateness of massing and density in an urban environment. 72.3 In redevelopment areas along the West Seventh Street Terrace, the street hierarchy of the grid should be reinforced by creating building envelope standards that recognize the importance of locating taller buildings on wider streets and shorter buildings on narrower streets. 7.2.4 On the West Seventh Street and Concord Street Terraces, the City supports designing buildings with equal consideration given to their visi- bility from the river and to their visibility from the Uplands. The City sup- ports maintaining building heights that maximize public views of the high bluff lines from the high water mark on the opposite side of the river. Planning for Terrace redevelopment sites should be careful to con- sider views of the Terrace from Fort Snelling as referenced in the Design Criteria for the Shepard-Davem zoning overlay. 7.2.5 Building design should add vitality to the street and sidewalk by pro- viding street- level windows and active street-level uses, semi-public spaces in front of buildings, and front doors facing the street. 72.6 In Upland areas, the general character of the existing silhouette of lower- profile buildings alon� the edge should be maintained. Development should also respect the mature tree canopy at the bluff edge of the Uplands with buildings forms that do not dominate the canopy's natural height. However, occasional, modest exceptions to the silhouette with medium-scaled landmark buildings are allowed. � : ,, �> �� Comprehensive Plan 47 OI 7.2.7 The City supports the use of "green," or ener�y efficient buildinQ techniques in new developments. 7.3 Desigrt Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites As described in the Setting Chapter, to complete this River Corridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, alon� with the Saint Paul Desi�n Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment sites. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. Ideally, new development should provide greater public access to the river, preserve significant public views, improve stormwater and the urban forest on site, and reinforce and complement the sunounding urban fabric. Tllustrations of how On the following pages are su�gested guidelines for the West Side Flats, rhese guidelines might Upper Landing, Koch-Mobil and ADM sites, and the Shepard Davem area. be applied am be found The individual guidelines should not be viewed as mandates, and it is in AppendixA. unlikely that any project will be able to fulfill every provision. Rather, co]- lectively they provide a vision for redevelopment that enhances the river corridor, respects this precious amenity, and strikes a balance between eco- nomic development and resource protection. These suggested guidelines will be used as the basis for the nea�t step in the re�ulatory process. Figure Z River Corridor RedevetopmeM Sites qg Ciry of Saint Paul O/-!9/ Site: WES? SIDE FLATS Location Between Robert and Wabasha, Mississippi River and Plato Access and Connections • Extend adjacent streets into and through che redevelopment site. Preserve the rail corridor as a poten- tia] �reenway corridor. Views and V'LStas • Preserve views of the West Side Bluffs from Kellogg Park. • Ensure views of the dverfront by ori- enting streets perpendicular to the river. Development Pat[ern • Create a concentration of taller build- ings and activity and the intersection of Plato and Robert. • Create small blocks, bound by public right-of-way, that can be developed incre- mentaliy and in response to market con- ditions. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space along the riveYS edge. • Extend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native landscapes; encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natural habitats. Stormwater • tntegrate stormwater management elements with natural habitats, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater dischazge. Urban Forest • Reintroduce the 'urban foresY with- in/around redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active / passive recreational use with paths, overlooks, seatlng azeas, courts/fields. • Pcovide visible/accessible connec�ons to neighborhood and regionai parks, traiLs and open space systems. Site: UPPER LANDINC� Location: Beriveen the High Bndge and Chestnut nve., Mississippi River and Irvine Park Neighborhood Access and Connections • Provide multiple connections to Shepard Road, an urban boulevard. wews and V'�stas • Provide an anchoring public space that celebrates the Chestnut Street / Cathedral axis and arrival to the river. • Provide view corridors through the site from potential lower bluff overlooks (not in redevelopment sites) to the river. Development Pattern • Create smali biocks that can be devei- oped incrementally and in response to market conditions. • Create a series of linMng pubiic and privaCe spaces onented co both the river and to Shepard Road as well as oCher sig- nificant spaces, views and ]andmarks, such as the High Bridge and downtown. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space along the river's edge. • Fxtend ]andscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native landscapes; encoura�e plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natura] habitats. Stormwater • Integrate stormwater management elements with natural habitacs, pubiic open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater discharge. Urban Forest • xeintroduce the 'urban forest' with- in/azound redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active i passive recreationa] use with paths, overlooks, seating areas, courts/fields. • Provide visible/accessible connections to nei�hborhood and re�ional parks, trails and open space systems. Site: KOCH MOBIL (Also ADM site) Location: Between Randoiph and West 7th; W. 7th and Mississippi River Access and Connections • Extend existing streets �nto and through the redevelopment site. • Fstend Victona Street through the site t0 jOiTl M071tiC'dl AvEnue. Create a"Bluff Drive" as a local resi- dential street atop the lower bluff park [ha[ connects West 7th to the R�ver Valley. �ews and Vistas • Create multiple views of the river vaI- ley where street5 intecsect the bluff drive. Development Patterns • Organize street and block development around a wide street or ]inear park that connects Wesi 7th Yo the River valley. Natural Resources • Provide a continuous new public ed�e along blufftop with native landscapes, pedestrian pathways and developed over- looks. • Fxtend landscaped "green fingers" inro new development areas alon� new streets and public pa[hways. Stormwater • Capture runoff on exisnng and newly Comprehensive Plan 49 OI-i`�I developed sites and begin water treat- ment, infiltration process (parking lots, rooftops, terraces). • tntegrate final treatment, infiltration and detention systems into the public edge behind the blufftop and into the pat- tem of pazks and squares, streets and public pathways. • Provide surface system of catchmeni areas, swales, infil�ation and detention areas. Urban Forest • Install canopy trees on all new streets; infill canopy trees on e�sting streets. • Develop natural forest along bluff top and bluff face with groves of native trees, grasses and other piantings. Public nmenities • Link public edge to new pazks, squares and to existing neighborhoods and regional parks and trails with land- scaped sueets and public pathways. • Naturalize Shepard Road landscape wi[h prairie and informally arranged groves of trees. • Extendiandscaped'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. Stormwater • Develop inte�rated, comprehensive surface stormwater'treatment train' with swales, weUands and ponds to address water quantity / quality issues. • Integrate stormwater management elements with natural habitats, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. Urban Forest • Infil] canopy trees on existing and redeveloped street grid. • Provide natural �roves of native understory and canopy trees along Shepazd Road and the public edge along The blufftop. Site: SHEPARD DAVERN Location Between West 7th and Shepard Rd.; Between Davem and Alton Streets Access and Connections • Extend exis[ing streets into and through the redevelopment site. • Consider creating a d"uect connection between St. Paul Pkcvy. and Alton Street. • Provide mid-block pedestrian connec- tions between neighborhood and Shepazd Road. wews and l�istas • Preserve natural views from the River to the high bluff by setting buildings ail buildings back from the low bluff and by providing generous �ee plantlng on Shepard Road Development Paitem • Provide neighborhood green public spaces on which new residenrial development can be focused. • Enhance existing public edge with native landscapes (oak savanna and prairie), improved paths and developed overlooks. Public Amenities • Enhance continuous public edge along bluff top with new access stairs ro Crosby Park, new overlooks, sitting areas, infor- mation kiosks, bike racks and other amenities. • Link public edge to neighborhood parks and squares and re�ional trail sys- tems aiong landscaped streets and public pathways. • Provide improved crossings of Shepard Road with enhanced crosswalks, signalized crossings and other amenities. 5o Ciry of saint Paul Implementation 8.1 Zoning Code Revisions There will be si�nificant zonin� text amendments related to implementa- tion of this Plan. This Plan is unrelated to the Mississippi River Floodway Study by FEMA, which will yield chan�es in the floodway delineation for the City's zoning map. However, those changes (which will include changes to the river corridor overlay Floodway and Flood Fringe districts) will inform the process of making river corridor zoning code and overlay map revi- sions. The main zoning recommendations from this River Corridor Plan are: 1. Review and amend current River Corridor overlay zoning districts and map. Currently, river corridor overlay zoning consists of four districts, with two dis- tinct functions. The districts labeled RG 1 and RC-2 together protect the flood- plain. The districts labeled RG3 (Urban Open District) and RC-4 (Urban Diversified District) are intended to guide the character of development, but are confusing and contribute little to the overlay. Underlying zoning districts determine land use. General standards for environmental protection apply to the whole river corridor, regardless of the overlay districts. Consider splitting the current River Corridor overlay into two: a°floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RGl and RC-2 which govems the floodplain, and a single district "Mississippi River Critical Area" or "MRCA° combining RG1, RC-2, RC-3 and RG4, and which addresses Critical Area requirements. 2. Add requirement of 200-foot spacing between marinas or boat launches and barge fleeting areas. 3. Add criteria for new uses in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark: having an economic or operational need for a river ]ocation; supporting the attractiveness of surroundin� neighborhoods; sus- taining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements; offering public access to and along the river; maintaining views of the river; cleaning up polluted areas on the site; meeting or exceeding natural resource policies in this Plan. (These criteria do not all have to be met for a land use to be con- sidered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new development should meet as many of these criteria as possible.) 4. The current primary zoning districts RCR-I, RCC-i and RCI-I are not partic- ularly effective in terms of standards, and are in some cases inconsistent with the City Land Use Plan's vision for mixed-use urban villages. This Plan sup- ports redefining these zoning disiricts to meet current development concepts. >�� : A � �� ._� � � � � � � �; � � � � � Comprehensive Plan 51 O(-l�l � 5. Together with the Department of Natural Resources, review/amend River Corridor section of the Zoning Code (Chapter 65) for other necessary changes. In addition, staff will work to clarify and streamline langua�e wherever possible. 6. Create zoning definitions for toe, top, and face of bluff. 7. Consider creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river corridor modification requests for development on slopes exceedin� 12 or 18%, or within the bluff impact area (40' from the bluff line). Such criteria may address, but are not limited to, the following factors: ♦ Retain the natural slope lines of the site, as seen in profile. Restore the ve�etation lines which convey the slope lines. Roof pitch should match slope an�le. ♦ Screen new buildings. ♦ Slopes facing the river should look natural to the greatest extent possible. ♦ Stagger or step building units according to the topography. ♦ Plan buildings, drives and parking areas, and landscaping to acknowl- ed�e the natura] contour line of the site. ♦ Provide parking on the uphill side behind buildin�s. ♦ Lot coverage. ♦ Location of building on lot. ♦ Re�ulate building design, e.g. materials, bulk, shape, hei�ht, color. ♦ Areas with a certain pitch of slope (e.g. �reater than 12% and less than - � - : P �--- --- -- 18% shall not have an im ernous surface coverage greater than a certain percenta�e (e.g. greater than 25%). ♦ Encourage elevated structures & retainin� walls. ♦ No increase in runoff from the site (from rainfall, septic systems, irrigation). ♦ Minimal removal of deep-rooted woody vegetation. 8. With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, will develop design �uide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites (Upper Landing, West Side Flats, Koch-Mobil, and Shepard Davem). The design widelines will be sensitive to the purposes of this Plan, and will clarify how the form and 52 City of Saint Paul scale of development can incorporate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public enjoyment of the river. It is expected that such �uidetines will be implemented throu�h a variety of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Villa�e Zonin� project, site-specific �uidelines, and possibly through desi�n districts (a concept that is currently being developed). Appendix A shows illustrations for the five redevelopment sites based on the work of the Desi�n Study. Current state law provides that zonin� must be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan within six months of the Plan's adoption, which puts the zoning deadline in ,200X . Given the extent of likely river corridor zon- ing text amendments, and the already numerous zoning chan�es from the Land Use Plan, it will likely take the City longer to complete the zoning changes that are proposed in this pian. 8.2 Site Plan Review Guidelines Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate pro- visions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view comdors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse envi- ronmental impacts of new development. 8.3 Park & TYail System Development The City Parks 6z Recreation Plan (1996) includes an implementation plan for park resource protection, park land acquisition, scenic overlook clearance, envi- ronmental education and interpretive programs, and development of trails. Park plans include completion of the regional Mississippi River TYail on both sides of the river, connecting to trail seoments in adjacent municipalities. Other open space and greenway projects in or near the river corridor are shown, see fiwre AA on page 54. 8.4 Heritage Preservation Opportunities exist for the preservation and/or enhancement of the historic character of the river: fi'i. y ./ � � Y� z ; �z � : � ' � � • �� :; �� ,. � �r <- � �% �. n Comprehensive Plan 53 b1 � Figure AA River Corridor Open Space and Gree�y Projeets Trou[ &ook{ower Pwen Cmet Greerrway �� Ne�ghbasoal RgsEye Greenscape 'lan Rrver mg PfOJeC6 "�y�"` ��" � Hamx IvaM Regtonai �� PzM1 Maue� Plxn EzII 83r1k Misusippi Rrver Regiona� Trail Mass Ran 135E Bicyde/Petlesman Corierexion Forz SnenGg Maser Wan ♦ Enhance visitor access and historical interpretation of Rumtown (across from Fort Snelling, on the riverfront) and Fountain Cave (currently marked with a historical marker at Shepard Road and Randolph Avenue). ♦ Implement Saint Paul Gateway Design Project (Route 5 entry into the city), reuse of the old stone bridge abutment at Gannon and Shepard Road, historic streetscape improvements to the Shepard-Davem area. ♦ Connect Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic DistricTS to the riverfront. ♦ The historic Intercity Bridge (more commonly known as the Ford Brid�e) --- ISSC11EQiIlBQ� LO De ZeQeC1Ce� 3rit��TeStYYfdCC�l �Cgi�tlFt�g iit-5'�Jiifi� 2vvv. -- Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities as part of con- struction. Include wide sidewalks, omamental lighting and railings, bike lanes, and viewing decks with benches (sirniIar to those added to the Marshall Avenue Bridge). ♦ Install signage at the scenic overlook by the Ford Motor Company to explain the historic significance of the Ford Bridge and the importance of the I.ock & Dam No.l. The si�n should indicate that a visitors' center is across the Ford Bridge. 54 City of Saint Paul oi-!9/ Appendices Design Study Illustrations for Redevelopment Sites Below are examples of the possible application of su��ested design �uide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites, described at the end of Chapter 6. The drawings are for illustrative purposes only. S RECEVELOPMENT SITGS 5rs UPPERtPNDING �-1� ��/ �� rypol0gy LOW Lanrk 1✓ �/��> ?:.�e / LOCa9on &I�n�H�Rrvc�tlMneP2rkNe5h�borirootl � E .�. , ' %i �� " �v C / / ��/ ..` /`r ��. l8varyqi `, �� / M° � `J Gmtlelines' � kPuessandCOnnecumsPrauxlemuNpkmnnttMnSroSheparEROatl.anu�banboulevard �uimw ra. 8� umwsantlu5as� AonEesancAanngpudiapaceNatceleErztesfieChesmNStree�l CaNeE21 adsanC artual toNe river. a „� C:YrewsandVd+asPrmMexewmrtitlarsNraughNestefiompoteneallovrerbluROVeMOks MN++u+ (notmretlevtlopmeMSAe)toNenver bow.au �.DxvelopnmtPaltem' CieMesm8lMOd�sUwtcu+hetlevelo�m.cemenaltyafM�apao- sivelyto maACetwnEiAOns E �evbqxnentPatlem'CrealeasenasoflinkngpublicandpnvarespacesonenledmboNfie ricer and ro Shepard RoaE az well as olner sigmf caM spares, rews anE IaMmarks such as ___'_""' NeHgh&MpeandCOwnlawn. =:actcx_:cPaz _�sbWOUigMgesNEefinepubl:csUeelsandspaceazindcatetlan BuJISWCUreCOm�srteMap A. NaWralR�ueces.ProntlewntinuousWb6capenspaceabngnversedge B. NaWrdlResoumsEaffinElantlscapeC'C�2WFxgerSuMOnewCerelapment0lockspnned ing vnM pudm open space alorg Ne mrer. C.NahaalRPSOmws.EnmurdgeP `�aGonofavsOngnanuxkntlscapes.encouageolanb�gs ofna6vemalerielsinnaW�a6xedmam�gsWa+hancewaealenaW2l�abihdk D.Slumv.ata:Integateslortnv.atxelemenSVnNreWrzlhaWlaS,pubRCOpenspaceareasan0 park/reneaGmoPP�nNes E SWmeaNrRetlucefherazeanCimprovetl�equairyaistwmwaterGisdiarye IlpperLaqmgGremStrucNreCartquAeMap F.UNanFOreStftentroducelne'mbanfarsl'u+NiNarountlmEevelopmentareas Theterms"Highest","MetliUm",a�M"lowasPCOrrespontltoth�s G RibkAmen2es'SUppoM1amzofarnve/passrverecreffioivJUSevnNpaNS.ovglooks irMivitlual srte, aM shoultl not be mterpratetl as a unHOmi stantlartl. �� H WbfrcNrenOies�ProxtlaYS�bpJacse55�blecmneclansbnrighborhoMandregionalpaks, traJSaiMOpe�spacesyskms Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 55 OI-Iq � 5 bcmKtl�Frtb x�vsmriqnewn mm � �% SITES 5k� WESi510EFLATS Lantl Classfiaeon Low tsiMs Laatian: BeMrenRobe�tandWabasha, � MassvVFRwtntl%afo �..�"� Guideiines: A Aa>s antl Cm��a: Ebentl �jacYn[ stree5 mto aM �hrough Ne retlevebDmen [ ��, sP &4¢� tntl CrnneUOns: Pmsef ve me rdJ mntlar as a potaiAal areenway prriCa aw.�u CViEwsaqVSd�P�es�neviexsofNeWg[SWePlutfshomKelloyc�ark �! � 'a'°.i �. Envvev�ewsattlieriveGontb/o�ntirgsveetsperyenWwlaro Nemer E OevebpmeMPal@ms Qealesr.al Wacks,bountlby qNlicnghtcf.rdy Nazw� he tleudapetl inrremanGOy ak respansvety b marlretm�MNons W �� re F:Deveb�nentPallem:Crealeam�nvlwnofdlerouddmgsantlacM.ryanCme � inte(sectmMPlatoaMRabM. G: 6utlFOrtn:Praui!em9wrttl W4TV+9�rotlefine WblcstreetsanC Wacesas i�ccalm an Budt Struwre CwnposAe hl�. A NaW21R¢mumes RavdeomErcwus puEGCOpenspa�¢a'ong nverSeESe. & NaEaal Rgowces:Exk'k�a^tlsaP�'GremFu9�s mbrewde�mJOpmentdocNSmn+ect mgvnN WbGCapenspaealm9lhemre. C. WhuaiPaour�EnmivageWtservaGC^ofexvsi^5natr.e Wesapes.enmw2oetlanings d napve iR@ri�s in ndWtdf Stl md55in55 �o tliill�la Or peak n2Wfd hffirta6 �. SIDmrxaza. MRg2@sGnmw�xrJena�6xin�aWrd hatitais. Wb6copais�awareasaitl paiklreoeatianWW�nNes. E Stdmw#u: Re�eNera�antlenGmue�heQUaiRJofRamwa�idsUarye �� F.U`banFVasCRemWCU�eNetubankresCwAhiNarowtlrMevNOpmen[areas Theterms"Hi9�r,"Medum".a�W"LOwest"wnesPOMtothis GPUdzArsrarAS.9�tanexota2wlP�'+�a:earzcwr�usewAhPaCS.ovenxxs. iMividualsite.aiWShoWtlnotbeinferP�tedasauNb�msb'Wartl. �p�yama5.mu�ks. H. Pudiefmmmes Prwdeveb'mJa¢ess�kmnnec6oersWneghborhaNaMreymalpaks. trakand W�sPaerys�s. �d.� w� � e m�nr e�va`w EW. Sip nDM La�d Classifiqtion. Tertaa laaEOn. BeMea�RaAWPhAVe.TomnWAVe.and5hepaNRa GuiEelines: A Omr�taqConnerlMZ exkntlezstmgstree6iMOaid NmughNeretlevxbpmen; �. B:P�sarMCOnnectimsCre�eaElvROnve azabealmsEenAaistreetampnebxerduff � C:ViewSaMVisgsC�emWE�tlewe+sdNencerrdieywTe�e5uee6minsecttlieWUMOr.ve. � O.Da.efoprentPaMmcq'ga�streetad�bdicde�xWPm¢o(aroundawAeSseetorYnear pakwlvdf annetl5Wetl7"mlheWwrUalley -�emn _--- - eaaivM��noddereameoD�ndmssl�smddn,ew�cso-ee5anas�sacr.a�ton 8uu StrucNre CanposM Map AONCBU1tSrvcNrefdrpwi@Map ANa6valRaartas:PtmvdemnnnwusnewWG'taigpa�mgbluRk9vnMnz4�elanCSCa�es p� pathxays ark tlev�ape0 a�erlooks. @NaWrdRxwmrezFi�rd `I�W..ape7�9re�bngerS'mlonewtlevzbFm'srtareasab^9r�v Strce6arMpubticpaNways. C:Soimwater. Cgppp¢rvrorrmeys6nystlneMytleveWpetlsiRSantlbegmwalertreaCnenl tnfiltraAan W�(PaM^9lol� roofmps.rotra�s) P. Sbmwae:RV.iOpyvrfxxyyyy¢mufcdTt�men[a�s,ay�aks,mfiltraAOna�tltlCeneonzrezs E Svmava�:nlegaleS'tltrratrnaiCmftEationadQelO�Dansyslg^mroP�'keGCeEehiM bW�p�eiimmev� d�lsanaswN�.seeelsaMOUni�cpamways F: UrEariFaotNSdYrenopytreesanallrewstreeE:rtifiOmiopytreesan�tvgsrceels_ G Ileban Fuest Devebp naAVal firessalmg W W Kp antl bkMhce vnN gmves of nalrve frees. P➢M.GremSwmeeCamP��D 9�saitlofierd��gs • Thetertrs"HighesC."Metlium"�arid"LowesCCOrtaFn�MNtltis H:Wd'cAmeniu6:�nkW�kedSabriew7aik5,`Avaresantltoewstiiyirei5hbomaoCSanC indivitluaFSite,antlshaWtlnotbemterpretedazaunifamsfandartl. �°��"°��anEpublicpaNways Mx R¢p.�etlew•AierpppmGSesieNl mnanitlumialbrL+.eMaa+apl¢ fupi.c f_1re h:p u� � ce aueen h 0e tomphev.a Pan �pr4zR la.) am I.y oRce�r w*r rcn ey ms mwr,em 56 City of Saint Paul +y�vue/� ,�v,r,� .m, o�-i9/ � �v � (.wemgl e�a.�r aemo ro. P>+a��w �� eiadroran • wr�s e�ea�c Fsr �� L SM KpCHk081L La�d ClassifiaWn. ieirnx Laabn. Be.lmenRanddG�aM1�WG]Lh: W�l]raMAFStisSppiRrvz Guidelines: A..crsak Cannecbxsa�CevsGgsYV25irc.oaMyuc ch Nera'erekq.-cn:Y.e 3'AOx55mMCNnY.'sn WaiCVUmaRvax�e�mu5M19�esZev;cin6'ynteal:.w_nue C: PccvsxMCanneWx+sGrdza'0�LlArve'aabalresdenaalsYeet9MmenxerClw D: YgxsaMVa6sUr�temaJ�xtvsoltlremcv�leywhgestree5inte�qLYe�u.°tlmre. E De�elcpr�IPYJens.Ckgafvestreelmitldakde�ebp'�:arou�tlawtlestr�[ar:mcar pafRxh. rJ�a�n:�ts West7^romewvervaeey. F:�,nc�, v�o�naeremn�tr,�ye,�esma�sv�uKSrce�a�ascxes�macareax a:at se��e caroosne n+a�. A NaCCAResources'.RovdemntinuwsnewWN¢W9eabngGUflbFwMnmrelantls¢RS. aecesm�, vamwan �+a ae�aa� wuioo�s. 8� NaWrdRZSwrt,es.ExlaiOWduapetl'grcmfrgerYinroneweeveAOPmer.tareasabn9nnv stree6antlpubUCpalhways C: Slanmwdter.GP�N^�o^�n9��Yde�ebpeCStesanebeginwalertrearmenS inf�vVaoonP�l�^91oLS.raofiops.terzas) D.Swmwdc:Rpuilewrf�,esystemAmtlenentareas,svJes,m51tra0onaMdelenbMaeas. E Srommvaterl�rakfinaitr¢9trnenl��fikabonarWdetmtion5y5brninmPUOLCafSebehmtl blutflap ard mt0 N¢ D�m W P� aM W uarg.5Vee5 antl publc F��Ys F UrbmiForesClnstLlpnopylreesmaYnewstree6,infillcaiwpytreasonens9ngsireets KahhbGl.GrernSaucureCOmpovfeMap ��umantares[oe�ewpnawrdrore5ta�mgowttm0a^aaurtracsremgrovesofnaAvetrees, gassesaMONxWanengs. Thete�ms"Hi9�"."Medium".and"LOw�["cmrespontltoUtis H:PUb4cM�rd�esWkWdicetlgebnewpahs.s�uaresanObensOngne�9nbwhaotlsand indrvid�aisRe.arMSlioWtlmtbeinterpretetlssaunibrtnsiantlartl. i�'�alpaksmW¢a6wMtantlsrapeCSVeetsm#q+b4:9aM'xaJs a ` va,�iewe _) _ _'_'�.L'__ _^' _ -- —�.___ _ _ _ _. _ .._ $j =_ r,�_—_"� �,l Y ,: i.J �� : li �'��`il� .1 __' F J[ ^�l ' .� �!�C ]C :=` _.G;�>>'=r s.a i � �' � � � � — �i , �j� E j .�� ' Ste' SHEPPRDDAVERN � LanE Classifiraperr. Temae `� Laatian: BeMeenWM�]tl�andSheD��.. xpn.+r BeRVxenDavemAeenueantlNtonAvenue '—" �'m^o� GuiCelinea uu �`��anECOnnetoonseVeMensEn9��irAOantlNmughNemEevebpmentsite '� � e��urome. B.ACCessanEConne�ons:CmstluceatngaUiretlmnneeimbaexeen5t?aulPkvryatlAttonave � C.AmssakCOmetlla�sV�oviEemvlLlodcP�esU�mnreWnsOeNrtennn9�bwfiaMatlS�eDaN �p\ e� �+ �YexsardY9ssMe�^'enaWiaxewstranNeWunroCreAiMduttMuMgbuiNngsaFbuWVgs +� EadetramNebwblufrmitlEypmndngqersoustreeplanbrgonS�epadRaa] t pn.r E:DeerebyneniPatlem'PmWer.e�bomoW9reenpude5pacesonwiw.h�wresdenOa�Geuelapmen; - ' �w.� anxtmnM �' rnn.a,�q. �.� q��rer FB�nFO�m ProuiEeRqw�aibuJdmgMgestotlPfineDUNCStree6aMOce�spacasaziMio'.eCmBuJ; SmkpueCampo.a�eMap SpeCificbu�tlng�tiryh6mmpca�a�shoultlbeanayzeEtywevrshtNanatyss S�EpYE�3vem.EL]iSNUWreCOmp0.41¢Map A Napi21 Remums EMdrce oxM9 GubGC edge �Nh naVre la�tlsmpes (� �� EnE 02irRi �mNaetl V� �tl OmbV� oxrooks. B NaWrdFesvur¢s'NawNVeSAeparLROatl�tlsapewMywraaieinfwmaEyarran9eagraresai trees C NaWrd qespvq5 61mC la�d�pCd'6rtren FuyuS pno new tlevelopmenl EbcYS wruiM K.S x+� P� Wen syam abn9 Ne mer. D. Sfimm�s�:�¢usbP��.mmWaM1ens�esvfaceSa��rVealmenttran'vm�swales.xMan6s aM0. �batltlres»a�9��M'IPdM¢w•s E: Sramxav Imegrere sro�mwAer eb'nmis vM naWrai haEdan. Vubfic Wm soace arezs aE PaM1 � rttreamn oow�Ees F. ikbai Fore¢ 1�9 carroqhees an exiMg anE m9ecebpea s9eei gM G: UtDmi PoieQ Ptovde �atwA 9� a� uMersidy ML �'a�wDY � alms SM1eP� ftc3] aiM tAe ySUC etlge along me blunmµ ` LL l' !� 7 V M: aueccanxmzs w�a.cemMnuwspueccease�5avmiw+�lTrz«aaass�mrsm e:osMrvK Mwo�zMOVS, smrqareac nfmmaoon tiasks, Eike rxis ard oUcer mnenTes SM1epaNDav¢m Green SttucWre WmpoiteNap I WbfcPme�es WkpuNe¢Egplorx9M1��tlsquaesanLregrnalkalsystens ' ihe terms "Highest"� "Medium", and "LOwest" corcesPOnd to ihis � �� 9reesmtl Gutkpatnwrys, indivitlua� site, and should not be interyretetl as a wi(orm stantlard. � WNrcamxmcer Pewae impmveE aossmys M Snepaa RcaC wM eroancea cromidu aguEUtl aossm9s. uk mnas aM cU¢r amenmrs Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 57 � Moca a�uc sauwua com� � OI- 19 � Historical and Archeological Sites/Structures National Register of Historic Places and Districts in the River Corridor ♦ Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse (on Navy/Raspberry Island)* ♦ Harriet Island Pavillion ♦ St. Paul Union Depot ♦ Holman Field Administration Building (St. Paul Downtown Airport} ♦ Robert Street Bridge (crossing the Mississippi between downtown and the West Side) ♦ Colorado Street Bridge (on the West Side, South Wabasha Street near Terrace Park) ♦ Intercity Bridge (Ford Parkway crossin� over the Mississippi) ♦ Mendota Road Bridge (on West Side, Water Street crossin� the Pickerel Lake Outlet in Lilydale Park) ♦ Irvine Park Historic District� ♦ Lowertown Historic District* ♦ Summit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District* ♦ Giesen-Hauser House (in Mounds Park, 827 Mound Street) ♦ Alexander Ramsey House (in Irvine Park, 265 South Exchan�e Street) *Site is also a Local Heritage Preservation Site. �;�^.L��2,^.i °„C}:8°.^,�.^,�L:.�_�1:� �1��::t1�CL h� c�tv_ Hictpri� --'- Preservation Office) ♦ Indian Mounds Park (detemuned eligible for National Register but not yet officially listed) ♦ Harriet Island ♦ Pike IsIand ♦ Pigs Eye I.ake ♦ Fountain Cave ♦ Carver's Cave ♦ Rumtown sg City of Saint Paul o/-19/ Databases Minnesota Department of Natural Resources NaUUaI I�eritage and Nongame Research Progran�, Box 25 jlxl Ldo�cuc Ro.id SI Pas!.]tin:x.utsS51?i..{f) F'hone:(651)29682�9 Fax:(651j296-1811 P:mail:jansleier�dnr.state.mn.us June 7, 2999 Virginia Burke City of St. Paul Department of Planning & Econ. Devel. 1300 City Hall Annex 25 Wes[ 4`" Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Request for Namral Aeritage information for viciniry of Mississippi River Corridor, Critical Area Plan; Hennepin, Ramsey, and Dakota Counties; T28N R23W 5.5,8,17,20,21,22,23,14,12,11,1, 1'29N R23W 532, T28N R22W 5.3-7,9-11,14-16,22.23, T29N R22W 5.32. NHNRP Comact i/: ES990749 Dear Ms. Burke, The Minnesota Natutal Heritage database has been reviewed ro determine if any raze plant or animal species or other signiftcant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mi]e radius of the area indicated on the mag enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, [here are 55 known occurrences of rare species or natural communi[ies in the area seazched (for details, see enclosed database printout and ezplanation of selected fieids). The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Naturai Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Services, Departrnent of Natural Resources. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's raze or otherwise significant species, natura] communities, and other namnl feamres. Its purpose is to foster better understanding and procection of these features. Because our informarion is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or otherwise significant natural features in the state ihat aze not [epresented in the database. A county-by- county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Aennepin, Ramse}' and Dakota Cowtties. 6ur information about nam*aI communities is, therefore, quite thorough for those wunties. However, because survey work for rare plants and animals is (ess eshaustive, and because there 6as noi been an on-site survey o( atl areas of the counties, ecologicatly signi£cant featuru for which we have no records may exist on the projecc area. The enclosed resulu of the database seazch are provided in two formats: index and full record. To control [he release of locational information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, both prirtout formats aze copyrighted. The index provides rare feature locations only to [he neares[ section, and may be reprinted, unaitered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or internal report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other purpose, please con[act me to request written permission. Copyright notice for the index should include the following disclaimer: "Copyright (year) State of Minnaota. Department of Natural Ruources. This index may be BNR Information: 651-296-6157 • I-888-616-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • I-S00-657-3929 An Equal OpponunitY �Ploy^r � PrinteC on Recycletl PaPer Contaimn9 a Who Valuc� [krasi�y Mimmum of 10%POS4COnwme� Wa9e Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 59 Of-\`'l I reprinuxt, unalrered, inEnvironmental Assessment Worksheets, municipal natu[al rewurce plans, atd i�rcemal reports. For any other use, written peaoission is required." The full-record printout includes more detailed locadonal information, and is for your personal use o�ly. If you wish to reprint the full-record priraouts for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Please be aware tha[ review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on nre naturai feawres. It dces not constirute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesora's rare nazural resourees. Sincerely, �-> .:_i� �.-.� ' : c: i� i Jan Steier Environmental Review Assisran[ end: Database seazch resulu Rare Feamre Database PrintAuu: An Explanation of Fields 60 City ofSaint Paul OI-/9/ a J a C �£ � O N y £ � N Ta � 3 -a G F a Q b Y � a t� O t� U N � ¢ F _ a ` O ` U � F Y 4 � E o a m p N 1� 2L'O a z � z m w N L G F U 4] 4 �N 3 N s Z ae q m E d F m C m m Z � K C 4 U o� a� ti F u U m s� Y K K 8 C E +�+ U M Z a ti F O K 3 �C 6 t w h N f N 0 m R 0 N W P D N Y Y O + V s. a mm ¢ m � o L 0 � 4 M L z ' V A O � C a a C E C a £ R] � U Z � � m Y� Y Y Y Y Y Y Y� S 4 4< 4�C S S a a c�c.maa a � 4 G C � � C � .L i Z Z 2 E 2 2 O O O O O � O O C�O V �(�OC O [u f� In fu W[�] W Lt C K C C C C C C � Y Y Y Y Y Y Y G N 4t W G 5] 41 (A 6 2 6 6' 2 5 C C U U V U V U U U 4: 41 Gl tC tl 41 N C] a �(].� a .[�] .[�.] .i a .i E F E E� E E f F m m m m m m m m � 2 O � C Y Y G: U � m n F O C G ¢ Y Y G n V G � Y Y O Y Y Y Y L' � Y � � m � � � � a � a C '+] '-0 � t G C<�4 y 4 <� C zzc� FzzzE �aE. OOZ vi000�» �n �N 6� Z I�C 4' [O Y Z Z L' R�� C C C, L�.] � w N�� N N h 2 2 N K 2 2 2 C N K ££Si£sY[��. sm 2 2 2 2 2 /n N Vl (A Vl C K 5 C C Gl L" Ll Gl m O O O O O C O O O O e c z c ¢ 2 2 z 5 Z R 5 Y C � = d = 4] t9 �� r�r�itir Y � i � r � � � � � VI N N N N a c� c� c� c� a.aiwm � �+ G Y Y Y Y 4 � � � O � 0. 6 G Y 41 Z 2 2 Z � � O O O O C [�il ( L�'1 f�p Ti 5 ¢ C C O > .] � � rl �G � G � n�i r r v „ 5 � ^�1 A� F F F 2 O 2 4 r�i r�i � " ��-e c�i � 5 C 5 C U' G �=��Cjs � � � � s 4 G 41 Gl 4l C G. S „ t� 4 y 4 p � z 5 S N.�].]. 2 p 2 Y.i j.].: FiL a a a a c G: ' 4 �+ 4 < 4 4 4 O O Y O O O F F C — F a ` t d � ca [` C 6 5 C K z c i � z s O N b O��V H b i> a.m.�. `> 5 Y�� 5 C S � z z y o z z z u ` G� K. ,] 6 w r G hl w H m N N✓ ti N Vl � F N N N m m a a m m m £ s � w i i £ h �] m asn� a �om�. _ i[ [i (G S R S 4 T% iF N 4l !C YI f N Y Y% f� N 3 S f� % at t0 it G1 N Vi � �] r�i !G P.� R 'J ( il R .] o F �F .] .a F .] O v x.] .a .] -� .] £.] ul m N 3 � E p�o fL G1 F (] N S m ti � O F y a a n F R� � N 8 Y F G a 6 O �n �] d`l P U Q F� s 4 6 C x � �] �� 2 �y O fO t- N��i � Y y � F��(il � w N ti N�c W i� Ip a W� N N 4l �] � N i Oi 2 bl a> K U Vi a l7 VI O � 41 fn (7 vl J a F s a 3�� F�> G1 41 K O 7 C 41 4 pt D 7 F 41 F VI ��....-. .� C j C w .] U Z N 4� 2 W j Z 41 � 2� „ F� J� J VJ � n � V f N S � 4 H(Y £ N ViuINNNU�liON �^ zo b'zm zu. P iu.a . x.-. '' a.�. a a a �� w m m� z m 9 ' o�u � m � z�� m a w� x m m� a� � m m� a'� �� P `d m F m F F E �n v+ £ n � ] . r�n u. F [+ K a.' .� a� �� O � x p a Z d F � N m N q� N Z�� m Z tV S S •'J [� � m � p(' F W� O 6= m� F O F 0 6 Z a N E y L' L9 .7] 5�] a F�']-� H F 6 R 6 1�� VI r�i �] �� Ne 4a 6 � 6 3 w p Z f�rt U U Z� r�i f/ �N f F Q 41 U p 6 Cl 41 U "� 'L V �j ,¢ S p F p1 PI ¢� p� V fu Y Y �y Y i G %��[.� C U�„ K F U V(� n� 2 Z [-� O y y`q� 4 F V . t �.r 4 wV� £Vl.] S N £O Z F N E�� 2�+'2 O� N O O O 4 � M 2 5 m 4 Vl J F 4 4 z 4 Z Ol 41 m U m 4 U U U S U' � Ol p C „[� `J 5 p� p Y L�z V U�Q e� 4� U r+ N�+ r� r V V C' O 2' IX O'.� U $� 2 E V £ Z L L y g � F 4 V � K c' i Z �.] � r] �l r] F r] � F .i "y g � �� Q 4 U' � O F� 4 C r] �E 4>„ rl O. � O 41 C V U N M fq 6l O 41 4l [-0t � M 3 M b a s a o � x S F 4 Z 3 G. m 4l �J' �.] .] a m m 4 m 4 J IO m O [y „� m Vi O (L V O W F O m V f� 41 U W C/n O m u] F 0� �J F".J �'•] F 3 N F 3« V+ �A tl) .] £ y p � N L G N Z O iC Gl K U 2 £ R1 V� GI d W C� C � ol 4 'J �� U N 4 C 41 C 61 4� 5 K rj Vi C G 5 C Y 6 L r r 41 qy � � { �4� Cl F Y �i W O U Qy N W O 4l M`l 5 6 ,=y 41 N K 4 C 4 N(at N N�u fil 41 LG 0� [�i. G� 4 4 Q Z O 4� G G Cl O% U C �- � Y�y%��p 1' F O 6' O � Z�� U U 5 0� � Z p N W 'n O N N H y vl [q vl O�a S O O r� r r � . r� C.] O G Q F S U 4 N. U 4] l p ) N p S� C (l � ry y � �„ 8 U 2 W� m O m� O � O O O 5 O� O f�r � 5� v U 4l � m O£�1 C U� U fu �£ 4� ul £ 4 9.] �£ 4 4 W C C.] £ N N N N N N N ' f a a a a �V F FFf v� m m u z uuzuc>eo us op�uzs zoeus u cp gg M E_-� ( U F(�9 t�p F u�i W F S til Vi F F V t F�n F v) � N F L 41 % 7 F 0 4 (il F F -� F pl 4 �f �] -] �] .] r z � o r U C N N h N N �'1 V Yl (V m O O O O O N(V (V N N N 6 y y�+ �i N lV N N N N N ti n ei .y � N.� n N N N N 3 3 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 3'd 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3; 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3; 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 M 3 3 C C C C C C K 5 LL' L' C C K C C C C C K C�� p�� 5 5 C K C K C 6' K C L' C C L' S C 1' 6' 6' S C C z z 2 z z Z z z Z z z z 2 z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z z z z Z z 2 z z z 2 2 Z z Z Z z Z z m m d g O o o N n ry � N �� ry O O� N o ry �� ry �� o C o o C�� N N N ry o 0 0 0 0 0 o N � N N N F E F F F F F F E F F F F F F F F N F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F E F F F F F F F F F F f F F F Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 61 ot-«� � 0 0 O 9 m C fl £ �^ O rv a � u w Tm G m P � " L L [�il F P U m H � � N O ro U N � � O U F O Y 4 E G 3 N p N M� 2 G O 4 20. 2 a Nt M1 F o 6 Y 5 S � N N N S N V C C z' z w � a s L E O� �[ c N 3 Z 4 . q ] � m U m y m M F y U � H m � � 2 r+ m i C F u U�2 C y � >F'L zs� w m N £ 0 a � T O d m ma 2 Q w 4 3� Y a z x m N V N N 3 i �q ] 'J. V 0 O � L v m C E C V £ W � � N � 6 � m w � N �� zzzz 0 0 0 0 4 4 E 4 � �� V C C C C 3 �i .d W Y Y � � � � � � 7 7 7 7 w � � z z c � a 4 4 4 C N N z z z z z y o.waa �a w a � s � � .. m m m m m m w m W vi yyFF W 0 0 N 6' C £ £ $ £ 4 1 N rr R X� m c .] W rt FRa m w m g m.iwm � m � � N Z � j Q V � � � � N 6 � z�� 34 £�+W �W —F OC o. ��z F � ; � � � � £ Z 4 £ m � m �SS��S°� ��4 ooma 0 � €� �g�HF�F N � � !. mE om �n (u N .] a > z � o V C M L 0 C � �[� n Z 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C n n n n'1 m N G a a c z z c c o zz o [V N N N lV N V E N E F F F F 5 62 City of Saint Paul 0l-191 Rare Features Database Print-outs: An Egplanation of Fields 'fie Rare Features database is patt of the tvaNml Heritage Infortnazion Sys[em, and is maintained by the Natural FIeritagc and Nongame Resezrch Program, a unit within Ne Section of Ecological Scrvica, Minnesota Depaztment of Nazumt Resources (DNRj. �'Please note that the prinz-outs are copyrighzed and may not be reproduced without permission•' Fie[d Name: [Futt (non-abreviated) field name, if differeni). Further explanarion of field. -c- CBS Site: [County Biological Survey site number]. In each county, the numbering system begins with 1. CLASS: A code which classifies feamres by broad ta7conomic group: NC = natural community; SA = special animal; SP = speciai plant; GP = geologic process; GT = geologic time; OT = other (e.g. wlonial waterbird wlonies, bat hibemacula)_ C�t :[Counryj. Minnesota counties {ordered alphabetically) aze numbered from 1(Aitkin) to 87 (Yellow Medicine). CURR6NT STANS: Present protec[ion status, from 0(owner is not awaze of record) to 9(dedicated az a Scientific and Namral Are�). -D- DNR Reeion: 1=NW, 2=NE, 3=E Central, 4=SW, S=SE, 6= Minneapolis/Sk Paul Metro. DNR Ovad: [DNR Quadrangle code]. DNIt-assigned code of the U.S. Geologic Survey topographic map on which the rare feature occurs. _� ELEMENT or Element: See "Element Name (Common Name)" Element Name (Common Name): The name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species recdrds, this field holds the scientific name, followed by the common name in pazentheses; for all other elemenu (such as plant communities, which have no scientific name) it is solely the element name. EO RANK: [Element Occuirence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of natural communities from A(highest) to D (lowest). EO Size: [Element Occu¢ence Size]. The size in acros (often estimated) of natural communities. -E- FED STATUS: [Federal Status]. Starus of species under the Federal Endangered Species Law: LE=endangered, LT�hreatened, C=species which have been proposed for federai listing. Federal Stams See "FED STATUS" Forestrv Districi: 1'he Minnesota DNR's Division of Forestry district number. -G- GLOBAL RANK: The abundance of an element gtobaliy, from Gl (critically imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide bazis) to GS {demonstrably secure, though perhaps raze in parts af iu range). Global ranks aze detetmined by the Conservation Science Division of The Nature Conservancy. -I- INTENDED STATUS: Desired protection staWS. See also "CURRENT STANS" If a complete list of protecrion stams codes is needed, please contact the Natural Heritage Program. _U LAST OBSERVED or Last Observed Date or Last Observation: Daze of the most recent recard of the element at the locacion. Latitude: 'Ihe tocarion az which the occurrence is mapped on Natural Heritage Program maps. NOTE: There are various levels of precuion in the original informateon, but this is not reflected in the latitudellongitude data. For some of the data, particulazly historical records, it was not possible to determine exacdy where the originai abservadon waz made (e.g. "Fort Snelling", or "the south shore of Lake Owasso"). Thus the latitudeflongitude retIect the mapped location, and not necessarily the observation location. Leeal: Township, range a�d section numbeis. Lone: [Longitudej. See NOTE under "Latitude" -M- MANAG£D AREA or Managed Area(st: Name of the federaliy, state, locatly, or privately managed pazk, forest, preserve, etc., containing the occurtence, if any. If this field is blank, the element probably occurs on private land. If "(STANTORY BOUNDARS7" occurs after the name of a managed area, the location may be a private inholding within the statutory boundary of a state forest or pazk. Mao Svm: [Map Symbol]. Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 63 bl-1=t l MN S7AN5: (Minnesou Status]. Legal status of plant and animal species under the Minnesota endangered species law: END THR=threatened, SPC=special concem, NON= no Iegai stams, but rare and may become listed if deciines condnue. This field is blank for nahua! communiries and colonial waterbird nesting sites, which have no tegal surus in Minnesota, bu[ aze nacked by the daYabase. -N- NC Rank: [Na[ural Community Rank]. -O- Occ �: [Occurrence Number]. The occurrence number, in combinatron with the element name, uniquety identifies each record. OCCURRENCE NUMBER: See "Occ #" # OF OCCURS: The number of records existent in the daUbate for each element wiihin the acea seazched. Ownecshio: Indicates whether the site is publicly or private[y owned; for publicly owned land, the agency with management responsibility is listed_ - P - Precision: Precision of locational informazion of occiurence: C(confumed} = known within 1/4 mile radius, U(unconfirmed) = known within 112 mile, N(aon-specific) = known within I mile, G(general) = occurs within the general region, X (unmappabieplocation is unmappable on USGS topographic quadrangles (o$m known only co the neazest counry), O (obscure/gone)=element no longer exisu at the locazion. PS: [Pr.:[ca Sectionl. ?he section can�ir.in� 2! or the b .�e2-teet pa-* af Ihe occurence. - Q - ¢ad Ma : See "DNR Quad" -R- Rec #: jRecord number]. RNG or �: [Range number]. -S- SECT'fON or Section: [Section number(s}]. Some tecords are given only to the nearest section (s), but most are given to the nearest quarter-section or quazt�-quazter-secrion (e.g., SWNW32 denotes the SWl/4 of the NWi/4 of section 32). A"0" is used as a place holder when a half-section is specified (e.g., ONO3 refers to the narth 1/2 of section 3}. When a occurrence crosses sec[ion boundazies, both sec[ioos aze listed, without punctuation (e.g., the NE1/4 of section 19 and I3 W Il4 of section 20 is displayed as °NEI9NW20"). Site: A name which refers to the geographic area within which the occurnnce lies_ If no nazne for the area exisu (a locally used name, for example), one is assigned by the County BiologicaI Survey or the Namcal Heritage Program. Source: 'i'he wllector or observu of the rare feature occurrence. S RANK: [State Rank]. A eank assigned to the natural community type which reflecis the Imown exten[ and condirion of that community in Minnesota. 2anks range from 1(in greatest need of conservazion aztion in the state) m 5(secure under present conditions). A"?" following a rank indicates little mfomiation is available to rank the community. Communities for which information is especially scarce are given a"U", for "rank undetermined". The ranlcs do not represent a legal status. They ue used by the Minnesota Depazhneni of Natural Resources to sM prioriaes for reseazch, inventory and conservation planning. The state ranlcs are uQdated as inventory infarmation becomes available. State Status Sce °MN STATUS" -T- TUVP or Twsr _fTownship aumberl. - -V- Verification: A reflection of the reliability of [he informazion on which the record is based. The highest level of reliability is "verified," which usuatly mdicates a collection was made or, in the case of bird records, nesting waz observed. Plant records based on colleczions made before 1970 are imverified. Voucher: The museum or herbarium where specrtnens are maintained, and the accession number assigned by the repository. In the case of ba[d eagles, this is the breeding area number. 'q'- Wildlife Area: The Minnesota DNR's Section of Wildlife administrative number. Data Security Lacations of mme tare feau¢e5 must be treated as sensitive iufoicoation because widapread krrowlcdgc of thae locations wuld rtsult in harm to ehe rse fc�nes. for example, wildflowqs such as orchids and econamically valuabk plams such at ginung aze vulnerable w ocploi[azion by collecwrs; other spccia, such az bald eagles, aze sensitive W dishubance by o6srnc`s For this rcason, we p�efa that pu6licatioo5 not idcnvfy the prtcise locazions of vulnerabk specia. We sugge5t desCribing the localion only m tht nearat section. If tt�is is not acecpfablc for your puryoses, please W I and discuss [his issue wi�4 thc EnvimnmenW Review Specialist for the Hai[age mM Nongamc Research P[ogram at 651l1968319. Aerixd 02/99 54 City ojSaint Paul O!-/9/ Minnesota Land Cover Classification System factsheet The Mnnesota Land Cover Classificazion System (MLCCS) has been designed for use in the metropolitan area by a collaborative effort of federal, state, and local uniu of govemment as well as non-profit organizazions. T'he MI,CCS inte�ates a new classification system of cultucal feazures wiih a combination of existing land cover classification systems for na[ural and semi-natural areas. T1�e system is unique in thaz it categorizes culNral, urban and built-up azeas strictly in land cover terms, identifying tfiese azeas in terms of imperviousness and veaetative cover. For narural azeas the system fully incorporates the Minnesota Natural Heritage native plant community types (Nfinnesota's Native Ve�etation: A Ke�o Nazural Communities. venion 1.5) and the recendy developed National Vegetazion Classification Standard (:QVCS). The NVCS was developed in partnership with The Nature Conservancy and the nationwide state Natural Heritage prograzns, and has been adopted as the standard for federally funded projects. The MI,CCS is a five leveI hierarchical desia , permitting a gradient degree of refinement relevant [o any land cover mapping projecc It is comprehensive and systematic, is applicable at any scale. and is suitable for monitoring and mapping purposes of any identified land cover found in [he metro azea. By the summer of 2000, the MLCCS will have been applied to: The Cridcal Area fMississippi Nadonal River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) coxridor, the Minnesota River Corridor in the Twin Cities, several uout sueam watersheds, and large portions of Dakota Counry. Additionally, the Metro Greenways program has begun encouraging iu use by local uoiu of govemment for developing Greenway plans, and MeROGIS has endorsed the NII.CCS as a`best practice' land cover classificaUOn system for use in the Metro azea. The MLCCS data collecied for the current pilot projecu is being used for identifying sites for ecolob cai restoration, municipal growth planning, habitat protection, and Metro Greenways plannina. The MLCCS can be used for creating a GLS-based land cover inventory. Polygons of vazious sizes (down to one acre) aze iden�ed by their predominant cover. For each polygon, modifiers may be added to further define the chazacteristics of the site. Possible modifier codes include imperviousness, land use, vegetation disrurbances or management, natural quality, tree species, foresuy (e.g., percent canopy and DBH), and water regimes. Typical data needed to interpret land cover using the MLCCS includes Counry Biological Surveys, County Soil Surveys, National Wefland Inventory, Color Infrazed photos and Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles. This base information is usually sufficient to idenufy polygons to the third level of the MI.CCS codes. Fieid inspection by ecologists is usually required for modifier attr.butes and to identify natural comtnuniry types in the forth and fifrh levels of Ehe VII.CCS. Field inspection is also used to confirm and refine polygon delineation. Metro standazds being used in the MLCCS aze: * IdenpFication to the forth level * Minimum mapping unit: two acres (one acre for naiive species dominated communities) * Minimum mapping width: 50 feet * Modifter codes for: Basic land use, natural couununity vege[ation disturbances and identification of invasive species For more information contact: Peter Leete OR DNR Waters 12a0 WaznerRd. St. Paui, MN 55106 ph:651-772-7916,fax:651-772-7977 email: peter.leeteC�dnrsta[e.mn.us Bart Richazdson DNR Me[ro GIS Coordinator 1200 WamerRd. St. Paul, MN 55106 ph:651-772-6150,fax 6�1-772-7977 email: bart.richardson@dnr.state.mn.us �......� Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 65 (7l - l9 1 Water Management and Regulation Water Management and Regulation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. This is a brief overview of the entities that are responsible'for water mana�ement in Saint Paul: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes standards for water quality management, drinkin� water safety, solid and hazardous waste disposal, toxic substance mana�ement, air quality control, and general environmental quality review. Enforcement is dele�ated to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Saint Paul is workin� with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on a stormwater discharge permit under the Federal Clean Water Act. The City currently has a dra8 permit which involves development of a stormwater management and monitorin� prograr!1. The MPCA also admin- isters the construction site sediment and erosion control permit. Permit coverage is required for any project which disturbs five or more acres. This permit has permanent water quality pondin� requirements for a project which creates one acre or more of impervious surface. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture implements state laws that prevent surface and groundwater poliution from pesticide and fertilizer application. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires a pemut for any project constructed below the ordinary hi�h water mark, which alters the course, current, or cross-section of protected waYers or wetiands. Thc n%,;�u�c��ta ��ci esi vY�Y�g HfY(� SOli icPSOl1I°CCS (Fs��VSR) 1S 1 SYdC2 agency dedicated to helping locat govemments (counties, soil and water conservation districts, watershed mana�ement organizations and water- shed districts) manage natural resources. The Raavsey County Soil and Water Conservation District (RSWCD) is a local unit of government that helps direct and mana�e natural resource programs. The RSWCD is workin� closely with Ramsey County and the BWSR on the development of the newly formed Capitol Region Watershed DistricYs watershed management plan. Saint Paul is within the jurisdictions of the following watershed manage- ment organizations, which develop and implement comprehensive water- shed plans: 66 City ofSainr Paul 0�-191 ♦ Capitol Re�ion Watershed District ♦ Ramsey-washin�ton Metro Watershed District ♦ Lower Mississippi River Watershed Mana�ement Or�anization ♦ Middle Mississippi River Watershed Mana�ement Organization Saint Paul's local water mana�ement plan will be completed two years after the completion of the last watershed mana�ement plan. The Middle Mississippi River WMO completed its plan in April, 2000, so Saint Paul will complete the local water management pian by Apri12003. The City's local water mana�ement plan will address the individual plans of each water- shed management or�anization as well as the stormwater dischar�e per- mit. The City water management plan will also focus on improvin� the quality of stormwater runoff into the Mississippi River. The City of Saint Paul site plan review process includes stormwater man- agement requirements that limit the rate of runoff from new development to the equivalent from a residential area and requires storage for the 100- year rainfall. All projects that go through site plan review are required to provide for erosion and sediment control as specified in the Ramsey County Sediment and Erosion Control Handbook. Saint Paul also is responsible for administering Minnesota's Wetland Conservation Act. Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 67 Of • . . - � Public Participation February - April, 1999 Release Issue Paper "Framing the Discussion", convene two Stakehoider Focus Groups. February, 1999 - December, 1999 Comprehensive Planning Committee* meetings January - April, 2000 Design Study, convene Intergovernmental Working Group to assist. )une - July, 2000 Comprehensive Plannin� Committee� meetings August 25, 2000 Planning Commission releases Draft River Corridor Plan for public review and comment. August 25, 2000 - October 24, 2000 Public Review Pedod Odober 20, 2000 Public Hearing at Planning Commission November - December, 2000 Comprehensive Planning Committeex meetings December 15, 2000 Planning Commission adopts Mississippi River Corridor Plan. ' Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission gg City of Saint Paul 0�-�91 Maps and Inventories Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 69 oi-t 9 / "�: _ , , �:; � � . . , ,��, : �, ',_ c.:` . � � � �� i �,. , �1� � i,. "� ;. �., �,�ij `, ),�;; . .i; %i1i' ��' :.' _� �I � I � i � 1 I . � � i (��!', nt J { �� 1 �lw ' � �� I 1� � I t � d t 'l li ,��1?: � \� r n,. t�f � �Qi U � . �' � � � � q �� , . . ,. �. � > , :3XC. � � I I. �b x i � „`� „� � � � $ e; ��- i 1, ,: `'3 r' 4�' �,-�'�r rl i . '� "� :� �.� r�. i � \ i•l � � � � � � ' � 1.. d: I I . -' c`In�9��V ..�f�(L' � �1� ' .�+ I '� � ��i rl�� 1 I 1 ��I�`� - �( ' I ,`,�'�'I>f 1 ��'i 1 .,I . . . �. .i �li / � �� a II I'�� ,il�� E il / � I] � ��l � I� d 1 � � I', I • � 1 I y' N ��'� �� , ' I I ' i i � � i � i i —'rF � � � : � i i,,,�� .-'�'; n �, � f l,�l, � i�!1� � - n-'I�I �,i� i j �i ` u. II i � ., � i � I,' '� ; 1 I �a i i i i i�i �:i i ' i t,�. i ;� , �..� ��,i; , ,, r . ' �� , � �E�' „�;� � ,�'',i'rll � � ��.Ii?. ;I';." �', �''i;� �,'I' , :,, , i'.! ,� ' � '',ls „ n , � � � . �ii � - ' � � �� i � ��a�l bl'� � � �� f I � i„ %i� � , y � �i� ;�� J � �. 1 j � j � , ,1 �. � 1 � �j A�� _ I t . % y �/ _� 1 rt r �'- '� ' � `',I t u iit � �,. �� i �9 1 i c { /' -- u' � � � � <,� � �. . - � _,. �i � ., „( /�, � �r�' �,�:�rr - ��` �� i ' 1 �.- 1 t �� i �.;.r � \ � � � 6�3 � �.; v i t i „e . , � y.� � e� " �i�� , ,; i� i v i, � � . rn °' ` r �n �I_ . E'.w � � � � '- � -o N G ��" O � m C.l e � � �� d z�� o N C � � y e° G 6 + � o � .��—.. LL ' � N m C.i U �', � 1. F 4 �� ?� 0 � � > _ d � s � z� �� ;� g £ � � E N S a�= z z �� E� � r� a ��, {� � � o � � � 1 �.,0 � � � on � �Q ^rr O•� G O �� O w C1-i-� Q � o�-Ig/ � { �__., �� ::: � � ,. � � � w� ,� :. ' �i �a" � I 'q ' F e � � . � , �' � � i ,, �� a ,� : �,,, .j'�, ��1 i � �� ' I � � � ' � ��' r � � �. � i „ , 5 r` ^� i,'i ( i �� ' . � 'h ''*` � a {� - � �"i,i ,. ' , :�e i, I'� ' - � 5 �� ., � : - ° ;. . - - :.'.�,i � ,: 'y= i a. . :,, I !;' f '.i i"i , Z � �� ii' ii 1 ` �', i: i � � � ilp , t , �'�� ' i � ',�'_��' _ .'��2i�(ul$+�� ;�a� i,, �'. � , ' di l� , il ��4 i� � � � 1 �� ,- �_ �l: � '�� , i ' � �� ' i � � '); _ .F � �� ,;�„�'� � y," I i � � s °i _� ,�' �', ��t '"�. ,i I I . � - I ,,iJ r�p; , � I ,E; I � . ; i � a : � a � �, � �: ' �"Il — .H ;.a '�i i � i�,l ' I �,''1 I`f ' i° i i, '��'�, ,i ,,��A , I' '� ', � � � ; � � � , , �Yd � � � ��. a ",�' � „ � i 'I. ' ' i ', . G 'J i . :' 1 �. � �, 'I � ,I� �O F i , ;, � ,� . . I V I f' � . i - ., , ,I � N; � 1 75 � i �� " � M1 i � � . , r, _I, � , � i J� . - �'. I i -' n�,�, 17 �' ._ . ' � " '' '" ( ' $'% . � � I ( • ^I 1 �E . i ' 1�111�L1� y �r . _ _ t � . � �� I Iv� �1L � �� ` � - 1 r UI}2� � oc _ �n.. '= J 5 � - � . . �F� .q�_ 3 `�::�' � 4�' _ '. - _ ' ' � , ��{�r _ _ _ _- -.� J _' '_ _., � ., � �'��'f i ,- � � � � � i � � 8, : a s W � m o F � � � � s s � £ � s � " " - � � � s 3 � � � '1` � � s e � � � � � � � � € f LL � � E � �$ � � g a � n � �s � � ` , ",��L� � �' � � m � � m a � G m � m � � � &` ° � � ' �_ ��sg �¢�=a °�=� m�� sa�m�w B � E�'a.. ��g �.= �� „�'� i �. t � � . � � ��,: �'� . s�� ` ��, ;: � � __ �.�� . ; �, ' weH q , ;�i,�• �� . � ��s v �r' ° � �E �IIayS i i' , E - �''. i : � � i = R � i� � � a ,�;� � � �'- � � � l' � � � � vlej o- i,- �,'. � a i i�� , LL � A _ A 1 � L 1 ( �dY � � y-+ � � � -�-. C R C.i y v�. $ C � i3! t/� N� ' � �s W g = �x � � E � �P .° i � i' �E � G'e F�� F--. � � a�i � �y P-i � o•� � o � O W Q.� Q � F = � % 0�—/9/ � �I �.��` � � � l � . � - i� ,.. . - � � Ir � - ''� I - " I 1 � = �. i d - � �, �, `� � � i e ''_ � 1 �� , � .. �.P i 1.'Ii " � , G � i �� F � � iI „ ��;,, �,�, ,� z ' i � � ': I� I i''� m, t 1 7'i 1�-,� 1„ i� �'�'S, i i 1�;� . �-' � I � rn � ' ,(��'< � / - . I, i � II� � �i� � ! l I '% '! � � , � �_ - � �'�'�� 'I' '�,�� II , f ��t I I� L i I � . Y i �,� , i .. i � i � �� 5' ,� �, ,�, i.i,�i i � i i� �! . 2= � i J"1 ��i � � i I� i ._ �r ,i �iSi i i i'.�i l ii `� � � � i i ��, , � 9 Z � f. � � 3 � ��Y1�', ,�'�i ' � �. � �� uaqoa' '� i� � i , �' _ � , [ ` � 1� , � J I V , � " _ � ' � , v �' 7Bi�AI�+' �i ii I �� j�� . ° I�I' o, �; Si � i,,��, I i i, _� ;} m �',I .' a � .a- � �C.+ �� otypl ,� I I i ; i � i i� � �,8�!w5', � r ' n' � I I',I I� 1� � 1 � � � � �� _ � L � � �, ,. �a i '� I � �! �� i � A � � a � .�l � ,� � \ " ` ' g ; x ,� ' I �il�.��', � ,,�� i it i ,'� r i r i i �. , �'t � y.� i , i', i ! �� I ' ' '' � 1 I I i �', � l .y ( �. V� I � i �� i i � � < �'� , }� i �� , i � ,"; � �'„ � i q� (i I,I�' � s�, ��'hy,;- `� � .,�"/' � . �I i I ) ' (i I�I ,'i i � ,i , i i+�.. I I � ii�l ,� � I� � �� i I O�� i �' �� i .M a �i E,i i� � I �� `o � , m a ' � �! ` � i, � i I� II v �iim I � i i�l��c� y � � I"� I��II� I I� �� 1 �� A�I� .f' , iiillii�r,lil iJiii i ��',� ,�.� d�f i�1 i l ii 1 il�i i� I��Illi i ^ i � �b� �� ,�,�i�s..� .. � .. . �2 v , .r ' � �/ ~ � �' —� Y� � >�s ; d , r� ��- J � ; � .�' \ � �� o �' . a � O IS. � �` p� m V R � � h z d z G � Y � � y iC J i0 6 �Q � � � e� i s� ` � > "" � v � v � � �" �� l i l . �.i � �, ':• .._ � t j� I i I Ill i I� , I �i � �� I I I i i I J. , >a ' i i,�, ��, i i� i I � '�' '�AARd'I-" J �� - �' i 1 R I � �' �'�I�� i� i I i��, � i �,, i�i,'pydM sq�iro61�3 � I ii �i'rl� �� ii ..I i� Id i r � i il,, I i' , '. 1 i� .� ��I ", i�,,;� i i�I,I"j'�� ` � i i' i ' �'� t � i I�� r,:� $ aupwqH � � � li, f� � � r ,� "� II ��1'�e �� f,I' I � � � � �� I_ � I I N � _' � �I �� i f; i �i �� s ,� ';,i �� ,., i - r ,�; i i�p ' , � I I �i i�, I I ' A � ,I {. ' ' � lill � ;.I '�II�� , r . �� i i�; � �i,�� I I '�'li '' ' � I � '� I ' • '"- �i I ' ,,, , 4 " f � i�mawiej . i �� .,� " I � �� , ��' � �'�� I �' '� I I � � f 1 i I i 1 � lu� 'll f 1 � I I � . ' .. i ' � �, ' � , �� I Pv��al? :'� r , " �i � i � I��,� i �I i�% f. - i fl �'� - I Up21]`'� _yl �,,� . � ' � q i i .F I a � �a , i �J ��'-�.-sti.�r�' . ,i � � eu. j �� . ' - �� .,,_ -�«.� � � � ��.. �: -_ _ _ , n , i �:, �_ �b �� ' �� . 1 al I � E n '- - rn w i � ' _: ii r-- i �. 1 �., i . � c. �� \� �1�1 �(�.� f� � W t/� � O cn � � w � W N .�..+ C �O a a� � L � t V 0 _� 6 � a� N � m E � U �£ � �� 3 `3 �� :� z�. �""° > ; �i" � � d � � � H r , �.,! � .� Pal �,.. 0 N �� a Q 0l-/9! a v .�- _ "- „ - _. q; � ,�� ; n ' -'! � � � _ � �� - ��i i + i � �N I j _r, 1 _ __ _ N, y r L� "i� 1 : 4Q �_ ' � _ f ��' r_ � ��.: i.�� '. I i " '�?-, i;.i; , � �i �, _ '^ i I� I +l t J,�' ' ,i r' r � � �6Pi � � �Ilt�i ''� 1 '�I ;Ltli,' .:�1!'.'�� , ^��.r�'Ifb, l, " ..r�,!Y:,ij'}i�h I '.I'.I�o��1�1,��1� t� ��;�v, '�� :�... ��i I ll.�� I I�' �J�: :I ,n , . - - - �Ifl S � ,I, J p �:l� i i➢"�� t.!'��.I�i�� .r��•��¢�-i1' � =� �'�Ji::i' ,l�u ° `tP li' � - � �� •� i � lia ' � � ?�v�y�. _ i �°� p : LI !��II � 'ihl �i . .� ; � � � ��m�� , �A, q �� , �; s ;, , ,. ;` � ��„ � �, �,tin ��i ��.J� ` � — 5 „ _ ,. � , � � � �'.: y . , � �=_>.��. ,:, , ' � i�l�i:, � ' �`' , � ( �i - � ; i��,��ii;,i:_ :—�' ` : '4 i, � ;i�' i � �"� I ,.�„ � 1�,S.i.�'J,+�,� ., �..�� r : _ ', _ 'i ,' '. b � + � � ' l' � I � 1, � �� ' � i� � 1 I � I�i� , �' iil. ' I 1 J � i � � � � � I '�11�I �'IIIJ _ 1 � '�( �.�� .I'��,Ijli � t Id�� ; r� i." 1�I�� I,l�I�` � '.;i��l �. � t i i r ill ��i n ' �1 {,�I ,'y �� =•� I I I fi� r�'r � ' �, �; I�� r , ii � ��i1ul" �P�IJ"II ' � � ii� � ii � ��J;i� i �+ �� ' �, i '° I�� i � � � ' / f � t i , ;r �z, r,il�i, �i��r�,1 d�r� , �,��,ji, - r1 � � u . � � i i,r; , S ' �� .i,- i' ' . � n'�� II�� I'��,' � �J �.. .�n'�I,II�,�,i�;.��!�`�:; . . 'i�i,� ' �� II� �1.;'��,��a�' ' ifiil'�,i ; � . � I ' t . - , i � -_ � iil � '� , �,1-. i ��_ '� ''� �,.� � �'-°�'� �n ��i i �� r _� ' � if1�;l� � ��'��' 's �; � �i :I•; � u , � ' i i1. . n q / '� � ',�� t . .. .� . - i �,:. � �, - . r �� 1� i'( "� i / ai? ti? - / '.L it�: i =' � J' .% �� - i- ��I'I�.', y f r � / / Ii i . �v`�-+� �: i / / - - �" �G i , r � _ t�i; �-r� ? j '` _ :�� \ �� ; "`- ��,� F --, r.� � _ _ p _ :." _ � . ' - �, t �'k�"r�-�t �4 �2�k`� a�`-.'� -� � s+e �a.� *'a�"� � � - ,..�,. S � ,f ,�-�� ^'` � �.�i . s '� �� ., ��a` � � -� r��\��-�. _ . # y�' / `�g `°1?' � ��'4�`�,i�'�� .��' "..`}�� . w 3, � a'-,-� /-!' �,,.' w�� _ �. ,° � - lJS �' ��i � "i 1 \` a " r�%�� .�i��'�+e,� r�e�/�� /� � � S V �� z z nR= � q P 1,4'�'i �mN�dc'G� ' ��0� 11 � I:� � �. ,r . � i, r i , r; G�_ \,� �, =, �, �'6 > � FJ a N � � d �� •� � � \� L � � Z 2� � �s E� �y u LL � E � � � g � g'3 r-� � � � � � �{ F'�I /ml � � � � � � > �Q O•� a�i � � V � �'� A� OI-/9/ � : � � t:- _ - ,_..w . •-�„�_„ ., • � %' .�, --_' i 4 4 - � � _-� .�� r� '�`�' ,/" - - �� ..-.--"'-:. ` � ' � -o , ?� � - . , - S � j � �� ^{ �� ^�� N �" ":. -�{` y / � . �'Ti �f y `� _ ilO �� _ •% :.s _ _ � �� - � f ��/ .., � ^.�? _ f _ ' - ' -"' � '� J° f _ _ � f � i .,_� �. � � �� Q � �� e � r �` � � / n ,6 - _ / i ,' .,� �- �- , -r- �'� d ._ �� I � {' i� ` A ,...,' _ e �� ,��X� ::� � �- . ! ti _=� � y I �,F -/= � � 1 � � ��Y Y r,.G'�, J `]". i �.... � ✓:.� � . ,.1' �,. s � t �\�� c m: �. � , �,Y x.�'r �i \ % - �' ` t C,_.J'.` "N/ �� l� �� " �/ f � I JE'.+c?}j � �( �...,:x'�;'ra��:�:.qrl�h� "�dri' sl.lyr'tY,'i5�'u`i�+ � iai^tia:��`e;;i�,i�, ,..� � � , m � � �Q � Q W O °� � °a � � � G p d � = m v � ° o � �¢ �d � m m � m m x ! (Q W � m i i m C � � W W x �� m i � � w F� a� 4 Q p a aa�_ w m== e m m� 7E w ee \� '• � � � a � � � � � m � z� Y �m �. 6 � s �� A� r� i � � .�. � Qa E Z z� �o � � ,'� aw � 0.'O � � O� � � z z � � �� wQ � � Q�d oi�9� :,� ;�, �o � / i" %�/ / Z i v v _ '_ o `o m c� �C s � z z a y � � ` d d ° a � � . , � '" E N� U U � \ � a � :� .� � � � Q �� i H O � � .� C N �O O L 3� � L� �� E � 3 :� x' �x :�LL � E y S � �` S � �� 1 � t � � +F � � s✓ +� �ti � � ¢ Q � � 1�1 G�. p., ° � � � �� 0 H � � U ri a � o� - l9! { � --� _ � d =�_ o _:`L� .. = e o m -_ =¢ea _ '° � m m � = Y y� iS'J @ � 9 _ ' W '�.T. Y t'�i Y �i` Y , �� ' LI'1e�� O � .;I, ; � /' % y I _ 1 / ,y . �y �� :� : ` _ ; a /l :ti�: � ,� s ' / : _._"�_�,_,__= -:_.�.,_,_- ,.�. - ,. _ _ , _ >..-� " ...� _ _ �)'-,� _ � � __ __ __ O i . ,• W � �� _~ � ��, , � u 9 '�' C ' "' <. =" "__ p `' �'r? - _ _ `�,;.,�,e�_ � � - ' ' � i1 - - � �o •' "',{ :% -�,� �i ' ?.,. �.IV �.`j - cr'it �.r--_�.=L.'P- .-"._ _,.�,' ..� _ =�'�'- ' � � V G CO a s JJ; 5 � � a . d � H � =m N � F m w � 6 R W CiO4) � 0 I� � � � � a a� eA ea �a CD � � � � � � � i � � _ � � w m m � W 0 r mi '� ` O. � W C� r 9 € m � : �-W: � � a ` � � m�g� � €°:�� ai o m � e i L � v d �fw�'�.�' � � ,`�. � 5� � � �r Ai_ �p W # � '� �. �-. =;�2 ��{�� M _- �i:-. � V Y d V a - W e � m W m .:°. m -,.;> -��:,. � ; ° .'�e. - - 'O so , a z� � � � � m9 e�Ii � � s� A � � a � � c`so � 6 � 9 � R H m Y O. '�� O � y /� 4� "� Q (� � Oc) � � zo � � �� w � Q a� U � q o �-�9/ � _ � N 3 a� � � � o _ .o L N � . O W �� w z Y � a E V O Z � .� y S �a m L' 'II 5 4 N 6 � s� �� E ; ��, ;� �"' � . s c �S c � < Q aG '� Q, °�f O � �� P, u U � Q 01-191 e J. � � � 1 , - � - ' �� { � i � j f �,.>n_+�— _ � �i %� , � . j � �� i � - �. � �' � �, � � j , : �� - �T � � ,� f � �.. ' �' ' � ; m - �^ � 9 . � c ,,,, s 1 � �'. ; _ �'. �' � : _ �-^1 ,� � � �l� ' , � � ) � -�1 ' � i' � i , � i � _ f --` , � l m � z '� n " 'N' ° I � I i� xk a �� '� c�'S�'� I] I _ F j h . I � I ,, '.{I �� Y i � : � y— ��- � � � ' xi,a�,'� : . e a. +�* . ,'� �� ` � f � ;.t Q �, i , ��",_ _ .� . r t � � A i ��'1�1 l 1 � �� IF_I. �� : h H� a i i�� m i � � � �i �� 3 � - '/..'�i� \ § f y � � "�, � �`` ' �� ^�' � �r, � � i :I � � ;_ ��- I ', , � F -��w , ` � , � ��_p �' � ' � �. o _ '� -� � �. F � � L .. �rc_ �� yp� t � � �� ' i �� ,�� .. 4��uS ,� `. � �.. ��, �`� ��., , i; �� , ! , �i �� i , � � �:i � �+ � � � � i , ": � �,. ��1i i . . 1 a� r , .�� i'. � 9 I I I I I � e"i • I I I � �' '�` y• L . �, 1 � • ( � I i ' ; I � �� I I � �� , � ' � � S� � ..�� . k ' r j�P � � � I 1 I� � � I � � i �� : . �' �'�� '� i { � � � � � i � !.i"; iil � � i � 1 r i �� ., ,i',� ! i � i �, ,� / � � � ' � � � 1 I I I,ii i i �� ' � ��, } '� I i ' ��',�,� � � � � � - �� , � � 1\\R '� .`_�.-�` ' "� "� r , ' �' ' ,�� , , a m `;'. 'r, _ � � i �, :' I i, . ,l� � ,. i C � � i7 � ;,� It,,1 � � , ,� �. , -�, � r , ,, _ 1 � � � ' �I - �. � ��,,�, � -��- �-, � ' �'� � ` ;, � ' � .; , ;,{; ,;:'<' A � ' ..: � e � :p � � E d u� a � ' � � d a N a .� q q �� s 'E ° o a a'�Ea gc�°°°`b '�' a� . _ _ : 3�v= _ _ � E �� Y� u& a Pn 3� S S °6^A'Ea°m.� �» " = m m� m d e e� e e��,-�� z ��"se�°�m€ — s�aE�@�� n�� ti�� .; � ;�. � �� '� I = �i l , ,� � ��:� � ' ��, � � �� N ia C . � �� m� � e �a �� .° z � �� W �Y �+� t'��' � �`� . �.� � �o � �Q �� 0 � w �a � Q � �,,.--.�-,.,. — '�' pp�� ;� �;�- ,J•, � r-.�.:�-v__ _. i��`i — -�:�I _'} "- ____ � 3 q . b � ; �� '�> d ` "G f� �` ,.�,.__.�_--- � -� -„-; z�, -_- _ ,r� -t-., 01-19/ � a� � Q �1 � � � C � � � � r.+ � tA '� � � Y1 !i �� _.� , �� . N d � � I m a y y a w e.°.m�m v _��p� � ce F O y � i d S � m aeS'j Y m�' n S m� m m'Cap r a r m N Q C � � � C m Q � ` � L�i � i e � ' � m� ``�� OI � ' � �� a & z� @ 0 i D �� Q a= � �< � a� 0 ,� ¢ �i � � � aA L� A„ °" o �, �o � z H� v � a� � }� o�-/q� � , T ( �. • • � �� - a ' 9 p ��,— _ 0 y i.: '�.�.t :,,�I C . , I � i � . a`r �� ;- ' 'a � , � 6 � �L a `i U tl R� � .��i �' � r%/ %n� . % ' ' ' � c �� 6 ' tn � •_ �'i�'i�t y 9 O ti r �m � � �� °� \ MN 5Z � ', � 0 k �� F q�. / << ,�.� � �� il rl: � p_ ' • ��., „ � �, � � � F' �� /, i., `Vn � - ��! � . � � yL�� Q �� ✓ 1 � �.��,�� '�_ . ,. � x - , � �� : �� I� . , �}eJ�. �.$ � i , � �+�i, � � t l. n:'� , 1;:• '. Q C N � � oiq � : � ' 1 i � f ' � i' If i ��, i I i �..� � ',I� " I�� t� ��.,'!� I' f�� s i ��'i;ir, ' a [��, � �,,, � i �ii' �� ;,� ��' •,� i�irl�il�:ii�� ., I� i�J'f � a� � � ' � I ' ' .-� 1 � `I o m I��i� � �-: i �'�,i'.� LL cA `.,., ' i �� i i� i ,,� i � i I �� i i i � �', �i �, il � �� I � ,','. i; � n,�''x Q d I I �� I , y �Myv � + � ' ,r; �� In :i ri I r z � i� f � �' i��, i ��',I"' � �� JI �,,�,[ , r' ..+'..� m {1 l �� , �{ �'I �;�� i � I: ; � � �'. � �.1 � �� R n ' i � , � ' - � � � i_ � i � �' , ,�� I' �.�� i 1 i � _�� . I 1'.1 I � 1 S � f� xi � J � � _ , �'�_I 11 1 I' l i _ > > s� �` � i�;lt �� ''. . .. � .,�' 1 e i I I �rl'1 _ a �;, a li�� ' i� i IPIF � �� i � I; i��l �t � i'�, � i ' il � ry ulj2Jj �. ,C- ,1 �� r �it� _�- A' _ � ! a � u� n '/ / �._, �. -.. �:' ��'�� i � Dp -': __ � � ''. , -o � e s m v �O� c � � / 1 i v � o m t � R o 0 m � m a o c ,,,,-. � 2 O N V � � �C y 's 'E °� � _ � � � d 6 N 9 � lL y Oi G C C � C 6 � E O V> � Q N O �C y S S � �L y � � � � � N � � y in 3 m � -, i.a y 3 < c ° ¢ ( j o m o • N � � •� N .0 y,�^� � ° 3 E ' ° � � v� '¢�` ¢ �a g _, � � � � � �� s i � � ' I , �'�� i �, ��,o; � ,m y L; �s t5 ' 1 ; 'i� �i i .. � D� 9 y m - 6 ej ."L' Co u y d o � C LL C in� � (:: /�� a � V a C, �` vi :_ 4 '�' � l . \ ' F f f' Z 3 0 � � V • O N � _ '� i y Q Q � � -a L � � � �� L � � � � � z� `o � S o � y � �C � o u d o t� � di �a � �"f y V y � � H � Hhe� � �� F �� _�� r--� � � � E"i � �-�a � � < °p z < . c < �� o•: � � � t G � �c 01-19/ Credits The Gry ofSaint Pau1 does not discriminate on the basis of disabiliry, race, ser serual or affectlonal orientadon, age, color, creed, nadonal ori,gin or ancestry, mantal stahas, religion, veteran stahzs, or status with regard to public assistance in the admiss�on or access to, ar treatrnent or employment in, its programs or activitles. 94 City of Saint Paul � cl f ' MISSISSIPPI RIVER - ORR1�0� � -A ' T H E S A I N T P A U L C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N ,.�� "� � . ._ �. �� . � ,�_.,. � §. . � �. � �. m �� .�G�...� ` 15, 2000 Gouncil, l-4, 2001 oi-I`� 1 The citywide portion of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan consists of the following as of adoption by the Saint Paul City Council in 2001: Plan Summary and General Policy Land Use Plan (1999) Housing Pfan (1999} Transportation Plan (1997) Parks and Recreation Plan (1997) Library Services Plan (1996) WaTer Conservation and Emergency Response Plan (1996) Mississippi River Corridor Plan (1987, update to be completed in 2001) Sewer Plan (1980, update in progress) Implementation (1999) A separate Area Plans volume identfies all small area plans and district plans that have been officially adopted as amendments or addenda to the Comprehensive Piar�. �Y asc ii iC SUi^�'^87!°S Of ail ar� �i3ns that have been adopted in summary form under the current neighborhood planning policy. The Plan is subject to arnendment, and a publication noting all amendments in force will be available after amendments are adopted. Pian documents are available at the Saint Paul Public Library and copies may be obtained from the DepartmenY of Planning and Economic Development, 25 W Fourth Street, Saint Paul, MN 55102, telephone: (651) 266-6573. (The Water Conservation and Emergency Response Plan is published separately by the Saint Paul Water Utility and is not available from PED or on-line.) As preparation can be completed, most or all chapters will be accessible from the City of Saint Paul web page at ci.stpaul.mn.us (departments, PED, comprehensive plan). ' 1 , , ' Contents � E�cecutive Summary ..............................................5 � Introduction....................................................8 � 2.1 Purposes ..........................................8 2z Legislative History and River Corridor Plan Background .....9 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Setting ...................................................7i ' � 3.1 Planning Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I 1 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: Ciry and Other Plans .....12 ' 3.3 National'nends ....................................15 3.4 Tygology of River Landforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .t6 � ' , l� � Natural Systems Strategy: t Proteetfhe River as a Unique Urban Ecosystem ..,.....18 4.1 Bluffs ............................................19 4.2 Native Plant & Animal Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.3 Fioodplain & Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 , 4.4 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Economic Systems Strate,gy: i Sustain the Econoinic Resources of the Working R6ver ...29 5.1 Commercial & Industrial Land and Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . .29 5.2 Commercial Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 5.3 Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Social Systems Strategy: ' � Pnhance the City's Qua/ity of Life by Heconnecting t o the River .........................................36 , 6.1 Visitor Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 6.2 Views ....................................... 38 6.3 Trails ............................................39 ' 6.4 Neighborhoods ........................ ...........40 6.5 Historic & Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 ' � � � Urban Design Strategy: � Use Urban Design to Enhance the River Corridor's Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 7.1 Development Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 72 BuiltFOrm ........................................46 7.3 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites .,....48 Comprehensive Plan g oi-i� I Implementation ................................................51 � 8.1 Zoning Code Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 8.2 Site Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.3 Park & Trail System Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 8.4 Heritage Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 APPendices...................................................55 a Appendix A. Design Study Illustrations for Redevelopment Sites ........55 Appendix B. Historical and Archaeological Sites/Structures . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Appendix C. Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 t • Ntinnesom Natural Heritage Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 • Minnesota Land Cover Class�ca�on System (MLCCS) . . . . . .67 Appendix D. Water Management and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Appendix E. Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 Appendix F. Maps & Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 t • Slope Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 • Sign�cant Vegetatrve Stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J3 • Weflands and Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 • Existlng Storm Sewer Discharge Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JS • Natural Drainage Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �6 • Barge Facili�es and Fleeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 • TYansportaHon Facility Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JS • Parks, Open Space, and Boat Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J9 • Exisdng [riews 5z Overlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 • Ulility Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 • EaTS6ng and Proposed Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 • River Corridor Historic Sites 6z Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Credits ...................................................84 ' , , ' , ' , 4 City of Saint Paul ' C� � � � , , ' � � � , ' , , � , � , Summary he Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan descrrbes the T Mississippi River in Saint Paul as a series of interrelated ��systems: natural, economic, social, and built. Just as the River Corridor has been shapecl by history, decisions about devel- opment and change will influence each of these systems for future generations. Thus, this plan focuses on protecting the resources that support our community, and on the management of human acdvity and the physical environment. Saint Paul is rediscovering and redefining its relationship with the Mississippi River. Increased environmental stewardship and establishing connections to the river are central to this rediscovery. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan reinforces the body of river-related planning already completed in recent years. Those plans which are most influential come from within and outside the City: the 1999 Land Use Plan, the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan, and the State Critical Area program. The Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. The Water Management Plan will be written after Che River Corridor Plan is completed. The current Mississippi River Corridor Pian was adopted in 1981, and amended in 1987. After public hearings and consideration of public comments, the Saint Paul Planning Commission wili forward the plan to the City Council. The City Council will review the plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the National Park Service for joint review. After receiving comments from these agencies, the Ciry Council will adopt the final plan. There are numerous entities with jurisdiction over the Mississippi River, ranging from local to fed- eral units of government. The City intends that its plans and ordinances for the river corridor be con- sistent with those of these governmental partners. Figure A � �� : �_: z �� ; � � ,.M :� � � � � ;. :� � ti �� .,� �u� ��- �� t Comprehensive Plan 5 Interjurisdictional Governance OI-1`� I Strategy 1: Protect the River as a Unique Urban Ecosystem ♦ Undeveloped bluffs should be protected, stabilized, and restored throu�h acquisition, use of native species, building setbacks, and by prohibiting development on the bluff face. ♦ The River Corridor contains sensitive natural resources. The floodplain and shorelines, wetlands, and natural habitat found throughout the River Corridor should be protected and sustained. ♦ The City supports the green corridors project of the Minnesota DNR. The goal is to establish regional greenways around high quality native habitat remnants, thus providing continuous habitat corridors for native piant and wildlife species. In Saint Paul, the river valtey and the Trout Brook reach are parts of the DNR plan. ♦ Working with its watershed partners, the Ciry will continue to identify means for improved stormwater management. Public education will con- tinue to be an important way to help �,*otect water quality. Strategy 2: Sustain the Economic Resources of the Working River ♦ The City supports continuation of the working river and commercial nav- igation in Saint Paul. The economic importance of commercial naviga- tion to Saint Paul, Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest is signifcant. The environmental benefits of barging over other hauling modes (air quality, trafCic congestion, etc.) have been well documented. s The City supporrs the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-relat- ed businesses with river-related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases e�ire. ♦ Along the riverfront and its floodplain, new development should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, or the capability to enhance the river environment. Industria] and commercial uses, as well as housing may all fit these categories. Strategy 3: Enhance the City's Quality of Life by Reconnecting to the River ♦ Parks, open space, and trails are an important way of allowing people to come the river. The Ciry is working on a number of initiatives, including 6 City of Saint Paul , , , the realignment of Shepard Road, to increase park and open space along the river. Over time the city's riverfront open space system will become more continuous and river-related. The City will also complete a contin- � uous Mississippi River 'iYail along the entire length of both sides of the river. , � �� ♦ The views afforded by magnificent bluffs in Saint Paul's river corridor are part of what makes the city a special place. There are opportunities in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corridar, Battle Creek and Highwood neighborhoods to create additional view points to the river. To enhance river corridor views, ali billboards should be removed from the river corridor and not replaced. ♦ New neighborhoods are part of creating connections to the river. In , strategic River Corridor locations, following adopted design principles, new urban villages should be established. ' , � l_J ♦ Cultural resources in the river corridor include early settlements, historic stnzctures, and architecturally unique bridges. These resources should be preserved and restored, as they are integral to the character and history that defines Saint Paul. Strategy 4: Use Urban Design to Enhance the River Corridor's Built Environment ♦ New development should establish "traditional" street and block patterns � to enable people to experience the river through visual and physical con- nections. These traditional street patterns will restore connections between neighborhoods further upland and the river. � , , I 1 1 ♦ Primary view corridors should remain open and unobstructed. Accordingly, the scale of new buildings in the river corridor should relate to topography, and should preserve critical public views. , Comprehensive Plan 7 C�I'la I Introduction 1 � T ere are multiple facets to the river's role in the ciry and region—as an ecological system, as a culiural and historical resource, as a publ�c ameniry, as a focus for recreational activiry, for commercial and industrial aciivity, and increasin�*ly The Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan is a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Other plan chapters address Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Housing, Water Management, T7ansportation, Sewers, and Libraries. The River Corridor Plan will guide use and development along the Mississippi River, while pmtecting the river's ecological function. There are multiple facets to the river's role in the city and region — as an ecological system, as a cultural and historical resource, as a public amenity. as a focus for recreational activity, for commercial and industrial activity, and increas- ingly for new residential development. The River Corridor Plan will help Saint Paut realize the futl potential of the river as the city's symbotic "front yard." The River Corridor Plan recognizes that the ecological function of the river is not only affected by activity throughout the river corridor as defined in this plan, but also by activity in the watersheds that feed the river. 2.� �os� The purposes of the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan encompass its designation as a state critical area and as a national river and recreation area — the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area — as well as its role as a multi-purpose resource for the city, state and region. These are: ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as a unique and valuable resource for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the city, state, and region, ♦ To restore and establish the unique urban ecology of Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. ♦ To reinforce the Mississippi River Corridor as Saint Paul's front yard, and the backbone of a community-building network extending beyond the shoreline and into the fabric of surrounding neighborhoods. ♦ To manage the Mississippi River Corridor as an important economic resource for river- related industries and commerciai navigation for the city, state and region. . f'or new residential ♦ To expand opportunities for using the Mississippi River Corridor as a city develOpment. amenity and enhance citizens' quality of life, including increased public access, recreation and education. g City of Saint Paul C� ' ♦ To protect and preserve the Mississippi River Corridor as an essential element in the federal, state, re�ional and local recreation, transporta- tion, sewer and water systems. , � � C� ♦ To prevent and mitigate danger to the life and property of the citizens of the city, state and region. ♦ To preserve, enhance and interpret the Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor's historic, archeological and ethnographic (cultural) resources. 2.2 Legislative History and River Corridor Plan Background In the past twenty five years there has been an increased legislative focus on � environmental stewardship of the Mississippi River. The first major effort, authorized by state law in 1976, was the designation of the Mississippi River Corridor within the Ttvin Cities Metropolitan Area as a State Critical Area. ' The Critical Area program required coordinated planning among communi- ties in the river corridor to resolve land and water use conflicts, and to pre- � serve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural and historical value of the river for public use. Cities were required to establish protection of the river resource through planning and related ordinances. ' LJ , � , � � � i tn response, the Saint Paul City Council adopted a 5aint Paul Mississippi River CorridorPlan in 1981, with policies for managing this important resource r Comprehensive Plan g C�f`�� 1 and balancing open space use with industrial and commercial development. This plan fulfilled the state's requirement for a Critical Area Plan. It also became a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and was last amended in 1987 to incorporate the 1986 Riverfront Pre-Development Plan. Recent state law has required all "IWin Cities municipalities to update their comprehensive plans, and Saint Paul has nearly completed this effort. As part of the required update to comprehensive plans, the City will also review and revise its river corridor-related zoning regulations. To further guarantee effective management of the river resource, the U.S. Congress designated the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the national park system. The boundaries of the MNRRA corridor are identical to those of the Critical Area, the 72-mile cor- ridor of the Mississippi River stretching from the Crow River in Anoka County to beyond the City of Hastings, and including Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The MNRRA designation Ied to the creation of a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) with policies related to land and water use, resources management, and visitor use and interpretation. This updated River Corridor Plan responds to the vision for the Mississippi River outlined in the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, as well as the continuing requirements of the Critical Area program. xanaar 2em�s � Name Plarn & Mi`rel Hebile¢ Fbo�lain & WeUaMv,. Waarduality _ Bwrc Fmirmmen[��,,,�,�., uman oe,;y� � Oevdup�mrc Ps¢ena a�� Emmnik ResouRes- wa*� x� Commedal & Indmo-ial IarM & Waterlke �� Needs&AmeniGes Vexs rr�u Neighhalpods H'utoric & CulUUal Remums 2.3 River Corridor Plan Strategies In response to the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, and as part of the City's own process of updating its comprehensive plan, this Saint Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan outlines four strategies for future manage- ment of the river corridor. The four strate�ies focus on the various systems reiatea to tne river: natural systems, economic systems, social or human systems, and built environ- ment. The River Corridor Plan seeks to balance these strategies, all of which are interrelated and affecting each other. 10 Ctty of Saint Paul , 1 �� ' , � � � � � L� L� , , � � The Setting C�/'Y�Z I _. . � 3.1 Planning Assumptions The main assumptions that underlie the recommendations in this River Corridor Plan are: For nearly a century, the Mississippi River's role as primarily a trans- portation and industrial corridor led the city to Yhink of and treat the river as its `�back yard". The city is now gradually rediscovering and cele- brating the river as its front yard -- a majestic and unparalleled natural amenity whlch unites neighborhoods and downtown. Part of this redis- covery inciudes the opportunity over the next 10 to 20 years to create new neighborhoods near the river. 2. The river and its reaches are more than a thin ribbon moving through �� ;:�:.. the city. The river corridor should be viewed as a watershed model, an �;- � entity that incorpoxates elements, communities, and patterns from well �� «'" � beyond the river itself. �� F� �� 3. The character of the river vailey changes over its 29 miles. The river valley contains a variety of landforms, from the ]ow lands along the river's edge to the high bluffs. The character of river valley land uses also changes consider- ably, from the quiet, residential character of the gorge, to the mixed commercial, industrial and residential uses along the West Seventh Street corridor, to the vibrancy of Downtown and the Flats, to industrial districts downstream of downtown, and preserved blufftop neighbor- hoods in the West Side, Dayton's Bluff, and Highwood neighborhoods. �uesc 7fh Bridge 4. Parkland and open space are the predominant uses of riverfront land in Saint Paul. Most of this land will remain unchanged. There are however, many opportunities to explore additional access, preseroation, and restoration projects throughout the parkslopen space system. When development in these areas does occur (the enhancemenfis at Harriet Island, for example), it should be in the context of preserving the river corridor. � � ,_ . � , ��-' �.. .... aflrge ` . , G r;�, <_ : ;�.........„..„.-� -__y,_...,,,,,...y ............... �._.. � �...src�+zi+�tv9'• � ;� , �� ; �� , r gz ' � � _ �� s� � �� ;< � w � a: 3 -= � � �� . � 6 � 'l� n � � � � a J ! ihe flafs ' ^ v �, , , Central VaAey � �.: � �� . �: . t Comprehensive Plan i � bl-1`�1 , 3.2 Planning for the Mississippi River: City and Other ' Plans Figure E Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Boundary auow�co � '�� - � � �� i � HENNEPMLO -!� _ �--. _ .�� j'"� Q � C }_N£" ' ` � _ � � _� � In the past five years there has been a tremendous amount of river-related planning, both by the City of Saint Paul and by other organizations. These visions and plans have focused on Saint Paul's Mississippi River corridor in an evoluUonary and remarkably consistent manner, and include the fol]owing: S�dnt Paul Cornprehensive Plcm (P�ks Si Recreadion,TYansportalion, cmd Lcmd Use chapters) Completed in 1996, 1997, and 1998, respecrively. In addi- tion, there are Small Area Plans and other neighborhood plans for the river corridor that have been recognized by the Ciry Councii, or adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these plans are currently being written. Mississippi National River and Recreadon Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan National Park Service, Mississippi River Coordinating Commission and the U.S. Dept. of the Interior. The MNRRA Comprehensive Managemei.f PIan was approved by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior in 1995 and is intended to provide guidance for manag- ing the river corridor for the next 10-15 years. The plan's goals are to t) preserve the unique and significant resources of the Mississippi River Corridor in the TWin Cities metro area, 2) encourage the coordination of federal, state and locat efforts, and 3) provide a comprehensive manage- ment plan to assist the MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER State of Minnesota and AND RECREA710N AREA local governments in man- �w� "��°'" aging development in the .�... , ' n „ r . 1 �_..e ...__o � corridor. The MNRRA , ;' , � � vision advocates the pro- �+ tection of both the working ' 1� i river and the naturai river �i ' � ecosystem. The MNRRA � �- i MINNESOTA I � r` pIan suggests a voluntary p u � a ��,,�„,„� o „ set of additional policies ! �-- 7 that cities may adopt to .1=-�j` � % � � enhance preservation of J / � � ��, � the Mississippi River corri- =%� ��' Xe'°°" dor as a nationai park, �, � -___� � (' � �� referred to as °Tier tI" poli- % / ��*a�� /� cies. ("Tier I" policies are / ,,, �/ required by existing State ,,� Critical Area policies and regulations, and shoutd already exist in cities' river 12 City of Saint Paul , � ' plans and ordinances.) Local governments should work with the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources and the National Park Service to incorparate MNRRA policies into their river corri- dor plans and ordinances. Saint Paul's Ceniral River [�alley Development FYamework - Project of I the Desijn Center for the American Urban Landscape (Bill Morrish), College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota. � � ll � � � � � � , , � � � , This project, completed in )une 1995, served as one of the foundations for the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development �amework that was complet- ed in 1997. In conjunction with its Case Study Integrating Urban Design and Ecology project and newsletters (August 1994 - May 1995, six newsietters), the Design Center compiled an urban design inventory of Saint Paul's phys- ical resources in the form of maps that visually display the city's physical resources connected to the Mississippi River. These Saint Paul-Mississippi River contextual maps highlight Saint Paul's unique river valley landscape and ecology, including its vaileys, reaches, bluffs, landings, neighborhoods, vegetation, wildlife and the potential connections among all of these unique resources. The goals of this project were to identify the following for Saint Paul's Central River Valley: 1) image, identity and orientation, 2) com- munity gathering places, 3) connections and continuiry, and 4) river-related projects and locations. Metro Greenprint: Planning for Nature in the Face of Urban Growth - Greenways and Natural Areas Collaborative. In 1997, this collaborative project involving a group of citizens from around the seven-county'Itvin Cities Metropolitan Area included representatives from metro counties, watershed districts, Dept. of Natural Resources, Greening the Great River Park,_ University of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, Friends of the Mississippi River and 1Yust for Public Land. The Metro Greenprint outlines a vision and specific strategies for creating a region-wide network of natural areas, open spaces, parks and greenways while accommodating urban growth in the'IWin Cities metro area. The vision focuses on identification of natural areas and open spaces and potential connections between them, along with recommended conservation techniques and funding strategies. The Mississippi, Minnesota and Saint Croix river valleys represent a significant portion of this green network. Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development IYamework - City of Saint Paul, Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, and the Capital City Partnership. The City's most comprehensive vision for the Mississippi River was outlined in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework in June of 1997, Comprehensive Plan 18 Ol I c�/-ta 1 following more than two years of intense work by the community, City staff, and other organizations. The Framework calls for reconnecting the city's downtown and neighborhoods to the river by restoring the river val- ley's and city's natural environment, creating new urban villages near the river and creating a physically appealing and vital downtown environment. The Framework is based on "an implicit understanding that quality of life - the ability of a city to effectively balance economy, environment and society - provides a primary competitive advantage in an increasingIy globaIized world." The Framework outlines the foIlowing ten principles that represent an integrated approach to city building: ♦ Evoke a sense of place. ♦ Restore and establish the unique urban ecology. ♦ Invest in the public realm. ♦ Broa@en the mix of uses. ♦ Improve connectivity. ♦ Ensure that buildings support broader city-building goals. ♦ Build on eazsting strengths. ♦ Preserve and enhance heritage resources. ♦ Provide a batanced network for movement. ♦ Foster public safety. Although the Framework is not part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the plan's vision, ten principles and recommendations were endorsed by the City Council as the guide for the City's development policies downtown and aton� the central riverfront and should be incorporated, as appropriate, into the City's Comprehensive Plan updates and amendments. The ten pririciptes are incorporated into the Land Use Plan (1999). Riverfront Action Strategies - Saint Paul Port Authority. Compieted in 1999, this document highlights the importance of the Mississippi River and Saint Paul Port to the Upper Midwest economy. As a working river, the Mississippi is part of an intermodal freight transportation system that enables agricultural producers throughout the Upper Midwest to compete in the global market. This strategy document signals the Port Authority's commitment to maintain shipping-related uses in its riverfront facilities. It also e�cpresses the Port Authority's commitment to beautify industrial sites, to clean up roadsides and riverbanks, and to manage stormwater on-site. 14 City of Saint Paul . , � , � � � i 1 i � � � i EJ , J �' 1 1 Visions of ihe Mississippi River Corridar Ce�ral River Yalley Dev. fmmevrork (Morrish) 1995 St. Paul on the Mississippi Dex framework 1947 Pnrksand RiverFrontAciion Reuealion Snme�ia Minnesma Wan t9% (Part Authority? (riiiwl Area �'� Designation 1976 Traasportation Plan �997 MNRRA Comp. M mt. Metro Plun 7995 River Corridor Land Use ��enpnnh Design Sfudy s000 Plan 19sr8 t997 ... Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites - Saint Paul PED, Saint Paul Design Center. To compiete this River Corridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, along with the Saint Paul Design Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment sites. The study was conducted in early 2000, with consultants from the Cuningham Group and Close Landscape Architects. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. An intergovernmental working group, chaired by the Planning Commission, and including the Department of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council and National Park Service assisted in this process. The results of this study provide the basis for poli- cies in Chapter 7 of the plan; recommendations for the five redevelopment sites can also be found in Chapter 7 and Appendix A. Together, these planning efforts have established a new framework for thinking about the Mississippi River, and Saint Paul's place on it that emphasizes thinking of the river and the city as an integrated living ecosys- tem within a larger regional setting. The intent is to restore the river's nat- ural ecology, to establish and improve green connections between neigh- borhoods and downtown and the river, and to support urban intensification consistent with a river setting, while maintaining the working river. Collectively, these visions provide a map for stewardship and use of the river in the next century. This Mississippi River Corridor Plan brings these visions together in one documettt for the entire river corridor in Saint Paul. Comprehensive Plan 15 Figure G River Valley Landforms DI'I R � 3.3 National Trends Nationwide, certain trends have emerged pertaining to urban riverfronts. There has been a resurgence of interest in the recreationa] use of riverfront land, and communities nationwide are creating new trails, green space, promenades, and other recreationai amenities. As industries that tradition- ally were located on the riverfront have changed, industrial land is turnin� over and being redeveloped to create housing and entertainment-oriented commercial activity. Finally, there is increased awareness and interest in the ecological function of rivers and the watersheds that feed them. Disastrous floods in past years have served as reminders that watershed management plays an integral role in protecting rivers and the communi- ties along them. 3.4 Typology of River Landfoxms The Mississippi Rivervaiiey is comprised of a earege o€ �at��fcrrrs, each ��:th unique characteristics and requiring specific responses. While most of this plan's policies apply to the entire river valley, many of the Urban Design policies of this plan are tailored to the specific landforms, described below: ♦ The River•s Edge is characterized by naturaI shoreline vegetation in parkland or natural areas. The River's Edge downstream of the High Bridge is stabilized with a variety of man-made treatments for the pur- pose of channel maintenance, including rock rip rap and walls. ♦ The Lowlands are the lands adjacent to the River and are either flood prone or formerly flood prone lands. Lowlands provide critical habitat for migratory birds, yet developed areas in the Lowlands are neaely devoid of tree canopy. The Lowiands are generally characterized by mixed man- ufacturing or office uses, dedicated pubiic parks and open space, or 16 City of Saint Paul � � , lJ � i cleared and vacant lands. Largely redeveloped for industry, buildings in the Lowlands tend to be larger floorplate structures with associated large parking areas. ♦ The Low Biuff is landward of the Lowlands. It is generally characterized by a varied edge of dense woods and open views, sometimes eroded or overgrown. There exist occasional and dramatic bluff face/rock outcrops expressing the natural geology of this valley, although the elevation change of the Low Bluff is ]ess striking than the High Bluffs (described below). Access from the Lowlands through the Low Bluff is somewhat limited. The Low Bluff is less legible as either habitat or public open space than the High Bluff. ♦ The Terrace is the generaliy flat area located between the Low Bluff and I the High Bluff. The elevation of the Terrace ranges in between 740 and 780 feet above sea level. At locations throughout the valley, the Terrace � makes transitions into River Reaches and Ravines. The Terrace is gener- ally fully developed, and characterized by mixed use commercial and industrial lands transitioning from rail oriented manufacturing to ser- � vice/convenience uses. The Terrace also contains muiti-story housing with smaller fragmented pockets of single family homes. � � � � i � I � � ♦ The High Bluff is located landward of the Terrace, and is the most rec- ognizable feature of Saint Paul's visually stunning river valley. The High Bluff is characterized by a nearly vertical limestone bluff face in many areas. In other areas, the High Bluff is covered with a continuous, often dense canopy of overstory trees with occasional openings for views and limited public access. The High Bluff is an environmentally sensitive area that is highly susceptible to erosion and associated loss of vegetation and animal habitat. Selected roads traverse the High Bluff, creating pri- mary connections between the Terrace and Uplands (described below). ♦ The Uplands are the areas located above the highest bluffs. The Uplands are flat or gently sloping, and are generaliy characterized by mixed resi- dential neighborhoods coming to the edge, with occasional multi-story multifamily structures and institutional landmark buildings. The urban forest of the Uplands generally consists of boulevard trees. A map showing the general location of these landforms throughout Saint Paul can be found in Chapter 7. � Comprehensive Plan i7 v�-�a � St�'ate�y 1: Protect the River as rls the twenty-first century begins, the ciry has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning which balances environmental, community, and economic imperatrves. The Mississippi River, as it weaves through Saint Paul, is part of a complex ecosystem, and is a unique and vatuable natural resource. The river has been designated by the Minnesota State Legislature as a State Crirical Area, and by the U.S. Congress as a nationally significant commercial navigation system, a National River and Recreation Area, and an American Heritage River. The history of Saint Paul has always been closely tied to the Mississippi River, but over time, development has heavily impacted many of the river's indigenous landscapes. As the twenty-first century begins, the City has endorsed an ecosystem approach to planning which balances envi- ronmental, community, and economic imperatives. This approach moves the City in the direction of thinking of the river, river valley, and developed areas as an integrated living ecosystem. The City will provide for the continuation of a variety of urban uses, including ind�trial, commercial, and residential within the river corridor, while strengthening its commitment to preserving the natural resources of the river corridor. The intent of this chapter is nei- ther to discourage future development, nor to promote wholesale restora- tion of the natural environment. Rather, natural resource management poli- cies will be strengthened to enhance the urban ecosystem in the Mississippi River corridor, and improve the quality of place in Saint Paul. Saint Paul currently uses river corridor overlay zoning to protect natural resources throughout the state-designated Critical Area of the Mississippi River. Overlay zoning restricts what type of development may occur in the floodplain, and applies strict standards for development. These standards include development setbacks - -- ' from the river, and prohibiting 18 development on steep slopes. This chapter addresses protec- tion of bluffs, native plant and animal habitats, wetlands and floodplain, and water quality. (Appendix F contains maps that show the location of steep slopes, significant vegetative stands, wetlands, the floodplain, storm water discharge points, and natural drainage routes.) City of Saint Paal Figure H Natural Shoreline i � � � � � � � � � � i � � t� � � � Objective 4.1 Protect the blufflands af the river corridor Saint Paul's natural topography relates much of the city to the river. Bluff formations framing the Mississippi River reinforce the city's unique natural setting and contribute to Saint Paul's character and sense of place. The topography of the river valley varies considerabiy. Alon� the West Seventh corridor and the West Side, there are distinct high and low bluffs separated by a terrace. In the so-called "river gorge" between Saint Paul and Minneapolis and in the Highwood neighborhoods, however, the high bluffs descend dramatically to the river, or adjacent low land areas. Likewise, the location of bluff areas relative to the river varies from the gorge where the river lies directly below the bluffs, to portions of the Highwood and West Side neighborhoods where the bluffs are set back more than a mile from the river. While the bluffs, ravines, and tributary areas are an attractive and unique urban amenity, they are a fragile part of the river ecosystem. Historicaily, both Ramsey County and the City have been active in protect- ing and restoring bluff lots with steep slopes facing the river. Ramsey County has acquired lots between Upper and Lower Afton Road for perma- nent county park ownership. Over the past several years, the City has used Federal ISTEA funding to acquire lots between Lower Afton Road and Highwood Avenue to be permanently dedicated as city parkland. Saint Paul aLso currently maintains a required bluff setback for development, and pro- hibits development on steep slopes along the bluff line to prevent erosion, and to maintain the natural, vegetated appearance of the bluff line visible from the river. Policies: 4.1.1 The City will continue its program to acquire lots on the bluff face as funding opportunities arise, extending the program to include lots south ;.:'_: ��, ._� �a�� : � s� � � �i u � ,,. ��= � � � � �� s z� ,x F� � � n� � � �� '' 'i3 � 4: � � ,_ ;� '6. �w �`^ .� I Comprehensive Plan ig �� ►� � of Highwood Avenue. Private efforts to acquire lots for open space dedi- cation are encouraged, as are actions by Ramsey County to convert iots acquired through tax forfeiture to permanent public park ownership. 4.12 The Ciry wi11 support efforts to stabitize all btuffs in public ownership through re- introduction of native species and visitor use management. Efforts such as those by Friends of the Parks and TraiLs and the West Side BIvfP I�sk Force to create bluff management plans for the gorge area and the West Side bluffs, respecrively, are encouraged. The West Side bluffs, in particular, are in need of management and stabilization. 4.1.3 To protect the bluff face, the City will prohibit any additional struc- tural development on the bluff face, except for the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Further exceptions may be allowed for a limited number of low impact public structures related to recreation, access, and connections. Such structures should be uncommon. The City will define the toe, top and face of the bluff in the zoning code. 4.1.4 In order to protect steep slopes and minimize erosion, and consis- tent with Executive Order 79-19, the City will continue to prohibit resi- dential development on slopes that exceed eighteen percent. Consistent with the MNRRA standard for commercial and industrial development, the City will continue to restrict industrial and commercial development on slopes that exceed twelve percent. 4.1.5 The City will continue to preserve the bluff impact atea (forty feet landward of the bluff line) in a natural state. Objective 4.2 Preserve and restore natrve plant and animal habitcrts Saint Paul is located at the meeting of the prairie and eastern hardwood forests. Despite the changes accompanying urbanization, a variety of habi- tat types continue to exist today within the river corridor, including rem- nant savannas, prairies, river edge wetlands, riverine areas, the bluffs, as well as the river itself and its fIoodplain. The Department of Natural Resources inventories rare species and natural communities, and according to the its Natural Heritage Database, there are 55 known occurrences of such species or communities in Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor. These include Bald Eagles sighted in the Pig's Eye Heron Rookery and Battle Creek Regional Park, Blanding's Turtles sighted at Lilydale Regional Park and Hidden Falls - Crosby Park, severa[ types of mussels, and a variety of other plant and animal species. (For a full listing, see Appendix C.) Particularly near downtown Saint Paul, remnant landscapes and the animal 20 City of Saint Paul , � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � habitats they contain have historically become dis- connected from the larger river ecosystem, and their long term viability is continually challenged by the effects of urbanization. Fortunately, there are many opportunities for preserv- ing and restoring native plant and animal habitats throughout the river corridor. Great River Greening has played an instrumental role in restoring vegeta- tion throughout the river valley, with the goai of cre- ating a connected greenway for migrating songbirds and improving the ecology of the Mississippi River valley in Saint Paul. Over the past severa] years the organization and its volunteers have planted more than 30,000 native trees and shrubs and 25,000 native wildflowers in the river corridor near down- town. Addressing the downtown area, the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development F7�amework has signaled the need to improve the balance between the natural and built environments through protection of native vegetation and improved river edge treatments. The redevelopment plans for Harriet Island Regional Park and the East Bank Mississippi River Trail Corridor are examples of this shift in approach, as they call for redesigning river edges to incorporate both hard edge and indigenous vegetative treat- ments. Of course, projects to restore natural shorelines must be compatible with the requirements of channel design and flood management. Policies: 4.2.1 To the greatest extent possible, existing mature trees and native veg- etation will be preserved in site development projects. In the Highwood neighborhood, the City will continue to enforce the Tree Preservation District standards to maintain a maximum vegetative canQpy. 42.2 The City wiil encourage use of native vegetation or other compatible floodplain vegetation in redevelopment projects. Where appropriate, when redeveloping or stabilizing the river's edge, soil bio-engineering techniques and native plantings wiil be used in combination with more traditional engineered solutions. In the more formal landscape treat- ments occurring along the downtown riverfront, the shoreline will be strengthened with native vegetation, including native trees and shrubs. Throughout the river corridor, the City will encourage integration of future growth and development with restoration programs that recon- nect and restore remnant natural communities. � 4.2.3 The City will continue to support the efforts of organizations such as Great River Greening to restore native grasses, shrubs and trees along � the riverfront downtown and elsewhere in the river corridor. .��= s :� !� �'� � �� <: � �� ff� � Comprehensive Plan 21 oi- � �t l 4.2.4 The City will continue to enforce the 50 foot shoreline setback for structures. In addition, the Ciry will support efforts to restore the shoreline to a more natural character within 100 feet of the river to facili- tate wildtife movement, and to improve the aesthetic appearance of the floodwall. Such efforts must be compatible with current channel design and flood control management, and exceptions are made for park buildings, marinas, and other commercial or industrial river-dependent uses. Redevelopment should include removal of unused docking facilities (i.e., at the Koch-Mobil site). Figure K Trai! between Warner Road and the Mississippi River 4.2.5 In al] new developments, threatened and endangered wildlife habitats shall be protected from alterations which would endanger their survival. 4.2.6 The City will integrate its plans with the work of the DNR's Metro Greenways and NaturaI Areas Collabarative. This metro area collabora- tive has identified high quality native habitat remnants which could be linked into regional greenways, providing continuous habitat corridors to support native plant and wildlife species. Many potentiai greenway opportunities exist in the East Metro area, including Saint Paul. Objecfiive 4.3 Protect and preserve floodplain and wetland areas in the city Figure L The last comprehensive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) BQIf 'ThORIp5011�5 VISIOII 01 - SlU('lY Of C'Ite� S&iFii �60u�✓13�iFi vC�iti7eC�.-.P. .�iH9. �: tr.3C. tLTY?e, t�N.O _ 22 City of Saint Paul � "The Great River Park" � � �� major flood events occuned in 1993 and 1997, and other changes have occurred in the floodplain. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers has compieted a multi-year flood protection project on the West Side which will result in removal of the West Side Flats from the floodplain, because the new higher levee will control a 500-year flood. As a result of these changes, the City, DNR and the Corps of Engineers are working together to � update the City's Flood Insurance Study. The Flood insurance Study update includes changes to the cross-sectionai area caused by development and � revisions to the hydraulic model that incorporates these changes. FEMA and DNR will review the Flood Insurance Study update following submis- sion and make an approval decision (concluding in 2001). FEMAS process � wili result in revised floodplain boundaries in the river corridor and accom- panying changes to FEMA flood insurance rate maps and the City's flood- way and flood fringe zoning districts. � � � � � � � � � � � L, Wetiands aiso play an important role during floods, and for controlling stormwater. Their flexible storage capacity allows flood waters to be released slowly, reducing flood damage. In the era when most of Saint Paul's neighborhoods developed, modern ecosystem knowledge was lack- ing, and wetlands and creekbeds were routinely drained and filled. Through zoning and site plan review, Saint Paul began protecting wetlands in 1994, after passage of the state Wetlands Conservation Act. The Legislative Commission on Minnesota izesources (funded through state lottery rev- enues), has provided financial resources to communities, including Saint Paui, for wetland restoration projects. The restoration of Ames Lake — for- merly the Phalen Shopping Center site — is one such example. Other opportunities for restoration exist, including efforts by the Lower Phalen Creek Restoration Project to connect Swede Hollow Park to the river by restoring lower Phalen Creek in the ravine between Dayton's Bluff and Lowertown. As our understanding of watersheds continues to evolve, the need for careful management and planning in wetland and floodplain areas of the city is assumed. Policies: 4.3.1 The State of Minnesota, through the Department of Natural Resources, allows new development to occur in the Mississipi River floodplain up to a one-half foot increase over the 100-year flood eleva- tion. The City wiil enforce the state floodplain encroachment limit so that small increments in development do not gradually degrade the floodplain. 4.3.2 Recognizing the need to treat wetlands as a valued resource, and assuming its responsibility to administer the Wetlands Conservation Act, the City will protect existing wetlands and encourage restoration of degraded wetlands. � Comprehensive Plan 2g C"� 1 `t I Objective 4.4 Protect water quality through comprehensive and coordinated watershed management The water quality of the Mississippi River is directly connected to the activi- ties in the surrounding watershed. Pollution comes from both direct, or point sources, such as a sewage treatment plant discharge, and from non- point sources, such as stormwater runoff. The largest source of nonpoint source pollution into the Mississippi is the Minnesota River, which contains significant amounts of agricultural runoff from outside of the Mississippi River Corridor. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is attempting to address this problem, which is complex and will take extensive time and funds to conect. While ali sources of pollution will be addressed, the City's program will Yocus on city stormwater runoff pollution prevention due to the relatively greater impact this source has on the river. SEWER SEPARATION PROGRAM Historically, Saint Paul's original sewers drained directly to the Mississippi River or to several natural streams that i:� tum drained into the river. The oldest sewer on record in Saint Paul was built in 1856. At the time it was standard engineering practice throughout the country to convey both storm water and sanitary waste to receiving waters in one pipe. However, by the T e water qualiry early 1920's it was becoming apparent that the Mississippi River was pollut- ed and something had to be done. In 1938, the first sewage treatmenY facili- of the Mississippi ty on the entire Mississippi River went into operation. Minneapolis and River is directly Saint Paul each financed and built their own interceptor sewers and shared connecred to the the cost of building the treatment plant. Dry weather flows were then treat- ed prior to emptying into the river, but during rainstorms, when the flows aCtivlties in the exceeded the sewer's capacity, combined sewer overflows (rainwater and surloul2ding sewage) continued to pollute the river. watershed. In 1 g85, after years of study and discussion, sewer separation was deter- mined to be the most economical method to abate combined sewer over- flows to the Mississippi River and to meet federal and state water quality standards. At this time the Minnesota PoIlution Control Agency directed Saint Paul, Minneapolis and South Saint Paul to develop a new plan for combined sewer overflow elimination and for the Metropolitan Waste Conteol Commission to incorporate each city's plan into an overaIi metro p[an. In response, Saint Paul developed the Comprehensive Sewer Plan for the Ciry ofSaintPaul. Although Saint Paul began separating its combined sewers in 1960, by 1985, only half of the city was served by separate sanitary and storm sewer systems. The ten year program initiated in 1986 was a massive undertaking with over $172 million in designated projects (1984 dollars). 24 City of Saint Paul � � The sewer separation program has led to significant improvement in the quality of the Mississippi River. The following are viewed as indicators of the improved water quality: � � � �� , � ♦ Pollution-sensitive Hexagenia mayfly have returned to TWin Cities' stretch of river after a 30 year absence. ♦ Metropolitan Council Environmental Services' monitoring data shows a significant drop in fecal bacteria IeveLs in the river as a result of sewer separation. ♦ Bald eagles have returned to the TWin Cities' stretch of river. ♦ Fish population and diversity have recovered from 3 species to over 25 species. ♦ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has established catch and release fishing regulations to protect trophy sized walleyes that are being caught from the metropolitan stretch of Mississippi IZiver. The completion of Saint Paul's sewer separation program has achieved the overall purpose of cleaning up the river, demonstrating the City's commit- ment to improved stewardship of the river environment, and exceeded its performance goals. The city now has two completely separate sewer sys- tems, one carrying surface water runoff and the other one carrying sanitary sewage. But the work of protecting and restoring the Mississippi River goes on. The partners involved in this project will continue to address the issues that affect the Mississippi and our environment. ��, ,,. � � � � � WATERSHED AWARENESS EDUCATION Saint Paul falis within the boundaries of four watershed management organizations, each of � which develops a comprehensive watershed plan. saint Paul's new Water Management � Plan will be completed by the Public Works Department two years after the completion of the watershed management plans. The four � watershed management organizations are i) Capitoi Region Watershed District, 2) Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District, 3) � Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, and 4) Middle � Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization. J Saint Paul has been actively educating its resi- dents about water quality issues for years. Early Photo courtesy of Friends of the Mississippi !t�'ver � _ W 3 r ; v . � � � � �� .; � �� .> � �� ,< �% x: �� a E,„ � :� � Comptehensive Plan ys or-� � efforts began to e�lain the need for the Sewer Separation Program and the associated benefits to the Mississippi River. Cunently, the City and the Friends of the Mississippi River are working in partnership on the Storm Drain Stenciling Program. Since 1993, the City has worked with thousands of volunYeers to stencil a message, 'Don't Pollute Drains to RiueY', next to storm drains and to distribute door hangers to the surrounding neighbor- hood. In addition, City staff are working with schools in Saint Paul on watershed education projects. Saint Paul is also a watershed Partner, which is an award winnin� partner- ship of inetro area agencies, non-profit groups and local units of government. Watershed Partners developed an educational watershed e}chibit, which is used at venues across the TWin Cities every year, including the Minnesota State Fair. The Partners are cunently involved in a metro wide media cam- paign which involves news print and radio messages as well as printed gro- cery store bags and magnets. Efforts to promote better pubiic awareness can have a profound impact on reducing nonpoint source pollution. Figure N Watershed Managemen# Organizations 26 City of Saint Paul � � � The Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory provides guidelines for safely eating fish caught in the Mississippi River where it flows through Saint Paul, per the Minnesota Department of Health's Minnesota Fish � Consumpiion Acivisozy (available on the DNR web site). Fish in Minnesota's lakes and rivers are monitored annually for the amount of inethyl mercury and PCBs present. � � � � � ,, � WATER MANAGEMENT AND RECULATION Water management and regulation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. See Appendix D for the entities that are responsible for water man- agement in Saint Paul. Policies: Most of the policies cited in this chapter will be replaced and more fully addressed by Saint Paul's Water Management Plan, which wili be complet- ed by April, 2003 . 4.4.1 Continue participation in existing watershed management programs and in developing the City's stormwater permit program and local water management plan. Coordinate municipal activities that affect water qual- ity as part of the stormwater discharge permit and the local water man- agement plan. 4.42 Strengthen city-wide education programs that address watershed awareness and stewardship. � 4.4.3 The City encourages a reduction in use of chemicals for fertilizer and pest controi in residential areas and on public land, and support sustain- able land treatment activities and integrated pest management practices. � � � � 4.4.4 The City supports minimizing direct overland runoff and improving the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. 4.4.5 Encourage alternatives to turf in the shoreline area to reduce fertil- izer and pesticide runoff into the river. 4.4.6 Support enforcement of federal, state and watershed management organization floodplain and wetland protection policies. 4.4.7 The City supports using stormwater management elements such as � ponds and swales to unite development areas with the natural environ- ment. Emphasize what these elements add to site development in terms of aesthetic benefits and cost- effective stormwater management. � Incorporate pubiic use as a site amenity whenever possibie in designing stormwater management systems. � ;� x�� H � � � � � � � � � �.; :� ;� ,, � � :> � � .. �� fi � � ; R g Y /fi � _j �b � : �� <: �� Comprehensive Ptan 27 or-« i � 4.4.8 The City will support programs to better manage and decrease the � volume of toxic waste in the river corridor. 4.4.9 Protect streambanks and water quality from the negative impacts of � recreation. 4.4.10 The City will support regional pollution prevention and control plans � for the metropolitan area. 4.4.11 The City supports programs to develop and implement spill preven- � tion and response plans for the river. i i � I 1 � � � l 1 i � � 28 City ofSaint Paul � � r � � � � LJ � � � � St�ate�y 2: Sus�tain the Economic The Mississippi River will continue to function as a major commercial nav- igation resource for Saint Paul, the TWin Cities and the Upper Midwest, connecting the area to the Inland Watercvay System, the Guif of Mexico and intemational markets. River-related, shipping-related, and river dependent industries will continue to locate in the river corridor, contributing to the city's diverse economy and job market. Three of Saint Paul's 29 miles of riverfront are presently dedicated to industry. (Appendix F contains a map of commercial navigation facilities and barge fleeting areas.) Objective 5.1 Continue commercial and industnial uses af river corridor land and water, consistent with the Saint Paul Land Use Plan Industry and commerce are an important function of the river. The City recognizes that commercial and industrial uses of river corridor land will continue. Given the continued mix of land uses in the river corridor, careful planning for the use of land along the river's edge is warranted. The City rec- ognizes that the use of land in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark has the potential for serious adverse effects on the river if not properly managed. As a matter of course, all development must comply with existing regulations goveming the floodplain and river corridor. � Policies: 5.1.1 New development in the floodplain or within 30o feet of the ordinary high water mark should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river � location, and/or should enhance the river environment. (New develop- ment on the north side of the river between Chestnut Street and Lafayette Blvd. is exempted from this policy.) In addition, new development should not hinder implementation of e�cisting Plans, and in all other respects � should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria for approval of new development include: � ♦ having an economic or operational need for a river location ♦ supporting the attractiveness of surrounding neighborhoods � ♦ sustaining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements ♦ offering public access to and along the river ♦ maintaining views of the river � ♦ cleaning up polluted areas on the site ♦ meeting or exceeding applicable natural resource policies in this Plan �� = � � ��'� � �� , ��i �a � a ��# ��A �� , ��; ��; tr ?� � � � ,, � . a�� Comprehensive Plan yg Cf-f `� i Figure O River Corridor South Development Opporturtities 5.12 Expansions of existing uses in the floodplain or within 300 ft from the ordinary high water mark are acceptable. Eacpansions should be con- sistent with the natural resource protection policies laid out in this Plan. Expansion of uses on the north side of the river between Chesmut Street and Lafayette Boulevard should be consistent with natural resource pro- tection policies where practical. 5.1.3 The City supports continuation of industrial uses in appropriate por- tions of the corridor as indicated in the Land Use Plan and shown in Figures O and P. Modifications or additions to industrial uses in the rivee corridor should be supported only when they have no significant adverse impact on water quaIity or air quality for the river corridor and adjacent neighborhoods, and when they do not substantially impair the visual char- acter of the corridor from adjacent neighborhoods or from the river itself. S ", � ��>r a = :� �"v'.:` �:J �_ �'. ::_ _ .. a � � e .L}�^� � f'-._^ .. :' 'r':-_ y ;µt ��.� ` Rti . ... ��f .• R , .. :.�` _ _..-:��£ ' .-��- _ � � ` > A f � i d� 0 5 ` ` }�._ , a`�:'-£?` a �" , . F t..-._ aM �li ( ' � '1:_ •�:��Zi�� _ . � � \.�. �4� �rI ^! C'�� Mn.... • �.�Yi�+��" . � � I �- Concord - Robert Park Restoration � (Commercial) West Side Flats (Muaed Use Study Area) Harciet Island / S. Bridgeh�d Esplanade (Urban �Ilages) ' _-�.t�.� # �.:...� j...$ ''e ` R / - °;:� Highuvood =`= ° `� ° s � ; ` �.1 `.j:. �- �> ` ��.� (more houses�t.� - - ;'x'_ °� ,.z ' _ � £ ` � ` � :.i� _.``a: c =:'��` _ - � i � � ,_, ,� 3 - i , j � Y . , i � . 1�\ �� T ~��. ��.. .... `��_t.."ar-=...3�� I Southport (Industria!) Indusiry Burldiardt (Housing) � �� I i The bounQary shown does not mrrespond to the Critical Area/MNRRA boundary. 30 CI["y Of SQlttt P[iU1 � !� � � � [�� L� � � � � � � Pedestrian � �� -� =� �� 4��1 ��`;. .ua � u f Z ��/ . ! X� � <; � x;�n+'€ � i :�' R`� g� � � . �' �F j /��Y'a��f n ?'R d'{ � °! f. f�'°.a�� ADMMletalcote (Study Area) Koch-Mobil (Housing) Lake (Industriat) $ItCS � Shepard Davern (Redevelopment Area) The bopndary shown does not correspond to the Critical Area/MNRRA borandary. 5.1.4 The City encourages screening of industrial development with native vegetation wherever appropriate to minimize its visibility from the river or the opposite shoreline. The City supports the Port Authority's policy to landscape and beautify industrial sites. The Port Authority should encourage the use of walls, fences, vegetation, terrain, or other natural devices to screen industrial buildings and outside storage areas, where such screening will not be a detriment to business operations. Objective 5.2 Recognize the Mississippi as a working river and support the continued operation of commercial navigation facilities The shipping industry is of crucial importance to Saint Paul, greater Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest. Located 1,800 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico, the Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intermodal freight trans- portation system, where barge, rail, and truck traffic intersect. Agricultura] products and other bulk materials are brought by rail and truck from throughout the Upper Midwest, and transferred to barges that travel to � p ,:,. < > � Comprehensive Plan 31 oi-� i Figure Q Barge Fteeting L ocated I,800 miles inland from the Gulf oflbtexico; tne Saint Paul Port is a hub in the intermodal freight transportation system, where barge, rail, and truck traffic intersect. downstream river ports. Grain exports from Midwest producers make up nearly 90 percent of the cargo bound downstream. Approximately six percent of grain eacported from the U.S. to world markets travels through the Saint Paul Port. Other materi- als are brought up the Mississippi River by barge and distributed to destinations throughout the region by rail and truck. At peak capacity, more than 16 million tons of commodities can be han- dled through the Saint Paul Port annually. There are both economic and environmental benefits to using barges to transport goods, rather than rail cars or trucks. Barges move freight a greater distance per gallon of diesel fuel than rail or truck. One ton of com- modities carried by barge travels 514 miles per gallon of fuel, compared to only 202 miles by rail or 59 miles by tnxck. Barges also release fewer pollu- tants per gallon of fuel burned than rail or truck. Barges release only ,42 pounds of pollutants per gallon of fuel burned, compared to .59 pounds released by rail cars and .75 pounds released by trucks. (Riverfront Action Strategies, Saint Paul Port Authority, January, 1999.) Barges fleet in designated fleeting areas, as permitted by the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S.Coast Guard. The permit issued by the Corps and DNR specifies the length and width of the fleeting,area. Barge fleetin� areas are permitted in Saint Paul's Floodway District (RC-1), subject to a special condition use permit, as approved'vy i'rie Fianning Cornr�:sscr: Designated fleeting areas are mapped, see Appendix F. In permitted areas, the Saint Paul river corridor currently has a total practical capacity for fleeting of 393 barges and a total design capacity of 574 barges (Figure R). Permitted fleeting areas are considered adequate to meet current and near- term fleeting needs and accommodate fluctuations in river transportation. The volume of commercial river traffic has and will continue to fluctuate considerably over time in response to local, regional, national, and interna- tiorial needs and markets. At peak times, barge fleets fill fleeting areas to their maximum capacity. If a new fleeting area were desired, a permit would have to be procured through the above agencies. The MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan identified the need for a Surface Water Use Management Plan. Such a plan would provide guidance on suitable locations for additional barge fleeting and mooring areas; suitable 32 City of Saint Paul � 0 ' � locations for dredge material disposal sites; economic impact of surface water use; potential regulatory use controLs and other measures for minimizing con- flicts between commercial navigation and recreational boating use and � among recreational uses; monitoring and evaluaung river system surface use capaciry, including considerarions of physical, biological, social, and safety limits; evaluating the potential for bottom disturbance, sediment resuspension, � and shoreline disturbance from barge activities and recreational boating; and developing altematives to expanding existing or creating additional commer- � cial fleeting areas, barge mooring areas, and recreational boating facilities. The City agrees that these questions should be better understood, and should be evaluated region-wide. The Metropolitan Council has formed an advisory � r i� � � � � I I. F � � � � committee to fiuther scope out many of the questions identified for the MNRRA Surface Water Use Management Plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be the lead agency in complet- ing such a plan, working with local govem- ,. ments and other affected state and federal u, e � , agencies. <'' It is recommended that barge fleeting areas and marinas be separated by 200 feet for safety reasons. Ttvo hundred feet is approxi- mately the length of one barge, so separa- tion by this distance permits visibiliry of smaller recreationa] craft. Empty barges ride high in the water (16-20 feet above the water line), so a tow boat operator may not othenvise see recreational boat traffic around marinas. There are two marinas cur- rently in operation, Harriet Lstand Marina and Watergate Marina in Crosby Park. There are aiso boat launches at Hidden Falls Park and in Lilydale Park near Pickeral Lake. Policies: 52.1 Barge Terminal tt1, Red Rock, and Southport will remain the city's principal river port terminais. The City supports the Port Authority's policy of replacing non-river-related businesses with river- related businesses at Southport and Red Rock Industrial Districts, as leases o eacpire. (The businesses at Barge Terminal #1 are all river-related.) River- related land uses are those with an eco- � nomic or operational need for a river location. � Comprehensive Plan 33 b/�f q! 5.2.2 A commercial landing for interstate cruise lines will be maintained at Lambert's Landing (LOwer Landing Park), in conjunction with other activities at Lambert's Landing, e.g. loading of supplies. A landing for local excursion boats will be maintained at Harriet Island Marina. 52.3 The City will continue to regulate the impacts of commercial naviga- tion faciiities on eacis�ing development, the naturat environment, and the immediate neighborhood through its Special Condition Use Permit process. � � � � 52.4 The City will minimize water use conflicts and improve safety by � separating commercial and recreationai boat facilities, where practical. A) If new or expanded barge fleeting sites are proposed, and if other- wise permitted by State and federal agencies, fleeting sites should be located adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses and at least 200 feet from any marina or boat launch. B) New marinas or boat launches should be located at least 200 feet from any barge terminal or barge fleeting area. Objective 5.3 Pursue cleanup and reclamation of polluted sites Much of the Mississippi River Corridor in Saint Paul has historically been used for industry, because the river was the first major transportation route. Poltuted sites are concentrated where heavy manufacturing, rail yards, and other industrial activities were common. Other sources of contamination are landfiIls and underground storage tanks. The Metropolitan Council esti- mates that at least a third more land is polluted than is currently identified. An area with significant contamination is Pig's Eye Dump, located in the flood plain of the Mississippi River just east of downtown Saint Paul and to the north of Pig's Eye Lake. At 319 acres, the site contains the largest dump in Minnesota. During its 16 years of operation (1956-1972), the dump received 8.3 million cubic yards of municipal, commercial, and industrial waste from Saint Paul and surrounding communities. During the summer of 1988, the site (covering approximately 300 acres) caught fire and bumed intermittently for two months. In 1989, it was designated a SuperCund site. The City has completed a Remedial Altematives and Response Action Plan (RAP) which details remedial alternatives for the site. The RAP calis for plant- ings, covering much of the site with two feet of soil, and rerouting sections of Battle Creek. The City owns most of the site, and the site is designated as passive use parkland. The RAP was approved by the MPCA in May 2000. The 34 City of Saint Paul i � State legislature has authorized two million to begin remediation, of a total remediation cost estimate of 9.1 million. � � � � �1 � � � � � Funding for cleanup of polluted land is most readily availabie when the land will be redeveloped to yield jobs and increase the tax base. This has the effect of favor- ing industrial and commercial redevelop- ment projects. It can be difficult to find funds for cleanup of polluted land that is to be converted to green space or park land. Legal questions about ownership must also be resolved. To date, legisla- tive initiatives have been proposed to address this need, but none have been passed. The Port Authority has donated over 1800 acres of land to the City, to be used for open space and recreation in petpetuity. Those lands now in park use include Crosby Lake, Pigs Eye Lake, and Pickerai Lake. � � , �� _>; x' z q d z ; � � ( � i 4 � � \� i��f',�t� . .:�. 4 �_.. � *�' : p - `� x / !v 2, • 'K ' = i, e? . ' '- r, `:.� . 4 � o� � �° � _`� � Policies: 5.3.1 Working with the Port Authority, the City will seek opportunities to clean up polluted river corridor lands. 5.3.2 The City will monitor and support initiatives that will facilitate cleanup of polluted land to be reused as green space. �� LJ L' 5.3.3 The City will balance open space use and industrial and commercial use of the Pig's Eye take area. Cleanup of Pig's Eye Dump shouid pro- ceed as laid out in the Remediai Alternatives and Response Action Plan (RAP) approved by MPCA. Industrial uses along Childs Road and the rail- road tracks will continue. Open land (which includes the Heron rookery at the southern tip of Pig's Eye Lake ) will continue in environmentally protected status. � :- _. �. _. , °� kAY��&fi F ; 'a p , .� ��- � ` . .� _ `� -,°`';,�:, _�,�.; . �. ,.�'��. � - � � � �� .. � �a�r,'� r- ' � :' �`, - � . ,..-- �� . � \.. o; ? \ i'? �a. ,, . 9. � Comprehensive Plan 35 bl�la t St�ate�y 3: Enhance the City's to the River T e river provides the city with its most powerful sense of place and its most attraciive natural amenity. The City has the opportunity to redefine the Mississippi River as The °front door" to the city, a deserving role for the city's most unique natural resource and a tremendous soarce of community pride, identity and vitality. The river provides the city with its most powerful sense of place and its most attractive natural amenity. Saint Paul can reclaim its heritage as a river ciry by reconnecting its downtown, neighborhoods and recreational areas to the river and establishing a better connection between its built and natural environments. Recreation opportunities, housing, and mixed-use development will increase in the corridor, creating urban neighborhoods with visual and physical access to the river. (Appendix F contains maps showing parks, trails, overlooks, and historic sites and districts.) Objective 6.1 Erihm�ce opportunities for recreational use of the riverfront by local visitors and tovrists, utilizing parks, open space cmd physical access to the river The picturesque, natural environment of Saint Paul's river corridor provides many desirable open spaces for city residents and tourists to play and relax. Saint Paul's twenty nine miles of river shoreline is the longest stretch of riverfront of any municipality in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and repre- sents one of the city's most significant public amenities. As riverfront indus- trial land has graduatly been converted to parks, park tand has become the SI[tf�Tl2 Id7gPS� USe Ot CIVeT'IT"Oilt Idri� lri J11riC rau'1: iii2�� i vEi'-i.OFFi4-�^vi-, several large regional and city river parks exist, including the following: ♦ Harriet Island Park ♦ Cherokee Park ♦ Crosby Farm Park ♦ Indian Mounds Park ♦ Battle Creek Park ♦ Kellogg Mall Park ♦ Lilydale Park ♦ Raspberry Island ♦ Hidden Falls Park ♦ Pigs Eye Lake Park ♦ Lower Landing Pazk ♦ Mississippi River Boulevard Opportunities for further e�cpansion and enhancement of river parks and open spaces exist. As stated in the City's Parks & Recreation Plan, the City � will pursue opportunities and partnerships to acquire land specifically for 36 City ofSaint Paul � � � � � 1 � � � � � {Y � � � :_J �_J � � open space and natural resources protection according to any of the fol- lowing criteria. ♦ Areas containing species included on the State or Federal list of endan- gered or threatened species; ♦ Areas representing significant landforms, native plant communities, sen- sitive habitat, or historical events; ♦ Areas that connect existing components of the open space network; and ♦ Areas adjacent to existing parkland/open space. In addition to threatened and endangered species, the State of Minnesota classifies species of "special concem". (Listed in Appendix C). While this category does not have the same regulatory status as threatened or endan- gered species, areas that contain these species and their habitats should also be considered for preservation. Riverfront redevelopment activities can provide opportunities for expansion and enhancement of the city's riverfront open space system as well. The Saint Paul Renaissance Project, sponsored by the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, marks a substantial effort towards this end. The Renaissance Project is an integrated network of public spaces, parks, trails, greenways, and connections that relinks Saint Paul's downtown and its neighborhoods to the Mississippi River. The network builds on investments currently underway and emanates from the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development FYamework. Within the river comdor, many of the existing adjacent open spaces are connected and established as regional parks, including: Haniet Island- Lilydale-Cherokee, Mississippi Gorge-Hidden Falls-Crosby Farm and Battle Creek-Pigs Eye. Potential e�ansions, connections and enhancements of the river corridor open space system include the restoration of the Lower Phalen Creek area, connecting the river and Swede Hollow Park, and a restoratian of the Trout Brook Reach, with a trail connection to the Willard Munger Trail. Other enhancements of the river corridor open space system include development of a Pigs Eye Greenway, renovation of Raspberry OI — t �7 ; ; �i;v �� . � :� �:� ai,;.:� ..>. r� � �i .� ,. � �6 �� ;; � s,. � ., �4: � , s ;; � �, � � �: ?p � q� � � � Comprehensive Plan 37 b[� � Island, a major renovation of Harriet Island Lilydale Regional Park, and new open space created by the realignment of Shepard Road. The reali�nment of Shepard Road just west of downtown will significantly increase public access to the river in that area of the river corridor. Policies; 6.1.1 Large areas of open space that are currently undeveloped shoutd pre- serve fish and wildlife resources, plant communities, and biological diver- sity. Some open space areas may be suitable for passive recreation (e.�. trails for hiking, biking, bird-watching); others, such as the Pig's Eye Lake area and the bluffs at Cherokee Park should be limited to preservation. 6.1.2 The City will continue to add to its riverfront open space system, making it more continuous and river-related. 6.1.3 The City will require dedication of river corridor parkland as part of river corridor land subdivisions or planned development approvals. Objective 6.2 Preserve and improve existing views to the river cmd bluffs, and develop new ones Saint Paul's river cortidor, wiYh its magnificent bluffs, cavernous gorge and wide river valley provides many unique and scenic views. Visual access to the river, the bluffs and the river corridor provides a sense of place for the general benefit of the public, both city residents and visitors. The various 38 forms of public visual access to the river consist of scenic river views, extended view corridors, overlook points, observation platforms, bridge crossings, aru bluff stairways. Many of the best views of the river exist at key blufftop sites, induding Indian Mounds Park, Upper West Side, Kellogg Mall in downtown Saint Paul, and Mississippi River Boulevard. opportunities exist to create additional river view points in some areas of the city. The neighborhoods in the Shepard Road/West Seventh Street corri- dor, Battle Creek, and Highwood cunently have few established public view points to the river_ CiCy of Sain[ Paul Figure U Overlooking the river [� � � � � Recently, with funds from multiple sources, blufftop properiy off Springside Drive in the Highwood neighborhood was acquired and dedicated for passive public views. Such actions support this objective, and help to protect the bluffs themselves as described in Chapter 4. The Ciry is currently considering a policy to remove all biliboards from the River Corridor. According to a 1999 inventory, fifteen billboards would be tar- geted for removal from the river corridor if such a policy with associated ordinance is adopted. Policies: ' 6.2.1 The City will work with the river corridor neighborhoods to identify additional river views or view corridors. River views and overlook points should be linked to the city's walking paths and trail system, whenever � feasible. � � 62.2 Ali billboards shouid be removed from the River Corridor and not replaced. The City encourages efforts by neighboring communities to remove River Corridor billboards as well. 6.2.3 The City will encourage the placement of public utilities undeground. � Objective 6.3 Provide a continuous, safe pedestrian and ' bicycle trail along both sides of the river, that is connected to the city and regional trail system � � � � � Pedestrian and bicycle trails are an important way of connecting the city and the river. Such trails also provide environmental and transportation benefits. The City's Parks and Recreation Division is working towards a continuous trail system along both sides of the river with the potential to connect major parks, open spaces, historic sites, view points and public access areas in the river corridor. Implementation of the East Bank Mississippi River Regional 'I7ai1 Corridor Master Plan will provide a continu- ous river trail through the city on the east bank (or north side) of the river. The East Bank Mississippi River Regional Trail is designed to link other city trails, including the Saint Paul Grand Round Loop, Phalen Creek Trail and the Capitol Route Trail, and existing and proposed trails in neighboring jurisdictions. On the river's west bank, in areas near the Saint Paul Downtown Airport, and in the Pig's Eye Lake area, a river trail is not � planned to be directly adjacent to the river for safety and environmental reasons. The west bank river trail is planned primarily as an off-road path, with some on-street bike lanes planned near the airport, and on bridges. At � Lilydale Regional Park, the goal is to make the trail completely off-road if an opportunity arises in conjunction with the railroad. , o� ,. �; � � � � � � Comprehensive Plan 39 bl Policies: 6.3.1 As designated in the Parks & Recreation Plan, the City will complete a continuous Mississippi River Trail as close as practical to the river along the entire length oF both sides of the river, including bike lanes on bridge crossings. 6.3.2 Existing and new river trails will accommodate a variety of non- motorized recreational uses, including walking, jogging, biking, skating and ski touring. Bike and pedestrian paths will be separated from each other where physically possible. 6.3.3 The City will coordinate development of the river trail with existing and proposed trails that connect to Saint Paul's river corridor, including city, regional and neighboring communities' trail systems. 6.3.4 The City will pursue easements or public acquisition for future river trail connections in new and existing developments in the river corridor. The City wiil pursue opportunities as appropriate to acquire future aban- doned railroad right-of-ways and appropriate tax-forfeited parcels for acquisition and possible river traiI development. Objective 6.4 Support new housing development in the river corridor, through creation of urban villages. Extend neighborhoods toward the river Especially near downtown, the opportunity exists to create new mixed-use river corridor neighborhoods that reconnect the city to the river. This is also an opportunity to create highly desirable housing that helps achieve the City's projected housing growth target for 2020. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Develo ment Framework's Ten Princi les r -- - ----� -- p p p esent a 6oiistic approach for -" reestablishing river corridor neighborhoods. The Saint Paul Land Use Plan fur- ther articulates the City's vision of Urban Villages as the predominant model for neighborhood development. Strategic locations with highest potential for neighborhood development include Upper Landing/Irvine Park, the West Side River Flats, Lowertown, and the Koch-Mobil and Shepard-Davem sites. The City recognizes that new development in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the river should have a relationship to the river, a need for a river location, and/or should enhance the river environment (discussed in more detail in chapter 5). It is appropriate to consider housing and neighbor- hoods river-enhancing, if careful site planning addresses public access and connections to the river, view corridors and vistas, use of native vegetation in landscaping, and natural resource and stormwater management. See chapter 7 for further discussion of poticies for new development. 40 Ciry of Saint Paul � � � � , � Poiicies: 6.4.1 In strategic river corridor locations adjacent to existing neighbor- hoods, the City supports redeveloping vacant and underused industrial land sites as new mixed-use urban village neighborhoods that help reconnect the city to the river. 6.42 Connections between the tenace neighborhoods and the river may be improved by adding a limited number of pedestrian routes (stairs, ramps, walkways) between the bluff elevations and the river flats. ` Objective 6.5 Encourage protection and restoration of river corridor cultural resources, including historic structures, � culturally significant landscapes, and archaeological and ethnographic resources L� � � ' �� Saint Paul's Mississippi River Corridor, as the birthplace of the City of Saint Paul, contains a variety of important cultural and historical structures and sites. The river conidor's designated historical sites include early Native American river settlements and burial grounds, historic urban districts, river-related recreational buildings, stately public institution and trans- portation buildings, grand private homes, and architecturally unique bridges spanning the Mississippi River. Early economic activity in the river corridor included beer brewing, mushroom farming, and brick making. Nationally designated historic sites in Saint Paul's River Corridor are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (See Appendix B.) The National Register is administered by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), which has ultimate responsibility for evaluating and nominating new sites to the National Register. Locally, Saint Paul's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), created in 1976, is a certified local government historic preservation program with responsibility for identifying and recommending historic buiidings, sites and districts within the city. A historic survey and designation project for the entire city of Saint Paul is currently underway. Currently, officiaily designated historic places consist of structures, sites, districts and objects only. A number of important archaeological sites and landscapes exist in the river corridor that do not contain historic structures. These sites and landscapes have been identified by SHPO, however only one site (Indian Mounds Park) has been designated historic on the National Register. A comprehensive inventory of potential local historic landscapes, archaeological and ethnographic sites is needed to ensure protection of all historic and cultural resources in the river corridor. Compreheasive Plan q� � �� o� z. � � � "� � � � � � � � � � � � vt-IR� Opportunities exist for restoring historic sites in the river corridor as an element of riverfront development planning. The Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse on Raspberry Island, the Harriet Island Pavilion as part of the Harriet Island Master Plan and the various historic river caves are prime examples. Reconnecting the Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic Districts to the river and their historic roots as Saint Paul's upper landing and lower landing also provide key opportunities to restore the riverfront�s historical resources. At the Upper Landing site, the Head House was one of the first agricultural transfer stations on the Mississippi River. The Head House should be studied to determine its potential for reuse, perhaps in conjunc- tion with redevelopment plans. One of the buildings currenUy occupfed by the U.S. Post Office at Kellogg Blvd. and Jackson Street (adjacent to Lambert's Landing) is an example of Art Deco style architecture. If this bui]d- ing or the Concourse of the Union Depot become available for reuse, this Plan supports reuse that is consistent with the vision for downtown and principles laid out in the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development F2 Policies: 6.5.1 The City encourages the use of historic properties in public and pri- vate riverfront development plans, particularly where interpretation of historic themes is planned. Structures and landscapes listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and those designated as local sites should be preserved in their present condition, if that condition allows for satisfactory protection, mainYenance, ase, and interpretation. 6.5.2 The City encourages the expansion of open space land use where needed to preserve significant archaeological, landscape and ethno- graphic resources. 6.5.3 The City encourages economic activities that preserve and rehabili- tate historic resources in the river corridor. 6.5.4 With the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the City supports the creation of a Saint Paul HisTOric Preservation Plan that includes establishing a comprehettsive inventory of all historic, archaeo- logical, cultural and ethnographic structures and landscapes in the river comdor. 6.5.5 The City will work to restore the former connection of river corridor historic districts (LOwertown and Irvine Park) to the river, by encoura� ing development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods. � y� City ofSaint Paul , � � ' � � , StY'Qte�1 The design of public and private spaces powerfully affects our perception of the quality and character of place. Where the city comes to the Mississippi River, the urban fabric has potential to reflect and glorify Saint Paul's natural setting. The river corridor's varied landforms and existing development pat- terns pose opportunities and challenges for new development to enhance the river valley by providing access to the river and reinforcing continuity in the existing urban fabric. The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework has become the � City's essential reference for guiding new development in and around the downtown riverfront. This chapter draws heavily from that work. The inten- ' � tion of this chapter is to support and reinforce the principles articulated in the FYamework while considering the entire River Corridor and implications for all of its land typologies. Urban Structure and Land Forms The river corridor's urban structure is a multi-layered patchwork of movement � systems, land uses, and built form. Movement is multi-modal, characterized by rail lines, major arterials, neighborhood streets and trails. West Seventh Street, or Oid Fort Road, is especially significant because it is the city's longest arterial � running parallel to the river. It is also a major growth corridor connecting to downtown. Shepard Road is another significant river road. It runs parallel to � the river and West Seventh Street, and will soon be rebuilt as an improved and slower speed parkway east of Randolph. Currently, Shepard Road acts as an impediment to river access and e}cperiences. � ,� � The north side of West Seventh Street is characterized by the ordinal grid. Generally, because of the change of land use from residential to industrial, this grid of streets is not continuous across West Seventh. It extends across into pockets of smali residential areas, but because of the grid's spotty nature, residential neighborhoods south of West Seventh do not create a continuous urban fabric. The Terrace and Lowlands are important locations that provide the opportu- � nity for meaningful connections from the Uplands to the river. Currently, the Tenace along West Seventh Street is perceived as disconnected from the Upland neighborhoods of Saint Paul because so few streets traverse the � bluff. In fact, the only connections are from the main streets of the Upland �:.� � : nas � � � � � � s� � � � � � � � Comprehensive Plan 43 � Built Environment bl-I R t grid {Snelling, Randolph, St. Clair, Grand/Ramsey, Fairview/Edgcumbe) that extend down the bluff as parkways or major river avenues. For the same reason, the Lowlands on the West Side also seem disconnected from the Uplands. Topographically, the Terrace corridor is formed by the High Bluffs on both sides of the river. Atop the bluffs lie several high points and landmark buildings, providing a series of vistas visually connecting neighborhoods to each other. Natural reaches are formed where the bluffs are interrupted by the ravines. These reaches provide further opportunities to connect the Tenace and river vaIley to the Upland neighborhoods. The map betow shows the approacimate location of the landforms that make up the river valley and its reaches in Saint Paul. The map also shows the boundary of the Critical Area, which contains the entire tength of the 44 City of Saint Paul , river in Saint Paul. While the influence of the river valley clearly extends Figure v be nd the Critical Area bounda the olicies in this Pian aze under- River Vatley and � �� p Critieal Area stood to be limited to the Critical Area in Saint Paul. boundary � � � ' � � , � Objective 7.1 Development ofnew streets, blocks, and neighborhoods in the river corridor should continuously reinforce connections with the natural enviranment of the river vaIIey cmd the surrounding urban fabric The street grid, or pattem of streets, blocks, and open space forming public and private spaces, determines both the movement patterns and develop- ment pattems of a district. These development patterns provide an impor- tant opportunity to connect with and e�cperience the river. The best exam- ple of this in Saint Paul is in the West Side blufftop neighborhoods west of Wabasha/Humboldt, where blocks are small and connect regularly (at least every 400 feet) with a riverview street, park or sidewalk. In other areas, particularly the West Side Lowlands, redeveloped industrial "superblocks" have the effect of isolating blufftop neighborhoods from the river. The poli- cies below do not preclude industrial redevelopment on industrially-zoned land. However, other redevelopment should consider Yhe opportunity to reestablish meaningful connections to the river. Policies: � 7.1.1 In the Lawlands, new urban villages (as defined in Objective 6.4) should establish an urban street grid that provides access to the river's edge. The City supports utilizing historic street patterns when re-creating ' street grids. If a historic grid does not exist, new urban villages should establish a fine-grained system of blocks and streets. When feasible, new � development should also assure urban continuity by integrating all new street and block patterns into existing traditional patterns. � 7.1.2 The Terrace along West Seventh Street is a major corridor that should have better street connections across West Seventh. The City supports creating new biock and � street pattems south of West Seventh Street that create continuity across West Seventh. New block and street pat- terns on the Terrace should maximize connections to the ' bluff edge to enhance the sense of proximity to the river. � , � � 7.1.3 In Upland areas such as the Gorge, the City encour- ages preserving and enhancing the existing modified grid pattem of streets and blocks. In portions of Battle Creek and Highwood, development form follows a suburban or exurban pattem with cul-de-sacs and meandering roads that follow topography. In these neighborhoods without a connected street system, the City supports creating a connected system as redevelopment or major subdivision occurs, to the extent that it is compatible with topography. �� ..._ , b/- � ;�� : � �' �� .. � �< : �': .' � ; � �v� � �� >� �? a �� : �� e �� <' �� ; s: � �� Comprehensive Plan 45 b(�I�I 1.4 Infill development in the Uplands should be scaled and designed to be compatibte with and reinforce the existing physical fabric. 7.1.5 Street design should accomodate all modes of movement (bicycles, pedestrians and cars). Streets and other public rights-of-way should provide physical and visual connections between river valley neighbor- hoods and the river's edge. 7.1.6 On urban infill and redeveJopment sites in the river corridor, the City encourages underground parking wherever possible, to support "traditional" urban development patterns and to minimize impervious surface. 7.1.7 New and reconstructed bridges or other "gateways" should be designed to be attractive and inviting and maximize the sense of con- nection to the river. This can be accomplished with signage, landscaping treatments, omamental lighting and railings, comfortable sidewalks, and special architectural elements. The Wabasha Bridge and Marshall Avenue Bridge are good examples. New river crossings shouid be mini- mized, and new and reconstructed bridges should be located in the same corridor as the structure they replace. 7.1.8 The City should connect new and existing neighborhoods to the river by greening key streets that connect to the riverfront or river parkways. Objective 7.2 Consistent with an Urban setting, the design of new buildings should reflect the river corridor's natural chcu�acter and respond to topography by preserving critical public views. 46 Built form and building envelopes are a function of height, density and floor plate size. In the river corridor, building scale becomes very important as it relates to topography, views and the surrounding urban fabric. Recently, the City has become much more attentive to this, and now encourages buildings whose scale responds to the surrounding neighbor- hood context, topography and the public realm. In general, it is important to pre- serve public views both of the river from the city and neighborhoods, and fram the City ofSaint Pau! C�.�y�� Y Downtown RiverFro�: critiwl public views 6/—!`� � � a jN a � �; ' river back to the city. However, Saint Paul is an urban condition. ' Occasionally, it is permis- sible and even desirable to allow selective excep- ' [ions for medium-scaled landmarks. , � ' Policies: f��rG,�e �'�a�; _; �, t�—y�-�_��: ��.�: 7.2.1 In Lowland areas, new development should employ building envelopes that heighten the experience of the river corridor by preserv- ing public views to the top of the High Bluff. Public views from the Uplands or Terrace to the water edge of the opposite side of the river should be maximized. 7.22 Along urban growth corridors such as West Seventh Street, building ' envelope standards should be used that recognize not only the importance of the river as a scenic waterway and the corridor as a natural resource, I� ' � but also the needs and appropriateness of massing and density in an urban environment. 72.3 In redevelopment areas along the West Seventh Street Terrace, the street hierarchy of the grid should be reinforced by creating building envelope standards that recognize the importance of locating taller buildings on wider streets and shorter buildings on narrower streets. 7.2.4 On the West Seventh Street and Concord Street Terraces, the City � supports designing buildings with equal consideration given to their visi- bility from the river and to their visibility from the Uplands. The City sup- ports maintaining building heights that maximize public views of the , high biuff lines from the high water mark on the opposite side of the river. Planning for Terrace redevelopment sites should be careful to con- ' sider views of the Terrace from Fort Snelling as referenced in the Design Criteria for the Shepard-Davem zoning overlay. ' II I� , 7.2.5 Building design should add vitality to the street and sidewalk by pro- viding street- levei windows and active street-level uses, semi-public spaces in front of buildings, and front doors facing the street. 72.b In Upland areas, the general character of the existing silhouette of lower- profile buildings along the edge should be maintained. Development should also respect the mature tree canopy at the bluff edge of the Uplands with buildings forms that do not dominate the canopy's natural height. However, occasional, modest exceptions to the silhouette with medium-scaled landmark buildings are allowed. �� :; �: � ��'� � Comprehensive Plan q� or-r�i �.2.7 The City supports the use of "green," or energy efficient building techniques in new developments. 7.3 Design Study for River Corridor Redevelopment Sites As described in the Setting Chapter, to complete this River Corridor Plan, Saint Paul PED, along with the Saint Paul Design Center and the Riverfront Corporation sponsored a design study to examine selected redevelopment siYes. The study's goals were to consider the scale of new development, and to create design guidelines that met the spirit and intent of MNRRA and Critical Area requirements. Ideaily, new development should provide greater public access to the river, preserve significant public views, improve stormwater and the urban forest on site, and reinforce and complement the sunounding urban fabric. Illustrations of how On the following pages are suggested guidelines for the West Side Flats, these guidelines might Upper Landing, Koch-Mobil and ADM sites, and the Shepard Davern area. be applied can be found The individual guidelines should not be viewed as mandates, and it is in Appendix A. unlikely that any project wilt be able to fulfill every provision. Rather, col- lectively they provide a vision for redevelopment that enhances the river corridor, respects this precious amenity, and strikes a batance between eco- nomic development and resource protection. This list is not exhaustive. These suggested guidelines witl be used as the basis for the next step in the regulatory process (see Section 8.1.8). Figure Z River Cortidor RedevelopmeM Sites 48 Ciry of Saint Paul , 0�-�4 / ' , , , , � , � , , , n ' ' � � O � Site: WEST SIDE PLATS LocaHon: Be[ween Robert and Wabasha, Mississippi River and Plato Access and Connections • Ea�end adjacent streets into and through the redevelopment site. • Preserve the rail corridor as a poten- tial greenway corridor. �ews and V'vstas • Preserve views of the West Side Bluffs from Keltogg Park. • Ensure views of the riverfront by ori- enting streets perpendicular to the nver. Developmen[ Pattern � Create a concentration of taller build- ings and aaivity and the intersection of Plato and Robert. • Create small blocks, bound by public right-of-way, that can be developed incre- mentally and in response to maeket con- ditions. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space along the riveCS edge. • Extend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native Iandscapes; encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natura] habitau. 5tormwater • Integrate stormwater management elements with natural habitaks, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater discharge. Urban Forest • Reintroduce the'urban forest' with- in/around redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active / passive recreational use wi[h paths, overiooks, seating areas, courts/fields. • Provide visible/accessible connections to neighborhood and regional parks, trails and open space systems. Site: UPPER LANDINCs Locadon: &etween the xigh Bridge and Chestnut Ave., Mississippi River and Irvine Park Neighborhood Access and Connections • Provide multiple connections to Shepard Road, an urban boulevard. Views and V'LStas • Provide an anchoring public space that celebrates the Chesmut Street / Cathedral axis and arrival to the river. • Provide view corridors through [he site from potential ]ower bluff overlooks (not in redevelopment sites) to the river. Development Pattern • Create small blocks that can be devel- oped incrementatly and in response to market conditions. • Create a series of linking public and private spaces oriented to both the river and to Shepard Road as well as other sig- nificant spaces, views and landmarks, such as the High Bridge and downtown. Natural Resources • Provide continuous public open space a]ong the river's edge. • Extend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the river. • Encourage preservation of existing native ]andscapes; encourage plantings of native materials in naturalized massings to enhance or create natura] habitats. Stormwater • integrate stormwater management etements with natural habitats, public open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. • Reduce the rate and improve the qual- ity of stormwater discharge. Urban Forest • Reintroduce the 'urban foresY with- in/around redevelopment areas. Public Amenities • Support a mix of active / passive recreational use with pa[hs, overlooks, seating areas, courts/fields. • Provide visible/accessible connections to neighborhood and regional parks, tra�ls and open space systems. Site: KOCH MOBIL {Also ADM site) Location: Between Randolph and West 7th; W. 7th and Mississippi River Access and Connecrions • Extend existing streets into and through the redevelopment site • Extend Vicroria Street through the sde to join Montreal Avenue. • Create a"Bluff Dnve° as a local resi- dentiai street atop [he lower bluff park that connects West 7th to the River valley �ews and Vistas • Create multiple views of the river val- ley where s[reets mtersect the bluff drive Development Patterns • Organize street and block development around a wide street or linear park that connects West 7th to [he River Valley Natural Resources • Provide a continuous new public edge along blufftop with native landscapes, pedestrian pathways and developed over- Iaoks. • Extend tandscaped "green fingers" into new development areas along new streets and public pathways. Stormwater • Capture runoff on exisung and newly � Comprehensive Plan 49 (7(�1°E1 developed sites and begin water treat- ment, infiltration process (parlcPng lots, rooftops, terraces). • Integrate final treatment, in5liration and detention systems into the public edge behind the blafftop and into the pat- tem of pazks and squazes, streets and public pathways. • Provide surface system of catchment areas, swales, infilnation and detention areas. Urban Forest •[nstall canopy trees on all new streets; infill canopy trees on e�sting streets. • Develop natural forest along bluff top and bluff face with groves of native trees, grasses and other planiings. Public Amenities • tink public edge to new parks, squares and to existing neighborhoods and regional parks and trails with land- scaped streets and public pa[hways. • Naturalize Shepard Roadlandscape with praide and informally arranged groves oftrees. • &�ctend landscaped 'Green Fingers' into new development blocks connecting with public open space along the nver. Stortnwater • Develop integrated, comprehensive surface stormwater'treatment train' with swales, wetlands and ponds to address waYer quantity / quality issues. • Integrate stomtwater management elements with natural habi[ats, pubGc open space areas and park / recreation opportunities. Urban Forest • infill canopy trees on existing and redevetoped street grid. • Provide natural groves of native understory and canopy trees along Shepard Road and the public edge along the btufftop. Site: SHEPARD DAVERN Location: Between West 7th and Shepard Rd.;Between Davern and Alton S[reets Access and Connections • F�ctend existing streets into and through the redevelopment site. • Consider creating a direct cormecflon between St. Paul i'kwy. and Alton Street. • Provide mid-block pedestrian connec- tions between neighborhood and Shepard Road. Vews and Y�stas • Preserve natural views from the Kiver to the high bluff by setting buildings all buildings back from the Iow bluff and by providing generous tree planting on Shepard Road Development Paftern • Provide neighborhood green public spaces on which new residential development can be focused. • Enhance existing public edge with native landscapes (oak savanna and prairie), improved paths and developed overlooks. Pnblic Amenities • Enhance continuous public edge along bluff top wi[h new access stairs to Crosby Park, new overlooks, sitflng areas, infor- mation kiosks, biKe racKs and other amenities, • Link public edge to neighborhood parks and squares and regional trail sys- [ems aiong landscaped streets and public pathways. • Provide improved crossings of Shepard Road with enhanced crosswalks, signafized crossings and other amenities 50 City of Saint Paul ' � Ll u � � C � � ' , , , I� ' , � � i Impiementation 8.1 Zoning Code Revisions There will be significant zoning text amendments related to implementa- tion of this Plan. This Plan is unrelated to the Mississippi River Floodway Study by FEMA, which will yield changes in the floodway delineation for the City's zoning map. However, those changes (which will include changes to the river corridor overlay Floodway and Flood Fringe districts) will inform the process of making river corridor zoning code and overlay map revi- sions. The main 2oning recommendations from this River Corridor Plan are: 1. Review and amend current River Corridor overlay zoning districts and map. Currently, river corridor overlay zoning consists of four districts, with two dis- tinct functions. The districts labeled RC-1 and RC-2 together protect the flood- plain. The districts labeled RC-3 (Urban Open District) and RC-4 (Urban Diversified District) are intended to guide the character of development, but are confusing and contribute little to the overlay. Underlying zoning districts determine land use. Generai standards for environmental protection apply to the whole river corridor, regardless of the overlay districts. Consider splitting the cunent River Corridor overlay into two: a"floodplain overlay" consisting of districts RGI and RG2 which govems the floodplain, and a single district "Mississippi River Critical Area" or "MRCA" combining RG1, RG2, RC-3 and RG4, and which addresses Critical Area requirements. 2. Add requirement of 200-foot spacing between marinas or boat launches and barge fleeting areas. 3. Add criteria for new uses in the floodplain or within 300 feet of the ordi- nary high water mark: having an economic or operational need for a river location; supporting the attractiveness of surrounding neighborhoods; sus- taining the economic vitality of riverfront improvements; offering public access to and along the river; maintaining views of the river; cleaning up poiluted areas on the site; meeting or exceeding natural resource policies in this Plan. (These criteria do not all have to be met for a land use to be con- sidered to have a need for a river location, a relationship to the river, and/or to enhance the river environment. However, new development should meet as many of these criteria as possible.) 4. The current primary zoning districts RCR-1, RCC-i and RCI-i are not partic- ularly effective in terms of standards, and are in some cases inconsistent with the City Land Use Plan's vision for mixed-use urban villages. This Plan sup- ports redefining these zoning districts to meet current development concepts. Comprehensive Plan 5� �,/ : �.� �; �. �.: �-: � � � r .:� er- i �� 5. Together with the Department of Natural Resources, review/amend River Corridor section of the Zoning Code (Chapter 65) for other necessary changes. In addition, staff will work to clarify and streamline language wherever possible. 6. Create zoning definitions for toe, top, and face of bluff. 7. Consider creating additional criteria, beyond the existing river corridor modification (zoning) criteria, to apply to river corridor modification requests for deveIopment on slopes exceeding I2 or I8%, or within the bluff impact area (40' from the bluff line). The intent is not to encourage river corridor modifications, but to provide the Planning Commission with further guidance when considering modification requests. Such criteria may address, but are not limited to, the following factors: ♦ Retain the natuzai slope lines of the site, as seen in profile. Restore the vegetation lines which convey the slope lines. Roof pitch shoutd match slope angle. ♦ Screen new buildings. ♦ Slopes facing the river should look natural to the greatest extent possible. ♦ Stagger or step building units according to the topography. ♦ Plan buildings, drives and parking areas, and Iandscaping to acknow[- edge the natural contour line of the site. ♦ Provide parking on the uphill side behind buildings. ♦ Lot coverage. ♦ Location of building on lot. � - � e:g _ii'idCct=idi�; vtiik,-Siiaf+2, �rl�:r�^:=«, L.^,.�,.. -� ♦ Areas with a certain pitch of slope (e.g. greater than 12% and less than 18%) shall not have an impervious surface coverage �reater than a certain percentage (e.g. greater than 25%). ♦ Encourage elevated structures & retaining walls. ♦ No increase in runoff from the site (from rainfall, septic systems, irrigation). ♦ Minimal removal of deep-rooted woody vegetation. 8. With recommendations from the 2000 River Corridor Design Study, the City, working with the Saint Paul Design Center, wilI develop design guide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites where no guidelines have yet been written. The design guidelines will be sensitive to the purposes of S2 City of Saint Paul , , C J �� (] � ' , ' !� � this Plan, and wiil clarify how the form and scale of development can incor- porate topography, protection of sensitive natural resources, and public enjoyment of the river. It is expected that such guidelines will be imple- mented through a variery of zoning tools, including the City's Urban Village Zoning project, site-specific guidelines, and possibly through design dis- tricts (a concept that is currently being developed). The Shepard-Davern redevelopment area already has created design guidelines through a 1999 Small Area Plan. Appendix A shows illustrations for the five redevelop- ment sites based on the work of the Design Study. Current state law provides that zoning must be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan within six months of the Plan's adoption, which puts the zoning deadline in ,200X . Given the extent of likely river corridor zon- ing teact amendments, and the already numerous zoning changes from the Land Use Plan, it will likely take the City longer to complete the zoning changes that are proposed in this plan. 8.2 Site Plan Review Guidelines Site plan review is the mechanism by which the City ensures that new development conforms to stated guidelines. Site plan review guidelines will be reviewed and amended if necessary to implement the River Corridor Plan's objectives and policies. A review of guidelines would reevaluate pro- visions for public access to the river, connections to existing and proposed trails, view corridors, use of native vegetation in landscaping, clustering of structures to improve scenic quality, and measures to address adverse envi- ronmental impacts of new development. The City will wark with the Department of Natural Resources to determine if amendments to site plan review guidelines are necessary. This will occur during the Ordinance revi- sion process which will follow adoption of this Plan. 8.3 Pazk & TYail System Development � The City Parks 6z Recrea�on Plan (1996) includes an implementation plan for park resource protection, park land acquisition, scenic overlook clearance, envi- ronmental educaUon and intetpretive programs, and development of trails. Park ' plans include completion of the regional Mississippi River'IYail on both sides of the river, connecting to trail segments in adjacent municipalities. ' � Other open space and greenway pro}ects in or near the river corridor are shown, see figure AA on page 54. , Comprehensive Plan 53 b� 1 Figure AA River Corridor Open Space and Greenway Projeets Creek Greenway Oesnoyer NeighEOmoad Sway Managemcsa Plan Pig's Eye Gremscape P1an � I Greming Pr �ec¢ � Sme Blutf Task Force �N/SCO) qlytlakPark HarzretisianaRegiwui Marter Plan Park Mam Pian EaA 0ank Misinippi Rrver Regional irail MaAer P�an �dSE Birytle/Petlesman Conrren�on Fort Snelheg Maser Plan 8.4 Heritage Preservadon Opportunities exist for the preservation and/or enhancement of the historic character of the river; ♦ Enhance visitor access and historical interpretation of Rumtown (across from Fort Snelling, on the riverfronq and Fountain Cave (currently marked with a historical marker at Shepard Road and Randolph Avenue). ♦ Implement Saint Paul Gateway Design Project (Route 5 entry into the city), reuse of the old stone bridge abutment at Gannon and Shepard Road, historic streetscape improvements to the Shepard-Davem area. ♦ Connect Irvine Park and Lowertown Historic Districts to the riverfront. ♦ The historic Intercity Bridge (more commonly known as the Ford Bridge) is scheduled to be redecked and resurfaced beginning in spring 2000. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities as part of con- struction. Include wide sidewalks, ornamental lighting and railings, bike lanes, and viewing decks with bettches (similar to those added to the Marshall Avenue Bridge). ♦ Install signage at the scenic overlook by the Ford Motor Company to explain the historic significance of the Ford Bridge and the importance of the Lock & Dam No.l. The sign should indicate that a visitors' center is across the Ford Bridge. 54 City of Saint Paul � r� � , ! � �� E � � , � � � �� , L_ J , Appendices Design Study ltlustrations for Redevelopment Sites Below are examples of the possible application of suggested design guide- lines for major river corridor redevelopment sites, described at the end of Chapter 6. The drawings are for illustrative purposes only. awau. � B YexsantlYisfas ProvpeanancnanngpuNicSpacaNatcelebratesmeChwmNStreett GNetlral aus anE Mivel to Ne nver. wnampr.q. C:UewsantlYvstasPmnEeviewmttxbrsNmughNeslefiompolen4allowxNURoveAooks mN+� (notinreCevelopments@�btl�enver F.w m.l �� OevelopmeniPavem, CrealesmallbbcksNalcan be0evebpetl muemmtallya� respon� srvdyiomarkel WndNOns E DeveloF.menlPat�m;Createaserasofl�WSigp�M�candpmatesNacesomntetlrobotl+fie nverend b Sh epad Rwd as well as othx s�gnificant spaces. vrews antl land marks such a s ,,,,,,,- IheHgh&idgeantldowntawn. e: Br.i ma : cs3p a}.sidwid�ng Mges lo define public st2et5 and space az mdral¢d on &uAStrudureCw�osieMap A NatualResources Pmvdewnhnuouspubicopenspacealongnrer'sedge B. NaWalRewurces�Ex@nalantlscapetl'GmmAngerSmbnewtleve�opneniblocksconnec� ing w,tl� pudm open space abng Ne nver. C. NapealResourcesEnwu�epreserva0ondevsOngnaOvalantlsapes,e�u2qed�4ngs of�4vamalenalsinOaWrziv¢dmassi�gs loenhancewcfe9@naNralhabihis D.S{umwa�r.lnte¢afesM�mwain¢femen6vng�na9f21habq6,RUMwoyxnspaceaea5antl parklreaeafim aPP°rWnNes. E. SWmwa�RedureNerateanGimpmrefiequa�iryofslamwafertlisdiarge UpperladmgGreenSVUCNreCOrr4wsiteMap F.UrbanFOrestReintroducelhe'uNanMesC�nN�NarountlreEevelopmentareas Thetetms"HighasP,°Matlium",antl"LowesCcortespondtoNis G Pubf¢Ameni4es.5upportartixofanrve/passrverecrea0onaluseu+NpaNs.avetlooks. individual sita, and sh0ultl not be iMeepretetl as a uniform stantlaN. 5ea4ngareas, courlslfieltls. H.PUGicAmeni6es Prpntlev¢�bkla¢assDleconnechon5loneighborhaWa�tlregiOnalpaMS. trails anE open space sy5tems. S REOEVELOPMENT SITlS Site UPPERLANDIN� � I / Tqpology Low lazd5 Ll� � / Loca9on BeMreanNeHighBnCgeantlChesNUtAVenue; G � � ,/ g � Miss�ssippiMerandUnneParkNeighborhooE GwEelines. - � - �� 0 ��.,' 2 „ q u „ n . 0.AsessandConnec4a�is:ProntlemulUPlemnnednnsroSheparGRwtl.anu�banboulevaN , Comprehensive Plan - Appendices S5 c�r-�a � 5 M1amltMbggPmb , x•.ttsmxs�mm . q� / 0 I i wmxure ,t / /i�i _ �'•\ ,� / <;��-,'>. a:�a�5:` � ��i��'� —_�-�� n�. ,�. SITES 5k. WESTSIOEFfATS i LaM Cbssifxatlon low fands Laptinn: 6eiween Ra6eRand Wabasha; w�.. M'ssissppR�erandPW� �,.. Guiaelines A A.axssandCmnecbo�EZlenEad�acent5Vee6mWaMNmu,gl� hereEevelop�rrtnt a��cro � B:Oaess antl ConneNms: Presene Ne ral mmdor as a po�entiai greenway mmtlar � � CVeuSa�tlYwmsPresnevie+SOfPxWfftSde&'NtshanKPJW99Pa�k % ^� �� v�� \.��F vmw-w 6FssueHewsaFNemuftdrtq'arentin9stleebpe@entliwlarbUemnr � �� 1 � �'` Y � EDevebpineNPa�BmsGea@smatlhbrks,bounE blw'htafwa Ma�canbe i . - e "' Mw � r vpna�rt/� ,,.� �,�.,�# ��"�mentallyantlresponvaelyNmarketwntlitians W �� re �� F:OevdopnmtPatlem.Creafeaw�ntralianaflaJelbudd'ngsanEadrvrtyaMfne iNersechonofPlatoaidRObeit t� / l v � G:&nNPoim:Pm�iAerequiredbuATmgeLgesNGefineWblicsiree5antlspacesa5indicaiea ev�' anB�dtSbucWreCmiposdeMap. � A '� o, � / ��d� ANabualRemurces:ProYtlecon6nUasWbl�copenspacealongnversede,e_ � /�.,�)��\ & Na�valResources.Eqe�dlai�'capnl'GreenfmgelSimo�wrkvebpmen[bbckswrt�ect _� �U��-!�\ ingvxMWbticopenspxealan9Nenver. � V� '__� C Nabva�RescwresE:amzgeA��at�ofe.VSlm9naArelandtt�xsmvregeda+in5s �� `. oFnaovemateeialsinnaWraimdmazsm9sbenAaraeoraeatenwuaih�dais F �� %\ O.Sbrmwater:lnffiga@sbrm�alnelemenLSwf�hnaWralhahita6.Wbticopenspueareasantl � Pxkfre�eetionaP ��~ " E Somm'alecRetluceihea@antlinrym�etl�equatiryofsmrmwater0ischarye West ffide Fla6: Geen Stru W re Compos� Map F. Ui6anFprestftemQoEuceNelubanforestwiNiNarandreEevetopmen(areas ' The [erms "HighesP. "Matlium". antl "LOwesC corraspantl to this Individualsite,aridshouWnotbaiMerpre[edasaUnifonnstandartl. GPUbIicArcrenNes:SUpp�rtam¢afx4velpassrverepeafirn�usevnNpaths.overlooks uat'n9meas.muRSTreHs M. PuWCPmauties.Pmvq¢yo2MJa�55blewnnecLOnsbn¢�9hbwhoW antlregional0�s tratls antl open space sys@ms. Si@ ADM Land GlazsficaAOn. Tertace �� Laatio� BeNrernRantlalphH�2,TOron[oAVeantlShepaNRtl Gmtlalines: A AcauarA Connechonc edentleus6ngstreekmmmitlMmugh iheretlerebpmm; MaBwf $I�P @mW� & MceSSaitlCOn�tlons CreatEa'Blulf�me'asalo�2lr¢sipen�alSV¢etaNpneb��erbWff � � CViewsaritlVabs.Q�kmu�levrewsMNenverralkywhrfestree6inrerse�TeMUffdme. � D:Ceve'opm_ntPaf�mrQgart¢espcetaMWpy;Eeve�bprcenlamundaw,destrc=twlmear parkwhichmnneqs Westl"rothalliverVJley. �e.�� ..._- _ E:BUdtkrm PraridetxM��buDtlm4etlgestotlefineP�U§cstreeisandspacesasinmpreoa:r Butt ScucNre Composile hF� AOM:BU3t5wmreCwrposi@Map H'NaWralRaartceS:RandeonAnmus�wPUNK edge along blufllop mN nx6u� lantlxapes i �.J� ' ��.�i�� a�m�a�n.anaraa�wa�aorenowa. �„�.�!� �.,�� `�" � B.NahualResomcesEv4rAlaneECa�etl°grc¢nfingerdmbr�ewaerebpmentaressabngnew �/�� ;� F sbee4andpuUiepaMways ��' C:S�mmrAx� WreNnoRmensnn andnerA deveio eg — c �� i�katianqacess(pa�lunglols,rooAOps.lenaasl. �srtesantlb nwatuVea�nem — �I �l' �.oF.c 6 Sbnw�ler.P%idem�Fawsysl¢rnW�trJm¢ntaen.swaMS,infiltrationandtla'enoonzmas J � '. • EStwniwatx:IntegralefinalUeatrm.nt,uddrtatima�itlelenYansyslemir�pqibl�eEgebemnd 7 x « bqMtoya�tlFblheV��o(P�aitl`quarE strre6aiMaitlW�KWNwa�s 0.0.E0� �w'+^^ / /: � F U�OanFar�l.NStallcdnopytre¢sonallnewstreef5;�nfillWiwpytreesanensOnastreets 6 WWnFweSt�re�natu.afOrestalmgWNffopandWURfarevntl�giuwsofnaMelrees. AOMGreenSWrnueComyosfsMap 9�santloNerplanUm�s " Thetertns"Highest",°Metlium",and"LOwesCCOrrespontliothis H��blicPmeniOes.�nkpu�I�ced9eN�wpaAcs,square52ntltoewsAigneighbomcotlsantl intlivitlualsHa,antlshaultlnoibeiMerpre[etlasaunifarmsbndard. ��7��'�swM`a^dscapetlstree6antlpuEh�pyfiways � �¢��bkd4wVNe no pe Ev y y py yi¢ Cmryrenersire PNn IYer Sub hvl ane q PmceM awnc m� pY m s:o:�ren� 56 City of Saint Paul , dl � , , �� , , � , �� .� �� u � � � �� w.c�nsu wae�n• e�mm�a Fm. aw..<•...n ��s�r ewn �e. � r� �....,. ...... , � -� ��, � � �I °�` �,,� ° � � �� Y � KochMON W��ISWCEUe(bmPOSiRM� Sfe: KOCH MOBIL LaiC Clamfrabon: Tertare Laatim: BeNremf�iddpla�dWes[7N: w� Guidelines A MBSS2MCmne.tip�eqeqe�%IAgstrez6inloS�tlNm�gh Neretle.xbpe�tsi;e B: A�sanECvna.Pm: �dViYOrmAVenetivaughttes�em{tlnNankeaAVemu C: A�varMCannxWns:Creaka'BIU9Um'asalGale�tlenlialmeetaaPme Wr.vrGU4 o: v��na��s�aea:e�e,�wsmmem��uer•�rn�amre�nme azna� E OewJOpnentPa��:Uga�strcetantldockEemlopnmtardmdawidestreetorfrear parkwhNi� wnrre�6 WestTPo 8�e RiverYaGey. F:@vkFrcm:PrOritlercq�ivedtu2dngeN,�wsNdefi�VUMKStreelsand sP�sasin&caKd on BudlStru W re Comp�le Map a r�aemaae.��es v��aeo�m��ws�ew�umKmyesn�yaumw�mremrei�escace:. pedeslnanpatl�waysanddevebpMovaboks. B: NaWrdReswrces:EtleiG WdscaP� �9�^�°5er5inbnavEewk?mentareaszbn9new str�alsanaDub�cpatliwa�s. C Slamwarer.CaDdremnoHOnevstingentlnexlydeealopeESrtesaMbeginwatelpeamrenl, m(II20onprocvss�patltingloLS,rooMps,imraces) 6 Sbmmvdu:Provqesurfa�sys@mofraltlenentarea5,swalas.iMiltraAmardtlelmLwareas E SlormwaterintsJrzl¢fin�ireahicenl,in�behonanOtlelentionsyslgnNbpub4cedgebehind bkAfloP mk mfo Ne P�m of patro arb s9u�Mes. sUeeS antl D� �YS f llAanFaesllnshllcanopyVeesmaYnewstree5,infillca�wpyp¢¢soneustngsVeels G: llAa� Foresl0evelop naWra14re5taW�g bluR top anO WuRfa� wiN gmve: of naove trees, grazsas ana omerqantiigs. ` Theterms"Highest","Medium",antl"LowesY'cortespontltothis H.PUWicPmenNes.linkWa��ewpaACS.sqvaresantlioedsbngnsghborhoo0santl individualske,andshouldnotbeinterpra[edasauniformstandard �e9�0.^alpaMSantltra5withlanasppedstreelsanLWblicpaNways Si@: SHEPAROOAVEPN LanE Clapiflratlan' Tertace y �� 4xatlon BeRVeviWestiNa+�7EA�epardRd, eWn..r Betr�eenDavemAVenveandPJrooAVenue e�uasqEaw Gmeaiines. A. A�sa anE Gonnecppns eq¢N evshng sbe¢IS mb aM Ihmug� Ne reEevxlopmeni site Mef6vn' a�wnreEaae B.ACcessantlCOnnecWns GonsdxaeaMgadreciconneyonpelweenSLPaulPkwyandAlbnAve L'AaeuaMCOnnecpons pmrJemkblxhpeEeArienmrvRrAOrepeixeenneg�boiMOtl aMShepaN in..n• a�vamvHVa O:YemantlYSpt pe5menaWrziNewbhomNeFnrerbMehigM1bluHbyumngbukmqsaRhulCings hack Gom tlre pw blMantl Oy 0�� 39��us tree planrtng on SM1epaC Roatl _ t vea� E OwebpmentPaMm PmxAerleghboMOOEgrenpubfcspacesonxlvchnenresWenOal tlevxlopmen� � qnbeloosei. - S�eOmdqj • • � f Auxsauvp� �- m.er F,9�MFam ProJdaeedune]du�Wrgc�esbdefineWNCStree6aMapznspacesartA��¢Eon9vi¢ StruchueCampazleMap Sp�ficbW tlmg hagM Sin mLd y ea� multl bean ah�utlpyview s heEana�yss ShepetlDawm �iAShvcNreCamW��V A NaNal Resaurts FnM1ance ensEn9 Wblic edpe mih naGVx IantlsraP� loaY u�ar�na atl Vairre) �mN�tl DSM1S aM dewbpeC a+eMaNs B Nalural Remurces Nffi�rYiu Shepartl Rcad lantlscape xM prane miC inlormN�y anange0 grwes oi Mes C NaNNResourmsEtterdlandwyetl�G¢¢nFVgertnNnewtlereiopmemElWSroru�en egmN puhlw oPai s0am eIm91M1e mer, D. Sloimwa�:Omlopint¢grAed.mmqeh¢n.du¢a�xe9ormwa'ertreaMenttran vnNSVaks w91aM and w�as m aaaressvamraumiAblauaM'swes E: $tmmwaler IMegreR ApmwMa Nemen6 wGh na1u21 haGWk pu0k apen spdce areas mitl pak i rareah n aPPOrW��Aes. F: UNan Farest IMID rs�opy treas an eusMg antl mGevebpetl stree� g�M G' U�bai Ports[ PmJde naMal gmvss Nnatvx unEers�wy 3ntl canopy Vees 31m9 ShepaN RoM anC ttaG�wetl9¢ '�9tlre WAACP. H. PubGCAmpnry¢s En�McewnpnuousW��td9eaMgGM(opmlM1�wxc¢sssla'usto CrosbYPaA rewowMatr, s�nq areas, mryrtnawn iupsks, p�e ruHS anaoVcer amewce: Shepa N�rxrn. Grebn StrvcWre ComppsPe Map I. PuEicAme� GirtY qM.c ¢Lga to iwgnbof�waE paI santl swaes aM regicna� aa� sys(¢ms dbrg ImiduapeC siree4 antl Dubhc ptlhways. The terms •'HighesY', "Medi�un", antl "LOwesC correspontl to ihis individual siie, and should no[ be interptated as a unifortn sidntlartl. J. PudKMrcnNas Prauke impovetl aasmgs d SM1epaE Roatl vnM enM1anrea crouwa�ks sgnafsEVOssings,saf¢mrresardaNxamenmes � Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 57 b(_ � �'i t Historical and Archeological Sites/Structures National Register of Historic Places and Districts in the River Corridor ♦ Minnesota Boat Club Boathouse (on Navy/Raspberry Island)' ♦ Harriet Island Pavillion ♦ St. Paul Union Depot ♦ Holman Field Administration Building (St. Paul Downtown Airport) ♦ Robert Street Bridge (crossing the Mississippi between downtown and the West Side) ♦ Colorado Street Bridge (on the West Side, South Wabasha Street near Terrace Park) ♦ Intercity Bridge (Ford Parkway crossing over the Mississippi) ♦ Mendota Road Bridge (on West Side, Water Street crossing the Pickerel Lake Outlet in Litydale Park) ♦ Irvine Park Historic District* ♦ Lowertown Historic District* ♦ Summit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District' ♦ Giesen-Hauser House (in Mounds Park, 827 Mound Street) ♦ Alexander Ramsey House (in Irvine Park, 265 South Exchange Street)" *Site is also a Local Heritage Preservation Site. Significant Archaeological Sites (identified by 9tate Historic Preservation Office) ♦ Indian Mounds Park (determined eligible for National Register but not yet officially listed) ♦ Harriet Lsland ♦ Pike Island ♦ Pigs Eye Lake ♦ Fountain Cave ♦ Carver's Cave ♦ Rumtown ♦ Meeker Island Lock & Dam (determined eligible for National Re�ister but not yet officially listed) 58 City of Saint Paul � c�i r4 j � � � LJ � � ' �_� � � ' � L�' � � � � � 1'IIPiYESOT9 HISTORIC.9I. SOCIETY February 14, 2001 Mr. 3ack P. Maloney 580 Oris Avenue St Paul, MN 55014 Deaz Mr. Maloney: The Minnesota State Historic Preservation O�ce (SHPO) is in receipt of your letter dated 21�01 raquestira an oFinion frnm our office as to the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of the Meeker Island Lock in St. Paut. As you know, the Meeker Island Lock was part of an eazly 20�' century attempt to bring regulaz water transportation to Minneapolis. The Corps of Engineers initial plan involved two locks and dams, one neaz Fort Snelling to be called Lock and Dam #1 and the other to be just above the Lake Street bridge (near Meeker Island) to be called Lock and Dam #2. Work started on Lock and Dam #2 in 1899 and was completed in 1907. This was the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River. The steamboat Itura was the first vessel to pass through the lock on May 19, 1907. Work was started on Lock and Dam #1 in 1903, but in 1910 hydroelectricity advocates succeeded in convincing the Corps to build a high dam at Lock and Dam # 1. This eliminated the need for the Meeker Island sttucture, sa the top five feet of Dam #2 were demolished in 1912 and the lock chamber was abandoned. Lock and Dam #1 was completed in 1917. Lock #2 on the east side of the river is still visible from the Lake Street bridge. The significance of Lock and Dam #2 is cleaz. Not only was it the first lock and dam on the Mississippi River, but it was an important part of the power struggle between the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul regarding the development of hydroelectricity and which city would be the head of navigation. It is eligible under National Register Criterion A:n the azcas of Engineering and Trnnspartation. The fact that the lock chamber survives virtually intact and the base of dam exists on the riverbed suggests that the site retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance. There is also the possibility that remnants of the access road and the dam construction camp exist as contributing elements. Unfortunately, our office does not have the staffing resources to prepaze the National Register nomination at this time. If you wish to immediately pursue nomination of ttte property, it will be necessary for you to supply us with a completed National Register form and any required supporting documeniation. You may wish to retain the services of a consultant to complete the nomination. A list of consultanu is attached. Please note that inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement. .saa lU�:�.i.�u.c Ruii.c�a�zu Wcs�r; S.�tvr Yu�.. �Imar:w��.,.�uc.ieue; T[i.rt�uu�p:: aai _,�,-��ci� � Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 59 vr-i R � You may also ask to have this property added to a Hst of pmperties for which nominations will be prepazed by tlus office when there aze sufficient resources. I cannot give you an exact time when ttus might occur. It may take several yeazs from being added to the tist of possible r,ominations to the presentafion of a completed nomination to the State Review Boazd. For now, the Minnesota SHPO considers the Meeker Island Lock and Dam to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Sincerel 11" \/" Scott tlnfinson � National Register Archaeologist, MnSHPO Cc: Martha Faust, St. Paul PED 60 City of Saint Paul b/-la 1 , i 1 CJ J � ' �� I� i i � , � � , � , Databases Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Aeritage and Nongazne Research Program, Box 25 �IX) LdIB�CfIC �Zu.lt� S1. Peul. \finac.u�a 591J�_;[1 Phnne: (651) 296-8279 Fa<: (651) 2961811 Ii-mail: jan.5�eier(u,ldnr.stare.mn.us June 7, I999 Virginia Burke City of St_ Paul Department of Planning & Econ. Devel. 1300 City Hall Armex 25 Wes[ 4'" Stteet St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Request for Namral Heritage information for vicinity of Mississippi River Corridor, Critical Area Plan; Hennepin, Raznsey, and Dakota Countles; T28N R23W 5.5,8,17,20,21,22,23,14,12,11,1 1'29N R23W S.32, T28N R22W 5.3-7,9-11,14-16,22,23, T29N R22W 5.32. NHNRP Contact #: ES990749 Dear Ms. Burke, The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural feamres are known to ocwr within an approximate one-mile radius of the atea indicated on the map enclosed with yout information reques[. Based on this review, there are 55 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched (for details, see enclosed database printout and explanation of selected fie(ds). The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Naturai Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Services, Department of NaNral Resources. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, na[ura] communities, and other natural feamres. Its putpose is [o foster better understanding and pro[ecdon of these feazures. Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be'rare or otherwise significant natural feamres in the state that are not �epresented in the database. A county-by- county survey of rare na[ural features is now underway, and has been completed for Hennepin, Ramsey and Dakota Counties. Our information about natucal communities is, therefore, quite thorough for those counties. However, because survey work for rare plants and anicnals is less exhaustive, a� because [here has not been an on-site survey of ali areas of the counties, ecologically sigaificant features for which we have no [ecords may exist on the project area. The enclosed resulcs of the database search are provided in two focmats: index and full record. To control Ute telease of loca[ional information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, both printout formats are copyrighted. The in ex provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an Environmental Assessmen[ Workshee[, municipal natura7 resource plan, or intemal report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other purpose, piease contact me to request wri[[en permission. Copyright notice for the index should include [he following disclaimer: "Copyright (year) Sta[e of Minnesota. Department of Nanval Resources. This index may be DNR Information: 651-296-615'7 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 65]-296-5484 • 6800-657-3929 An Equa{ Oppnnunify Cmplayer � p��tetl on Recycied Paper Contaming a ��'ho Valuvc Uivcrsity Minimum ol ��°, Post-COnsumer Wasie , Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 61 vr-�� reprinted, unattered, in Environment2l Assessmen[ WorkcheeLS, municipai naw21 resource plans. and i�rternal reporls. For a1ry other ute, written permission is required.' The fuli-record printout inc[udes more detailed Iocadonal informaaon, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to repnnt the full-record printouts for any purpose, please con[act me to request written pernussion. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on raze narural features. ]t does not consptute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Thank you for consulting us on [his matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's raze namral resoucces. Sincerely, �-> -'��" ` 'CC ic i Jan Steier Emironmen[al Review Assistant encl: Database seazch results Rare Fearure Datahase Print-Oucs: An Explanation of Fields g2 City of Saint Paul , d/ `�/ � � l� �� ' � � � � � � � � � � � 0 � N a C � rv � £ u Ta 4 m. ° d 3 C F C� Q e �. 4 � n E n U N � = � �� U � F O 4 • E Q q rv M 2 K O 4 2 a. S m �a ry G Y F U N M ro W N N Z s a s � m E d F G msz rv� � R !J T N F h y U m M N z rc x 4 m N C F � V„2 7 F p C 3 L G ro d R G w Q M N a a x v . u � 4 2 U V u � Oj G i V C N £ W m � m � O 9 m � W Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y �� 4 m m c. 0. c a 4 4 4 � � � 4 S � Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 Z w O O O O O O O U' O U O U O O O m m m w w w m z a x�a a x a s Y X Y Y X# X Y w w � fd y ° 'www r. � U U� U U V U m m r� m w w� w �� 4 4 4 4 4 4< 4 C1 6 m m 10 m m P! � O a d 5 m d U � � R y µ X s Z 2 2 2 2 N Vl Vl (A y N } N N Y K C K C C 41 N IC Gl 4l X Y Y Y Y �g�� 2 Z 5 Z O o o O O ( mmm x s x x x �� .`�. .ro .". " .w m �u mrum Y i� N Y Y m m m m m W N 0 N N O ODU t) m amo. w ° �'axzx r z��a�d�d O , 1 6 6 a d � � Z Z z Z � U O O O O � (�.t � b !�u Z >�� 4' ti N H N m .] .]F F EFZ0, t+ m m w m o z o Z c C K V � / � � S S � z Lt .] �L' y ,� 4 y Q� � p 4 m 5ry S �� N�].1r9.] Z G s� a a. ss � 0 Y Q a � U K Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y�a Y � � m � � � � � � � � F d ,� F K E Z2U' F2ZZ(�-� F O O K y O O O v� Q N W f�i'. � Z C� m 5 Z 2 � � � � .'{ � � , �-�i W N Z � N 2. ��ma��Z�Zamz ££ £�£ £sw £r�.. �� aa Y O yK O C O 4 4 4 C 4 6 I W� f U f�il L' 6 Z 5 K 2 a�� Y K G R Ll 4' w„r�. K 5 y F� C K K � a o F a a a a a u`� a a c z z N „ z z z � a n n�.'�i ma w R Pl N N N i- rv�i n N N � F V� N V+ Ol N � C O VJ 4) £ Y 2 f�i. £ £ £ a � s � e .� n � m ."'. ar. a " m e x � ss �o ru : M W N o N�„ S W x � R iF n a � m o F F � Y N x E N x . 41 ] F m'- w i . � m � m c g £ GI E m W �(C � m Y F Ot U' U�' O.'J x � N £ F� fl R 2 x N F t9 N e�A � O� � F a� a� E R> yFY>�[ F�� G F O�Q(��l � Y G s �q(�0 U' d� Q Y 4£ x £ G�� W��+ � V V� N S p� K y T. N 41 r� V 4 (q 5 2 W Y } .] M � O 2.] � N N� �/1 � N N U N U' Vi 4� N M N m# Z�A N r w U' F F '.J P N X U F 41 V 0. � a e � ti w a a u e[ s'. e a P H ° M o [9 � U 9 3 2 4] O �` � 41 y � U N h. 4 v� ' � r ` t 5 £ 2 F F � � N � _ £ � N O j j A m � {i � $ �] m N ry 4 [ Z � a � X ¢ Q � � � � � � � � � C W � � 3 .�i g y �l �" a £ �/i " V E K Ol 41 O E� O K�� N a N� Z�"' � h O a w mpl M m g F Nu�E ��w]-- Om 40 N C KV� aa z � Z H 9 Y 5 5 U M vl H G vl 6 W 4 W 3 r� 6 h Y. V VI w O. N � �� '� a� sa aa m a � w m e. r� m�z m u._ o.. mmm r x z x x�� z� F u u�., � z� x� r z m� a� �� a z�� m� a `� o z H w'—' m f O� N O O µ� O (p 4 vl F 01 Z U U N N Z 4l 0 U 6t !il U U U Z U� M G1 a Q d y p Y O �$ p U d y !� O GI Q N (, �r N r� H r� U M U C'J O C IX p b 2 F U F Z£ �'L 4 VI 5 2� £ 4 v N� Z C y N Y. w] u U--mmy�mO t a� t u�t� 4q za�¢ac�szc a oa a 3t Q -�a. w . `' z ir �-] �l r�l F r] F 4. r] N N N. v 4l ] 3 N � �� H v 4� W Q W m p [.� „ F m M O W U O W G O 0 U t/� V1 U N K (� O�N Ll F d F F 3 N N 3'F N M11 N �.l F y y Y 4I y��q Z O Q 41 4 U 9 £ W N m m W„ I/� C b y 4 ��'J U V1 Q K W K 41 4 2 a'� m z �1 m F N M F W O U N W o w r a z r.�i m a s � a'�'c a m� 4 � v �oa'�.a�.N`do��"oo��mwm�'�cu.zqa'„o`�' wa�mN"8'°�o`a'�aoo.o�o3zd� r� �a m ia w rc a a � � o � ° u w � � '� v�, c�i � � � c � � m c7 � �i �w �x � � o�� E a w � � � a d � a � � '� f9 rn N N N Y N Fl >� .] O nt �+ U F} p U O� F+ r] Q U� (J N VI U O y N W O lO W QI O O � N 1h N N v1 N Vl vl N � � £ N N F H F y E F d N j v� N h J U C U U 5 O W V.' F N t F u .] N �p o �A� a � �g N F t W y F F F W� t/1 H �9 [+ 41 F tl Gl � Z .. �` � G1 N N n m�(t o m r o � o rv (V N rv y o o N N M N IV N N N N N N n n . �{ ea . f i H N N(V N N IV N tV f�l' N 3 3 N N 3 3 N 3 N N 3 N 3 t�v N 3 3„ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3� 3 3 3� 3� 3 3� m} Y; 3 3; 3 3 K K C C C C C 5 K C K 4' K K IX K¢ K K a C K C K K C C K K C LL' C K C G K C C K K L' K K C C 6' C C K 5 2 Z Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z m Z 2 5 Z 2 Z 2 Z L 5 2 5 Z 2 2 2 2 Z m 2$ Z Z� 2 Z 2 2 Z 5 Z m y T. 2 2 L 2 M N m ra IV a� 1V 1V �`1 (V N N o ry[v ry ry rv ry ry rv ry ry rv ry fV m ry ry N N IV [V N N N ry ry ry N N N N[V N N ry ry ry F F F F F F F F H N F F F[+ F F F F F F F F F F[�-� F E F F F N N F F F F F F E H F E F E E F F F F ' Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 63 �i-�� N K K � K � O O O H � � � � U 9 (� y p � m i 5 . 6' �L a' C � � a .a ul a Y C C C C 4 n O > > > > 4 0� „ m c z a e� 4 S. y F F F F y N T N 2 z 5 2 Z i S N , N C � � i-�'i �- r�i � M� a N H b � � w� q y 0 a �. `� wm.�nmOo n� � E f E s w m � m � 0 U R O O 3 m Q [V M 2 C � 4 y � 2 m n t d F U yy � N % ro � N Z 6' C N nl 2 � m E �. � x W m c a F O� .I 4 w N F s S � N Q'1 g N�£� U U �av � ��a�g�� wi� m � ra� N i�� a �iaH z a rya � £2 q£ q r ( ��.w w 6' F� � 5 I 'y q �� ' H O i� �+ V 0 V H.'�L O R� M 2�„� K 'O F o a F a� m O� c � z 4 S a3� � 5�5��5 w w �� a 6� i aa N �_ __4l _ OSY4tQ_ W.G. N �C W j £ a m 0 A �4 �m�� 2 0 N V W F %� m F m [a vr u O fu m .� rl H N S � m i 2 m q q r�� ° a M w U G�i L Y 6' W (N`l IV m � 'F V d Vl n a O � S S 3'd S S 3 w m u Y d rc s a¢`� `a a m �°+ m m m m m� m � N W iV N M N N N ry U £ W F F F F F F F F C 64 City of Saint Paul vi ia / C� i , , � � l� � Il u � � !_ � i � � � � � Rare Features Database Print-outs: An Explanation of Fietds The Rare Features databax is par[ of the Natwat Heritage Informazion System, and is mainiained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Reseazch Program, a unit within the Section of Ecological Serviccs, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). `*Please note that the print-outs are copyrighteci and ntay not be reproduced wichout permissiorc" Field Name: [Full (non-abreviated) field name, if dif'ferent]. Further explanarion of £eld. -C- CBS Si[e: [Coanty Biological Survey site number]. In each county, the numbering system begins with 1. CLASS: A code which classi£es features by broad taxonomic gcoup: NC = natural communiry; SA = special animal; SP = special plant; GP = geologic Qrocess; GT = geologic time; O'C = othet (e.g. colonial waterbird colonies, bat hibemacu(a). �: [County]. Minnesota counties (ordered alphabetically) are numbered from 1(Aiikin) to 87 (Yellow Medicine). CURRENT STATUS: Present protection status, from 0(owner is not aware of record) to 9(dedicated as a Scientific and Natunl Are�). _¢ DNR Reeion: 1=NW, 2=NE, 3=E Central, 4=SW, S=SE, 6= MinneapolislSt Paul Metro. DNR Ouad: (DNR Quadrangle code]. DNR-assigned code of the U.S. Geotogic Survey topographic map on which the rare feaWre occurs. -E- ELEMENT or Element: See "Element Name (Common Name)" Element Name (Common Namel: The name of the rare feature. For plant and animal species records, this field holds the scientific name, followed by the common name in parentheses; for all other elemenu (such as plant communities, which have no scientifc name) it is solely the element name. EO RANK: [Element Occurrence Rank]. An evaluation of the quality and condition of naturai communities from A(highest) to D (lowest). EO Size: [Element Occurrence Size]. The size in acres (often estimated} of natural communities. -E- FED STATUS: [Fedecal Statusj. Starus uf species undu the Federal Endangered Spe�ies Law: LE=endangered, LT=threatened, C=species which have been proposed for federai (isting. Federal Stams See "FED STANS" Forestrv District: The Minnesota DNR's Division of Forestry district number. •G- GLOBAL RANK: 1'he abundance of an element globally, from G I(criticalty imperiled due to extreme rarity on a world-wide bazis) to GS (demonstrably secure, though perhaps rare in parts of its range). Global ranks aze determined by the Conservation Science Division of The Nature Conservancy. -I- IN'CENDED STATUS: Des'ved protection staWS. See also "CURRENT STANS." If a complete list of protection status codes is needed, ptease contact the Atahua( Heritage Pragram. _U LAST OBSERVED or Last Obscrved Date or Last Observation: Date of the most recent record of the element at the locacion. atitude: The location at which the occurrence is mapped on Natural Heritage Program maps. NOTE: There are various levels of precision in the original information, but this is not reflected in the latitude(longitude data. For some of the daca, particulazly historical records, it was not possibie to detertnine exactly where the original observation was made (e.g. 'Port Snelling", or "the south shore of Laice Owasso"). Thus the latitude/longitude refleM the mapped location, and no[ necessarily the observation location. Leeat: Township, range a�d section numbers. Lone: (Longitude). See NOTE under "Latitude" -M- MANAGED AREA or Managed Area(sl: Nazne of the fedecaliy, state, locally, or privately managed park, forest, preserve, etc., containing the occurrence, if any. If this field is blank, The element probably occurs on private land. If "(STATUTORY BOLJNDARY)" occun after the name of a managed area, the tocation may be a private inhotding within the stamrory boundary of a state forest or park. Mao Svm: [Map Symbol]. t Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 65 Cal- r a � MN STATUS: [Minnesota Statusj. Legal stapts of plant and animal species under the Minnesota endangered species Iaw: END=endangered, TI�R=threatened, SPC=special concetn, NON= no (egal status, but rare and may become listed if declines continue.l'his field is blank for nahual communiNes and colonial waterb'vd nesting sites, which have no legal status in Minnesota, but aze tracked by the database. -N- NC Rank: [Natural Community Rank]. -a Occ #: [Occurrence Number]. The occurrence number, in combination with the element name, uniquely identifies each record. OCCURRENCE NUMBER: See "Occ #" # OF OCCURS: The number of records existent in the database for each element within the azea seazched. Oumershiu: Indicates whether the site is publicly or privately owned; for publicly owned land, the agency with management responsibitiry is listed. - p - Precision: Precision of locational information of occurtence: C(confumed) = known within I/4 mile radius, U(unconfirmed) =lrnown withia lf2 mile, N(non-specific) = known within 1 mile, G(general) = occurs within the genera( region, X (unmappable�lceation is unmappable on USGS mpographic quadrangles (often Irnown only to the nearest county), O (obscure/gone)=element no longer exisu at the locazion. PS: [Pr:m2,y Section7_ The sec:ion cantaining a!! nr [I:e �2[est nart of [he accur*ence. -Q uad Ma : See "DNR Quad" -R- Rec #: [Record number]. RNG or Rng: [Range number]. -S- SEC770N or Section: [Section number(s}]. Some records are given oniy to the nearest section (s), but most aze given [o [he nearestquazter-section or quarter-quatter-section (e.g., SWNW32 denotes the SWIl4 of the NWl/4 ofsection 32). A"0" is used as a place holder when a hatf-section is specified (e.g., ONO3 refers to the noRh 1/2 of section 3). When a occurtence crosses section boundaries, both sections are listed, without punctuation (e.g., the NE I/4 of section 19 and NW 1/4 of section 20 is displayed as "NEI4NW20"). Site: A name which refers to the geographic area within which the occuaence lies. [f no name for the area exists (a Iocaily used name, for exaznple), one is azsigtted by [he County Biological Survey or the Natural Heritage Program. Sovrce: The colleMOr or observer of the rare feature occurrence. S RANK: [S[ate Rank]. A rank assigned to the natural community type which reflects the known ex[en[ and condition of that community in Minnesota. Ranks range from 1(in greatest need of conservation acrion in Yhe state) to 5(secure under present conditions). A"?" following a rank indicates little infarmation is available to rank ihe community. Communities for which infoimarion is especially scarce are given a"U", for "rank undetermined". The renks do not represent a legal status. They aze used by the Minnesota Depazttnent of Namra! Resources to set priorities for research, inventory and conservation p{anning. The state ranks aze updazed as inventory information becomes available. S[ace Starus: See "MN STA"fUS" -T- Ttivrar�: 1Townsnip rtumoerj. -y- Verification A reflection of the reliability of tt�e information on which the record is based. The highest tevel of reliability is "verified," which usuaily indicates a collettion was made or, in the case of bird records, nesting was observed. Plant records based on collections made before L970 are unverified. Voucher: The museum or herbazium where specimens are maintained, and the accession number assigned by the repository. In the case of bald eagles, this is the breeding azea number. -�'�'- Wildlife Area: The Minnesota DNR's Section of Wildlife administrative number. Data Security I.acatiorts of mme rare feaNres mus[ be treated as sensiGYe infortnazion bewise widespread knowledge of these loca[ions could result in harm to the r�e features. For txample, wildflowers such as orchids and economically valusble planfs suCh as ginseng aze vWne�able W esploita[ion by wlkctors; other species, such az bald eaglcs, are unsilive ro disturban« by obseevers. For this eeaso0. we prcfer that publica[io� no[ identify the precise Iocat�ons of vulnerable specia. We sugges[ dacribing Ne location only ro th< neares[ section. [f this is not acceptable for your purpose5, please call and discuss this issue with the Environmental Review Specialist for [he Herifage and Nongame Research Program az 651/296-8319. Reviaed 07/99 66 Clt�! Of $QI[it PQU/ � �!-(R I L� � � , � t LJ � � � � i C J , � � � � Minnesota Land Cover Classification 5ystem factsheet The Minnesota Iand Cover Qassification System (MI.CCS) has been designed for use in the metropolitan area by a collaborative effort of federal, state, and local uniu of govemment as well as non-profit organizations. The MLCCS integrazes a new classificazion system of cuitural features with a combination of existine land cover classificadon systems for natvial and semi-natural azeas. The system is unique in thaz it categorizes cultural, urban and built-up areas sh in land cover terms, identifyina these azeas in terms of imperviousness and vegetative cover. For natural azeas the system fully inco�porazes the Minnesota Natural Heritage native plant communiry types (Minnesota's Native Ve�etauon: A Kev to Natural Communiaes. version 1.51 and the recendy developed National Vegetazion Classificadon Standazd (NVCS). The NVCS was developed in partnership with The Narure Conservancy and [he naaonwide state Natural Heritage programs, and has been adopted as [he standazd for fedeially funded projects. The MI.CCS is a five level hierarchical design, pemutting a gradient degree of refinement relevant to any land cover mapping project. It is comprehensive and systematic, is applicabie at any scale. and is suitable for monitoring and mapping purposes of any identified land cover found in the metto azea. By the summer of 2000, the MLCCS will have been applied to: The Criucal Area /Mississippi Nationat River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) corridor, the Minnesota River Corridor in the Twin Cities, several trout stream watersheds, and large portions of Dakota County. Addifionally, the Metro Greenways program has begun encouraging its use by local unics of govemment for developing Greenway plans, and MetroGIS has endorsed the MLCCS as a`best practice' land cover classification system for use in the Metro azea. The MLCCS data collected for the current pilot projects is being used for idendfying sites for ecoloa cal restoration, municipal growrh plannina, habitat protection, and Metro Greenways planning. The MLCCS can be used for creating a GIS-based land cover inventory. Polygons of various sizes (down to one acre) are identified by their predominant cover. For each polygon, modifiers may be added to further define the chazacteristics of the site. Possible modifier codes include imperviousness, land use, vegetation disturbances or management, natival quality, tree species, forestry (e.g., percent canopy and DBH), and water regimes. Typical data needed to interpret land cover using the MLCCS includes Counry Biological Surveys, County Soil Surveys, National Wetland Inventory, Color Infrazed phoxos and Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles. This base information is usually sufficient to identify polygons to the third level of the MI.CCS codes. Fieid inspection by ecologists is usually required for modifier attn.butes and to identify natural community types in the forth and fifth levels of the MLCCS. Field inspection is also used to confirm and refine polygon delineation. Metro standazds being used in the MI.CCS aze: * Idenpficadon to the forth level * Minimum mapping unit: two acres (one acre for native species dominated communities) * Minimum mapping width: 50 feet * Modifer codes for: Basic land use, natural community vegetation disturbainces and identification of invasive species For more infocmation concact: Peter Leete OR DNR Waters 1200 Wazner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55106 ph:651-772-7916,fax:651-772-7977 email: peter.leete@dnr.state.mn.us Bart Richazdson DNR Metro GIS Coordinator 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55106 ph:651-772-6150,fax 651-772-7977 email: bart.richardson@dncstate.mn.us .a,,..� t Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 67 _C�(-14 l Water Management and Regulation Water Management and Regulation is complex, multi-leveled and overlap- ping. This is a brief overview of the entities that are responsibte for water management in Saint Paul: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes standards For water quality management, drinking water safety, solid and hazardous waste disposal, toxic substance management, air quality control, and general environmental quality review. Enforcement is delegated to the Minnesota Pollution Contro] Agency. Saint Paul is working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on a stormwater discharge permit under the Federal Clean Water Act. The City currently has a draft permit which involves development of a stormwater management and monitoring program. The MPCA also admin- isters the constnzction site sediment and erosion control permit. Permit coverage is required for any project which disturbs five or more acres. This permit has permanent water quality ponding requirements for a project which creates one acre or more of impervious surface. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture implements state laws that prevent surface and groundwater pollution from pesticide and fertilizer application. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires a permit for any project constructed below the ordinary high water mark, which alters the course, current, or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands. The Minnesota Board of Water and 5oii Resonrces ($�rvSic) is a sta[e agency dedicated to helping local governments (counties, soil and water conservation districts, watershed management organizations and water- shed districts) manage natural resources. The Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District (R5WCD) is a local unit of government that helps direct and manage natural resource programs. The RSWCD is working closely with Ramsey County and the BWSR on the development of the newly formed Capitol Region Watershed District's watershed management plan. Saint Paul is within the jurisdictions of the foltowing watershed manage- ment organizations, which develop and implement comprehensive water- shed plans: 68 Ciry of Saint Paul � a�-i4 / � � , � � , I � � � �� _� � � L] C� ♦ Capitol Region Watershed District ♦ Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District ♦ Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization ♦ Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization Saint Paul's local water management plan will be completed two years after the completion of the last watershed management plan. The Middle Mississippi River WMO completed its plan in April, 2000, so Saint Paul will complete the local water management plan by Apri12003. The City's local water management plan will address the individual plans of each water- shed management organization as well as the stormwater discharge per- mit. The City water management plan wiil also focus on improving the quality of stormwater runoff into the Mississippi River. The City of Saint Paul site plan review process includes stormwater man- agement requirements that limit the rate of runoff from new development to the equivalent from a residential area and requires storage for the 100- year rainfall. All projects that go through site plan review are required to provide for erosion and sediment control as specified in the Ramsey County Sediment and Erosion Control Handbook. Saint Paul also is responsible for administering Minnesota's Wetiand Conservation Act. Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 69 vi-�Q � Public Participation February - April, 1999 Release Issue Paper "Framing the Discussion", convene two Stakeholder Focus Groups. February, 1999 - December, 1999 Comprehensive Planning Committee° meetings January - April, 2000 Design Study, convene Intergovemmental WorMng Group to assist. June - July, 2000 Comprehensive Planning Committee* meetings August 25, 2000 Planning Commission releases Draft River Corridor Plan for public review and comment. August 25, 2000 - October 24, 2000 Public Review Period October 20, 2000 Public Hearing at Planning Commission November - December, 2000 Comprehensive Planning Committee` meetings December IS, 2000 Planning Commission adopts Mississippi River Corridor Plan. * Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission 70 Ciry of Saint Pau1 ' o�-�� ► j � • � � - Maps and Inventories � � � � 1 t i � 1 I � � 1 t� � � I Comprehensive Plan - Appendices 71 a/-��/ L' l� �. - � ,. � - I � . : -. " � , , , � ;� � � ��^� 1 �.� � � ' ' � �,i', � �„ � i�fi � �� u' . � iL , ' �f 9V\ .: ' . y �'�- __(� � �� , / V l y <t�� f � ! J�} ? y f, -1rh . _. / �� . '1 r� -S !", �- J �ft �y� � J �. ` r-. J� �� ' < '` �> �b�ti> � V - � \ ��'�-e . j � � � . 3 "�. r�-' � , , d' � �� I r i '�' �aoti , �. � ��,� �, w F- �i� � k.'� � � � � , i � aaH/u}$ ' : �, . � n ,. .1 �, , � � ' _ � a�uo �� , ��, un� � � =� , � ^� �� i ai �.� '�� ' . ,I I � �� . f , �, .."• ��.� ,�� s i I \ 4 � � . I .I � j(TY - li ' i%!/� .; . �'•�� ,� � � � 2 ` �' ^C � � �' • � � i, i I'��i' E �� A�.i I � �, E I " i ;o� W" N II � � m ',�� 1 W J II // I, � J S � I 1 I " ' n � , i 1 � � Rd . � ,-°i� , ; � �� ,,,aqwm � ,� ' , � :l� � . � � � 'I �� ,;,� ,'; ,� y, '�,�aw� � o I' �i ' i�i�: �� "'�°_ I.� i , ,�, .�°4�� N �� I i 6}i � , � 5 � , � , , , � � � ' � � � � �" �:i� � ii :. ma � �� ''I4' �i r, � � ��, � � , � �"�, � r ! i �� 'i' � � �r �i�l ��t�i +i �a pue .! �.ili,ul' .:, �� ;: � ia. ,� �� , � tUla77 ._ -- �,': ay �-. ~;. N 2 � . . , � r-�-_ t , � ' /'fJ( i r l.� P3 . r i� z�:� � `m `o c �° � e � � p] U C O � N Z'� � 'n a Z ro m R � . d ` O VJ C Q 6 y w o � u \ � LL ' f0 N m V CJ ��, i r '� �� „ �i \ m `rn � '� Il�a�s � s � � i � a � 1 �. � IJ N ; � �: wlPj '�ai � � � c j � �' � � I ' LL � a.Jl { xh i;' i i - � L � �1.+ � � � d � O � '� �' � �q _x � ,� ye �LL � E N � � �R �w � E� � � S 2 -� 4�'r� n ��. � �� on p � � � � t N , � w �a t� p, °'� � � �o V [� � �W � Cd� Q v� r41 � j' ... �; . Yi� � - i N �' � ��t� � � � � ly , � � � ,�: � � �� , �� , � . . ' ' ,��.'� C� r� ° A: � s, i -�� °�,�`- � �°�' i, ��,,� ��-,--� I� Y - t 3. �• . eL . . . � : � �f - . . .:= yv " y�� i � a �^�� j � � l� ' � / o �. � ; � _ _ a .�:: , � ', �� r i . .�'�o j '�; ir., ��' � aF x i ��i J / ,_ '"� ,,: „ �aHNI$� �� ,� m � ' � r� � � � �� " � ��— m g g �� E ��s°= _� � "'�� _€ � _� ES€= `o e ��g r �a� „, � n =��_ ' l,I�C��L�L ��' _ g � � � �� , � 4� v - ia .. , � , p � 9 � m � � � ° '� ' � �� ' - - y�rtn$ ` _ � � � s = „ . .., � � i = �� m � W ,�°�w � ' � ,. . 2 a� g��'�'' ��5� �x ��: s s m e �+��L'� � t 1 E � z _ t ��1� � '��' � � �, �� sF �� ^ �,'� ' � '. i' � �.,, . �' T � � �� '� \ � h � '� � -� � i � � '�� Z' . � �� . � �i I N N . �,1,�� ,' � I I1 �. � �• � � '� �rvY`. � � '., 1 I �\� .�� .� '� ��9< ��r, Ni\1P _ � , . , .� � Q'.. � � � , _ A d � a wn�b - - � , Y 4 P9 = � � , � ' .�i � i� �i t � i , � i o� o-aw�weH•�� 'o Iv a' y . I '� '.';� �; � ' I v � m m �_ y � . � -, ' . �.� � { �: , i i��Ila�S� i � e, � , !,; �,.� ',', �. , � I i� I I �'� W N ' 1 I �I � ' . (�, �� . � - , , , � � mawiej" a- "' � - � ' _> i � ;,� � � �� ,I � ,.. � �� i. I ip' �' � ' . � � � i i i��, � yue�aaalJ � i � l �i , � � � `.� �� n �.� �� '� S � �: . . ; y � ,� .�'—'•j�` ,/ .'::- ' - - ' , "G�: - . i r�� . _; y� ca 6�i � d 7 -�.., C R C� y =� �� '�� E g s� �y .° i a�= ,.� g� i ��: �x'._�� ' � Q � E "d � �--s � � a�i � R 0 � q /�� I+I F+G 4, G �. � O � U �� Qc� � _ � o�-ig, -_ :;'�`�.�=_.:_'; _ . - �: = -- ;�. � ' ` �-� �� - . -" � � t _ =_.'�� ,; � - " -- - -- :�'✓ E 1 � - _ �'_,,n: _��_�� ;� - . . �� : 'ri��. � . �� - � � . / , i, / ,.' ;i ' �� /� .( , . c �.,. o i ii � 2 �� . �� i, , r�- , �� .. . , . , ,. . �� .��i i�l:�:� i . ' � '. . � '�" � :=�� F i �, � � �'"'�'' � �,q � '?�?N�15'� . . ; -', . i ,, , i f ��a40�, � � � � �� ._ �J � /� s �r iy �� ' y ' � i � _ �Q . O O � m c y C C t0 w Z y Z 'o � W � y W J i0 H 6 � � E � i � o = > "' v� •i � ci r r- � _ �. I i r ., L j 1 , . .:... •.. Y+'.�'J � . ,. . : , l .. _ . . ... . ' v ' __-_ ; �'.� �4 1 S' ' _ I i . � . 1 S � , I ( • ' 1 � _�, �� J II � - � ' � s � \, i � F � "/." i , � , . , i .. , . ' � ., 'E � .' ' °p�� ,- �•� i ' .v � � E � ', , , � m y i a Lp�`� � � ,.... _ N � �\ ' i /� % i ,I . ,i i i� � i - �•;`� � i i� �\ _ .� - .- ' - � q, ,'' ayaMa�ed - q p3 �: � \� a wm6 � �, , � , ' � � o.awivieH� ' ' ,`-->. �'' 9 a y ; . , a; i s N c , � r. . I N �_-¢ . . '�� - .— rn, '', , - , , .. . , 6111�(dUs ' � E • � �' '.� '. � �, � ` W N I �; � � � ;�sywrej o., ,:�„ � � y C, ��'l _ ` . ' i I O � � , 1 �' � _ �,e�ro�?r�, ; -- �.�� y � G _ � - ,. ' _ t Up?l� - d ,�/ v A j �� : �>.�.�z�� ,; � 3 a� � � 0 c�' a� _ N �X w y C � a� � L � � �..� � � '� �' 3 a � 6 � N � �r Y � IY °� e H � � �� '� ✓,-� \ \ 1 \� � S .5, ❑� � � � � I � Pa G �+ a O { i' O � N� � i" G � � � z �� --� Q; q^c � � Q� � �� l _ �`��' � t � � �� t- . -��.'��""�� ,''. J s� ! �"' a"�.`.-�F�.i''�-L � �� .�.. s .�'�iie. - -'r� ' �. �� '�� p � c � y „� } ��yf k_u, .,�. �: � � 'e` s "L �%j ✓ J :A' �i � � �� ' � :�. -, ��• � �� , � , �$� °�� . � I' ,, I �,i � C � , � ,� ' � , . � }�� , . ; . �; �' 3$k�� .`/ x ��`'� � � �, � � i •'� �_ � � � �� = �.. a . ,' ':i � i �� , ��._ �I � , ., � � ,�' ( i i i:�� ; � � �� "� I — � � � � � � i I ", i ;� , ti � � - � f i il ' � .� I I i � ' - � � ' � n � � � � ', „� � ` / ��I� I�� ,. � i , �� i �' � F�,� i i�� , � � �:� � ti� � � rld"��,5 �,;iii `�i �� I� ��. ��o /i. i,iii' � ��, i ��I�,i � �� . , � �, � i l '�, r i ' � ,i n ,� , i �� ; t, � „. � � � ��' � �� ' ,�.rf ' i' 1 i�i � '�I i i i; al f ._ � ` �l I�l�.. ��_:iiii� I i I ',_ ' i I�i..! 1 i � i I�il �' �� -�� ., I -,� r i i �' �' i I „ i i, i i' � r _ � il �. �� ; i � ` I i t i ..� I �I � � ��, �� I 1 � 1 / I I I �" � l I �_. I �' � � , � ' il � �' � � '� i i ' �i , °. , �� ' r.� � �� '� � � •'�s ' � I' ' � ' ;, � I!�V — ,� i � i �i r�_ .v, � � � '` i, �:j � � I i � - i .� ,� � I'. , ��, � , ,;�� i, a _, r r , i i . � ,.L � i . �� - ' i��, � I'� vt ��,L �r '�'x�, �.. , � �' � �'-I I � i,; � L� - Pi f i i _ /_ I I i ��i ilqll;�;� f�7`I ,�. __ i � � . 1 I_�1 I�i ��7'�;i t� � i�F �� i - ��d/ „i��'° _ � o �' 8 ; - ,.�,� „� . .� ,," _ - - , �q�' � ,�� c '.. � �� - i;� � b �% O __ / i � � s z i � q o N =,�� \q��.>�_ �Z� �� fi � �� \` ,y oi-r� ( N N � O � C1 � <C C .� a G R L .� •1� � Z z� �� Q —� �u �� : �� d :< a-a � � � � � � ~ 1-�i C.) v� N �R �Q w o�� O � O W O."� Ca c� � � i �� ,.` P. r` I,� � .' . � _ _ � _- _ - -_ _ _ � f — _ � Y� . . . � p�� ` �OV � _ � ' �� _, _ � : r` - - _ _ - _� � � t r �, , m � tl.% � - — �' _;�,_ a� � , '%' , ' � -<A.� . Y - r , � u Y 1 S � � �� I � � � � � "b ��f �, .i � ;� ��^ g g � a!'c1 �;^'P .... { ;-f r a ,.:�.�s'�' � 8 @ � � - �Y � _. i1 -t '�.i t � i � � � y � t� �� e„ o_ ��"�< <� � � a C L,"°�� m��` �i�'(�� r � � i t� ' � r �'�� _ �� T.; f � �. �� -s. ..., _ - � � � 4 ' w �;-� - �, � �=L� , %= . 5 � N M y i Q � ,p., ca ` e m " mo�o n � a = � � w � m a 9 �� W a 6i W C 6 m lA W i i m ea y m '�C '� a � �'e w�n w � m=w.°- °f W� w w C C m d m u�. � t n w � � o m i � e m m` ° w�w e`a .� �_., �,-.. OI-�4 1 t/� � f.'.� i + lu� f,� C� i �� ' G $ �° m ag` �� a s �$ � Ea z� �y0 p QW ✓ `� W (� � O � d zo �o €� ,�" �� U � o� 0/-�4 j .� bf� >:.:>--' ..."' � P i' , f I � I ' ( m � � �*c �' � ..i�� .: _�.:7 26. ;; ��' � � Il ��,1 ��Il:�i�l N ; ' YC��fI � L" N ;a�y' 'Illi:; ( �,'i � N ` � a ,,`�.' ;ly��l' � W `� �a! i��l�� J � . �' I -'1 - li � ; � '.. � '1 " _ll�i�l'�i.. " ��;, r � y N e i � � H � L .::°� �' y � i, ' � Ij ii` 3 � Ij .r 1�1'I� !il'I, IC;IIr mua� _� il ":/7� Tiil I F > �, t. n i Q I ( P, � � ��i�'f: q , / H �II�' �'�: 1,"i�.� �� _' � •'��'. I�!i \ � �� d a i .i 4 � i�; s � I� � E � 'Il V1 �r .� C J// i : a� � �� f� l �" ,�s, � i�? '� L.. mlla�S ;IdIPI'�i�� Ei , II�I��ll£I{ � �I �R .. � I�I i �� '�I� �I � ' � � '� I P � �I�,�I 4 � �r'4�„ 3 � Ir��,�'ra ''�`�% ,) �� a. I� E, � S_ �' � � � � � .- � � , +� i� O �I'I I, � #a� r � c+ LL � � I. i �f4Swa '�*R� � �..1 � �..�� F/ � i y � a.,� L 'O � V � �` O O m V � K a' C � � � d N N � �� z h � {p ry o .O U .fd � '.t�. � {'G C�'J U � �� r � €s $ �� S � � E yz a �Y W �� ■ w s � t+� Mr+ 3 §o �o —""- � � � a. A w � �� c I�W W l.J � Q O/ I v . � Y ° O Y """" -_ _— y 6�1 O W _." '__ � ' �� , __�—._';L, �_. ._., � � _ F� C�'� '" tiC10N ` - ` - • f ` 3-- " � �" �4:.��_ -- r� a ==_-_ _ -°° � � C O O = � m � 0 Q! 6'� �Y z _ p W V _ a � _ a�s ° O' _ O � ✓ _ s � - t '� _ _ m � q ' - � : �Zs Z S �J _ _�i�,�j•�" � s• , m " _�" ,0 ��.=.. ' 'S�':+�J.- j-:� �� p " - A��`'?';: _ � � y �r. ,,. �. � T r � °, � , �, . �-* a° 3 � ' (' " �� ;` < ' r a. �''�� _su>v� ! - ,� r .� J . �' �°' a ��, � .� d _ _'; o � �,,�, � a= �` � iF� W f9 F' � N m ac a ` s} � c ° '� i e o. '� � ', �. .; r� .. /� .... _ .,�, 9 � . , �� '�� i i � r � a _ _ _ � / � . ri`i�-�'�� t,. ;f . - °'��5�.' , �" - _� -.� r k��T. 'i-I P P � �_ _ y � � �� i _ r . � a� - � .� x' `f ,� -. �� -'-� �;' � �z i ,�� = ;,,, _ / 1 _ f�.4:1.,. . � � . : .v� . .. . , c ��t < I _. .� a `—_ t� i i L a. . )"__.__ ' -Y { .. � 1i� _ i � s a . a H � =m N � � m % _ m O 7 � a 4� z�.m�� ..�'�� \ � ��=�j �=�' _ ' cW;ij �°�'`",' s. � _ 9 i =d v N CC fA C 6� !/f �3 C v � � a� 0 O 'ri � i � � � � � O� .�+ W Q� � z� � ° s` r 6 � c ,� � � � E 6 � � - a:�=� � _ � �- - r: ` � � Z � � a g C !� G d � � �n� d r L W ea � W � � � AB .. � `» � �s a HY, � e ` 6aL £ 7 C W y w 7� Y � � 4 m e m z a� Q � ¢� aQ �a � �� .., �o � z o � Q� f-�1 � G ua p� � � ��_ ✓�� -- - ._- _. A - �'. ti � A � . -1 : �. _-- 'r- - � �_ � _ � -__ _^ _ '. _ �.� . . ,� -- r�r� �.? k rJ.•� 5 ?� "� � ' _ d, .- �� ' / 1 � r - Y � �i : � �°�- � - _ - �- _ -- � _� � r � , . � T � �_ "� , � � _ _ � _ �� - , o � _- .:�� -� „i; s...y.,'- � �� ! " - _ �� G � c �,- � B f :- �r �' Y r � �.. �� . - , . 1i'�' �, s _' ,,. R Z 1'��'.. =.", Y �, t.— \. _ y �� _ �'r !_ _, F uT" l �/j-�i�'�r: r; , ,,_ " � — -L � � �ii � � �. � � w � �� ;' �y, �, � �� . �� a L� ° :� / �� . � -: \��i ��,�� ,�� .v— -� l � ... - � �1 � � R e � � m � N z � z o , z f Y � m � m y d 9 L y ` 6 � 6 _°. e u � u — � � o'c � ^ �� ' I lJ ' '� a'�j;� � _ , _ � � � 'r "f i �� ' ��;, ijf �� '_ � '1 � �-.�y R n l ` y �' r� �% `�t "� �\ � �. � a r-< i � t '. � g �� ` � �`9 � � �� , �� . �� 0 � � V �I � 1 i i-� a '� T I � I I [L N _\� .�. �y ��' Fy ' y l 1 nl � ��. L�� - �� - - �, � -'._{� � � � ` _ _ _ � ==- _. _ u;, i i I � ' ( . t' v�% U � O/�iR ( � � � 3 a� � � � o c � a� N ' . O W I� �' & Y � Z 6 �n 2�3 'L � }� f7 � � � � � e ks�:' E u� �� s c � °p a � �Q fa, � ° � O �, � C N � �w U � Q � t - - � �'-�--��--- , - : � � — .--- _, �-�_� -_ , � --��- , , , �� L � I / ? �r`, - �i �. -' � � ':{� i � � h ��'�:',_.�-._ �. � i o .�� 1 � , , 'i---�'_ -� i ' � � � � . ; a' �: 3 '__�_ ��_ , � : � i ' i ' � �� r� . �, . 1 �: � �� — . �,---�— � ,- � ; ; �� m - �'�,� ,� � ��_ {:,�� ,� ` , :� , -�� , r��s .. �, i ''t ��:., � �}�dr = � -- `.F � � � � ,� x �� ,1.�;��- ,( t .., „i�'i,� ^v ' .� � , �'. -,� ?�.'`- . ii 7 n � � 'I � � "?_� _ � �� "� � � � �;� , � � �' � <Y 1 �'� :' � // �„. � _ �� ,'�, � , � �, � o , � 1 � � k �� . ._ � ,� � a�.;!,�� ;� . diyp � , ,..� .t" R � - _. L � � � �� y r .'� �--; � �� , " , �; ,, � � � d � � , - i , „ F •, , � �� , r-F . - W . \:. � I" _ `'- 1 � � F' . � � � ,�� ! ��` L � � ��_ � � �, s . , � , i y ' . ` s�,= \ � , ,� , � i �� a I, � 1= �� ` " �?`� � �' �� ' '� �, i �. � , ,w-: � ,.A �� i��,F ! i' i � �� ' '' � i � : i � � i � � �,,' � � � � ' � i r� � �E� �,, , � i, � , i ' ��,�� ; a �,'.J ' ' : � i , , ; � � �� , �� , �,: �� ,�,�� i �� ;� �,� r � ��,�'.�i <� ; t� � �7 � � � , , � - I � ` n �' � 1�.: i'� --r I i ] � � 1 I i : TF ' � ' I � �� ._ �'% � , � i � i ] i � i �I �� I ,� I �� 4� I �,r --°" � �� i ��i �41 I � i �' .._._� �`t_ s( /� �" �. I f� � r�i f � . � 1� �,: " l �, ?' ��Il ' .I' _! ,. � �a�� . -'�, ' � ,� � _ � i -' _, � r �. , .�; r . .. .r-� f � -�� , z ` � � � ��j .; �— � —�r,.�� a � � .E Q � � E � � ` E `_ ' ' - - � a. � o s'_ t� .. ae: r s:s a �� a � 6� o a 9� 9= o � e o � � d � ; � x ; � � ' a 3 « = � � � ° a ° � a a a � H � A »AbAAeae.=oevae"=y A� >o��"�m�e€e�e°�q=° � e� � A�� <�� \� ` � � -< . —�a, y� . �� < �� . � � a � m �i U�--i4� N �� . N � L� � z� � �� LL �� s = - �?� " .� � £ ��; e��_ � � b�A � O � �� O•� � � O � � O l ' � �� C) CP� p� � L;< t *; �l � � ; r - -- � -;. --- . 4 - .--- _ _� _ - _-- - .� -- - _- — °� � ; — ^` ,y " _ � ,r1y 1, � ;- � j= -- - � � -,_;?tE�_. :`a` o — J �"__�, �'��_ - _ — 4 � � �z: ( ; ' �,; F' _;. � � ` - r � r � �' ,, � t � `' = .,.. �` � Y � `� �� , � . � R g� �� 'l � e �` �/�';�f�anE� f . � �� \�.,,�y'--�,.„� �4r s�: � r { i/ � r' ` 6� � � � �m d� y y m 9 9 S W e ° — �� m ° w ° =y�os � m mF-° d,: d: 1� 6! y .0 '� Y � Y m� S m� m W p @'C6'OQ =Q p1 m p� 6 a � W� = O� O W � W `m e'a`n mw i � d � ..�idjJe ¢CD � � � C/i O � O � � � � � � � � � � ,: � F' z� i Z $� � 6E � � s 5 z � 2a. O � ?> � �'a {� � o� � E, zo � z �° � �� Q U v� ,� � P �� i �- � -` . � � � � 9 C O l� :y�: �� R .� � I a � � � � � � c. e.` ,t ~� � �� `� � ��y� ��ni � � � �, , � d � '�—`-'\ � e � � � �� W y Y . � � 1 �.A F � . �� ` ' � i, �� --, .. �� 5 � � �,—_'"" `_ � � C ` � MN`' � ( o 0 4 �� `�� a /.: ` � , i ;� ai, '�?�a9°e -c / o m L C {Q O q�p � m L 3 = � ;� � N �s � m N � Q � � � � � N d Q N � Pn tL d � � c c .°_3 � m '� E o '<n � 1 `m o 'c U � _ � s � � �"��.' � � "1 � � ... ° � "" " �� ry �. �.✓�u' � " O � � R N N j fA � � �': µ - N . OD ' \ �--L — .� � V � '�6 � � � . . , ' � �`��. . , bA�O , � p .T $ Q 5 � N R O @ N O �� I' ' � y»W�� V � � . . � `,��,, � \* � C d �� d � � . ; � _ � ' ' � ' �. �� \��\\�: . � s � sn � a �» � . . , �� , � 4 '��' L.J � LJ } y � � I � �, 9 \ I� s 'C N � O G C" � � � � �� { � �p b4� -° a s , �� . e-, � o N y � -�� ,,, T � '�. I �� V � � � � l_ � �.d , C_ 1 �.� i L_ �� s � ' ' � ' � � .. ' ' ' � � � � � � l� ��Mv�� , �1� �� v • ' y aqwm�P3 . � � << ��; A , , , , i � , . '°" �.q� � , ?'�, ` � aam�weM� . � f � �� _�,� �� „ � � i � � � � < <� �, � iI ��, � �. � � � �� '' � 7s � � � , , , 6 uq�aqg� - E �' . k � �' � � d � � a , i l a i' _ L �� , , i� a ' � � ��, w vo; I ' t . � ��- � 0 d � � I W� � � '� m a� -a i � i I � ' �� a � : �� ! � i I -� l�.l -�p { ' � : � � � � �� , � � � ;141 r- LL � � � - - " / �I I; { \ � 3 1 1 �.I I�( � �� d �� i o � � ' uqa�9 � _�,�� I E � ,, � � ,. _ :a� -r � - � ��° L_ � ' . , , ' ��A' i y • . .7 `,�: ,, � � C� /—! 9 1 cs •� N � � • Lf o� -� Q �L � i.. � O � C., � �e"/ �.i� � � `, _ -' � o � __ �_$ � � E �- �A c ° a � � 6 u rv d N � � � � s � y N O 6 � e �� E � � � � � l "' � � � v � -`� � t � � � � � � � t � � � � � �' , � � The City ofSainr Aau! does not discriminate on the basis of disabiliry, race, sex, sexual or afjectlonal orienta4on, age, color, creed, national origin or ancestry, marital status, religion, veteran stcrtus, or status with regard to public assistance rn the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs or achvities_ 84 City of Saint Paul