St. Paul's riverfront: Weakened rules, troubling development plans and 2 toxic dumps

Several high-profile riverfront development issues have spotlighted St. Paul lately: new proposed riverfront regulations, industrial development projects not aligned with long-term plans, and cleanup processes for some of the city's most polluted shorelines. 

FMR and St. Paul residents have been working to protect and improve the riverfront through it all. 

Advocating stronger riverfront protections in new river rules

St. Paul's proposed Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) ordinance, which guides riverfront development, has room for improvement.

FMR has worked for years to secure the strongest ordinances we can up and down the river — and we think St. Paul's draft version is missing a few things. We'd like to see key protections for birds, for example, and clearer guidance about building heights and exemption criteria. And at one point, St. Paul wanted some of these things too. Their prior draft ordinance included clearer building size standards as well as a bird-friendly glass requirement for new buildings. Unfortunately, city staff removed those important elements in their latest draft.

St. Paul residents: Now is the time to speak up for these key additions to the ordinance. You can sign our petition, write to your councilmember or even join us at a crucial May 2 public hearing.

Calling to uphold visions of a walkable, accessible riverfront

Some recent proposals for new industrial riverfront uses don't match what the community and city have envisioned and outlined together.

St. Paul has several official plans in place for riverfront redevelopment across the city. These plans focus on improving recreational access and environmental quality in neighborhoods that have experienced disparate industrial pollution and barriers to the riverfront.

In the last few months, however, St. Paul's planning department and Mayor Carter's office have supported industrial expansion proposals that go against these long-held plans — without conducting any community engagement about changes.

Two recent cases highlight this troubling pattern:

St. Paul rezones from walkable mixed-use to industrial in the West Side neighborhood

The city approved a plan amendment and rezoning at 10 River Park Plaza near Harriet Island Regional Park to allow an industrial expansion. However the West Side Flats Plan clearly prioritizes this property and neighboring riverfront parcels for walkable, mixed-use development. Even though the original proposed facility (a foundry) has been cancelled, the city proceeded with the rezoning anyway, opening the door for future industry on what was supposed to be a residential and/or commercial site. 

City prioritizes garbage facility over river access in West 7th/Fort Road neighborhood

The mayor's administration has supported development of 560 Randolph north of Crosby Farm Regional Park into a private corporation's garbage truck refueling facility over the community's strenuous objections. Over the years, many city plans, including the Great River Passage Plan, have affirmed the intention for the 560 Randolph site and the surrounding area to be redeveloped into a mixed-use neighborhood node that enhances walkability, transit and access to the Mississippi River in an area that has little of that (as explained by urban geographer Bill Lindeke in his recent opinion piece for MinnPost).

The West 7th/Fort Road District Council appealed the city's approval of this project, and the city council voted unanimously in favor of that appeal. However, Mayor Carter vetoed this council decision right before the deadline by which the city must make a decision. That leaves the council without time to override the veto, and may allow the FCC project to proceed.

Why sidestepping these plans is a problem

These plans and many others were created through extensive community engagement. Residents gave hundreds of hours of their time to develop visions for their neighborhoods. We're disappointed that the city is disregarding these plans without re-engaging residents about proposed changes. This disrespects community input and leaves residents without a voice in the future of their neighborhoods.

FMR and leaders of the affected district councils have reached out to Mayor Carter and councilmembers to discuss our concerns about this pattern. We will continue working to uphold these plans created through years of thoughtful community planning.

Pushing for quality cleanup plans at two toxic dumps on the river

Cleanup plans for two different riverfront dumps may be coming later this year.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is working with Ford Motor Company on a cleanup plan (called a feasibility study) for the company's Area C hazardous waste dump in the Highland Park neighborhood.

While we initially anticipated the release of a draft study earlier this year, it may actually be summer or fall by the time the public comment period opens and a community meeting is scheduled. Read more about Ford Area C.

Meanwhile, the MPCA has also been working with stakeholders on a cleanup plan for the Pig's Eye Dump between Highway 61 and the river in East Side St. Paul. A public comment period on that plan is anticipated for this fall.

A key difference between these two dumpsites is who holds primary financial responsibility for the cleanup. Ford Motor Company owns and is responsible for Area C. But Pig's Eye Dump is a public site and will require public funding for the recommended remediation path. Given the scale of hazardous contamination at this site, remediation will be expensive, so community advocacy will be vital to securing cleanup funding.

Stay involved

We'll let our River Guardians know about future opportunities to get involved in all of these issues.