Laserfiche WebLink
- 6 - <br /> <br />private housing and other uses. A public trail corri- <br />dor along the river would not only provide access for <br />ab~tti~g property ow~ers but the surrounding residents <br />of Ramsey. The corridor would be a significant amenity <br />for the total city. It is not clear from the plan what <br />specific problems prevent the alignment of the trail <br />adjoining the river to take advantage of this unique <br />~esource. <br /> <br />The city plan takes the position that recreational use <br />of the river will consist of non-motorized or small <br />fishing boats. The river is very shaIlow in many areas <br />and not suited for boating with deeper drafts. <br /> <br />4. Consistency with Metropolitan Council policies <br /> <br />As indicated in the previous discussion, the Ramsey plan is <br />inconsistent with metropolitan policies for the rural <br />service area in regard to proposed land uses and densities <br />and the lack of recommendations for the timing and staging <br />of urban development and services. Policies and regulations <br />for the development, operation and maintenance of on-site <br />waste disposal systems are inadequate and inconsistent with <br />metropolitan policies. <br /> <br />5. Compatibility with other Critical Area plans <br /> <br />The City of Coon Rapids has indicated that-there are no <br />serious conflicts between the .plans. of the two communities. <br />No other comments were received. <br /> <br />Regulations <br /> <br />The proposed "environmental protection ordinance" takes a compre- <br />hensive approach to reviewing and approving river corridor <br />development. The ordinance requires application for an <br />"environmental permit" before any development is alllowed to <br />begin in the Critical Area. The permit is effect~ively a site <br />plan ordinance, requiring--'among other things--information on <br />topography and hydrology including drainage, soils, finished ' <br />grade, vegetation and proposed drainage and erosion and <br />sedimentation contro.1 plans. The ordinance also contains an <br />array of specific standards designed to protect wetlands from <br />construction impacts; improvements from flood damage, river- <br />banks, wildlife and natural resources and water retention <br />facilities and private water supplies. Standards are lacking or <br />deficient in some areas. There is no specific standard regarding <br />the rate of runoff to be maintained as development occurs or any <br />explicit standard for erosion control during construction. <br />Vegetative management standards should be revised to reflect .the <br />revised plan policies as noted earlier. <br /> <br />The city's Critical Area regulations do not contain requirements. <br />for the management of utility crossings. These standardg should <br />give priority to underground placement, require the clustering or <br />concentration along existing crossings or bridges, and encourage <br /> <br /> <br />