1999 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

e e Ramsey Critical Area Plan Page 2 Figure 19 This figure (and Figures 20 and 23) should be renamed Critical Area/MNRRA Corridor to eliminate any confusion for plan and ordinance implementation. We're happy to be joined/associated with MNRRA, but Critical Area shouldn't be omitted -- we're a compound word if cities voluntarily choose to add MNRRA policies. There are errors in the Critical Area boundary on this and all other figures in the Critical Area chapter and Comprehensive Plan. More lands than are legally designated in the Mississippi River Critical Area and MNRRA have been included, but we are not seeking additional lands nor do we wish to confuse or alarm landowners who have not been and are not within the Critical Area jurisdiction. The boundary needs to be corrected in accordance with the attached legal descriptions. I have circled and numbered the problem areas on an attached sample map which correlate with the specific legal descriptions. The consultants are welcome to proof the rest of the boundary to the legal descriptions in case I missed an error because of lack of section lines. There appear to be errors in. the depiction of floodplain on this Figure, especially omissions of the floodway and 100 year boundary which is the foundation for the floodplain ordinance. The 1976 Critical Area requirement of "prepare an inventory of floodplains" was adopted in many cases prior to mapping by FEMA of floodplains. Acknowledging that FEMA mapping has been done and that it is extremely difficult to accurately portray those boundaries at a scale suitable for a Plan document, we would recommend that the floodplain not be included on any Figure. Instead, the text on page 3 should make reference to the Official Zoning Map, including the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, and the Flood Insurance Rate Map, both dated November 1, 1979. Again, our intent is accuracy so that no landowner is misled and makes decisions about being in or out of the floodway and flood fringe based on a published inaccurate map under City auspices. Although generally accurate, based on our records, there should be a caveat on the maps for the 12 - 25% / 6-12% slopes delineation. These maps should be used for general discussion purposes only, and not for any regulatory or implementation use for setback determination. This is especially true because it is difficult to portray accurately the actual riverbank slope. Again, we would not want a landowner to get the idea that no bluffline exists on their property and use that as an argument to avoid ordinance slope and bluffline provisions that comply with both Critical Area and Wild and Scenic minimum standards. Blufflines should be determined case-by-case within the site plan approval process via submitted 2 foot contour interval topography plans for steep areas and 10 foot contour intervals topography plans for flat areas. Are the horizontal stripes on the Figure depicting the diagonal stripes of "Woodlands?"