09-28-2005 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

walls are more reasonable and the development is more closely aligned with the natural grade. • 1006.050 (b) Erosion and siltation control is not coordinated with the different stages of development and with appropriate control measures. A seeding schedule is not established and therefore no guarantee exists to ensure seeding occurs within prescribed timelines established by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for proper germination and growth of turf. Commentary: The revised final plat addresses these issues. However, our approval is subject to the staging of seeding to ensure compliance with MnDot specifications, the NPDES permit to be issued for this project, and approval by Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD). • 1006.050 (c) No plan has been provided to demonstrate that the land shall be developed in increments of workable size such that adequate erosion and siltation controls can be provided as construction progresses. Commentary: The revised final plat is more consistent with the preliminary plat and with the discussions from staff meeting with developer on 9/1/05. • 1006.050 (f) Natural vegetation is not being protected by this development with the exception of the `no disturb zone" required for wetland protection. Commentary: The revised final plat does not protect natural vegetation except for the wetland "no disturb" areas. However, it is more consistent with the preliminary plat and with the discussions from staff meeting with developer on 9/1/05. Therefore, staff feels it is acceptable given site constraints. • 1007.010 Developer has not dedicated access to wetland area on what was labeled as Outlots A and B in an earlier submittal and now would be in vicinity of Lots 1 and 14. This was a condition of approval by the Park & Recreation Commission and approved by the City Council. Commentary: No evidence of the dedication of access to and over Outlot A for parks and trails purposes has been provided on the plat or in a separate document. It appears the developer may be providing a connection point to the wetland area in the cul -de -sac off of Preserve Court. If that is the case, another problem is created given the 3:1 slopes in that area exceeding ADA requirements. It should also be noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission wanted access in the vicinity of the two ponding areas, not the possible location depicted on the final plat. There is no indication of where access would be granted on the west end of the plat. The developer had previously stipulated agreement with these requests in earlier court proceedings.