Minutes - Council - 01/13/2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

· Cross-referenced the new topsoil requirement with Section 9.02 (Definitions). He reported that staff is proposing adding three definitions and changing some terms and better clarifying what is in the Code. Councilmember Look stated that Mr. Enstrom was unable to attend tonight's meeting and had written a letter that he would like entered into the record. The letter was read and will be entered as part of these minutes. Councilmember Look stated that we have talked about Ramsey's sand and what that means to water usage. He felt Ramsey needs to take steps to ensure we can retain that water. He would like staff to comment on if a higher organic content would retain more 1< water. He added that there have been discussions about a City compost drop-off site too. Assistant City Engineer Himmer stated that a higher organic content would increase the soil moisture holding capacity and getting information from Mr. Enstrom has been very helpful. He did not want to get too restrictive if you want to go over and above. In Mr. Enstrom's mind, he wants to develop a Ramsey specification. Mr. Himmer stated he called Green Valley Green House as well as other nurseries and asked about a higher content of organic dirt. They stated that they use it but they do not sell it. Some said if the demand was there, they may make it to sell. With regard to compost site - maybe that is something we could look into - maybe do a small site. He added that you will not be able to develop the quality of soil you need. The compost site is on our wish list but there are space needs, etc. to do yet. Mr. Enstrom has thrown out the idea of running the compost on his site. Mr. Himmer did not know if that was something staff could decide or not. He continued that Mr. Enstrom has stated that this ordinance is a loser. The overall intent of the ordinance is there but he is talking specific to organic matter. Mr. Himmer stated that you would be talking about more trucks, more gas, etc. so we would be "going green" in one place and less so in another. This discussion has been ongoing for three years and Mr. Himmer stated he would like to get something going. Councilmember Dehen stated he was on the Committee when this was discussed. Originally, this came in as a 6" blanket of top soil and at some point, this needs to balance. The cost of construction would be increased. If there was a big water usage, we would get something in place. He added that he is in favor of this ordinance; it is not ideal but it is better than what we have - it is a good starting point. He referred to the fourth bullet on page 280 of the agenda - "to be determined by the builder/property owner" and inquired what that meant. Mr. Himmer replied t4at currently with the building permit, you are required to put $600.00 in escrow for landscaping and you can be issued a Certificate of Occupancy. However, that does not cover the cost of landscaping a front yard. That bullet point is to get rid of the $600 escrow and the sod needs to be in before you get a Certificate of Occupancy. Instead, we figured about what it would cost and we would require $1,500, for example, and then they have six months to get the sod in. It would be easier to enforce the landscaping requirement. City Council/January 13, 2009 Page 23 of31