My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2010
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:04:01 AM
Creation date
8/3/2010 8:03:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/05/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
203
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
including the disturbance of Iess than 1 acre of total land area that is part of a larger common plan of <br />development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb equal to or greater than 1 acre <br />would require a stormwater permit from the Pollution Control Agency. <br />Stormwater Management <br />Two stormwater management options are proposed. The first option relies on the use of impervious <br />surface coverage caps. The second option is for local governments with technical expertise to manage <br />stormwater based on performance standards. With this option and for Large projects under the first option, <br />local governments use the following permanent stormwater management requirements based on the <br />impervious surfaces located on the project site: Permanent treatment of 1" of runoff from the impervious <br />surfaces created by development or redevelopment is required. Preference must be given to volume <br />reduction techniques that include infiltration basins, rain gardens, enhanced infiltration swales, filter <br />strips, disconnected impervious areas, and other conservation designs. For those areas of a project where <br />there is no feasible way to meet the treatment requirements, other treatment, such as grassed swales, grit <br />chambers, vegetated filter strips, bioretention areas, off-line retention areas, and natural depressions for <br />infiltration, is required prior to the runoff leaving the project site or entering surface waters. <br />The proposed standards rely on Minnesota's Stormwater Management Manual <br />(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwater-manual.html). This manual provides best <br />management practices that are specially adapted to Minnesota use, and the proposed standards require the <br />local government to direct property owners, developers, and contractors to incorporate those best <br />management practices. <br />In addition, the proposed standards allow credit for permeable pavement systems that meet the Minnesota <br />Stormwater Manual best management practices criteria. Only half the area with such material would be <br />credited as permeable surface. Long-term studies on permeable materials have yet to be conducted, so the <br />PCA advised such a credit until such time evidence supports a higher credit. <br />Proposed Shoreline Buffer Standards for New Developments <br />For an existing lot with a home, no changes in shoreline buffer standards are proposed (i.e., intensive <br />cutting is not allowed). For new development on previously undeveloped parcels, a 50 feet shoreline <br />buffer consisting of trees, shrubs, and ground cover of'plants and understory in a natural state, is required. <br />Removal of trees and shrubs necessary to accommodate stairways, landings, chairlifts, access paths, and <br />recreational use areas can occur. Except for the access path and recreational use area, a natural ground <br />cover must be preserved or established in the 50 feet area near shore. Openings and lawns in the shoreline <br />buffer that are not allowed must be replanted or left unmowed. <br />Greater Protection of Vulnerable Waters <br />Trout streams <br />The proposal creates a separate river class for designated trout streams to provide these sensitive public <br />waters additional protection. The existing statewide minimum standards place trout stream in the tributary <br />river class, the least protective river class. Given future development demands and the vulnerable nature <br />of Coldwater streams, it is reasonable and needed to move these public waters into a class with higher <br />development standards. <br />133 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.