Laserfiche WebLink
He stated that there probably would not be a problem with this method but would be hesitant <br />without having a more systematic variance request the developer could follow. He commented <br />that if this approach is going to be allowed there should be a thorough statistical analysis. <br />Board Member Little asked how many more plots would exist to this. <br />City Planner Anderson commented that there are other pockets of plantings similar in nature but <br />did not have an estimate. He stated that the group could choose to support this because of the <br />planted setting along with perhaps consideration of a potential ordinance amendment that would <br />dictate that this approach would be acceptable in certain circumstances. He stated that he could <br />speak with the City Attorney to determine if the variance process could be applied in this case. He <br />stated that a third option would be to state that this method does not meet the Code and the typical <br />process would need to be followed. <br />Chair Covart commented that she likes efficiency and understands the request from the developer <br />but would prefer to follow City Code. <br />Board Member Fetterley asked if a sample of accuracy could be provided. She commented that <br />she does not feel that she has enough information to say an exception could be granted. <br />Board Member Hiatt stated that it might be helpful to know what the developer is looking at in <br />terms of cost savings and energy savings. He stated that if the potential to be reasonably accurate <br />is there and it would cost five times as much to complete the review required by Code, he would <br />see that as a reasonable request. He stated that he wants to work with developers when it makes <br />sense. He noted that City Planner Anderson stated that this method could be fairly accurate, and <br />the statement could be made that this is being allowed because it is unique in that it was a planted <br />area. He believed that the developer should provide that additional information to support their <br />request. He stated that two examples were given of where this method is used, but neither seems <br />really comparable to this situation. <br />Board Member Valentine commented that it is not that complex to determine whether or not this <br />would be a similar method for calculation and characterization of the area. He stated that it does <br />not appear there is full support for this approach as of yet. <br />Chair Covart asked that staff bring this back at the next meeting with additional information <br />provided and an invitation for the developer to attend. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that he agrees from a forestry standpoint this would be accurate, but <br />the question would be related to the deviation from policy. He stated that if this method is found <br />to be acceptable, he would prefer direction to amend the Code to allow an alternative method such <br />as this when certain conditions are met. <br />Board Member Moore commented that she is unsure that she would feel comfortable changing <br />Code requirements for this type of development. She noted that from the aerial map there are two <br />properties that could fall under the same characterization, along with other areas in Ramsey. She <br />stated that she would not be comfortable changing the requirements for the tree count and <br />