My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
01/09/06
Ramsey
>
Environmental Policy Board
>
Minutes
>
2000's
>
2006
>
01/09/06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/2/2006 3:03:27 PM
Creation date
3/7/2006 10:47:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
POLICY BOARD BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: Planting Requirements & the Canopy Cover Formula <br /> <br />Zoning and Recycling Coordinator Anderson provided EPB members with examples of planting <br />plans as a visual aid to consider whether the canopy cover formula needed any adjustment. He <br />stated that at the last meeting canopy cover formula was discussed, how it's worked, and whether <br />or not the formula needed tweaking. <br /> <br />Coordinator Anderson stated the first thing he was directed to do was to touch base with the <br />Community Development Director and Assistant Director about the possibility of removing the <br />canopy cover formula from City Code and placing it in the Ramsey Tree Book. He stated that <br />while that is a possibility, the Tree Book would need to be officially adopted by the City Council <br />if it were to contain planting requirements. He stated that as soon as that is done, any change to <br />it, whether adding a species or changing the spread of the species would require City Council <br />approval. He stated that would not really be saving time in the long mn. <br /> <br />Coordinator Anderson stated that hopefully, the idea would be to get the formula formatted so <br />that it would not need to be tweaked in the future. He stated that consensus of Staff is that the <br />formula should remain in City Code. <br /> <br />Coordinator Anderson stated that the canopy cover says "all pervious areas". He stated in his <br />mind, wetlands are a pervious area and are counted into that area. He stated that in the urban <br />areas, lot density excludes wetland areas. He asked whether the EPB wanted to look at <br />excluding wetland areas when calculating pervious areas. <br /> <br />Board Member Max stated that when the formula was first created, the intention was to mirror <br />the language that was used for runoff. He asked if that excluded wetlands. <br /> <br />Coordinator Anderson stated he believed that was the case. He stated he would double check on <br />it. He stated that if it does exclude wetlands, that would make it easier to meet the planting <br />requirements because it would drop down the pervious area number. Coordinator Anderson <br />stated he didn't recall if that was something that had been talked about at a previous meeting. He <br />stated that the directive was to put things on hold to find out if the formula could be pulled. <br />Coordinator Anderson stated that it was Staff's recommendation to leave the canopy cover <br />formula in City Code. <br /> <br />Board Member Olds stated that trees can't be planted there. He stated that even though the <br />wetlands aren't buildable, it certainly is growth. <br /> <br />Environmental Specialist Bacon asked ifa calculation could even be made for wetlands. <br /> <br />Board Member Max stated that wetlands have been excluded because they needed to be <br />inventoried. Board Member Max questioned the consistency of stating that wetlands would not <br />be included in the pervious area. <br /> <br />Board Member Bentz asked if there are minimum lot sizes that would include wetland. <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / January 9, 2006 <br /> Page 2 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.