Laserfiche WebLink
• MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 <br />1. Purpose of Tree Preservation Ordinance. <br />Van Zomeren reviewed the Purpose Statement. Lindquist asked if landscape and vegetation <br />should be added. Members felt the statement should be left in the existing form. <br />2. Definition. <br />The definition of a Significant Tree was discussed as trees to be protected. Lindquist felt the <br />tree size should be consistent with other lakeshore ordinances which is 6" in the 0 -75' <br />lakeshore setback. Hawn questioned the difference between coniferous and deciduous trees, <br />noting that a 15' coniferous tree would be difficult to transplant. The Park Commission <br />suggested Significant Trees as coniferous trees measuring 8' or more in height, hardwood <br />deciduous trees measuring 8" in diameter or greater and softwood deciduous trees 12" or <br />greater in diameter. <br />3. Where Significant Trees Can Be Destroyed Without Replacement <br />Hawn thought it would be abusive to applicants to require a tree plan showing all existing <br />• trees. She added that the goal of lakeshore properties is somewhat different than big woods <br />areas. Van Zomeren suggested an inventory of all trees of the same size or larger as those <br />that are protected on lakeshore properties. She asked what would allow significant trees to <br />be removed. She referred to Shadowood Farms where an outlot with trees was created for <br />future access to the Wolf property. Hawn responded that road design can take many trees but <br />might be an area where significant trees could be allowed to be removed. This would be <br />monitored during City reviews so that too many trees were not taken. Berg noted that many <br />final plats are not approved in the same form as preliminary plats because of tree issues. <br />Members agreed that significant trees could be removed "within the areas improved for <br />reasonably -sized driveways, parking lots, and structures without frost footings and within <br />ten feet around those improvements ". <br />Stoddard asked if the Fire Marshall made any recommendations regarding trees within 40' <br />of any buildings. <br />Smith suggested a time limit be added to Section 3 (B). For example, a developer could not <br />cut down trees within 2 years of subdividing. Van Zomeren questioned how staff would <br />know when trees were cut down. Lindquist agreed to adding a 2 year time limit to this <br />statement. Gappa noted that if the goal was to protect trees, it would not make any difference <br />if a subdivision occurred. Lindquist agreed that the private property owner could do what <br />• 2 <br />