10-18-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

! L Zoning File #1884 October 15, 1993 Page 3 From the stumps remaming on the site, one gets the impression that the areas cut down were fairly dense in nature, a thicket which likely provided significant screening of the neighbor’s tennis court and softened the view of applicant’s and the neighbors’ houses from the lake. In addressing the restoration requirement, applicant’s landscape designer has suggested that the intei ’s.ve vegetation clearing ordinance would not, for instance, prohibit the neighboring property owner from removrg most of the under story vegetation in the 0-75’ as long as 6" + trees were not removed. Therefore he asks, w hy should the Fishers have to replace understory? Staff notes that such activity if done in stages probably would not even be noticed. But the intensive removal of all woody vegetation clearly has a visual impact much greater than if only a portion were removed or if it was selectively removed. Additional Discussion This is the first incident of clear cutting (intensive vegetation clearing) since the new Shoreland Ordinance went into effect, although there have been other incidents of selective large tree cutting. In considering the degree and nature of restoration that should be required, it may be helpful to review the reasons why DNR required this ordinance. The "Statement of Need and Reasonableness", (Exhibit K) suggests a number of reasons to protect shoreland vegetation, including reducing the rate of runoff to minimize soil ei osion, consumption and utilization of nutrients from the runoff, root systems to assist in bank and slope retention, protection of fish and wildlife habitat values, and screening. The fact that the property owner allowed this intensive vegetation clearing to occur knowing that work in the 0-75’ zone is not allowed, does not make the results any worse, but is particularly frustrating from an enforcement standpoint. Final action on the violation tog is expected to be withheld until the Council ’s final action on this matter, but staff has recommended to the City Attorney that the applicant be fined. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the after-the-fact variance be denied and that the property owner be required to restore the site The proposed restoration plan suggests that nine 4" to 5" trees will be planted in the 0-75’ zone to replace the dozens of trees that were cut Plaiuung Commission must determine whether this planting program is adequate or whether additional plantings are needed. If revisions to the plan are required, it should be noted that time is of the essence if plantings are to be done this fall. Planning Commission may wish to give applicant a guideline for what plantings are necessar}’ and send him on to the City Council for final action, rather than tabling for a month. Note that applicant did pay an after-the-fact investigation fee with this application.