Laserfiche WebLink
� �- I <br /> ...�-- - <br /> • MEMORANDUM <br /> . To: Chair Ralm and Plaruiing Coulnlissioners <br /> Ron Moorse, City Administrato <br /> From: Mike Gaffron, Plaiuiing Director <br /> Date: March 17, 2005 �� <br /> . .____.__�ubject._._.____ _Proposed-Miiior Ordinailce Anlendment: _---- ._____._. . ...___. . ___.__. _._- ------ - ____--�___..___ <br /> Sltoreland Or�linance Sectio�z 78-1285: Vegetcctioiz Alteratio�is <br /> Add (c): Exotic Species Removal <br /> (Vegetltion repllcement requirements after exotic species removal) <br /> Add (d): Restoration Required <br /> (Vegetation restoration requirements for violltion occurrences) <br /> Attachment <br /> A- Current ordinance and proposed additional language(Draft #3 - 3/15/OS) <br /> B -Notice of Public Hearing <br /> Need for Ordinance Amendment <br /> The process ofresolving recent Shorelaud ord'uiance violations involving the illegal removal of trees and <br /> vegetation within the 0-75'lakeshore protected zone,has illustrated that our current ordinances do not <br /> address vegetation restoration when a violation occurs,or for wheil ulvasive species such as buckthorn are <br /> removed.Tlus has resulted ui concem by the City Cotuicil that when violations occur,there is no specific <br /> requirement for restoration,no procedures established,a�id no standards or guidelines for restoration. <br /> Because the illegal removal of mahu e trees is a`non-recoverable'act(as opposed to building somethuig <br /> that cau be torn down or inoved),it would be appropriate to establish procedttres,standards aud guidelines <br /> for dealing with violations to gain soine minimtun level of restoration over tiine. <br /> The current ordinance provides for replacement on a tree-for-tree basis in conj�uiction with a legally <br /> peimitted removal.It establishes that the replacement trees nnist be of a size and nahire that staff finds <br /> acceptaUle,and they must be planted at the same setback from the lake as those removed. Dead trees <br /> require a pre-removal inspection but no pernlit. <br /> With regard to approved remov�ls,there are sihiations where removal should require replacement,and <br /> others where replacement would be uiapproprilte(sucli as where the remauung vegetation is so dense that <br /> a replacement tree may not tlu•ive). The code currently requires replacement without considering this <br /> possibility. The code also requires such replaceinents to be located the s�me distance fiom the shore as <br /> those removed,but u�tentionally does not specify a lateral location. It was worded tlus way so replacement <br /> trees can be located so as to �llow a view to the water from the principal structure, <br />