Re: vegetation removal/replacement

Home Browse Search

ME1�fORAtiDUM Date: November 19,2003 To: Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Melanie Foth, City Planner �/""`' RE: Informational memo regarding tree removaLs at: 445 Linden Ave & 42�Tonkawa Tree removals within 7�' of the shoreline require permits from the City per Zoning Code 78-128�. In September 2003, the City �ti-as notified of unpermitted tree removals on the two above-noted adjacent properties within the 75' setback of Lake Minnetonka. The Bowens (property owners at 445 Linden Ave.) contend that the Knights (owners at 425 Tonka«-a Ave.), mistakenly removed trees on the Bowens property as well as their own; the Knights have since confirmed that their contractor did remove the trees on both properties. Because Orono Code does not speak to the party responsible for the removal, but rather to the act of cutting trees, �•iolation letters (attached) were sent to each property owner as unperm.itted tree removals occurred at each property. Each was requested to submit a replacement plan, as the code would generally require a tree for tree replacement. Jeff Bo��•en submitted a 1:1 tree replacement plan for the trees removed on their property. Mr. Bo«en's wish was to implement his plan before the planting season was over and asked staff to expedite his approval. The Bowen's had just put their property up for sale, so the tree removal was seen as an immediate liability. As the Bowens' plan was a one- for-one replacement, staff felt that an administrative approval «-as warranted. Mr. Bowen also submitted a plan to the City that the Knights' contractor, Prairie Restorations, Inc., had prepazed for the restoration on the Bowens property. Mr. Bowen requested comments from the City as to the appropriateness of the Prairie Restoration plan for his propem-. Staff also received a restoration plan for the Knight property. On Friday, October 31, staff inet with Prairie Restorations and the Knights at their property to review their proposal for remediation. At that time, staff evaluated the Knights' property as well as the Bo«-ens' property next door. It was noted by staff that the replacement trees had been installed at the Bowens' property. Staff concluded that a tree-for-tree replacement on either property was not necessarily warranted. For the Bowen property, the removals were primarily along the northerly lot line on a relatively steep slope. Many tre�s remain between tl��e house and the lake. The new replacement trees «�ere spaced so closely that staff suspects they will not thrive as well as if they were more ��-idely spaced. They are replacing tall overstory trees; in time staff feels that they will thin themselves out naturally.