Laserfiche WebLink
everything between 30 inches and 9 feet, that area needs to be free and clear. New trees that are <br />to be planted shouldn't be in this area--with some exceptions for deciduous trees. Zoning & <br />Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that this was recently amended and adopted. <br /> <br />City Council Liaison Strommen recommended that this part of the verbiage should be <br />incorporated by reference to the other ordinance to be consistent. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda explained that Staff would recommend considering a standard for planting <br />distance from a residential driveway for trees that are to be installed in the boulevard area due to <br />vision clearance. <br /> <br />Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that right now there is nothing in the <br />ordinance. He stated that he felt it was important for people to have an open view. Board <br />Member Olds stated that he felt the same principal would apply to a driveway. Zoning & <br />Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that he didn't feel it needed to be that specific but <br />including some verbiage to setback distances may be appropriate. Board Member Max stated <br />that one way to eliminate this is to define planting spacing of approximately 35 or 40 feet. <br /> <br />Board Member Bentz asked if this was to imply that the homeowner could plant trees in public <br />easements. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that it wasn't. <br /> <br />Board Member Max asked if all utilities were underground in the new developments. Zoning & <br />Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that he thought they were. He noted one instance where <br />there was a concern. Board Member Max asked if this should be a concern in the verbiage in the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Board Member Bentz asked if there was a stipulation for doing decorative lighting or spacing <br />requirement for that. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that he felt Board <br />Member Bentz made a good point. He stated that as trees get larger, they may envelop the lights. <br />He stated that in the future, it may be a concern to be addressed in the ordinance. Zoning & <br />Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that he would not object to looking into revising the <br />ordinance to address this. He stated that the previous City he worked for did have an ordinance <br />regarding safety concerns that included street lights. <br /> <br />Board Member Max stated that this concern would not be for decorative lights. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda noted that Subd. 8 k. (Tree Preservation Tree Density Standard <br />Calculation) states that if removals exceed this standard, then replacement shall be consistent <br />with the tree cover requirements in the R-2 or R-3 zoning districts. However, the canopy cover <br />formula is now used to determine planting requirements in these districts, and Staff is not sure <br />how this would be utilized to determine appropriate replacement numbers. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda recommended that this subdivision be tabled until the new committee has <br />an opportunity to meet to discuss planting requirements. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator <br />Anderson stated that planting requirements now are based on canopy coverage. He stated that <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / October 3, 2005 <br /> Page 12 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />