My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Tree Preservation Ordinance
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
09-27-2007
>
Tree Preservation Ordinance
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/5/2024 7:21:48 AM
Creation date
8/21/2024 3:15:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
Documnet Type
Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Item No: 2 <br />Meeting Date: 10/01/07 <br />Type of Business: Work Session <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br />To: Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate <br />Item Title/Subject: Proposed Tree Preservation & Landscaping Ordinance <br />Background <br />City Council last discussed the proposed tree ordinance on April 2nd, and at that time it <br />was decided to hold off on any further action until after the next city newsletter went out <br />with information about this proposed change. In the newsletter, staff asked for feedback <br />from residents as to whether they supported some sort of tree preservation ordinance or <br />not. Staff received one phone call the day after the April Council Worksession from a <br />resident indicating that she was not supportive of the city putting rules on residents <br />removing trees from their property. The Mounds View Matters newsletter was mailed at <br />the end of April, and staff wanted to allow time for residents to comment. Staff received <br />no other responses to the tree ordinance proposal. <br />The Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission are <br />supportive of having some sort of tree preservation ordinance, although both are <br />concerned about the City being too restrictive. At the April Worksession, Council began <br />to re-examine whether or not to put this tree ordinance into effect, and what the City really <br />wants to accomplish with the ordinance. <br />Both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission feel <br />strongly that this ordinance should not prohibit single family property owners from doing <br />whatever they want on their property with their trees. The current version of the <br />ordinance addresses this by exempting all R-1 and R-2 zoned properties from Section <br />1127.05 Tree Removal on Lots without Construction or Grading Activity. Staff's thoughts <br />are that the tree replacement and preservation requirements would only be in effect if <br />there is construction on the property, particularly a new home built. But does the City <br />want to impose these requirements on an R-1 or R-2 property owner who is just building a <br />new garage or deck? <br />Exempting R-1 and R-2 properties when no "development" is occurring however creates <br />a loophole. There are presently three or four potential infill residential redevelopment <br />areas in the City. Submitting a development application is the trigger for the tree plan, <br />inventory, replacement requirements, etc. Knowing this, the land owner(s) could clear cut <br />the lots without penalty PRIOR to submitting the development application thereby <br />avoiding any requirements whatsoever. Staff is unsure how to close this loophole without <br />otherwise restricting the typical single-family property owner. Staff will require some <br />direction from the Council regarding this issue. <br />After the discussion at the March City Council Worksession, the draft ordinance was <br />amended to increase the max fine for each significant or specimen tree illegally removed <br />to $750. Is the Council comfortable with this amount? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.