My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8.0. SR 03-13-2000
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2000
>
03/13/2000
>
8.0. SR 03-13-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:33:37 AM
Creation date
5/12/2004 8:42:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/13/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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).
View images
View plain text
Memo to Mayor and City Council <br />March 8, 2000 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />included as a condition of plat approval specific guidelines for fencing drip lines <br />of trees to prevent compaction and adverse impacts due to construction, grading <br />and installation of utilities during residential plat development. <br /> <br />A number of options are available for the City Council and Planning Commission <br />to consider as part of the adoption of tree preservation standards. There are <br />however, impacts to the general fund that may occur as a result of the adoption <br />of tree preservation standards. Issues which should be discussed and decided <br />include: <br /> <br />Enforcement. Many cities that have adopted tree preservation standards also <br />have on staff a certified arborist or forester. This of course, would have a <br />general fund impact. The City could elect to contract with a company <br />specializing in trees and require developers to pay for inspection services. <br /> <br />Development of standards for tree preservation plans. Currently the City <br />requires as part of plat submittals general outlines of treed areas located on <br />properties. If the City is interested in more stringent tree preservation <br />standards, specific details will need to be developed and required as part of <br />protecting trees. <br /> <br />Tree removal on private property will also need to be considered. Currently, <br />the ordinance allows private residents to remove trees without permit or <br />license or review by the City. Theoretically, wooded lots could be completely <br />clear-cut by a private resident without violating any current ordinances. <br /> <br />Tree preservation on and in City parks and City-owned land. Standards <br />should apply to City-owned property, as well. Currently, we do not require <br />forestry plans for tree removal in parks. Obviously, for the purpose of <br />controlling oak wilt, trees are removed as necessary by the Public Works <br />Department in parks and on City-owned land. <br /> <br />The Council and Planning Commission should debate the merits of tree <br />preservation standards and provide guidance to staff as to the desirability of such <br />standards and the possible components of such an ordinance. <br /> <br />Cluster Ordinance Update <br /> <br />Staff would like to briefly update the Planning Commission and City Council <br />regarding the newly adopted cluster ordinance. To date, we have approved the <br />first cluster subdivision, Windsor Park, and the Planning Commission is currently <br />reviewing two additional proposed cluster subdivisions: Whitetail Ridge, which is <br />located near Preserve Estates, and Rolling Hills, located in the northeast corner <br />of the City (Petersen farm). Staff has the following observations regarding the <br />cluster subdivision ordinance: <br /> <br />S:\PLANNING\MICHMC\3-13AGEN.DOC <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.