Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Natural Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft code would codify street-tree spacing, wetland buffers and require snow-storage plans
Summary
Consultants recommended codifying street-tree spacing (one tree per 50 ft, 1 per 100 ft on very large lots), retaining perennially vegetated buffers for surface waters, and requiring applicants to identify snow-storage areas on site plans to help protect wetlands and stormwater quality.
Get email alerts on the Natural Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landscape and natural-resource standards were described to commissioners on Feb. 11, including explicit planting-point calculations, street-tree spacing and recommendations for wetland and surface-water buffers.
The consultants proposed that plan-commission review, rather than staff, handle deviations from landscape standards; they recommended codifying street-tree requirements at one tree per 50 linear feet of street frontage (counting toward planting points) and reducing that rate to one per 100 feet for very large lots (five acres or larger), such as some car-dealership properties. They urged adoption of a recommended species list prepared by the city forester and informed by Wisconsin DNR guidance rather than hardcoding species in the zoning text.
On buffers, the consultants recommended keeping a perennially vegetated strip along streams, wetlands and ponds to reduce pollutant loads and limit algae blooms. They said the draft will clarify jurisdictional wetlands to match whatever the DNR regulates and recommended including a buffer-table in the draft code if the city adopts that direction.
Snow storage and stormwater were also discussed: the draft requires applicants proposing site plans to identify snow-storage areas or indicate that snow will be trucked off site; vegetated areas are limited for storage and dumping snow into natural buffers is prohibited unless approved in a stormwater plan.
During public comment, a resident (Frank Palm) asked whether historic buildings would be forced to comply with the new code; staff clarified nonconforming historic buildings could remain and that additions must meet the adopted code. Another resident (Lisa South) asked for clarification on definitions such as “grubbing” and “collector street,” which staff explained during the meeting.
No code changes were adopted in this session; staff said the items would be refined before the open house.
