Laserfiche WebLink
• MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 <br />he wants. Stoddard asked if members were addressing developers or private property <br />owners. Lindquist felt the ordinance was to be designed more for development rather than <br />monitoring individual private properties. Other members agreed. Gappa added that it would <br />be difficult to go back 2 years to monitor when trees had been cut down. Smith felt they <br />were spending time on an unenforceable ordinance. Lindquist suggested leaving the 2 year <br />limit in section 4(C) and reviewing at a later time. <br />4. Replacing Significant Trees. <br />This section sets limits, i.e. no more than 25 trees can be raised per acre. Stoddard noted that <br />25 trees could be on a very small portion of the property. Van Zomeren felt this section fell <br />short as it did not define what kind of trees, their size or where they were located. Berg <br />commented that 1/3 acre lots are standard in Minnetonka whereas Orono has many 2 - 5 acre <br />parcels which are quite different. Van Zomeren agreed that Minnetonka saw 25 trees as the <br />appropriate number for many of their lots, and the lots would seem densely planted with <br />trees. Lindquist compared 5 acres having 250 trees as being densely planted in Orono. Van <br />Zomeren questioned the time it would take to count trees on a larger parcel. Stoddard asked <br />who would do the counting - the homeowner? Berg noted that the Planning Commission <br />• asked for a tree inventory of the Wolf property and Council didn't think it was necessary. <br />Van Zomeren commented that she was uncomfortable defining a number for required trees. <br />Hawn suggested replacing tree- for -tree except where impossible. Van Zomeren added that <br />there could be a debate over the value of deciduous vs. coniferous trees. Lindquist suggested <br />leaving 25 -50 trees per acre in the ordinance at this time. <br />Replacement of trees native to the area is appropriate. It is standard for a developer to post <br />a bond for completion of a subdivision project. Gaffron agreed that a Letter of Credit is <br />common. If dead trees were not replaced, the Letter of Credit would not be released. <br />Berg questioned how the City would know if significant trees were removed within 2 years <br />of a subdivision application. Van Zomeren responded that it would be difficult to monitor. <br />Lindquist added that this issue could be dealt with at the time of a new application. <br />5. Tree Sizes <br />Van Zomeren suggested referring to lakeshore standards once again to be consistent. <br />6. Before Starting Work <br />Members agreed this section was well written. <br />40 <br />