09-12-1997 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

• MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12, 1997 developer clear cutting, and controls in other ordinances also restrict development. Lindquist and Berg referred to the Sugar Woods development and Melamed properties where the woodland atmosphere was preserved. Stoddard stated that if the 25 trees per acre standard was used, the Sugar Woods development would not happen. Van Zomeren suggested the possibility of requiring covenants that would require individual owners to protect significant trees. The question arose as to whether the City would want to monitor such covenants. Berg suggested looking at ordinances from cities that have larger parcels of land such as Maple Grove. She felt Minnetonka had a different type of development and their ordinance may not be appropriate. Van Zomeren thought it would be good to look at other woodland ordinances as well. Hawn asked how the group felt about protection of woodlands vs. tree protection. Lindquist responded that in some areas he would want to see individual trees protected while in other areas he would look for woodland protection. Berg read the Purpose Statement from a Maple Grove ordinance (Gaffron's copy) which was closer to what Orono is trying to accomplish. Maple Grove has a T Tree Preservation District. is Van Zomeren suggested overlay districts similar to the shoreland districts which might include woodlands, lakeshore areas, smaller lot areas such as the Navarre area, etc. Lindquist felt this idea should be reviewed further. Gaffron responded that the City has topographic maps (1 " =100' scale) and air photos which would be helpful in pursuing this idea. Gappa suggested that a buffer area could be required. Van Zomeren questioned whether a buffer zone would be for aesthetics or habitat. Gappa felt it would be for both. A variance procedure could be used for unusual situations. Lindquist suggested looking closer at Maple Grove's ordinance. He asked if a policy statement rather than an ordinance would solve some of the tree issues. Hawn felt an ordinance would be better for developer since better guidelines and quantification could be provided. Hawn referred to the Whitehead subdivision application. It would be impossible to develop three lots and still maintain the woodland character and habitat of the property, if that was the goal. Berg thought a developer would want to be able to build and have some lawn. She asked what percentage of trees to preserve would be appropriate. On 2 acre lots, Hawn felt they couldn't really preserve a woodland. Therefore they should stop looking at such an ordinance unless they look at zones. Van Zomeren added that a septic system, building pad and driveway must also be considered. Lindquist added that it would be difficult to place a house and two septic site on two acre lots. Gaffron noted that PUDs are not really used in the 2 acre zone. Lindquist felt preservation of woodlands was a great idea but impractical in some cases. Hawn asked if the policy statement could include reference to preserving woodlands wherever possible. 0 5