05-16-2022 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 16,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart knows about where a neighbor cut down a tree, disposed of it, and then had an arborist sign something later noting it was diseased. He asked how does anyone know?Mr.Nygard knows because he took the bottom stump when it was left on the street and knows it was not diseased. Having an ordinance as Mr. Barnhart was saying where no tree replacement is required goes completely against what Orono has been all these years in protecting the lake. Especially in looking at the 75 foot setback rather than the 50 foot setback of the DNR,they have one-third of the lakeshore on Lake Minnetonka and it is actually important that Orono maintains that.Mr.Nygard got a tree replacement permit next door when he bought that house because the tree was destroying the boathouse by the lake and the City came and said yes,it is healthy,but it should be replaced.Therefore,Mr.Nygard went through a tree replacement plan,which he thinks is a bit ridiculous as it would have required him to put eight trees in a line in a certain area. This broaches many of the topics the Commissioners brought up today. Mr.Nygard negotiated a different settlement with the City and will not need eight trees and he put them in a good spot where it fits in which worked quite well.What he sees missing here is an actual forestry expert talking about the forests of Lake Minnetonka.They cannot leave it up to residents and a few arborists,but they must talk about the fact that Orono owns one-third of Lake Minnetonka and how do they protect the forest as a whole? Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Ressler recalls in talking about greenspace there is a certain species approval of trees,knowing the City cannot be experts at everything, so they defer that expertise to the DNR and other entities.He does not see the benefit of replacing a Cottonwood or nuisance tree and requiring a replacement,especially if it was diseased. Regarding a perfectly healthy nuisance tree,Ressler noted those would be replanted by the laws and rules in place. McCutcheon noted they make seedless Cottonwood trees now. He likes the idea of putting in a setback for the tree and asked Staff if the tree would be replaced in the lake setback or anywhere on the lot.He stated they may find out that every tree is diseased in some way or another and definitely do not want to promote that. Kirchner does not like lines 15 and 16 in the proposal and would not support. The alternative text that would require replacement of dead, diseased,or hazardous is something he would support more than not replacing a tree. Regarding public comments tonight regarding placement of trees,there are circumstances that do not allow for replacement in that area. He suggested including language saying a tree would be replaced in the same location or allow for an administrative review with Staff to allow for extenuating circumstances,almost like practical difficulties.He would like to keep it administrative rather than bringing those before the Planning Commission for approval. Erickson said besides the lakeshore erosion possibility,certain types of oak wilt are transmitted through their roots which may be another reason a property owner may not want to replant in the same spot. Bollis noted the way he reads the existing Code,the City does not address dead or diseased trees.At first he was in favor of lines 15 and 16 only and in choosing lines 30-32 it would give the owner and Staff some flexibility on where to place that tree within the lake setback. Barnhart and the Commissioners discussed the language options in the ordinance. Kirchner moved,Ressler seconded,to approve LA22-000022 text amendment regarding vegetation removals in the Shoreland Overlay Zoning District including lines 30-33,alternative text requiring Page 7 of 8