Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, May 16, 2022 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 1 of 2 <br /> <br /> <br />LA22-000022 TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING VEGETATION REMOVALS IN THE <br />SHORELAND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. THE ORDINANCE RELATES TO THE <br />REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS AND DISEASED TREES. (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) <br /> <br />Barnhart explained there is a distinction between live and dead trees. Removal of a live tree in the <br />shoreline area requires a replacement at a ratio established by the Planning Commission and City Council <br />some years ago. The important distinction is “live” which requires replacement versus “dead” which does <br />not require replacement. Recently the question has come up regarding aa hazardous tree which is going to <br />fall down in the opinion of an arborist, and property owners have asked if they can remove that tree. <br />Barnhart clarified yes they can, but they need to replace the tree due to the way the Code currently reads. <br />It is the same with a diseased tree. Barnhart clarified there is really no discretion on the Staff level, either <br />a tree is alive or dead. This ordinance clarifies that a bit and an item for discussion is whether diseased or <br />hazardous trees should be required to be replaced at the same ratio of a live tree or at a reduced ratio. <br />Barnhart is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. <br /> <br />Jay Nygard, 1446 Rest Point Road, has a huge tree by the lake as well as other trees and asked for a <br />clarification. He noted Mr. Barnhart sent him an email that said this was potentially going to say one <br />could replace a diseased tree with nothing and he asked if that has changed. <br /> <br />Barnhart replied he has drafted an ordinance with two options. One has no replacement required for <br />diseased, dead, or pose a safety hazard. An alternative text requires the replacement of a tree one-to-one. <br /> <br />Mr. Nygard thanked Barnhart and said that is helpful. Personally he thinks saying something is a diseased <br />tree and that they do not have to do anything is ridiculous. He has a problem next door which Mr. <br />Barnhart knows about where a neighbor cut down a tree, disposed of it, and then had an arborist sign <br />something later noting it was diseased. He asked how does anyone know? Mr. Nygard knows because he <br />took the bottom stump when it was left on the street and knows it was not diseased. Having an ordinance <br />as Mr. Barnhart was saying where no tree replacement is required goes completely against what Orono <br />has been all these years in protecting the lake. Especially in looking at the 75 foot setback rather than the <br />50 foot setback of the DNR, they have one-third of the lakeshore on Lake Minnetonka and it is actually <br />important that Orono maintains that. Mr. Nygard got a tree replacement permit next door when he bought <br />that house because the tree was destroying the boathouse by the lake and the City came and said yes, it is <br />healthy, but it should be replaced. Therefore, Mr. Nygard went through a tree replacement plan, which he <br />thinks is a bit ridiculous as it would have required him to put eight trees in a line in a certain area. This <br />broaches many of the topics the Commissioners brought up today. Mr. Nygard negotiated a different <br />settlement with the City and will not need eight trees and he put them in a good spot where it fits in which <br />worked quite well. What he sees missing here is an actual forestry expert talking about the forests of Lake <br />Minnetonka. They cannot leave it up to residents and a few arborists, but they must talk about the fact that <br />Orono owns one-third of Lake Minnetonka and how do they protect the forest as a whole? <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. <br /> <br />Ressler recalls in talking about greenspace there is a certain species approval of trees, knowing the City <br />cannot be experts at everything, so they defer that expertise to the DNR and other entities. He does not <br />see the benefit of replacing a Cottonwood or nuisance tree and requiring a replacement, especially if it