Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 14,1997 <br />(#3 - Tree Preservation Ordinance Update - Continued) <br />Flint said it was his recoUection that the ordinance came from a work session that took <br />place prior to the golf club application. The citizen survey was the first step which <br />identified the preference for preservation of open space. One i^e was opw space <br />identification and purcha^ng of open space. With linuted fiuiding, Flint rt <br />suggested that a tree ordinance would result in preservation. The Park and Planning <br />Commissioos were asked to review the matter. <br />Flint indicated the ordinance draft written by the Park Commisaon is not rcfii^. He <br />questioned whether the ordinance would involve subdivision applications or all buildmg <br />permits. He does not feel the suggestion was made that all applications need to <br />Council if they involve cutting down a tree, but rather if something triggers ^ need for <br />tree preservation within the applications reviewed. He cited an example noting work on <br />the ordinance needs to continue. Flint thought the Council should look at policy ^ <br />deQsions and whether there should be tree control. If so, he questioned whether it <br />should include both subdivisions and any other permits. <br />Jabbour questioned whether an ordinance selective to subdivisions can be passed. Barrett <br />said it can be done. <br />Jabbour indicated that the issue came about because of the Spring Hill Golf Club <br />application and noted similar problems in the City of Minnetonka resuhing in their tree <br />ordinance. <br />Peterson asked if such an ordinance forces the Council to become dictatorial. Goetten <br />responded that alot of cities have had problems with this issue. Peterson suggest^ the <br />tree preservation could be incorporated into a subdivision resolution. Goetten said the <br />problem is that all applications are not subdivisions and would not fall under that <br />category. <br />Kelley said he felt there was a need for a policy, citing the lack of trew on the Dickey <br />property, but said he was more in favor of connecting it to a subdiviaon. Goetten <br />indicated that lot coverage requirement is not as important in 2 acre zoniiig as in larger <br />parcels. Kelley agreed that he would like to have been able to see a planting schedule for <br />the Dickey property. Goetten said she would hope the policy would include land <br />development as well as subdivisions. <br />Kelley questioned what would occur with farming. Goetten responded that she felt w^ <br />the price of land, it would probably not occur. Kelley said he would not want to restrict <br />a person from plowing 5 acres if they have 10 acres. Jabbour said this responds to an <br />importarn point of reforestation, not only preservation. Peterson said both reforestation <br />and preservation should be included. Goetten agreed that this was the reason for <br />reviewing such an ordinance. Kelley feh the issue was between subdivision and <br />individual properties.