My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-28-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
07-28-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 8:51:49 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 8:44:04 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
370
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 14,1997 <br />(#3 • Tree Preservation Ordinance Update - Continued) <br />Moorse said a sununaiy of the Minnetonka ordinance is included in the package and <br />worth reviewing as it addresses the concerns menticHied. He referenced a point in their <br />ordinance noting the City's ordinance can reflect thdr needs. <br />Jabbour siud he agreed with Flint r^arding the need for reforestation and preservation. <br />He reiterated the need for the review to come back before the Council regularly as it <br />proceeds. <br />Gafifron informed the Coundl that the Park Commission comments were in agreernem <br />with those of Jabbour regarding development and subdivision tree preservation and did <br />not reflect the desire to restrict property owners. He noted that the City has m(H*e trees <br />today than years ago citiiig the example of the Jyland Development; that developer <br />restricted the number of residences as thQr acknowledged the value of the lots bdng with <br />the number of trees. Gafifron said the rime spent by Staff on this issue may be less than is <br />percdved and asked to have the CouncO comment on its direction regarding the <br />ordinance before Planning Commission review. He feels the next step should be taking <br />the Park Commission views to the Planning Commission. <br />Van 2fomeren agreed with Gaf&on. She in(hcated that the agendas of the Planning <br />Commission have been too full to accommodate this issue. <br />Jabbour suggested a possible work sesrion to dialogue the issue but asked that the <br />Planning Commission be asrigned to continue the review. <br />Flint said he would not want to send the draft details to the Planning Commission if th^ <br />did not fit in with the thoughts of the Council. He asked what direction the Council <br />should 9ve the Commisrioa <br />Jabbour said the feeling of the Council is one of preservation and reforestation within a <br />subdivision ordinance and development of large parcels but not applying to individual <br />properties. He indicated there is a question as to what point development should be <br />affected. He suggested other cities' ordinances be reviewed and relayed back to Council <br />after each meeting. Jabbour noted that Council members can attend the meetings as well. <br />Kelley smd he was personally not in favor of a tree ordinance except for subdivisions. He <br />cited a tennis court built in a forest of trees and believed the property owner had that <br />right. Goettcn said she did not believe the Council was taking the issue in that direction. <br />Jabbour said dialogue about the issues can take place at the Planning Commisrion <br />meetings He asked Flint about reforestation. I^ said he would not suggest <br />reforestarion regulation but if the City was involved in such an application, it could be <br />reviewed. Flint said he saw this issue used regarding PUD's.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.