Laserfiche WebLink
Tl".'MIOTTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSIONmeeting HELD ON JULY 7,1997 <br />- Tree Preservation - Continued) <br />waso. asked V» Zomeren her opWoa <br />she has reviewed U« aonmg «<h^«. ^‘^^““^^eSTnored for <br />detaaed Z^eren noted that the City of Mimteapolis requires <br />commercial property ^ 12/o ^ zo^eren would Uke to see more <br />20% and questions whether 12^ is adequate.. _ ^ ^ ^ process <br />developed site plan regulations for conunercial properties. She saw s <br />of recodifying the zoning codes. <br />Van Zomeren noted the need for ^ ^g^e poking and <br />be for the Hi^way 12 Super Valu in NaiLre. She opined that <br />nrinimum landscaping required for Ricks S p opportunity for being a catalyst <br />additional trees and ™“''ll?^^iedged Councindecision to decline provi&ig <br />in improving commeraal areas. She ac ,.* • y^ Zomeren noted thatmmit in landscaping on a prior commeraalapphcation. Van^merro <br />commercial site plans are related but separate from tree preserve <br />Wilson asked how coimneicial site plaffi “*^^^^^“(^^,^^°ieMwhere <br />sa’,; " a; picservation should occur and “ reservation belonged in ate <br />“grificaS trees are located. Wdson <!“**«»“*?.mea in <br />pSg or as a separate issue noting the possibihty ofreqi^_em^J»^^ ^ <br />Lmimercial properties to maintain the rurd atmosphere. Vanzomer <br />preservation could be part of the landscaping plan. <br />Beal Indicated the 12% landscaping re<iuir«nent 6ils to sute where the landscaping <br />should be placed. <br />Vm. Zomeren reviewed the existing or^^ “SnSlSS'ro Sh'IS » nr««l <br />distributed to Park Commisaonas noting forproviding needed <br />feel to property. She saw the references as eing oMieral but have no specifics to <br />pT^toL It was noted that the requiremenU are more general but have no speem <br />hold owners to a standard. <br />Examples were shown in the compreh^ve plan * <br />natural resources were indicated (3.18), natu nrobibiting clear or thin cutting <br />proposals (3.21) and retention noted there arc slope restrictions <br />(3.22) requiring CUP in 0-75 setback. .. without a CUP according to <br />Lr 18%. Gappa indicated bluff ar^ ehe^^f <br />Dse noted that the compreh^ive plan is more general or semi-specific that could <br />developed in the zoning ordinance. <br />.• * •