Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 <br />across from Billy's Lighthouse would be a similar situation when developed. <br />Hawn asked about an individual property owner who might choose to log the land as trees have <br />value. Could the City be considered "taking" the land by restricting tree removal? Other cities <br />should be researched to determine their policies. <br />Van Zomeren noted the Council and Park Commission do not want to hinder the individual property <br />owner. The Dickey property is an example of large lots with no trees. In such a case, could the City <br />require a developer to plant trees? Berg added that some people don't want trees, and therefore trees <br />would not necessarily increase the value of a property. <br />Lindquist felt the Minnetonka ordinance was close to what Orono would want to accomplish and <br />suggested working from their ordinance format. Discussion continued relating to the "City of <br />Minnetonka Guide to the Tree Preservation Ordinance". <br />1. Purpose of Tree Preservation Ordinance. <br />Van Zomeren reviewed the Purpose Statement. Lindquist asked if landscape and vegetation <br />should be added. Members felt the statement should be left in the existing form. <br />2.Definition. <br />The definition of a Significant Tree was discussed as trees to be protected. Lindquist felt the <br />tree size should be consistent with other lakeshore ordinances which is 6" in the 0-75' <br />lakeshore setback. Hawn questioned the difference between coniferous and deciduous trees, <br />noting that a 15' coniferous tree would be difficult to transplant. The Park Commission